The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-07-21 - 196 Cooke Ave - Drainage Report.pdf 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com Berkshire Design Group July 21, 2023 Northampton Conservation Commission 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: 196 Cooke Ave Stormwater Management System To the Conservation Commission, The purpose of this letter is to detail the performance standards of the proposed stormwater management system at 196 Cooke Ave in Northampton, MA. It should be noted that the project does not require a Northampton Stormwater Permit, since there is less than an acre of disturbance. The project qualifies as a redevelopment under the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and has been designed to meet all applicable Standards to the maximum extent practicable, as detailed in the remainder of this letter. Project Background 196 Cooke Ave lies at the entrance to the Broad Brook Greenway. The existing site contains a gravel drive and parking lot for the greenway and for the former Moose Lodge building at the rear of the property. There is a Bordering Vegetated Wetland to the northeast and southeast of the site. The existing hydrology of the site was analyzed as a single drainage area, flowing into the BVW, as the sole control point. The project proposes to construct four (4) residential houses with their own parking area, as well as a paved parking lot for the Broad Brook Greenway. The project includes a proposed stormwater management system, consisting of an infiltration basin and a sediment forebay. After construction, the total area of roof, pavement, and compacted gravel surfaces will be reduced versus the pre-development condition. The proposed hydrology was analyzed as two drainage areas, both flowing into the BVW. One drainage area covers the residential housing roofs, while the other area covers the rest of the site. The NRCS Soil Survey reporting for the site consists of Charlton Fine Sandy Loam, Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) A. Test pits were performed by Alan Weiss (SE #2568) of Cold Spring Environmental Consultants Inc. in November 2022. Test pits showed soil conditions to vary across the site, with southern portions being underlain by loamy sand, while northern portion that slope upward into the conservation land to the north and west are underlain by fine sandy loam and shallow bedrock, with rock outcrops visible in locations near the northwestern border. Additionally, the soil evaluation determined that disturbed portions of the site have been filled. Based on these data and observations, site soils in the main portion of the site are characterized as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) B, which is more consistent with the native loamy sand, and the steep, loamy, rocky soils on the northwestern slope are characterized as HSG D. Seasonal high groundwater was consistently estimated at a depth of approximately 48 inches below the existing surface. Proposed Conditions The proposed grading and drainage design is shown on Sheet LC-121 of the project plan set. In the proposed condition, roof water will be collected by gutters and underground piping, discharging to the proposed infiltration near the southeast corner of the proposed duplex unit. Site grading is designed to prevent runoff from paved areas from entering this basin. June 16, 2023 196 Cooke Ave Page 2 of 4 Stormwater Management System 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com The remainder of the site is proposed to be graded in order to allow as much paved area as possible to sheet flow to the proposed sediment forebay.1 A proposed stone diaphragm trench is proposed at the edge of the pavement to provide pre-treatment. Remaining paved areas will flow along the site driveway entrance to an existing catch basin near the eastern corner of the site. Proposed grading is design to capture nearly all paved areas in either the sediment forebay or catch basin, in order to minimize direct flows to wetland areas, which would have the tendency to create erosion. Stormwater Standards Compliance Standard 1: Stormwater Conveyance The proposed stormwater management system includes two stormwater conveyances, an infiltration basin and a sediment forebay. Both conveyances will discharge treated stormwater and have been designed with erosion control measures to protect themselves, as well as the downstream areas. Standard 2: Peak Discharge The proposed stormwater management system will have peak discharge rates lower than existing conditions. The proposed hydrology was conservatively analyzed by ignoring the attenuation effect the sediment forebay will have on runoff from a large portion of the pavement area. ‘Table 1: Peak Discharge Comparison’ shows the peak flow and total volume of runoff to the control point (Bordering Vegetated Wetland) for the existing and the proposed conditions. Table 1: Peak Discharge Comparison Condition & Point of Analysis 2-YR Storm (3.07") 10-YR Storm (4.47") 100-YR Storm (7.68") Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) Existing E-CP1 2.11 0.135 4.33 0.271 9.97 0.636 Proposed P-CP1 1.88 0.121 3.95 0.247 9.36 0.603 Standard 3: Groundwater Recharge The project proposes a decrease in the developed impervious area compared to the existing conditions (a low impact development technique). The existing site has 17,066 square-feet (sf) of compacted gravel, pavement, and roof areas. The proposed site will have 16,695 sf of pavement and roof areas. Therefore, the proposed system is increasing groundwater recharge by reducing impervious areas and is not required to provide any additional recharge volume under Standard 3. The project still proposes to infiltrate as much as the proposed impervious area runoff as practicable. The infiltration basin will provide enough recharge volume for the proposed roof area runoff. Infiltration of 1 The proposed stormwater feature is considered a sediment forebay under the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook definition. The basin is designed a water quality swale; however, it is not large enough to capture the entire water quality volume, so cannot be considered a water quality swale when calculating the level of TSS removal described under Stormwater Standard 3. June 16, 2023 196 Cooke Ave Page 3 of 4 Stormwater Management System 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com pavement runoff is not feasible due to lack of space for larger surface basins, adequate slope to route runoff to such basins, as well as the site having groundwater conditions not conducive to an underground storage basin. The quantity of recharge volume required based on total proposed impervious area, and provided recharge volume, is detailed below. Required Recharge Volume Proposed Impervious Area = 16,695 sf Target Depth Factor (HSG A Soils) = 0.6” Required Recharge Volume = (16,695 sf) x (0.6”) x (1’/12”) = 835 cf Provided Recharge Volume Infiltration Basin Recharge Volume = 772 cf Recharge Volume Provided = 772 cf < 835 cf Recharge Systems Drawdown Time Infiltration Basin Provided Recharge Volume = 772 cf Rawls Rate, K (Sandy Loam) = 1.02 inch/hour Bottom Area = 202 sf Drawdown Time = (772 cf) / (1.02 in/hour) / (202 sf) / (1’/12”) = 45 Hours < 72 Hours Standard 4: Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Removal The proposed stormwater management system will treat runoff to the maximum extent practicable. The project is reducing the amount of impervious area, which is an improvement on water quality compared to existing conditions. The existing site also does not have any stormwater treatment BMP’s, while the project proposes both an infiltration basin and sediment forebay to treat runoff. Roof runoff from the new buildings flows directly to the infiltration basin. Runoff from most of the paved parking areas will sheet flow into the sediment forebay. Not all paved area flows into the sediment forebay; however, the following analysis is based on total paved area on the site for simplicity. Both the infiltration basin and sediment forebay will discharge towards the Bordering Vegetated Wetland to the south of the site. The design of these features is detailed below. Infiltration Basin Impervious Area routed to Infiltration Basin = 3,555 sf Water Quality Depth = 1.0” (Infiltration Rate > 2.4 inch/hour) Required Water Quality Volume = (3,555 sf) x (1’/12”) x (1.0”) = 296 cf Provided Water Quality Volume = 772 cf > 296 cf OK Sediment Forebay Impervious Area routed to Infiltration Basin = 13,140 sf Water Quality Depth = 0.1” (DEP Handbook Vol. 2 Ch. 2) Required Water Quality Volume = (13,153 sf) x (1’/12”) x (0.1”) = 110 cf Provided Water Quality Volume = 374 cf > 110 cf OK Standard 5: Land uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Load (LUHPPL) The project is not expected to yield high potential pollutant loads. Standard 6: Critical Areas June 16, 2023 196 Cooke Ave Page 4 of 4 Stormwater Management System 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com There are no Critical Areas in the surrounding site, therefore this standard is not applicable. Standard 7: Redevelopment Project The project meets the requirements of Standards 1 and 2. Standards 3 and 4 are met to the maximum extent practicable. The project improves existing conditions by reducing the amount of developed impervious areas, increasing the amount of pervious area, as well as providing a stormwater management system. Standards 5 and 6 are not applicable to this project. Standard 8: Erosion & Sediment Control Erosion and sediment controls have been incorporated into the project design to prevent erosion, control sediments, and stabilize exposed soils during construction and land disturbance. Standard 9: Operation & Maintenance Plan An Operation & Maintenance Plan is included with this letter. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement will be provided before any water is discharged to the system. Conclusion The proposed stormwater exceeds the requirements imposed upon the project. The system has been designed to meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards as a re-development project. Please do not hesitate to contact Liam at (413) 582-7000 or liam@berkshiredesign.com if you have any questions about the information contained in this letter. Sincerely, Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Chris Chamberland, PE United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service May 9, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part...........................................14 225B—Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................14 711C—Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping...............................15 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 4690470469051046905504690590469063046906704690470469051046905504690590469063046906704690710693570 693610 693650 693690 693730 693770 693810 693850 693890 693930 693570 693610 693650 693690 693730 693770 693810 693850 693890 693930 42° 20' 40'' N 72° 39' 0'' W42° 20' 40'' N72° 38' 43'' W42° 20' 31'' N 72° 39' 0'' W42° 20' 31'' N 72° 38' 43'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,810 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2020—Oct 31, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 225B Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 0.2 2.4% 711C Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping 6.7 97.6% Totals for Area of Interest 6.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 12 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 225B—Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 99z4 Elevation: 100 to 850 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Belgrade and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Belgrade Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Coarse-silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam H2 - 10 to 51 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 51 to 60 inches: loamy very fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F145XY006CT - Semi-Rich Moist Lake Plain Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Raynham Percent of map unit:15 percent Landform:Depressions Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Hydric soil rating: Yes 711C—Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 99zm Elevation: 160 to 1,410 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils:35 percent Rock outcrop:25 percent Hollis and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Charlton Setting Landform:Hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Friable loamy eolian deposits over friable loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 7 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 13 to 22 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H4 - 22 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders:2.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Parent material:Granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to lithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: Unranked Description of Hollis Setting Landform:Hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Friable loamy basal till over granite and gneiss Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 19 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 23 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders:2.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Ecological site: F144AY033MA - Shallow Dry Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Minor Components Ridgebury Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Woodbridge Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Chatfield Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 350 Old Enfield Road Belchertown, MA. 01007 Phone: 413.323.5957 Fax 413.323.4916 email: aeweiss@charter.net •21E Site Investigations •SubsurfaceInvestigations •Pollution Remediation •LSP on Staff •Forensic Septic Investigations Cold Spring Environmental Consultants Inc. _____________________________________________________ •Percolation Tests •Septic Designs •Regulatory Compliance •Recycling and Solid Waste •Second Opinions December 5, 2022 Mr. Jeffrey D. Squire Berkshire Design Group 4 Allen Place Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Results of Soil Evaluations & Soil Logs 196 Cooke Avenue: Northampton, MA CSEC Reference File #122-6753-1201 Greetings, The soil evaluations requested by you and performed by us on November 2022 at the abovementioned property and noted locations. The soil evaluation logs and attached photos confirmed the existence of a mix of Class B (2) Charlton Rock Outcrop Hollis Fine Sandy Loam Substrata (Sandy, Stoney, dense, Glacial Till) to a depth ranging 4-8 feet below grade. Variable depths of fill, refusal (possible bedrock) and Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater conditions were observed. The noted condition using soil oxide colors ranged from 42” to 48” below grade (the depth to refusal. These conditions are consistent with the topography, (east sloping filled and terraced landscape) on a drumloidal feature along the east flank toward the Connecticut River Valley. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or further evaluation. Sincerely, Cold Spring Environmental Consultants, Inc. Alan E. Weiss, M.S., R.S., L.S.P. Licensed Soil Evaluator # 2568, since 1995 Principal Hydrogeologist Massachusetts Public Health Sanitarian Lic. #933 ATTACHMENT 1 Figure 1 Site Locus Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Soil Web Map Cold Spring Environmental Consultants, Inc. 350 Old Enfield Road Belchertown, MA. 01007 http://www.coldspringenvironmental.com Ph: 413.323.5957 Fax: 413.323.4916 email: aeweiss@charter.net FROM USGS NOVEMBER 2022FIGURE 1—SITE LOCUS 196 COOKE AVENUE NORTHAMPTON, MA D D DDDDDDDOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHW100 10 1 105 1 1 0 110 115 115 120 125 OHW OHW OHW 100'Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number City of Northampton Planning and Sustainability 196 Cooke Ave Wetlands Delineation and Moose Lodge Demolition Delineation and Moose Lodge Demolition request by Planning & Sustainability 1 MARCH 21, 2022 1"=30' SCALE 1"=20'-0" (if printed full size @ 11" x 17") 0 40'20'10'60' #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 SOIL EVALUATION SOIL EVALUATION DETERMINE PRESENCE/DEPTH TO LEDGE AT ALL LOCATIONS (MAX. DEPTH OF HOLE 10 FEET) SOIL EVALUATION Soil Map—Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/6/2022 Page 1 of 34690200469030046904004690500469060046907004690800469090046902004690300469040046905004690600469070046908004690900693300693400693500693600693700693800693900694000694100694200694300 693300 693400 693500 693600 693700 693800 693900 694000 694100 694200 694300 694400 42° 20' 47'' N 72° 39' 14'' W42° 20' 47'' N72° 38' 23'' W42° 20' 22'' N 72° 39' 14'' W42° 20' 22'' N 72° 38' 23'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 250 500 1000 1500 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:5,360 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. SUBJECT SITE MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2020—Oct 31, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/6/2022 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 30A Raynham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 88B Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony 7.6 6.9% 225B Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 11.6 10.6% 253A Hinckley loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.4 1.2% 253B Hinckley loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes 3.3 3.0% 711C Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping 61.5 55.9% 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 22.4 20.4% 749C Windsor loamy sand, silty substratum, 8 to 15 percent slopes 2.1 1.9% Totals for Area of Interest 110.0 100.0% Soil Map—Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/6/2022 Page 3 of 3 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 711C—Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 99zm Elevation: 160 to 1,410 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils:35 percent Rock outcrop:25 percent Hollis and similar soils:20 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Charlton Setting Landform:Hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Friable loamy eolian deposits over friable loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 7 to 13 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 13 to 22 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam H4 - 22 to 60 inches: gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders:2.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Map Unit Description: Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping---Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/7/2022 Page 1 of 3 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY034CT - Well Drained Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Parent material:Granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to lithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: Unranked Description of Hollis Setting Landform:Hills Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Side slope Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Friable loamy basal till over granite and gneiss Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 5 to 19 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 19 to 23 inches: bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders:2.0 percent Depth to restrictive feature:10 to 20 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to low (0.00 to 0.01 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: D Map Unit Description: Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping---Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/7/2022 Page 2 of 3 Ecological site: F144AY033MA - Shallow Dry Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Ridgebury Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Woodbridge Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Chatfield Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Map Unit Description: Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, sloping---Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/7/2022 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT II Soil Logs 16 Evergreen pages 1 and 2 196 cooke ave for page 3 only tp 1 and tp 2 pages 1 to 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 1 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal A. Facility Information C/O Berkshire Design Group Owner Name 16 Evergreen Street Address Map/Lot # Leeds City MA State Zip Code B. Site Information 1. (Check one)New Construction Upgrade Repair 2. Soil Survey Available?Yes No If yes:Cal web USDA Source 573C Soil Map Unit Paxton LS Soil Name Ex. Well Drained Soil Limitations 3.Surficial Geological Report Available?Yes No If yes:USGS current Year Published/Source gis Publication Scale Map Unit Sandy Well drained till Geologic/Parent Material Drumlin Landform 4. Flood Rate Insurance Map Above the 500-year flood boundary?Yes No Within the 100-year flood boundary?Yes No Within the 500-year flood boundary?Yes No Within a velocity zone?Yes No 5. Wetland Area:Wetlands Conservancy Program Map - Map Unit Name 6. Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS):Month/Year Range:Above Normal Normal Below Normal 7. Other references reviewed: 196 Cooke Avenue Northampton 16 Evergreen pages 1 and 2 196 cooke ave for page 3 only tp 1 and tp 2 pages 1 to 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 2 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (minimum of two holes required at every proposed primary and reserved disposal area) Deep Observation Hole Number:1-7 11.22.2022 Date 1130 Time - Weather 1. Location Ground Elevation at Surface of Hole:shown Location (identify on plan):- 2. Land Use Vacant lot, had Residance Razed (e.g., woodland, agricultural field, vacant lot, etc.) no Surface Stones 2 Slope (%) Open Vegetation terrace Landform shown Position on Landscape (attach sheet) 3. Distances from: Open Water Body 100'+ feet Drainage Way 100'+ feet Possible Wet Area 50'+ feet Property Line 200'+ feet Drinking Water Well 150'+ feet Other - feet 4. Parent Material:Unsuitable Materials Present:Yes No If Yes:Disturbed Soil Fill Material Impervious Layer(s)Weathered/Fractured Rock Bedrock 5. Groundwater Observed:Yes No If yes:- Depth Weeping from Pit - Depth Standing Water in Hole Estimated Depth to High Groundwater:46-48"+ inches - elevation 16 Evergreen tp 1 and tp 2 pages 1 to 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number:1-2 Depth (in.)Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color- Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features (mottles)Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0-84"Af 10 yr 3.3 fill mixed broken concrete fill 84-92 Ab 10 yr 3.2 FSL Burried A 92-102"C 2.5 Y 5.3 48" 7.5 yr 5.8 FSL Dense 10 massive Seeps 78"Refusal 0-46"Af 10 YR 3.2 fill mixed brick fill 46-98"C 2.5 y 5/3 48" 7.5 yr 5.8 FSL Dense 10 massive Gran Refusal Additional Notes: 16 Evergreen tp 3and tp 4 pages 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number:3-4 Depth (in.)Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color- Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features (mottles)Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0-30"Af 10 yr 3.3 fill mixed broken concrete fill 30-102"C 5 Y 5.3 46" 7.5 yr 5.8 2.5 y 5.1 FSL Dense 10 massive Refusal 0-6"A 10 YR 3.2 FSL 6-22"Bw 10 yr 5.6 LS 22-48"C 2.5 y 5/3 48" 7.5 yr 5.8 LS Dense 10 massive Refusal Additional Notes: 196 cooke tp 7 pages 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number:7 Depth (in.)Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color- Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features (mottles)Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0-40"Af 10 YR 3.2 fill mixed fill 40-46"Ab 10 yr 5.6 FSL Burried A 46-96"C 2.5 y 5/2 42" 7.5 yr 5.8 FSL Dense 10 massive seeps 78"Refusal Additional Notes: 196 cooke tp 5 and tp 6 pages 3 only.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Northampton Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number:5-6 Depth (in.)Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color- Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features (mottles)Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0-22"Af 10 yr 3.3 fill mixed broken concrete A&B & fill 22-96"C 5 Y 5.3 48" 7.5 yr 5.8 2.5 y 5.1 FSL Dense 10 massive Refusal 0-48"Af 10 YR 3.2 fill mixed A&B & fill 48-58"Ab 10 yr 5.6 FSL Burried A 58-78"C 2.5 y 5/2 48" 7.5 yr 5.8 FSL Dense 10 massive Refusal Additional Notes: ATTACHMENT III Site Photographs 1 Alan From:Alan Weiss <Aeweiss@charter.net> Sent:Wednesday, December 07, 2022 7:25 AM To:Alan Weiss Subject:196 Cooke #1 #2 Z O N E : R R & S G U R O V E R L A Y CPE-1 E-1 Checked By: Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contact The Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. © Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied or used in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc.F:\NORTHAMPTON - 196 COOKE AVE\02-DESIGN PROCESS\00-ENGINEERING\STORMWATER\22.175 C-SITE.DWG PLOT DATE: 7/24/2023196 Cooke Ave Northampton, MA Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Land Surveying City of Northampton July 21, 2023 LM CC FIG-11"=30' DRAINAGE AREAS - EXISTING CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=20'-0" (if printed full size @ 24" x 36") 0 40'20'10'60' Z O N E : R R & S G U R O V E R L A Y TP-4 TP-1 TP-5 TP-6 TP-7 5.0% 3 % 4.4% 2. 5 % 0.5% 2.1 % 2.7 % TP-3 TP-2 2% 1% 3% 3 % 217.22 216.08 213.92 219.18 220.5 221.57 220.13 220.5 TC 214.06 BC 213.56 216.79 216.66 TC 220.50 BC 220.25 220.17221.64 221.51221.57 222.33 222.25 219.17 219.18 219.18 219.32 219.45 224.5 XXX.XX5%5% 5%5%1:41:3 1:3 DDDDD D D D D DDDDDD D D D D DDDDDDD D D D D DDDDDD D D D D DDDDDDD D D D D D DDDDDD D D D DDDDDDDD DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D WVD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DD D D D D D D D D D DD D DDD D D D D DD D D D D D D D D1:2 216.65 (LP)2252132192182172142152 1 6 FFE 220.5 FFE 220.5 225FFE 222.5 FFE 224.5 220 220217 216 216 216215.5 219 218 218219222 220224223223 221225222 CPP-1 P-1A P-1B P-1B P-1B Checked By: Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contact The Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. © Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied or used in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc.F:\NORTHAMPTON - 196 COOKE AVE\02-DESIGN PROCESS\00-ENGINEERING\STORMWATER\22.175 C-SITE.DWG PLOT DATE: 7/24/2023196 Cooke Ave Northampton, MA Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Land Surveying City of Northampton July 21, 2023 LM CC FIG-21"=30' DRAINAGE AREAS - PROPOSED CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=20'-0" (if printed full size @ 24" x 36") 0 40'20'10'60' E-1 Main Site E-CP1 SE Wetland Routing Diagram for 22.175 Ex Hydrology Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 7/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=69,886 sf 3.30% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.01"Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=75 Runoff=2.11 cfs 0.135 af Inflow=2.11 cfs 0.135 afLink E-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=2.11 cfs 0.135 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.135 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.01" 96.70% Pervious = 1.551 ac 3.30% Impervious = 0.053 ac NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Runoff = 2.11 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af, Depth= 1.01" Routed to Link E-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 14,759 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 1,993 98 Roofs, HSG B 314 98 Paved parking, HSG B 11,138 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 8,628 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 33,054 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 69,886 75 Weighted Average 67,579 96.70% Pervious Area 2,307 3.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 3.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.01" for 2-Year event Inflow = 2.11 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af Primary = 2.11 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=69,886 sf 3.30% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.03"Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=75 Runoff=4.33 cfs 0.271 af Inflow=4.33 cfs 0.271 afLink E-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=4.33 cfs 0.271 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.271 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.03" 96.70% Pervious = 1.551 ac 3.30% Impervious = 0.053 ac NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Runoff = 4.33 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.271 af, Depth= 2.03" Routed to Link E-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47" Area (sf) CN Description 14,759 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 1,993 98 Roofs, HSG B 314 98 Paved parking, HSG B 11,138 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 8,628 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 33,054 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 69,886 75 Weighted Average 67,579 96.70% Pervious Area 2,307 3.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 3.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.03" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.33 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.271 af Primary = 4.33 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.271 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=69,886 sf 3.30% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.75"Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=75 Runoff=9.97 cfs 0.636 af Inflow=9.97 cfs 0.636 afLink E-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=9.97 cfs 0.636 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.636 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.75" 96.70% Pervious = 1.551 ac 3.30% Impervious = 0.053 ac NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68"22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Main Site Runoff = 9.97 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af, Depth= 4.75" Routed to Link E-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf) CN Description 14,759 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 1,993 98 Roofs, HSG B 314 98 Paved parking, HSG B 11,138 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 8,628 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 33,054 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 69,886 75 Weighted Average 67,579 96.70% Pervious Area 2,307 3.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 3.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.75" for 100-Year event Inflow = 9.97 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af Primary = 9.97 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.636 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Table of Contents22.175 Ex Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2-Year Event 2 Node Listing 3 Subcat E-1: Main Site 4 Link E-CP1: SE Wetland 10-Year Event 4 Node Listing 5 Subcat E-1: Main Site 6 Link E-CP1: SE Wetland 100-Year Event 6 Node Listing 7 Subcat E-1: Main Site 8 Link E-CP1: SE Wetland P-1A Main Site P-1B Bldg Roofs 3P Infiltration Basin P-CP1 SE Wetland Routing Diagram for 22.175 Prop Hydrology Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 7/24/2023 HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=66,331 sf 19.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.95"Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=74 Runoff=1.88 cfs 0.121 af Runoff Area=3,555 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.84"Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.27 cfs 0.019 af Peak Elev=216.66' Storage=426 cf Inflow=0.27 cfs 0.019 afPond 3P: Infiltration Basin Discarded=0.01 cfs 0.019 af Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=0.01 cfs 0.019 af Inflow=1.88 cfs 0.121 afLink P-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=1.88 cfs 0.121 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.140 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.05" 76.09% Pervious = 1.221 ac 23.91% Impervious = 0.384 ac NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Runoff = 1.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.121 af, Depth= 0.95" Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 13,153 98 Paved parking, HSG B 10,702 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 7,718 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 34,758 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 66,331 74 Weighted Average 53,178 80.17% Pervious Area 13,153 19.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 2.84" Routed to Pond 3P : Infiltration Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 3,555 98 Roofs, HSG B 3,555 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin Inflow Area = 0.082 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.84" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 13.73 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Atten= 95%, Lag= 96.3 min Discarded = 0.01 cfs @ 13.73 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 216.66' @ 13.73 hrs Surf.Area= 553 sf Storage= 426 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 345.5 min calculated for 0.019 af (100% of inflow) NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.07"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Center-of-Mass det. time= 344.4 min ( 1,102.8 - 758.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 215.50' 1,010 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 215.50 202 0 0 216.00 330 133 133 217.00 667 499 632 217.50 846 378 1,010 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 217.20'6.0' long x 6.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.76 2.83 #2 Discarded 215.50'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 13.73 hrs HW=216.66' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=215.50' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link P-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 23.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.90" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.121 af Primary = 1.88 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.121 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=66,331 sf 19.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.95"Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=74 Runoff=3.95 cfs 0.247 af Runoff Area=3,555 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.23"Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.39 cfs 0.029 af Peak Elev=217.08' Storage=685 cf Inflow=0.39 cfs 0.029 afPond 3P: Infiltration Basin Discarded=0.02 cfs 0.026 af Primary=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.026 af Inflow=3.95 cfs 0.247 afLink P-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=3.95 cfs 0.247 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.276 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.07" 76.09% Pervious = 1.221 ac 23.91% Impervious = 0.384 ac NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Runoff = 3.95 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.247 af, Depth= 1.95" Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47" Area (sf) CN Description 13,153 98 Paved parking, HSG B 10,702 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 7,718 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 34,758 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 66,331 74 Weighted Average 53,178 80.17% Pervious Area 13,153 19.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Depth= 4.23" Routed to Pond 3P : Infiltration Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47" Area (sf) CN Description 3,555 98 Roofs, HSG B 3,555 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin Inflow Area = 0.082 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.23" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 14.19 hrs, Volume= 0.026 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 124.2 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 14.19 hrs, Volume= 0.026 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 217.08' @ 14.19 hrs Surf.Area= 695 sf Storage= 685 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 420.8 min calculated for 0.026 af (90% of inflow) NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.47"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Center-of-Mass det. time= 369.0 min ( 1,119.5 - 750.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 215.50' 1,010 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 215.50 202 0 0 216.00 330 133 133 217.00 667 499 632 217.50 846 378 1,010 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 217.20'6.0' long x 6.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.76 2.83 #2 Discarded 215.50'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 14.19 hrs HW=217.08' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=215.50' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link P-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 23.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.85" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.95 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.247 af Primary = 3.95 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.247 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-32.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 3201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=66,331 sf 19.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.64"Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Tc=5.0 min CN=74 Runoff=9.26 cfs 0.589 af Runoff Area=3,555 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.44"Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.67 cfs 0.051 af Peak Elev=217.31' Storage=854 cf Inflow=0.67 cfs 0.051 afPond 3P: Infiltration Basin Discarded=0.02 cfs 0.031 af Primary=0.51 cfs 0.014 af Outflow=0.53 cfs 0.045 af Inflow=9.63 cfs 0.603 afLink P-CP1: SE Wetland Primary=9.63 cfs 0.603 af Total Runoff Area = 1.604 ac Runoff Volume = 0.639 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.78" 76.09% Pervious = 1.221 ac 23.91% Impervious = 0.384 ac NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Main Site Runoff = 9.26 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.589 af, Depth= 4.64" Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf) CN Description 13,153 98 Paved parking, HSG B 10,702 60 Woods, Fair, HSG B 7,718 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 34,758 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 66,331 74 Weighted Average 53,178 80.17% Pervious Area 13,153 19.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Bldg Roofs Runoff = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Depth= 7.44" Routed to Pond 3P : Infiltration Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf) CN Description 3,555 98 Roofs, HSG B 3,555 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin Inflow Area = 0.082 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.44" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten= 21%, Lag= 2.5 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af Primary = 0.51 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af Routed to Link P-CP1 : SE Wetland Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 217.31' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 777 sf Storage= 854 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 313.4 min calculated for 0.045 af (89% of inflow) NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=7.68"22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Center-of-Mass det. time= 257.2 min ( 998.9 - 741.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 215.50' 1,010 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 215.50 202 0 0 216.00 330 133 133 217.00 667 499 632 217.50 846 378 1,010 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 217.20'6.0' long x 6.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.67 2.69 2.72 2.76 2.83 #2 Discarded 215.50'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=217.31' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.51 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=217.31' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.51 cfs @ 0.78 fps) Summary for Link P-CP1: SE Wetland Inflow Area = 1.604 ac, 23.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.51" for 100-Year event Inflow = 9.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.603 af Primary = 9.63 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.603 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node WS Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Table of Contents22.175 Prop Hydrology Printed 7/24/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2-Year Event 2 Node Listing 3 Subcat P-1A: Main Site 4 Subcat P-1B: Bldg Roofs 4 Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin 5 Link P-CP1: SE Wetland 10-Year Event 5 Node Listing 6 Subcat P-1A: Main Site 7 Subcat P-1B: Bldg Roofs 7 Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin 8 Link P-CP1: SE Wetland 100-Year Event 8 Node Listing 9 Subcat P-1A: Main Site 10 Subcat P-1B: Bldg Roofs 10 Pond 3P: Infiltration Basin 11 Link P-CP1: SE Wetland VINSTRUCTIONS:Version 1, Automated: Mar. 4, 20081. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu3. After BMP is selected, TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed.Location: B C D E FTSS Removal Starting TSS Amount RemainingBMP1Rate1Load* Removed (C*D) Load (D-E)Sediment Forebay 0.251.00 0.25 0.750.000.75 0.00 0.750.000.75 0.00 0.750.000.75 0.00 0.750.000.75 0.00 0.75Total TSS Removal =25%Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Outlet or BMP TrainProject:196 Cooke AvePrepared By:Berkshire Design Group*Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E)Date:7/21/2023which enters the BMPTSS Removal Calculation Worksheet196 Cooke Ave - Pavement RunoffNon-automated TSS Calculation Sheetmust be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection VINSTRUCTIONS:Version 1, Automated: Mar. 4, 20081. In BMP Column, click on Blue Cell to Activate Drop Down Menu2. Select BMP from Drop Down Menu3. After BMP is selected, TSS Removal and other Columns are automatically completed.Location: B C D E FTSS Removal Starting TSS Amount RemainingBMP1Rate1Load* Removed (C*D) Load (D-E)Infiltration Basin 0.801.00 0.80 0.200.000.20 0.00 0.200.000.20 0.00 0.200.000.20 0.00 0.200.000.20 0.00 0.20Total TSS Removal =80%Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Outlet or BMP TrainProject:196 Cooke AvePrepared By:Berkshire Design Group*Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E)Date:7/21/2023which enters the BMPTSS Removal Calculation Worksheet196 Cooke Ave - Roof RunoffNon-automated TSS Calculation Sheetmust be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed1. From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection 196 Cooke Ave Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 1 Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing, stakes and straw bales/wattles, sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long, shall be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may be damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all rainstorms until the completion of construction. In case of any noted breach or failure, the Contractor shall immediately make appropriate repairs to any erosion control system and notify the engineer of any problems involving stormwater management systems. A rainstorm shall be defined as any of the following: · A storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. · A storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. · A single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one-half inch. · A storm not meeting the previous three thresholds, but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is elevated. In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. The Northampton Department of Public Works shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems or erosion and sediment control measures and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body (stream, brook, pond, etc.). The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one-half of the original installed height of the barrier. 196 Cooke Ave Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 2 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: Developer of the Housing Units Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: Developer of the Housing Units Inspection & Maintenance Schedule & Log: 1) Sediment Forebay The sediment forebay shall be inspected as needed, multiple times in the first few months after construction, and twice per year thereafter. Sediment or debris shall be cleaned out as needed. Note and repair any erosion or low spots along the stone outlet or edge of forebay. 2) Infiltration Basins The infiltration basins shall be inspected as needed, during and following construction, and once per year thereafter. Annually verify dewatering of the basin. Sediment or debris shall be cleaned out as needed. Note and repair any erosion around the edge of the basins. Vegetation shall be replaced as needed. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report A. Introduction Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. The Stormwater Report must include: · The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer (see page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.1 This Checklist is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. · Applicant/Project Name · Project Address · Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report · Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 · Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required by Standard 82 · Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. 1 The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. 2 For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project: No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs LID Site Design Credit Requested: Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) Treebox Filter Water Quality Swale Grass Channel Green Roof Other (describe): Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges No new untreated discharges Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge Soil Analysis provided. Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field1 Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. 1 80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge (continued) The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: · Good housekeeping practices; · Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; · Vehicle washing controls; · Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; · Spill prevention and response plans; · Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; · Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; · Pet waste management provisions; · Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; · Provisions for solid waste management; · Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; · Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; · Street sweeping schedules; · Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; · Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; · Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; · List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area is near or to other critical areas is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour) involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: The ½” or 1” Water Quality Volume or The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. All exposure has been eliminated. All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: Limited Project Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff Bike Path and/or Foot Path Redevelopment Project Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: · Narrative; · Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; · Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; · Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; · Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; · Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; · Vegetation Planning; · Site Development Plan; · Construction Sequencing Plan; · Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; · Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; · Inspection Schedule; · Maintenance Schedule; · Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control (continued) The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and includes the following information: Name of the stormwater management system owners; Party responsible for operation and maintenance; Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; Description and delineation of public safety features; Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and Operation and Maintenance Log Form. The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater Report includes the following submissions: A copy of the legal instrument (deed, homeowner’s association, utility trust or other legal entity) that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project site stormwater BMPs; A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMPs.