2020-04-10_Response to NOI Comments
53 Southampton Road • Westfield, MA 01085-5308 • Tel 413.562.1600
www.tighebond.com
N-0936-016
April 10, 2020
Sarah LaValley
Conservation, Preservation and Land Use Planner
Northampton Office of Planning and Sustainability
City Hall, 210 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Northampton, MA 01060
Re: Fire Rescue Headquarters Parking Lot Improvement Project
Notice of Intent (MassDEP File #WE 246-0739) – Response to Comments #2
Dear Sarah and Members of the Commission:
Tighe & Bond, Inc. submitted the above referenced Notice of Intent (NOI) on behalf of the
City of Northampton Central Services Department (“the Applicant”) on November 20, 2019.
Comments provided by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MassDEP) Western Region Wetlands Program and the City of Northampton Office of Planning
and Sustainability were addressed in previous correspondence dated December 23, 2019.
Following the Commission’s January 9, 2020 hearing, Northampton Conservation,
Preservation, and Land Use Planner Sarah LaValley summarized the Commission’s comments
in electronic mail correspondence dated January 25, 2020. The comments are reiterated
below in italic font in the order in which they were received. Our responses follow each
comment. There are also two Attachments to this comment response letter.
1. Wetland Data Sheets
Wetland data sheets are provided in Attachment A. Although the forms do not classify
the wetland plot as a wetland because there were no features of hydrology at the time
of the delineation, two of the parameters have been met. Per 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)(1),
the wetland plot is in an area classified as a wetland under the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (MAWPA) as there was a distinct change in topography and 50% or
more wetland vegetation.
2. Detailed planting plan
Two Village Green Zilkova Trees (Zelkova Serrata ‘Village Green’) are proposed in the
Carlon Drive tree belt to replace two of the trees removed from the same area, as
shown on the Project Drawings. Due to the planned solar canopy, it is not practical to
plant additional trees, which would shade the solar canopy and reduce its
effectiveness. The stormwater mitigation basin will be loamed and seeded with a New
England Erosion Control/Restoration Mix for Moist Sites specified by New England
Wetland Plants, Inc. No shrubs or trees are planned in the basin. Disturbed upland
areas will be loamed and seeded with grass and maintained in the future as lawn,
consistent with other areas within the Fire Department property.
It’s important to note, in accordance with a Condition of Approval of the Northampton
Planning Board, the battery backup cannot be located on the North King Street
property frontage and will be in the parking lot instead. Accordingly, the existing tree
belt between the fire station and North King Street will remain fully intact. Although
this work is beyond the jurisdictional boundaries, it will still reduce overall site impacts
by preserving three additional mature trees.
- 2 -
3. Full soil logs – the Commission was interested in additional analysis of groundwater
elevation and potential for ponding rather than infiltration
Soil test pit logs, including a field diagram of the test pit locations, are provided in
Attachment B. Four test pits (TP-1 through TP-4) were conducted in January 2019 to
observe subsurface soil conditions. Evidence of seasonal high groundwater was not
encountered in the test pits, all of which were excavated to a depth of 10 feet below
grade. There were redoximorphic features observed in the excavations but as noted in
the soil logs, based on their appearance, they are due to stormwater runoff perching
within the adjacent fill layer and are not an indicator of groundwater.
Since evidence of seasonal high groundwater was not present, a conservative
approach to the determination of the groundwater elevation was utilized. Seasonal
high groundwater was assumed at the same elevation as the ground level of the
adjacent wetland. The basin has been designed to recharge the required volume and
uses a multiple-level outlet control structure to discharge from the basin to continue
to hydrate the wetland to mimic existing conditions.
4. The HydroCAD drainage calculations for the Northampton Fire Station project uses
Type II 24-hr rainfall distribution curve which is not correct for this area. Normally,
the SCS/NRCS Type III 24-hr rainfall distribution curve is used for this area. More
recently, engineers have started to use updated precipitation depths from NOAA Atlas
14 as well as the NRCC C 24-hr rainfall distribution curve which has been added to
HydroCAD. The calculations will need to be revised and any changes necessary made.
The rainfall distribution (Type II 24-hour) has been revised to Type III 24-hour, which
is appropriate for geographic location of Northampton. The modeling of a Type II 24-
hour occurred in error. The peak runoff rates have been recalculated and are
presented in the following table reflecting a Type III 24-hour rainfall distribution. The
data provided below supersedes the results of Table 3.2 in Section 3.3 of the November
2019 Stormwater Report. The results are more favorable than the Type II distribution
results, in that peak values have been decreased in all modeled precipitation events
and the amount that the proposed 1-year and 2-year storm events exceed existing
conditions has been reduced. In the original analysis, the proposed 1-year event
exceeded existing by 0.4 cubic feet per second (cfs), while the proposed 2-year event
exceeded existing by 0.2 cfs. Those increases have been reduced to 0.3 and 0.1 cfs
respectively.
TABLE 3.2 (revised)
Peak Discharge Rate Comparison
1-Year
Storm Event
(cfs)
2-Year
Storm Event
(cfs)
10-Year
Storm Event
(cfs)
100-Year
Storm Event
(cfs)
Design Point 1 Existing 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.2
Proposed 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9
Design Point 2 Existing 0.8 1.2 2.3 4.0
Proposed 1.1 1.4 2.4 3.8
Total Project Existing1 0.8 1.3 2.7 5.2
Proposed1 1.1 1.4 2.6 4.7
1. The total existing and proposed peak discharge rates presented are the sums of the existing and
proposed peak discharge rates for each design point.
As presented in Section 2.4 of the Stormwater Report submitted with the NOI for this project,
precipitation depths used in the stormwater analysis were taken from Atlas 14 for this project.
- 3 -
Based on the information provided in this response, we respectfully submit to the Commission
that the proposed activities comply with the provisions of the MAWPA regulations, the
Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance (Chapter 337), and the Northampton
Stormwater Management Ordinance (Chapter 281) and look forward to discussing this project
with the Commission at its April 23, 2020 public hearing. If you have additional questions or
would like to discuss any of our responses, please contact Mary Zawatski at (413) 875-1672
(MZawatski@TigheBond.com) or me at (413) 875-1620 (ADFagnand@tighebond.com).
Very truly yours,
TIGHE & BOND, INC.
Alex Fagnand, PE, ENV SP
Project Engineer
Enclosures
Attachment A – Wetland Data Forms
Attachment B – Soil Test Pit Logs
Copy: David Pomerantz, City of Northampton, Director of Central Services (elec.)
Jon Davine, City of Northampton, Fire Chief (elec.)
Zach Chornyak, PE, Tighe & Bond (elec.)
\\tighebond.com\data\Data\Projects\N\N0936 Northampton DPW\16 - Fire Station Parking Lot and
Solar\Permitting\NOI\Response to Comments\Response to Comments #2\2020-01-28_Response to NOI Comments.docx
ATTACHMENT A Tighe&Bond
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification:
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Slope (%):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
naturally problematic?
Surface Water Present?
Section, Township, Range:
ConcaveLocal relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Katy Wilkins
LRR R, MLRA 145
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Depression
Marl Deposits (B15)
Yes No
3-8
NAD83
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Although the forms do not classify the wetland plot as a wetland because there were no features of hydrology at the time of the delineation, two of
the parameters have been met.
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Yes
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
NoNoX
XNo
Yes
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Yes
HYDROLOGY
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region
X
PSS/PFO1B
X
City of Northampton
No
42.331647
225B Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
09/06/18
WET-1
26 Carlon Drive NorthamptonCity/County:
MA
-72.636772
Yes NoX
NoX
Surface Water (A1)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No
NoYes
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present?
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
NoYes
Depth (inches):X
XX Depth (inches):
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Saturation Present?
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
VEGETATION
(A)
(B)
(A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Tree Stratum
Woody Vine Stratum
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
)
=Total Cover
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3.43
55
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
Indicator
Status
40
25
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
Dominant
Species?
Onoclea sensibilis 25
15
Frangula alnus
Celastrus orbiculatus
25
)
UPL
=Total Cover
)
30
5
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in
diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft
tall.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
XYes No
Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH
and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
40
40 Yes
15
Yes FACW
FACUYes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
200
685
Multiply by:
50
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
40 FACYes
80
15
0
25
105
30
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
40
200
X
315
0
120
Lonicera japonica
– Use scientific names of plants.
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
WET-1
4
6
Acer rubrum
Betula populifolia
Robinia pseudoacacia FACU
30
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
)Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
No
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
95
Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks)
5
Loc2 Texture Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Prominent redox concentrations
Color (moist)
C M10YR 5/6
10-15 100
XDepth (inches): YesHydric Soil Present?
%
This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to reflect the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
version 7.0 March 2013 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx)
Remarks:
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
No
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
WET-1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Histosol (A1)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 4/6
10YR 3/20-10
MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,
%
Matrix
Histic Epipedon (A2)
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
X
Sandy Redox (S5)
Dark Surface (S7)
Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Black Histic (A3)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)
Type:
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name:NWI classification:
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Crayfish Burrows (C8)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
NoYes
Depth (inches):X
XX Depth (inches):
X Depth (inches):
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Saturation Present?
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Surface Water (A1)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Remarks:
(includes capillary fringe)
Yes No
NoYes
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Field Observations:
Water Table Present?
High Water Table (A2)
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region
X
Upland
X
City of Northampton
No
42.331675
Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex
09/06/18
UP-1
26 Carlon Drive NorthamptonCity/County:
MA
-72.636570
Yes NoX
No X
Restrictive layer at 7 inches inhibited the evaluation and was identified in multiple locations. The upland area was just west of the existing parking
lot that was presumed to have historic gravel fill.
Yes
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
Yes
HYDROLOGY
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
NoNo X
XNo
Yes No
0-3
NAD83
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Yes
Yes
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Slope (%):Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
naturally problematic?
Surface Water Present?
Section, Township, Range:
ConvexLocal relief (concave, convex, none):
Yes
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Katy Wilkins
LRR R, MLRA 145
(If no, explain in Remarks.)
Terrace
Marl Deposits (B15)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 1 =
1.x 2 =
2.x 3 =
3.x 4 =
4.x 5 =
5.Column Totals:(B)
6.
7.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
– Use scientific names of plants.
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
FACU species
UPL species
UP-1
2
8
Acer rubrum
Acer platanoides
Populus sp.
Quercus rubra
30
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
)Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Yes20
0
0
65
80
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
30
175
195
0
320
Lonicera japonica
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
150
665
Multiply by:
0
25.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total % Cover of:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
15 FACNo
100
65
FAC
Yes FACU
FACUYes
Yes
Yes
5
5
5 Yes
Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in
diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants,
regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft
tall.
X
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft
in height.
Yes No
Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH
and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
=Total Cover
)
30
5
=Total Cover
=Total Cover
Vitis sp.
20
)
Acer rubrum
5Toxicodendron radicans
Indicator
Status
45
30
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
Yes
UPL
FAC
5 No FACU
Dominant
Species?
Rubus idaeus 10
15
Frangula alnus
3.80
80
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
VEGETATION
(A)
(B)
(A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Tree Stratum
Woody Vine Stratum
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
)
=Total Cover
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
High Chroma Sands (S11) (LRR K, L)
Type:
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Dark Surface (S7)
Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Black Histic (A3)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R,
%
Matrix
Histic Epipedon (A2)MLRA 149B)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Histosol (A1)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 3/40-7
UP-1SOIL
Type1%
This data form is revised from Northcentral and Northeast Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to reflect the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
version 7.0 March 2013 Errata. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051293.docx)
Restrictive layer at 7 inches inhibted the evaluation and was identified in multiple locations. The upland area was just west of the existing parking
lot that was presumed to have historic gravel fill.
Remarks:
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Gravel Fill/Rock
No
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
X7Depth (inches): YesHydric Soil Present?
Color (moist)
100
Marl (F10) (LRR K, L) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Loc2 Texture Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0
ATTACHMENT B Tighe&Bond
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 1 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal A. Facility Information Owner Name Street Address Map/Lot # City State Zip Code B. Site Information 1. (Check one) New Construction Upgrade Repair 2. Soil Survey Available? Yes No If yes: Source Soil Map Unit Soil Name Soil Limitations Geologic/Parent Material Landform 3. Surficial Geological Report Available? Yes No If yes: Year Published/Source Publication Scale Map Unit 4. Flood Rate Insurance Map Above the 500-year flood boundary? Yes No If Yes, continue to #5. Within the 100-year flood boundary? Yes No 5. Within a velocity zone? Yes No 6. Within a Mapped Wetland Area? Yes No MassGIS Wetland Data Layer: Wetland Type 7. Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS): Month/Year Range: Above Normal Normal Below Normal 8. Other references reviewed:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 2 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (minimum of two holes required at every proposed primary and reserve disposal area) Deep Observation Hole Number: Date Time Weather 1. Location Ground Elevation at Surface of Hole: feet Latitude/Longitude: / Description of Location: 2. Land Use (e.g., woodland, agricultural field, vacant lot, etc.) Surface Stones (e.g., cobbles, stones, boulders, etc.) Slope (%) Vegetation Landform Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, TS) 3. Distances from: Open Water Body feet Drainage Way feet Wetlands feet Property Line feet Drinking Water Well 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: inches elevation
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Depth (in.) Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color-Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil StructureSoil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones Additional Notes:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 4 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalC. On-Site Review (continued)Deep Observation Hole Number:Date Time Weather 1. LocationGround Elevation at Surface of Hole:feet Latitude/Longitude: / 2. Land Use(e.g., woodland, agricultural field, vacant lot, etc.) Surface Stones (e.g., cobbles, stones, boulders, etc.) Slope (%)Vegetation Landform Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, 3. Distances from: Open Water Body feet Drainage Way feet Wetlands feet Property Line feet Drinking Water Well 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 HoleEstimated Depth to High Groundwater:inches elevation
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 5 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Depth (in.) Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color-Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil StructureSoil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones Additional Notes:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 6 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal D. Determination of High Groundwater Elevation 1. Method Used: Obs. Hole # _________ Obs. Hole # _________ Depth observed standing water in observation hole inches inches Depth weeping from side of observation hole inches inches Depth to soil redoximorphic features (mottles) inches inches Depth to adjusted seasonal high groundwater (Sh) (USGS methodology) inches inches Index Well Number Reading Date Sh = Sc – [Sr x (OWc – OWmax)/OWr] Obs. Hole # Sc Sr OWc OWmax OWr Sh Obs. Hole # Sc Sr OWc OWmax OWr Sh E. Depth of Pervious Material 1. Depth of Naturally Occurring Pervious Material a. Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist in all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? Yes No b. If yes, at what depth was it observed? Upper boundary: inches Lower boundary: inches c. If no, at what depth was impervious material observed? Upper boundary: inches Lower boundary: inches
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 7 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalF. Board of Health WitnessName of Board of Health Witness Board of Health G. Soil Evaluator CertificationI certify that I am currently approved by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to 310 CMR 15.017 to conduct soilevaluations and that the above analysis has been performed by me consistent with the required training, expertise and experiencedescribed in 310 CMR 15.017. I further certify that the results of my soil evaluation, as indicated in the attached Soil Evaluation Form,are accurate and in accordance with 310 CMR 15.100 through 15.107.Signature of Soil Evaluator Date Typed or Printed Name of Soil Evaluator / License # Expiration Date of License Note: In accordance with 310 CMR 15.018(2) this form must be submitted to the approving authority within 60 days of the date of field testing, and to the designer and the property owner with Percolation Test Form 12.
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 8 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalField Diagrams
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 1 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal A. Facility Information Owner Name Street Address Map/Lot # City State Zip Code B. Site Information 1. (Check one) New Construction Upgrade Repair 2. Soil Survey Available? Yes No If yes: Source Soil Map Unit Soil Name Soil Limitations Geologic/Parent Material Landform 3. Surficial Geological Report Available? Yes No If yes: Year Published/Source Publication Scale Map Unit 4. Flood Rate Insurance Map Above the 500-year flood boundary? Yes No If Yes, continue to #5. Within the 100-year flood boundary? Yes No 5. Within a velocity zone? Yes No 6. Within a Mapped Wetland Area? Yes No MassGIS Wetland Data Layer: Wetland Type 7. Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS): Month/Year Range: Above Normal Normal Below Normal 8. Other references reviewed:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 2 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (minimum of two holes required at every proposed primary and reserve disposal area) Deep Observation Hole Number: Date Time Weather 1. Location Ground Elevation at Surface of Hole: feet Latitude/Longitude: / Description of Location: 2. Land Use (e.g., woodland, agricultural field, vacant lot, etc.) Surface Stones (e.g., cobbles, stones, boulders, etc.) Slope (%) Vegetation Landform Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, TS) 3. Distances from: Open Water Body feet Drainage Way feet Wetlands feet Property Line feet Drinking Water Well 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: inches elevation
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Depth (in.) Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color-Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil StructureSoil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones Additional Notes:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 4 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalC. On-Site Review (continued)Deep Observation Hole Number:Date Time Weather 1. LocationGround Elevation at Surface of Hole:feet Latitude/Longitude: / 2. Land Use(e.g., woodland, agricultural field, vacant lot, etc.) Surface Stones (e.g., cobbles, stones, boulders, etc.) Slope (%)Vegetation Landform Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, 3. Distances from: Open Water Body feet Drainage Way feet Wetlands feet Property Line feet Drinking Water Well 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 HoleEstimated Depth to High Groundwater:inches elevation
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 5 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Depth (in.) Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color-Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil StructureSoil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones Additional Notes:
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 6 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal D. Determination of High Groundwater Elevation 1. Method Used: Obs. Hole # _________ Obs. Hole # _________ Depth observed standing water in observation hole inches inches Depth weeping from side of observation hole inches inches Depth to soil redoximorphic features (mottles) inches inches Depth to adjusted seasonal high groundwater (Sh) (USGS methodology) inches inches Index Well Number Reading Date Sh = Sc – [Sr x (OWc – OWmax)/OWr] Obs. Hole # Sc Sr OWc OWmax OWr Sh Obs. Hole # Sc Sr OWc OWmax OWr Sh E. Depth of Pervious Material 1. Depth of Naturally Occurring Pervious Material a. Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist in all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? Yes No b. If yes, at what depth was it observed? Upper boundary: inches Lower boundary: inches c. If no, at what depth was impervious material observed? Upper boundary: inches Lower boundary: inches
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 7 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalF. Board of Health WitnessName of Board of Health Witness Board of Health G. Soil Evaluator CertificationI certify that I am currently approved by the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to 310 CMR 15.017 to conduct soilevaluations and that the above analysis has been performed by me consistent with the required training, expertise and experiencedescribed in 310 CMR 15.017. I further certify that the results of my soil evaluation, as indicated in the attached Soil Evaluation Form,are accurate and in accordance with 310 CMR 15.100 through 15.107.Signature of Soil Evaluator Date Typed or Printed Name of Soil Evaluator / License # Expiration Date of License Note: In accordance with 310 CMR 15.018(2) this form must be submitted to the approving authority within 60 days of the date of field testing, and to the designer and the property owner with Percolation Test Form 12.
t5form11.doc • rev. 8/15 Form 11 – Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 8 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage DisposalField Diagrams