The URL can be used to link to this page

C-RPT-2300986-Storm Water-20240115STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT For the proposed: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Address 171-187 KING STREET Northampton, Massachusetts PREPARED BY BL Companies 100 Constitution Plaza 10th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Prepared for: Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Issued: January 15, 2024 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -ii- TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................5 1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................................7 1.1 Site Conditions.............................................................................................................................7 1.1.1 FEMA Floodplain...................................................................................................................7 1.1.2 Critical Areas.........................................................................................................................7 1.1.3 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)....................................................................................7 1.1.4 SITE SOILS................................................................................................................................8 1.1.5 Environmental conditions....................................................................................................8 1.1.6 Endangered and Threatened Species..............................................................................9 1.1.7 Historical and Cultural Resources.......................................................................................9 1.2 Hydrologic Analysis....................................................................................................................9 1.3 PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................9 2.0 POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................11 2.1 Stormwater Management design............................................................................................11 2.2 Post Development Hydrologic Analysis..................................................................................11 2.3 Stormwater Management BMP Description............................................................................12 2.4 Collection and Conveyance Calculations ............................................................................12 2.5 Compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Standards...........................................- 13 - 2.5.1 Standard 1 – No Untreated Discharges or Erosion to Wetlands...............................- 13 - 2.5.2 Standard 2 – Peak Rate Attenuation...........................................................................- 13 - 2.5.3 Standard 3 – Stormwater Recharge............................................................................- 13 - 2.5.4 Standard 4-Water Quality.............................................................................................- 14 - 2.5.5 Standard 5 – Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads..................................- 14 - Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -iii- 2.5.6 Standard 6 – Critical Areas ...........................................................................................- 14 - 2.5.7 Standard 7 - Redevelopment.......................................................................................- 15 - 2.5.8 Standard 8 – Construction Period Control..................................................................- 15 - 2.5.9 Standard 9 – Operation and Maintenance Plan.......................................................- 15 - 2.5.10 Standard 10 – Illicit Discharges to Drainage System..................................................- 15 - 3.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ...............................................................................- 18 - Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -iv- APPENDICES Appendix A – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Checklist for Stormwater Report Appendix B – Figures and Supporting Documentation Figure 1: USGS Location Map Figure 2: Aerial Location Map Figure 3: FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Map Figure 4: NOAA Atlas 14 Storm Data (Depth, Inches) Figure 5: NOAA Atlas 14 Storm Data (Intensity, Inches/Hour) ED-1 - Pre-Development Drainage Map PD-1 - Post-Development Drainage Map PD-2 - Catch Basin Drainage Map Appendix C – Soil Data NRCS Soil Information Geotechnical Report Appendix D – Pre-Development Hydrology Analysis Appendix E – Post-Development Hydrology Analysis Appendix F – Environmental Investigations and Report Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report Phase IV Final Inspection Report and Permanent Solution Statement APPENDIX G – Agency Correspondences IPac Letters Zoning Permit Application Appendix H – Collection and Conveyance Calculations Appendix I – TSS Removal, Water Quality, Stormwater BMP Sizing Sheets Appendix J – Operation and Maintenance Manual Appendix K - Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix L - Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System Appendix M – Abutters list Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -5- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Proposed Development (Project) includes the construction of a ±14,200 sf automobile dealership and service building with associated parking facilities, inventory storage spaces, utilities, landscaping, lighting, and a stormwater management system. The Project is located at 171-185 King Street within the City of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts and is considered a redevelopment project. The existing parcels (Parcel ID# 24D-080-001 and 24D-338- 001) have a total area of ±5.349 acres and will be reconfigured into three new parcels through a lot consolidation. The total limit of disturbance necessary to complete the Project is approximately 4.85 acres. The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to mitigate potential impacts that the Project could have on the existing watershed including controlling peak runoff rates, providing water quality, promoting ground recharge and sediment removal. The Project has been designed to comply with the following requirements: •The Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas •The 2008 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stormwater Management Handbook •The Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act (310 CMR 10.00) •The City of Northampton Stormwater Management Regulations •The City of Northampton Wetlands Ordinance The pre- and post-development hydrologic conditions were modeled using HydroCAD™ version 10.00 to demonstrate that post-development stormwater runoff rates will be less than or equal to the pre-development rates. Drainage Area maps with soil types and detailed analysis of the model results are included in Appendix A of this report. Table 1 below summarizes the peak runoff rates of the pre-development and post-development conditions. Table 1: Pre- & Post-development Peak Runoff Rate Comparison, units are in cubic feet per second (cfs). 2 Year 10 Year 100 YearStorm Event Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Design Point 1 8.53 4.01 13.80 7.30 22.10 12.46 Design Point 2 16.43 13.89 26.76 24.09 42.99 40.12 The City of Northampton Stormwater Management Regulations (Section 7.4.4) states that projects must calculate the volume of runoff from pre-development to post-development conditions. Table 2 below summarizes the runoff volume rates of the pre-development and post- development conditions. Table 2: Pre- & Post-development Runoff Volume Comparison, units are in acre-feet. 2 Year 10 Year 100 YearStorm Event Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Design Point 1 0.485 0.206 0.802 0.387 1.305 0.685 Design Point 2 0.915 0.911 1.531 1.625 2.511 2.783 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -6- Figure 1: Site Location PROJECT LOCATION Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -7- 1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1.1 SITE CONDITIONS There is a vacant parking lot and abandoned concrete foundation on the existing site. The existing stormwater controls consist of three catch basins throughout the site. The existing storm drains associated with the three onsite catch basins have previously been cut, capped and abandoned. These three catch basins are no longer connected to the storm drain system in King Street. There is no existing stormwater treatment or detention onsite. The site is owned by Lia Don. The Owner’s address is 1055 E Jericho Turnpike, Huntington, NY. The Applicant is Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership. The Applicant’s address is 40 Russell St, PO Box 547, Hadley, MA. The stormwater report and design have been prepared by BL Companies, Inc. BL Companies address is 100 Constitution Plaza, 10th Floor, Hartford, CT. There is an existing 20’ wide City of Northampton drainage easement that runs along the east side of the site and a Massachusetts Electric Company easement that abuts the site on the east side. There is a wetland system and river to the east of the site. The entire buffer zone for the wetland system is located off site. A portion of the riverfront buffer zone is located within the existing parking lot. A copy of the Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report for the site is located in Appendix F of this Report. There is a ridge on the site that runs from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the site, which acts as divide for the stormwater runoff. The runoff from the site drains to two primary locations: the City’s storm drainage system and the river/wetland system on the east side of the site. These two primary drainage locations have been identified as Design Point 1 and Design Point 2 in the hydrology analysis. 1.1.1 FEMA FLOODPLAIN Per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Numbers 250167 0002 A for Hampshire County, Massachusetts, map effective date: April 3, 1978, the site is not located in a FEMA floodplain. Flood Insurance Rate Maps are included in Appendix B for reference. 1.1.2 CRITICAL AREAS Critical Areas as defined by Standard 6 of the 2008 DEP Stormwater Management Handbook (Handbook) are areas where high levels of stormwater treatment is required, typically the first inch of runoff is treated using specific best management practices (BMPs) and pre-treatment methods. Specific source control and pollution prevention measures must also be included in the proposed design when a site is located in a critical area. The site does not contain, nor is it tributary to any Critical Areas. 1.1.3 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDL) Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -8- A TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Load”. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can accept and still meet the state’s Water Quality Standards for public health and healthy ecosystem. The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program is a component of the Clean Water Act (CWA) The goal of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C §1251(a)). Under section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These are waters for which technology-based regulations and other required controls are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards set by states. The law requires that states establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. Under Section 303(d) of the Act, states are required to evaluate all available water quality- related data and information to develop a list of waters that do not meet established WQS (impaired) and those that currently meet the water quality standard (WQS), but may exceed it in the next reporting cycle (threatened). States then must develop a TMDL for every pollutant/waterbody combination on the list. An essential component of a TMDL is the calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that can occur in waterbody and still meet WQS. Within the TMDL the state allocates this loading capacity among the various point sources and non-point sources. Permits for point sources are issued through EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES program. Storm water from this site flows to a tributary to the Connecticut River. There is a TMDL associated with the Connecticut River for Phosphorous. The proposed design will treat the stormwater for phosphorous. 1.1.4 SITE SOILS The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) lists the on-site soils as Urban land. This type of soil is classified as a hydrologic soil group D. Appendix C includes an NRCS Soil Survey Map with Hydrologic Soil Group Data, for soils and their classifications in the project area. An existing conditions soil characterization and assessment of soil and geology of the site was conducted by S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc on November 4, 2022. The assessment included four test borings located throughout the site. The results of the assessment indicated that the seasonal high groundwater level onsite at depths ranging from 7 to 16 feet below grade and the groundwater likely becomes perched on the silts and clays encountered at the test borings. As discussed in the section below, stormwater infiltration is not possible at this site due to environmental contamination. The full geotechnical report is included in Appendix C of this Report. 1.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Of particular concern is the redevelopment of the site, is the recent remediation done approximately 10 years ago. The site was originally developed between 1902 and 1910 and was used for automobile sales beginning in 1946. Other previous uses for the site include a railroad Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -9- yard, gasoline filling station, a junkyard, and a machine shop. The previous automobile dealership was demolished in 2014. Heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and extractable petroleum hydrocarbon/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon impacts to soils and heavy metals impacts to groundwater were detected at the Site in the mid to late 2000s. Remediation activities were performed and completed in 2015. Since the site’s soils and groundwater have previously been contaminated, infiltration is not possible at this project. 1.1.6 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Based on the Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (US FWS), the Project Site is within the mapped habitat zone for the Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) and the Monarch Butterfly. The US FWS lists the NLEB as Endangered species and the Monarch Butterfly as a Candiate. IPac has issued a determination letter that the Project will have “no effect” on the NLEB. The official IPac species list letter and the determination letter are provided in Appendix G of this Report. 1.1.7 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES According to the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) provided by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) there are no historic sites within the project area. A copy of the MHC search results can be found in Appendix L of this Report. 1.2 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS A hydrologic analysis was conducted to determine the pre-development peak flow and volume rates using the HydroCAD stormwater modeling system computer program, version 10.00 developed by HydroCAD Software Solutions, LLC. Hydrographs for each watershed were developed using the SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method. Rainfall depths and distribution per the NOAA Atlas 14 for the site were used for the hydrologic analysis and are listed below. TABLE 3: RAINFALL DEPTHS Return Period (Year) 24-hour Rainfall Depth (in/hr) 2 3.07 10 4.92 100 7.85 1.3 PRE-DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Pre-development drainage areas were delineated based on existing runoff patterns and topographic information. The drainage analysis for the pre-development hydrologic analysis Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -10- encompasses the total tributary drainage area of 6.09-acres. Summaries of each area with respect to total area, impervious area, pervious area, Curve Number (CN) and Time of Concentration (Tc) can be found on the Pre-Development Drainage Area Map and the Pre- Development HydroCAD model results located in Appendix B and D, respectively. Table 4 below summarizes the peak runoff rates of the pre-development conditions. Table 5 below summarizes the pre-development runoff volume rates. Table 4: Pre-development Peak Runoff Rate, units are in cubic feet per second (cfs). Storm Event 2 Year 10 Year 100 Year Pre Pre Pre Design Point 1 8.53 13.80 22.10 Design Point 2 16.43 26.76 42.99 Table 5: Pre-development Runoff Volume, units are in acre-feet. Storm Event 2 Year 10 Year 100 Year Design Point 1 0.485 0.802 1.305 Design Point 2 0.915 1.531 2.511 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -11- 2.0 POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS 2.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN During the design phase of the site layout, consideration was given to conserving environment sensitive features and minimize impacts on the existing hydrology. The site layout and approach to stormwater management was completed in an integrated manner by attempting to limit the impacts of vegetation loss and soil changes; by incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs), which includes both structural and non-structural practices; and by considering the overall impacts to the receiving waters. The Project is considered a redevelopment and will result in a reduction of impervious cover over the site. The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to provide treatment for stormwater runoff associated with the impervious surfaces on site. All stormwater BMPs were designed to treat a minimum of the first 0.5-inch of runoff generated by the onsite impervious areas. The hydrodynamic separator (Cascade Unit) has been designed to treat the runoff rate associated with the water quality volume in accordance with the requirements of the DEP Stormwater Handbook. The Jellyfish proprietary unit has been designed and sized to remove the required phosphorus rate. Stormwater BMP sizing worksheets and water quality sizing calculations are included as Appendix I of this report. The Project has been designed to remove 80% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS), to remove 50% of the Total Phosphorus (TP), and treat the required water quality volume, as required by the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. The Project is considered a redevelopment site and will result in a reduction of impervious cover over the site. The stormwater flow rates in the post-development conditions will be less the stormwater flow rates in the pre-development conditions, due to the reduction in impervious cover. The site’s runoff will be collected via an onsite storm drain system and discharges to the existing City storm drain system. 2.2 POST DEVELOPMENT HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS The drainage analysis for the post development hydrologic analysis encompasses the same tributary drainage area of the 6.09-acres as described in the existing conditions section. The proposed drainage has been designed to reduce peak stormwater discharge rates. The established design points used in the pre-development hydrologic analysis were used in the post-development hydrologic analysis for direct comparison. The drainage areas and flow paths were modified to reflect the post-development conditions. Summaries of each drainage area with respect to total area, impervious area, pervious area, CN and Tc can be found in the Post- Development Drainage Area Map and the Post-Development HydroCAD model results located in Appendix B and E, respectively. Overall, there is a net reduction in peak discharge flow rate from each of the Design Points for the 2-year,10-year, and 100-year storm events. Since infiltration was not possible at this site, the total runoff volume increased slightly in the post-development conditions for Design Point 2. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -12- Tables 6 and 7 below summarize the peak runoff rates and the total runoff volume of the pre- development and post-development conditions. Table 6: Pre- & Post-development Peak Runoff Rate Comparison, units are in cubic feet per second (cfs). 2 Year 10 Year 100 YearStorm Event Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Design Point 1 8.53 4.01 13.80 7.30 22.10 12.46 Design Point 2 16.43 13.89 26.76 24.09 42.99 40.12 Table 7: Pre- & Post-development Runoff Volume Comparison, units are in acre-feet. 2 Year 10 Year 100 YearStorm Event Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Design Point 1 0.485 0.206 0.802 0.387 1.305 0.685 Design Point 2 0.915 0.911 1.531 1.625 2.511 2.783 2.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMP DESCRIPTION No structural detention systems are required to meet peak flow rates. Stormwater runoff rates in the post-development condition are less than flow rates in the pre-development conditions due to the reduction in impervious cover. Deep Sump Catch Basins, a Cascade Separator unit and a Jellyfish Filter are proposed to remove Total Suspended Solids and Phosphorus from the stormwater runoff. 2.4 COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS In compliance with the City of Northampton’s Stormwater Management Regulations, the proposed storm drain system was designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event and maintain velocities between 2.5 and 10 feet per second using the Rational Method. An analysis of the proposed storm drain system’s ability to safely convey the stormwater runoff associated with the 25-year storm event showed that the proposed drainage system can convey the storm water during the 25-year storm event. A Catch Basin Drainage map and detailed hydraulic analysis are included in Appendix H of this report. A copy of the Catch Basin Drainage Map is provided in Appendix B of this Report. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 13 -- 2.5 Compliance with DEP Stormwater Management Standards The Project is considered a redevelopment and complies with the DEP Stormwater Management Standards (with exception of Standard 3). The following summary provides detailed information related to the proposed stormwater management system, its design elements, and mitigation measures for potential impacts. 2.5.1 Standard 1 – No Untreated Discharges or Erosion to Wetlands No new stormwater conveyance (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. There will be no direct discharge of untreated stormwater to nearby wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. Runoff from all impervious areas of the site will be captured in a proposed storm drain system and conveyed to water quality devices prior to being discharged to the City’s existing storm drain system. 2.5.2 Standard 2 – Peak Rate Attenuation Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. The stormwater management system will control post-development peak discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year, 24-hour storms so as to maintain pre-development peak discharge rates. As required by the City of Northampton Stormwater Management Regulations, the stormwater management system will control post-development volumes for the 2-, 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storms so as to maintain pre-development peak volumes, to the maximum extent practicable. A summary of the peak runoff rates is provided in the Executive Summary of this report. Since infiltration was not possible at this site since it was previously contaminated, the total runoff volume was maintained to the maximum extent practicable. 2.5.3 Standard 3 – Stormwater Recharge Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater management practices and good operation and maintenance. At a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual recharge from pre- development conditions based on soil types. This Standard is met when the stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Project is considered a redevelopment and meets Standard 3 to the maximum extent practicable. Compared to the existing impervious coverage on the three parcels, the Project will reduce the total impervious coverage by ±83,500 sf and as a result, the annual recharge from the proposed development will be less than the annual recharge from the site under pre- development conditions. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 14 -- We acknowledged that the majority of the reduction in impervious coverage is on proposed Lot 1 and that this area will be used for the purposes of balancing the site (see the Plan set for the delineation of Lots 1, 2 and 3). The limit of disturbance on Lot 1 was designed to be outside of the Riverfront Area and not disturb existing resource areas. Ultimately Lot 1 will be developed and most likely the majority of Lot 1 will be converted to either pavement, roofs or other impervious coverage types. The proposed work (with the exception of the area used for balancing the cut/fill) will be constructed on Lot 2 and Lot 3. The decrease in impervious coverage associated with Lots 2 and 3 is ±x sf and as a result, the annual recharge from the proposed development will be less than the annual recharge from the site under pre- development when comparing just Lots 2 and 3 only. Also as discussed in earlier sections of this Report, the soils and groundwater onsite are contaminated, making it impossible to recharge stormwater. 2.5.4 Standard 4-Water Quality Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post- construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The proposed project will meet the water quality requirements of Standard 4 using an on-site treatment train that achieves 80% TSS removal. The DEP TSS removal worksheet for the proposed development are included in Appendix I of this report. Structural BMPs designed for water quality treatment, including the deep sump hooded catch basins, and Cascade Separator® water quality treatment systems, were sized to capture and treat the flow rate associated with the first 0.5-inch of runoff from proposed impervious surfaces. All proposed stormwater management BMPs will be operated and maintained to ensure continued water quality treatment of runoff. The project’s Operation and Maintenance manual is provided in Appendix J of this report. The Operation and Maintenance manual complies with the Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (Standard 4) and the Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan (Standard 9) requirements of the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. The Operation and Maintenance manual outlines source control and pollution prevention measures and maintenance requirements of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) associated with the proposed development. 2.5.5 Standard 5 – Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads (LUHPPLs), source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed project is not associated with stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads 2.5.6 Standard 6 – Critical Areas Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 15 -- Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas. Critical areas are Outstanding Resource Waters, shellfish beds, swimming beaches, coldwater fisheries and recharge areas for public water supplies. There are no stormwater discharges to critical areas associated with this project. 2.5.7 Standard 7 - Redevelopment Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. However, if it is not practicable to meet all the Standards, new (retrofitted or expanded) stormwater management systems must be designed to improve existing conditions. The proposed project is considered a redevelopment project and complies with all Stormwater Management Standards with the exception of Standard 3. Standard 3 has been met to the maximum extent practicable The Project will reduce the total impervious cover by approximately ±25,500 sf and as a result, the annual recharge from the proposed development site will be less than the annual recharge from the site under pre-development conditions. Also as discussed in earlier sections of this Report, the soils and groundwater onsite are contaminated, making it impossible to recharge stormwater. 2.5.8 Standard 8 – Construction Period Control A plan to control construction-related impacts during erosion, sedimentation and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented. A Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed and is included as Appendix I of this report. The draft SWPPP will be completed before the project begins construction to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit for Stormwater Discharges; therefore the project complies with Standard 8 of the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. 2.5.9 Standard 9 – Operation and Maintenance Plan A Long-Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. The Operation and Maintenance manual included in Appendix H of this report complies with the Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (Standard 4) and the Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan (Standard 9) requirements of the DEP Stormwater Management Standards. The Operation and Maintenance manual outlines source control and pollution prevention measures and maintenance requirements of the proposed project’s stormwater management system. 2.5.10 Standard 10 – Illicit Discharges to Drainage System Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 16 -- All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited. There will be no illicit discharges associated with the project’s proposed stormwater management system. A signed Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement will be provided prior to any land disturbance activity. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 17 -- Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton -- 18 -- 3.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION With the implementation of the stormwater management system designed for this project, there will be no negative impacts on-site or on downstream properties or off-site storm drainage systems from the proposed development. The rate of stormwater runoff from the proposed development is decreased for all storm events analyzed. Existing runoff discharge points will be maintained in the proposed design and appropriate measures are included to ensure that drainage will continue to flow to existing locations using the NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall runoff rates. The stormwater management system has been designed to reduce peak flow rates. The proposed development includes several stormwater BMPs designed improved stormwater quality including deep sump hooded catch basins, Cascade Separator and Jellyfish filter. The proposed storm drain system has been sized for the 10-year storm event and has been designed to operate without ponding or surcharging. The anticipated velocity within the storm drain system is between 2.5 feet per second (ft/s) to 10 ft/s. For conservative purposes the storm drain system has been designed with a maximum capacity of 80% during the 10-year storm event and can safely convey the runoff associated with the 25-year storm event. This report has been prepared to complement the submitted project plans as well as to represent the technical basis for the designs presented herein. In consideration of the overall project, we conclude that all technical concerns and design parameters set forth by the City and State, as presently identified, have been fully met. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix A Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Checklist for Stormwater Report 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 2 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report. The checklist is also intended to provide conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards. Note: Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not applicable (N.A.) and provide the reasons for that determination. A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional Engineer who prepared the Stormwater Report. Registered Professional Engineer’s Certification I have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations, Long-term Pollution Prevention Plan, the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included), the Long- term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement (if included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. I have also determined that the information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application. Registered Professional Engineer Block and Signature Signature and Date Checklist Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and redevelopment? New development Redevelopment Mix of New Development and Redevelopment 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. Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix B Figures and Supporting Documentation Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Aerial Location Map Figure 3: FEMA Federal Insurance Rate Map Figure 4: NOAA Atlas 14 Storm Data (Depth, Inches) Figure 5: NOAA Atlas Storm Data (Intensity, Inches/Hour) ED-1: Pre-Development Drainage Map PD-1: Post-Development Drainage Map PD-2: Catch Basin Drainage Map 741ADP-1DP-2EDA-1EDA-2EDA-31" = 40'J.N.B.J.N.B.PRE-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGEMAPED-1DesignedReviewedProject No.ScaleDrawnDate230098601/08/2024Desc. REVISIONS DateNo.TitleNORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 171-187 KING STREETSheet No.Xref (s): ; XZ230098602 ; BD230098601 CAD File:ED2300986011/4/2024, LENNIS, G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\DWG\ED230098601.DWG.ED-1 24X36 40SC.2024 BL COMPANIES, INC. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BL COMPANIES.CLand Surveying Environmental Engineering ArchitecturePROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 100 Constitution Plaza(860) 249-2200Hartford, CT 0610310th Floor CONSTRUCTIONNOT RELEASED FOR PERMITTING OR S.M.K.LEGENDDP-2SUBCATCHMENTTOTALAREA (SF)IMPERVIOUSAREA (S.F.)PERVIOUSAREA (S.F.)PERCENTIMPERVIOUS (%)Tc (MIN)CNEDA-176,63675,73690098.8%6.0098EDA-213,22212,72849496.3%6.0097EDA-3175,254165,8119,44394.6%6.0097TOTAL265,112254,27510,837NOTESSOILS741A 741ADP-1DP-2PDA-202PDA-201PDA-1011" = 40'E.A.E.POST-DEVELOPMENTDRAINAGEMAPED-1DesignedReviewedProject No.ScaleDrawnDate230098601/08/2024Desc. REVISIONS DateNo.TitleNORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 171-187 KING STREETSheet No.Xref (s): ; XZ230098602 ; BD230098601 ; XC230098602 ; XC230098601 ; ED230098601 ; XC230098603 CAD File:PD2300986011/4/2024, LENNIS, G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\DWG\PD230098601.DWG.PD-1.2024 BL COMPANIES, INC. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BL COMPANIES.CLand Surveying Environmental Engineering ArchitecturePROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 100 Constitution Plaza(860) 249-2200Hartford, CT 0610310th Floor CONSTRUCTIONNOT RELEASED FOR PERMITTING OR S.M.K.LEGENDNOTESSOILS741ADP-2SUBCATCHMENTTOTALAREA (SF)IMPERVIOUSAREA (S.F.)PERVIOUSAREA (S.F.)PERCENTIMPERVIOUS (%)Tc (MIN)CNPDA-10154,79128,15226,63951.4%6.9089PDA-20174,71128,36446,34738.0%14.7087PDA-202135,610114,29221,31884.3%11.3095TOTAL265,112170,80894,304E.A.E. CA-1CA-2CA-3CA-4CA-5CA-6CA-7CA-8CA-9CA-10CA-111" = 40'J.N.B.J.N.B.CATCH BASINDRAINAGEMAPPD-2DesignedReviewedProject No.ScaleDrawnDate230098601/08/2024Desc. REVISIONS DateNo.TitleNORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 171-187 KING STREETSheet No.Xref (s): ; XZ230098602 ; BD230098601 ; XC230098602 ; XC230098601 ; ED230098601 ; XC230098603 CAD File:PD2300986021/4/2024, LENNIS, G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\DWG\PD230098602.DWG.PD-2.2024 BL COMPANIES, INC. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BL COMPANIES.CLand Surveying Environmental Engineering ArchitecturePROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 100 Constitution Plaza(860) 249-2200Hartford, CT 0610310th Floor CONSTRUCTIONNOT RELEASED FOR PERMITTING OR S.M.K.LEGENDNOTESSOILSDP-2 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix C Soil Data NRCS Soil Information Geotechnical Report 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 November 17, 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 Soil Map..................................................................................................................5 Soil Map................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................9 Map Unit Descriptions..........................................................................................9 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part............................................11 30A—Raynham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..........................................11 741A—Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes....................................................................................12 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................15 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................15 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................15 Hydrologic Soil Group.................................................................................15 4 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. 5 6 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 468854046885904688640468869046887404688790468884046888904688940468854046885904688640468869046887404688790468884046888904688940694930 694980 695030 695080 695130 695180 694930 694980 695030 695080 695130 695180 695230 42° 19' 41'' N 72° 38' 3'' W42° 19' 41'' N72° 37' 50'' W42° 19' 28'' N 72° 38' 3'' W42° 19' 28'' N 72° 37' 50'' 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: 1:2,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") 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 18, Sep 10, 2023 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 7 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 8 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 30A Raynham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 0.3 1.5% 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 21.0 98.5% Totals for Area of Interest 21.3 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 9 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, 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 10 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 30A—Raynham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9b1h Elevation: 50 to 500 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: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Raynham and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Raynham Setting Landform:Depressions Landform position (three-dimensional):Dip Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam H2 - 10 to 37 inches: silt loam H3 - 37 to 60 inches: stratified loamy fine sand to fine sandy loam to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 31 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 11.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Ecological site: F145XY004CT - Wet Lake Plain Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Maybid Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Hydric soil rating: Yes Scitico Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Belgrade Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 741A—Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 99z2 Elevation: 100 to 330 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 Amostown and similar soils:35 percent Windsor, silty substratum, and similar soils:25 percent Urban land:25 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Amostown Setting Landform:Terraces, outwash plains, deltas Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Friable sandy glaciofluvial deposits over silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam H2 - 7 to 32 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 32 to 60 inches: stratified very fine sand to silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Low Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F145XY005MA - Moist Lake Plain Hydric soil rating: No Description of Windsor, Silty Substratum Setting Landform:Outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits over silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loamy sand H2 - 8 to 21 inches: loamy sand H3 - 21 to 45 inches: sand H4 - 45 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 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: Low (about 5.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY022MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Enosburg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Maybid Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 15 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 16 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group 468854046885904688640468869046887404688790468884046888904688940468854046885904688640468869046887404688790468884046888904688940694930 694980 695030 695080 695130 695180 694930 694980 695030 695080 695130 695180 695230 42° 19' 41'' N 72° 38' 3'' W42° 19' 41'' N72° 37' 50'' W42° 19' 28'' N 72° 38' 3'' W42° 19' 28'' N 72° 37' 50'' 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: 1:2,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available 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 18, Sep 10, 2023 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 18 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 19 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 30A Raynham silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes C/D 0.3 1.5% 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 21.0 98.5% Totals for Area of Interest 21.3 100.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Custom Soil Resource Report 20 REPORT 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Car Dealership 171 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared For: Tommy Car Auto Group Attention: Carla Cosenzi 40 Russell Street Hadley, MA 01035 Prepared By: S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. 490A Winthrop Street Taunton, Massachusetts 02780 T: 508.822.6934 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope and Purpose ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site and Proposed Construction ............................................................................ 1 2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................................ 2 2.1 Explorations ........................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Field Testing .......................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................. 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 3 3.1 Soil and Bedrock ................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 3 4.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 3 4.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Considerations ............................................................ 3 4.2 Excavation, Dewatering and Grading Considerations ........................................... 4 4.3 Recommendations for Additional Study ................................................................. 5 5.0 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................. 5 Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Figures Appendix C Exploration Logs & Key Appendix D Laboratory Test Results 1 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 Tommy Car Auto Group Attention: Carla Cosenzi 40 Russell Street Hadley, MA 01035 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Car Dealership 171 King Street Northampton Massachusetts Dear Carla: In accordance with our Proposal, dated October 12, 2022, we have performed subsurface explorations for the subject project. This report summarizes our findings and preliminary geotechnical recommendations and its contents are subject to the limitations set forth in Appendix A. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope and Purpose The purpose of our services was to obtain subsurface information in order to make a geotechnical assessment to inform preliminary building design and site planning during the due diligence phase of the project. Our scope of services included preliminary subsurface explorations, soils laboratory testing, a geotechnical assessment of the subsurface findings and preparation of this report. 1.2 Site and Proposed Construction The project consists of the construction of a proposed car dealership located at 171 King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. The site appears to be previously developed, and currently occupied by paved parking and an apparent remnant building slab and foundation. The site is bounded by King Street to the west, a railroad to the east, and commercial properties to the north and south. The site topography is generally 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 2 flat in the area of the proposed dealership and slopes up several feet from King Street toward the rear of the lot. The design concept for the dealership building and site improvements has not been finalized at this time, however, it is anticipated that the majority of the site will be improved including the construction of the dealership building(s), and associated paved parking and landscaped areas. Conceptual development will include 1 or 2 buildings with a combined plan area on the order of 40,000 square feet. 2.0 EXPLORATION AND TESTING 2.1 Explorations Four test borings (B-1 through B-4) were made at the site on November 3 and November 4, 2022 by Soil Testing Inc. working under subcontract to S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE). The exploration locations were selected in collaboration with Jewett Construction and established in the field by S.W.COLE using GPS methods. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the “Exploration Location Plan” attached in Appendix B. Logs of the test boring and a key to the notes and symbols used on these logs are attached in Appendix C. 2.2 Field Testing The test borings were drilled using a combination of hollow stem auger and cased wash-boring techniques. The soils were sampled at 2 to 5 foot intervals using a split spoon sampler and Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) methods. Pocket Penetrometer Tests (PPT) were performed where cohesive soils were encountered. Undisturbed Shelby tube sampling was performed where softer cohesive soils were encountered within boring B-1 at a depth of 25 feet and at B-4 at a depth of 30 feet. SPT blow counts and PPT results are shown on the logs. 2.3 Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were returned to our laboratory for further classification and testing. Atterberg Limits and moisture content test were performed on select soil samples. Two laboratory consolidation tests were performed by Soil Testing Express of Acton, Massachusetts. Atterberg Limits and laboratory consolidation testing are attached in Appendix D. Moisture content test results are noted on the boring logs. 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 3 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Soil and Bedrock Borings encountered a surficial 2 to 7 inches of asphalt. Below the asphalt, borings generally encountered granular fills, consisting of loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel ,to depths between 8 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs). Boring B-3 encountered cohesive fill from a depth of 1 to 3 feet bgs. Below the fills, the borings generally encountered very loose to medium dense native sand and silt deposits to depths varying from about 13 to 18 feet bgs. Below the sand and silt deposit, the borings generally encountered very soft to soft clays to boring termination depths ranging from 17 to 82 feet bgs. For more detailed subsurface information, refer to the attached test boring logs included in Appendix C. 3.2 Groundwater Saturated soils were encountered within the borings at depths ranging from 7 to 16 feet bgs. Groundwater likely becomes perched on the relatively impervious silts and clays encountered at the test borings. Long term groundwater information is not available. It should be anticipated that groundwater levels will fluctuate, particularly in response to periods of snowmelt and precipitation, as well as changes in site use. 4.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Considerations Based on the subsurface findings and our understanding of the proposed construction, it is our opinion that spread footing foundations and on-grade floor slabs bearing on ground improved with stone columns may be suitable for support of the proposed building. In summary, we offer the following comments on foundation and floor slabs for consideration: • Borings at the site encountered a subsurface profile generally consisting of uncontrolled fills overlying native deposits of sand and sand and silt overlying silty clay, which may be susceptible to long term consolidation and/or settlement depending on foundation loads. We recommend the building footprint area be improved with stone columns extending through the fill and into the underlying sand and sand and silt deposits. It is important the ground improvements not extend into 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 4 the native silty clays which are sensitive to strength loss when disturbed. • Foundation wall and column loads are not available at this time; however, it appears feasible to support the building on conventional spread footings on ground improved with stone columns. We recommend footings be underlain by 6 inches of compacted Crushed Stone overlying ground improved with stone columns. On- grade floor slabs should bear on at least 18 inches of compacted Structural Fill overlying ground improved with stone columns. • We recommend foundations exposed to freezing be founded at least 4.0 feet below exterior grades for frost protection. • A qualified ground improvement design build contractor should be consulted to further evaluate feasibility and details of ground improvement methods and techniques. 4.2 Excavation, Dewatering and Grading Considerations Excavation work will generally encounter granular fills and native deposits of sand with clay at depth. Soils were saturated at depths starting at 7 feet below surface grade. In summary, we offer the following comments relative to excavation, dewatering and grading for your consideration: • Sumping and pumping dewatering techniques should be adequate to control groundwater in excavations above the groundwater table. Excavations below groundwater will likely require braced interlocking sheetpiles for excavation support and groundwater cutoff. Controlling the water levels to at least one foot below planned excavation depths will help stabilize subgrades during construction. • Excavations must be properly shored or sloped in accordance with OSHA Regulations to prevent sloughing and caving of the sidewalls during construction. Care must be taken to preclude undermining adjacent structures, utilities and roadways. The design and planning of excavations, excavation support systems, and dewatering is the responsibility of the contractor. 22-1681 S December 14, 2022 5 •The underlying native clays are compressible and will settle under loads from grade raise fills; consequently, we recommend the FFE be planned within 2 feet of existing grades along King Street. •The existing granular fill may be suitable for reuse as compacted Granular Borrow to backfill overexcavations and raise grades in building and paved areas. Imported Crushed Stone will be needed to prepare foundation bearing surfaces. Imported Structural Fill will be needed for foundation backfill and slab base material. Imported Base and Subbase Aggregates will be needed for pavements. 4.3 Recommendations for Additional Study We recommend design-phase geotechnical explorations and engineering be completed to prepare a design-phase geotechnical report with detailed recommendations for foundations, earthwork, and pavement associated with the proposed construction. The design-phase geotechnical services should also include a detailed settlement analysis. A qualified ground improvement design-build contractor should be consulted to further evaluate feasibility and details of ground improvement methods and techniques. 5.0 CLOSURE It has been a pleasure to be of assistance to you with this phase of your project. We look forward to working with you during the design phase of the project. Sincerely, S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. Ryan Larmouth Project Geotechnical Engineer Timothy J. Boyce, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer RSL:tjb APPENDIX A Limitations This preliminary report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Tommy Car Auto Group for specific application to the proposed Car Dealership in Northampton, Massachusetts. S. W. Cole Engineering, Inc. (S.W.COLE) has endeavored to conduct our services in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The soil profiles described in the report are intended to convey general trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and are based upon interpretation of exploration data and samples. The analyses performed during this investigation and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from subsurface explorations made at the site. Variations in subsurface conditions may occur between explorations and may not become evident until construction. If variations in subsurface conditions become evident after submission of this report, it will be necessary to evaluate their nature and to review the recommendations of this report. Observations have been made during exploration work to assess site groundwater levels. Fluctuations in water levels will occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. S.W.COLE’s scope of services has not included the investigation, detection, or prevention of any Biological Pollutants at the project site or in any existing or proposed structure at the site. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and the byproducts of any such biological organisms. Recommendations contained in this report are based substantially upon information provided by others regarding the proposed project. In the event that any changes are made in the design, nature, or location of the proposed project, S.W.COLE should review such changes as they relate to analyses associated with this report. Recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by S.W.COLE. APPENDIX B Figures R:\2022\22-1681\ArcProject\22-1681.aprx, 12/9/2022 11:51 AM 22-1681 Sheet 1 - ELP, Scale: 1:720, CMORRISON, S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC.Scale Sheet Job No. Date: 22-1681 12/09/2022 1" = 60' 1 EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN JEWETT CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED CAR DEALERSHIP 171 KING STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 0 60 120 18030 Feet ³ NOTES: 1. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN PREPARED FROM ORTHOIMAGERY ENTITLED "WORLD IMAGERY," PROVIDED BY ESRI. 2. THE BORINGS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC. USING A MAPPING GRADE GPS RECEIVER. 3. THIS PLAN SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ASSOCIATED S. W. COLE ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 4. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS ONLY TO DEPICT THE LOCATION OF THE EXPLORATIONS IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND @A APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION @A @A @A@A Hooker A v e Finn St King StState Rte 10US Hwy 5B-3 B-1 B-2 B-4 New York State, Maxar, Microsoft APPENDIX C Exploration Logs and Key 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 15-17 20-22 7" ASPHALT Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, fineto coarse SAND, some gravel, varying amount of silt (FILL) Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine to coarseSAND Medium dense, wet, gray, fine SAND andSILT Very soft to soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY,trace sand 24/12 24/13 24/12 24/14 24/12 24/12 24/17 24/24 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D 6-6-8-7 9-6-6-6 3-4-7-5 4-4-5-5 6-6-10- 6 5-5-4-2 6-6-6-5 1-WOH-1-2 qP=.34ksf Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length LOGGED BY:M. Socci CORE BARREL:N/A At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling D = Split Spoon Sample CASING ID/OD:N/A /N/A Water Level AUGER ID/OD: 4 1/4 in / 7 5/8 in ELEVATION (FT):162' Estimated bpf = Blows per Foot TOTAL DEPTH (FT):37.0 U = Thin Walled Tube Sample DRILLER:A. Kovil KEY TO NOTESAND SYMBOLS:Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft. Drilling Information RIG TYPE:Rubber Tire CME 550x HAMMER TYPE:Safety / Safety GENERAL NOTES: HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs):140 / 140 R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear mpf = Minute per Foot WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation HAMMER DROP (inch):30 / 30 DRILLING CO.:Soil Testing Inc. PID = Photoionization Detector N/A = Not Applicable SAMPLER:Standard Split-Spoon qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft. Ø = Friction Angle (Estimated) DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Augers WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft):Soils saturated below 16' HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR: LOCATION:See Exploration Location Plan (Continued Next Page) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 5 10 15 20 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 160 155 150 145 140 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/4/2022 BORING NO.:B-1 BORING NO.:B-1 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:1 of 2 DATE START:11/4/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 0.6 12.0 14.0 18.0 Switching to 4" casing at 20' 25-27 27-29 30-32 35-37 Very soft to soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY,trace sand Very soft to soft, wet, gray, CLAY, tracesand, trace gravel Bottom of Exploration at 37.0 feet 24 24/24 24/24 24/24 1C 9D 10D 11D WOH-1-2-1 WOH- 1-WOH-1 WOH-1-WOH-1 w =45 % qP=.25ksf qP=.15ksf Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 30 35 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 135 130 125 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/4/2022 BORING NO.:B-1 BORING NO.:B-1 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:2 of 2 DATE START:11/4/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 33.0 Open hole drilling at25' 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 15-17 20-22 2" ASPHALT Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, fineto coarse SAND, trace gravel, varyingamount of silt (FILL) Very loose, wet, brown, fine SAND andSILT, varying amount of clay Medium dense, wet, brown, fine to coarse SAND, trace silt Soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY Bottom of Exploration at 22.0 feet 24/12 24/13 24/15 24/14 24/17 24/12 24/18 24/24 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D 4-18-12-9 10-15-10-12 5-6-5-5 6-6-6-5 5-5-2-2 2-2-1-2 12-12- 15-9 WOH-2-2-3 qP=.375ksf Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length LOGGED BY:M. Socci CORE BARREL:N/A At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling D = Split Spoon Sample CASING ID/OD:N/A /N/A Water Level AUGER ID/OD: 4 1/4 in / 7 5/8 in ELEVATION (FT):162' Estimated bpf = Blows per Foot TOTAL DEPTH (FT):22.0 U = Thin Walled Tube Sample DRILLER:A. Kovil KEY TO NOTESAND SYMBOLS:Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft. Drilling Information RIG TYPE:Rubber Tire CME 550x HAMMER TYPE:Safety GENERAL NOTES: HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs):140 / 300 R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear mpf = Minute per Foot WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation HAMMER DROP (inch):30 / 16 DRILLING CO.:Soil Testing Inc. PID = Photoionization Detector N/A = Not Applicable SAMPLER:Standard Split-Spoon qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft. Ø = Friction Angle (Estimated) DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Augers WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft):Soils saturated below 10' HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR: LOCATION:See Exploration Location Plan Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 5 10 15 20 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 160 155 150 145 140 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/4/2022 BORING NO.:B-2 BORING NO.:B-2 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:1 of 1 DATE START:11/4/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 0.2 10.0 16.0 18.0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 15-17 2" ASPHALT Medium dense, moist, brown, fine to coarseSAND, trace silt (FILL) Medium dense, moist, sandy, SILT, tracegravel (FILL) Medium dense, moist, gray silty, fine SAND(FILL) Medium dense, moist to wet, brown, fine tocoarse SAND, trace silt Medium dense, wet, brown to gray, fineSAND and SILT, varying amount of clay Very soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY, trace sand Bottom of Exploration at 17.0 feet 24/12 24/15 24/14 24/17 24/19 24/13 24/24 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 4-8-9-8 6-7-10-10 5-6-9-8 7-8-7-5 6-5-6-7 4-6-8-9 1- WOH- 2-2 Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length LOGGED BY:M. Socci CORE BARREL:N/A At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling D = Split Spoon Sample CASING ID/OD:N/A /N/A Water Level AUGER ID/OD: 4 1/4 in / 7 5/8 in ELEVATION (FT):158' Estimated bpf = Blows per Foot TOTAL DEPTH (FT):17.0 U = Thin Walled Tube Sample DRILLER:A. Kovil KEY TO NOTESAND SYMBOLS:Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft. Drilling Information RIG TYPE:Rubber Tire CME 550x HAMMER TYPE:Safety GENERAL NOTES: HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs):140 / 300 R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear mpf = Minute per Foot WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation HAMMER DROP (inch):30 / 16 DRILLING CO.:Soil Testing Inc. PID = Photoionization Detector N/A = Not Applicable SAMPLER:Standard Split-Spoon qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft. Ø = Friction Angle (Estimated) DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Augers WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft):Soils saturated below 7' HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR: LOCATION:See Exploration Location Plan Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 5 10 15 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 155 150 145 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/4/2022 BORING NO.:B-3 BORING NO.:B-3 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:1 of 1 DATE START:11/4/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 0.2 1.0 3.0 6.0 8.0 13.0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 15-17 20-22 2" ASPHALT Medium dense, moist fo wet, gray to brown,silty, fine to coarse SAND (FILL) Loose to medium dense, wet, brown togray, fine SAND and SILT Very loose, wet, brown, silty, fine to coarseSAND Very soft to soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY,trace sand 24/14 24/13 24/11 24/16 24/9 24/9 24/2 24/18 1D 2D 3D 4D 5D 6D 7D 8D 9-10-8-8 12-12-15-12 4-6-8-8 12-8-7-12 4-4-4-7 7-6-8-6 1-2-1-3 WOR-2-1-1 Pen. = Penetration Length Rec. = Recovery Length LOGGED BY:M. Socci CORE BARREL:N/A At time of Drilling At Completion of Drilling After Drilling D = Split Spoon Sample CASING ID/OD:N/A /N/A Water Level AUGER ID/OD: 4 1/4 in / 7 5/8 in ELEVATION (FT):158' Estimated bpf = Blows per Foot TOTAL DEPTH (FT):82.0 U = Thin Walled Tube Sample DRILLER:A. Ouard KEY TO NOTESAND SYMBOLS:Sv = Field Vane Shear Strength, kips/sq.ft. Drilling Information RIG TYPE:Rubber Tire CME 550x HAMMER TYPE:Safety / Safety GENERAL NOTES: HAMMER WEIGHT (lbs):140 / 140 R = Rock Core Sample V = Field Vane Shear mpf = Minute per Foot WOR = Weight of Rods WOH = Weight of Hammer RQD = Rock Quality Designation HAMMER DROP (inch):30 / 30 DRILLING CO.:Soil Testing Inc. PID = Photoionization Detector N/A = Not Applicable SAMPLER:Standard Split-Spoon qU = Unconfined Compressive Strength, kips/sq.ft. Ø = Friction Angle (Estimated) DRILLING METHOD:Hollow Stem Augers WATER LEVEL DEPTHS (ft):Soils saturated below 7' HAMMER EFFICIENCY FACTOR: LOCATION:See Exploration Location Plan (Continued Next Page) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 5 10 15 20 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 155 150 145 140 135 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/3/2022 BORING NO.:B-4 BORING NO.:B-4 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:1 of 3 DATE START:11/3/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 0.2 8.0 13.0 18.0 Switching to 4" casing at 20' 25-27 30-32 32-34 35-37 40-42 45-47 50-52 55-57 Very soft to soft, wet, gray, silty, CLAY,trace sand Very soft to soft, wet, gray, CLAY 24/24 24 24/24 24/24 24/24 24/24 24/24 24/24 9D 1C 10D 11D 12D 13D 14D 15D WOH/18"-2 WOR-WOH-2-2 WOR-WOH-1-2 WOR- WOH/12"- 2 WOR-WOH-2-3 WOR-1-2-3 WOR/12"- 1-1 qP=.15ksf qP=.19ksf w =64 % qP=.22ksf qP=.22ksf qP=.22ksf qP=.25ksf qP=.22ksf (Continued Next Page) Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 30 35 40 45 50 55 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 130 125 120 115 110 105 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/3/2022 BORING NO.:B-4 BORING NO.:B-4 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:2 of 3 DATE START:11/3/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts 34.0 Open hole drilling at25' 60-62 65-67 70-72 75-77 80-82 Very soft to soft, wet, gray, CLAY Bottom of Exploration at 82.0 feet 24/24 24/24 24/24 24/24 24/24 16D 17D 18D 19D 20D WOH/24" WOR/12"- 4-2 WOR/12"-3-3 3-2-3-3 WOH/12"- 2-3 qP=.25ksf qP=.19ksf qP=.22ksf qP=.19ksf qP=.22ksf Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 60 65 70 75 80 CasingPen.(bpf) Stratification lines represent approximateboundary between soil types, transitions may begradual. Water level readings have been madeat times and under conditions stated.Fluctuations of groundwater may occur due toother factors than those present at the timemeasurements were made. SAMPLE INFORMATION H20Depth RemarksSampleDescription &ClassificationTypeElev. (ft) 100 95 90 85 80 Graphic LogPen./ Rec.(in) Sample No. Blow Count orRQD Field / Lab Test Data BORING / WELL 10-12-2022 22-1681.GPJ SWCE TEMPLATE.GDT 12/13/22DATE FINISH:11/3/2022 BORING NO.:B-4 BORING NO.:B-4 PROJECT NO.22-1681 SHEET:3 of 3 DATE START:11/3/2022 BORING LOG PROJECT:Proposed Car Dealership CLIENT:Tommy Car Auto Group LOCATION:171 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts KEY TO NOTES & SYMBOLS Test Boring and Test Pit Explorations Stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Key to Symbols Used: w - water content, percent (dry weight basis) qu - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. - laboratory test Sv - field vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft. Lv - lab vane shear strength, kips/sq. ft. qp - unconfined compressive strength, kips/sq. ft. – pocket penetrometer test O - organic content, percent (dry weight basis) WL - liquid limit - Atterberg test WP - plastic limit - Atterberg test WOH - advance by weight of hammer WOM - advance by weight of man WOR - advance by weight of rods HYD - advance by force of hydraulic piston on drill RQD - Rock Quality Designator - an index of the quality of a rock mass. γT - total soil weight γB - buoyant soil weight Description of Proportions: Description of Stratified Soils Parting: 0 to 1/16” thickness Trace: 0 to 5% Seam: 1/16” to 1/2” thickness Some: 5 to 12% Layer: ½” to 12” thickness “Y” 12 to 35% Varved: Alternating seams or layers And 35+% Occasional: one or less per foot of thickness With Undifferentiated Frequent: more than one per foot of thickness REFUSAL: Test Boring Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which, in the drill foreman's opinion, sufficient resistance to the advance of the casing, auger, probe rod or sampler was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used. REFUSAL: Test Pit Explorations - Refusal depth indicates that depth at which sufficient resistance to the advance of the backhoe bucket was encountered to render further advance impossible or impracticable by the procedures and equipment being used. Although refusal may indicate the encountering of the bedrock surface, it may indicate the striking of large cobbles, boulders, very dense or cemented soil, or other buried natural or man-made objects or it may indicate the encountering of a harder zone after penetrating a considerable depth through a weathered or disintegrated zone of the bedrock. APPENDIX D Laboratory Test Results Report of Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318-10 - Method A Project Name:Proposed Car Dealership Project Number: 22-1681 Project Location:171 King st, Northhampton,MA Lab ID: 5619T Client:Tommy Car Auto Group Date Received: 11/21/22 Material Description:Clay Date Completed: 12/05/22 Material Source:B1 9D 27-29' 11/4/22 Tested By: ED Liquid Limit 36 Plastic Limit 24 Plasticity Index 12 Material Retained On the No. 40 Sieve: As-received Moisture Content: 45% Comments: Reviewed By: . Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Special Inspections 490A Winthrop Street, Taunton, MA 02780 ● P: 508-822-6934 ● E: infotaunton@swcole.com 100% 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 10 100MC (%)Number of Blows LIQUID LIMIT CURVE Report of Atterberg Limits ASTM D4318-10 - Method A Project Name:Proposed Car Dealership Project Number: 22-1681 Project Location:171 King st, Northhampton,MA Lab ID: 5620T Client:Tommy Car Auto Group Date Received: 11/21/22 Material Description:Clay Date Completed: 06/15/22 Material Source:B4 10D 32-34' 11/2/22 Tested By: ED Liquid Limit 36 Plastic Limit 25 Plasticity Index 11 Material Retained On the No. 40 Sieve: As-received Moisture Content: 64% Comments: Reviewed By: . Geotechnical Engineering Construction Materials Testing Special Inspections 490A Winthrop Street, Taunton, MA 02780 ● P: 508-822-6934 ● E: infotaunton@swcole.com 100% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 10 100MC (%)Number of Blows LIQUID LIMIT CURVE One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:21 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 1 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Displacement at End of Increment Summary Report 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Vertical Stress, tsf 20 15 10 5 0 Strain, %0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Vertical Stress, tsf 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 Cv, in²/s One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:22 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 2 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 1 of 15 Constant Volume Step Stress: 0.0648 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Stress, tsf0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Stress, tsf One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:23 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 3 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 2 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.125 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:24 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 4 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 3 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.25 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:25 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 5 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 4 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.5 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:26 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 6 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 5 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 1 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:27 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 7 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 6 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 2 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:27 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 8 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 7 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 4 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 12.0 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 9.5 9.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:28 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 9 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 8 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 8 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 14.5 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 12.0 11.5 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:29 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 10 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 9 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 16 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 14.5 14.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:30 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 11 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 10 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 32 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:31 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 12 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 11 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 8 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 20.0 19.8 19.6 19.4 19.2 19.0 18.8 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 20.0 19.8 19.6 19.4 19.2 19.0 18.8 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:32 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 13 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 12 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 2 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 19.0 18.8 18.6 18.4 18.2 18.0 17.8 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 19.0 18.8 18.6 18.4 18.2 18.0 17.8 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:33 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 14 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 13 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.5 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:34 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 15 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 14 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.125 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 18.0 17.5 17.0 16.5 16.0 15.5 15.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:36 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 16 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Time Curve 15 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.0625 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.8 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 15.0 14.9 14.8 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:37 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 17 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Specimen Diameter: 2.50 in Initial Height: 1.00 in Final Height: 0.81 in Estimated Specific Gravity: 2.74 Initial Void Ratio: 0.745 Final Void Ratio: 0.414 Liquid Limit: --- Plastic Limit: --- Plasticity Index: --- Before Test Trimmings Before Test Specimen After Test Specimen After Test Trimmings Container ID Mass Container, gm Mass Container + Wet Soil, gm Mass Container + Dry Soil, gm Mass Dry Soil, gm Water Content, % Void Ratio Degree of Saturation, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf E4510 8.46 359.1 274.13 265.67 31.98 --- --- --- RING 109.72 270.25 235.93 126.21 27.19 0.75 99.90 97.953 109.72 255 235.93 126.21 15.11 0.41 100.00 120.93 E2638 8.48 156.23 136.84 128.36 15.11 --- --- --- Note: Specific Gravity and Void Ratios are calculated assuming the degree of saturation equals 100% at the end of the test. Therefore, values may not represent actual values for the specimen. One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 11:47:37 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 18 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B1 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-1 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: System LTII-TX-012, Swell Pressure = 0.0648 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 25-27' Elevation: --- Displacement at End of Increment Square Root of Time Coefficients Step Applied Stress tsf Final Displacement in Void Ratio Strain at End % Sq.Rt. T90 min Cv in²/s Mv 1/tsf k ft/day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.0648 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.0 32.0 8.00 2.00 0.500 0.125 0.0625 0.02334 0.03214 0.04446 0.05749 0.07440 0.09415 0.1166 0.1409 0.1678 0.1957 0.1894 0.1792 0.1657 0.1531 0.1486 0.705 0.689 0.668 0.645 0.615 0.581 0.542 0.499 0.452 0.404 0.415 0.433 0.456 0.478 0.486 2.33 3.21 4.45 5.75 7.44 9.41 11.7 14.1 16.8 19.6 18.9 17.9 16.6 15.3 14.9 162.904 62.199 32.825 27.380 15.540 11.949 9.555 6.718 5.295 4.158 3.814 6.664 18.857 52.718 182.045 2.12e-05 5.37e-05 9.96e-05 1.16e-04 1.98e-04 2.48e-04 2.96e-04 3.99e-04 4.77e-04 5.69e-04 6.04e-04 3.53e-04 1.28e-04 4.74e-05 1.40e-05 3.60e-01 1.46e-01 9.85e-02 5.21e-02 3.38e-02 1.98e-02 1.12e-02 6.08e-03 3.36e-03 1.74e-03 2.64e-04 1.70e-03 9.00e-03 3.35e-02 7.18e-02 1.43e-04 1.47e-04 1.84e-04 1.13e-04 1.26e-04 9.17e-05 6.22e-05 4.55e-05 3.01e-05 1.86e-05 2.99e-06 1.12e-05 2.16e-05 2.97e-05 1.88e-05 One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:26:55 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 1 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Displacement at End of Increment Summary Report 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Vertical Stress, tsf 40 30 20 10 0 Strain, %0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Vertical Stress, tsf 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 Cv, ft²/s One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:26:57 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 2 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 1 of 15 Constant Volume Step Stress: 0.0645 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Stress, tsf0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Stress, tsf One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:26:58 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 3 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 2 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.125 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:26:59 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 4 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 3 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.25 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:00 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 5 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 4 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.5 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:01 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 6 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 5 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 1 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:02 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 7 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 6 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 2 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:03 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 8 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 7 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 4 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:04 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 9 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 8 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 8 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:05 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 10 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 9 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 16 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:06 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 11 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 10 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 32 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:07 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 12 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 11 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 8 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 34.5 34.0 33.5 33.0 32.5 32.0 31.5 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 34.5 34.0 33.5 33.0 32.5 32.0 31.5 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:08 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 13 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 12 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 2 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 32.0 31.5 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 32.0 31.5 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:09 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 14 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 13 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.5 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:10 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 15 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 14 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.125 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:11 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 16 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Time Curve 15 of 15 Constant Load Step Stress: 0.0625 tsf 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time, min 23.4 23.2 23.0 22.8 22.6 22.4 22.2 Strain, %0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Square Root of Time, √min 23.4 23.2 23.0 22.8 22.6 22.4 22.2 Strain, % One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:12 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 17 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Specimen Diameter: 2.50 in Initial Height: 1.00 in Final Height: 0.76 in Estimated Specific Gravity: 2.76 Initial Void Ratio: 1.59 Final Void Ratio: 0.971 Liquid Limit: --- Plastic Limit: --- Plasticity Index: --- Before Test Trimmings Before Test Specimen After Test Specimen After Test Trimmings Container ID Mass Container, gm Mass Container + Wet Soil, gm Mass Container + Dry Soil, gm Mass Dry Soil, gm Water Content, % Void Ratio Degree of Saturation, % Dry Unit Weight, pcf E3868 8.29 311.66 199.09 190.8 59.00 --- --- --- RING 109.34 244.17 194.88 85.542 57.62 1.59 99.73 66.388 109.34 225 194.88 85.542 35.21 0.97 100.00 87.352 E4187 8.14 125.46 94.91 86.77 35.21 --- --- --- Note: Specific Gravity and Void Ratios are calculated assuming the degree of saturation equals 100% at the end of the test. Therefore, values may not represent actual values for the specimen. One-Dimensional Consolidation by ASTM D2435 - Method B 2022-12-01 14:27:12 2.3.16.137 / 2.3.16.137 18 Project: Proposed Car Dealership Boring No.: B4 Sample No.: 1C Test No.: IP-2 Description: Moist, gray clay Remarks: TX-013, Swell Pressure = 0.0645 tsf Location: Northampton, MA Tested By: trm Test Date: 11/21/22 Sample Type: intact Project No.: GTX-316407 Checked By: anm Depth: 30-32' Elevation: --- Displacement at End of Increment Square Root of Time Coefficients Step Applied Stress tsf Final Displacement in Void Ratio Strain at End % Sq.Rt. T90 min Cv ft²/s Mv 1/tsf k ft/day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.0645 0.125 0.250 0.500 1.00 2.00 4.00 8.00 16.0 32.0 8.00 2.00 0.500 0.125 0.0625 0.007064 0.01443 0.02432 0.03894 0.06078 0.09582 0.1675 0.2266 0.2810 0.3366 0.3182 0.2909 0.2611 0.2329 0.2227 1.58 1.56 1.53 1.49 1.44 1.34 1.16 1.01 0.865 0.721 0.768 0.839 0.916 0.989 1.02 0.706 1.44 2.43 3.89 6.08 9.58 16.8 22.7 28.1 33.7 31.8 29.1 26.1 23.3 22.3 38.521 13.204 12.588 10.512 8.511 16.571 23.128 12.299 8.186 6.616 3.691 13.643 27.888 70.310 222.476 6.32e-07 1.82e-06 1.87e-06 2.19e-06 2.60e-06 1.26e-06 8.00e-07 1.29e-06 1.67e-06 1.77e-06 3.01e-06 8.70e-07 4.61e-07 1.98e-07 6.58e-08 1.10e-01 1.22e-01 7.91e-02 5.85e-02 4.37e-02 3.50e-02 3.58e-02 1.48e-02 6.81e-03 3.47e-03 7.64e-04 4.55e-03 1.98e-02 7.53e-02 1.64e-01 1.87e-04 5.97e-04 4.00e-04 3.45e-04 3.07e-04 1.19e-04 7.73e-05 5.12e-05 3.06e-05 1.66e-05 6.20e-06 1.07e-05 2.47e-05 4.02e-05 2.91e-05 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix D Pre-Development Hydrology Analysis EDA-1 EDA-1 EDA-2 EDA-2 EDA-3 EDA-3 DP-1 DP-1 DP-2 DP-2 Routing Diagram for C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDROPrepared by B L Companies, Printed 1/3/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Project Notes Copied 4 events from MA-Rehoboth 24-hr S1 storm C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 3.07 2 2 10-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 4.92 2 3 100-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 7.85 2 C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.144 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (EDA-3) 5.837 98 Paved parking, HSG D (EDA-1, EDA-2, EDA-3) 0.104 77 Woods, Good, HSG D (EDA-1, EDA-2, EDA-3) 6.086 97 TOTAL AREA C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 6.086 HSG D EDA-1, EDA-2, EDA-3 0.000 Other 6.086 TOTAL AREA C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.000 0.144 >75% Grass cover, Good EDA-3 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.837 0.000 5.837 Paved parking EDA-1, EDA-2, EDA-3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.104 0.000 0.104 Woods, Good EDA-1, EDA-2, EDA-3 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.086 0.000 6.086 TOTAL AREA NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=76,636 sf 98.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.84"Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=7.29 cfs 0.416 af Runoff Area=13,222 sf 96.26% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.73"Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=1.24 cfs 0.069 af Runoff Area=175,254 sf 94.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.73"Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=16.43 cfs 0.915 af Inflow=8.53 cfs 0.485 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=8.53 cfs 0.485 af Inflow=16.43 cfs 0.915 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=16.43 cfs 0.915 af Total Runoff Area = 6.086 ac Runoff Volume = 1.400 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.76" 4.09% Pervious = 0.249 ac 95.91% Impervious = 5.837 ac NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff = 7.29 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.416 af, Depth= 2.84" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 75,736 98 Paved parking, HSG D 900 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 76,636 98 Weighted Average 900 1.17% Pervious Area 75,736 98.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=76,636 sf Runoff Volume=0.416 af Runoff Depth=2.84" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 7.29 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff = 1.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.069 af, Depth= 2.73" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 494 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 12,728 98 Paved parking, HSG D 13,222 97 Weighted Average 494 3.74% Pervious Area 12,728 96.26% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=13,222 sf Runoff Volume=0.069 af Runoff Depth=2.73" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 1.24 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff = 16.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.915 af, Depth= 2.73" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 6,289 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,154 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 165,811 98 Paved parking, HSG D 175,254 97 Weighted Average 9,443 5.39% Pervious Area 165,811 94.61% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=175,254 sf Runoff Volume=0.915 af Runoff Depth=2.73" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 16.43 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 2.063 ac, 98.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.82" for 2-yr event Inflow = 8.53 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.485 af Primary = 8.53 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.485 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=2.063 ac8.53 cfs 8.53 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.023 ac, 94.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.73" for 2-yr event Inflow = 16.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.915 af Primary = 16.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.915 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.023 ac16.43 cfs 16.43 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=76,636 sf 98.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.68"Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=11.78 cfs 0.687 af Runoff Area=13,222 sf 96.26% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.57"Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=2.02 cfs 0.116 af Runoff Area=175,254 sf 94.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.57"Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=26.76 cfs 1.531 af Inflow=13.80 cfs 0.802 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=13.80 cfs 0.802 af Inflow=26.76 cfs 1.531 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=26.76 cfs 1.531 af Total Runoff Area = 6.086 ac Runoff Volume = 2.333 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.60" 4.09% Pervious = 0.249 ac 95.91% Impervious = 5.837 ac NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff = 11.78 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.687 af, Depth= 4.68" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 75,736 98 Paved parking, HSG D 900 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 76,636 98 Weighted Average 900 1.17% Pervious Area 75,736 98.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=76,636 sf Runoff Volume=0.687 af Runoff Depth=4.68" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 11.78 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff = 2.02 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af, Depth= 4.57" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 494 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 12,728 98 Paved parking, HSG D 13,222 97 Weighted Average 494 3.74% Pervious Area 12,728 96.26% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=13,222 sf Runoff Volume=0.116 af Runoff Depth=4.57" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 2.02 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff = 26.76 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.531 af, Depth= 4.57" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 6,289 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,154 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 165,811 98 Paved parking, HSG D 175,254 97 Weighted Average 9,443 5.39% Pervious Area 165,811 94.61% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=175,254 sf Runoff Volume=1.531 af Runoff Depth=4.57" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 26.76 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 2.063 ac, 98.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.67" for 10-yr event Inflow = 13.80 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.802 af Primary = 13.80 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.802 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=2.063 ac13.80 cfs 13.80 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.023 ac, 94.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.57" for 10-yr event Inflow = 26.76 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.531 af Primary = 26.76 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.531 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=4.023 ac26.76 cfs 26.76 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=76,636 sf 98.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.61"Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=18.85 cfs 1.116 af Runoff Area=13,222 sf 96.26% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.49"Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=3.24 cfs 0.189 af Runoff Area=175,254 sf 94.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.49"Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Tc=6.0 min CN=97 Runoff=42.99 cfs 2.511 af Inflow=22.10 cfs 1.305 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=22.10 cfs 1.305 af Inflow=42.99 cfs 2.511 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=42.99 cfs 2.511 af Total Runoff Area = 6.086 ac Runoff Volume = 3.817 af Average Runoff Depth = 7.53" 4.09% Pervious = 0.249 ac 95.91% Impervious = 5.837 ac NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff = 18.85 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.116 af, Depth= 7.61" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 75,736 98 Paved parking, HSG D 900 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 76,636 98 Weighted Average 900 1.17% Pervious Area 75,736 98.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-1: EDA-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=76,636 sf Runoff Volume=1.116 af Runoff Depth=7.61" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 18.85 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 21HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff = 3.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.189 af, Depth= 7.49" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 494 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 12,728 98 Paved parking, HSG D 13,222 97 Weighted Average 494 3.74% Pervious Area 12,728 96.26% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-2: EDA-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=13,222 sf Runoff Volume=0.189 af Runoff Depth=7.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 3.24 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff = 42.99 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.511 af, Depth= 7.49" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 6,289 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,154 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 165,811 98 Paved parking, HSG D 175,254 97 Weighted Average 9,443 5.39% Pervious Area 165,811 94.61% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment EDA-3: EDA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=175,254 sf Runoff Volume=2.511 af Runoff Depth=7.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 42.99 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 23HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 2.063 ac, 98.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.59" for 100-yr event Inflow = 22.10 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.305 af Primary = 22.10 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.305 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=2.063 ac22.10 cfs 22.10 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-EXIST HYDRO Printed 1/3/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 24HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.023 ac, 94.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.49" for 100-yr event Inflow = 42.99 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.511 af Primary = 42.99 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.511 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=4.023 ac42.99 cfs 42.99 cfs Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix E Post-Development Hydrology Analysis PDA-101 PDA-101 PDA-201 PDA-201 PDA-202 PDA-202 DP-1 DP-1 DP-2 DP-2 Routing Diagram for C-DAT-2300986-PROPrepared by B L Companies, Printed 1/4/2024 HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Project Notes Copied 4 events from MA-Rehoboth 24-hr S1 storm C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 3.07 2 2 10-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 4.92 2 3 100-yr NOAA 24-hr A Default 24.00 1 7.85 2 C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 2.165 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (PDA-101, PDA-201, PDA-202) 3.596 98 Paved parking, HSG D (PDA-101, PDA-201, PDA-202) 0.326 98 Roofs, HSG D (PDA-202) 6.087 92 TOTAL AREA C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 6.087 HSG D PDA-101, PDA-201, PDA-202 0.000 Other 6.087 TOTAL AREA C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.165 0.000 2.165 >75% Grass cover, Good PDA-101 , PDA-201 , PDA-202 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.596 0.000 3.596 Paved parking PDA-101 , PDA-201 , PDA-202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.326 0.000 0.326 Roofs PDA-202 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.087 0.000 6.087 TOTAL AREA NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=54,791 sf 51.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.96"Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 Runoff=4.01 cfs 0.206 af Runoff Area=74,761 sf 38.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.80"Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 Runoff=3.82 cfs 0.257 af Runoff Area=135,610 sf 84.28% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.52"Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 Runoff=10.23 cfs 0.653 af Inflow=4.01 cfs 0.206 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=4.01 cfs 0.206 af Inflow=13.89 cfs 0.911 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=13.89 cfs 0.911 af Total Runoff Area = 6.087 ac Runoff Volume = 1.116 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.20" 35.56% Pervious = 2.165 ac 64.44% Impervious = 3.922 ac NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff = 4.01 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.206 af, Depth= 1.96" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 28,152 98 Paved parking, HSG D 26,639 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 54,791 89 Weighted Average 26,639 48.62% Pervious Area 28,152 51.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.1 8 0.0300 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 4.7 42 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.6 33 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 18 0.0600 4.97 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.4 78 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 179 Total NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=54,791 sf Runoff Volume=0.206 af Runoff Depth=1.96" Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 4.01 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff = 3.82 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.257 af, Depth= 1.80" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 46,347 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 28,414 98 Paved parking, HSG D 74,761 87 Weighted Average 46,347 61.99% Pervious Area 28,414 38.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.5 5 0.0005 0.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 7 0.1400 2.62 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.9 63 0.0300 1.21 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.5 46 0.0050 0.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.0 85 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.7 337 Total NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=74,761 sf Runoff Volume=0.257 af Runoff Depth=1.80" Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 3.82 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff = 10.23 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.653 af, Depth= 2.52" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Area (sf) CN Description 21,318 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 14,206 98 Roofs, HSG D 100,086 98 Paved parking, HSG D 135,610 95 Weighted Average 21,318 15.72% Pervious Area 114,292 84.28% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.2 22 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.3 60 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.3 213 Total NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07" Runoff Area=135,610 sf Runoff Volume=0.653 af Runoff Depth=2.52" Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 10.23 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 1.258 ac, 51.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.96" for 2-yr event Inflow = 4.01 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.206 af Primary = 4.01 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.206 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.258 ac4.01 cfs 4.01 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 2-yr Rainfall=3.07"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.829 ac, 67.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.26" for 2-yr event Inflow = 13.89 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.911 af Primary = 13.89 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.911 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=4.829 ac13.89 cfs 13.89 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=54,791 sf 51.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.70"Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 Runoff=7.30 cfs 0.387 af Runoff Area=74,761 sf 38.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.49"Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 Runoff=7.27 cfs 0.499 af Runoff Area=135,610 sf 84.28% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.34"Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 Runoff=17.07 cfs 1.126 af Inflow=7.30 cfs 0.387 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=7.30 cfs 0.387 af Inflow=24.09 cfs 1.625 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=24.09 cfs 1.625 af Total Runoff Area = 6.087 ac Runoff Volume = 2.013 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.97" 35.56% Pervious = 2.165 ac 64.44% Impervious = 3.922 ac NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff = 7.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.387 af, Depth= 3.70" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 28,152 98 Paved parking, HSG D 26,639 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 54,791 89 Weighted Average 26,639 48.62% Pervious Area 28,152 51.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.1 8 0.0300 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 4.7 42 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.6 33 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 18 0.0600 4.97 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.4 78 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 179 Total NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=54,791 sf Runoff Volume=0.387 af Runoff Depth=3.70" Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 7.30 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff = 7.27 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.499 af, Depth= 3.49" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 46,347 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 28,414 98 Paved parking, HSG D 74,761 87 Weighted Average 46,347 61.99% Pervious Area 28,414 38.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.5 5 0.0005 0.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 7 0.1400 2.62 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.9 63 0.0300 1.21 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.5 46 0.0050 0.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.0 85 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.7 337 Total NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=74,761 sf Runoff Volume=0.499 af Runoff Depth=3.49" Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 7.27 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 21HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff = 17.07 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 1.126 af, Depth= 4.34" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Area (sf) CN Description 21,318 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 14,206 98 Roofs, HSG D 100,086 98 Paved parking, HSG D 135,610 95 Weighted Average 21,318 15.72% Pervious Area 114,292 84.28% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.2 22 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.3 60 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.3 213 Total NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92" Runoff Area=135,610 sf Runoff Volume=1.126 af Runoff Depth=4.34" Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 17.07 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 23HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 1.258 ac, 51.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.70" for 10-yr event Inflow = 7.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.387 af Primary = 7.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.387 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.258 ac7.30 cfs 7.30 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 10-yr Rainfall=4.92"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 24HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.829 ac, 67.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.04" for 10-yr event Inflow = 24.09 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.625 af Primary = 24.09 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.625 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=4.829 ac24.09 cfs 24.09 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 25HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 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=54,791 sf 51.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.54"Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 Runoff=12.46 cfs 0.685 af Runoff Area=74,761 sf 38.01% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.30"Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 Runoff=12.78 cfs 0.902 af Runoff Area=135,610 sf 84.28% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.25"Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 Runoff=27.76 cfs 1.881 af Inflow=12.46 cfs 0.685 afLink DP-1: DP-1 Primary=12.46 cfs 0.685 af Inflow=40.12 cfs 2.783 afLink DP-2: DP-2 Primary=40.12 cfs 2.783 af Total Runoff Area = 6.087 ac Runoff Volume = 3.468 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.84" 35.56% Pervious = 2.165 ac 64.44% Impervious = 3.922 ac NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 26HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff = 12.46 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.685 af, Depth= 6.54" Routed to Link DP-1 : DP-1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 28,152 98 Paved parking, HSG D 26,639 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 54,791 89 Weighted Average 26,639 48.62% Pervious Area 28,152 51.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.1 8 0.0300 0.12 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 4.7 42 0.0200 0.15 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.6 33 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.1 18 0.0600 4.97 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.4 78 0.0300 3.52 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 6.9 179 Total NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 27HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-101: PDA-101 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=54,791 sf Runoff Volume=0.685 af Runoff Depth=6.54" Flow Length=179' Tc=6.9 min CN=89 12.46 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 28HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff = 12.78 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.902 af, Depth= 6.30" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 46,347 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 28,414 98 Paved parking, HSG D 74,761 87 Weighted Average 46,347 61.99% Pervious Area 28,414 38.01% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 0.5 5 0.0005 0.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 7 0.1400 2.62 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.9 63 0.0300 1.21 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.5 46 0.0050 0.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 1.0 85 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 14.7 337 Total NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 29HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-201: PDA-201 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=74,761 sf Runoff Volume=0.902 af Runoff Depth=6.30" Flow Length=337' Tc=14.7 min CN=87 12.78 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 30HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff = 27.76 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 1.881 af, Depth= 7.25" Routed to Link DP-2 : DP-2 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Area (sf) CN Description 21,318 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 14,206 98 Roofs, HSG D 100,086 98 Paved parking, HSG D 135,610 95 Weighted Average 21,318 15.72% Pervious Area 114,292 84.28% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.5 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 1.3 75 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.0 6 0.3300 4.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.2 22 0.1100 2.32 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.3 60 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 11.3 213 Total NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 31HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcatchment PDA-202: PDA-202 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85" Runoff Area=135,610 sf Runoff Volume=1.881 af Runoff Depth=7.25" Flow Length=213' Tc=11.3 min CN=95 27.76 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 32HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-1: DP-1 Inflow Area = 1.258 ac, 51.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.54" for 100-yr event Inflow = 12.46 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.685 af Primary = 12.46 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.685 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-1: DP-1 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.258 ac12.46 cfs 12.46 cfs NOAA 24-hr A 100-yr Rainfall=7.85"C-DAT-2300986-PRO Printed 1/4/2024Prepared by B L Companies Page 33HydroCAD® 10.20-4a s/n 01334 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link DP-2: DP-2 Inflow Area = 4.829 ac, 67.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.91" for 100-yr event Inflow = 40.12 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2.783 af Primary = 40.12 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 2.783 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link DP-2: DP-2 InflowPrimary Hydrograph Time (hours) 3635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=4.829 ac40.12 cfs 40.12 cfs Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix F Environmental Investigations and Repots Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report Phase IV Final Inspection Report and Permanent Solution Statement 355 Research Parkway ▪ Meriden, CT 06450 ▪ T (203) 630-1406 ▪ F (203) 630-2615 ▪ www.blcompanies.com WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE EVALUATION REPORT Proposed Volvo Dealership 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA Prepared for: Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership 40 Russell Street, P.O. Box 547 Hadley, MA 01035 Prepared by: BL Companies 355 Research Parkway Meriden, CT 06450-7100 Date: July 13, 2023 BL Project No: 2300986 Sagan Simko, CPSS, PWS Wesley Wolf Senior Project Scientist II Senior Project Manager An Employee-Owned Company Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA BL Project No. 2300986 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 A. Project Location and Description .......................................................................... 1 B. Description of Project Area .................................................................................. 1 II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 1 A. Records Research ............................................................................................... 1 B. Field Investigation ................................................................................................ 2 1. Wetland and Watercourse Delineation ..................................................... 2 2. Wetland and Watercourse Classification .................................................. 2 III. RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 4 A. Records Research ............................................................................................... 4 B. Field Investigation ................................................................................................ 4 1. Wetlands .................................................................................................. 5 2. Watercourses ........................................................................................... 5 C. Functions & Values .............................................................................................. 5 IV. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 6 V. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 6 APPENDICES A Wetland and Watercourse Delineation Mapping Figure 1 - Street Project Location Map Figure 2 - USGS Project Location Map (USGS Topographic Map) Figure 3 - Soils Map Figure 4 - NWI Figure 5 - FEMA Map Figure 6 - Aerial Imagery Map Figure 7 - Field Data Location Map B Color Photographs C Data Forms D Professional Qualifications Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -1- BL Project No. 2300986 I. INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership is proposing the redevelopment of three contiguous parcels of land, along with associated site improvements, in Northampton, MA, containing a total of approximately 5.36 acres (“Project Area”). The Project Area is located at 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060 (see Appendix A, Figure 1). The Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership (“Client”) has contracted BL Companies (“BL”) to characterize existing wetlands and watercourses that may be affected by the Project and describe the habitats and major vegetative cover types within the Project Area. BL conducted wetland and watercourse field delineations within a Project Area defined by the Client (see Appendix A) on June 1, 2023. This Project Area included the entire 5.36-acre area described above. Investigations were conducted to identify, and delineate if present, the extent and location of jurisdictional wetlands and “Waters of the U.S.” within the Project Area pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act (Sections 401 and 404), and in Massachusetts, activities are also regulated under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40) regulations. In conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), this program is administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Jurisdictional wetlands were defined using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent guidance documents including the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0) (US Corps of Engineers, January 2012). Waters of the U.S., which include all streams, adjacent wetlands, and other waterbodies, are defined in 33 CFR 328.3(a). Adjacent areas were also investigated to the extent possible in order to satisfy the requirements of the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act as well as the City of Northampton’s Chapter 337 Wetlands Protection Ordinance. Professional qualifications of the individual(s) involved in the performance of field surveys and preparation of this report are provided in Appendix D. B. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA The Project Area is located at 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060. The Project Area is comprised entirely of impervious concrete and pavement areas, with residential areas to the east and west, and commercial properties to the north, south, and west, immediately across King Street. A treeline was observed along the eastern boundary of the Project Area, along a paved walking/biking path. The Project Area lies within the New England physiographic province, which is a mountainous area that has been subjected to Pleistocene glaciation. Structural features of this province include block-fault basins, large intrusive igneous masses, and shoreline cliffs. (NPS, 2017). II. METHODOLOGY A. RECORDS RESEARCH A desktop analysis of the Project Area was conducted prior to performing field surveys and included the entire defined area of investigation. Data reviewed included aerial photography, US Geological Survey 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Maps, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (NWI), Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) provided by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), Massachusetts’ Geographic Information Systems Open Data Website, and soil information from the United States Department Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -2- BL Project No. 2300986 of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Other sensitive resource data was reviewed, as available. This compiled data was used during field investigations and the subsequent report. B. FIELD INVESTIGATION Field investigations were conducted to verify records research and identify land use and plant communities within the Project Area, and to determine the presence or absence of wetland and watercourse features. 1. WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE DELINEATION Investigations included the inspection of the Project Area to identify areas that satisfied the three (3) wetland criteria under natural (typical) conditions: a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils, according to the 1987 USACE manual and 2012 Regional Supplement mentioned above. Failure to confirm all three (3) parameters would result in the finding that the area under evaluation is a non-wetland under typical conditions. Furthermore, waterbodies are identified as features with a defined bed and bank or other geographical feature that appears to hold or convey water at some point throughout the year. When identified, wetland sampling is conducted along the gradient between wetland and adjacent upland areas to identify the location of the wetland boundary based upon the above criteria. Sample Points (and/or data points) were placed within selected locations of wetland areas to identify important, defining characteristics and to resolve obscure transitions between mixed wetlands and uplands. Visual estimates of percent vegetation cover by species, indicators of hydrology, and a soil profile were recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms. When identified, waterbody data collection included various physical parameters such as height of banks, top of bank to top of bank width, ordinary high water, water depth, presence of aquatics, substrate characteristics, and flow regime. Mapping of any wetland boundaries and watercourse ordinary high-water marks (“OHWM”) was supplemented using a Trimble® TDC150 Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub-foot accuracy. 2. WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE CLASSIFICATION Identified wetlands were classified in accordance with the methods of Cowardin et al. (1979), which categorizes wetlands based on dominant (>30 percent cover within a single stratum) vegetation: palustrine emergent (“PEM”), palustrine scrub-shrub (“PSS”), palustrine forested (“PFO”), or some combination of these wetland types. Inundated features, such as ponds and lakes, were classified as palustrine unconsolidated bottom (“PUB”). Wetlands were also classified with the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM) of wetland classification (Brinson, 1993). Hydrology was considered present when a minimum of one (1) primary or two (2) secondary indicators were identified. Indicators of wetland hydrology (saturated or inundated soils) along with signs of previous prolonged inundation within the upper 12 inches of the surface were noted at each sample location where observed. Other positive primary indicators of hydrology include high water table, watermarks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, algal mat or crust, iron deposits, inundation visible on aerial imagery, sparsely vegetated concave surface, water-stained leaves, aquatic fauna, marl deposits, hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres on living roots, presence of reduced iron, recent iron reduction in tilled soils, or thin muck surface. Additionally, secondary indicators of hydrology include surface soil cracks, drainage patterns, moss trim lines, Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -3- BL Project No. 2300986 dry-season water table, crayfish burrows, saturation visible on aerial imagery, stunted or stressed plants, geomorphic position, shallow aquitard, and microtopographic relief. A positive FAC-neutral test which was evaluated as a hydrophytic vegetation indicator is also considered a secondary indicator of hydrology. Dominant species in a stratum (tree, shrub, herbaceous or vine) were determined by visually estimating the percent cover of each species within a plot of an approximately 30-foot (ft.) radius for trees, 15-ft. radius for saplings/shrubs, 5-ft. radius for herbs, and a 30-ft. radius for woody vines. Dominant vegetation was determined by the 50/20 Rule; by establishing the plant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. Species nomenclature and wetland indicator status follows that of the USACE National Wetland Plant List (2020, Version 3.5). Hydrophytic species are those wetland plants with an indicator status of OBL (obligate wetland), FACW (facultative wetland), or FAC (facultative). Species listed as FACU (facultative upland) or UPL (upland) are more indicative of upland areas and generally do not occur in wetlands. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion was determined to be present if the following tests were met including the Rapid Test, the Dominance Test or the Prevalence Index. All wetland habitats were classified according to the USFWS, and Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). As outlined in the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Version 8.2 (2018), soils were examined and sampled by using a hand auger or sharpshooter shovel to dig to a depth of approximately 16 to 20 inches or to refusal. Soil colors were determined using the 2010 Munsell® Soil Color Chart and taken while moist or were wetted. Observations of redoximorphic (redox) concentrations, the apparent accumulation of iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) oxides within the soil profile were noted as appropriate. Redox depletions, bodies of low chroma and value of four (4) or more where Fe-Mn oxides have been stripped were also noted where observed. These features are usually an indication of periodic, seasonal, or permanent saturated soil conditions (Vepraskas 1994). Observations of hydric soil characteristics were based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) textures, and hydric soil was considered present if one or more of the indicators were identified. Biophysical elements such as a wetland’s landscape position, geology, hydrology, substrate, and vegetation determine the wetland functions and to what capacity they are performed. Due to the differing biophysical characteristics between on-site wetlands, the functions the wetlands provide and the capacity to perform those functions can vary. To better understand these differences, a description of the assessed wetland functions and values is completed based on the 1999 USACE Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement. This method requires describing each of the wetland communities and indicating the functions and values they provide. Biological, physical, chemical, and anthropogenic variables are all considered in the assessment. Wetland functions are defined as self-sustaining properties of a wetland ecosystem that exist in the absence of society. Wetland values are defined as benefits derived from one or more wetland functions and the physical characteristics that are associated with the wetland. Field investigations also included the identification of watercourses based on flow regime: perennial (PER), intermittent (INT), or ephemeral (EPH). Perennial watercourses contain base flow supported with ground water throughout the year. Intermittent watercourses are those that contain base flow supported by ground water at least seasonally. Ephemeral waterbodies are primarily supported by precipitation. Watercourses were also classified in accordance with Cowardin et al. (1979). Riverine Systems include all wetlands and deep-water habitats contained within a channel. A channel is defined as “an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water.” There are six (6) subsystems: Tidal, Lower Perennial, Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -4- BL Project No. 2300986 Upper Perennial, Intermittent, Unknown Perennial, and Ephemeral. Jurisdiction is ultimately determined through the USACE’s Jurisdictional Determination process. III. RESULTS A. RECORDS RESEARCH The USGS Northampton, Massachusetts 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle (see Appendix A, Figure 2), and Google Earth, indicate the Project Area has an elevation range between approximately 135 feet and 140 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, one (1) soil series was identified within the Project Area. Table 1 includes the soil series and physical characteristics and limitations. Soils mapping for the Project Area is provided in Appendix A, Figure 3. Table 1. Soil Series within the Project Area Map Unit Symbol Soil Unit Name Hydric Soil Components (%) Drainage Class Depth to Restrictive Layer (inches) Depth to Water Table (inches) 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 15 Moderately to Somewhat Excessively Drained More than 80 inches About 18 to 36 inches The Massachusetts state wetlands mapping with integrated USFWS NWI wetlands does not indicate the presence of any wetland or stream features on the Project Area; however, this mapping indicated the presence of mapped features within the 200-foot buffer around the Project Area. These features were mapped as a Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded (R5UBH) and a Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded (PEM1E) (see Appendix A, Figure 4). Review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) map indicates the Project Area is located within an area that is not included on the FEMA mapping (see Appendix A, Figure 5). Aerial photography indicates the Project Area is comprised entirely of impervious concrete and pavement areas, with residential areas to the east and west, and commercial properties to the north, south, and west, immediately across King Street (see Appendix A, Figure 6). B. FIELD INVESTIGATION Field observations reflected similar land use as observed during the desktop review. The Project Area is comprised entirely of impervious concrete and pavement areas, with residential areas to the east and west, and commercial properties to the north, south, and west, immediately across King Street. A treeline was observed along the eastern boundary of the Project Area, along a paved walking/biking path. Based on field observations, it has been determined that no wetland or steams are present within the Project Area; however, two (2) wetland areas and one (1) stream are present within the 200- foot buffer surrounding the Project Area (see Appendix A, Figure 7). Field Data Location Mapping, photographs of the Project Area, and Wetland Determination Data Forms are provided in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -5- BL Project No. 2300986 1. WETLANDS Wetland A: Wetland A is a Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PEM1E) wetland. This wetland is located approximately 113 feet to the east of the Project Area, across from the adjacent railroad tracks. The hydrologic indicators for Wetland A are High Water Table (A2) and FAC-Neutral Test (D5). Dominant vegetation includes silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) in the shrub layer, and yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus) and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) in the herbaceous layer. The soil observed in Wetland A meets the hydric soil indicator for Depleted Matrix (F3). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the soil mapped within the delineated wetland area is Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (741A). Soil observed within the wetland most closely matched the hydric Maybid soil series, which is a minor component of the Amostown-Windsor-Urban land complex. Wetland B: Wetland B is a Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PEM1E) wetland. This wetland is located approximately 90 feet to the east of the Project Area, across from the adjacent railroad tracks. The hydrologic indicators for Wetland B are Saturation (A3), Geomorphic Position (D2), and FAC- Neutral Test (D5). Dominant vegetation includes red maple (Acer rubrum) in the tree layer, silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) in the shrub layer, skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) in the herbaceous layer, and Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) in the vine layer. The soil observed in Wetland B meets the hydric soil indicator for Depleted Matrix (F3). According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the soil mapped within the delineated wetland area is Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (741A). Soil observed within the wetland most closely matched the hydric Maybid soil series, which is a minor component of the Amostown-Windsor-Urban land complex. 2. WATERCOURSES Stream 1 is classified as a Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded watercourse (R5UBH). Stream 1 is located approximately 105 feet to the east of the Project Area, across from the adjacent railroad tracks, and flows north to south, into a culvert and then beneath a residential area. The substrate of Stream 1 consisted primarily of approximately 75% silt to 25% muck throughout the entire reach of the watercourse. The watercourse was 6 to 10 inches deep at the time of the investigation, with a slow flow. The channel varied in width from 1 to 2 feet. Contributing flow to the stream includes Wetland A as well as surface water runoff from the surrounding upland areas. C. FUNCTIONS & VALUES The functions and values of the Stream 1 complex area (consisting of Stream 1, Wetland A and Wetland B) include ground water recharge/discharge, floodflow alteration, nutrient retention, and wildlife habitat. Ground water is discharged when the ground water table is high and intersects the soil surface. This function is prominent in the Stream 1 complex area. The riparian areas along Stream 1 allow for surface water to slowly percolate back into the water table, which allows for Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -6- BL Project No. 2300986 floodwater to be retained, abating downstream flooding. Nutrients from the adjacent residential properties, as well as roadways, can be absorbed and retained within the vegetation of the riparian area of this stream complex. The wooded and shrubby stream embankment area provides a contrasting habitat area to the surrounding upland maintained residential areas. IV. SUMMARY Based upon these observations and best professional judgement, it has been determined that no wetlands or streams are located within the Project Area; however, two (2) wetlands and one (1) stream that constitute potential jurisdictional features are located adjacent to the Project Area to the east, within the 200-foot buffer. The findings of this investigation represent a study of the proposed project for non-tidal wetlands and watercourses. This type of study depends on the time of year, the conditions at that time of year, site-specific influences (e.g., artificial disturbance), and individual professional judgment. It is, therefore, a professional estimate of the Project Area's wetlands and watercourses based upon available information and techniques. The data that is the basis for this report is on file at BL Companies’ Meriden, CT office. V. REFERENCES 1. 33 United States Code, 2010 Edition. Navigation and Navigable Waters. 2. Brinson, Mark M. “A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands.” Wetlands Research Program (U.S.), Environmental Laboratory (U.S.). 1993 3. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. 4. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss. 5. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ 6. Massachusetts General Law M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 (2014). 7. MassGIS. “MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information) Website.” https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massgis-bureau-of-geographic-information. 2023 8. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Year 2010 Revised Washable Edition. 9. National Parks Service (NPS). “Physiographic Provinces.” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/physiographic-provinces.htm. 2017 10. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program, November 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0). Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA -7- BL Project No. 2300986 11. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2019. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 12. United States Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Map Service Center, https://msc.fema.gov/ 13. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service – National Wetlands Inventory. 2019. Wetlands Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html 14. United States Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle of East Hampton, MA. 2021. 15. USACE. 1999. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement. Wetland Functions and Values: A Descriptive Approach. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. NAEEP 360-1-30a. 32 p 16. Vasilas LM, Hurt GW, and Noble CV. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 8.2. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 17. Vepraskas MJ. 1994. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 301. 33 pp. Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA BL Project No. 2300986 APPENDIX A Wetland and Watercourse Delineation Mapping Figure 1 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - PROJECT LOCATION MAP LegendProject Area 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:12,000 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\1. Project Location Map.mxd Figure 2 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP LegendProject Area 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:24,000 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\2. USGS Topographic Map.mxd 741A 30A Figure 3 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 100 200 300 400 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - SOILS MAP LegendProject Area Soil Type / Boundary 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:2,400 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\3. Soil Survey Map.mxd R5UBH PEM1E Figure 4 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 100 200 300 400 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - NWI MAP LegendProject Area MA WetlandsNWI Wetland 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:2,400 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\4. NWI Map.mxd Figure 5 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 100 200 300 400 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - FEMA MAP LegendProject Area AREA NOT INCLUDED 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:2,400 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\5. FEMA Map.mxd No Digital Data Figure 6 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 100 200 300 400 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - AERIAL IMAGERY MAP LegendProject Area 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts SMS WGW 2300986 1:2,400 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\6. Aerial Imagery Map.mxd l!(l!( l!( l!(l!(l!(l!(l!( SP 4 SP 3 SP 2 SP 1 43 7 8 6 5 2 1 Figure 7 PROJECT NO:DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: 355 Research ParkwayMeriden, CT 06450-7100(203) 630-1406 0 100 200 300 400 Feet GRAPHIC SCALE [ 171 & 185 KING STREET VOLVO SITE PROJECT - FIELD DATA LOCATION MAP LegendProject AreaSample Point (SP)l!(Photo Number / Direction Delineated StreamsDelineated Wetlands Elisabeth C. Adams Middle School, Guilford, Connecticut SMS WGW 2300986 1:2,400 Document Path: G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\GIS\MXD\7. Field Data Location Map.mxd Stream 1R5UBH(377 l.f as drawn) Wetland APEM1E(0.31 acresas drawn) 2 00-footBufferArea200-footBufferAre a Wetland BPEM1E(0.004 acresas drawn) Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA BL Project No. 2300986 APPENDIX B Color Photographs Photo # 1Date: June 1, 2023Direction: WestDescriptionWestern view of Sample Point 1 in an emergent wetland point, Wetland A, located to the east of the Project Area. 171 & 185 King Street Volvo ProjectNorthampton, MassachusettsPhotographic DocumentationPhotographic DocumentationBL Companies1Photo # 2Date: June 1, 2023Direction: NorthDescriptionNorthern view of Sample Point 2 in a forested non-wetland point, located to the east of the Project Area, adjacent to Wetland A. Photo # 3Date: June 1, 2023Direction: EastDescriptionEastern view of Sample Point 3 in an emergent wetland point, Wetland B, located to the east of the Project Area. 171 & 185 King Street Volvo ProjectNorthampton, MassachusettsPhotographic DocumentationPhotographic DocumentationBL Companies2Photo # 4Date: June 1, 2023Direction: NorthDescriptionNorthern view of Sample Point 4 in a forested non-wetland point, located to the east of the Project Area, adjacent to Wetland B. Photo # 5Date: June 1, 2023Direction: NorthDescriptionNorthern view of Stream 1 located to the east of the Project Area. 171 & 185 King Street Volvo ProjectNorthampton, MassachusettsPhotographic DocumentationPhotographic DocumentationBL Companies3Photo # 6Date: June 1, 2023Direction: NorthDescriptionNorthern view of the northern portion of the Project Area. Photo # 7Date: June 1, 2023Direction: WestDescriptionWestern view of the southwestern portion of the Project Area. 171 & 185 King Street Volvo ProjectNorthampton, MassachusettsPhotographic DocumentationPhotographic DocumentationBL Companies4Photo # 8Date: June 1, 2023Direction: EastDescriptionEastern view of the southeastern portion of the Project Area. Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA BL Project No. 2300986 APPENDIX C Data Forms US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Volvo, 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA Springfield/Hampshire County 2023-06-01 Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Massachusetts SP 1 Sagan Simko, CPSS, PWS Depression Concave 2 42.326884 -72.631607 NAD83_2011 741A - Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes PEM1E 4 4 4 4 4 4 SP 1 is within Wetland A. R 145 Wetland A 4 4 4 1 4 Wetland hydrology is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) SP 1 30 feet 3 3 100 60 60 55 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 170 1.48 4 4 4 15 feet Cornus amomum 15 4 FACW 15% 5 feet Iris pseudacorus 50 4 OBL Onoclea sensibilis 40 4 FACW Juncus effusus 10 OBL 100% 30 feet 4 Wetland hydrophytic vegetation is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: - - - - - - - - - - - - SP 1 0 5 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy Sand 5 22 10YR 5/2 80 10YR 5/6 20 C M Loamy Sand 4 4 Wetland hydric soil is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Volvo, 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA Springfield/Hampshire County 2023-06-01 Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Massachusetts SP 2 Sagan Simko, CPSS, PWS Hillslope Concave 4 42.326763 -72.631597 NAD83_2011 741A - Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4 4 4 4 4 4 No wetland indicators are present. R 145 4 No wetland hydrology is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) SP 2 30 feet Populus grandidentata 60 4 FACU Catalpa speciosa 20 4 FACU 80% 1 5 20 0 0 0 0 5 15 145 580 0 0 150 595 3.97 15 feet Populus grandidentata 15 4 FACU Frangula alnus 5 4 FAC 20% 5 feet Parthenocissus quinquefolia 50 4 FACU 50% 30 feet 4 No wetland vegetation is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: - - - - - - - - - - - - SP 2 0 3 10YR 4/3 100 Sandy Loam 3 18 10YR 5/3 100 Sandy Loam 4 No wetland soil is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Volvo, 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA Springfield/Hampshire County 2023-07-10 Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Massachusetts SP 3 Sagan Simko, CPSS, PWS Terrace Concave 2 42.327414 -72.631789 NAD83_2011 741A - Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4 4 4 4 4 4 SP 3 is within Wetland B. R 145 Wetland B 4 4 4 4 2 4 Wetland hydrology is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) SP 3 30 feet Acer rubrum 10 4 FAC 10% 3 4 75 80 80 10 20 10 30 15 60 0 0 115 190 1.65 4 4 15 feet Cornus amomum 10 4 FACW 10% 5 feet Symplocarpus foetidus 80 4 OBL Reynoutria japonica 10 FACU 90% 30 feet Celastrus orbiculatus 5 4 FACU 5% 4 Wetland hydrophytic vegetation is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: - - - - - - - - - - - - SP 3 0 3 10YR 3/2 100 Silt Loam 3 20 10YR 3/2 80 10YR 5/4 20 C M Silty Clay Loam 4 4 Wetland hydric soil is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16) Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Vis ble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Volvo, 171 & 185 King Street, Northampton, MA Springfield/Hampshire County 2023-07-10 Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Massachusetts SP 4 Sagan Simko, CPSS, PWS Terrace Linear 3 42.327629 -72.631825 NAD83_2011 741A - Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4 4 4 4 4 4 No wetland indicators are present. R 145 4 No wetland hydrology is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) SP 4 30 feet Acer rubrum 80 4 FAC Populus deltoides 20 4 FAC 100% 2 4 50 0 0 0 0 100 300 120 480 0 0 220 780 3.55 15 feet 5 feet Reynoutria japonica 100 4 FACU 100% 30 feet Celastrus orbiculatus 20 4 FACU 20% 4 No wetland vegetation is present. US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B) Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B) Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (F21) Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: - - - - - - - - - - - - SP 4 0 4 10YR 4/3 100 Silt Loam 4 18 10YR 5/3 100 Silty Clay Loam 4 No wetland soil is present. Wetland and Watercourse Evaluation Report July 13, 2023 Proposed Volvo Dealership - Northampton, MA BL Project No. 2300986 APPENDIX D Professional Qualifications PHASE IV FINAL INSPECTION REPORT AND PERMANENT SOLUTION STATEMENT 171 TO 187 KING STREET NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS RTN 1-16091 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Don Lia 1055 East Jericho Turnpike Huntington, NY 11743 PREPARED BY: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 655 Winding Brook Drive, Suite 402 Glastonbury, CT 06033 File No. 05.0045425.01 September 2015 655 Winding Brook Drive Suite 402 Glastonbury, CT 06033 860.286.8900 www.gza.com Geotechnical Environmental Ecological Water Construction Management Proactive by Design September 15, 2015 GZA File No. 05.0045425.01 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup 436 Dwight Street Springfield, MA 01103 Re: Phase IV Final Inspection Report & Permanent Solution Statement 171 – 187 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts Release Tracking Number: 1-16091 To Whom It May Concern: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) has prepared this Phase IV Final Inspection Report (FIR) & Permanent Solution Statement (PSS) for the former Lia Honda Dealership facility located at 171-187 King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts (hereafter "the Site"). The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Release Tracking Number (RTN) for the Site is 1-16091. This Phase IV FIR and PSS serve to document the implementation of the Comprehensive Response Action (CRA) described in the July 2015 Phase IV RIP Addendum and the current status of the Site and were prepared in accordance with Section 310 CMR 40.0878 and 40.1056 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Comprehensive Response Action and Permanent and Temporary Solution Statement Transmittal Forms (BWSC108 and BWSC104) have been filed electronically with MassDEP along with the report. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the information presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. David Rusczyk Albert Ricciardelli, P.E., LSP Senior Project Manager Senior Principal 860-858-3110 781-278-3138 david.rusczyk@gza.com albert.ricciardelli@gza.com cc: Mr. Don Lia TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Disposal Site History ........................................................................ 2 1.2 PHASE IV RIP ADDENDUM PRE-REMEDIATION SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................... 2 PHASE IV REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 4 2.1 PERMITTING ................................................................................................ 4 2.2 MOBILIZATION AND SITE PREPARATION .................................................... 4 2.3 IN-SITU STABILIZATION, EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND SITE RESTORATION ............................................................................................. 5 2.4 AIR MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS ............................... 6 2.4.1 Health and Safety Management and Safety Meetings ................... 6 2.4.2 Perimeter Air Monitoring ................................................................ 7 2.4.3 Environmental Controls .................................................................. 7 REMEDIATION WASTE AND OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT .................................. 7 PHASE IV FINAL INSPECTION REPORT ..................................................................... 8 PHASE IV COMPLETION STATEMENT ...................................................................... 8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................. 8 PERMANENT SOLUTION STATEMENT ..................................................................... 9 TABLES Table 1 Summary of Post-Stabilization TCLP Sample Results Table 2 Summary of Field Density Testing Results Table 3 Summary of Perimeter Air Monitoring Data FIGURES FIGURE 1 Site Locus FIGURE 2 Site Plan FIGURE 3 Remedial Excavations APPENDICES Appendix A Limitations Appendix B Permits/Notices Appendix C Laboratory Reports (TCLP and Waste Characterization) Appendix D Imported Fill Analytical Testing and Imported Fill Documentation Appendix E Waste Disposal Documentation Appendix F Method 3 Risk Characterization Appendix G Notice Letter Appendix H Representativeness Evaluation and Data Usability Assessment Appendix I Best Management Practices For Non-Commercial Gardening 1 INTRODUCTION GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) has prepared this Phase IV Final Inspection Report (FIR) and Permanent Solution Statement (PSS) for the former Lia Honda Dealership facility located at 171- 187 King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts (hereafter "the Site"). A Locus Plan is included as Figure 1 and a Site Plan as Figure 2. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Release Tracking Number (RTN) for the Site is 1-16091. On July 8, 2015, GZA submitted a Phase IV Remedial Implementation Plan (RIP) Addendum to the MassDEP on behalf of Mr. Don Lia. This report provided information related to the implementation of the Comprehensive Response Action (CRA) including the results of pre-characterization soil sampling; a discussion of a Method 3 Risk Characterization that was utilized to establish the limits of required remediation to attain a condition of no significant risk (NSR); and a description of the planned remedial action including in-situ stabilization of soils impacted by lead; excavation of stabilized soils for off-Site transportation and disposal; backfilling of excavations; and replacement of asphalt pavement. The goal of this work was to achieve a Permanent Solution Statement under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) without the requirement for an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) but with the specification of Best Management Practices for non-commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). This Phase IV FIR and PSS serve to document the implementation of the CRA described in the July 2015 Phase IV RIP Addendum and the current status of the Site and were prepared in accordance with Section 310 CMR 40.0878 and 40.1056 of the MCP. Comprehensive Response Action and Permanent and Temporary Solution Statement Transmittal Forms (BWSC108 and BWSC104) have been filed electronically with MassDEP along with the report. The report is subject to the limitations presented in Appendix A. 1.1 SITE BACKGROUND The Site consists of three parcels located at 171 to 187 King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts totaling approximately 5.4 acres. The Site was previously improved with an approximate 20,300-square foot building associated with the former Lia Honda dealership, which was located on the southern portion of the Site. According to a March 2012 Class C-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) prepared for the Site by EnviroTrac Ltd (ET)1, the former two-story, slab-on-grade building was constructed in 1968 and included showroom areas, a vehicle repair garage, a car wash, parts storage and office space. A shed was also previously located near the southeast corner of the former Site building. According to the RAO, the Site was first developed between 1902 and 1910 and was used for automobile sales beginning in approximately 1946. Additional former uses included a railroad spur in 1902, a gasoline filling station, a junkyard between approximately 1928 and 1951, and a machine shop. According to the RAO, the Site had been utilized for automobile sales since the mid-1940s. As described below, the Site buildings were demolished in 2014. Current Site features include the concrete foundation and slab associated with the former Site building and asphalt paved parking areas. A former railroad right-of-way crosses the center of the Site. The Site is currently vacant. A figure depicting current Site conditions is included as Figure 2. 1 Class C-2 Response Action Outcome, 171-187 King Street, Northampton, MA; RTN 1-16091, EnviroTrac, March, 8, 2012. 2 1.1.1 Disposal Site History A more detailed description of the Site history is provided in ET’s Class C-2 RAO and ET’s August 2010 Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA)2. Based on information in those reports, the Site has been used for automobile sales (since about 1946) and as a gasoline filling station, a junk yard, and a machine shop prior to that. The Site was also formerly subject to a railroad right-of-way. Fire department records documented that a 1,000-gallon waste oil underground storage tank (UST) and 7,000-gallon gasoline UST formerly located at the east side of the existing building were installed in approximately 1969 and removed in 1986. Heavy metal, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and extractable petroleum hydrocarbon/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (EPH/PAH) impacts to soil and heavy metals impacts to groundwater were detected at the Site in the mid to late 2000s. In February 2006, the Licensed Site Professional (LSP) at the time reported these impacts to MassDEP. Subsequent investigations and remedial activities at the Site (including soil excavation and offsite disposal, fencing, pavement repair and hydraulic lift removals) have been conducted by other environmental consultants under the direction of the property owner between 2006 and March 2015. On August 1, 2011 a Phase IV RIP prepared by ET, on behalf of Impact Environmental (Impact), was submitted to the MassDEP. The RIP described the selected CRA as determined in the March 2011 Phase III Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The selected CRA consisted of excavation and ex- situ solidification/stabilization (as necessary) of soils with elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead and PCBs, to levels below MCP S-1 GW-2/GW-3 standards and below classification as a RCRA hazardous waste. However, the CRA was not implemented and instead the 2012 Class C-2 RAO was prepared and submitted by ET (a revised C-2 RAO was issued by ET in December 2013). The Class C-2 RAO concluded that a condition of No Substantial Hazard (NSH) to human health, public welfare and the environment existed at the Site, so long as the impacted soils were underneath a layer of intact pavement. The Class C-2 RAO included annual monitoring of the pavement condition. As a result of this monitoring, pavement repairs were made at the Site in November 2013 and documented in a March 2014 Post Class C RAO Status Report prepared by ET. As documented in ET’s April 21, 2015 Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Completion Report, in July 2014, Site buildings including the former Lia Honda showroom and auto repair maintenance buildings were demolished. The majority of the concrete slabs and foundations of the former buildings were left in place. ET completed a RAM Completion Report in April 2015 which documented the removal of hydraulic lifts beneath the former Lia Honda building, as well as the cleaning and capping of an oil/water separator. Sampling by ET at former lift locations and the inspection of the separator revealed no evidence of a release of oil and/or hazardous materials at these locations and ET therefore backfilled the lift excavations with clean imported fill. 1.2 PHASE IV RIP ADDENDUM PRE-REMEDIATION SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Beginning in March 2015, GZA performed a preliminary risk assessment utilizing the existing data summarized in the August 2010 Phase II CSA and March 2011 Phase III RAP. Using the results of this preliminary risk assessment, GZA identified six areas where lead impacted soil removal might be required to reach a condition of NSR at the Site. The six areas were identified as follows: 2 Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment, Former Lia Honda Dealership, 171-187 King Street, Northampton, Massachusetts, August, 5, 2010, EnviroTrac, Ltd. 3 • Area proximate to boring B-1 • Area proximate to borings P-19 and B-21 • Area proximate to borings B-26, B-33, and HB-5 • Area proximate to borings B-38 and B-39 • Area proximate to boring B-403 • Area proximate to boring HB-1 Refer to Figure 2 for the location of these borings. With the exception of elevated EPH/PAH concentrations detected in a shallow soil sample (0 to 8 inches below grade) at boring B-40, the primary risk driver was identified to be lead concentrations in soil. Though other compounds contribute to the cumulative risk at the Site, GZA concluded that the remediation of soil with the highest lead concentrations would allow the Site to attain a condition of NSR. On April 22, 23, 28 and 29, 2015, GZA was on-Site with Seaboard Geological & Environmental Drilling Services Inc. (Seaboard) to collect soil samples to pre-characterize the soil for off-Site disposal and determine the lateral and vertical extent of lead-based subsurface impacts at the six potential excavation areas listed above. The pre-characterization program consisted of the performance of 61 borings (GZ-1 through GZ-56, GZ-2A, GZ-3A, GZ-4A, GZ-5A, and GZ-6A). Exploration locations are depicted in red and green on Figure 2. At each of the six potential excavation areas, borings were performed at various distances from the original data point(s) to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the excavations. As part of the pre-remedial investigation, soil samples4 were submitted for total lead analysis to delineate extents of each of the six areas. Additional samples were submitted for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to assess the need to perform on-Site in-situ stabilization of the lead impacted soil. Lastly, one surficial soil sample was submitted for EPH and PAH analysis to further evaluate an apparent localized hotspot at the B-40 location. Results of the assessment are discussed in more detail within the Phase IV RIP Addendum and are summarized in Section 7.0 of this report. Test boring logs, analytical data and laboratory reports were also included as part of the referenced report. In summary, five of the six areas listed above were determined to warrant remediation via soil excavation to achieve a condition of NSR. The previously detected elevated lead concentration at boring location B-1 could not be duplicated during the recent investigation and it is likely the soils proximate to exploration B-1 had been addressed during soil excavation activities previously performed in this area (Excavation A) in June/September 2006. TCLP results indicated that in-situ stabilization of soil was necessary to reduce leachable lead concentrations below the threshold for classification as hazardous waste (5 mg/L). Representative soil samples collected in the vicinity of the potential EPH/PAH “hot-spot” previously identified at boring B-40 did not exhibit elevated concentrations of EPH/PAH related compounds and it is believed that the original sample results were potentially biased high due to the presence of asphalt fragments within the sample matrix. Given these observations, an EPH/PAH hot-spot does not appear to exist at sample location B-40; however, the soils proximate to sample location B-40 were conservatively excavated and disposed off-Site during the Phase IV remedial activities. 3 The risk drivers for this location were elevated concentrations of EPH and PAHs that were detected in the shallow (0-8 inch) soil sample at boring B-40. 4 Soil samples were analyzed on an iterative basis to determine the lateral and vertical limits of the excavations. Given this approach, as indicated on Figure 2, soil samples were not analyzed from 13 of the 61 borings. 4 As described in the Phase IV RIP Addendum, the CRA involved the in-situ stabilization of lead impacted soil at the five areas of concern. Technical Specifications for the implementation of the CRA were also included in the Phase IV RIP Addendum and included details for the following activities: site preparation, erosion and sedimentation controls, earthwork, in-situ soil stabilization, the removal and replacement of asphalt pavement, and off-Site transport and disposal or recycling requirements. PHASE IV REMEDY IMPLEMENTATION Remedial construction activities were performed by T-Ford Company, Inc. (T-Ford) of Georgetown, Massachusetts, from July 23, 2015 through September 2, 2015. General remedial activities included mobilization and Site preparation; removal and off-Site recycling of existing asphalt materials, in-situ stabilization of soil; excavation and off-Site disposal of stabilized soil; backfilling and Site restoration; and demobilization. The following sections provide a summary of the CRA conducted at the Site. During the implementation of the CRA, GZA performed perimeter air monitoring services for the presence of fugitive dust emissions and organic vapors and provided construction observation to document compliance with the Technical Specifications. 2.1 PERMITTING In accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, the following permits and approvals were obtained to conduct the Phase IV remediation activities: • In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1403(3)(a), notification of the performance of the Phase IV CRA was provided to the City of Northampton Mayor’s Office and the Board of Health prior to commencement of CRA activities. • Dig-Safe was notified by T-Ford prior to commencement of the Phase IV CRA. Dig-Safe Ticket No. 20152809332 was issued for Site excavation activities. • Pursuant to G.L. ch. 82A and 520 CMR 14.00 et seq. (as amended), T-Ford obtained an Excavation/Trench Permit (Permit No. 2016-023) from the City of Northampton Public Works Department. Please refer to Appendix B for copies of these permits/notices. 2.2 MOBILIZATION AND SITE PREPARATION Site mobilization and preparation began with a project orientation meeting on July 23, 2015. T-Ford mobilized to the Site on July 24, 2015. Initial CRA implementation activities included: • Mark-out and photo-documentation of original conditions at each excavation area. • Installation of approximately 744 feet of 6-foot high temporary chain-link construction fencing along the west side of the Site (King Street) and portions of the northern and eastern property lines. This temporary fencing supplemented existing Site fencing to secure the work area from unauthorized entry by the public. • Installation of an approximate 15 foot wide by 50 foot long anti-tracking pad at the construction entrance to mitigate the off-Site migration of Site materials. The pad was constructed with an approximate 6-inch layer of 1.5-inch crushed stone placed over a non-woven geotextile fabric underlayment. 5 • Installation of erosion and sedimentation controls consisting of approximately 600 linear feet of 12-inch diameter straw wattles and silt sacks within the existing Site stormwater collection basins. The straw wattles were installed along the west side of the Site along King Street and in portions of the east side of the Site. • Mobilization of construction equipment including a CAT 930K front-end loader and Komatsu PC2288us excavator. Saw-cutting of the existing asphalt pavement at each of the five excavation areas in preparation for asphalt removal. 2.3 IN-SITU STABILIZATION, EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND SITE RESTORATION T-Ford completed the in-situ stabilization, excavation, backfilling, and Site restoration between July 24 and September 2, 2015. A summary of the CRA implementation activities is as follows: • After saw-cutting, T-Ford removed the existing asphalt at each of the five excavation areas. The resulting asphalt debris was either live-loaded directly into trucks or temporarily stockpiled adjacent to the excavation area prior to transportation to the John S. Lane & Son, Incorporated (Lane) facility in Amherst, Massachusetts for recycling. As summarized in Section 3, a total of approximately 145 tons of asphalt was transported off-Site for recycling. • Upon exposing the underlying soils, Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc., under contract to T-Ford, applied their proprietary reagent5 to the surface of each excavation area on July 28, 2015. The reagent was gravity drained and evenly distributed over the surface of each excavation area. The following approximate volumes of reagent were applied to each area: o Area proximate to borings P-19 and B-21 – 240 gallons o Area proximate to borings B-26, B-33, and HB-5 – 530 gallons o Area proximate to borings B-38 and B-39 – 435 gallons o Area proximate to boring B-40 – 70 gallons o Area proximate to boring HB-1 – 230 gallons • After application of the reagent, between July 28 and July 30, 2015, T-Ford used an excavator to thoroughly mix/blend the target soil volume with the reagent. Soil and reagent were mixed to depths ranging from surface grade to up to 4 feet below surface grade, depending upon the proposed excavation depth of the particular soil excavation area. GZA collected a series of soil samples from each excavation area to determine if the concentration of leachable lead in the stabilized soil was below the target concentration of 5 mg/L. Sampling began on July 29, 2015 and was completed on July 30, 2015. The samples were collected at a frequency of one sample for every approximately 100 cubic yards (CY) of stabilized soil; a total of thirteen (13) representative soil samples were collected from the approximate sampling locations depicted on Figure 3. Each sample consisted of a composite sample collected from the vertical profile of the targeted excavation depth (2 to 4 feet below grade) at each location. The samples were submitted to Phoenix Laboratories of Manchester, Connecticut for TCLP lead analysis. The analytical results are presented in Table 1 and 5 The reagent consisted of Sevenson’s MAECTITE® chemical treatment process. 6 copies of the laboratory data reports are included in Appendix C. As indicated in Table 1, the analytical results indicated that leachable lead concentrations in all thirteen 13 samples were below 5 mg/L. • Upon confirmation that the stabilization process was complete, the soil was excavated from each of the five areas and transported off-Site as non-hazardous waste to Waste Management’s Turnkey facility (Turnkey) located in Rochester, New Hampshire. Excavation was completed to depths ranging from 2 feet to 4 feet below surface grade and, as summarized in Section 3, a total of approximately 1,728 tons of stabilized soil was shipped to the Turnkey facility from the five excavation areas (approximately 375 tons from the P-19/B-21 area, approximately 623 tons from the B-26/B-33/HB-5 area, approximately 400 tons from the B-38/B-39 area, approximately 70 tons from the B-40 area, and approximately 260 tons from the HB-1 area). Figure 3 depicts the approximate limits and depths of the excavation at the five target areas. • The five excavation areas were backfilled with imported Gravel Borrow from the Lane quarry located in Amherst, Massachusetts. Prior to importing to the Site, a sample of the Gravel Borrow was analyzed for priority pollutant metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, PCBs, MassDEP EPH, and pesticides. The sample results indicated that the concentrations of the tested compounds were below the RCS-1 Reportable Concentrations for soils and the Gravel Borrow was deemed non-impacted and acceptable for use as fill at the Site. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix D. A total of approximately 1,978 tons of Gravel Borrow were imported to the Site and used as backfill. Copies of the receipts for the imported fill are included in Appendix D. • The Gravel Borrow was placed in systematic lifts not exceeding 12-inches in thickness to a depth of approximately 3-inches below the surrounding ground surface. Each lift was compacted with several passes with a vibratory roller. GZA performed field density testing of the compacted material to verify that the compactive effort was sufficient to meet project’s requirements. The results of this testing are summarized in Table 2 and confirmed that the compactive effort was sufficient to meet the project’s requirements. • After backfilling, each excavation was restored to match original grade with 3 inches of asphalt. A total of approximately 212 tons of asphalt was placed during the restoration of the excavation areas. Copies of the receipts for the asphalt are included in Appendix D. 2.4 AIR MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS 2.4.1 Health and Safety Management and Safety Meetings Consistent with the Technical Specifications attached to the Phase IV RIP Addendum, T-Ford engaged a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) to prepare a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to protect worker’s health and safety and the public during the implementation of the CRA. As required by the HASP, GZA and T-Ford performed daily health and safety tailgate meetings at the beginning of each work day. Meeting topics 7 covered included a discussion of daily remediation activities, assessment of potential hazards, discussion of potential safety issues, and weather concerns. 2.4.2 Perimeter Air Monitoring As described in the Technical Specifications attached to the Phase IV RIP Addendum, the following perimeter action levels were established for the implementation of the CRA to be protective of the public and Site workers: • Instantaneous particulate dust levels in excess of 150 micro-grams per cubic meter (µg/m3) or visible dust at the Site perimeter shall not be allowed. • Organic vapors in excess of 1 part per million above background levels at the Site perimeter shall not be allowed During the course of the work, GZA monitored ambient air quality for fugitive dust emissions and organic vapors for compliance with these action levels. Monitoring was performed with a portable Dust-Trak and a photoionization detector (PID) equipped with a 10.6 eV lamp; the results of this air monitoring are summarized in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, the implementation of the CRA did not result in exceedances of these Action Levels. 2.4.3 Environmental Controls During the performance of the remedial work, soil stockpiles were covered with 6-mil polyethylene sheeting during all non-working hours. The sheeting was weighted down with larger cobbles and boulders encountered during excavation of the soil from the five remedial areas. In addition, a trailer mounted construction water system was maintained on Site during the execution of the work in the event elevated dust readings were observed. REMEDIATION WASTE AND OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT During the implementation of the CRA, remediation waste was generated, managed, and transported for off-Site disposal/recycling in accordance with the MCP and 310 CMR 30.0000 (see disposal documentation in Appendix E). Remediation waste and other waste materials generated for disposal, their quantities, and disposal facilities are summarized below. Generated Remediation Wastes, Other Wastes, Quantities, and Disposal Facilities Material Type Description Quantity Disposal Facility Solid Waste Asphalt 145 Tons S. Lane and Son Amherst, MA Non-Hazardous Material/Remediation Waste Soil 1,728 Tons Waste Management’s Turnkey facility Rochester, NH Consistent with requirements of 310 CMR 40.0034, a complete Bill of Lading (BOL) for the non- hazardous Remediation Waste shipments will be submitted via eDEP within 30 days of the final waste shipment date. A summary of the soil shipped from the Site is included in Appendix E. 8 Disposal characterization samples were collected during the course of the work and the laboratory analytical reports for those samples are included in Appendix C. Disposal characterization data were reviewed by both the receiving facility (Waste Management’s Turnkey facility) and the Site’s LSP prior to waste shipments. PHASE IV FINAL INSPECTION REPORT On September 7, 2015, a final inspection of the Phase IV remedy was completed by the LSP-of- record, Mr. Albert Ricciardelli (#4180) of GZA, to ensure that the selected Comprehensive Response Action was constructed in accordance with the construction plans contained in the July 2015 Phase IV RIP Addendum and project specifications. The Phase IV RIP Addendum was summarized and documented in Section 1.2 of this report and the relevant appendices referenced in that section. The final inspection activities included a Site walk to observe and confirm that post- construction restoration was completed. Also, project documents were reviewed, which included: daily field reports, product cut sheets, analytical testing data reports, and contractor submittals. It is Mr. Ricciardelli’s opinion that the implemented Remedial Alternative was completed in accordance with the design plans and meets the project’s design standards. PHASE IV COMPLETION STATEMENT The excavation of soil from the Site was performed from July 2015 through September 2015 in accordance with the Phase IV construction specifications. Remediation waste generated by these activities was transported off-Site for disposal/recycling and no additional remediation waste remains on-Site related to the Phase IV construction activities. Site restoration activities for the Phase IV construction areas were completed in accordance with the Phase IV specifications. Restoration activities included: backfilling, compacting, grading, and paving of the five excavation areas with a minimum of three-inches of asphalt. Figure 3 depicts the approximate lateral and vertical extent of soil removal at the five excavation areas in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0875(1). A final inspection of the Phase IV remedy was completed by the LSP of record for the Site, Mr. Albert Ricciardelli (#4180) of GZA, on September 7, 2015. The LSP opinion indicating that the construction and implementation of the selected Comprehensive Response Action was completed in accordance with applicable requirements of 310 CMR 40.0870 and that the Phase IV performance standards as described in 310 CMR 40.0872 have been met is provided on the corresponding BWSC-108 form. As described below and in Appendix F, a condition of No Significant Risk has been attained for residual impacts following completion of the CRA. As such, Phase V activities will not be required under the selected Comprehensive Remedial Alternative. No Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) is required for the Site in order to meet a condition of NSR. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Minimum Public Involvement Activities in Response Actions (310 CMR 40.1403) outlined in the MCP, a notice of the availability of this Phase IV FIR and Completion Statement will be submitted to the Chief Municipal Officer and the health official for the City of Northampton. A copy of the notice is provided in Appendix G. 9 PERMANENT SOLUTION STATEMENT As described above, the Final Inspection has been completed with regard to the CRA. As such, GZA has prepared a Permanent Solution Statement (PSS) with Conditions for the Site. In accordance with the MCP: (1) A Permanent Solution Statement shall be submitted by a RP, PRP or Other Person, on a form established by the Department for such purposes, and shall include, at a minimum, the following: (a) the site or disposal site name, address and DEP Release Tracking Number(s); This PSS has been prepared for the former Lia Honda Dealership facility located at 171- 187 King Street in Northampton, Massachusetts (hereafter "the Site"). A Locus Plan is included as Figure 1 and a Site Plan as Figure 2. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Release Tracking Number (RTN) for the Site is 1-16091. (b) whether it is a Permanent Solution with No Conditions or a Permanent Solution with Conditions; This PSS is being submitted as a PSS with Conditions. This PSS includes the recommendation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). (c) except where the concentrations of oil and/or hazardous material are consistent with or have been reduced to Background or where a threat of release has been abated, the Method(s) (Methods 1, 2 or 3) used to characterize the risk of harm posed by the disposal site to health, safety, public welfare and the environment, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0900; A Method 3 Risk Characterization (M3RC) was prepared to support this PSS and is included as Appendix F. A discussion of the M3RC conclusions is presented in the following subsections. (d) the relationship of the Permanent Solution Statement to any other Permanent or Temporary Solution Statements that have been filed for the disposal site, if applicable, together with a statement as to whether any additional response actions are needed for any other portions of the disposal site; A Class C-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) was prepared and submitted by EnviroTrac in March 2012 (and was revised in December 2013). The Class C-2 RAO concluded that a condition of No Substantial Hazard (NSH) to human health, public welfare and the environment existed at the Site, so long as the impacted soils were underneath a layer of intact pavement. The Class C-2 RAO required annual monitoring of the pavement condition. The disposal Site boundaries described and depicted within that RAO generally encompassed the current limits of excavations performed under the CRA implemented in 2015. For the purposes of this PSS, Site-wide data (i.e. data from within the property boundaries) was incorporated into the M3RC (with exceptions noted in the M3RC, attached as Appendix F) to derive the Exposure Point Concentrations for the Site constituents of concern (COCs) used to determine whether or not a condition of NSR exists at the Site. Following the submission of this combined FIR/PSS, no additional response actions will be required to achieve a condition of NSR at the Site. 10 (e) indication as to whether the Permanent Solution includes the implementation of an Activity and Use Limitation, and if so, the type of Activity and Use Limitation implemented at the disposal site; The M3RC concluded that following the implementation of the CRA, a condition of NSR of harm to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists at the Site. An Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) will not be required to maintain this condition. This PSS includes the recommendation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). (f) indication as to whether the Permanent Solution is based upon assumptions about the current or future site activities, uses or conditions that do not require an Activity and Use Limitation pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1013 and a description of those assumptions; Per 310 CMR 40.1013, this PSS is based upon the recommendation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-commercial gardening. (g) indication as to whether the Permanent Solution is based upon the effective operation of one or more Active Exposure Pathway Mitigation Measures pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1025; As described in the M3RC, no VOCs were detected in groundwater or soil at the Site. Therefore, neither vapor intrusion nor inhalation of ambient air potentially impacted by groundwater or soil was considered a complete exposure pathway at the Site. Additionally, non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) was not detected at the Site. As such, Active Exposure Pathway Mitigation Measures are not required at the Site. (h) except where specifically exempted by the Department based upon the Department's level of involvement in the oversight of response actions at the site or disposal site, an Opinion from a Licensed Site Professional as to whether the requirements of the applicable category of Permanent Solution specified in 310 CMR 40.1000 have been met; The M3RC concluded that following the implementation of the CRA, a condition of NSR of harm to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists at the Site. The M3RC is dependent upon the use Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). No other use limitations are required. In addition, Sources and/or threats of releases have been eliminated; uncontrolled groundwater or soil vapor plumes do not exist, NAPL is not present and as described below, the level of oil and/or hazardous material in the environment has been reduced to as close to background as is feasible. As such, conditions required for a Permanent Solution with Conditions have been attained. i) a certification of the Permanent Solution Statement and all documents submitted with the Permanent Solution Statement as required by 310 CMR 40.0009; The attached BWSC form contains this certification. (j) indication as to whether oil and/or hazardous material exceed one or more applicable Upper Concentration Limits in Soil or Groundwater, as described at 310 CMR 40.0996; and As documented in the M3RC in Appendix F, current concentrations at the Site do not exceed UCLs. 11 (k) indication as to whether the analytical data used to support the Permanent Solution was generated pursuant to the Department's Compendium of Analytical Methods. The Representativeness Evaluation and Data Usability Analysis (REDUA), attached hereto as Appendix H, provides an evaluation of the data used to support this PSS. In summary, the REDUA concludes that the data used to support the PSS are scientifically valid and defensible; of sufficient accuracy, precision and completeness; and representative with regard to spatial and temporal distribution of sampling points. (2) Except where previously submitted, all documentation, plans and/or reports necessary to support the Permanent Solution shall be submitted to the Department, including, without limitation, the following: (a) as specified in 310 CMR 40.1003(4), a clear and accurate description of the location of the site, in the case of a threat of release, or the location and boundaries of the disposal site or portion of disposal site to which the Permanent Solution applies that includes the location of areas characterized as Background relative to the disposal site boundaries. Such description shall reference, to the extent practicable, the location of the site, or location and boundaries of the disposal site or portion thereof relative to permanent or semi-permanent landmarks, location coordinates, and/or surveyed boundaries; According to ET’s 2012 Class C-2 RAO for the Site: “The Facility is located at 171-187 King Street in a mixed-use commercial and residential area of Northampton, Massachusetts. The Facility is identified by the City of Northampton Assessor’s Office as parcels 24D-081-001, 24D-080-001 and 24D-338-001. The Disposal Site is located at Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates of 4,688,398 meters (m) Northing and 694,970 m Easting.” Within the 2012 Class C-2 RAO, ET concluded that: “Due to the spatially disconnected occurrence of lead in soil and the widely varying concentrations east of the Disposal Site, the presence of lead on the easterly-abutting MEC property are not considered associated with the Disposal Site.” Based on ET’s conclusion as well as the areal distribution of impacts on the Property, we have conservatively assumed that the Site comprises the entire property. As such, the Disposal Site as it relates to this PSS is considered the legal property boundary for the property. (b) a succinct summary of the Conceptual Site Model; Detected impacts to soil and groundwater at the Site are the nature of the fill at the Site (containing coal and wood ash) as well as the past operations at the Site (including as a junk yard). As described previously in Section 1.2 of this report, in June of 2015, GZA performed a preliminary risk assessment utilizing the existing data summarized in the August 2010 Phase II CSA and March 2011 Phase III RAP which identified six potential areas where lead impacted soil removal might be required to reach a condition of NSR at the Site. The six areas were identified as the areas proximate to boring B-1; borings P-19 and B-21; borings B-26, B-33, and HB-5; borings B-38 and B-39; boring B-406 and boring HB-1. 6 The risk drivers for this location were elevated concentrations of EPH and PAHs that were detected in the shallow (0 – 8 inch) soil sample at boring B-40. 12 The preliminary risk assessment identified the primary risk driver as lead concentrations in soil (with the exception of elevated EPH/PAH concentrations detected in a 0 to 8-inch sample at boring B-40). Though other compounds contributed to the cumulative risk at the Site, GZA concluded that the remediation of soil with the highest lead concentrations would allow the Site to attain a condition of NSR. In April 2015, GZA implemented a pre-characterization soil program (prior to CRA implementation) consisting of the performance of 61 borings (GZ-1 through GZ-56, GZ-2A, GZ-3A, GZ-4A, GZ-5A, and GZ-6A) at the six potential excavation areas (Figure 2). At each of the six identified areas, borings were performed at various distances from the original data point(s) to delineate the lateral and vertical extent of the excavations. As part of the pre-remedial investigation, soil samples7 were submitted for total lead analysis to delineate extents of each of the six areas. Additionally, surficial soil sample were submitted for EPH and PAH analysis to further evaluate the apparent localized hotspot at the B-40 location. Analytical results of pre-characterization sampling indicated that five of the six areas listed above were determined to warrant remediation via soil excavation to achieve a condition of NSR. The previously detected elevated lead concentration at boring location B-1 could not be duplicated during the recent investigation and it is likely the soils proximate to exploration B-1 had been addressed during soil excavation activities previously performed in this area in June/September 2006. Representative soil samples collected in the vicinity of the potential EPH/PAH “hot-spot” previously identified at boring B-40 did not exhibit elevated concentrations of EPH/PAH related compounds and it is believed that the original sample results were potentially biased high due to the presence of asphalt fragments within the sample matrix. Given these observations, an EPH/PAH hot-spot was determined not to exist at sample location B-40; however, the soils proximate to sample location B-40 were conservatively excavated and disposed off-Site during the Phase IV remedial activities to address elevated lead concentrations in that area. As described in Section 2.0, the CRA was implemented between July 24 and September 2, 2015 and involved the in-situ stabilization, post-stabilization soil sampling and off-Site transportation and disposal of approximately 1,728 tons of lead-impacted soil at the five areas of concern. (c) a demonstration that all Sources of OHM Contamination have been eliminated or controlled as specified in 310 CMR 40.1003(5)(a) and (b); The likely Sources for the detected impacts at the Site are the nature of the fill at the Site as well as the former operations including as a junk yard. Currently the Site is vacant and the former operations have ceased. In addition, the remedial activities conducted at the Site have reduced concentrations in soil. As such, the Sources of the impacts at the Site have been eliminated or controlled. (d) a demonstration that response actions have been taken to adequately assess and, if necessary, control the subsurface migration of OHM remaining at the disposal site as specified in 310 CMR 40.1003(6)(a); VOCs were not detected in Site soil or groundwater. Therefore, there is no vapor-phase OHM in the vadose zone as described in 310 CMR 40.1003(6)(a). Concentrations of other 7 Soil samples were analyzed on an iterative basis to determine the lateral and vertical limits of the excavations. Given this approach, as indicated on Figure 2, soil samples were not analyzed from 13 of the 61 borings. 13 contaminants detected in groundwater were either not detected or very low. As such, migration of OHM remaining at the Site does not require further assessment or control. (e) where NAPL is or has been present, a demonstration that response actions have been taken to adequately assess and if necessary control NAPL mobility and meet the requirements of 310 CMR 40.1003(7)(a); NAPL has not been detected at the Site. (f) information supporting the conclusion that a level of No Significant Risk has been achieved or exists; Following completion of the CRA including the removal and off-Site disposal of soil from the five areas with elevated lead soil impacts, GZA performed a Method 3 Risk Characterization (M3RC) to evaluate whether a condition of NSR to health, safety, public welfare and the environment has been achieved. The M3RC was prepared in accordance with the criteria established in the MCP (310 CMR 40.0000) and associated Guidance. The M3RC (including supporting tables) is attached to this Phase IV FIR/PSS as Appendix F. As summarized in greater detail in Appendix F, the conclusion of the M3RC is that a condition of NSR has been attained for health, safety, public welfare and the environment has been attained at the Site. Risks to Human Health To assess whether a condition of No Significant Risk (NSR) of harm to human health exists at the Site, the risk characterization focused on risks for human receptors under current and foreseeable future unrestricted land uses (including, but not limited to, commercial and residential). Activities and uses evaluated include construction work and residential use. If a condition of NSR is reached for these uses then one would also exist for other uses for which exposures would be less intense and/or less frequent (e.g., future hypothetical commercial workers). The risk estimates were compared to the MCP non-cancer risk limit of a hazard index (HI) of one and the MCP cancer risk limit of an excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) of one in one hundred thousand (1 x 10-5). The construction worker exposure scenario assumes digging into subsurface soils, resulting in exposure to constituents in soil via dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of soil- derived fugitive dust and exposure to constituents in groundwater via dermal contact. The residential exposure scenario assumes contact with constituents in soil via dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of soil-derived fugitive dust. The cumulative non-cancer and cancer risk estimates for the construction worker receptor group (HI = 0.4 and ELCR = 5 x 10-7) do not exceed the MCP risk limits. The subchronic HI values segregated by target organs do not exceed 1. The chronic HI (0.8) and ELCR (1 x 10-5) for future residents do not exceed the MassDEP risk limits. Further, there is no exceedance of an applicable public health standard. As such, the constituents detected in the impacted media at the Site pose No Significant Risk of harm to human health under current and foreseeable future uses. 14 Risks to Safety The purpose of evaluating the risk of harm to safety is to identify release-related conditions at the Site that could pose a threat of physical harm or bodily injury to people. Examples of conditions that constitute a risk of harm to safety are: the presence of rusted or corroded drums or containers; weakened berms; unsecured pits, ponds, lagoons, or other dangerous structures; any threat of fire or explosion, including the presence of explosive vapors resulting from a release of oil and or hazardous materials (OHM); reactive chemicals stored or disposed of in a way that does not reasonably preclude uncontrolled reactions; any uncontained materials which exhibit the characteristics of corrosivity, reactivity, or flammability described in 310 CMR 40.0347; or the presence of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. No safety hazards described above were identified at the Site, nor are they anticipated to occur in the future. Therefore, a condition of No Significant Risk of harm to safety exists at the Site under current and foreseeable future uses. Risks to Public Welfare The risk of harm to public welfare considers the existence of nuisance conditions, loss of another person's active or passive property use, and any non-pecuniary costs that may accrue due to the degradation of public or private resources directly attributable to the release of OHM. The risk of harm to public welfare (and the environment) is also characterized by comparing soil and groundwater concentrations to the Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs) listed in 310 CMR 40.0996(6) or identified pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0996(7). No UCL exceedances were noted at the Site. No community in the vicinity of the Site experiences adverse impacts to public welfare; therefore, a condition of No Significant Risk of Harm to public welfare exists at the Site under current and foreseeable future uses. Risks to the Environment Based on the Stage I Environmental Screening conducted for the Site, soil and groundwater conditions do not represent significant exposures for environmental receptors, and a Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization is not required for the Site. No UCL exceedances were noted for the Site. A condition of No Significant Risk of harm to the environment exists at the Site under current and foreseeable future uses. (g) information documenting the extent to which levels of oil and/or hazardous material in the environment have been reduced to Background, and/or the results of the feasibility evaluation conducted pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0860 demonstrating that the achievement of Background is not feasible; In evaluating the feasibility of achieving background, in accordance with the MassDEP Policy “Conducting Feasibility Evaluations Under the MCP” (Policy No. WSC-04-160) dated July 16, 2004 (Feasibility Guidance), GZA considered the five specific MCP criteria for feasibility: a. technological feasibility; b. cost-benefit analysis; c. availability of individuals with appropriate expertise; d. availability of off-site land disposal facilities; and e. site access/control constraints (for off-property sources of OHM). 15 For this Site, item "b," the balance between cost and benefit, was the main parameter in the feasibility evaluation. Item "b" incorporates two main issues: 1. The incremental costs of remedial action relative to the incremental benefits of risk reduction, environmental restoration and "monetary and nonpecuniary values;" and 2. The control of risks to health, safety, public welfare and the environment posed by implementation of the remedial action. The residual soil contamination at the Site could be addressed by the excavation and off-Site disposal of additional soil. Risks to health, safety, public welfare, and the environment during remediation by additional excavation and off-Site disposal could be controlled through the use of a health and safety plan and a soil management plan during the implementation of the remedy. Thus, the limiting factor with respect to the feasibility of achieving or approaching background levels at the Site was the incremental cost of implementing the remedy relative to the incremental benefits of risk reduction, environmental restoration and “monetary and nonpecuniary values.” The Feasibility Guidance provides guidance on evaluating when the incremental cost of conducting the remedial action is “substantial and disproportionate” relative to the incremental benefit. An incremental cost exceeding 20% of the cost required to achieve NSR is considered to represent infeasibility. GZA estimates that incremental costs to achieve background conditions at the Site would be more than twice the cost of the soil excavation and disposal required to achieve NSR. This evaluation indicates that remediation to background conditions in these areas is infeasible according to the cost-benefit criteria. Fill was noted during the advancement of soil explorations at the Site. Observed fill contained coal, coal cinders and ash and ash, metal fragments, concrete, and other debris. These conditions would be expected on surrounding parcels and are not likely limited to the footprint of the Site. Therefore, the benefits for environmental restoration and “monetary and nonpecuniary values” associated with remediation of this parcel of land to background would be negligible. Based on these considerations, it is GZA’s opinion that restoration of soil at the Site to background concentrations is not feasible in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0860. (h) a copy of any and all Activity and Use Limitations which have been implemented under 310 CMR 40.1070; The M3RC concluded that following the implementation of the CRA, a condition of NSR of harm to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists at the Site. An Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) will not be required to maintain this condition. Instead, this PSS includes the recommendation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non-commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). (i) for Permanent Solutions with Conditions where concentrations in Soil exceed Upper Concentration Limits in Soil at a depth greater than 15 feet from the ground surface or in an area beneath an engineered barrier, the results of the evaluation conducted pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0860 demonstrating that the achievement of Upper Concentration Limits in Soil located at a depth greater than 15 feet from the ground surface or in the area beneath an engineered barrier is not feasible; As previously indicated, no UCL exceedances exist at the Site. 16 (j) for a Permanent Solution with Conditions based upon assumptions about the current or future site activities, uses or conditions that do not require an Activity and Use Limitation pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1013, documentation related to such assumptions and conditions, including, as applicable: 1. the recommendation and description of Best Management Practices for Non- commercial Gardening in a residential setting to minimize and control potential risk qualitatively evaluated pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0923(3)(c); This PSS includes the recommendation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for non- commercial gardening in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1013(1)(a). The BMPs are attached to this report as Appendix I. 2. the location of OHM that are consistent with Anthropogenic Background levels; The PSS is not dependent on this assumption. 3. the location of residual contamination within a public way or within a rail right-of- way; or The PSS is not dependent on this assumption. 4. where the residual concentrations of OHM in the groundwater exceed the GW-2 standards published in 310 CMR 40.0974(2) at a disposal site or portion thereof where no occupied building or structure is present, information related to the presence of groundwater contamination and the obligation to ensure any future construction at the disposal site does not result in OHM impacts to indoor air in newly constructed buildings or structures; The PSS is not dependent on this assumption. (k) a Data Usability Assessment documenting that the data relied upon is scientifically valid and defensible, and of a sufficient level of precision, accuracy, and completeness to support the Permanent Solution, and a Data Representativeness Evaluation, documenting the adequacy of the spatial and temporal data sets to support the Permanent Solution; and A Representativeness Evaluation and Data Usability Assessment (REDUA) is included as an attachment to this FIR/PSS (Appendix H). The results of the REDUA indicate that it is GZA’s opinion that the data used to support this Permanent Solution Statement are scientifically valid and defensible; of sufficient accuracy, precision and completeness; and representative with regard to spatial and temporal distribution of sampling points. (l) a description of any operation, maintenance, and/or monitoring that will be required to confirm and/or maintain those conditions at the disposal site upon which the Permanent Solution is based. No operation, maintenance, and/or monitoring will be required to maintain conditions at the Site. TABLES Table 1 Summary of Post-Stabilization TCLP Lead Analysis Results 171 - 187 King Street Northampton, MA B-40 Excavation Area Sample ID:EX1-1 EX2-1 EX2-2 EX2-3 EX3-1 EX3-2 EX3-3 EX3-4 EX4-1 EX4-2 EX5-1 EX5-2 EX5-3 Sample Date:7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/29/15 7/30/15 7/30/15 7/30/15 7/30/15 7/30/15 Sample Matrix:Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Solid Units TCLP Lead (SW6010C, Method 1311)mg/L < 0.10 0.23 0.34 0.13 0.32 2.18 1.75 0.99 0.42 2.27 0.39 0.48 1.76 B-38 and B-39 Excavation Area B-26, B-33 and HB-5 Excavation Area HB-1 Excavation Area P-19 and B-21 Excavation Area J:\_45,000-45,499\45425.h45 Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLC\45425-01.jjc\Reports\Completion Report\Tables\Table-1 TCLP Lead Summary.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Table 2 Summary of Field Density Testing Results Former Lia Honda 171 to 187 King Street Northampton, MA Field Density Location Approx.Max. Dry In-Place Moisture Compaction Test No.Depth Below Density Dry Den.Content Grade (ft)(pcf)(pcf)(Percent)(Percent) FD-1 B-21/P-19 Excavation 3.0 142.8 136.1 2.2 95.3% FD-2 B-21/P-19 Excavation 3.0 142.8 138.3 2.9 96.8% FD-3 B-21/P-19 Excavation 1.5 142.8 136.6 3.4 95.7% FD-4 B-21/P-19 Excavation 1.0 142.8 138.3 3.3 96.8% FD-5 B-21/P-19 Excavation 2.5 142.8 138.8 4.7 97.2% FD-6 B-21/P-19 Excavation 2.5 142.8 136.0 2.6 95.2% FD-7 B-21/P-19 Excavation 1.5 142.8 139.9 3.9 98.0% FD-8 B-21/P-19 Excavation 1.5 142.8 135.8 3.2 95.1% FD-9 B-40 Excavation 1.0 142.8 134.7 3.6 94.3% FD-10 B-40 Excavation 1.0 142.8 134.1 3.1 93.9% FD-11 B-21/P-19 Excavation 0.5 142.8 138.8 3.8 97.2% FD-12 B-21/P-19 Excavation 0.5 142.8 136.0 3.4 95.2% FD-13 B-40 Excavation 0.5 142.8 138.4 3.0 96.9% FD-14 B-40 Excavation 0.5 142.8 137.3 3.5 96.1% FD-15 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.6 142.8 136.8 3.0 95.8% FD-16 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.6 142.8 141.2 2.2 98.9% FD-17 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.3 142.8 135.3 3.4 94.7% FD-18 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.3 142.8 136.9 2.7 95.9% FD-19 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.3 142.8 138.7 2.9 97.1% FD-20 B-38/B-39 Excavation 0.3 142.8 136.5 4.6 95.6% FD-21 HB-1 Excavation 2.0 142.8 137.9 3.2 96.6% FD-22 HB-1 Excavation 1.0 142.8 143.9 3.3 100.8% FD-23 HB-1 Excavation 0.5 142.8 140.1 2.7 98.1% FD-24 B-26/B-33/HB-5 Excavation 3.5 142.8 138.0 3.4 96.6% FD-25 B-26/B-33/HB-5 Excavation 2.5 142.8 139.9 4.5 98.0% FD-26 B-26/B-33/HB-5 Excavation 2.5 142.8 135.1 4.9 94.6% FD-27 B-26/B-33/HB-5 Excavation 1.5 142.8 142.5 3.0 99.8% FD-28 B-26/B-33/HB-5 Excavation 1.5 142.8 138.1 3.9 96.7% Notes: 1. Field density testing performed by GZA personnel using a Troxler Nuclear Density Gauge. 2. All field density testing results substantially met the project compaction requirements. 3. Maximum dry density determined by laboratory testing on a sample of the gravel borrow by GeoTesting Express. 4. pcf = pounds per cubic feet J:\_45,000-45,499\45425.h45 Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLC\45425-01.jjc\Reports\Completion Report\Tables\Table-2 Field Density Report.xls TABLE 3 Perimeter Air Monitoring Data 171-187 King Street Northampton, MA File No. 05.0045425.01 Page 1 of 1 9/10/2015 Date Time Location VOCs (ppm)Dust (µg/m3)Date Time Location VOCs (ppm)Dust µg/m3 Date Time Location VOCs (ppm)Dust µg/m3 Date Time Location VOCs (ppm)Dust µg/m3 Date Time Location VOCs (ppm)Dust µg/m3 7/24/2015 All ND 9-35 A ND 9 A ND 19 A ND 9 A ND 1 A ND ND B ND 16 B ND 20 B ND 18 B ND 34 B ND ND C ND 22 C ND 33 C ND 2 C ND 18 C ND ND D ND 10 D ND 29 D ND 8 D ND 20 D ND ND A ND 3 A ND 8 A ND 15 A ND 9 A ND ND B ND 10 B ND 12 B ND 48 B ND 66 B ND ND C ND 75 C ND 47 C ND 22 C ND 20 C ND ND D ND 30 D ND 60 D ND 19 D ND 21 D ND ND A ND 0 A ND 33 A ND 1 A ND 10 A ND 0-9 B ND 35 B ND 29 B ND 62 B ND 90 B ND 0-9 C ND 21 C ND 66 C ND 8 C ND 34 C ND 0-9 D ND 54 D ND 21 D ND 20 D ND 29 D ND 0-9 A ND 16 A ND 55 A ND 4 A ND 11 A ND 0-12 B ND 19 B ND 31 B ND 55 B ND 41 B ND 0-12 C ND 21 C ND 11 C ND 9 C ND 32 C ND 0-12 D ND 44 D ND 26 D ND 12 D ND 36 D ND 0-12 A ND 1 A ND 61 A ND 0 A ND 13 A ND 36 B ND 9 B ND 22 B ND 21 B ND 52 B ND 29 C ND 21 C ND 19 C ND 11 C ND 19 C ND 44 D ND 22 D ND 16 D ND 28 D ND 21 D ND 47 A ND 0 A ND 1 A ND 6 A ND 9 A ND 28 B ND 11 B ND 9 B ND 29 B ND 69 B ND 29 C ND 16 C ND 11 C ND 18 C ND 22 C ND 36 D ND 33 D ND 22 D ND 19 D ND 29 D ND 51 A ND 9 A ND 4 A ND 4 A ND 10 A ND 21 B ND 10 B ND 9 B ND 52 B ND 25 B ND 17 C ND 6 C ND 5 C ND 20 C ND 21 C ND 11 D ND 9 D ND 29 D ND 25 D ND 33 D ND 23 A ND 22 A ND 1 A ND 10 A ND 9 A ND 19 B ND 21 B ND 22 B ND 66 B ND 45 B ND 21 C ND 9 C ND 54 C ND 31 C ND 20 C ND 14 D ND 29 D ND 30 D ND 29 D ND 30 D ND 37 A ND 98 A ND 8 A ND 1 A ND 7 A ND 39 B ND 48 B ND 42 B ND 35 B ND 61 B ND 22 C ND 10 C ND 13 C ND 9 C ND 15 C ND 21 D ND 22 D ND 19 D ND 8 D ND 19 D ND 41 A ND 66 A ND 7 A ND 0 A ND 5 A ND 5 B ND 39 B ND 39 B ND 36 B ND 54 B ND 4 C ND 69 C ND 11 C ND 21 C ND 9 C ND 13 D ND 51 D ND 20 D ND 20 D ND 22 D ND 21 A ND 9 A ND 10 A ND 0 A ND 10 A ND 21 B ND 11 B ND 52 B ND 34 B ND 80 B ND 13 C ND 56 C ND 21 C ND 6 C ND 23 C ND 17 D ND 49 D ND 22 D ND 20 D ND 18 D ND 42 A ND 8 A ND 1 A ND 1 A ND 3 A ND 24 B ND 21 B ND 28 B ND 21 B ND 20 B ND 19 C ND 48 C ND 9 C ND 10 C ND 12 C ND 12 D ND 16 D ND 21 D ND 11 D ND 29 D ND 38 A ND 11 A ND 5 A ND 2 A ND 0 A ND 24 B ND 9 B ND 51 B ND 29 B ND 55 B ND 13 C ND 35 C ND 17 C ND 7 C ND 20 C ND 11 D ND 28 D ND 21 D ND 22 D ND 22 D ND 34 A ND 21 A ND 9 A ND 0 A ND 9 A ND 2 B ND 28 B ND 28 B ND 12 B ND 91 B ND 66 C ND 79 C ND 34 C ND 1 C ND 25 C ND 8 D ND 55 D ND 21 D ND 2 D ND 18 D ND 6 A ND 15 A ND 11 A ND 10 A ND 4 B ND 14 B ND 92 B ND 72 B ND 54 C ND 48 C ND 15 C ND 29 C ND 16 D ND 39 D ND 29 D ND 25 D ND 10 A ND 9 A ND 8 A ND 2 B ND 12 B ND 54 B ND 88 C ND 66 C ND 16 C ND 20 D ND 29 D ND 30 D ND 12 A ND 34 A ND 3 A ND ND B ND 12 B ND 39 B ND 71 C ND 9 C ND 20 C ND 34 D ND 22 D ND 29 D ND 3 A ND 54 A ND 3 B ND 21 B ND 69 C ND 19 C ND 22 D ND 27 D ND 8 Notes: 1. Air monitoring equipment included a MiniRae Lite PID for VOC monitoring and a pDR-1000 Personal Dataram for dust monitoring 2. Air monitoring locations were approxmated as follows: A = North work zone perimeter boundary B = East work zone perimeter boundary C = South work zone perimeter boundary D = West work zone perimeter boundary 3. ND refers to not detected. 1100 1230 1345 8/6/2015 830 945 1330 7/30/2015 8/4/2015 1330 8/5/2015 1300 1430 1530 1600 800 900 1030 1230 800 930 1030 1145 1330 1415 830 1000 1200 1315 1430 1530 7/28/2015 800 835 930 1030 1135 7/27/2015 930 1100 1230 1400 7/29/2015 845 1100 1330 1600 1430 1530 8/19/2015 8/20/2015 830 1000 1130 1300 1430 1530 1000 1130 1230 1330 1430 800 100 1200 1300 8/21/2015 930 1130 1400 1530 8/24/2015 8/25/2015 830 1000 1130 1300 1430 1600 1500 1630 830 930 8/26/2015 830 1000 1130 1330 8/28/2015 800 900 1000 1100 1300 1400 1500 8/27/2015 J:\_45,000-45,499\45425.h45 Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLC\45425-01.jjc\Reports\Completion Report\Tables\Table-3 Air Monitoring Results.xlsx FIGURES SITE LOCUS THIS MAP HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM OTHER MAPS,AND/OR SOURCES OF INFORMATION. THIS MAP SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A PROPERTY SURVEY, NOR USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. PROJ MGR: DJRDESIGNED BY: DJR PROJECT NO. 05.0045425.00DATE: 06-22-15REVIEWED BY: DJRDRAWN BY: MJS <BOL>© 2015 -<CLR red="1" green="84" blue="131"> GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.</CLR></BOL> J:\_45,000-45,499\45425.h45 Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLC\45425-01.jjc\GIS\mxd\FIG 1 LOCUS.mxd, 6/22/2015, 2:08:52 PM, max.strubel FIGURE1 Source: TOPO! maps are USGS topographic maps, Copyright:© 2011 National GeographicSociety, i-cubed and are provided by arcgisonline.com. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.Engineers and Scientistswww.gza.com SITE Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Scale in Feet USGS 7.5 MINUTEQUADRANGLE BASE MAP:EASTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 171-187 KING STREETNORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS LEGENDSHEET NO.GZAGeoEnvironmental, Inc.Engineers and Scientistswww.gza.comPROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.DESIGNED BY:PROJ MGR:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:171-187 KING STREETNORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTSSITE PLAN09-02-1505.0045425.01FIGURE2DJRDJRMJS1"=30'015306090SCALE IN FEET LEGEND4'SHEET NO.GZAGeoEnvironmental, Inc.Engineers and Scientistswww.gza.comPROJECT NO.DATE:REVISION NO.DESIGNED BY:PROJ MGR:DRAWN BY:REVIEWED BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:PREPARED BY:PREPARED FOR:171-187 KING STREETNORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTSREMEDIAL EXCAVATIONS06-01-1505.0045425.01FIGURE3DJRDJRMJS1"=30'015306090SCALE IN FEET Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix G Agency Correspondences IPac Letters January 04, 2024 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 Phone: (603) 223-2541 Fax: (603) 223-0104 In Reply Refer To: Project code: 2024-0032397 Project Name: Proposed Development 2300986 Federal Nexus: no Federal Action Agency (if applicable): Subject:Record of project representative’s no effect determination for 'Proposed Development 2300986' Dear Liz Ennis: This letter records your determination using the Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on January 04, 2024, for 'Proposed Development 2300986' (here forward, Project). This project has been assigned Project Code 2024-0032397 and all future correspondence should clearly reference this number. Please carefully review this letter. Ensuring Accurate Determinations When Using IPaC The Service developed the IPaC system and associated species’ determination keys in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and based on a standing analysis. All information submitted by the Project proponent into IPaC must accurately represent the full scope and details of the Project. Failure to accurately represent or implement the Project as detailed in IPaC or the Northern Long-eared Bat Rangewide Determination Key (Dkey), invalidates this letter. Answers to certain questions in the DKey commit the project proponent to implementation of conservation measures that must be followed for the ESA determination to remain valid. Determination for the Northern Long-Eared Bat Based upon your IPaC submission and a standing analysis, your project has reached the determination of “No Effect” on the northern long-eared bat. To make a no effect determination, the full scope of the proposed project implementation (action) should not have any effects (either positive or negative), to a federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or critical habitat that are caused by the proposed Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 2 of 7 ▪ action, including the consequences of other activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the immediate area involved in the action. (See § 402.17). Under Section 7 of the ESA, if a federal action agency makes a no effect determination, no consultation with the Service is required (ESA §7). If a proposed Federal action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation is required except when the Service concurs, in writing, that a proposed action "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or designated critical habitat [50 CFR §402.02, 50 CFR§402.13]. Other Species and Critical Habitat that May be Present in the Action Area The IPaC-assisted determination for the northern long-eared bat does not apply to the following ESA-protected species and/or critical habitat that also may occur in your Action area: Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate You may coordinate with our Office to determine whether the Action may affect the animal species listed above and, if so, how they may be affected. Next Steps Based upon your IPaC submission, your project has reached the determination of “No Effect” on the northern long-eared bat. If there are no updates on listed species, no further consultation/ coordination for this project is required with respect to the northern long-eared bat. However, the Service recommends that project proponents re-evaluate the Project in IPaC if: 1) the scope, timing, duration, or location of the Project changes (includes any project changes or amendments); 2) new information reveals the Project may impact (positively or negatively) federally listed species or designated critical habitat; or 3) a new species is listed, or critical habitat designated. If any of the above conditions occurs, additional coordination with the Service should take place to ensure compliance with the Act. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need further assistance, please contact the New England Ecological Services Field Office and reference Project Code 2024-0032397 associated with this Project. Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 3 of 7 Action Description You provided to IPaC the following name and description for the subject Action. 1. Name Proposed Development 2300986 2. Description The following description was provided for the project 'Proposed Development 2300986': Construct 14,000 sf building, reconfigure existing parking, total limit of disturbance is 4.8 acre The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@42.32599105,-72.63250125441114,14z Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 4 of 7 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. DETERMINATION KEY RESULT Based on the information you provided, you have determined that the Proposed Action will have no effect on the Endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Therefore, no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is required for those species. QUALIFICATION INTERVIEW Does the proposed project include, or is it reasonably certain to cause, intentional take of the northern long-eared bat or any other listed species? Note: Intentional take is defined as take that is the intended result of a project. Intentional take could refer to research, direct species management, surveys, and/or studies that include intentional handling/encountering, harassment, collection, or capturing of any individual of a federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species? No Does any component of the action involve construction or operation of wind turbines? Note: For federal actions, answer ‘yes’ if the construction or operation of wind power facilities is either (1) part of the federal action or (2) would not occur but for a federal agency action (federal permit, funding, etc.). No Is the proposed action authorized, permitted, licensed, funded, or being carried out by a Federal agency in whole or in part? No [Semantic] Is the action area located within 0.5 miles of a known northern long-eared bat hibernaculum? Note: The map queried for this question contains proprietary information and cannot be displayed. If you need additional information, please contact your State wildlife agency. Automatically answered No Does the action area contain any caves (or associated sinkholes, fissures, or other karst features), mines, rocky outcroppings, or tunnels that could provide habitat for hibernating northern long-eared bats? No Does the action area contain or occur within 0.5 miles of (1) talus or (2) anthropogenic or naturally formed rock crevices in rocky outcrops, rock faces or cliffs? No Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 5 of 7 7.Is suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat present within 1000 feet of project activities? (If unsure, answer "Yes.") Note: If there are trees within the action area that are of a sufficient size to be potential roosts for bats (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches (12.7 centimeter) dbh), answer "Yes". If unsure, additional information defining suitable summer habitat for the northern long-eared bat can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/media/northern- long-eared-bat-assisted-determination-key-selected-definitions No Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 6 of 7 PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE Project code: 2024-0032397 IPaC Record Locator: 055-136562015 01/04/2024 DKey Version Publish Date: 10/19/2023 7 of 7 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Bl companies Name:Liz Ennis Address:220 Norwood Park South City:Norwood State:MA Zip:02062 Email lennis@blcompanies.com Phone:7816199503 January 04, 2024 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 Phone: (603) 223-2541 Fax: (603) 223-0104 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2024-0032397 Project Name: Proposed Development 2300986 Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 01/04/2024 2 ▪ evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov). The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): Official Species List 01/04/2024 3 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: New England Ecological Services Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 (603) 223-2541 01/04/2024 4 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code:2024-0032397 Project Name:Proposed Development 2300986 Project Type:Commercial Development Project Description:Construct 14,000 sf building, reconfigure existing parking, total limit of disturbance is 4.8 acre Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@42.32599105,-72.63250125441114,14z Counties:Hampshire County, Massachusetts 01/04/2024 5 1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Endangered INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES. 1 01/04/2024 6 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency:Bl companies Name:Liz Ennis Address:220 Norwood Park South City:Norwood State:MA Zip:02062 Email lennis@blcompanies.com Phone:7816199503 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix H Collection and Conveyance Calculations FlexTable: Conduit Table MaterialFlow (cfs) Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Velocity (ft/s) Manning's nDiameter (in) Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (Scaled) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Invert (Start) (ft) Cover (Stop) (ft) Cover (Start) (ft) Stop NodeStart Node Concrete1.9067.03.880.01312.00.00662.9135.60136.002.813.25DMH-106ROOF DRAIN Concrete1.0324.74.380.01312.00.0147.4135.90136.003.173.03DMH-101CB-102 Concrete0.4314.32.740.01312.00.00729.6134.50135.504.063.06DMH-107CB-107 Concrete0.6929.52.590.01312.00.00411.6135.45135.503.113.06DMH-107CB-106 Concrete1.8752.04.630.01312.00.0109.8135.50135.602.942.81DMH-105DMH-106 Concrete1.8339.95.510.01312.00.0176.0134.80134.903.253.06DMH-104CB-105 Concrete1.4743.44.170.01312.00.00911.0134.70134.803.333.05DMH-103CB-104 Concrete1.4763.03.140.01312.00.004135.1134.77135.353.792.79DMH-107CB-109 Concrete2.4549.04.050.01315.00.006173.7134.11135.154.712.75DMH-101CB-101 Concrete3.3266.34.370.01315.00.006116.3133.41134.113.814.71DMH-102DMH-101 Concrete2.4646.34.240.01315.00.00769.7131.81132.286.316.03WQU-101DMH-107 Concrete2.8351.34.520.01315.00.00734.4133.35133.603.872.76DMH-102CB-103 Concrete2.6252.64.120.01315.00.006135.5132.00132.815.222.75DMH-102CB-110 Concrete13.2275.66.120.01324.00.00611.7129.92129.997.527.34DMH-105JELLYFISH Concrete11.0162.15.940.01324.00.00632.6130.07130.277.306.78WQU-101DMH-104 Concrete13.2674.76.190.01324.00.00613.0129.99130.077.347.30JELLYFISHWQU-101 Concrete9.5554.35.710.01324.00.00697.6130.27130.866.786.17DMH-104DMH-103 Concrete8.2844.15.790.01324.00.00756.6130.86131.256.175.22DMH-103DMH-102 Concrete14.8947.06.350.01330.00.00680.6128.94129.428.677.52EXISTING DMHDMH-105 Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203-755-16661/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-101 to EXISTING DMH (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 120.00 125.00 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-101Rim: 140.07 ftInvert: 134.11 ft DMH-103Rim: 139.03 ftInvert: 130.86 ft DMH-104Rim: 139.05 ftInvert: 130.27 ft JELLYFISHRim: 139.33 ftInvert: 129.99 ft WQU-101Rim: 139.37 ftInvert: 130.07 ft DMH-105Rim: 139.44 ftInvert: 129.42 ftDMH-102Rim: 138.47 ftInvert: 131.25 ft CB-101Rim: 139.15 ftInvert: 133.00 ft EXISTING DMHRim: 140.11 ftInvert: 122.18 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-102 to DMH-101 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-101 Rim: 140.07 ft Invert: 134.11 ft CB-102 Rim: 140.03 ft Invert: 134.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-103 to DMH-102 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-102 Rim: 138.47 ft Invert: 131.25 ft CB-103 Rim: 137.61 ft Invert: 131.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-104 to DMH-103 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-103 Rim: 139.03 ft Invert: 130.86 ft CB-104 Rim: 138.85 ft Invert: 132.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-105 to DMH-104 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-104 Rim: 139.05 ft Invert: 130.27 ft CB-105 Rim: 138.96 ft Invert: 132.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-106 to DMH-107 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-106 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-107 to WQU-101 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)WQU-101 Rim: 139.37 ft Invert: 130.07 ft DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-109 to DMH-107 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-109 Rim: 139.14 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-110 to DMH-102 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-102 Rim: 138.47 ft Invert: 131.25 ft CB-110 Rim: 136.81 ft Invert: 130.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - ROOF DRAIN to DMH-105 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 125.00 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-106 Rim: 139.41 ftInvert: 135.60 ft DMH-105 Rim: 139.44 ft Invert: 129.42 ft ROOF DRAINInvert: 136.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw FlexTable: Conduit Table MaterialFlow (cfs) Flow / Capacity (Design) (%) Velocity (ft/s) Manning's nDiameter (in) Slope (Calculated) (ft/ft) Length (Scaled) (ft) Invert (Stop) (ft) Invert (Start) (ft) Cover (Stop) (ft) Cover (Start) (ft) Stop NodeStart Node Concrete2.2980.54.020.01312.00.00662.9135.60136.002.813.25DMH-106ROOF DRAIN Concrete1.2329.64.610.01312.00.0147.4135.90136.003.173.03DMH-101CB-102 Concrete0.5217.12.890.01312.00.00729.6134.50135.504.063.06DMH-107CB-107 Concrete0.8335.42.710.01312.00.00411.6135.45135.503.113.06DMH-107CB-106 Concrete2.2562.54.840.01312.00.0109.8135.50135.602.942.81DMH-105DMH-106 Concrete2.1947.95.780.01312.00.0176.0134.80134.903.253.06DMH-104CB-105 Concrete1.7752.14.360.01312.00.00911.0134.70134.803.333.05DMH-103CB-104 Concrete1.7675.63.270.01312.00.004135.1134.77135.353.792.79DMH-107CB-109 Concrete2.9458.94.240.01315.00.006173.7134.11135.154.712.75DMH-101CB-101 Concrete4.0079.74.530.01315.00.006116.3133.41134.113.814.71DMH-102DMH-101 Concrete2.9655.74.440.01315.00.00769.7131.81132.286.316.03WQU-101DMH-107 Concrete3.3961.64.720.01315.00.00734.4133.35133.603.872.76DMH-102CB-103 Concrete3.1563.14.300.01315.00.006135.5132.00132.815.222.75DMH-102CB-110 Concrete15.9591.26.310.01324.00.00611.7129.92129.997.527.34DMH-105JELLYFISH Concrete13.2774.96.190.01324.00.00632.6130.07130.277.306.78WQU-101DMH-104 Concrete15.9990.26.390.01324.00.00613.0129.99130.077.347.30JELLYFISHWQU-101 Concrete11.5065.45.970.01324.00.00697.6130.27130.866.786.17DMH-104DMH-103 Concrete9.9853.16.070.01324.00.00756.6130.86131.256.175.22DMH-103DMH-102 Concrete17.9756.76.650.01330.00.00680.6128.94129.428.677.52EXISTING DMHDMH-105 Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203-755-16661/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-101 to EXISTING DMH (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 120.00 125.00 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-101Rim: 140.07 ftInvert: 134.11 ft DMH-103Rim: 139.03 ftInvert: 130.86 ft DMH-104Rim: 139.05 ftInvert: 130.27 ft JELLYFISHRim: 139.33 ftInvert: 129.99 ft WQU-101Rim: 139.37 ftInvert: 130.07 ft DMH-105Rim: 139.44 ftInvert: 129.42 ftDMH-102Rim: 138.47 ftInvert: 131.25 ft CB-101Rim: 139.15 ftInvert: 133.00 ft EXISTING DMHRim: 140.11 ftInvert: 122.18 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-102 to DMH-101 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-101 Rim: 140.07 ft Invert: 134.11 ft CB-102 Rim: 140.03 ft Invert: 134.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-103 to DMH-102 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-102 Rim: 138.47 ft Invert: 131.25 ft CB-103 Rim: 137.61 ft Invert: 131.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-104 to DMH-103 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-103 Rim: 139.03 ft Invert: 130.86 ft CB-104 Rim: 138.85 ft Invert: 132.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-105 to DMH-104 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-104 Rim: 139.05 ft Invert: 130.27 ft CB-105 Rim: 138.96 ft Invert: 132.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-106 to DMH-107 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-106 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-107 to WQU-101 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)WQU-101 Rim: 139.37 ft Invert: 130.07 ft DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-109 to DMH-107 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-107 Rim: 139.56 ft Invert: 132.28 ft CB-109 Rim: 139.14 ft Invert: 133.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - CB-110 to DMH-102 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 130.00 135.00 140.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-102 Rim: 138.47 ft Invert: 131.25 ft CB-110 Rim: 136.81 ft Invert: 130.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Profile Report Engineering Profile - ROOF DRAIN to DMH-105 (C-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw) 125.00 130.00 135.00 140.00 145.00 -0+50 0+00 0+50 1+00 Station (ft)Elevation (ft)DMH-106 Rim: 139.41 ftInvert: 135.60 ft DMH-105 Rim: 139.44 ft Invert: 129.42 ft ROOF DRAINInvert: 136.00 ft Page 1 of 176 Watertown Road, Suite 2D Thomaston, CT 06787 USA +1-203- 755-1666 1/3/2024 StormCAD [10.03.04.53]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterC-DATA-2300986-STORMCAD.stsw Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix I Water Quality Calculations TSS Removal Calculations Water Quality Calculations Stormwater BMP Sizing Sheets Location: Storm Drain System BMP TSS Removal Rate Starting TSS Load Amount Removed Remaining Load TSS RemovalCalculation WorksheetStreet Sweeping 0.05 1.00 0.05 0.95 Deep Sump and Hooded Catch Basin 0.25 0.95 0.24 0.71 Cascade Separator 0.89 0.71 0.63 0.08 Total TSS Removal =92% Project:Proposed Dealership Prepared By:BL Companies Date:1/4/2024 VWQ = Required Water Quality Volume [CF] AIMP = Post-development Impervious Area; may exclude roof top areas [Ac] Required Water Quality Volume: Drainage Area/ Treatment Train AIMP [Ac] DWQ [in] VWQ Required [CF] PDA-202 2.623 0.5 4,761 4,761 Cubic Feet Provided Water Quality Volume: Drainage Area/ Treatment Train Water Quality Volume Provided [CF] PDA-202 73,180 73,180 Cubic Feet MASSDEP Standard 4: Water Quality Volume Summary WATER QUALITY VOLUME PROVIDED IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME, THEREFORE PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARD 4. Cascade Separator Total Provided Water Quality Volume: VWQ = (DWQ /12 in/ft) x (AIMP x 43,560 SF/Ac) where: DWQ = Water Quality Depth : 1-inch for discharges within a Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area, to or near critical areas, runoff from LUHPPL, or exfiltration to soil with infiltration rate 2.4 in/hr or greater; ½-inch for discharges to other areas. BMP Total Required Water Quality Volume: C-DATA-2300986 MA Std Calc.xlsx Project Information Project Name Northampton Option #A Country UNITED_STATES State Massachusetts City Norwood Contact Information First Name Elizabeth Last Name Ennis Company BL Companies Phone #178-161-9950 Email lennis@blcompanies.com Design Criteria Site Designation WQU-101 Sizing Method Net Annual Screening Required?No Drainage Area (ac)3.11 Peak Flow (cfs)27.76 Groundwater Depth (ft)10 - 15 Pipe Invert Depth (ft)5 - 10 Bedrock Depth (ft)10 - 15 Multiple Inlets?Yes Grate Inlet Required?No Pipe Size (in)24.00 Required Particle Size Distribution? No 90° between two inlets? Yes 180° between inlet and outlet? No Runoff Coefficient 0.90 Rainfall Station 70 - East Brimfield Lake, MA TC (Min)10 Treatment Selection Treatment Unit CASCADE SEPARATOR System Model CS-4 Target Removal 80%Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 110 Predicted Net Annual Removal 89.30% *Treatment flow rate calculated using annualized weighted calculation. Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator Northampton WQU-101 CASCADE SEPARATOR CS-4 CASCADE SEPARATOR ESTIMATED NET ANNUAL SOLIDS LOAD REDUCTION BASED ON THE RATIONAL RAINFALL METHOD Rainfall Intensity¹ (in/hr) % Rainfall Volume¹ Cumulative Rainfall Volume Rainfall Volume Treated Total Flowrate (cfs) Treated Flowrate (cfs) Hydraulic Loading Rate (%) Removal Efficiency (%) Incremental Removal (%) 0.0400 15.20%15.20%15.20%0.1100 0.1100 %100.00%15.15% 0.0800 24.60%39.80%24.60%0.2200 0.2200 %100.00%24.57% 0.1200 13.70%53.50%13.70%0.3400 0.3400 %100.00%13.70% 0.1600 9.40%62.90%9.40%0.4500 0.4500 %96.79%9.11% 0.2000 6.60%69.50%6.60%0.5600 0.5600 %93.10%6.17% 0.2400 5.20%74.70%5.20%0.6700 0.6700 %89.42%4.69% 0.2800 4.80%79.50%4.80%0.7800 0.7800 %85.72%4.10% 0.3200 3.10%82.60%3.10%0.9000 0.9000 %81.69%2.57% 0.3600 2.70%85.30%2.70%1.0100 1.0100 %78.00%2.11% 0.4000 2.10%87.40%2.10%1.1200 1.1200 %74.31%1.56% 0.4800 2.50%89.90%2.50%1.3400 1.3400 %66.92%1.65% 0.5600 2.00%91.90%2.00%1.5700 1.5700 %59.20%1.20% 0.6400 1.40%93.30%1.40%1.7900 1.7900 %51.82%0.74% 0.7200 1.00%94.30%0.99%2.0200 2.0000 %44.33%0.44% 0.8000 1.10%95.40%0.98%2.2400 2.0000 %39.98%0.43% 1.0000 1.70%97.10%1.21%2.8000 2.0000 %31.98%0.53% 1.2000 0.90%98.00%0.54%3.3600 2.0000 %26.65%0.25% 1.4000 0.60%98.60%0.31%3.9200 2.0000 %22.84%0.14% 1.6000 0.50%99.10%0.22%4.4800 2.0000 %19.99%0.10% 1.8000 0.50%99.60%0.20%5.0400 2.0000 %17.77%0.09% 89.30% Removal Efficiency Adjustment² = Predicted % Annual Rainfall Treated =97.75% Predicted Net Annual Load Removal Efficiency =89.30% 1 - Based on 14 years of 15-minute rainfall data from NCDC Station 2107, East Brimfield Lake, Worcester County, MA 2 - Reduction due to use of 60-minute data for a site that has a time of concentration less than 30-minutes. *Treatment flow rate calculated using annualized weighted calculation. Hydrodynamic Separation Product Calculator Northampton WQU-101 CASCADE SEPARATOR CS-4 ELEVATION VIEWINLET PIPEOUTLET PIPEA CONTECH TO PROVIDEGRADE RING/RISERCONTRACTOR TO GROUTTO FINISHED GRADE2'-0"SUMPTYPTRANSFER OPENINGTRANSFEROPENINGPLAN VIEW(TOP SLAB NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)8'-0"DRAINDOWNCARTRIDGEDECKWEIRINLETBAYHI FLOCARTRIDGESTEPS(LOCATIONMAY VARY)OUTLETBAYBYPASSWEIRFLOATABLESBAFFLEOUTLETTRANSFEROPENINGINLETTRANSFEROPENINGCARTRIDGEDECKCARTRIDGEB FRAME AND COVER SHOWN(TRENCH COVER OPTION ISFLUSH WITH TOP OF STRUCTURE)6'-0"BOTTOM OFFLOATABLESBAFFLETOP OFBYPASS WEIRFRAME AND COVER(DIAMETER VARIES)N.T.S.24"TRENCH COVER(LENGTH VARIES)N.T.S.www.ContechES .com®USAEJIW800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069JELLYFISH JFPD0806STANDARD DETAILPEAK DIVERSION CONFIGURATIONI:\COMMON\CAD\TREATMENT\13 JELLYFISH FILTER\40 STANDARD DRAWINGS\JFPD\DWG\JFPD0806-DTL NEW.DWG 1/29/2018 10:38 AM www.ContechES.comTHIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THEFOLLOWING: U.S. PATENT NO. 8,287,726; 8,221,618; US 8,123,935;OTHER INTERNATIONAL PATENTS PENDINGJELLYFISH DESIGN NOTESCARTRIDGE LENGTHFLOW RATE HI-FLO / DRAINDOWN (CFS) (PER CART)JELLYFISH TREATMENT CAPACITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE CARTRIDGE LENGTH AND THE NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. THE STANDARD PEAK DIVERSIONSTYLE WITH PRECAST TOP SLAB IS SHOWN. ALTERNATE OFFLINE VAULT AND/OR SHALLOW ORIENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE. PEAK CONVEYANCECAPACITY TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER OF RECORDCARTRIDGE SELECTIONOUTLET INVERT TO STRUCTURE INVERT (A)MAX. TREATMENT (CFS)1.961.470.980.5415"27"40"54"0.049 / 0.0250.089 / 0.0450.133 / 0.0670.178 / 0.0893'-3"4'-3"5'-4"6'-6"DECK TO INSIDE TOP (MIN) (B)5.004.004.004.00GENERAL NOTES:1.CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.2.FOR SITE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEEREDSOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContechES.com3.JELLYFISH WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT.4.STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS-20 OR PER APPROVING JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT, ASSUMING EARTHCOVER OF 0' - 10', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRMACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 LOAD RATING AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO.5.STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-857, ASTM C-918, AND AASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD.6. OUTLET PIPE INVERT IS EQUAL TO THE CARTRIDGE DECK ELEVATION.7. THE OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS IS RECOMMENDED TO BE ONE PIPE SIZE LARGER THAN THE INLET PIPE AT EQUAL ORGREATER SLOPE.8. NO PRODUCT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SUBMITTED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO PROJECT BID DATE, OR AS DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER OF RECORD.INSTALLATION NOTESA. ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIEDBY ENGINEER OF RECORD.B. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE STRUCTURE.C. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL AND LEVEL THE STRUCTURE, SEALING THE JOINTS, LINE ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS (NON-SHRINK GROUT WITHAPPROVED WATERSTOP OR FLEXIBLE BOOT).D. CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION, BY CONTECH, SHALL OCCUR ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND THE JELLYFISH UNIT IS CLEAN AND FREE OFDEBRIS. CONTACT CONTECH TO COORDINATE CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION WITH SITE STABILIZATION.STRUCTURE IDWATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfs)PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (yrs)# OF CARTRIDGES REQUIRED (HF / DD)PIPE DATA:I.E.MAT'LDIAINLET #1INLET #2OUTLETSITE SPECIFICDATA REQUIREMENTSWIDTHHEIGHTANTI-FLOTATION BALLASTNOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:RIM ELEVATIONCARTRIDGE LENGTH* PER ENGINEER OF RECORDSLOPE %HGLSEE GENERAL NOTES 6-7 FOR INLET AND OUTLETHYDRAULIC AND SIZING REQUIREMENTS.************************ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Office of Water Resources – Stormwater Technology Review Committee 235 Promenade St. Providence, RI 02908 Ph: 401-222-4700 Alternative Stormwater Technology Certification Vendor Contact: Technology Name: Mr. Derek M. Berg Cascade Separator® Director of Stormwater Management - East Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC Approval Type: 71 US Route 1, Suite F Pretreatment/Retrofits Derek.berg@contechllc.com www.conteches.com Certification Dates: Ph: 207-885-6174 Issued: October 12, 2021 Revised: May 25, 2022 Expires: October 12, 2026 CERTIFICATION: The Rhode Island Stormwater Technology Review Committee which consists of members from the Department of Environmental Management (DEM), Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) have reviewed the Cascade Separator® application for certification of its Technology Approval and accepted use for Stormwater Treatment in the State of Rhode Island. In accordance with Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.9B, Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC has petitioned the permitting agencies to certify the Cascade Separator® as an acceptable structural stormwater control described in Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.31. They have submitted monitoring results and supporting information developed in accordance with the provisions of the Technology Assessment Protocol (TAP) for Innovative and Emerging Technologies as described in in Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10 Sections 8.39 and 8.40. The Cascade Separator® is granted reciprocity in Rhode Island as a proprietary stormwater treatment technology, given that it has been issued an MTD (manufactured treatment device) Lab Certification from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) effective October 1, 2019 as a result of the NJCAT Technology Verification – Cascade Separator® study from April 2019, performed by Contech’s laboratory in Portland, Oregon, with independent third-party observation provided by Dr. Scott Wells and Dr. Chris Berger from Portland State University. The study was conducted in accordance with the NJDEP “Laboratory Protocol to Assess Total Suspended Solids Removal by a Hydrodynamic Sedimentation Manufactured Treatment Device” from January 2013. This NJDEP MTD Lab Certification recognizes the Cascade Separator® as a stormwater treatment technology which provides 50% removal of total suspended solids when operating at the maximum treatment flow rate for each device specified in the attached Table 1: RIDEM Approved Cascade Separator Sizing Table for 50% TSS Removal. The State of New Jersey is a member of the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership (TARP), which allows for reciprocity consideration in Rhode Island. The Cascade Separator® is a pre-treatment or retrofit device that captures TSS from stormwater runoff as described in Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.31. It is a vertically oriented cylindrical structure manufactured from pre-cast reinforced concrete and fiber reinforced plastic, designed to remove trash and sediment from stormwater. This product was developed by Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC. The Cascade Separator® is approved for online and off-line use. The manufacturer has demonstrated that this product meets the minimum water quality standards for pretreatment as described in Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.31. The Cascade Separator® is approved for 50% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) when designed using flow rates specified in the attached Table 1: Page 2 of 5 RIDEM Approved Sizing for Cascade Separator®. The Cascade Separator® is NOT recognized for removal of Pathogens, Total Phosphorus or Nitrogen. This device may be used as an approved pre-treatment or retrofit device provided that the design, installation, and maintenance are conducted in accordance with the following terms and conditions: I. GENERAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 1. The system must be designed and installed to adhere to the manufacturer’s specifications titled “Cascade Separator General Specification” which can be found on at: https://www.conteches.com/technical-guides/search?filter=QL31JT8LA0 2. The Cascade Separator® is certified as a pretreatment device in accordance with Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.31, provided the device treats the flow of the first inch of runoff from the capture area, unless waived by the state permitting agency. 3. The applicant must provide the RI specific manufacturers design sheet for Departmental review or provide the manufacturer’s review approval. All units that capture greater than one acre of impervious cover must be reviewed by the manufacturer. 4. This device is certified as a retrofit device in accordance with Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10- 8.6A. Retrofits are allowed flexibility with regards to the eleven minimum standards described in Sections 8.6 through 8.17 of Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10, but in general they are considered effective if they capture at least 50% of the catchment and meet the target water quality treatment of at least the first 0.5 inches of the water quality volume. 5. The approved devices shall be located such that they are accessible for maintenance and/or emergency removal of oil or chemical spills. 6. The device cannot be used in series with another Hydrodynamic separator to achieve enhanced removal rates for TSS. II. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 1. Standard permitting conditions for inclusion of this technology will, at a minimum include the following: a. Each individual owner must ensure that any and all of their proprietary stormwater treatment devices are maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, which are provided in the Cascade Separator® Inspection and Maintenance Guide. https://www.conteches.com/Portals/0/Documents/Maintenance%20Guides/Cascade- Maintenance%20Guide.pdf?ver=2018-11-05-093254-300 b. Each individual owner must ensure that any and all of their proprietary stormwater pre- treatment devices are maintained in accordance with the requirements stated in Stormwater Rule 250-RICR-150-10-8.31-C, which requires the sump to be inspected a minimum of 2 times per year. Additionally, the device must be cleaned out when either pollutant removal capacity is reduced by 50% or more, or when 50% or more of the device’s pollutant storage capacity is filled or displaced. c. All material removed from the unit must be properly disposed of and is the responsibility of the owner. Page 3 of 5 d. The applicant must include a copy of the Cascade Separator® Inspection and Maintenance Guide in their project specific long term operation and maintenance plan. 2. The applicant must provide evidence of a maintenance contract which extends for a minimum of two years. The contracted maintenance provider must receive training by Contech Engineered Solutions, LLC on how to properly maintain Cascade Separator® devices. This requirement excludes maintenance providers recognized by the RIDEM to be qualified in maintenance of Cascade Separator® devices. III. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Upon request from the owner of any Cascade Separator system installed in the State of Rhode Island, the vendor shall provide the owner with a recommended maintenance schedule after the first year of operation. If a recommended maintenance schedule is requested by the owner after the first year of the device’s operation, then the owner is responsible for notifying the vendor of any additional pollutant loads on sites where contributing drainage areas may be subject to further development. 2. The Vendor shall provide a listing to the RIDEM Office of Water Resources of all systems installed within the State of Rhode Island on an annual basis. 3. The Vendor shall provide an annual listing to the RIDEM Office of Water Resources of all Rhode Island maintenance providers that they trained in Cascade Separator® maintenance. 4. The Vendor shall immediately notify the RIDEM Office of Water Resources if and when any changes are made to the model name or number of any Cascade Separator® device for all models applicable to this certification. 5. The Vendor shall immediately notify the RIDEM Office of Water Resources if and when any revisions are made to the design, installation operation and maintenance manuals for all models applicable to this certification. Revisions deemed by the RIDEM to be substantial, may require re-application to the Alternative Stormwater Technology Program. 6. The Vendor shall notify the RIDEM at least thirty (30) days following any proposed transfer of ownership of the Component technology. Notification shall include the name and address of the new owner and a written agreement between the existing and new owner specifying a date for transfer of ownership, responsibility, and liability for the Component. All provisions of this Certification shall be applicable to any new owners. IV. RIGHTS OF THE RIDEM AND CRMC 1. The RIDEM may suspend, modify, or revoke this approval for cause, including but not limited to non- compliance with any of the conditions or provisions of this approval, mis-representation, or failure to fully disclose all relevant data, or receipt of new information indicating that the use of the Cascade Separator® system is contrary to the public interest, public health, or the environment. 2. This approval does not represent an endorsement of the Cascade Separator® system by the RIDEM, RIDOT or CRMC. This letter of approval may be reproduced only in its entirety. 3. The Cascade Separator® General Specification and Cascade Separator® Inspection and Maintenance Guide referenced herein are approved upon the date of approval of this Certification. Page 4 of 5 4. The RIDEM reserves the right to suspend or revoke this Certification if updated design, installation, and O&M manuals are not provided to the RIDEM within thirty (30) days of RIDEM request or one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the expiration date of this Certification. All revisions must be reviewed and approved by the RIDEM prior to re-certification. Eric A. Beck, P.E. Date Administrator of Groundwater and Wetlands Protection RIDEM ATTACHMENTS Table 1: RIDEM Approved Cascade Separator Sizing Table for 50% TSS Removal Model # Water Quality Flow Rate (cfs) Approximate Impervious Treatment Area (acres) CS-3 1.02 0.93 CS-4 1.80 1.68 CS-5 2.81 2.63 CS-6 4.05 3.78 CS-8 7.20 6.73 CS-10 11.3 10.56 CS-12 16.2 15.14 Table 2: Standard Sediment Storage Capacity of Cascade Separator® Devices Model # Structure Inside Diameter (ft) Sediment Storage Volume (ft3) CS-4 4 18.9 CS-5 5 29.4 CS-6 6 42.4 CS-8 8 75.3 CS-10 10 117.7 CS-12 12 169.6 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix J Operation and Maintenance Manual Operation and Maintenance Manual For the Proposed: Proposed Development Located at: 171-187 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared for Submission to: City of Northampton, MA January 8, 2024 Prepared for: Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Prepared by: BL Companies 100 Constitution Plaza, 10 Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Phone: (860) 249-2200 Fax: (860) 249-2400 BL Project Number: 2300986 Introduction The Site Owner’s Manual complies with the Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (Standard 4) and the Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan (Standard 9) requirements of the 2008 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stormwater Handbook. The Manual outlines source control and pollution prevention measures and maintenance requirements of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) associated with the proposed development. Site Owner’s Agreement Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement Site Owner: Lia Don Address: 1055 East Jericho Turnpike Huntington, New York 11743 Responsible Party: Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership Cosenzi Automotive Realty Limited Partnership or their successors shall maintain ownership of the on-site stormwater management system as well as the responsibility for operation and maintenance during the post-development stages of the project. The site has been inspected for erosion and appropriate measures have been taken to permanently stabilize any eroded areas. All aspects of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) have been inspected for damage, wear and malfunction, and appropriate steps have been taken to repair or replace the system or portions of the system so that the stormwater at the site may be managed in accordance with the Stormwater Management Standards. Future responsible parties shall be notified of their continuing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the BMPs. The operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater BMPs is being implemented. ___________________________ ___________ Responsible Party Signature Date Stormwater Maintenance Easements There are no off-site areas utilized for stormwater control, therefore no stormwater management easements are required. The Site Owner will have access to all stormwater practices for inspection and maintenance, including direct maintenance access by heavy equipment to structures requiring regular maintenance. Record Keeping The Site Owner shall maintain a rolling log in which all inspections and maintenance activities for the past three years shall be recorded. The Operation and Maintenance Log includes information pertaining to inspections, repairs, and disposal relevant to the project’s stormwater management system. The Log is located in Appendix A. The Operation and Maintenance Log shall be made available to the Conservation Commission and the DEP upon request. The Conservation Commission and the DEP shall be allowed to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate and ensure that the responsible party complies with the maintenance requirements for each BMP Training Employees involved in grounds maintenance and emergency response will be educated on the general concepts of stormwater management and groundwater protection. The Site Owner’s Manual will be reviewed with the maintenance staff. The staff will be trained on the proper course of action for specific events expected to be incurred during routine maintenance or emergency situations. Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan In compliance with Standard 4 of the 2008 DEP Stormwater Management Handbook, this section outlines source control and pollution prevention measures to be employed on-site after construction. Storage of Materials and Waste The site shall be kept clear of trash and debris at all times. Certain materials and waste products shall be stored inside or outside upon an impervious surface and covered, as required by local and state regulations. Vehicle Washing No commercial vehicle washing shall take place on site. Routine Inspections and Maintenance of Stormwater BMPs See Section 4.0 Long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan, for routine inspection and maintenance requirements for all proposed stormwater BMPs. Spill Prevention and Response A contingency plan shall be implemented to address the spill or release of petroleum products and hazardous materials and will include the following measures: 1. Equipment necessary to quickly attend to inadvertent spills or leaks shall be stored on- site in a secure but accessible location. Such equipment shall include but not be limited to the following: safety goggles, chemically resistant gloves and overshoe boots, water and chemical fire extinguishers, sand and shovels, suitable absorbent materials, storage containers and first aid equipment (i.e. Indian Valley Industries, Inc. 55-gallon Spill Containment kit or approved equivalent). 2. Spills or leaks shall be treated properly according to material type, volume of spillage and location of spill. Mitigation shall include preventing further spillage, containing the spilled material in the smallest practical area, removing spilled material in a safe and environmentally-friendly manner, and remediation of any damage to the environment. 3. For large spills, Massachusetts DEP Hazardous Waste Incident Response Group shall be notified immediately at 888-304-1133 and an emergency response contractor shall be consulted. Maintenance of Lawns, Gardens, and other Landscaped Areas Lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas shall be maintained regularly by the site owner. Vegetated and landscaped BMPs will be maintained as outlined in Section 4.0. Storage and Use of Fertilizers, Herbicides, and Pesticides All fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides shall be stored in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The application rate and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides on the site shall at no time exceed local, state, or federal specifications. Pet Waste Management Pet owners shall be required to pick up after their animals and dispose of waste in the trash. Operation and Management of Septic Systems The proposed development will be serviced by Town sewer and there are no proposed septic systems. Snow and Deicing Chemical Management Snow removal and use of deicing chemicals at the proposed development shall comply with the following requirements: •Plowed snow shall be placed in the areas outside of wetland boundaries and stormwater best management practices. The following maintenance measures shall be undertaken at all snow disposal sites: o Debris shall be cleared from an area prior to using it for snow disposal. o Debris and accumulated sediments shall be cleared from the site and properly disposed of at the end of the snow season and no later than May 15. •In accordance with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 85, Section 7A, salt and other de-icing chemicals will be stored at an indoor location. Salt and other deicing chemicals shall be stored in accordance with Massachusetts General Law. •Sand piles shall be contained and stabilized to prevent the discharge of sand to wetlands or water bodies, and, where feasible, covered. •Salt storage piles shall be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. •The application of salt on the proposed parking areas and driveway shall at no time exceed state or local requirements. Nutrient Management Plan A nutrient management plan is required if a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed that indicates that use of fertilizers containing nutrients or other specific pollutants must be reduced. There are no TMDLs issued for the waterbodies downstream of the proposed project. Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan This section outlines the stormwater best management practices (BMPs) associated with the proposed stormwater management system and identifies the long-term inspection and maintenance requirements for each BMP. Stormwater Management System Components The following table outlines the type and quantity of the BMPs and their general location. Please reference the site plan(s) provided in the Figures section for exact location. BMP Type Quantity Location Catch Basins 9 Throughout paved parking area. Hydrodynamic Separator 1 In the parking area Jellyfish Filter 1 In the parking area Inspection and Maintenance Schedules General Maintenance for Mosquito Control If necessary to minimize mosquito breeding, a licensed pesticide applicator shall apply larvicides, such as Bacillus sphaericus (Bs) to all catch basins sumps, and water quality inlets. Larvicides shall be applied in compliance with all pesticide label requirements, and will be applied during or immediately after wet weather, unless the product used can withstand extended dry periods. Ensure all manhole covers, and inspection ports are secure to reduce the likelihood of mosquitoes laying eggs in standing water. Deep Sump and Hooded Catch Basins Catch basins shall be inspected four times per year, including after the foliage season. Other inspection and maintenance requirements include: •Units shall be cleaned (organic material, sediment and hydrocarbons removed) four times per year or whenever the depth of deposits is greater than or equal to one half the depth from the bottom of the invert of the lowest pipe in the basin. o Cleanout shall always occur after street sweeping. •If any evidence of hydrocarbons is found during inspection, the material shall be immediately removed using absorbent pads or other suitable measures and disposed of legally. •Remove other accumulated debris as necessary. •Transport and disposal of accumulated sediment off-site shall be in accordance with applicable local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. Area Drains and Drop Inlets Area drains and drop inlets shall be inspected and/or cleaned at least once per year. Proprietary Separators Maintenance of proprietary separators shall be performed according the recommendations set forth by the manufacturer (see Appendix C. Proprietary Separator Technical Manual for complete installation, operation and maintenance procedures). Inspection and maintenance procedures for proprietary devices are provided below: •Units shall be inspected post-construction, prior to being put into service. •Units shall be inspected not less than twice per year following installation and no less than once per year thereafter. •Units shall be inspected immediately after any oil, fuel or chemical spill. •All inspections shall include checking the oil level and sediment depth in the unit. •Removal of sediments/oils shall occur per manufacturer recommendations. •A licensed waste management company shall remove captured petroleum waste products from any oil, chemical or fuel spills and dispose. •OSHA confined space entry protocols shall be followed if entry into the unit is required. Street Sweeping The TSS removal credit is dependent on the type of street sweeper used and the frequency that sweeping occurs (see table below). Street sweeping shall occur primarily in spring and fall, and always prior to catch basin cleanout. Type of SweeperTSS Removal Credit High Efficiency Sweeper Regenerative Air Sweeper Mechanical Sweeper (Rotary Broom) 10%Monthly Bi-weekly Weekly 5%Quarterly Quarterly Monthly 0%Less than above Less than above Less than above Once removed from paved surfaces, the sweepings shall be handled and disposed of properly, and in compliance with applicable local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. Figures Figure 1: Site Plan 1"=40'SITE UTILITIESPLANE.A.E.J.N.B.C3.00DesignedReviewedProject No.ScaleDrawnDate230098601/08/2024Desc. REVISIONS DateNo.TitleNORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS 171-187 KING STREETSheet No.Xref (s): ; BD230098601 ; XZ230098601 ; XC230098601 ; XC230098602 ; XC230098603 ; XC230098604 ; XC230098605 ; XC230098606 ; XC230098600 ; XZ230098602 CAD File:SU2300986011/3/2024, LENNIS, G:\JOBS23\08\2300986\DWG\SU230098601.DWG.SU-1 24X36 40SC.2024 BL COMPANIES, INC. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED BY ANY PERSON, FIRM OR CORPORATION WITHOUT THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BL COMPANIES.CLand Surveying Environmental Engineering ArchitecturePROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 100 Constitution Plaza(860) 249-2200Hartford, CT 0610310th Floor CONSTRUCTIONNOT RELEASED FOR PERMITTING OR S.M.K. Appendix A Operation and Maintenance Log OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE LOG This template is intended to comply with the operation and maintenance log requirements of the 2008 DEP Stormwater Management Handbook. Copies of this log should be made for all inspections and kept on file for three years from the inspection date. Name/Company of Inspector: Date/Time of Inspection: Weather Conditions: (Note current weather and any recent precipitation events) Stormwater BMP Inspection Observations Actions Required Appendix B List of Emergency Contacts Appendix C Proprietary Separator Technical Manual Cascade Separator® Inspection and Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Maintenance The Cascade Separator® system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects sediment and debris will depend upon on-site activities and site pollutant characteristics. For example, unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the sediment storage sump to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (i.e. spring and fall). However, more frequent inspections may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment wash-down areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. A visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet chamber, flumes or outlet channel. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash and sediment in the system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided in this Inspection and Maintenance Guide. Access to the Cascade Separator unit is typically achieved through one manhole access cover. The opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the center chamber (cylinder) and sediment storage sump, as well as inspection of the inlet chamber and slanted skirt. For large units, multiple manhole covers allow access to the chambers and sump. The Cascade Separator system should be cleaned before the level of sediment in the sump reaches the maximum sediment depth and/or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If sorbent material is used, it must be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance may be impacted when maximum sediment storage capacity is exceeded. Contech recommends maintaining the system when sediment level reaches 50% of maximum storage volume. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring the distance from the system outlet invert (standing water level) to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Finer, silty particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than larger particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the chart in this document to determine if the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 50% of the maximum sediment storage. Cleaning Cleaning of a Cascade Separator system should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole cover and insert the vacuum tube down through the center chamber and into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The areas outside the center chamber and the slanted skirt should also be washed off if pollutant build- up exists in these areas. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads since they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. Then the system should be power washed to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and to ensure proper safety precautions. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material removed from the Cascade Separator system must be done in accordance with local regulations. In many locations, disposal of evacuated sediments may be handled in the same manner as disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Check your local regulations for specific requirements on disposal. If any components are damaged, replacement parts can be ordered from the manufacturer. A vacuum truck excavates pollutants from the systems.A Cascade Separator unit can be easily cleaned in less than 30 minutes. Model Number Diameter Distance from Water Surface to Top of Sediment Pile Sediment Storage Capacity ft m ft m y3 m3 CS-3 3 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 CS-4 4 1.2 2.5 0.8 0.7 0.5 CS-5 5 1.3 3 0.9 1.1 0.8 CS-6 6 1.8 3.5 1 1.6 1.2 CS-8 8 2.4 4.8 1.4 2.8 2.1 CS-10 10 3.0 6.2 1.9 4.4 3.3 CS-12 12 3.6 7.5 2.3 6.3 4.8 Note: The information in the chart is for standard units. Units may have been designed with non-standard sediment storage depth. Cascade Separator® Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities 800-925-5240www.ContechES.com SUPPORT • Drawings and specifications are available at www.ContechES.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2021 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and earth stabilization products. For information, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. Cascade Separator Maintenance 06/21 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Cascade Separator® Inspection & Maintenance Log Cascade Model:Location: Date Depth Below Invert to Top of Sediment1 Floatable Layer Thickness2 Describe Maintenance Performed Maintenance Personnel Comments 1. The depth to sediment is determined by taking a measurement from the manhole outlet invert (standing water level) to the top of the sediment pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the chart in the maintenance guide to determine if the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 50% of the maximum sediment storage. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately. Jellyfish® Filter Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS ® 2 JELLYFISH® FILTER INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE GUIDE Jellyfish units are often just one of many structures in a more comprehensive stormwater drainage and treatment system. In order for maintenance of the Jellyfish filter to be successful, it is imperative that all other components be properly maintained. The maintenance and repair of upstream facilities should be carried out prior to Jellyfish maintenance activities. In addition to considering upstream facilities, it is also important to correct any problems identified in the drainage area. Drainage area concerns may include: erosion problems, heavy oil loading, and discharges of inappropriate materials. ® TABLE OF CONTENTS Inspection and Maintenance Overview ..................................................................................3 Inspection Procedure .............................................................................................................3 Maintenance Procedure .........................................................................................................4 Cartridge Assembly & Cleaning ..............................................................................................5 Inspection Process ................................................................................................................7 3 1.0 Inspection and Maintenance Overview The primary purpose of the Jellyfish® Filter is to capture and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. As with any filtration system, these pollutants must be removed to maintain the filter’s maximum treatment performance. Regular inspection and maintenance are required to insure proper functioning of the system. Maintenance frequencies and requirements are site specific and vary depending on pollutant loading. Additional maintenance activities may be required in the event of non-storm event runoff, such as base-flow or seasonal flow, an upstream chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme runoff events. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Inspection activities are typically conducted from surface observations and include: y Observe if standing water is present y Observe if there is any physical damage to the deck or cartridge lids y Observe the amount of debris in the Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) or inlet bay for vault systems Maintenance activities include: y Removal of oil, floatable trash and debris y Removal of collected sediments y Rinsing and re-installing the filter cartridges y Replace filter cartridge tentacles, as needed 2.0 Inspection Timing Inspection of the Jellyfish Filter is key in determining the maintenance requirements for, and to develop a history of, the site’s pollutant loading characteristics. In general, inspections should be performed at the times indicated below; or per the approved project stormwater quality documents (if applicable), whichever is more frequent. 1. A minimum of quarterly inspections during the first year of operation to assess the sediment and floatable pollutant accumulation, and to ensure proper functioning of the system. 2. Inspection frequency in subsequent years is based on the inspection and maintenance plan developed in the first year of operation. Minimum frequency should be once per year. 3. Inspection is recommended after each major storm event. 4. Inspection is required immediately after an upstream oil, fuel or other chemical spill. 3.0 Inspection Procedure The following procedure is recommended when performing inspections: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Inspect the MAW or inlet bay for floatable pollutants such as trash, debris, and oil sheen. 3. Measure oil and sediment depth in several locations, by lowering a sediment probe until contact is made with the floor of the structure. Record sediment depth, and presences of any oil layers. 4. Inspect cartridge lids. Missing or damaged cartridge lids to be replaced. 5. Inspect the MAW (where appropriate), cartridge deck and receptacles, and backwash pool weir, for damaged or broken components. 3.1 Dry weather inspections y Inspect the cartridge deck for standing water, and/or sediment on the deck. y No standing water under normal operating conditions. y Standing water inside the backwash pool, but not outside the backwash pool indicates, that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. Personnel Access Outlet Pipe Hi-Flo Cartridges with Lid (inside backwash pool) Manhole Structure Inlet Pipe Equipment Access Maintenance Access Wall Downdrain Cartridge with Lid (outside of backwash pool) Cartridge Deck Sediment Backwash Pool Weir Membrane Filtration Tentacles Note: Separator Skirt not shown Inspection Utilizing Sediment Probe 4 y Standing water outside the backwash pool is not anticipated and may indicate a backwater condition caused by high water elevation in the receiving water body, or possibly a blockage in downstream infrastructure. y Any appreciable sediment (≥1/16”) accumulated on the deck surface should be removed. 3.2 Wet weather inspections y Observe the rate and movement of water in the unit. Note the depth of water above deck elevation within the MAW or inlet bay. y Less than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges (i.e. cartridges located outside the backwash pool). y Greater than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges and each of the hi-flo cartridges (i.e. cartridges located inside the backwash pool), and water should be overflowing the backwash pool weir. y 18 inches or greater and relatively little flow is exiting the cartridge lids and outlet pipe, this condition indicates that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. 4.0 Maintenance Requirements Required maintenance for the Jellyfish Filter is based upon results of the most recent inspection, historical maintenance records, or the site specific water quality management plan; whichever is more frequent. In general, maintenance requires some combination of the following: 1. Sediment removal for depths reaching 12 inches or greater, or within 3 years of the most recent sediment cleaning, whichever occurs sooner. 2. Floatable trash, debris, and oil removal. 3. Deck cleaned and free from sediment. 4. Filter cartridges rinsed and re-installed as required by the most recent inspection results, or within 12 months of the most recent filter rinsing, whichever occurs sooner. 5. Replace tentacles if rinsing does not restore adequate hydraulic capacity, remove accumulated sediment, or if damaged or missing. It is recommended that tentacles should remain in service no longer than 5 years before replacement. 6. Damaged or missing cartridge deck components must be repaired or replaced as indicated by results of the most recent inspection. 7. The unit must be cleaned out and filter cartridges inspected immediately after an upstream oil, fuel, or chemical spill. Filter cartridge tentacles should be replaced if damaged or compromised by the spill. 5.0 Maintenance Procedure The following procedures are recommended when maintaining the Jellyfish Filter: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Open all covers and hatches. Use ventilation equipment as required, according to confined space entry procedures. Caution: Dropping objects onto the cartridge deck may cause damage. 3. Perform Inspection Procedure prior to maintenance activity. 4. To access the cartridge deck for filter cartridge service, descend into the structure and step directly onto the deck. Caution: Do not step onto the maintenance access wall (MAW) or backwash pool weir, as damage may result. Note that the cartridge deck may be slippery. 5. Maximum weight of maintenance crew and equipment on the cartridge deck not to exceed 450 lbs. 5.1 Filter Cartridge Removal 1. Remove a cartridge lid. 2. Remove cartridges from the deck using the lifting loops in the cartridge head plate. Rope or a lifting device (available from Contech) should be used. Caution: Should a snag occur, do not force the cartridge upward as damage to the tentacles may result. Wet cartridges typically weigh between 100 and 125 lbs. 3. Replace and secure the cartridge lid on the exposed empty receptacle as a safety precaution. Contech does not recommend exposing more than one empty cartridge receptacle at a time. 5.2 Filter Cartridge Rinsing 1. Remove all 11 tentacles from the cartridge head plate. Take care not to lose or damage the O-ring seal as well as the plastic threaded nut and connector. 2. Position tentacles in a container (or over the MAW), with the threaded connector (open end) facing down, so rinse water is flushed through the membrane and captured in the container. 3. Using the Jellyfish rinse tool (available from Contech) or a low-pressure garden hose sprayer, direct water spray onto the tentacle membrane, sweeping from top to bottom along the length of the tentacle. Rinse until all sediment is removed from the membrane. Caution: Do not use a high pressure sprayer or focused stream of water on the membrane. Excessive water pressure may damage the membrane. Cartridge Removal & Lifting Device 5 4. Collected rinse water is typically removed by vacuum hose. 5. Reassemble cartridges as detailed later in this document. Reuse O-rings and nuts, ensuring proper placement on each tentacle. 5.3 Sediment and Flotables Extraction 1. Perform vacuum cleaning of the Jellyfish Filter only after filter cartridges have been removed from the system. Access the lower chamber for vacuum cleaning only through the maintenance access wall (MAW) opening. Be careful not to damage the flexible plastic separator skirt that is attached to the underside of the deck on manhole systems. Do not lower the vacuum wand through a cartridge receptacle, as damage to the receptacle will result. 2. Vacuum floatable trash, debris, and oil, from the MAW opening or inlet bay. Alternatively, floatable solids may be removed by a net or skimmer. 3. Pressure wash cartridge deck and receptacles to remove all sediment and debris. Sediment should be rinsed into the sump area. Take care not to flush rinse water into the outlet pipe. 4. Remove water from the sump area. Vacuum or pump equipment should only be introduced through the MAW or inlet bay. 5. Remove the sediment from the bottom of the unit through the MAW or inlet bay opening. 6. For larger diameter Jellyfish Filter manholes (≥8-ft) and some vaults complete sediment removal may be facilitated by removing a cartridge lid from an empty receptacle and inserting a jetting wand (not a vacuum wand) through the receptacle. Use the sprayer to rinse loosened sediment toward the vacuum hose in the MAW opening, being careful not to damage the receptacle. 5.4 Filter Cartridge Reinstallation and Replacement 1. Cartridges should be installed after the deck has been cleaned. It is important that the receptacle surfaces be free from grit and debris. 2. Remove cartridge lid from deck and carefully lower the filter cartridge into the receptacle until head plate gasket is seated squarely in receptacle. Caution: Do not force the cartridge downward; damage may occur. 3. Replace the cartridge lid and check to see that both male threads are properly seated before rotating approximately 1/3 of a full rotation until firmly seated. Use of an approved rim gasket lubricant may facilitate installation. See next page for additional details. 4. If rinsing is ineffective in removing sediment from the tentacles, or if tentacles are damaged, provisions must be made to replace the spent or damaged tentacles with new tentacles. Contact Contech to order replacement tentacles. 5.5 Chemical Spills Caution: If a chemical spill has been captured, do not attempt maintenance. Immediately contact the local hazard response agency and contact Contech. 5.6 Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. Vacuuming Sump Through MAW Vacuuming Sump Through MAW 6 Jellyfish Filter Components & Filter Cartridge Assembly and Installation NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lide (ITem 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lide (ITem 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threads drop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lide (ITem 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE 7 Jellyfish Filter Inspection and Maintenance Log Owner:Jellyfish Model No: Location:GPS Coordinates: Land Use:Commercial:Industrial:Service Station: Roadway/Highway:Airport:Residential: Date/Time: Inspector: Maintenance Contractor: Visible Oil Present: (Y/N) Oil Quantity Removed: Floatable Debris Present: (Y/N) Floatable Debris Removed: (Y/N) Water Depth in Backwash Pool Draindown Cartridges externally rinsed and recommissioned: (Y/N) New tentacles put on Draindown Cartridges: (Y/N) Hi-Flo Cartridges externally rinsed and recommissioned: (Y/N) New tentacles put on Hi-Flo Cartridges: (Y/N) Sediment Depth Measured: (Y/N) Sediment Depth (inches or mm): Sediment Removed: (Y/N) Cartridge Lids intact: (Y/N) Observed Damage: Comments: 800.338.1122 www.ContechES.com Support y Drawings and specifications are available at www.conteches.com/jellyfish. y Site-specific design support is available from Contech Engineered Solutions. y Find a Certified Maintenance Provider at www.conteches.com/ccmp © 2021 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, wastewater treatment and earth stabilization products. For information on other Contech segment offerings, visit ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. Jellyfish Maintenance 01/21 ® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Filter ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 2 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Table of Contents Chapter 1 1.0 Owner Specific Jellyfish Product Information ...............................................................................4 Chapter 2 2.0 Jellyfish Filter System Operations & Functions .............................................................................5 2.1 Components & Cartridges ..........................................................................................................6 2.2 Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridges Assembly ......................................................................7 2.3 Installation of Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridges ................................................................7 Chapter 3 3.0 Inspection and Maintenance Overview .......................................................................................8 Chapter 4 4.0 Inspection Timing ......................................................................................................................8 Chapter 5 5.0 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................................................................8 5.1 Dry Weather Inspections ............................................................................................................8 5.1 Wet Weather Inspections ...........................................................................................................9 Chapter 6 6.0 Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................................................9 Chapter 7 7.0 Maintenance Procedure .............................................................................................................9 7.1 Filter Cartridge Removal .............................................................................................................9 7.2 Filter Cartridge Rinsing ...............................................................................................................9 7.3 Sediment and Flotables Extraction ............................................................................................10 7.4 Filter Cartridge Reinstallation and Replacement.........................................................................10 7.5 Chemical Spills .........................................................................................................................10 5.6 Material Disposal .....................................................................................................................10 Jellyfish Filter Inspection and Maintenance Log .........................................................................................................12 THANK YOU FOR PURCHASING THE JELLYFISH® FILTER! Contech Engineered Solutions would like to thank you for selecting the Jellyfish Filter to meet your project’s stormwater treatment needs. With proper inspection and maintenance, the Jellyfish Filter is designed to deliver ongoing, high levels of stormwater pollutant removal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us or e-mail us: Contech Engineered Solutions 9025 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 400 | West Chester, OH 45069 513-645-7000 | 800-338-1122 www.ContechES.com info@conteches.com Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 3 GASKET (AT EACH JOINT) OUTLET PIPE (GROUTED IN OR BOOTED) ACCESS STEPS – BACKWASH POOL WEIR CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLES CONTROL SECTION (WITH JELLYFISH DECK) SEPARATOR SKIRT (MANHOLE ONLY) HI-FLO CARTRIDGE(S) (LARGE ORIFICE) TOP SLAB DRAINDOWN CARTRIDGE(S) (SMALLER ORIFICE) MAINTENANCE ACCESS WALL (MAW) (MANHOLE ONLY) ADDITIONAL RISER SECTION (IF NEEDED) INLET PIPE (GROUTED IN OR BOOTED) BASE SECTION FRAME AND COVER DECK ASSEMBLY 4 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Chapter 1 1.0 – Owner Specific Jellyfish Filter Product Information Below you will find a reference page that can be filled out according to your Jellyfish Filter specification to help you easily inspect, maintain and order parts for your system. Owner Name: Phone Number: Site Address: Site GPS Coordinates/unit location: Unit Location Description: Jellyfish Filter Model No.: Contech Project & Sequence Number No. of Hi-Flo Cartridges No. of Cartridges: Length of Draindown Cartridges: No. of Blank Cartridge Lids: Bypass Configuration (Online/Offline): Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ WARNINGS / CAUTION 1. FALL PROTECTION may be required. 2. WATCH YOUR STEP if standing on the Jellyfish Filter Deck at any time; Great care and safety must be taken while walking or maneuvering on the Jellyfish Filter Deck. Attentive care must be taken while standing on the Jellyfish Filter Deck at all times to prevent stepping onto a lid, into or through a cartridge hole or slipping on the deck. 3. The Jellyfish Filter Deck can be SLIPPERY WHEN WET. 4. If the Top Slab, Covers or Hatches have not yet been installed, or are removed for any reason, great care must be taken to NOT DROP ANYTHING ONTO THE JELLYFISH FILTER DECK. The Jellyfish Filter Deck and Cartridge Receptacle Rings can be damaged under high impact loads. This type of activity voids all warranties. All damaged items to be replaced at owner's expense. 5. Maximum deck load 2 persons, total weight 450 lbs. Safety Notice Jobsite safety is a topic and practice addressed comprehensively by others. The inclusions here are intended to be reminders to whole areas of Safety Practice that are the responsibility of the Owner(s), Manager(s) and Contractor(s). OSHA and Canadian OSH, and Federal, State/Provincial, and Local Jurisdiction Safety Standards apply on any given site or project. The knowledge and applicability of those responsibilities is the Contractor’s responsibility and outside the scope of Contech Engineered Solutions. Confined Space Entry Secure all equipment and perform all training to meet applicable local and OSHA regulations regarding confined space entry. It is the Contractor’s or entry personnel’s responsibility to proceed safely at all times. Personal Safety Equipment Contractor is responsible to provide and wear appropriate personal protection equipment as needed including, but not limited to safety boots, hard hat, reflective vest, protective eyewear, gloves and fall protection equipment as necessary. Make sure all equipment is staffed with trained and/or certified personnel, and all equipment is checked for proper operation and safety features prior to use. • Fall protection equipment • Eye protection • Safety boots • Ear protection • Gloves • Ventilation and respiratory protection • Hard hat • Maintenance and protection of traffic plan Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 5 Chapter 2 2.0 – Jellyfish Filter System Operations and FunctionsThe Jellyfish Filter is an engineered stormwater quality treatment technology that removes a high level and wide variety of stormwater pollutants. Each Jellyfish Filter cartridge consists of eleven membrane - encased filter elements (“filtration tentacles”) attached to a cartridge head plate. The filtration tentacles provide a large filtration surface area, resulting in high flow and high pollutant removal capacity. The Jellyfish Filter functions are depicted in Figure 1 below. Jellyfish Filter cartridges are backwashed after each peak storm event, which removes accumulated sediment from the membranes. This backwash process extends the service life of the cartridges and increases the time between maintenance events. For additional details on the operation and pollutant capabilities of the Jellyfish Filter please refer to additional details on our website at www.ContechES.com. Jellyfish Filter Treatment Functions Membrane Filtration Section View with Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) Cutaway Effluent Pipe Filtered Water Particles Filtered Floatables Collection Particles Settling Influent Pipe FIGURE 1 6 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 2.1 – Components and Cartridges The Jellyfish Filter and components are depicted in Figure 2 below. Tentacles are available in various lengths as depicted in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Cartridge Lengths / Weights and Cartridge Lid Orifice Diameters Cartridge Lengths Dry Weight Hi-Flo Orifice Diameter Draindown Orifice Diameter 15 inches (381 mm)10 lbs (4.5 kg)35 mm 20 mm 27 inches (686 mm)14.5 lbs (6.6 kg)45 mm 25 mm 40 inches (1,016 mm)19.5 lbs (8.9 kg)55 mm 30 mm 54 inches (1,372 mm) 25 lbs (11.4 kg)70 mm 35 mm Jellyfish Filter Components Personnel Access Outlet Pipe Hi-Flo Cartridges with Lid (inside backwash pool) Manhole Structure Inlet Pipe Equipment Access FIGURE 2 Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) Draindown Cartridge with Lid (outside of backwash pool) Cartridge Deck Sediment Backwash Pool Weir Membrane Filtration Tentacles Note: Separator Skirt not shown Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 7 2.2 – Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridge AssemblyThe Jellyfish Filter utilizes multiple membrane filtration cartridges. Each cartridge consists of removable cylindrical filtration “tentacles” attached to a cartridge head plate. Each filtration tentacle has a threaded pipe nipple and o-ring. To attach, insert the top pipe nipples with the o-ring through the head plate holes and secure with locking nuts. Hex nuts to be hand tightened and checked with a wrench as shown below. 2.3 – Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridge Installation• Cartridge installation will be performed by trained individuals and coordinated with the installing site Contractor. Flow diversion devices are required to be in place until the site is stabilized (final paving and landscaping in place). Failure to address this step completely will reduce the time between required maintenance. • Descend to the cartridge deck (see Safety Notice and page 3). • Refer to Contech's submittal drawings to determine proper quantity and placement of Hi-Flo, Draindown and Blank cartridges with appropriate lids. Lower the Jellyfish membrane filtration cartridges into the cartridge receptacles within the cartridge deck. It is possible that not all cartridge receptacles will be filled with a filter cartridge. In that case, a blank headplate and blank cartridge lid (no orifice) would be installed. Do not force the tentacles down into the cartridge receptacle, as this may damage the membranes. Apply downward pressure on the cartridge head plate to seat the lubricated rim gasket (thick circular gasket surrounding the circumference of the head plate) into the cartridge receptacle. (See Figure 3 for details on approved lubricants for use with rim gasket.) • Examine the cartridge lids to differentiate lids with a small orifice, a large orifice, and no orifice. • Lids with a small orifice are to be inserted into the Draindown cartridge receptacles, outside of the backwash pool weir. • Lids with a large orifice are to be inserted into the Hi-Flo cartridge receptacles within the backwash pool weir. • Lids with no orifice (blank cartridge lids) and a blank headplate are to be inserted into unoccupied cartridge receptacles. • To install a cartridge lid, align both cartridge lid male threads with the cartridge receptacle female threads before rotating approximately 1/3 of a full rotation until firmly seated. Use of an approved rim gasket lubricant may facilitate installation. Cartridge Assembly 8 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 3.0 Inspection and Maintenance Overview The primary purpose of the Jellyfish® Filter is to capture and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. As with any filtration system, these pollutants must be removed to maintain the filter’s maximum treatment performance. Regular inspection and maintenance are required to insure proper functioning of the system. Maintenance frequencies and requirements are site specific and vary depending on pollutant loading. Additional maintenance activities may be required in the event of non-storm event runoff, such as base-flow or seasonal flow, an upstream chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme runoff events. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Inspection activities are typically conducted from surface observations and include: y Observe if standing water is present y Observe if there is any physical damage to the deck or cartridge lids y Observe the amount of debris in the Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) or inlet bay for vault systems Maintenance activities include: y Removal of oil, floatable trash and debris y Removal of collected sediments y Rinsing and re-installing the filter cartridges y Replace filter cartridge tentacles, as needed 4.0 Inspection Timing Inspection of the Jellyfish Filter is key in determining the maintenance requirements for, and to develop a history of, the site’s pollutant loading characteristics. In general, inspections should be performed at the times indicated below; or per the approved project stormwater quality documents (if applicable), whichever is more frequent. 1. A minimum of quarterly inspections during the first year of operation to assess the sediment and floatable pollutant accumulation, and to ensure proper functioning of the system. 2. Inspection frequency in subsequent years is based on the inspection and maintenance plan developed in the first year of operation. Minimum frequency should be once per year. 3. Inspection is recommended after each major storm event. 4. Inspection is required immediately after an upstream oil, fuel or other chemical spill. 5.0 Inspection Procedure The following procedure is recommended when performing inspections: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Inspect the MAW or inlet bay for floatable pollutants such as trash, debris, and oil sheen. 3. Measure oil and sediment depth in several locations, by lowering a sediment probe until contact is made with the floor of the structure. Record sediment depth, and presences of any oil layers. 4. Inspect cartridge lids. Missing or damaged cartridge lids to be replaced. 5. Inspect the MAW (where appropriate), cartridge deck and receptacles, and backwash pool weir, for damaged or broken components. 5.1 Dry weather inspections y Inspect the cartridge deck for standing water, and/or sediment on the deck. y No standing water under normal operating conditions. y Standing water inside the backwash pool, but not outside the backwash pool indicates, that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. Personnel Access Outlet Pipe Hi-Flo Cartridges with Lid (inside backwash pool) Manhole Structure Inlet Pipe Equipment Access Maintenance Access Wall Downdrain Cartridge with Lid (outside of backwash pool) Cartridge Deck Sediment Backwash Pool Weir Membrane Filtration Tentacles Note: Separator Skirt not shown Inspection Utilizing Sediment Probe Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 9 y Standing water outside the backwash pool is not anticipated and may indicate a backwater condition caused by high water elevation in the receiving water body, or possibly a blockage in downstream infrastructure. y Any appreciable sediment (≥1/16”) accumulated on the deck surface should be removed. 5.2 Wet weather inspections y Observe the rate and movement of water in the unit. Note the depth of water above deck elevation within the MAW or inlet bay. y Less than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges (i.e. cartridges located outside the backwash pool). y Greater than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges and each of the hi-flo cartridges (i.e. cartridges located inside the backwash pool), and water should be overflowing the backwash pool weir. y 18 inches or greater and relatively little flow is exiting the cartridge lids and outlet pipe, this condition indicates that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. 6.0 Maintenance Requirements Required maintenance for the Jellyfish Filter is based upon results of the most recent inspection, historical maintenance records, or the site specific water quality management plan; whichever is more frequent. In general, maintenance requires some combination of the following: 1. Sediment removal for depths reaching 12 inches or greater, or within 3 years of the most recent sediment cleaning, whichever occurs sooner. 2. Floatable trash, debris, and oil removal. 3. Deck cleaned and free from sediment. 4. Filter cartridges rinsed and re-installed as required by the most recent inspection results, or within 12 months of the most recent filter rinsing, whichever occurs sooner. 5. Replace tentacles if rinsing does not restore adequate hydraulic capacity, remove accumulated sediment, or if damaged or missing. It is recommended that tentacles should remain in service no longer than 5 years before replacement. 6. Damaged or missing cartridge deck components must be repaired or replaced as indicated by results of the most recent inspection. 7. The unit must be cleaned out and filter cartridges inspected immediately after an upstream oil, fuel, or chemical spill. Filter cartridge tentacles should be replaced if damaged or compromised by the spill. 7.0 Maintenance Procedure The following procedures are recommended when maintaining the Jellyfish Filter: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Open all covers and hatches. Use ventilation equipment as required, according to confined space entry procedures. Caution: Dropping objects onto the cartridge deck may cause damage. 3. Perform Inspection Procedure prior to maintenance activity. 4. To access the cartridge deck for filter cartridge service, descend into the structure and step directly onto the deck. Caution: Do not step onto the maintenance access wall (MAW) or backwash pool weir, as damage may result. Note that the cartridge deck may be slippery. 5. Maximum weight of maintenance crew and equipment on the cartridge deck not to exceed 450 lbs. 7.1 Filter Cartridge Removal 1. Remove a cartridge lid. 2. Remove cartridges from the deck using the lifting loops in the cartridge head plate. Rope or a lifting device (available from Contech) should be used. Caution: Should a snag occur, do not force the cartridge upward as damage to the tentacles may result. Wet cartridges typically weigh between 100 and 125 lbs. 3. Replace and secure the cartridge lid on the exposed empty receptacle as a safety precaution. Contech does not recommend exposing more than one empty cartridge receptacle at a time. 7.2 Filter Cartridge Rinsing 1. Remove all 11 tentacles from the cartridge head plate. Take care not to lose or damage the O-ring seal as well as the plastic threaded nut and connector. 2. Position tentacles in a container (or over the MAW), with the threaded connector (open end) facing down, so rinse water is flushed through the membrane and captured in the container. 3. Using the Jellyfish rinse tool (available from Contech) or a low-pressure garden hose sprayer, direct water spray onto the tentacle membrane, sweeping from top to bottom along the length of the tentacle. Rinse until all sediment is removed from the membrane. Caution: Do not use a high pressure sprayer or focused stream of water on the membrane. Excessive water pressure may damage the membrane. 4. Collected rinse water is typically removed by vacuum hose. Cartridge Removal & Lifting Device 10 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 5. Reassemble cartridges as detailed later in this document. Reuse O-rings and nuts, ensuring proper placement on each tentacle. 7.3 Sediment and Flotables Extraction 1. Perform vacuum cleaning of the Jellyfish Filter only after filter cartridges have been removed from the system. Access the lower chamber for vacuum cleaning only through the maintenance access wall (MAW) opening. Be careful not to damage the flexible plastic separator skirt that is attached to the underside of the deck on manhole systems. Do not lower the vacuum wand through a cartridge receptacle, as damage to the receptacle will result. 2. Vacuum floatable trash, debris, and oil, from the MAW opening or inlet bay. Alternatively, floatable solids may be removed by a net or skimmer. 3. Pressure wash cartridge deck and receptacles to remove all sediment and debris. Sediment should be rinsed into the sump area. Take care not to flush rinse water into the outlet pipe. 4. Remove water from the sump area. Vacuum or pump equipment should only be introduced through the MAW or inlet bay. 5. Remove the sediment from the bottom of the unit through the MAW or inlet bay opening. 6. For larger diameter Jellyfish Filter manholes (≥8-ft) and some vaults complete sediment removal may be facilitated by removing a cartridge lid from an empty receptacle and inserting a jetting wand (not a vacuum wand) through the receptacle. Use the sprayer to rinse loosened sediment toward the vacuum hose in the MAW opening, being careful not to damage the receptacle. 7.4 Filter Cartridge Reinstallation and Replacement 1. Cartridges should be installed after the deck has been cleaned. It is important that the receptacle surfaces be free from grit and debris. 2. Remove cartridge lid from deck and carefully lower the filter cartridge into the receptacle until head plate gasket is seated squarely in receptacle. Caution: Do not force the cartridge downward; damage may occur. 3. Replace the cartridge lid and check to see that both male threads are properly seated before rotating approximately 1/3 of a full rotation until firmly seated. Use of an approved rim gasket lubricant may facilitate installation. See next page for additional details. 4. If rinsing is ineffective in removing sediment from the tentacles, or if tentacles are damaged, provisions must be made to replace the spent or damaged tentacles with new tentacles. Contact Contech to order replacement tentacles. 7.5 Chemical Spills Caution: If a chemical spill has been captured, do not attempt maintenance. Immediately contact the local hazard response agency and contact Contech. 7.6 Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. Rinsing Cartridge with Contech Rinse Tool Vacuuming Sump Through MAW Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 11 Jellyfish Filter Components & Filter Cartridge Assembly and Installation NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lid (Item 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lid (Item 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lid (Item 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE 12 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Jellyfish Filter Inspection and Maintenance Log Owner: _______________________________________ Jellyfish Model No.:_____________________________ Location: _____________________________________ GPS Coordinates: ______________________________ Land Use: Commercial:______ Industrial: ______ Service Station:______ Road/Highway:____ Airport: ________ Residential: _________ Parking Lot:______ Date/Time: Inspector: Maintenance Contractor: Visible Oil Present: (Y/N) Oil Quantity Removed Floatable Debris Present: (Y/N) Floatable Debris removed: (Y/N) Water Depth in Backwash Pool Cartridges externally rinsed/re-commissioned: (Y/N) New tentacles put on Cartridges: (Y/N) Sediment Depth Measured: (Y/N) Sediment Depth (inches or mm): Sediment Removed: (Y/N) Cartridge Lids intact: (Y/N) Observed Damage: Comments: CES_JF_OM 01/21 Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix K Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix L Massachusetts Cultural Resources Information System MACRIS Search Results Search Date:9/7/2023 Search Criteria:Street Name:King St; Town(s):Northampton; Stormwater Management Report January 2024 Proposed Development City of Northampton Appendix M Abutter List Stormwater Management Permit Abutter’s List 1. Parcel 24D-330-001 Massachusetts Electric Company C/O Property Tax Dept. 40 Sylvan Rd Waltham, Ma 02451 2. Parcel 24D-339-001 Standick Trust PO Box 797 Northampton, MA 01061 3. Parcel 24D-134-001 Zimmerman Kurt R Trustee C/O Wilbraham Tire & Auto 2694 Boston Rd Wilbraham, MA 01095 4. Parcel 24D-136-001 King Enterprises LLC PO Box 447 Northampton, MA 01061 5. Parcel 24D-136-002 Florence Savings Bank PO Box 60700 Florence, MA 01062 6. Parcel 24D-078-001 Massachusetts Electric Company C/O Property Tax Department 40 Sylvan Rd Waltham, MA 02451 7. Parcel 24D-084-001 Standick Trust PO Box 797 Northampton, MA 01061 8. Parcel 24D-121-001 Northampton Rentals LLC PO Box 246 190 Russell Rd Hadley, MA 01035 9. Parcel 24D-159-001 Duprey Nicholas D & Betty L 164 Northampton St Easthampton, MA 01027 10. Parcel 24D-157-001 Duprey Nicholas D & Betty L 8 Grandview Lane Easthampton, MA 01027 11. Parcel 24D-158-001 Canon, Gail M & Canon Colby 26 Ashley Circle Easthampton, MA 01027 12. Parcel 24D-119-001 Northampton Rentals LLC PO Box 246 190 Russell Rd Hadley, MA 01035 Inv.No.Property Name Street Town Year Designations NTH.2056 First National Bank Building 1 King St Northampton 1928 NRDIS; NTH.2281 13-15 King St Northampton C 1900 NRDIS; NTH.2280 19 King St Northampton C 1900 NRDIS; NTH.2278 33 King St Northampton 1974 NRDIS; NTH.2123 Hotel Northampton 36 King St Northampton 1927 NRDIS; NTH.2277 43-49 King St Northampton C 1950 NRDIS; NTH.2054 Catholic Society Parsonage 71 King St Northampton 1866 NTH.2250 Sacred Heart School 91 King St Northampton 1911 NTH.641 Marin,Dr.L.Raymond House 94 King St Northampton 1909 NTH.642 Hopkins,John House 101 King St Northampton C 1830 NTH.643 Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church 101 King St Northampton 1916 NTH.632 Landry,Medard House 120-122 King St Northampton 1883 NTH.622 Saint Valentine Polish National Catholic Church 127 King St Northampton 1932 NTH.610 Armory Building,The 131 King St Northampton 1900 NTH.271 Bluebonnet Diner 324 King St Northampton C 1940