Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
T1000.24_NOI 20240206
Notice of Intent TEC Project File No. T1000.24 MassDOT Project File No. 612638 Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Northampton, Massachusetts, 01060 Prepared For: Massachusetts Department of Transportation 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116-3973 Prepared By: TEC, Inc. 282 Merrimack Street, 2nd Floor Lawrence, MA, 01843 October 12, 2023 Revised December 4, 2023 Revised February 6, 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS WPA FORM 3 1 NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION….......................................................................................1 EXISTING CONDTIONS .............................................................................. 1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................... 2 RESOURCE AREAS & IMPACTS ................................................................... 2 ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ................................................. 4 MITIGATION ............................................................................................. 4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT…………………………………………..……………….……..5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS…………………………………………..……………….…………..5 WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS………………………..6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 7 2 SUPPORTING MAPS AND DATA 3 PHOTO LOG 4 WETLAND AND WATERBODY DELINEATION REPORT 5 STORMWATER REPORT 6 MESA CHECKLIST 7 NHESP PROOF OF MAILING wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 1 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. Note: Before completing this form consult your local Conservation Commission regarding any municipal bylaw or ordinance. A. General Information 1. Project Location (Note: electronic filers will click on button to locate project site): Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) a. Street Address Northampton b. City/Town 01060 c. Zip Code Latitude and Longitude: 42.306307 d. Latitude -72.647099 e. Longitude N/A - public right of way f. Assessors Map/Plat Number N/A - public right of way g. Parcel /Lot Number 2. Applicant: Erica a. First Name Larner b. Last Name Massachusetts Department of Transportation-Highway Division c. Organization 10 Park Plaza, Room 7360 d. Street Address Boston e. City/Town MA f. State 02116 g. Zip Code (857) 268-1729 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number erica.n.larner@dot.state.ma.us j. Email Address 3. Property owner (required if different from applicant): Check if more than one owner a. First Name b. Last Name Massachusetts Department of Transportation c. Organization 10 Park Plaza d. Street Address Boston e. City/Town MA f. State 02116 g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email address 4. Representative (if any): David a. First Name Nader b. Last Name TEC, Inc. c. Company 282 Merrimack Street, 2nd Floor d. Street Address Lawrence e. City/Town MA f. State 01843 g. Zip Code 978-794-1792 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number dnader@theengineeringcorp.com j. Email address 5. Total WPA Fee Paid (from NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form): $500.00 a. Total Fee Paid $237.50 b. State Fee Paid $262.50 c. City/Town Fee Paid wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 2 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town A. General Information (continued) 6. General Project Description: Proposing to construct new sidewalk along Easthampton Road (Route 10) at the Earle Street Intersection for pedestrian safety, including new curbing, guardrail, and traffic signal improvements. 7a. Project Type Checklist: (Limited Project Types see Section A. 7b.) 1. Single Family Home 2. Residential Subdivision 3. Commercial/Industrial 4. Dock/Pier 5. Utilities 6. Coastal engineering Structure 7. Agriculture (e.g., cranberries, forestry) 8. Transportation 9. Other 7b. Is any portion of the proposed activity eligible to be treated as a limited project (including Ecological Restoration Limited Project) subject to 310 CMR 10.24 (coastal) or 310 CMR 10.53 (inland)? 1. Yes No If yes, describe which limited project applies to this project. (See 310 CMR 10.24 and 10.53 for a complete list and description of limited project types) 10.53(3)(f) - maintenance and improvement of existing public roadways 2. Limited Project Type If the proposed activity is eligible to be treated as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project (310 CMR10.24(8), 310 CMR 10.53(4)), complete and attach Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Limited Project Checklist and Signed Certification. 8. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: N/A - public roadway a. County b. Certificate # (if registered land) c. Book d. Page Number B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) 1. Buffer Zone Only – Check if the project is located only in the Buffer Zone of a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, Inland Bank, or Coastal Resource Area. 2. Inland Resource Areas (see 310 CMR 10.54-10.58; if not applicable, go to Section B.3, Coastal Resource Areas). Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and any supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 3 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) (cont’d) For all projects affecting other Resource Areas, please attach a narrative explaining how the resource area was delineated. Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a. Bank 1. linear feet 2. linear feet b. Bordering Vegetated Wetland 1. square feet 2. square feet c. Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways 1. square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic yards dredged Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) d. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. square feet 3. cubic feet of flood storage lost 4. cubic feet replaced e. Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 1. square feet 2. cubic feet of flood storage lost 3. cubic feet replaced f. Riverfront Area Mill River (Inland) 1. Name of Waterway (if available) - specify coastal or inland 2. Width of Riverfront Area (check one): 25 ft. - Designated Densely Developed Areas only 100 ft. - New agricultural projects only 200 ft. - All other projects 3. Total area of Riverfront Area on the site of the proposed project: 14850 square feet 4. Proposed alteration of the Riverfront Area: 14850 a. total square feet 6158 b. square feet within 100 ft. 8692 c. square feet between 100 ft. and 200 ft. 5. Has an alternatives analysis been done and is it attached to this NOI? Yes No 6. Was the lot where the activity is proposed created prior to August 1, 1996? Yes No 3. Coastal Resource Areas: (See 310 CMR 10.25-10.35) Note: for coastal riverfront areas, please complete Section B.2.f. above. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 4 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent) (cont’d) Check all that apply below. Attach narrative and supporting documentation describing how the project will meet all performance standards for each of the resource areas altered, including standards requiring consideration of alternative project design or location. Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department. Resource Area Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) a. Designated Port Areas Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below b. Land Under the Ocean 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged c. Barrier Beach Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes below d. Coastal Beaches 1. square feet 2. cubic yards beach nourishment e. Coastal Dunes 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dune nourishment Size of Proposed Alteration Proposed Replacement (if any) f. Coastal Banks 1. linear feet g. Rocky Intertidal Shores 1. square feet h. Salt Marshes 1. square feet 2. sq ft restoration, rehab., creation i. Land Under Salt Ponds 1. square feet 2. cubic yards dredged j. Land Containing Shellfish 1. square feet k. Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above 1. cubic yards dredged l. Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 1. square feet 4. Restoration/Enhancement If the project is for the purpose of restoring or enhancing a wetland resource area in addition to the square footage that has been entered in Section B.2.b or B.3.h above, please enter the additional amount here. a. square feet of BVW b. square feet of Salt Marsh 5. Project Involves Stream Crossings a. number of new stream crossings b. number of replacement stream crossings wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 5 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements This is a proposal for an Ecological Restoration Limited Project. Skip Section C and complete Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Limited Project Checklists – Required Actions (310 CMR 10.11). Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review 1. Is any portion of the proposed project located in Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife as indicated on the most recent Estimated Habitat Map of State-Listed Rare Wetland Wildlife published by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? To view habitat maps, see the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas or go to http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/PRI_EST_HAB/viewer.htm. a. Yes No If yes, include proof of mailing or hand delivery of NOI to: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 09-2023 (MassMapper) If yes, the project is also subject to Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) review (321 CMR 10.18). To qualify for a streamlined, 30-day, MESA/Wetlands Protection Act review, please complete Section C.1.c, and include requested materials with this Notice of Intent (NOI); OR complete Section C.2.f, if applicable. If MESA supplemental information is not included with the NOI, by completing Section 1 of this form, the NHESP will require a separate MESA filing which may take up to 90 days to review (unless noted exceptions in Section 2 apply, see below). c. Submit Supplemental Information for Endangered Species Review∗ 1. Percentage/acreage of property to be altered: (a) within wetland Resource Area 0 percentage/acreage (b) outside Resource Area 0.21 acres percentage/acreage 2. Assessor’s Map or right-of-way plan of site 2. Project plans for entire project site, including wetland resource areas and areas outside of wetlands jurisdiction, showing existing and proposed conditions, existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line, and clearly demarcated limits of work ∗∗ (a) Project description (including description of impacts outside of wetland resource area & buffer zone) (b) Photographs representative of the site ∗ Some projects not in Estimated Habitat may be located in Priority Habitat, and require NHESP review (see https://www.mass.gov/ma- endangered-species-act-mesa-regulatory-review). Priority Habitat includes habitat for state-listed plants and strictly upland species not protected by the Wetlands Protection Act. ∗∗ MESA projects may not be segmented (321 CMR 10.16). The applicant must disclose full development plans even if such plans are not required as part of the Notice of Intent process. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 6 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont’d) (c) MESA filing fee (fee information available at https://www.mass.gov/how-to/how-to-file-for- a-mesa-project-review). Make check payable to “Commonwealth of Massachusetts - NHESP” and mail to NHESP at above address Projects altering 10 or more acres of land, also submit: (d) Vegetation cover type map of site (e) Project plans showing Priority & Estimated Habitat boundaries (f) OR Check One of the Following 1. Project is exempt from MESA review. Attach applicant letter indicating which MESA exemption applies. (See 321 CMR 10.14, https://www.mass.gov/service-details/exemptions-from-review-for-projectsactivities-in- priority-habitat; the NOI must still be sent to NHESP if the project is within estimated habitat pursuant to 310 CMR 10.37 and 10.59.) 2. Separate MESA review ongoing. a. NHESP Tracking # b. Date submitted to NHESP 3. Separate MESA review completed. Include copy of NHESP “no Take” determination or valid Conservation & Management Permit with approved plan. 3. For coastal projects only, is any portion of the proposed project located below the mean high water line or in a fish run? a. Not applicable – project is in inland resource area only b. Yes No If yes, include proof of mailing, hand delivery, or electronic delivery of NOI to either: South Shore - Cohasset to Rhode Island border, and the Cape & Islands: Division of Marine Fisheries - Southeast Marine Fisheries Station Attn: Environmental Reviewer 836 South Rodney French Blvd. New Bedford, MA 02744 Email: dmf.envreview-south@mass.gov North Shore - Hull to New Hampshire border: Division of Marine Fisheries - North Shore Office Attn: Environmental Reviewer 30 Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA 01930 Email: dmf.envreview-north@mass.gov Also if yes, the project may require a Chapter 91 license. For coastal towns in the Northeast Region, please contact MassDEP’s Boston Office. For coastal towns in the Southeast Region, please contact MassDEP’s Southeast Regional Office. c. Is this an aquaculture project? d. Yes No If yes, include a copy of the Division of Marine Fisheries Certification Letter (M.G.L. c. 130, § 57). wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 7 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements (cont’d) Online Users: Include your document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) with all supplementary information you submit to the Department. 4. Is any portion of the proposed project within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? a. Yes No If yes, provide name of ACEC (see instructions to WPA Form 3 or MassDEP Website for ACEC locations). Note: electronic filers click on Website. b. ACEC 5. Is any portion of the proposed project within an area designated as an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) as designated in the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00? a. Yes No 6. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order under the Inland Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 131, § 40A) or the Coastal Wetlands Restriction Act (M.G.L. c. 130, § 105)? a. Yes No 7. Is this project subject to provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards? a. Yes. Attach a copy of the Stormwater Report as required by the Stormwater Management Standards per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k)-(q) and check if: 1. Applying for Low Impact Development (LID) site design credits (as described in Stormwater Management Handbook Vol. 2, Chapter 3) 2. A portion of the site constitutes redevelopment 3. Proprietary BMPs are included in the Stormwater Management System. b. No. Check why the project is exempt: 1. Single-family house 2. Emergency road repair 3. Small Residential Subdivision (less than or equal to 4 single-family houses or less than or equal to 4 units in multi-family housing project) with no discharge to Critical Areas. D. Additional Information This is a proposal for an Ecological Restoration Limited Project. Skip Section D and complete Appendix A: Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent – Minimum Required Documents (310 CMR 10.12). Applicants must include the following with this Notice of Intent (NOI). See instructions for details. Online Users: Attach the document transaction number (provided on your receipt page) for any of the following information you submit to the Department. 1. USGS or other map of the area (along with a narrative description, if necessary) containing sufficient information for the Conservation Commission and the Department to locate the site. (Electronic filers may omit this item.) 2. Plans identifying the location of proposed activities (including activities proposed to serve as a Bordering Vegetated Wetland [BVW] replication area or other mitigating measure) relative to the boundaries of each affected resource area. wpaform3.doc • rev. 6/18/2020 Page 8 of 9 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Provided by MassDEP: MassDEP File Number Document Transaction Number Northampton City/Town D. Additional Information (cont’d) 3. Identify the method for BVW and other resource area boundary delineations (MassDEP BVW Field Data Form(s), Determination of Applicability, Order of Resource Area Delineation, etc.), and attach documentation of the methodology. 4. List the titles and dates for all plans and other materials submitted with this NOI. Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Roadway Plans a. Plan Title TEC, Inc. b. Prepared By Rebecca L. Clark c. Signed and Stamped by 2/14/2024 d. Final Revision Date As Noted e. Scale f. Additional Plan or Document Title g. Date 5. If there is more than one property owner, please attach a list of these property owners not listed on this form. 6. Attach proof of mailing for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, if needed. 7. Attach proof of mailing for Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, if needed. 8. Attach NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form 9. Attach Stormwater Report, if needed. E. Fees 1. Fee Exempt: No filing fee shall be assessed for projects of any city, town, county, or district of the Commonwealth, federally recognized Indian tribe housing authority, municipal housing authority, or the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Applicants must submit the following information (in addition to pages 1 and 2 of the NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form) to confirm fee payment: 18060 2. Municipal Check Number 2/14/2024 3. Check date 18059 4. State Check Number 2/14/2024 5. Check date TEC, Inc. 6. Payor name on check: First Name 7. Payor name on check: Last Name 1/30/2024 noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/11 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A. Applicant Information 1. Location of Project: Easthampton Road (Route 10) a. Street Address Northampton b. City/Town 18059 c. Check number 237.50 d. Fee amount 2. Applicant Mailing Address: Erica a. First Name Larner b. Last Name Massachusetts Department of Transportation-Highway Division c. Organization 10 Park Plaza, Room 7360 d. Mailing Address Boston e. City/Town MA f. State 02116 g. Zip Code (857) 268-1729 h. Phone Number i. Fax Number erica.n.larner@dot.state.ma.us j. Email Address 3. Property Owner (if different): a. First Name b. Last Name Massachusetts Department of Transportation c. Organization 10 Park Plaza d. Mailing Address Boston e. City/Town MA f. State 02116 g. Zip Code h. Phone Number i. Fax Number j. Email Address To calculate filing fees, refer to the category fee list and examples in the instructions for filling out WPA Form 3 (Notice of Intent). B. Fees Fee should be calculated using the following process & worksheet. Please see Instructions before filling out worksheet. Step 1/Type of Activity: Describe each type of activity that will occur in wetland resource area and buffer zone. Step 2/Number of Activities: Identify the number of each type of activity. Step 3/Individual Activity Fee: Identify each activity fee from the six project categories listed in the instructions. Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee: Multiply the number of activities (identified in Step 2) times the fee per category (identified in Step 3) to reach a subtotal fee amount. Note: If any of these activities are in a Riverfront Area in addition to another Resource Area or the Buffer Zone, the fee per activity should be multiplied by 1.5 and then added to the subtotal amount. Step 5/Total Project Fee: Determine the total project fee by adding the subtotal amounts from Step 4. Step 6/Fee Payments: To calculate the state share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and subtract $12.50. To calculate the city/town share of the fee, divide the total fee in half and add $12.50. noifeetf.doc • Wetland Fee Transmittal Form • rev. 10/11 Page 2 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands NOI Wetland Fee Transmittal Form Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Fees (continued) Step 1/Type of Activity Step 2/Number of Activities Step 3/Individual Activity Fee Step 4/Subtotal Activity Fee 2.e inland limited project 1 $500.00 $500.00 Step 5/Total Project Fee: $500.00 Step 6/Fee Payments: Total Project Fee: $500.00 a. Total Fee from Step 5 State share of filing Fee: $237.50 b. 1/2 Total Fee less $12.50 City/Town share of filling Fee: $262.50 c. 1/2 Total Fee plus $12.50 C. Submittal Requirements a.) Complete pages 1 and 2 and send with a check or money order for the state share of the fee, payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 b.) To the Conservation Commission: Send the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and the city/town fee payment. To MassDEP Regional Office (see Instructions): Send a copy of the Notice of Intent or Abbreviated Notice of Intent; a copy of this form; and a copy of the state fee payment. (E-filers of Notices of Intent may submit these electronically.) 1 1. NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is proposing to construct approximately 420 linear feet of cement concrete sidewalk and 800 linear feet of mill and overlay along Easthampton Road (Route 10) at the Earle Street intersection (MassDOT Project # 612638). The Health Transportation Policy aims to make walking, biking and transit options more accessible and feasible for roadway users through the inclusion of wide shoulders, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks. The project will reconstruct a portion of the existing sidewalk east of Earle Street on South Street and extend the existing sidewalk along the southern perimeter of South Street / Easthampton Road. Due to the project being within the 100-foot Perennial Stream Buffer and the 200-foot Riverfront Area of the Mill River, a Notice of Intent (NOI) is required to be submitted. The proposed sidewalk improvements conform to the Limited Project standard at 310 CMR 10.53(3)(f) which reads, “Maintenance and improvement of existing public roadways, but limited to widening less than a single lane, adding shoulders, correcting substandard intersections, and improving inadequate drainage systems.” The project proposes 100-foot Buffer Zone and 200-foot Riverfront Area impacts, with no direct impacts to any resource area or flood storage. Temporary impacts from mill and overlay, sidewalk, and curb are proposed to the 100-foot Buffer Zone. Both permanent and temporary impacts are proposed to the 200-foot Riverfront Area, also from mill and overlay, sidewalk, and curb improvements. This Notice of Intent has been prepared to show compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). As an agency of the Commonwealth providing essential government functions, MassDOT is exempt from certain municipal requirements including but not limited to wetland bylaws, ordinances and policies, and for paying peer review fees. Additionally, MassDOT is not required to notify abutters per the WPA Regulations at 3.10 CMR 10.05(4). The project includes work within state buffer zones of the Bank of the Mill River as well as Riverfront Area. The proposed construction is to be done within the footprint and profile of the existing roadway (and shoulders). The impacts to buffer zones are proposed due to the necessary sidewalk reconstruction to improve pedestrian safety. Impacts to buffer zones and wetland resource areas have been avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. A portion of this Project is within NHESP mapped Priority and Estimated Habitat for State- Protected Rare Species/Wildlife. The Project has been filed for MESA review. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located on Easthampton Road / South Street at the intersection with Earle Street. The Mill River is located east of the project area at the roadway crossing and runs southwest, nearly parallel to the Easthampton Road right-of-way. The Bank of the Mill River was delineated by TRC Companies, Inc. However, surveying the wetland flags was not feasible due 2 to the height and length of the wingwalls beneath South Street. The Bank was determined to match the face of the wingwalls, and the tops of each wingwall were surveyed. The Bank of the Mill River has been included on the project plans based on available GIS data and records plans. TRC defined the Mill River as a perennial river (referred to as S-MJR-1 in TRC Report) to be 80 feet in width and comprised of sand. Water depth at each Bank is approximately 2 feet, with an average depth of 6 feet throughout the river. Stormwater within the project area flows southwesterly off Easthampton Street towards the Mill River. Stormwater may enter the closed drainage system and discharge directly to the river, or enter the drainage swale on the north side of Easthampton Road and cross via culvert to the Mill River. According to the DEP, the Mill River in Northampton is a 4c Integrated River. There are no flood hazards associated with the project area. The 100-year base flood elevation of the Mill River north of the South Street crossing is 126 feet. The lowest elevation existing and proposed within the project limits is 132 feet. The project area is mapped as Zone C, area of minimal flooding according to the associated FEMA FIRM for the project site. The associated FEMA FIRM map for the site can be found within Supporting Maps and Data. The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) has described the existing soil at the project site to be Amostown-Windsor silty substratum. NRCS classifies this soil to have a hydrologic soil rating of a “B”. The MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) has indicated that rare wildlife and species are located within the project site. This information was collected from MassMapper, Massachusetts GIS map, and the maps can be found within Supporting Maps and Data. Further information and discussion of the existing conditions within and around the site is described in greater details in Appendix 4 – Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report prepared by TRC Companies, Inc., dated March 2023. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The MassDOT proposes to construct approximately 420 LF of 5.5’ wide cement concrete sidewalks, 800 linear feet of pavement mill and overlay, vertical granite curbing, and a TL-3 guard rail. The proposed sidewalk will include reconstruction of the existing sidewalk on the northern perimeter of Easthampton Road, sidewalk at the northwest corner of the intersection, and sidewalk along the south side of Easthampton Street. Crosswalk signals are proposed at each crosswalk. The sidewalk addition will add 1,570 SF of impervious area compared to the existing conditions. Equipment anticipated to access the site includes a tracked excavator, standard triaxle dump trucks, paving equipment, and landscaping trucks. Temporary staging and laydown are anticipated to occur within the landscaped areas south of the proposed sidewalk on the southern perimeter of Easthampton Road. Any necessary stockpiles shall be located within the limit of work and erosion controls. Stockpiles will be surrounded by erosion controls separate from site 3 perimeter controls. Stockpiles will likely only exist for short periods of time and will be removed from the work zone daily. The proposed project is within the 200-foot Riverfront Area and the 100-foot buffer zone to the Perennial River. Both temporary and permanent impacts are proposed within the buffer zones, as well as new impervious area. The proposed improvements have been designed to have minimal effects on the resource areas. Additional details regarding the stormwater design and compliance are included with the attached Stormwater Report. RESOURCE AREAS & IMPACTS The proposed project includes sidewalk and traffic related improvements within the buffer zones of multiple local and state classified resource areas. Wetland resource areas at the site were delineated by TRC in March 2023. For further details on the delineation performed, please refer to the Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report in Section 5 of this notice of intent package. The following describes the types of resource areas and proposed impacts to each resource area and buffer zone in detail: 100-Foot Buffer Zone from Perennial River TRC identified a perennial river located just east of the project area which is described as S-MJR- 1. The banks of Mill River were delineated by TRC and are described as being 2-feet in height on either side of the river. The banks of the Mill River include a 100-foot buffer zone jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act. Proposed work within this 100-foot buffer zone includes construction of a new sidewalk, mill and overlay, granite curbing, and pavement striping. No direct or temporary impacts are proposed to the bank, which is located outside the project area. The eastern limit of work is approximately 3 feet from the bank of the Mill River, with a vertical separation of 12 feet. Riverfront Area (RFA) Mill River is a perennial river with an associated 200-foot Riverfront Area (RFA). The RFA is protected as a wetland resource area under the Wetlands Protection Act. Approximately 14,850 square feet of proposed alterations are located within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. 6,158 square feet of alterations are proposed within the inner 100-foot RFA, with the remaining 8,692 square feet of alterations between 100 and 200-feet. It is important to note that the RFA within the limits of the project is an existing roadway, existing sidewalk, and roadway shoulder. The purpose of the project is to reconstruct/expand existing sidewalk sections and construct new cement concrete sidewalk sections. This will provide a vital safety improvement along Easthampton Road / South Street. The project will have no impact on flood storage. There is no Bordering Land Subject to Flooding within the project limits. The Base Flood Elevation was determined by FEMA to be between 124 and 126 feet at the existing stream crossing. The lowest elevation within the limit of work is approximately 130 feet. 4 Vegetation management will not be required, as the majority of the project is located in previously developed, unvegetated land. The project will only disturb grassed roadway shoulders, which will be restored with loam and seed. There were no invasive species identified by TRC. The construction of the new sidewalk within the RFA is permitted under the Wetlands Protection Act as a “Limited Project” under Section 10.24(7)(c)(1) – “Maintenance and improvement of existing public roadways, but limited to widening less than a single lane, adding shoulders, correcting substandard intersections, and improving inadequate drainage systems”. IMPACT SUMMARY Resource Area Temporary Impact Permanent Impact Total Impact/Alteration Bank 0 LF 0 LF 0 LF 100-Foot Buffer to Perennial Stream 6,158 SF 0 SF 6,158 SF 200-Foot Riverfront Area 14,460 SF 390 SF 14,850 SF *includes 100-foot buffer impacts * Note that the 100-Foot Buffer to Perennial Stream lies within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. Therefore, the 14,850 SF of RFA impacts is inclusive of all 100-foot buffer impacts, and represents the total impacts within the limit of work. ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The following sequence is a general overview of the proposed project. 1. Obtain Order of Conditions from ConCom and secure all necessary permitting. 2. Pre-construction meeting with ConCom agent, the Engineer, and other Town Officials. 3. Install erosion control barriers consistent (or similar) of 12-inch compost filter tubes and silt sacks as proposed on the construction plans. 4. Receive approval of erosion controls from Town of Northampton Conservation Department. 5. Perform general site clearing and grubbing for new sidewalk construction and improvements. 6. Perform excavation. 7. Install curbing, sidewalks, guardrail, loam, and seed. 8. Remove and reset traffic signs. 9. Perform final inspection and address punch list. 10. Post-development on-site meeting with ConCom agent. 11. Obtain Certificate of Compliance from ConCom. 12. Remove erosion control barriers. 5 MITIGATION Compost filter tubes or similar will be installed prior to construction between the project area and the Mill River. The area with erosion controls will be restored to pre-existing conditions once removed. Additionally, silt sacks will be placed in all catch basins within and downgradient of the limits of work, to intercept any construction sediments. Prior to the start of any work, the erosion controls will be available for inspection and approval by the Town of Northampton Conservation Department. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A drainage study was performed to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project. The existing stormwater management on site consists of a closed drainage system, with stormwater discharging to the Mill River. The proposed project will utilize the existing stormwater management system. This analysis has been prepared to verify that the proposed conditions will not have an adverse effect on the resource areas. This project is required to satisfy the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards to the maximum extent practicable as a limited project. The proposed conditions provide a negligible peak discharge rate increase by 0.11 cfs in the 2-year storm. The proposed design fully meets standards 1 and 5 through 10. Standards 2, 3, and 4 have been met to the maximum extent practicable. The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. See Section 5, Stormwater Management Report, for additional details regarding the Stormwater Management Standards and the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS The following alternatives were considered during the development of the proposed design: Alternative 1 – No Build The No Build alternative would include leaving the existing roadway as is, which would provide inadequate pedestrian routes. The intersection would remain unsafe for pedestrian crossing and is not the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 – Sidewalk Extension – Not Signalized Alternative 2 consists of the sidewalk extension and repair on South Street, without signalized crosswalks. This alternative slightly increases impervious area on site but provides a better pedestrian route than existing conditions. The volume of traffic at this intersection would not be safe for a non-signalized crosswalk, therefore Alternative 2 is not the preferred alternative. Alternative 3 – Sidewalk Extension – Signalized Alternative 3 consists of the sidewalk extension and repair on South Street, with signalized crosswalks to cross Route 10 and Earle Street. This alternative also slightly increases impervious area on site but provides the safest pedestrian route. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative. 6 WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Riverfront Area 14,850 square feet of work is proposed within the 200-foot RFA, within previously developed areas. The work will be conducted in accordance with the general performance standards for RFA, outlined in 310 CMR 10.58(4), and as described in further detail below. 310 CMR 10.58(4)(b) - Protection of Rare Species. No project may be permitted within RFA which will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of rare wetland or upland vertebrate or invertebrate species, as identified by the procedures established under 310 CMR 10.59 or 10.37 or which will have any adverse effect on vernal pool habitat certified prior to the filing of the Notice of Intent. A portion of this Project is within NHESP mapped Priority and Estimated Habitat for State- Protected Rare Species/Wildlife. The Project has been filed for MESA review. The Riverfront Area in the project limits is previously developed and is not expected to have any impact on rare species or wildlife. 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c) Practicable and Substantially Equivalent Economic Alternatives. There must be no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. There is no practicable alternative to the proposed project with less adverse effects. The Riverfront Area in the project limits is previously disturbed and partially impervious roadway shoulder and existing sidewalk that will be extended. Adding sidewalks throughout the Route 10 intersection with Earle Street is a vital pedestrian safety improvement. 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d) - No Significant Adverse Impact. The work including proposed mitigation measures must have no significant adverse impact on the RFA to protect the interests in M.G.L. c. 131 §40. The Project will have no significant adverse impact on the RFA’s capacity to protect the interests identified at M.G.L. c. 131 § 40 and is also not expected to have any impact on critical wildlife habitat or any potential or certified vernal pools. Limited Project This project falls under the following Limited Projects: The purpose of the project is to provide an essential safety improvement in the form of new, cement concrete sidewalks. The proposed sidewalks and stormwater improvements conform to the Limited Project standard at 310 CMR 10.53(3)(f) which reads, “Maintenance and improvement of existing public roadways, but limited to widening less than a single lane, adding shoulders, correcting substandard intersections, and improving inadequate drainage systems.” 7 CONCLUSION MassDOT is proposing to construct a new sidewalk with curbing, guardrail, and traffic signal improvements along Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10). The project results in impacts to the 200-foot Riverfront area and 100-foot Buffer Zone to a Perennial River. Erosion control devices are proposed as mitigation for the impacts. Overall, the stormwater management system has been proposed to meet the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed conditions as described in this NOI application uphold the interest of the Wetlands Protection Act and we respectfully request that the Commission issue an Order of Conditions. 2. SUPPORTING MAPS AND DATA Locus PROJECT LOCATION USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAPS PROJECT LOCATION 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 46864204686430468644046864504686460468647046864804686490468642046864304686440468645046864604686470468648046864904686500693850 693860 693870 693880 693890 693900 693910 693920 693930 693940 693950 693960 693970 693980 693850 693860 693870 693880 693890 693900 693910 693920 693930 693940 693950 693960 693970 693980 42° 18' 23'' N 72° 38' 53'' W42° 18' 23'' N72° 38' 47'' W42° 18' 20'' N 72° 38' 53'' W42° 18' 20'' N 72° 38' 47'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 25 50 100 150 Feet 0 5 10 20 30 Meters Map Scale: 1:617 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. NHESP NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species NHESP Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION 3. PHOTO LOG PHOTO LOG – Photos taken on April 15, 2023 T:\T1000\CAD\T1000.24 - Northampton\Docs\Various\NOI\3. Photo Log\T1000.24_Photo Log.docx Figure 1 –On Easthampton Street, looking towards the intersection. Photo taken facing east. Figure 2 – At the eastern limit of work on South Street, looking towards the intersection. Photo taken facing west. PHOTO LOG Figure 3 – North of the limit of work on Earle Street, looking towards the intersection. Photo taken facing south. Figure 4 – Location of proposed sidewalk and driveway apron. Photo taken facing east. PHOTO LOG Figure 5 – Location of intersection improvements. Photo taken facing north. Figure 6 – Project proximity to the Mill River. Photo taken outside the project area, facing west. 4. WETLAND AND WATERBODY DELINEATION REPORT TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton Route 1 Intersection from Easthampton Road (Route 10) to Earle Street, Northampton, Massachusetts Prepared By: TRC Wannalancit Mills 650 Suffolk Street Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report March 2023 TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 2.0 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ..........................................................................................1 2.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers .............................................................. 1 2.2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection .................................... 2 2.3 City of Northampton Conservation Commission .................................................. 3 3.0 PROJECT SURVEY AREA CHARACTERISTICS ..........................................................4 3.1 Hydrology ........................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Floodplains ............................................................................................... 4 3.2 Federal and State Mapped Wetlands and Streams ............................................. 5 3.3 Mapped Soils ...................................................................................................... 5 3.3.1 Hydric Rating ............................................................................................ 6 3.3.2 Natural Drainage Class ............................................................................ 6 3.3.3 Prime Farmland ........................................................................................ 6 3.3.4 Hydrologic Soil Groups ............................................................................. 7 3.4 NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats .............................................................. 8 4.0 WETLAND AND STREAM DELINEATION METHODOLOGY ........................................8 4.1 Non-wetland Aquatic Resource Methodology ...................................................... 8 4.2 Wetland Delineation Methodologies .................................................................... 8 5.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................9 5.1 Delineated Wetlands and Waterbodies ............................................................... 9 5.1.1 Delineated Wetlands ................................................................................ 9 5.1.2 Delineated Streams .................................................................................. 9 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 10 7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 10 TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report ii Table 1: Mapped Soils ...................................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Delineated Wetlands and Waterbodies ..............................................................10 APPENDICES Appendix A Figures Figure 1. Site Location Map Figure 2. Wetland Delineation Map Appendix B Survey Area Photographs Appendix C NRCS Soil Report TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 1 1.0 Introduction This report presents the results of a wetland and waterbody delineation conducted on February 16, 2023, by TRC Companies, Inc. (TRC) along the Route 1 from Easthampton Road (Route 10) to Earle Street in the City of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts (Site). The wetland delineation only included the area along the intersection (Survey Area) within the 1957 State Highway Layout (SHLO) No. 4559 and the City of Northampton Layout lines along Route 1. This report documents wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources (ponds, lakes, impoundments, etc.) within the Survey Area regardless of assumed jurisdictional status and addresses the implementation of local and state regulated buffer areas. To the extent practicable, the delineated resources were investigated to determine drainage patterns and a physical nexus to Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Appendix A provides a Site location map (Figure 1) and a map of the delineated wetland resources within the Survey Area by TRC (Figure 2). Appendix B includes representative photographs of the Survey Area, and Appendix C contains the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Report. 2.0 Regulatory Authority 2.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) asserts jurisdiction over WOTUS, defined as wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources under the regulatory authority per Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) per Title 40 CFR Part 230.3(s). Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (EPA, 2023). The USACE will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: Traditional navigable waters; Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); and Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries. The USACE will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 2 Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and Wetlands adjacent to, but that do not directly abut, a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary. The USACE generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands, and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. The USACE will apply the significant nexus standard as follows: A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. The USACE also regulates navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), which requires that a permit must be issued by the USACE to construct any structure in or over any navigable WOTUS, as well as any proposed action (such as excavation/dredging or deposition of materials) that would alter or disturb these waters. If the proposed structure or activity affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of the navigable water, even if the proposed activity is outside the boundaries of the stream in associated wetlands, a Section 10 permit from the USACE is required. 2.2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) (Section 40 of Chapter 131 of the General Laws of Massachusetts and regulated under 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations [CMR] section 10.00) defines multiple coastal (310 CMR 10.25-10.37) and inland resource areas (310 CMR 10.54-10.59) and gives the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) jurisdiction over these resource areas. In most cases, the WPA also gives MassDEP jurisdiction over buffer zone extending 100 feet from the edge of the resource area. In addition to MassDEP, local municipalities’ Conservation Commissions are responsible for administering the WPA and any local wetlands ordinance or bylaw. The WPA defines two types of Land Subject to Flooding (310 CMR 10.57): isolated and bordering. Isolated Land Subject to Flooding (ILSF) is defined as “an isolated depression or a closed basin which serves as a ponding area for run-off or high ground water which has risen above the ground surface.” Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) is defined as “an area with low, flat TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 3 topography adjacent to and inundated by flood waters rising from creeks, rivers, streams, ponds or lakes. It extends from the banks of these waterways and water bodies; where a bordering vegetated wetland occurs, it extends from said wetland.” The boundary of BLSF is further defined as “the estimated maximum lateral extent of flood water which will theoretically result from the statistical 100-year frequency storm” as shown on the most recently available flood profile data prepared for the community by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), successor to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Under the WPA, ILSF and BLSF do not have associated buffer zones. The WPA defines Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) under 310 CMR 10.55 as any freshwater wetland which borders on creeks, rivers, stream ponds or lakes. Under the WPA, a 100-foot buffer zone is associated with BVWs. Isolated wetlands (IWs) are not connected to a waterway or waterbody and; therefore, are not regulated under the WPA and do not have an associated buffer zone under the WPA. Isolated wetlands may have an associated buffer zone or similar zone associated with them under the local ordinance or bylaw. In some cases, IWs may qualify as ILSF and, in those instances, are regulated under the WPA. The WPA defines Bank (310 CMR 10.54) as the portion of the land surface which normally abuts and confines a waterbody, occurring between a waterbody and a BVW and adjacent floodplain, or between a waterbody and an upland. Under the WPA, a 100-foot buffer zone is associated with Banks. The WPA defines Land under Water Bodies and Waterways (LUW) (310 CMR 10.56) as land beneath any creek, river, stream, pond, or lake. The boundary of LUW is the Mean Annual Low Water (MALW) line. There are no buffer zones associated with LUW under the WPA. The WPA defines Riverfront Area (RA) (310 CMR 10.58) as the 200-foot area of land measured horizontally from a river’s Mean Annual High Water (MAHW) line. The section defines a river as any stream that is perennial and includes, but is not limited to, streams shown as perennial on current USGS maps or that have a watershed size greater than or equal to one square mile. Riverfront Area is not associated with intermittent streams as they do not flow throughout the year. Under the WPA, RA does not have an associated buffer zone. A Notice of Intent (NOI) filing is required from the MassDEP for any disturbance, including the removal of vegetation or alteration to a Banks, BVW, ILSF, BLSF, RA, or buffer zone. 2.3 City of Northampton Conservation Commission The Northampton Conservation Commission (NCC) administers a local wetlands protection bylaw in addition to the WPA. In addition to the 200-foot Riverfront Area, the Town of Northampton has a Wetlands Protection Ordinance that no person shall remove, fill, dredge, build upon, or alter the following resource areas: any bordering vegetated wetland, riverine wetland, marsh, wet meadow, bog or swamp, or within 100 feet of said areas and any lake, river, pond, or stream, whether TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 4 intermittent or continuous, natural or man-made, or within 100 feet of said areas (NCC Wetlands Protection Ordinance, 2007). The Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance also prohibits any work within a 50-foot “Protected Zone” of any resource areas. 3.0 Project Survey Area Characteristics TRC reviewed publicly available literature and materials used for the investigation, survey, and report preparation, including: MassGIS MassMapper1, the National Hydrography Dataset; The USGS Topographic, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle for Easthampton, Massachusetts (USGS, 2021); The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 2501670002A (effective date April 3, 1978); The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS Web Soil Survey; Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Priority and Estimated Habitats Mapper Recent aerial orthoimagery. The following sections summarize TRC’s review of each of these resources. 3.1 Hydrology The Survey Area includes the crossing of the Mill River, which flows southwest (Figure 1). 3.1.1 Floodplains Flood hazard areas identified on the FEMA’s FIRMs are identified as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). SFHAs are defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a 1- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood. Moderate flood hazard areas, labeled Zone B or Zone X (shaded on FEMA mapping) are also shown on the FIRM, and are the areas between the limits of the base flood and the 0.2-percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside the SFHA and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood, are labeled Zone C or Zone X (unshaded on 1 The MassDEP Wetlands Conservancy Program uses aerial photography and photo interpretation to delineate and map wetland boundaries. These boundaries are available via the Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS) online mapping tool, MassMapper. Desktop review consisted of utilizing MassGIS MassMapper to gather a general understanding of existing conditions and potential regulated resource areas. TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 5 FEMA mapping). FEMA uses a variety of labels for SFHAs and moderate flood hazard areas, but only one was identified within the Survey area: Zone AR/A1-A30 According to the FEMA FIRM 2501670002A (effective date April 3, 1978), Zone A13, an SFHA area with base flood elevation of 126 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988, occurs throughout the Site. Additionally, the Site is located over a Regulatory Floodway, the Mill River. 3.2 Federal and State Mapped Wetlands and Streams The USFWS is the principal federal agency tasked with providing information to the public on the status and trends of wetlands on a national scale. The USFWS NWI is a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of nationwide wetlands (where mapped). The NWI mapping data is offered to promote the understanding, conservation, and restoration of wetlands. The online MassGIS MassMapper mapping tool was accessed to determine the extent of state-mapped aquatic resources. According to the NWI and MassDEP mapping, there is one riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (R2UBH) stream, the Mill River, mapped within the Survey Area. There is one mapped palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporary flooded (PFO1A) wetland located just outside of the Survey Area that is identified as a wooded swamp deciduous wetland. The one MassDEP and NWI stream and wetland are mapped within the center portion of the Survey Area. 3.3 Mapped Soils The NRCS’s Web Soil Survey identifies eight soil map units within the Survey Area. Map units can represent a type of soil, a combination of soils, or miscellaneous land cover types (e.g., water, rock outcrop, developed impervious surface). Map units are usually named for the predominant soil series or land types within the map unit. A summary of soil characteristics for soils mapped within the Survey Area is included in Table 1, below. The following sections provide details about hydric ratings, drainage class, prime farmland, and hydrologic soil groups (HSGs). Details regarding soil map unit descriptions are provided in the NRCS Soil Report included as Appendix C. Table 1: Mapped Soils Symbol Soil Name Hydric Rating (%) Drainage Class Hydrologic Soil Group Farmland Classification 1 Water 0 N/A N/A Not prime farmland 225B Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 15 Moderately well drained C All areas are prime farmland TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 6 Table 1: Mapped Soils Symbol Soil Name Hydric Rating (%) Drainage Class Hydrologic Soil Group Farmland Classification 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 15 N/A N/A Not prime farmland 3.3.1 Hydric Rating The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) (1987 Manual) defines a hydric soil as “…a soil that in its undrained condition, is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation.” Due to limitations imposed by the small scale of the soil survey mapping, it is not uncommon to identify wetlands within areas not mapped as hydric soil while areas mapped as hydric often do not support wetlands. This concept is emphasized by the NRCS: 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. Hydric Soil Rating (HSR) indicates the percentage of a map unit that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map unit 225B and 741A have a HSR of 15 percent, and map unit 1 has a HSR of 0 percent. 3.3.2 Natural Drainage Class Natural drainage class refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil developed. Anthropogenic alteration of the water regime, either through drainage or irrigation, is not a consideration unless the alterations have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Map unit 225B is rated as moderately well drained. 3.3.3 Prime Farmland Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forestland, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). Land used for a specific high-value food or fiber crop is classified as “unique farmland.” Generally, additional “farmlands of statewide importance” include those that are nearly prime TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 7 farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. In some local areas, there is concern for certain additional farmlands, even though these lands are not identified as having national or statewide importance. These farmlands are identified as being of “local importance” through ordinances adopted by local government. The NRCS State Conservationist reviews and certifies lists of farmland of state and local importance. These lists, along with state and locally established Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) systems where applicable, are used by federal agencies to review and evaluate activities that may impact farmland. As defined in 7 CFR Part 657, important farmland encompasses prime and unique farmland, as well as farmland of statewide and local importance. According to the NRCS, map units 1 and 741A are classified as “Not prime farmland” and map unit 225B is classified as “All areas are prime farmland”. 3.3.4 Hydrologic Soil Groups Soils are assigned to a HSG 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 have 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 have 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. Group C: Soils have 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 have a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. Soils 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. TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 8 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 in Group D are assigned to dual classes. Map unit 225B is in HSG C. 3.4 NHESP Priority and Estimated Habitats NHESP Priority Habitats are identified as the known geographical extent of habitat for all state- listed rare species, including both plants and animals in the 15th Edition Natural Heritage Atlas. Priority Habitats are codified under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA). Habitat alteration within Priority Habitats may result in a “take” of a state-listed species and is therefore subject to regulatory review by NHESP (MassWildlife, 2023). NHESP Estimated Habitats, a sub-set of the Priority Habitats, are identified based on the geographical extent of habitat of state-listed rare wetlands wildlife. Estimated Habitats are codified under the WPA, therefore does not include the protection of plants. All state-listed wetland wildlife species are protected under MESA and the WPA (MassWildlife, 2023). The Survey Area does overlap with any NHESP Estimated Habitats (EH 1319) of Rare Wildlife (Figure 2) and therefore, all state-listed wetland wildlife species are protected under MESA and the WPA. 4.0 Wetland and Stream Delineation Methodology In addition to the desktop review, TRC wetland biologists performed field investigations within the Survey Area to identify wetlands, waterbodies, and other surface waters on February 16, 2023. 4.1 Non-wetland Aquatic Resource Methodology Streams and other non-wetland aquatic features within the Survey Area were identified by the presence of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is the line established by the fluctuations of water (33 CFR 328.3). The OHWM line is indicated by physical characteristics, which can include: a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter and debris; or other characteristics of the surrounding areas. For streams three feet or more in width, each stream bank was delineated with blue flagging. For smaller streams, the stream centerline is delineated with notes for the width. Flags were located with a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and the data post-processed to achieve sub-meter accuracy. 4.2 Wetland Delineation Methodologies The delineation of wetlands was conducted in accordance with criteria set forth in the 1987 Manual, the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2012) (Supplement), and the TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 9 Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act- A Handbook (MassDEP, 1995). The three-parameter approach to identify and delineate wetlands presented in the 1987 Manual and the Supplement requires that, except for atypical and disturbed situations, wetlands possess hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. A two-parameter approach that considers only vegetation and hydrology indicators is presented in the MassDEP Handbook. Per the MassDEP Handbook, hydric soil is included as evidence of wetland hydrology. Wetland boundary flags were located with a handheld GPS unit and the data were post-processed to achieve sub-meter accuracy. Delineated resources were classified in accordance with the system presented in The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Second Edition (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013). 5.0 Results 5.1 Delineated Wetlands and Waterbodies Delineated wetland and waterbodies are described in the following sections, summarized at the end of this section in Table 2 and shown on figures in Appendix A. Survey Area photographs are provided in Appendix B. 5.1.1 Delineated Wetlands TRC identified no wetlands within the Survey Area during the February 2023 wetland delineation effort (Appendix, A, Figure 2). 5.1.2 Delineated Streams TRC identified one blueline perennial river within the Survey Area during the February 2023 resource delineation effort (Appendix, A, Figure 2). Stream S-MJR-1 is a perennial river, named the Mill River (R3), located within the middle portion of the Survey Area. This river originates off-site and flows in a southerly direction. The riverbed was comprised of sand and TRC observed an average width of approximately 80 feet, a water depth of approximately six feet, a left bank height of approximately two feet and a right bank height of two feet. This river is MassDEP jurisdictional, and it also falls under USACE jurisdiction, as it is likely connected to other WOTUS in accordance with the CWA. TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 10 6.0 Conclusions It is TRC’s opinion that delineated perennial river S-MJR-1 is regulated by MassDEP, the NCC, and is also likely under USACE jurisdiction, as it flows out of a MassDEP and USACE-regulated wetland. There is a 200-foot RA associated with stream S-MJR-1. Where the delineated river abuts upland, the Bank of the river has an associated MassDEP-regulated 100-foot buffer zone, and NCC regulated 50-foot no build zone. Additionally, portions of the Project are located within FEMA mapped floodplain which is regulated by MassDEP as BLSF under the WPA. There are no buffer zones associated with BLSF. Final determination of jurisdictional status for the waterbody within the Survey Area must be made by the NCC. 7.0 References Bureau of Geographic Information (MassGIS). 2023. MassMapper Interactive Map. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massmapper-interactive-map. Accessed February 2023. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2023. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Chapter 1, Subchapter H, Part 230, Subpart A, Section 230.3. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/text- idx?SID=c2ac4e35564a7e132276a5092222dded&mc=true&node=se40.27.230_13&rgn =div8. Accessed February 2023. Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). 1995. Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Publication No. 17668-1022000-2/95-2.75-C.R. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Wetlands and Waterways. Boston, MA. Scott Jackson, author. Table 2: Delineated Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Field Designation Field Designated NWI Classification 1 Assumed Jurisdictional Status Assumed Buffer/ Setback Requirements S-MJR-1 R3 USACE/MassDEP/Local 100-ft buffer zone / 200-ft Riverfront Area / 50-ft no build zone 1 The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Second Edition (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 2013). Categories include Riverine Perennial (R3). TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 11 MassWildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (MassWildlife). 2023. Regulatory Maps: Priority & Estimated Habitats. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/regulatory- maps-priority-estimated-habitats. Accessed February 2023. New England Hydric Soils Technical Committee. 2017. Version 4, Field Indicators for Identifying Hydric Soils in New England. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Lowell, MA. Northampton Conservation Commission (NCC). 2007. Town of Northampton Conservation Commission 210 Main Street, Northampton, MA 01060. Wetlands Protection Ordinance. Revised October 4, 2007. Available online at https://ecode360.com/11956974. Accessed February 2023. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 162 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed February 2023. USDA NRCS. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. USDA Handbook 296. U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). 2023. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed February 2023. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Easthampton, Massachusetts Quadrangle. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report Appendix A: Figures DATE: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.: FILE: TITLE: PROJECT: Northampton_Sidewalk_ProjectCoordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Massachusetts Mainland FIPS 2001 Feet; Map Rotation: 0 -- Saved By: MBILLINGS on 2/23/2023, 11:43:52 AM; File Path: T:\1-PROJECTS\TEC\523687_5_Routes\2-APRX\Northampton_Sidewalk_Project.aprx; Layout Name: Fig1_USGS_8_5x11P - Northampton650 Suffolk Street Suite 200 Lowell, MA 01854 Phone: 978.970.5600 1" = 2,000'1:24,000 0 1,000 2,000 FEET BASE MAP: USA TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DATA SOURCES: ESRI, MASSGIS, TRC FEBRUARY 2023 T. SULLIVAN K. FERGUSON P. JACQUES FIGURE 1 421805.0000.0000 SITE LOCATION MAP TEC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS EASTHAMPTON RD AND SOUTH ST (ROUTE 10) NORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MA PROJECT BOUNDARY TOWN BOUNDARY CT RI MA VT NH DATE: APPROVED BY: CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.: FILE: TITLE: PROJECT: Northampton_Sidewalk_Project -- Saved By: MBILLINGS on 2/23/2023, 11:39:38 AM; File Path: T:\1-PROJECTS\TEC\523687_5_Routes\2-APRX\Northampton_Sidewalk_Project.aprx; Layout Name: Fig2_Resources_11x17L - NorthamptonCoordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane New Hampshire FIPS 2800 Feet; Map Rotation: -151:1,200 1" = 100' 0 100 200 FEET BASE MAP: GOOGLE IMAGERY DATA SOURCES: ESRI. MASSGIS, FEMA MSC, TRC NOTE: SFHA DATA WAS DIGITIZED FROM FEMA FIRM 2501670002 (EFFECTIVE APRIL 3, 1978). THE FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT INTENDED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES. FEBRUARY 2023 J. RINGLER I. MOHAMMADI-HALL M. BILLINGS FIGURE 2 523687.0000.0000 WETLAND DELINEATION MAP TEC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS EASTHAMPTON RD AND SOUTH ST (ROUTE 10) NORTHAMPTON, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY, MA PROJECT AREA CULVERT DELINEATED WATERBODY 200-FT RIVERFRONT AREA 100-FT PERENNIAL STREAM BUFFER 50-FT PROTECTED ZONE FEMA SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (100-YEAR OR 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD) REGULATORY FLOODWAY NHESP ESTIMATED HABITATS OF RARE WILDLIFE NORTHAMPTON NORTHAMPTON S-MJR-1 S-MJR-1 650 Suffolk Street Suite 200 Lowell, MA 01854 Phone: 978.970.5600 TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report Appendix B: Survey Area Photographs TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton Page 1 TEC SIDEWALKS PROJECT - NORTHAMPTON ROUTE 1 INTERSECTION FROM EASTHAMPTON ROAD (ROUTE 10) TO EARLE STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Photograph: 1 Date: 2/16/2023 Direction: Northwest Description: Photo of S-MJR-1 on the north side of Route 10 facing northwest. Photograph: 2 Date: 2/16/2023 Direction: South Description: Photo of S-MJR-1 on the north side of Route 10 facing south. TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton Page 2 TEC SIDEWALKS PROJECT - NORTHAMPTON ROUTE 1 INTERSECTION FROM EASTHAMPTON ROAD (ROUTE 10) TO EARLE STREET, NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Photograph: 3 Date: 2/9/2023 Direction: North Description: Photo of S-MJR-1 on the south side of Route 10 facing northwest. Photograph: 4 Date: 2/9/2023 Direction: South Description: Photo of S-MJR-1 on the south side of Route 10 facing southwest. TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton March 2023 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report Appendix C: NRCS Soil 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 TEC Sidewalks Project - Northampton Natural Resources Conservation Service February 20, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part...........................................14 1—Water.....................................................................................................14 225B—Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes........................................14 741A—Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes....................................................................................15 References............................................................................................................18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 46863904686420468645046864804686510468654046865704686390468642046864504686480468651046865404686570693860 693890 693920 693950 693980 694010 694040 694070 694100 694130 693860 693890 693920 693950 693980 694010 694040 694070 694100 694130 42° 18' 26'' N 72° 38' 53'' W42° 18' 26'' N72° 38' 40'' W42° 18' 20'' N 72° 38' 53'' W42° 18' 20'' N 72° 38' 40'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,360 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2020—Oct 31, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Water 0.4 11.9% 225B Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 0.1 3.9% 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 2.8 84.1% Totals for Area of Interest 3.3 100.0% 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 12 landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 1—Water Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 9b24 Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Water:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. 225B—Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 99z4 Elevation: 100 to 850 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Belgrade and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Belgrade Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Coarse-silty glaciolacustrine deposits Typical profile H1 - 0 to 10 inches: silt loam H2 - 10 to 51 inches: very fine sandy loam H3 - 51 to 60 inches: loamy very fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to high (0.06 to 2.00 in/hr) Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Depth to water table:About 18 to 42 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F145XY006CT - Semi-Rich Moist Lake Plain Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Raynham Percent of map unit:15 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 15 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Minor Components Enosburg Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Maybid Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 19 5. STORMWATER REPORT Stormwater Management Report i Table of Contents Stormwater Management Report Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Northampton, Massachusetts PREPARED FOR 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 PREPARED BY TEC, Inc. 282 Merrimack Street 2nd Floor Lawrence MA, 01843 February 6, 2024 Stormwater Management Report ii Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 2 Project Summary ........................................................................................................... 2 3 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4 4 Proposed Conditions ..................................................................................................... 9 5 Impaired Waters and TMDLs ..................................................................................... 12 6 Stormwater Management Standards ........................................................................ 13 List of Figures Figure No. Description Page Figure 1 Locus Figure ............................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Existing Drainage Patterns ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3 Existing Key Features and Wetland Resource Areas .................................................. 7 Figure 4 NRCS Soils Information ......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Proposed Drainage Patterns ............................................................................................. 11 List of Tables Table No. Description Page Table 1 Existing Drainage Areas ......................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 Existing SCMs ............................................................................................................................ 5 Table 3 Impervious Area ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 Proposed Drainage Areas ................................................................................................... 10 Table 5 Proposed SCMs ...................................................................................................................... 10 Stormwater Management Report iii Table of Contents Table 6 Impaired Waters and TMDL Information ..................................................................... 12 Table 7 Nutrient Removal for Project ............................................................................................ 12 Table 8 Rainfall Depths (in) ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 9 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) ................................................................................................. 14 Table 10 Required Recharge Volume for Project ........................................................................ 15 Table 11 Provided Recharge Volumes at Each Design Point .................................................. 15 Table 12 WQV at Each Design Point ................................................................................................. 16 Table 13 WQV Provided by the SCMs at Each Design Point .................................................. 16 Attachments Appendix A: MassDEP Checklist for Stormwater Report Appendix B: Soils and FEMA Information Appendix C: Supporting Calculations Appendix D: Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data Appendix E: O&M Plan, LTPPP, and CPPP Stormwater Management Report 1 Introduction 1 Introduction This Stormwater Management Report has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (the Standards) in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) and Water Quality Certification Regulations (314 CMR 9.00). Appendix A includes a completed Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Checklist for Stormwater Report, stamped by a Massachusetts registered professional engineer. The Project follows the guidance presented in the MassDOT Stormwater Design Guide (SDG), and stormwater management systems are designed in accordance with the Standards. Stormwater Management Report 2 Project Summary 2 Project Summary The Applicant, MassDOT, is proposing Project Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) to construct sidewalk and vehicular and pedestrian traffic signals at the intersection of Easthampton Road / South Street and Earle Street (the Project) located in Northampton, Massachusetts. The purpose of this project is to provide pedestrian safety improvements. The Project will include the construction of approximately 420 linear feet of sidewalk improvements and 800 linear feet of roadway pavement mill and overlay. Due to the presence of the Mill River, a Notice of Intent (NOI) filing with the Haverhill Conservation Commission is to be submitted. This drainage study was performed to assess the potential impacts of the proposed improvements and to provide measures to mitigate any impacts to resource areas near the Project. The limits of disturbance for this Project are confined to the existing footprint of Route 10 right-of-way. Minor adjustments of the corridor are proposed with curbing and new cement concrete sidewalks. Under existing conditions, runoff from the roadway and shoulders is caught in the existing drainage system or flows overland to the culvert west of the intersection. Both types of runoff enter the Mill River waterway system. The Project will comply with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Handbook to the maximum extent practicable. This analysis has been prepared to verify that the Project will result equivalent stormwater collection and treatment as compared to existing conditions. The Project proposes no changes to the existing stormwater collection system. The stormwater management system outlined in this report remains designed to meet the Stormwater Standards identified in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to the maximum extent practicable. The Project will not adversely change the stormwater capture and treatment, risk of erosion and sedimentation, or stormwater runoff quality. See Figure 1 for the Project Locus Map. Stormwater Management Report 3 Project Summary Figure 1 Locus Figure Locus PROJECT LOCATION USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAPS Stormwater Management Report 4 Existing Conditions 3 Existing Conditions The existing roadway has been identified as two subcatchment areas referenced in Figure 2 consisting of gently sloping, impervious area and vegetated landscaped areas and impervious sidewalks along the shoulders of the road. The Project will retain the existing drainage infrastructure throughout the Project limits. Stormwater from the site will eventually reach the single Design Point, the Mill River. The River crosses Route 10 east of the project limits and flows southwesterly, roughly parallel to the roadway. Stormwater from the project area sheet flows from the sidewalk and roadway into the existing drainage system, or via the northern roadway swale, then into the Design Point depicted in Figure 2. The existing site contains approximately 0.09 acres of pervious area consisting of grassed and semi-pervious roadway shoulder areas, as well as 0.93 acres of impervious area consisting of roadway pavement. Existing stormwater runoff travels to the single Design Point via closed drainage system or roadway swale. Design Point A (DP-A) is the Mill River, located west and south of the project site. The Pre-Development Drainage Areas are depicted in Figure 2 of this report. This figure presents the delineation of the existing subcatchment areas and the Design Point. There are two existing subcatchment areas which are outlined below: Existing Subcatchment Area 1 (EX-1) is comprised of 2,686 SF of pervious land area consisting of grassed, open space landscaping and 33,978 SF of impervious area consisting of paved roadway. Stormwater within EX-1 currently sheet flows south off the existing roadway and sidewalk into the existing drainage structures along Route 10. Stormwater caught in the drainage structures is conveyed into the Mill River waterway system (DP-A). Existing Subcatchment Area 2 (EX-2) is comprised of 1,338 SF of pervious land area consisting of grassed, open space landscaping and 6,567 SF of impervious area consisting of paved roadway. Stormwater within EX-1 currently sheet flows north off the existing roadway into the roadway swale along the northern side of Route 10. Stormwater caught in this swale conveyed to a culvert into the Mill River waterway system (DP-A). Table 1 presents the existing drainage areas and their characteristics. See Figure 2 for existing drainage areas and existing SCMs by design point. Stormwater Management Report 5 Existing Conditions Table 1 Existing Drainage Areas Drainage Area Design Point Area (acres) Curve Number Ex-1 DP-A 0.842 96 Ex-2 DP-A 0.181 93 Table 2 lists the existing SCMs and provides a description of each. Table 2 Existing SCMs SCM Description N/A No existing SCMs are located within the project limits Key features in and around the project area include the Mill River and its jurisdictional buffer zones, and Riverfront Area are shown on Figure 3. The Project is not located within the 100-year floodplain as shown in Appendix B on FIRM 2501670002A, effective date 04/03/1978. The entirety of the project limits is located within Zone C, area of minimal flooding. Review of the NRCS Soil Survey map of the project area Amostown-Windsor silty substratum- Urban land complex soil type and is shown on Figure 4. Review of the soil information indicates hydrologic soil group B (HSG B). HSG B is utilized in the stormwater analysis for the Project. Refer to Appendix B to review the full NRCS Soil Report for further information on soil groupings and characteristics on site. Stormwater Management Report 6 Existing Conditions Figure 2 Existing Drainage Patterns EX-1EX-2 N DP-A LIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERSCALE IN FEET 60 0 60 120 December 4, 2023 TEC, Inc. 282 Merrimack Street, 2nd Floor Lawrence, MA 01843 Scale: 1" = 60' Pre-Development Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Northampton, Massachusetts EX-#DP-# LEGEND EXISTING LOT COVERAGE TABLE EX-1 EX-2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 33978 6567 40545 PERVIOUS 2686 1338 4024 TOTAL 36664 7905 44569 Stormwater Management Report 7 Existing Conditions Figure 3 Existing Key Features and Wetland Resource Areas Existing Key Features & Resource Areas NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species DEP 2022 Integrated List Rivers PROJECT LOCATION APPROX 200-FOOT RIVERFRONT AREA Stormwater Management Report 8 Existing Conditions Figure 4 NRCS Soils Information 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 468635046863704686390468641046864304686450468647046864904686510468635046863704686390468641046864304686450468647046864904686510693730 693750 693770 693790 693810 693830 693850 693870 693890 693910 693930 693950 693970 693990 693730 693750 693770 693790 693810 693830 693850 693870 693890 693910 693930 693950 693970 693990 42° 18' 24'' N 72° 38' 58'' W42° 18' 24'' N72° 38' 46'' W42° 18' 18'' N 72° 38' 58'' W42° 18' 18'' N 72° 38' 46'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 15 30 60 90 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,270 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Stormwater Management Report 9 Proposed Conditions 4 Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions will include the construction of 420 linear feet of sidewalk, 800 linear feet of pavement mill and overlay, and vertical granite curbing along Route 10, pedestrian curb ramps, crosswalks, bus landing pads, and intersection striping. The sidewalks will be constructed within the previously disturbed roadway shoulders which are semi-pervious, but heavily compacted. This sidewalk addition will increase the impervious area within the limit of work by 1,552 SF compared to existing conditions, with 390 SF of the total increase occurring within the 200-foot Riverfront Area. Vertical granite curbing and cement concrete sidewalks are proposed at each corner of the intersection to provide a vital safety improvement along Route 10. The sidewalk has been designed to comply with the Massachusetts Highway Department’s Project Development and Design Guide. Sidewalks will be designed to drain toward the roadway at approximately 1.5% cross slope. The Project does not propose any changes to the existing stormwater management system. Stormwater runoff will continue to enter the closed drainage system and discharge to the River or sheet flow to the northern roadway swale and discharge to a more southern point of the River. Stormwater will maintain the existing Design Point. The proposed drainage system will utilize outlets from the existing system to match existing drainage patterns. The proposed stormwater management system has been designed in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. Overall, proposed improvements will promote effective stormwater management collection and treatment and mitigate risks to resources. Due to the increase in impervious area, the peak flows increase by a negligible amount. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the impervious area for the Project. Table 3 Impervious Area Condition Impervious Area (sq. ft) Existing 40,545 Proposed 42,097 Net +1,552 Stormwater Management Report 10 Proposed Conditions The proposed stormwater management system is designed to match existing drainage patterns and reduce the risk of erosion within the nearby resource area. In the proposed conditions analysis, the same design point identified and analyzed under the existing conditions was considered. The post-development subcatchment areas are identified in Figure 5, Proposed Drainage Patterns. The post-development subcatchment areas will now include the proposed sidewalk in addition to the existing roadway and grassed shoulders. Table 4 presents the proposed drainage areas and their characteristics under proposed conditions. Figure 5 shows proposed drainage patterns and drainage area delineations by design point. Proposed Subcatchment Area 1 (PR-1) is comprised of 1,952 SF of pervious land area consisting of grassed, open space landscaping and 34,712 SF of impervious area consisting of a paved roadway, concrete sidewalk, and a bus landing pad. Stormwater within PR-1 will match existing conditions and sheet flow south off the roadway and sidewalk into the existing drainage structures along Route 10. Stormwater caught in the drainage structures is conveyed into the Mill River waterway system (DP-A). Proposed Subcatchment Area 2 (PR-2) is comprised of 520 SF of pervious land area consisting of grassed, open space landscaping and 7,385 SF of impervious area consisting of paved roadway, concrete sidewalk, and a bus landing pad. Stormwater within PR-1 will sheet flow north off the roadway and sidewalk into the roadway swale along the northern side of Route 10. Stormwater caught in this swale conveyed to a culvert into the Mill River waterway system (DP-A). Table 4 Proposed Drainage Areas Drainage Area Design Point Area (acres) Curve Numbers PR-1 DP-A 0.842 96 PR-2 DP-A 0.181 96 See Figure 5 for proposed drainage areas and proposed SCMs by design point. Table 5 lists the proposed SCMs and provides a description of each. Table 5 Proposed SCMs SCM Description N/A No existing SCMs are proposed within the project limits Stormwater Management Report 11 Proposed Conditions Figure 5 Proposed Drainage Patterns DP-A N PR-1PR-2 LIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERLIMIT OF MILL RIVERSCALE IN FEET 60 0 60 120 December 4, 2023 TEC, Inc. 282 Merrimack Street, 2nd Floor Lawrence, MA 01843 Scale: 1" = 60' Post-Development Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Northampton, Massachusetts PR-#DP-# LEGEND PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE TABLE PR-1 PR-2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 34712 7385 42097 PERVIOUS 1952 520 2472 TOTAL 36664 7905 44569 Stormwater Management Report 12 Impaired Waters and TMDLs 5 Impaired Waters and TMDLs As described under the Proposed Conditions section, the Project will discharge the Mill River waterway system. The Mill River is classified as a Category 4c water in the MassDEP Year 2018/2020 Integrated List of Waters, also known as the 303(d) list. Table 6 lists the receiving water bodies that are impaired and if the waterbody has a TMDL. Table 6 Impaired Waters and TMDL Information Water Body 303(d) Category 303(d) Impairments TMDL TMDL Pollutant TMDL Report Name Mill River 4c Water Chestnut No N/A N/A As noted above, the impairment in the Mill River is not caused by a pollutant, and therefore a TMDL is not required. Table 7 lists each water body, the proposed SCMs that drain to it, and each SCM’s estimated pollutant removal per year. Table 7 Nutrient Removal for Project Water Body SCM Nutrient Removal (lbs/yr) Mill River N/A 0 Total Provided by SCMs 0 See Standard 4 in Section 6 below for more water quality calculations and discussion. Stormwater Management Report 13 Stormwater Management Standards 6 Stormwater Management Standards As demonstrated below, the proposed Project complies with the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards (the Standards). The Project is a redevelopment project and meets certain standards to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The proposed project utilizes the existing stormwater management system and does not propose changes beyond catch basin frame adjustments. The Project will follow existing drainage patterns. The negligible increase in impervious area is associated with a vital safety improvement along Route 10. The stormwater management plan controls the flow of stormwater and provides water quality treatment that complies with MassDEP Stormwater Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges No new stormwater conveyances may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. The Project has been designed to comply with Standard 1. There are no new untreated conveyances proposed. The project retains the existing discharge point along Route 10. The proposed subcatchment areas runoff will discharge into the existing closed drainage system and roadway drainage swale, which will remain unaltered. Stormwater Management Report 14 Stormwater Management Standards 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. This Standard may be waived for discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. Table 8 shows a summary of rainfall depths for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year 24-hour design storm events based on NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation data. Table 8 Rainfall Depths (in) Design Storm Event Rainfall Depth (in) 2-year 3.09 10-year 4.96 100-year 7.92 Table 9 provides a summary of peak rates for each design point under existing and proposed conditions. Appendix D provides computations and supporting information regarding the hydraulic and hydrologic modeling. Table 9 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) Design Point Existing Proposed 2-year 10-year 100-year 2-year 10-year 100-year DP-A 4.22 7.00 11.34 4.27 7.03 11.36 As summarized in Table 9 Peak Discharge Rates, the Project will result in negligible increases in peak rates of runoff for all storm events, the largest being 0.05 CFS in the 2-Year storm event. The new impervious area created by the project is associated with a new cement concrete sidewalk. The sidewalks are a vital pedestrian safety improvement along Route 10. The creation of a “footpath” means that this project is subject to Standard 2 to the maximum extent practicable. The Project has been designed to comply with Standard 2 to the maximum extent practicable. The HydroCAD analysis and output can be found in Appendix D, Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data. Standard 3: Recharge Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of infiltration measures, including environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater best 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 type. 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. Stormwater Management Report 15 Stormwater Management Standards The project does not propose any infiltration BMPs due to existing right-of-way constraints. The existing drainage swale provides conveyance and treatment, and does/will not infiltrate stormwater in the existing or proposed conditions. As a roadway redevelopment project, The Project has been designed to comply with Standard 3 to the maximum extent practicable. Table 10 provides the required recharge volume for the Project, and Table 11 provides the recharge volumes proposed for each design point. Table 10 Required Recharge Volume for Project HSG A HSG B HSG C HSG D Total Existing Impervious (sq. ft.) 40,545 40,545 Proposed Impervious (sq. ft.) 42,097 42,097 Net Impervious Area (sq. ft.) 1,552 1,552 Target depth, F (in) 0.60 0.35 0.25 0.10 - Required Recharge Volume, ReV (cf) 45.3 45.3 Table 11 Provided Recharge Volumes at Each Design Point HSG A HSG B HSG C HSG D Total DP-A Net Impervious Area (sf) 1,552 Required Recharge Volume, ReV (cf) 45.3 Provided Recharge Volume (cf) 0 Appendix B provides soil evaluation information (including the geotechnical report if applicable), and Appendix C provides computations and supporting information. Standard 4: Water Quality Treatment Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This Standard is met when: › Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and maintained. › Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required water quality volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. › Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Project has been designed to comply with Standard 4 to the maximum extent practicable as a roadway redevelopment project. Table 12 shows the WQV to be treated for both new and existing impervious area within each drainage area. Stormwater Management Report 16 Stormwater Management Standards Table 12 WQV at Each Design Point Design Point WQV for New IA (cf) WQV for Existing IA (cf) Total WQV (cf) DP-1 0 0 0 Project Total 0 0 0 Table 13 shows the WQV provided by the SCMs at each design point. Table 13 WQV Provided by the SCMs at Each Design Point Design Point Pretreatment (y/n) WQV Provided (cf) Meets Total WQV Meets Required WQV for New IA DP-1 n 0 no no N/A Total 0 Project Total 0 no no The project provides no water quality volume due to right of way constraints and the topography at the edge of the road. Given the existing conditions, right of way constraints and the topography at the edge of the road, proposing new infiltration BMP’s are not feasible. As a redevelopment roadway project, the stormwater system meets Standard 4 to the maximum extent practicable. Standard 5: Land Uses 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. If through source control and/or pollution prevention all LHPPLs cannot be completely protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from LUHPPLs shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26-53 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. Standard 5 does not apply to the Project. There are no Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads within the project area. Stormwater Management Report 17 Stormwater Management Standards Standard 6: Critical Areas Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply and stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A “stormwater discharge” as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1 or (b), to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of a public water supply. The Project has been designed to comply with Standard 6. Figure 3 shows the Critical Areas in the vicinity of the project site. The Mill River and its waterway system east and south of the project area are considered nearby critical areas. A portion of the Project is located within the 200-foot Riverfront Area associated with the Mill River. No changes are proposed to the stormwater management system, therefore discharge to critical areas will not be affected. Standard 7: Redevelopment A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the pretreatment and structural best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. The Project is considered a redevelopment project and like previously stated, the Stormwater Management Standards 2, 3, & 4 were met to the maximum extent practicable. The project proposes to increase impervious area on site slightly by converting existing roadway shoulder to cement concrete sidewalks. As a pedestrian safety improvement project, the improvements do qualify as a redevelopment project and therefore must meet the standards to the maximum extent practicable. It should be noted that Standards 1, 8, 9, and 10 were fully met. Standards 5 and 6 are not applicable to the project. Stormwater Management Report 18 Stormwater Management Standards Standard 8: Erosion and Sediment Control A plan to control construction related impacts, including 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. The implementation of erosion and sediment (E&S) controls during construction is considered a standard practice for all MassDOT projects. E&S controls will be installed before any land disturbance begins for the Project and will remain in place for the duration of the Project. The E&S controls for the Project are shown on the project plans and may include compost filter socks, silt fences and inlet protection devices or similar. The Project disturbs one or more acres of land; therefore, the project contractor will request coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) and develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP follows the requirements of this standard and complies with the NPDES CGP. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. MassDOT O&M plans are implemented on a programmatic level by each MassDOT district. Each MassDOT district office is responsible for providing operation and maintenance for the MassDOT stormwater management systems within their respective jurisdictions. Appendix E includes the O&M Plan for this project. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited. Illicit Discharge Statement The project’s stormwater management system, as shown on the plans submitted with this report, have been designed in full compliance with Standard 10. The project area does not have any known illicit connections. Any illicit connections to the stormwater management system found in the project limit of work during construction will be removed and/or resolved through MassDOT’s Illicit Discharge Detention and Elimination (IDDE) Program. The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan, provided in Appendix E, includes measures to prevent illicit discharges. Stormwater Management Report Appendices Appendix A: MassDEP Checklist for Stormwater Report MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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 MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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. MassDEP Checklist • 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 Appendices Appendix B: Soils and FEMA Information 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 December 5, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part...........................................14 741A—Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes....................................................................................14 References............................................................................................................16 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 468635046863704686390468641046864304686450468647046864904686510468635046863704686390468641046864304686450468647046864904686510693730 693750 693770 693790 693810 693830 693850 693870 693890 693910 693930 693950 693970 693990 693730 693750 693770 693790 693810 693830 693850 693870 693890 693910 693930 693950 693970 693990 42° 18' 24'' N 72° 38' 58'' W42° 18' 24'' N72° 38' 46'' W42° 18' 18'' N 72° 38' 58'' W42° 18' 18'' N 72° 38' 46'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 15 30 60 90 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,270 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 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 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 741A Amostown-Windsor silty substratum-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 1.0 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 1.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, Custom Soil Resource Report 12 onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 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 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 Custom Soil Resource Report 14 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 Maybid Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 15 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 17 PROJECT LOCATION Stormwater Management Report Appendices Appendix C: Supporting Calculations Stormwater Management Report Appendices Page intentionally left blank. Stormwater Management Report Appendices Appendix D: Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data 1 EX-1 2 EX-2 A DP-A Routing Diagram for T1000.24_Pre Drainage Prepared by TEC, Inc., Printed 12/4/2023 HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.092 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B (1, 2) 0.931 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1, 2) 1.023 95 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.023 HSG B 1, 2 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 1.023 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 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 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.092 50-75% Grass cover, Fair 1, 2 0.000 0.931 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.931 Paved parking 1, 2 0.000 1.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.023 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 92.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.64"Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=3.55 cfs 0.185 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 83.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 Runoff=0.79 cfs 0.035 af Inflow=4.22 cfs 0.221 afLink A: DP-A Primary=4.22 cfs 0.221 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.221 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.59" 9.03% Pervious = 0.092 ac 90.97% Impervious = 0.931 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff = 3.55 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.185 af, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Area (sf) CN Description 33,978 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,686 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 2,686 7.33% Pervious Area 33,978 92.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.185 af Runoff Depth=2.64" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 3.55 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Area (sf) CN Description 6,567 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,338 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 93 Weighted Average 1,338 16.93% Pervious Area 6,567 83.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.035 af Runoff Depth=2.34" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 0.79 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 90.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.59" for 2-year event Inflow = 4.22 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.221 af Primary = 4.22 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.221 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 4.22 cfs 4.22 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 92.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.49"Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=5.84 cfs 0.315 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 83.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.16"Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 Runoff=1.34 cfs 0.063 af Inflow=7.00 cfs 0.378 afLink A: DP-A Primary=7.00 cfs 0.378 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.378 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.43" 9.03% Pervious = 0.092 ac 90.97% Impervious = 0.931 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff = 5.84 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth= 4.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Area (sf) CN Description 33,978 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,686 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 2,686 7.33% Pervious Area 33,978 92.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.315 af Runoff Depth=4.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 5.84 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff = 1.34 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Depth= 4.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Area (sf) CN Description 6,567 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,338 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 93 Weighted Average 1,338 16.93% Pervious Area 6,567 83.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.063 af Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 1.34 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 90.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.43" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.00 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.378 af Primary = 7.00 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.378 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 7.00 cfs 7.00 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 92.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.50"Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=8.29 cfs 0.456 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 83.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.15"Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 Runoff=1.94 cfs 0.093 af Inflow=9.96 cfs 0.549 afLink A: DP-A Primary=9.96 cfs 0.549 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.549 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.44" 9.03% Pervious = 0.092 ac 90.97% Impervious = 0.931 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff = 8.29 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.456 af, Depth= 6.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Area (sf) CN Description 33,978 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,686 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 2,686 7.33% Pervious Area 33,978 92.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.456 af Runoff Depth=6.50" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 8.29 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff = 1.94 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af, Depth= 6.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Area (sf) CN Description 6,567 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,338 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 93 Weighted Average 1,338 16.93% Pervious Area 6,567 83.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.093 af Runoff Depth=6.15" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 1.94 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 90.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.44" for 25-year event Inflow = 9.96 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.549 af Primary = 9.96 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.549 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 9.96 cfs 9.96 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 92.67% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.44"Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=9.43 cfs 0.522 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 83.07% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.08"Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 Runoff=2.21 cfs 0.107 af Inflow=11.34 cfs 0.629 afLink A: DP-A Primary=11.34 cfs 0.629 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.629 af Average Runoff Depth = 7.38" 9.03% Pervious = 0.092 ac 90.97% Impervious = 0.931 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff = 9.43 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.522 af, Depth= 7.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Area (sf) CN Description 33,978 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,686 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 2,686 7.33% Pervious Area 33,978 92.67% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: EX-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.522 af Runoff Depth=7.44" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 9.43 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff = 2.21 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af, Depth= 7.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Area (sf) CN Description 6,567 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,338 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 93 Weighted Average 1,338 16.93% Pervious Area 6,567 83.07% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: EX-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.107 af Runoff Depth=7.08" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=93 2.21 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Pre Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 90.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.38" for 100-year event Inflow = 11.34 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.629 af Primary = 11.34 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.629 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 11.34 cfs 11.34 cfs 1 PR-1 2 PR-2 A DP-A Routing Diagram for T1000.24_Post Drainage Prepared by TEC, Inc., Printed 12/4/2023 HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.057 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B (1, 2) 0.966 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1, 2) 1.023 96 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 1.023 HSG B 1, 2 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 1.023 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 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 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 50-75% Grass cover, Fair 1, 2 0.000 0.966 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.966 Paved parking 1, 2 0.000 1.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.023 TOTAL AREA TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 94.68% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.64"Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=3.55 cfs 0.185 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 93.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.64"Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 Runoff=0.85 cfs 0.040 af Inflow=4.27 cfs 0.225 afLink A: DP-A Primary=4.27 cfs 0.225 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.225 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.64" 5.55% Pervious = 0.057 ac 94.45% Impervious = 0.966 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff = 3.55 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.185 af, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Area (sf) CN Description 34,712 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,952 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 1,952 5.32% Pervious Area 34,712 94.68% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.185 af Runoff Depth=2.64" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 3.55 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff = 0.85 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Area (sf) CN Description 7,385 98 Paved parking, HSG B 520 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 96 Weighted Average 520 6.58% Pervious Area 7,385 93.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.040 af Runoff Depth=2.64" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 0.85 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.09"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 94.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.64" for 2-year event Inflow = 4.27 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.225 af Primary = 4.27 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.225 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 4.27 cfs 4.27 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 94.68% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.49"Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=5.84 cfs 0.315 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 93.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.49"Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 Runoff=1.39 cfs 0.068 af Inflow=7.03 cfs 0.383 afLink A: DP-A Primary=7.03 cfs 0.383 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.383 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.49" 5.55% Pervious = 0.057 ac 94.45% Impervious = 0.966 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff = 5.84 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth= 4.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Area (sf) CN Description 34,712 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,952 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 1,952 5.32% Pervious Area 34,712 94.68% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.315 af Runoff Depth=4.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 5.84 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff = 1.39 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af, Depth= 4.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Area (sf) CN Description 7,385 98 Paved parking, HSG B 520 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 96 Weighted Average 520 6.58% Pervious Area 7,385 93.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)1 0 Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.068 af Runoff Depth=4.49" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 1.39 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.96"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 94.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.49" for 10-year event Inflow = 7.03 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.383 af Primary = 7.03 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.383 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 7.03 cfs 7.03 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 94.68% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.50"Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=8.29 cfs 0.456 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 93.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.50"Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 Runoff=1.97 cfs 0.098 af Inflow=9.99 cfs 0.555 afLink A: DP-A Primary=9.99 cfs 0.555 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.555 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.50" 5.55% Pervious = 0.057 ac 94.45% Impervious = 0.966 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff = 8.29 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.456 af, Depth= 6.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Area (sf) CN Description 34,712 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,952 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 1,952 5.32% Pervious Area 34,712 94.68% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.456 af Runoff Depth=6.50" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 8.29 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff = 1.97 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Depth= 6.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Area (sf) CN Description 7,385 98 Paved parking, HSG B 520 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 96 Weighted Average 520 6.58% Pervious Area 7,385 93.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.098 af Runoff Depth=6.50" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 1.97 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=6.98"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 94.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.50" for 25-year event Inflow = 9.99 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.555 af Primary = 9.99 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.555 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 9.99 cfs 9.99 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-48.00 hrs, dt=0.02 hrs, 2401 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=36,664 sf 94.68% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.44"Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Tc=6.0 min CN=96 Runoff=9.43 cfs 0.522 af Runoff Area=7,905 sf 93.42% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.44"Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 Runoff=2.25 cfs 0.113 af Inflow=11.36 cfs 0.634 afLink A: DP-A Primary=11.36 cfs 0.634 af Total Runoff Area = 1.023 ac Runoff Volume = 0.634 af Average Runoff Depth = 7.44" 5.55% Pervious = 0.057 ac 94.45% Impervious = 0.966 ac TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff = 9.43 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.522 af, Depth= 7.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Area (sf) CN Description 34,712 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,952 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 36,664 96 Weighted Average 1,952 5.32% Pervious Area 34,712 94.68% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1: PR-1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Runoff Area=36,664 sf Runoff Volume=0.522 af Runoff Depth=7.44" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 9.43 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff = 2.25 cfs @ 11.93 hrs, Volume= 0.113 af, Depth= 7.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Area (sf) CN Description 7,385 98 Paved parking, HSG B 520 69 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B 7,905 96 Weighted Average 520 6.58% Pervious Area 7,385 93.42% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.6 30 0.0100 0.81 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.09" 2.0 460 0.0150 3.83 7.27 Channel Flow, Area= 1.9 sf Perim= 15.0' r= 0.13' n= 0.012 Wood, Planed 2.6 490 Total Subcatchment 2: PR-2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)2 1 0 Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92" Runoff Area=7,905 sf Runoff Volume=0.113 af Runoff Depth=7.44" Flow Length=490' Tc=2.6 min CN=96 2.25 cfs TEC, Inc. Type II 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.92"T1000.24_Post Drainage Printed 12/4/2023Prepared by TEC, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-26 s/n 02793 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link A: DP-A Inflow Area = 1.023 ac, 94.45% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.44" for 100-year event Inflow = 11.36 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.634 af Primary = 11.36 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.634 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.02 hrs Link A: DP-A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Flow (cfs)12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.023 ac 11.36 cfs 11.36 cfs NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 10, Version 3 Location name: Northampton, Massachusetts, USA* Latitude: 42.3063°, Longitude: -72.6471° Elevation: 134 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Sandra Pavlovic, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Orlan Wilhite NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Duration Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 5-min 0.328 (0.252‑0.421) 0.389 (0.298‑0.501) 0.489 (0.374‑0.632) 0.572 (0.435‑0.744) 0.687 (0.507‑0.934) 0.774 (0.560‑1.08) 0.864 (0.608‑1.24) 0.962 (0.645‑1.43) 1.10 (0.712‑1.69) 1.21 (0.766‑1.90) 10-min 0.464 (0.356‑0.597) 0.551 (0.423‑0.710) 0.693 (0.530‑0.896) 0.811 (0.617‑1.06) 0.973 (0.718‑1.32) 1.10 (0.793‑1.52) 1.22 (0.861‑1.76) 1.36 (0.914‑2.02) 1.56 (1.01‑2.40) 1.71 (1.08‑2.70) 15-min 0.546 (0.419‑0.702) 0.648 (0.497‑0.835) 0.815 (0.624‑1.05) 0.954 (0.726‑1.24) 1.14 (0.845‑1.56) 1.29 (0.933‑1.79) 1.44 (1.01‑2.08) 1.60 (1.08‑2.38) 1.83 (1.19‑2.82) 2.02 (1.28‑3.17) 30-min 0.750 (0.576‑0.965) 0.892 (0.684‑1.15) 1.12 (0.859‑1.45) 1.32 (0.999‑1.71) 1.58 (1.16‑2.14) 1.78 (1.29‑2.47) 1.98 (1.40‑2.86) 2.21 (1.48‑3.28) 2.52 (1.64‑3.89) 2.78 (1.76‑4.37) 60-min 0.955 (0.733‑1.23) 1.14 (0.871‑1.46) 1.43 (1.09‑1.85) 1.67 (1.27‑2.18) 2.01 (1.48‑2.73) 2.26 (1.64‑3.15) 2.53 (1.78‑3.64) 2.82 (1.89‑4.18) 3.22 (2.08‑4.95) 3.54 (2.24‑5.57) 2-hr 1.21 (0.939‑1.55) 1.44 (1.11‑1.84) 1.81 (1.40‑2.32) 2.12 (1.63‑2.74) 2.55 (1.90‑3.45) 2.86 (2.09‑3.97) 3.20 (2.28‑4.62) 3.59 (2.42‑5.30) 4.16 (2.70‑6.36) 4.63 (2.94‑7.24) 3-hr 1.38 (1.08‑1.76) 1.65 (1.28‑2.10) 2.08 (1.61‑2.66) 2.44 (1.88‑3.14) 2.94 (2.20‑3.97) 3.31 (2.43‑4.58) 3.71 (2.66‑5.36) 4.18 (2.82‑6.15) 4.88 (3.18‑7.46) 5.48 (3.49‑8.55) 6-hr 1.72 (1.35‑2.16) 2.08 (1.63‑2.62) 2.66 (2.08‑3.37) 3.15 (2.44‑4.02) 3.82 (2.88‑5.14) 4.32 (3.20‑5.96) 4.86 (3.52‑7.03) 5.52 (3.74‑8.09) 6.57 (4.28‑9.98) 7.47 (4.76‑11.6) 12-hr 2.10 (1.66‑2.62) 2.58 (2.04‑3.24) 3.38 (2.66‑4.26) 4.05 (3.17‑5.12) 4.96 (3.78‑6.65) 5.63 (4.22‑7.76) 6.38 (4.67‑9.23) 7.32 (4.98‑10.7) 8.82 (5.77‑13.3) 10.1 (6.49‑15.6) 24-hr 2.47 (1.97‑3.06) 3.09 (2.46‑3.84) 4.11 (3.26‑5.13) 4.96 (3.91‑6.23) 6.13 (4.70‑8.17) 6.98 (5.26‑9.57) 7.92 (5.86‑11.4) 9.16 (6.25‑13.3) 11.1 (7.32‑16.8) 12.9 (8.28‑19.8) 2-day 2.82 (2.27‑3.47) 3.56 (2.86‑4.38) 4.76 (3.80‑5.88) 5.75 (4.57‑7.16) 7.12 (5.51‑9.45) 8.12 (6.18‑11.1) 9.24 (6.89‑13.3) 10.7 (7.34‑15.4) 13.1 (8.65‑19.7) 15.3 (9.85‑23.4) 3-day 3.08 (2.49‑3.77) 3.88 (3.13‑4.76) 5.18 (4.16‑6.38) 6.26 (5.00‑7.76) 7.75 (6.03‑10.2) 8.83 (6.75‑12.0) 10.0 (7.52‑14.4) 11.7 (8.01‑16.7) 14.3 (9.45‑21.4) 16.7 (10.8‑25.4) 4-day 3.31 (2.68‑4.04) 4.16 (3.36‑5.08) 5.54 (4.46‑6.79) 6.68 (5.35‑8.25) 8.26 (6.44‑10.9) 9.40 (7.20‑12.8) 10.7 (8.02‑15.3) 12.4 (8.53‑17.7) 15.2 (10.1‑22.6) 17.7 (11.5‑26.9) 7-day 3.96 (3.23‑4.80) 4.89 (3.99‑5.94) 6.42 (5.21‑7.82) 7.68 (6.20‑9.43) 9.43 (7.39‑12.3) 10.7 (8.23‑14.4) 12.1 (9.10‑17.2) 14.0 (9.66‑19.9) 17.0 (11.2‑25.1) 19.6 (12.7‑29.7) 10-day 4.60 (3.77‑5.56) 5.58 (4.57‑6.75) 7.19 (5.86‑8.72) 8.52 (6.90‑10.4) 10.4 (8.13‑13.4) 11.7 (9.00‑15.6) 13.2 (9.88‑18.5) 15.1 (10.4‑21.4) 18.1 (12.0‑26.6) 20.7 (13.4‑31.2) 20-day 6.64 (5.49‑7.94) 7.67 (6.34‑9.20) 9.36 (7.70‑11.3) 10.8 (8.80‑13.1) 12.7 (10.0‑16.2) 14.1 (10.9‑18.6) 15.7 (11.7‑21.5) 17.5 (12.2‑24.6) 20.2 (13.5‑29.6) 22.5 (14.6‑33.7) 30-day 8.33 (6.92‑9.92) 9.40 (7.80‑11.2) 11.1 (9.22‑13.4) 12.6 (10.3‑15.2) 14.6 (11.5‑18.5) 16.1 (12.4‑20.9) 17.7 (13.1‑23.9) 19.4 (13.6‑27.2) 21.8 (14.7‑31.9) 23.8 (15.5‑35.6) 45-day 10.4 (8.70‑12.3) 11.5 (9.62‑13.7) 13.4 (11.1‑15.9) 14.9 (12.3‑17.9) 17.0 (13.5‑21.3) 18.6 (14.4‑23.9) 20.2 (15.0‑27.0) 21.9 (15.4‑30.5) 24.1 (16.2‑35.0) 25.8 (16.8‑38.4) 60-day 12.1 (10.2‑14.3) 13.3 (11.1‑15.7) 15.3 (12.7‑18.1) 16.9 (14.0‑20.2) 19.1 (15.2‑23.8) 20.8 (16.1‑26.6) 22.5 (16.7‑29.8) 24.1 (17.1‑33.5) 26.2 (17.7‑37.9) 27.7 (18.1‑41.2) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Large scale terrain Large scale map Large scale aerial + – 3km 2mi + – 100km 60mi + – 100km 60mi Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Questions?: HDSC.Questions@noaa.gov Disclaimer + – 100km 60mi Stormwater Management Report Appendices Appendix E: O&M Plan and LTPPP Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance Plan and Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton, Massachusetts PREPARED FOR 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 PREPARED BY TEC, Inc. 282 Merrimack Street Lawrence, MA, 01843 09/20/2023 Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) i Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan ........ 1 1.1 Responsible Party ................................................................................... 1 1.2 Inspection and Maintenance Measures and Record-Keeping ........................ 1 1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures during Maintenance Activities ........ 4 1.4 O&M Budget ........................................................................................... 4 2 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan ............................................................................. 5 2.1 Practices for Long-Term Pollution Prevention ............................................. 5 2.1.1 Litter Pick-up ........................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Inspection and Maintenance of Stormwater Assets ...................... 5 2.1.3 Maintenance of Landscaped Areas ............................................. 5 2.1.4 Snow and Ice Management ....................................................... 6 2.1.5 Street Sweeping ....................................................................... 6 2.1.6 Prohibition of Illicit Discharges ................................................... 6 2.1.7 Spill Prevention and Response ................................................... 6 Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 1 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan 1 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan This Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan describes the approach for inspection and maintenance of drainage infrastructure and structural stormwater control measures (SCMs) to minimize contaminant loading for Easthampton Road/South Street (Route 10) in Northampton, Massachusetts. In general, inspection and maintenance activities will be conducted consistent with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and MassDOT’s anticipated NPDES Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) Permit. This document has been prepared per the requirements of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Regulations 310 CMR 10.05 (6)(k)(9) and satisfies the requirements of Massachusetts Stormwater Standard 9. 1.1 Responsible Party In accordance with MassDOT procedures, the MassDOT District 2 office located in Northampton, MA, is responsible for the maintenance of all stormwater management systems on MassDOT roads within the project area. Questions or concerns regarding activities associated with this O&M Plan should be addressed to MassDOT’s District 2 office located at 811 North King Street, Northampton, MA, phone (857) 368-2000, during regular weekday hours, or to MassDOT’s Highway Operations Center located in South Boston, MA at (800) 227-0608 during all other times and days, including weekends and holidays. 1.2 Inspection and Maintenance Measures and Record-Keeping See Figure 5 of the Stormwater Management Report for the proposed stormwater system within the project limits. The stormwater management system covered by this O&M Plan consists of the following measures: • Drainage Swale • Catch Basin • Drainage Pipe and Manhole MassDOT uses a performance-based inspection and maintenance program for SCMs and catch basins. For SCMs, MassDOT’s overall approach is to inspect SCMs, and based on the results of the inspections, perform maintenance to preserve functionality. For catch basins, MassDOT’s overall approach is to perform maintenance at an interval that maintains the functionality of the catch basin (e.g., sump is less than 50% full of sediment). Catch basin inspections, including documentation of sediment accumulation, and maintenance will generally occur simultaneously. MassDOT’s O&M program is data driven. Inspections and maintenance are recorded by personnel using hand-held tablets in the field to document sediment accumulation, maintenance action performed, and follow-up actions needed. Data are recorded in MassDOT’s asset management system which is accessible in the field (mobile) or the office (desktop). Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 2 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan The table below summarizes data that is generally collected for each asset type. For all assets, the inspector and inspection date are recorded. Photo documentation of structure condition is taken and attached to the inspection record. Inspection Form Applicable Stormwater Assets Information Collected Inlets › Catch basins › Sediment accumulation › Trash/Debris accumulation › Signs of contamination › Frame and grate condition › Overall structure condition SCMs Consistent with the MassDOT Stormwater Design Guide (SDG), SCM categories include: › Infiltration SCMs › Stormwater wetland SCMs › Bioretention SCMs › Other SCMs › SCM accessibility › Presence of standing water › Level of erosion › Sediment accumulation › Trash/Debris accumulation › Vegetation condition › Overall SCM condition Storm Discharge Points › Outlets to SCMs › Presence of flow › Signs of contaminated flow › Sediment accumulation › Level of erosion › Pipe condition › Scour protection condition › Overall structure condition Inspection and maintenance records can be made available using the asset management system through request with the MassDOT District 2 Environmental Engineer. Records will be kept for at least three years. Representatives of the Northampton Conservation Commission(s), MassDEP, and US EPA may obtain access to these records, upon request. Additionally, MassDOT will allow members and agents of MassDEP and the Conservation Commission(s) to enter and inspect the premises, upon request, to evaluate and ensure that the Operation and Maintenance Plan requirements for each SCM are being followed. Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 3 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Maintenance actions will not occur at any set frequency, but rather will be based on condition and impact to functionality. Maintenance to be performed on the stormwater system includes: Stormwater Feature Potential Maintenance Actions Surface SCMs • Remove and properly dispose of accumulated material (e.g., sediment, trash, leaf litter, debris) • Mow vegetated areas and remove and dispose of grass clippings • Regrade areas that show signs of unwanted ponding and channelization • Stabilize or reconstruct eroded areas and reseed • Replace stones/soil and/or replant vegetation • Remove woody growth • Treat invasive plants according to MassDOT Landscape Design Section • Infiltration and bioretention SCMs only: • Address issues of standing water • Drain and reconstruct SCM • If rehabilitation is not possible, then retrofit to be a wet SCM while considering safety implications Underground SCMs • Remove and properly dispose of trash, sediment, debris, and root intrusions • Clean out sumps at an interval to maintain functionality (less than 50% full of sediment) • Jet and repair pipes • Rehabilitate filtering and infiltration materials (e.g., geotextile fabric, crushed stone) • Stabilize and replace deteriorated structures • Perform evaluations (e.g., test pits) to evaluate subsurface conditions Inlets and Outlets to SCMs • Clear inlet and remove and properly dispose of sediment, trash, leaf litter, debris, and vegetation • Regrade areas that show signs of ponding and channelization • Repair or replace structural components • Repair damaged or eroded areas • Provide or rehabilitate erosion control at the outlet • Regrade and replace the channel materials • Remove woody growth • Stabilize or reconstruct eroded areas • Treat invasive plants according to MassDOT Vegetation Management Plan Based on the results of the inspection, repairs will be made in accordance with MassDOT standard practices. Maintenance will be prioritized given the urgency of the required maintenance and availability of staff, contracts, etc. Maintenance may require contracting if existing contracts are unavailable to perform the work. More intensive remedial activities may require permitting and/or an engineering solution. Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 4 Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan 1.3 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures during Maintenance Activities For maintenance activities that could result in discharges of sediments or other contaminants into wetlands, waterways, or other resource areas regulated under 310 CMR 10.00, the responsible maintenance personnel will employ measures to prevent migration of these sediments/contaminants. Such temporary measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the use of siltation barriers, compost filter tubes, catch basin silt sacks/filter bags, pipe plugs, cofferdams deployed within the stormwater structure, turbidity curtains, or other practices designed to prevent such discharges. See the following resources for more guidance on erosion and sediment (E&S) control design: • The MassDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Field Guide includes detailed descriptions, photographs, and illustrations of E&S controls that the designer may incorporate into the plans. • Chapter 8 of the MassDOT Project Development & Design Guide,1 Section 8.5 - Erosion During Construction, includes a description of common construction period E&S control practices. • The Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas 2 is an authoritative reference on erosion prevention measures. • The Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual 3 provides an innovative user interface to present comprehensive detailed guidance on E&S controls for construction projects. Where maintenance occurs in areas that are confined, with no risk of discharge to adjacent water bodies, no special measures may be needed. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) cleaning of a forebay under dry conditions when the work can be completed and exposed surfaces stabilized prior to placing it back into service; and (2) catch basin cleaning where the activity is limited to removing material from a sump below the elevation of the outlet pipe. 1.4 O&M Budget MassDOT performs maintenance for stormwater management systems as part of their routine operation and maintenance budget for roadways and bridges. Budgets are managed at the district level and vary by fiscal year, depending on funding sources. 1 See MassDOT PDDG at: https://www.mass.gov/lists/design-guides-and-manuals. 2 See Complete Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines: A Guide for Planners, Designers, and Municipal Officials (May 2003) at: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/stormwater. 3 See Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual at: https://megamanual.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/default.aspx. Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 5 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan 2 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan This Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (LTPPP) describes the approach for pollution prevention and related maintenance activities for Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) in Northampton, Massachusetts. In general, long-term pollution prevention and related maintenance activities will be conducted consistent with: • The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), • MassDOT’s anticipated NPDES Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) Permit, and • Measures outlined in MassDOT’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). This LTPPP satisfies the requirements related to pollution prevention under Massachusetts Stormwater Standards 4, 5, 6, and 10. 2.1 Practices for Long-Term Pollution Prevention For the facilities covered, long-term pollution prevention includes the following measures: • good housekeeping; • storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; • vehicle washing; • routine inspections and maintenance of SCMs; • spill prevention and response; • maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; • storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; • pet waste management; • operation and management of septic systems; and • proper management of deicing chemicals and snow. 2.1.1 Litter Pick-up MassDOT will conduct litter pick-up from the stormwater management facilities in conjunction with routine road maintenance activities. 2.1.2 Inspection and Maintenance of Stormwater Assets MassDOT will conduct inspection and maintenance of drainage infrastructure and the stormwater control measures (SCMs) in accordance with the O&M Plan, as described in Section 1. 2.1.3 Maintenance of Landscaped Areas Routine mowing will be conducted according to standard MassDOT practices. SCM drainage swale bottoms and embankments designed to impound water should be mowed as required to prevent establishment of woody vegetation. Except in rare circumstances, MassDOT does not use fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides for the maintenance of facilities. Exceptions include using fertilizer to ensure the survival of new plantings and herbicides to control invasive plants. Use of fertilizers and herbicides is reviewed and approved by the MassDOT Landscape Design Section and District 2 Environmental Engineer prior to application. Local Conservation Commission review may also be required. Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 6 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan 2.1.4 Snow and Ice Management Snow and Ice Management will be conducted consistent with the practices outlined in the MassDOT Snow and Ice Control Program Environmental Status and Planning Report (ESPR), formerly known as the Snow and Ice Control Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR). In accordance with the Snow and Ice Control ESPR, no sand is used on MassDOT properties for snow and ice control. The exception to this rule is within reduced salt areas where high sodium levels have been found in drinking water sources. 2.1.5 Street Sweeping Routine highway cleaning, with a brush-type street sweeper, will be conducted in accordance with standard MassDOT practices. Sweeping will occur annually in the Spring. 2.1.6 Prohibition of Illicit Discharges The MassDEP Stormwater Management Standard 10 prohibits illicit discharges to the stormwater management system. Illicit discharges are discharges that do not consist entirely of stormwater, except for certain specified non-stormwater discharges. In accordance with the existing MS4 permit and anticipated TS4 permit requirements, examples of discharges from the following sources are not considered illicit discharges: › Firefighting activities* › Flows from riparian habitats/wetlands › Foundation drains › Potable water sources › Water line flushing › Dechlorinated swimming pool water › Footing drains › Street wash waters › Landscape irrigation › Wash water from residential buildings (no detergents) › Individual residential car washing › Condensation from air conditioning units › Uncontaminated groundwater › Run-on from private driveways caused by precipitation › Rising groundwater › Lawn watering › Diverted stream flows › Water from crawl space pumps *Water from firefighting activities is allowed and need only be addressed where they are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States. Based on plan review and confirmation in the field, there are no known or proposed illicit connections associated with the Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10). Should an interconnection to the stormwater management system be identified, the MassDOT PM will coordinate with the District Permits Engineer to confirm if the connections are authorized. For unauthorized connections, the MassDOT PM and/or MassDOT Environmental Services Section will investigate the connections and if they are determined to be illicit, the connections will be managed through MassDOT’s Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program and/or through other agencies. 2.1.7 Spill Prevention and Response Response procedures will be implemented at the existing discharge point that the proposed drainage system will be connecting into for any significant release of hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, or chemical materials that have the potential of discharging to the Mill River. Spill containment measures will include, but limited to, the use of caps, covers, pneumatic plugs and/or absorbent material. Reportable quantities will immediately be reported to the applicable Federal, State, and local agencies as required by law. Reportable quantities of chemical, fuels, or oils are established under the Clean Water Act and enforced through MassDEP. The MassDEP Emergency Response Program shall be immediately notified in accordance with required procedures for the report of a release (telephone (888) 304-1133). Operation and Maintenance Plan | Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Easthampton Road / South Street (Route 10) 7 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan MassDOT works with first responders and/or public water supply owners to determine the best approach to protect water supplies, and provides training and materials to carry out action plans. In the case of a spill, applicable containment and clean-up procedures will be performed immediately. These procedures are implemented in accordance with the Unified Response Manual at the local level by first responders, which includes the Northampton’s local public safety departments (e.g., fire, police, public works, board of health). MassDOT will be on-site to aid with traffic control and to provide clean- up supplies, as necessary. Spill material collected during the response will be promptly removed and disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local requirements. If necessary, a licensed emergency response contractor will assist in cleanup of releases depending on the amount of the release and the ability of the responsible party to perform the required response. See Construction Period Pollution Prevention Plan within the Drainage Report (Appendix D) for further information on Spill Prevention and Control. 6. MESA CHECKLIST 1 MESA REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR MASSDOT- HIGHWAY DIVISION PROJECTS Massachusetts Endangered Species Act M.G.L. c. 131A and Regulations (321 CMR 10.00) Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program For additional information or to schedule a pre-filing consultation, contact Timothy McGuire, Environmental Review Biologist, at: timothy.mcguire2@mass.gov; (508) 389-6366 ~~~~ C ONTACT I NFORMATION ~~~~ 1. Project Location: Easthampton Road at Earle Street Intersection, Northampton, MA 01060 Street Address/Location City/Town Zip Code N/A Public Right-Of-Way Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel /Lot Number 2. MassDOT contact: Julia Hoogeboom MassDOT Highway Division First Name Last Name Company 10 Park Plaza, Room 7360 Mailing Address Boston MA 02116 City/Town State Zip Code 857-445-2880 (857) 368-0609 julia.a.hoogeboom@dot.state.ma.us Phone Number Fax Number Email address 3. Engineer or other Representative: TEC, Inc. Company David Nader Contact Person First Name Contact Person Last Name 282 Merrimack Street, 2nd Floor Mailing Address Lawrence MA 01843 City/Town State Zip Code 978-794-1792 dnader@theengineeringcorp.com Phone Number Fax Number Email address ~~~~ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION ~~~~ 1. Will this project meet any threshold for a MA Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) filing (excluding rare species, 301 CMR 11.03 (2))? No Yes- ENF 2. Has this project been issued a NHESP Tracking Number? If Yes, Tracking No.: No Yes ~~~~PROJECT D ESCRIPTION (Please attach separate description) ~~~~ If you already completed your Notice of Intent- Form 3, you can send page 1 of the NOI in place of questions 1 through 3 in this section Please note: certain projects or activities are exempt from review (see 321 CMR 10.14). The MESA does not allow project segmentation. Your filing must reflect all anticipated work associated with the proposed project (CMR 321 10.16). 2 ~~~~INCLUDE T HE F OLLOWING I NFORMATION ~~~~ Proposed project will alter*: Land Under Water Extent of: temporary impact (sq. feet): 0 permanent impact: 0 Bordering Vegetated Wetland Extent of: temporary impact (sq. feet): 0 permanent impact: 0 Isolated Vegetated Wetland Extent of: temporary impact (sq. feet): 0 permanent impact: 0 Proposed project will: Extend the amount of riprap at the site If yes, approximate extension(feet): Include in-water work If yes, optimal date and duration of work: Require wetlands replication If yes, extent (sq. feet): ALL Applicants must submit: USGS map (1:24,000 or 1:25,000) with property boundary clearly outlined Aerial/Orthophoto w/ limit of work shown Project plans for entire site, including: Wetland Resource Areas, showing existing and proposed conditions Existing and proposed tree/vegetation clearing line Clearly demarcated limits of work, including any upland alterations and staging areas Project description Photographs representative of the site Projects altering* 10 or more acres, must also submit: Vegetation cover type map of the site Project plans showing Priority Habitat boundaries *Alteration: Any physical alteration of land, soils, drainage or destruction of plant life, see “Project or Activity” (321 CMR 10.02). The NHESP may request additional information, such as, but not limited to, species and habitat surveys, wetland reports, soil map and reports, and stormwater management reports (321 CMR 10.16). ~~~~ R EQUIRED S IGNATURES~~~~ I hereby certify under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing MESA filing and accompanying plans, documents, and supporting data are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of MassDOT Representative, OR Date Signature of Engineer / Contractor / Consultant retained by MassDOT Date Send checklist and additional information (plans, maps) to: Timothy McGuire (timothy.mcguire2@mass.gov) Environmental Review Biologist MassWildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program 1 Rabbit Hill Road Westborough, MA 01581 The NHESP will notify the applicant within 14 days if the materials submitted do not satisfy requirements for a filing and request submission of any missing materials (321 CMR 10.18(1)). 2/13/2024 3 Project Description The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is proposing to construct approximately 420 LF of 5.5’ wide cement concrete sidewalks, 800 linear feet of pavement mill and overlay, vertical granite curbing, and a TL-3 guard rail. The proposed sidewalk will include reconstruction of the existing sidewalk on the northern perimeter of Easthampton Road, sidewalk at the northwest corner of the intersection, and sidewalk along the south side of Easthampton Street. Crosswalk signals are proposed at each crosswalk. Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï│―│ÏÏ Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │― ―│Ï ― Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï Ï ― ―│―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ――│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï │Ï Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―││Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―││Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│―│ÏÏ││―│Ï ―│Ï ― ― Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï │―│ÏÏ ― Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│││Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï │―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ÏÏ ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│ÏÏ │―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―││Ï │Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │― ―│ÏÏ │―│Ï│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï │Ï Ï││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏÏ ――│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï │―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ │Ï │―│Ï ― ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│―│Ï │Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │――│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ││Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ │― ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï Ï―│Ï Ï │―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│―│Ï ―│ÏÏ Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││Ï │Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―││Ï Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ― ―│Ï Ï│―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï││Ï ――│Ï │Ï ―│Ï Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ││Ï―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │――│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï││Ï │―│ÏÏ ―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï│―│Ï ―Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï│――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï││Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ― ― ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│―│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ││Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│ÏÏ ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│Ï│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │――│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―││Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ――│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï│―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï ―│Ï │││―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │―│Ï │―│Ï ― ―│Ï Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï │Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ―│Ï ........ ............................. ...........│Ï ―││!" !" &PO &PO &PO !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" !" &PO &PO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ; ; ;!-ııΙI▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n ▄n▄n▄n ▄n▄n ▄n ▄n F F F H H55030060050045070060060055075080055045050080070055065 0 3506 5 0 550500550400500700700450250150 200 200 200200 1 5 0 150250150 200150450300400250 2004505503 0 0 200300400600250 2 5 0200350200 250 3 5 0 250150 30 0 2501505003001 5 0250 3 50 1502002501 5 0300 200500 1502505 5 0 350500 200450250250200300250500300500 250300250 300 300200150750700 2503508005504003005005004508005 5 0 65040035 0 300650 5505006007 0 0 3 5 0 300650 300 300600 5005 00 600 3 5 0 700550250450 300 250 300 200 200 350 300300300300 500 600200 25035055035 0 350 400450250300200300 2 50500450 15040020 0400 50035030 0 400200 4 5 0 25015030020 0900 600600300500 6002 0 0 5 0 0 550 1503006504 0 0 2 5 0 350750150350350700 5506001 1 5 0 400105025 0 600 550 250200 150150250150 200150450 450150150350550600150 4005005007001 5 0 650650300 650600150650 900700400150 500500450750150600 950200 350700700600650550550250750 2003002505506008001000600 550450 450 40011005001 1 0 0 750950650450 550 500 6 5 0 850650700 6007505 5 0 600650800350105020 0 2008509501000600 5504007008506504504 5 0550550 600300400 25 0 200300 400450 300 2004004504504005506 0 0 400 300750500400750 750450 350 450400550550650650400350300 650250 300 4508004 5 0 600 700 650 450 700750700 50 0 5 5 0 250 650 25060020015 0 200 150200 2 0 0 20045095011507506 0 0 650550350450400850300400500900450700800250 10501000Nor t h h a m p t o n B i k e w a y T r l N o rth h a m pto n Bik e w a y TrlWilliamsburg/Burghy Bikeway TrlManha n Rail TrlManhanRailTrlNature TrlD.O.C .TrlNewEngland NationalScenicTrlOld Fire Road TrlJohnMcCoolTrlKeyston e E x t e n s io n T r l Beau Bridge TrlNorthamptonInt e r c o n n e ctio ns TrlN FARMS RDMAIN ST S MA IN ST ¬«9 SOUTHST FORTHILLRDN KING STBRIDGE ST LITTLE NEPONSET RD §¨¦91 L I N S E E DRD¬«10 ¬«10 MEADOW ST ¬«9 BRIDGESTHILLCREST DRWASHINGTON AVE£¤5 £¤5PROSPECT AVEDWIGHT STBRIDGERD ELM ST CHESTNUTSTNORTHSTIND U ST RIA L D R CRESCENTST RIV ER SID ED RROUNDHILLRDBARRETT ST HIGH ST BRADFO R D STCOLESMEADOWRDKI NGSTWILLOW S T STATEST£¤5 NONOTUCKSTHAYDENVILLE RDKENNEDY RDAUDUBONRD CHESTERFIELD RD F AIR W AY VL GRIVERRDARCH ST RESERVOIR RDS P R I N G S TMAINSTLEONARDSTUNQUOMONK R D M ONTAQUERDWOODLANDDRTORREY STNMAPLESTS M A I N S T BALLARD STMEADO W B R O O K D R MAPLE STO N E I L S TBLISS STLOUDVILLE RD ¬«66 GLENDALE RDOAK STPINE S T WARNE R S T C A R ILLON CIR PLEAS A N T S TW FARMS RDWESTHAMPTONRD FLORENCERDCARDINALWAYNORTHAMPTONSTGARFIELD AVE C H E S T E R F I E L D R D BURTS PIT RD RATTLEHI LLRDE V E R E T T S TOVERLOOKDRLAKE STF L O R E N C E R D N M AI N S T ELMSTFED E R A L S T OLDWILSONRDHAN N U MB R O OK DR SPRUCE H I L L AV E HOL YOK E ST LA W L E R D RDEERFIELDDRSYLVESTERRD LOCUSTST FLORENCEST WESTHAMPTONRDTAFT AVEWOODSRD MOUNT TOM AVE BEACONST GLENDALE STSOUTH ST L O U D V I L L E R D WARD AVE A CORNDRPARKST¬«141 CHAPE L S T WEST ST BRIGGS ST §¨¦91 ¬«10 ¬«10 ¬«10 ISLAND RD R I V E R ST F O R T H I L L R D BURTSPITRD LY M AN S TROC KYH ILLRDWHITTIER ST UNI ONS TEARLESTMAPLE ST PARSONS STCLEMENTSTLOVEFIELDSTB A S S E T T B ROOK DRWINTERBERRYLNB R O OK SI D E C I R GREENLEAFD R ACREBR O O K D R BU T TON RD C L A R K S T SOUTHSTE G R E E N ST HIGHLAND AVE FERRY STEASTHAMPTONRD FR UIT ST¬«66 M A P L E R ID G E R D B RYA N AV E WESTVIEWTERMAINSTLEAD MINE RDDRURY LN PINE H I L L R D RYAN RD ASHLEYCIREA S T H A M P T O N R D LADYSLIPPERLN SOUTHA M PTO N R D MAIN RD MINE RD CLARK LN C O L D SP RIN G R D O L I V E R S T PO M EROYM EA DO W RDPARK HILL RD MILLERAVEGLENDALERD¬«66 MI NERALSTT U R K E Y H I L L R D §¨¦91 GROVE ST JACKSONSTCO N Z S T EAST STNELMSTMASSASOIT STVERNON STWESTSTCHRISTOPHERCLARKRDNELMSTC U R T I S N O O K R DCOO K E A V E WOODLAWN AVEC L A P P S T P Y N C H O N M D W RD OLD SPRINGFIELD RDO XBO W R D ELMST PROSPECT ST R ESERVATIONRDSILVIO O CONTE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE REFUGEHAMPSHIRE COHAMPDEN CONeds Ditch Pomeroys Meadow Rubber Thread Pond ManhanRiverBr oadBrookBrickyardBrookConnecticutR iv e rMarbleBrookDayBrook Mill Ri ve r Roberts Meadow Reservoir B roadBrookM i l l R i v e r B e a v e r B r o o kClark Brook Mountain Park Reservoir Plu m B ro o k Clear Falls Pond Hulberts Pond Lower Millpond M a n h an River Wilton BrookP a r s o n s Brook N Br Manhan River H a n n u m B ro o k NBrManhan River MillRiverFlorence Pond Turkey Br o o k WhiteBrookUpper Reservoir MillRiverDanks Pond Rocky Hill Pond Mount Tom ReservoirBassett BrookRobert s M e a d o w B r o o k West Farms Cem Smith College Saint Mary Cem Bridge Street Cem Hebrew Cem Saint Marys Cem Holy Trinity Cem Saint Peter and Paul Russian Orthodox Cem Hampshire County Superior Court House Spring Grove Cem ParkStreet Cem Brookside Cem East Street Cem Saint Brigids Cem Main Street Cem Saint Stanislaus Cem Manhan Meadows Pine Grove NORTHAMPTON Hockanum Meadows Pynchon Meadows Mineral Hills Sawmill Hills Baker Hill Florence Round Hill Loudville West Farms Turkey Hill Roberts Meadow Metacomet Ridge Bald Hill Bay State Deadtop West Whately Goat Peak EASTHAMPTON TOWN Whiting Peak HOLYOKE Easthampton Dry Knoll Pomeroy Mtn Leeds Roberts Hill Miller Hill Canary Island Laurel Park West Hatfield North Farms 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 80 4693000mN 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 4681000mN 94 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 9486 695000mE 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 686000mE 95 42.2500° 42.3750° -72.7500°-72.6250° 42.3750° 42.2500°-72.6250°-72.7500° QUADRANGLE LOCATION EASTHAMPTON QUADRANGLE MASSACHUSETTS 7.5-MINUTE SERIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY × Ø GN MN 1°33´28 MILS 13°45´ 244 MILS UTM GRID AND 2019 MAGNETIC NORTHDECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET XM Grid Zone Designation18T U.S. National Grid 100,000 - m Square ID MASSACHUSETTS 1 Goshen 8 Springfield North 2 Williamsburg 3 Mount Toby 4 Westhampton 5 Mount Holyoke 6 Woronoco 7 Mount Tom ADJOINING QUADRANGLES 321 54 7 86 Imagery.....................................................NAIP, August 2018 - November 2018Roads......................................... U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Names............................................................................GNIS, 1974 - 2021 Hydrography...............................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005 - 2021 Contours............................................National Elevation Dataset, 2018 - 2019 Boundaries..............Multiple sources; see metadata file 2018 - 2020 Wetlands.................FWS National Wetlands Inventory 2008 North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and 1 000-meter grid:Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 18T Produced by the United States Geological Survey This map is not a legal document. Boundaries may be generalized for this map scale. Private lands within government reservations may not be shown. Obtain permission before entering private lands. This map was produced to conform with the National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 SCALE 1:24 000 1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000 21KILOMETERS00.51 10.50 MILES 1 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET EASTHAMPTON, MA 2021 Expressway Local Connector ROAD CLASSIFICATION Ramp 4WD Secondary Hwy Local Road Interstate Route State RouteUS RouteWX./*7643016369517*NSN.7643016369517NGA REF NO.USGSX24K69958Project Location LOCUS 6. NHESP PROOF OF MAILING