Loading...
Stormwater Permit < < < < \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 73-0 \ +)36)4368\ 8)784-87\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report A. Introduction Important:A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document When filling out compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for forms on the the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered computer, use here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their only the tab key to move your Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, cursor - do not the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in use the return Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and key. 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 1 page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals. 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 2 by Standard 8 Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. 1 The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. 2 For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project: No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs LID Site Design Credit Requested: Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) Treebox Filter Water Quality Swale Grass Channel Green Roof Other (describe): Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges No new untreated discharges Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 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. 1 Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is notdischarging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. 1 80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge (continued) The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: Good housekeeping practices; Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; Vehicle washing controls; Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; Spill prevention and response plans; Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; Pet waste management provisions; Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; Provisions for solid waste management; Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; Street sweeping schedules; Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area is near or to other critical areas is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour) involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: The ½” or 1” Water Quality Volume or The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. All exposure has been eliminated. All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: Limited Project Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff Bike Path and/or Foot Path Redevelopment Project Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: Narrative; Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; Vegetation Planning; Site Development Plan; Construction Sequencing Plan; Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; Inspection Schedule; Maintenance Schedule; Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 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. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8 Stormwater Drainage Report ______________________________________________________________________________________ for Fairfield Inn at 115 Conz Street Northampton, MA November 27, 2012 Prepared by: Prepared for: Mansour Ghalibaf 36 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Table of Contents Introduction 2 Site Terrain and Soils 2 Existing Conditions 3 Proposed Conditions 4 Calculations and Design 5 Stormwater Standards 6 Summary 8 References 9 Figures Figure 1 Pre- Development Drainage Area Map Figure 2 Post Development Drainage Area Map Figure 3 USDA Soils Map Figure 4 FEMA Flood Map Appendices Appendix A Pre- and Post Development Hydrologic Calculations Appendix B Soils Information Appendix C Recharge, Water Quality, Drawdown & Mounding Analysis Appendix D TSS Removal Summary and Calculations Appendix E Long Term Pollution Plan Appendix F Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation &Maintenance P Plan Appendix G STC 450 Design Summary The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report I. Introduction The following report presents an analysis of the stormwater management system for the proposed development of 115 Conz Street in Northampton, MA as a Fairfield Hotel Inn & Suites. The proposed development includes raising the site approximately 2-feet, constructing a new 13,600 square foot building and associated parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, utilities, landscape features and stormwater management system. The total property area is approximately 2.30 acres. The impervious area on site will increase in proposed conditions by approximately 66,287.6 square feet due to the proposed hotel building, associated walkways and parking. Considering no stormwater exits the existing site, as the site is in a depression, subsurface infiltration beds are designed to attenuate and infiltrate all proposed stormwater up to the 25-year storm. Peak flows will remain equivalent to the existing condition due to improved landscape materials, infiltration beds and an outlet control structure. The stormwater management system has been designed to minimize proposed peak flows to reduce or match existing flows off the site. Other mechanisms to reduce runoff and treat water quality include pavement sweeping, deep sump catch basins, stormwater treatment chambers and an emergency overflow designed to only discharge during the 100-year storm. II. Site Terrain and Soils The southeastern and northeastern edges of the property are comprised of 10% slopes, the southern edge of the property contains 3:1 slopes and the western and northern edges are bounded by the Gazette building and a 10% slope. All slope s drain in towards the center of the property, which is largely comprised of flat terrain. There is are two, 3-foot deep depressions at either end of the southeastern property line and various drywells along the existing delivery drive, which infiltrate stormwater runoff from the delivery drive, the 3:1 slope and a portion of the roof runoff from the adjacent Quality Inn. The USDA Soil Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part classifies the site soils as (see Appendix B for the soil report): (98A) Winooski silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Hydrologic Group: B Flood Risk: Occaisional Depth to Water Table: 18”-36” Depth to Bedrock: >80” The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report (744A) Hadley-Winooski-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes Hydrologic Group: B Flood Risk: Occasional Depth to Water Table: 48”-72” Depth to Bedrock: >80” (235C) Hinckley loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Hydrologic Group: A Flood Risk: None Depth to Water Table: >80” Depth to Bedrock: >80” Four test pits and three Guelph Permeability Tests were also performed on site in the proximity of potential infiltration bed locations. Test pits #1, #2, and one of the Guelph Permeability Tests were performed in the southwestern portion of the site, which all resulted in similar soil profile characteristics. The Guelph Permeability Test found an infiltration rate of 30 feet per day in the southwestern corner and the two infiltration beds proposed in this area will utilize this rate. Test pit #3 was performed east of the delivery drive, in the northeastern portion of the site, and had slightly different soil characteristics. The published USDA soil description for this area indicates hydrologic soil group B and a corresponding Rawls infiltration rate of 1.02 inches per hour. The infiltration bed proposed in this area will utilize the above corresponding Rawl’s rate. The two other Guelph Permeability Tests were performed in the proximity of the future parking area in the northern corner of the site; however the infiltration rates obtained were approximately 0.1 feet per day and are not favorable for infiltration. In addition, Test Pit #4 was performed in the eastern corner of the site and resulted in unfavorable soil characteristics for infiltration. As a result, two of the proposed infiltration beds will be located in the southwestern portion of the site and one of the proposed infiltration beds will be located east of the delivery drive in the northeastern corner of the site. III. Existing Conditions The existing site includes one drainage areas: E-1. The existing drainage area boundary is depicted on the Pre-Development Drainage Area Plan (Figure 1). The overall curve number (CN) in existing conditions is 63. The control points utilized to determine peak flow in existing conditions are located in Conz Street to the north (E-CP1), however there is no flow offsite because the entire site is below the roadway. The following is a brief description of the three drainage areas: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report E-1 E-1 is approximately 3.27 acres in size (approximately 0.50 acres of impervious area), and encompasses the entire site The existing site includes paved drives, open field, some trees, a sloping hillside and a portion of the roof area from the existing Quality Inn. Runoff currently sheet flows toward the center of the site, eventually enters a catch basin/dry wells or one of two 3-foot deep depressions along the southeaster property line. The roof leaders from the adjacent Quality Inn outlet approximately half off the roof runoff northwest the site with no attenuation or treatment. IV. Proposed Conditions The stormwater management system in proposed conditions has been designed to treat runoff on site. The proposed site contains three drainage areas: P-1A, P-1B, & P-1C (See Figure 2) and the overall curve number (CN) in proposed conditions is 79.8. The control points utilized to determine peak flow in proposed conditions is the discharge to the manhole in Wright Avenue to the north of the site (P-CP1). The following is a brief description of the three drainage areas: P-1A P-1A is approximately 1.62 acres in size (approximately 0.83 acres of impervious area), located in the western portion of the site, and is comprised of grassed areas, the Gazette delivery drive, parking spaces, a forested hillside, landscaping along the building face and a portion of the building roof. This area generally slopes toward the center of the drainage area and runoff sheet flows into one of four proposed catch basins or one of three area drains and eventually enters an infiltration basin, which completely infiltrates stormwater runoff up to and including the 25-year storm. P-1B P-1B is approximately 0.69 acres in size (approximately 0.53 acres of impervious area), located in the southeastern portion of the site, and is comprised of a landscaped and tree covered islands, landscaping along the building face, asphalt parking areas, concrete walks and a significant portion of the proposed building roof and a portion of the adjacent Quality Inn roof. Roof leaders from the Quality Inn currently discharge onto the site and thus must be included in the drainage calculations. This area generally slopes toward the south or east, enters a proposed double catch basin or area drain, and eventually enters an infiltration basin, which completely infiltrates stormwater runoff up to and including the 25- year storm. P-1C P-1C is approximately 0.96 acres in size (approximately 0.67 acres of impervious area) and is comprised of a landscaped/tree covered frontage, landscaping along the building face, concrete walks, parking areas, a portion of the delivery drive The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report and a significant portion of the proposed building roof. This area generally slopes toward the northwest, enters one of three proposed catch basin or one of four proposed area drains, and eventually enters an infiltration basin, which completely infiltrates stormwater runoff up to and including the 25-year storm. V. Calculations and Design Drainage calculations were performed on Hydrocad Stormwater Modeling System version 8.0 using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) TR-20 methodology. The SCS method is based on rainfall observations, which were used to develop the Intensity-Duration-Frequency relationship, or IDF curve. The mass curve is a dimensionless distribution of rainfall over time, which indicates the fraction of the rainfall event that occurs at a given time within a 24-hour precipitation event. This synthetic distribution develops peak rates for storms of varying duration and intensities. The SCS distribution provides a cumulative rainfall at any point in time and allows volume dependent routing runoff calculations to occur. These calculations are included in the appendices. The watershed boundaries for calculation purposes are divided according to the proposed site grading and the natural limits of the drainage areas. The curve numbers (CNs) and times of concentration for the existing and proposed subcatchment areas are based on the soil type and the existing and proposed cover conditions at the site. The soil hydrologic group assumed for the site is noted in Figure 3. Watershed subcatchment areas, runoff coefficients and watercourse slopes are based on survey information. Calculations were performed for the 2-, 10-, 25- and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 1 on the following page. Appendix A presents the Hydrocad calculations. Flow Rates & Water Quantity In the post development conditions runoff from approximately 100% of the site area will be routed through proposed deep sump catch basins to one of three proprietary treatment chambers (STC 450i), which achieve the required 80% TSS removal. The 100% of the site represents all pervious and impervious surfaces. Peak flow attenuation up to and including the 25-Year Storm in the proposed conditions is achieved with the implementation of areas drains, deep sump, hooded catch basins, stormwater treatment chambers (STC 450i) and three infiltration basins. The infiltration basins are designed to completely attenuate and infiltration stormwater runoff up to and including the 25-year storm event. It is not economically feasible to design the infiltration basin to accommodate the 100- year storm event, therefore an emergency overflow/outlet control structure has been included to direct 100-year storm event overflow runoff to the Manhole in Wright Avenue. Table 1 below presents the comparison of flow rates and water quantity at both existing and proposed control points based on the infiltration bed The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report storage capacity. The infiltration rate in the southwestern corner of the site was determined by O’Reilly Talbot & Okun using a Guelph Permeability Test and is 30 feet per day. The infiltration rate in the northeastern corner of the site, east of the delivery drive, was determined using the Rawls rate for HSG ‘B’ soil, which is 1.02 inches/hour. Table 1 Peak Flow and Volume Summary 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 25-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & 3.08” 4.48” 5.55” 7.68” Point of Analysis PeakVolumePeakVolumePeakVolumePeakVolu Flow(acre-ft)Flow(acre-ft)Flow(acre-Flowme Rate(cfs)Rate(cfs)Rate(cfs)ft)Rate(cf(acre- s)) ft) Existing – Control Pt. 0.000.0000.000.0000.000.0000.000.000 (E-CP1)* Proposed – Control Pt. 0.000.0000.000.0000.000.0002.630.065 (P-CP1)* *Names in parentheses refer to HydroCad model and calculations. VI. Stormwater Standards Compliance The following section details how the project will meet DEP Stormwater Management Policy and the Town of Northborough requirements: Standard 1 - Untreated Stormwater The proposed stormwater system is designed to treat the runoff in excess of 80% TSS. The only new point source discharge proposed is an emergency overflow to the manhole in Wright Street, which is only utilized during the 100-year storm event. Runoff generated by the proposed development will sheet flow to proposed deep sump catch basins, through proprietary treatment chambers and into one of three infiltration beds. The infiltration beds utilize a long, positive sloped pipe and an outlet control structure to discharge overflows to Wright Avenue during the 100-year storm event. No untreated stormwater will discharge to Conz Street or the adjacent sites. The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Standard 2 - Post-Development Peak Discharge Rates and Runoff Volume The stormwater system is designed so that post-development peak discharge rates and runoff volumes are equal to pre-development peak discharge rates leaving the site up to and including the 25-year storm event. All stormwater is contained or infiltrated on site in the existing condition and considering the proposed large increase in impervious surface area, it is only financially feasible to completely infiltrate and attenuate stormwater up to the 25-year storm event. Proposed deep sump catch basins, proprietary treatment chambers (STC 450i) and three infiltration beds, utilizing Cultec 150XLHD Recharger chambers,adequately address stormwater quality and TSS removal before runoff is infiltrated or discharged during the 100-year storm into the Wright Avenue drainage system.. The infiltration basins are surrounded with a nonwoven filter fabric and all include a 6” deep crushed stone base, Cultec 150XLHD Recharger chambers and an additional 6” layer of crushed stone above the chambers. The chambers shall be interconnected with HVLV SFCx2 feed connectors, which require a polyethylene liner to be placed beneath the connectors (see detail). In addition, proposed, high quality, landscape buffers, gentler slopes and curbing reduce the volume of untreated runoff and promote increased infiltration, as compared to the existing condition. Refer to Table 1 Peak Flow and Volume Summary and Appendix A for HydroCAD calculations. Standard 3 - Recharge The proposed project has been designed to direct stormwater runoff into various infiltration basins as described above. The impervious area in proposed conditions is approximately 66,288 square feet greater than the existing condition, and the infiltration basins have been implemented to recharge runoff that has been pre- treated with deep sump catch basins and proprietary stormwater treatment chambers. The utilization of Stormceptor 450i treatment chambers will insure that runoff that is not recharged has been treated before it is discharged to the Wright Avenue during the 100-year storm event. The proposed project is designed to infiltrate the entire recharge volume of the site and to attenuate the runoff volume for the contributing drainage areas and still drawdown within 72 hours. (See Appendix C) Standard 4 – Water Quality The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to remove the average annual Total Suspended Solids (TSS) load equal to or in excess of 80% for the proposed site conditions (see Appendix D for calculations). The treatment chain proposed consists of deep sump catch basins, proprietary treatment chambers (STC 450i) and three infiltration beds, utilizing Cultec 150XLHD Recharger chambers, adequately address stormwater quality and TSS removal before runoff is infiltrated or discharged during the 100-year storm into the Wright Avenue drainage system. The TSS calculations consider deep sump hooded catch basins, STC 450i’s and the infiltration beds, as all stormwater is directed to an infiltration bed. Together, the hooded catch basins, STC 450i and infiltration bed achieves an average TSS removal rate of 96%. The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 7 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Standard 5 - Higher Potential Pollutant Loads The proposed project is not expected to yield high potential pollutant loads. Standard 6 - Protection of Critical Areas The project site does not discharge to critical areas as defined in MA DEP Stormwater Policy Handbook. Standard 7 - Redevelopment Projects The project is not considered a redevelopment project and therefore complies with all stormwater management standards. Standard 8 - Erosion/Sediment Control Erosion and sediment controls have been incorporated into the project design to prevent erosion, control sediments, and stabilized exposed soils during construction and land disturbance. The contractor is required to complete a SWPPP prior to beginning construction in order to ensure that all erosion and sediment control measures are adequately implemented. Standard 9 - Operation/Maintenance Plan An Operation and Maintenance Plan for the proposed project is included in Appendix E. It includes general controls for construction and long term maintenance of the stormwater management system. Standard 10 – Prohibition of Illicit Discharges No Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is included with this report however one will be submitted prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post- construction BMPs. VII. Summary The impervious area from existing to proposed conditions will increase by approximately 66,288 square feet from existing conditions. The proposed stormwater management system is designed to maintain or reduce the peak flow rates in proposed conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 25-year storm frequencies. During the 100-year storm, the peak flows are slightly increased at P-CP1, however stormwater management regulations do not require that peak flows are maintained during the 100-year storm in the proposed condition. During the 100- year storm the entire stormwater management system utilitzes a long, positive sloped pipe and an outlet control structure to discharge overflows to the manhole in Wright Avenue.. The stormwater management system has been designed in utilizing the MADEP Stormwater Handbook and special care has been taken to treat runoff with a series of best management practices to ensure water quality and annual TSS removal rates equal to or in excess of 80%. These methods include deep sump, hooded catch basins, stormwater treatment chambers and infiltration beds. The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 8 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report VIII. References United States Department of Agriculture. 2006. Soil Survey of Hampshire County (Central Part), Massachusetts. The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 9 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 1 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Figures Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 2 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Figures Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 3 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Figures Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Figure 4 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Figures Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix A – Pre- and Post Development Hydrologic Calculations The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices ECP-1 E-1 Wright Avenue Entire Parcel Link Routing Diagram for Conz Street Pond Subcat Reach Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc., Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (selected nodes) AreaCNDescription (acres)(subcatchment-numbers) 0.89048Brush, Good, HSG B (E-1) 1.88061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E-1) 0.50498Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B (E-1) 3.27463TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (selected nodes) AreaSoilSubcatchment (acres)GroupNumbers 0.000HSG A 3.274HSG BE-1 0.000HSG C 0.000HSG D 0.000Other 3.274TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-AHSG-BHSG-CHSG-DOtherTotalGroundSubcatchment (acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)CoverNumbers 0.0001.8800.0000.0000.0001.880>75% Grass cover, GoodE-1 0.0000.5040.0000.0000.0000.504Paved roads w/curbs & sewersE-1 0.0000.8900.0000.0000.0000.890Brush, GoodE-1 0.0003.2740.0000.0000.0003.274TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Entire Parcel Runoff=1.02 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.112 af, Depth>0.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Area (sf)CNDescription 21,94798Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 38,78848Brush, Good, HSG B 81,89461>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 142,62963Weighted Average 120,68284.61% Pervious Area 21,94715.39% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Sheet Flow, 50' Sheet Flow 7.6500.01000.11 Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.08" Shallow Concentrated Flow, 120' Shallow Conc. Flow 2.91200.01000.70 Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.5170Total Summary for Reach ECP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,15.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.41" for 2 YRS event Inflow=1.02 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.112 af Outflow=1.02 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.112 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Entire Parcel Runoff=3.50 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.293 af, Depth>1.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Area (sf)CNDescription 21,94798Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 38,78848Brush, Good, HSG B 81,89461>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 142,62963Weighted Average 120,68284.61% Pervious Area 21,94715.39% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Sheet Flow, 50' Sheet Flow 7.6500.01000.11 Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.08" Shallow Concentrated Flow, 120' Shallow Conc. Flow 2.91200.01000.70 Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.5170Total Summary for Reach ECP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,15.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.07" for 10 YRS event Inflow=3.50 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.293 af Outflow=3.50 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.293 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Entire Parcel Runoff=5.82 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.465 af, Depth>1.70" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Area (sf)CNDescription 21,94798Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 38,78848Brush, Good, HSG B 81,89461>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 142,62963Weighted Average 120,68284.61% Pervious Area 21,94715.39% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Sheet Flow, 50' Sheet Flow 7.6500.01000.11 Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.08" Shallow Concentrated Flow, 120' Shallow Conc. Flow 2.91200.01000.70 Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.5170Total Summary for Reach ECP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,15.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.70" for 25 YRS event Inflow=5.82 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.465 af Outflow=5.82 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.465 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Fairfield Inn - Existing Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Entire Parcel Runoff=11.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.861 af, Depth>3.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf)CNDescription 21,94798Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 38,78848Brush, Good, HSG B 81,89461>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 142,62963Weighted Average 120,68284.61% Pervious Area 21,94715.39% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Sheet Flow, 50' Sheet Flow 7.6500.01000.11 Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.08" Shallow Concentrated Flow, 120' Shallow Conc. Flow 2.91200.01000.70 Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 10.5170Total Summary for Reach ECP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,15.39% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.15" for 100 YRS event Inflow=11.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.861 af Outflow=11.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.861 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs P-1C IB-1C East PC Cultec R-150 Bed Pipe C P-1A PCP-1 IB-1A Northwest Wright Avenue Cultec R-150 Bed PB Overflow Pipe B IB-1B P-1B Cultec R-150 Bed Southwest Link Routing Diagram for Conz Street Pond Subcat Reach Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc., Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (selected nodes) AreaCNDescription (acres)(subcatchment-numbers) 1.07148Brush, Good, HSG B (P-1A, P-1B, P-1C) 0.17861>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P-1A, P-1C) 2.02698Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B (P-1A, P-1B, P-1C) 3.27480TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Soil Listing (selected nodes) AreaSoilSubcatchment (acres)GroupNumbers 0.000HSG A 3.274HSG BP-1A, P-1B, P-1C 0.000HSG C 0.000HSG D 0.000Other 3.274TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz Street Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-AHSG-BHSG-CHSG-DOtherTotalGroundSubcatchment (acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)(acres)CoverNumbers 0.0000.1780.0000.0000.0000.178>75% Grass cover, GoodP-1 A, P-1 C 0.0002.0260.0000.0000.0002.026Paved roads w/curbs & sewersP-1 A, P-1 B, P-1 C 0.0001.0710.0000.0000.0001.071Brush, GoodP-1 A, P-1 B, P-1 C 0.0003.2740.0000.0000.0003.274TOTAL AREA Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Northwest Runoff=1.68 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.118 af, Depth>0.87" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Area (sf)CNDescription 36,09898Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 33,59148Brush, Good, HSG B 76061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 70,44974Weighted Average 34,35148.76% Pervious Area 36,09851.24% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Southwest Runoff=1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.093 af, Depth>1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Area (sf)CNDescription 22,93498Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 7,29148Brush, Good, HSG B 30,22586Weighted Average 7,29124.12% Pervious Area 22,93475.88% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1C: East Runoff=1.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.124 af, Depth>1.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Area (sf)CNDescription 29,20398Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 5,77248Brush, Good, HSG B 6,98061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 41,95585Weighted Average 12,75230.39% Pervious Area 29,20369.61% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Reach PB: Overflow Pipe B Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 2 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.00 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.0 min Avg. Velocity = 0.00 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.0 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 5.00 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.00' Bank-Full Depth= 0.50' Flow Area= 0.2 sf, Capacity= 1.41 cfs 6.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 19.7' Slope= 0.0635 '/' Inlet Invert= 111.00', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PC: Pipe C Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 2 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 14.10 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 14.71 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 9%, Lag= 36.7 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.27 fps, Min. Travel Time= 18.9 min Avg. Velocity = 0.22 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 23.4 min Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Peak Storage= 1 cf @ 14.40 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.02' Bank-Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 1.65 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 303.0' Slope= 0.0021 '/' Inlet Invert= 110.40', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PCP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 2 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond IB-1A: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.43" for 2 YRS event Inflow=1.68 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.118 af Outflow=1.67 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume=0.118 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.7 min Discarded=1.67 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume=0.118 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 109.28' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area= 5,615 sf Storage= 70 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 0.7 min calculated for 0.117 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.6 min ( 820.8 - 820.2 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.25'3,974 cf Listed below (Recalc) 14,318 cf Overall - 4,384 cf Embedded = 9,934 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2109.75'4,384 cf x 160 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 15 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3109.75'14 cf x 28 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 8,372 cfTotal Available Storage Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.255,61500 111.805,61514,31814,318 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.90' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.25' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.95 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=109.28' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.95 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=109.25' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1B: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.62" for 2 YRS event Inflow=1.38 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.093 af Outflow=1.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume=0.093 af, Atten= 10%, Lag= 1.9 min Discarded=1.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume=0.093 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.04' @ 12.13 hrs Surf.Area= 3,548 sf Storage= 59 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 0.5 min calculated for 0.093 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.4 min ( 789.4 - 789.0 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1110.00'2,517 cf Listed below (Recalc) 9,012 cf Overall - 2,720 cf Embedded = 6,292 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.50'2,720 cf x 99 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 12 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.50'28 cf Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 20 rows 5,265 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 110.003,54800 112.543,5489,0129,012 Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 2 YRS Rainfall=3.08" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.00' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded110.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.23 cfs @ 12.13 hrs HW=110.04' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.23 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=110.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1C: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.54" for 2 YRS event Inflow=1.83 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.124 af Outflow=0.12 cfs @ 14.10 hrs, Volume=0.091 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 120.4 min Discarded=0.12 cfs @ 13.40 hrs, Volume=0.091 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 14.10 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.41' @ 14.10 hrs Surf.Area= 4,928 sf Storage= 2,646 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 187.0 min calculated for 0.090 af (73% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 124.3 min ( 916.2 - 791.9 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.50'3,455 cf Listed below (Recalc) 12,476 cf Overall - 3,838 cf Embedded = 8,638 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.00'3,838 cf x 140 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 14 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.00'13 cf x 26 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 7,307 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.504,91200 112.044,91212,47612,476 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary110.40' C= 0.600 1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.50' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 13.40 hrs HW=110.40' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 14.10 hrs HW=110.41' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.38 fps) Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Northwest Runoff=3.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.244 af, Depth>1.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Area (sf)CNDescription 36,09898Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 33,59148Brush, Good, HSG B 76061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 70,44974Weighted Average 34,35148.76% Pervious Area 36,09851.24% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Southwest Runoff=2.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.162 af, Depth>2.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Area (sf)CNDescription 22,93498Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 7,29148Brush, Good, HSG B 30,22586Weighted Average 7,29124.12% Pervious Area 22,93475.88% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1C: East Runoff=3.18 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.218 af, Depth>2.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Area (sf)CNDescription 29,20398Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 5,77248Brush, Good, HSG B 6,98061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 41,95585Weighted Average 12,75230.39% Pervious Area 29,20369.61% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Reach PB: Overflow Pipe B Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 10 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.00 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.0 min Avg. Velocity = 0.00 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.0 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 5.00 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.00' Bank-Full Depth= 0.50' Flow Area= 0.2 sf, Capacity= 1.41 cfs 6.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 19.7' Slope= 0.0635 '/' Inlet Invert= 111.00', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PC: Pipe C Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.80" for 10 YRS event Inflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume=0.065 af Outflow=0.51 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume=0.065 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 4.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 1.85 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.7 min Avg. Velocity = 0.90 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.6 min Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Peak Storage= 84 cf @ 12.57 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.38' Bank-Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 1.65 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 303.0' Slope= 0.0021 '/' Inlet Invert= 110.40', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PCP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 10 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond IB-1A: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.13" for 10 YRS event Inflow=3.60 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.308 af Outflow=1.95 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume=0.308 af, Atten= 46%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded=1.95 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume=0.308 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 109.63' @ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 5,615 sf Storage= 857 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 2.2 min calculated for 0.308 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2.1 min ( 808.8 - 806.7 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.25'3,974 cf Listed below (Recalc) 14,318 cf Overall - 4,384 cf Embedded = 9,934 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2109.75'4,384 cf x 160 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 15 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3109.75'14 cf x 28 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 8,372 cfTotal Available Storage Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.255,61500 111.805,61514,31814,318 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.90' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.25' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.95 cfs @ 12.05 hrs HW=109.34' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.95 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=109.25' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1B: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.80" for 10 YRS event Inflow=2.36 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.162 af Outflow=1.23 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=0.162 af, Atten= 48%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded=1.23 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=0.162 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.41' @ 12.24 hrs Surf.Area= 3,548 sf Storage= 577 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 2.1 min calculated for 0.162 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2.1 min ( 778.1 - 776.1 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1110.00'2,517 cf Listed below (Recalc) 9,012 cf Overall - 2,720 cf Embedded = 6,292 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.50'2,720 cf x 99 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 12 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.50'28 cf Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 20 rows 5,265 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 110.003,54800 112.543,5489,0129,012 Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 10 YRS Rainfall=4.48" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.00' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded110.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.23 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=110.04' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.23 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=110.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1C: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.71" for 10 YRS event Inflow=3.18 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.218 af Outflow=0.63 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume=0.167 af, Atten= 80%, Lag= 26.8 min Discarded=0.12 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.102 af Primary=0.52 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume=0.065 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.78' @ 12.54 hrs Surf.Area= 4,922 sf Storage= 4,073 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 132.2 min calculated for 0.167 af (77% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 73.9 min ( 852.7 - 778.8 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.50'3,455 cf Listed below (Recalc) 12,476 cf Overall - 3,838 cf Embedded = 8,638 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.00'3,838 cf x 140 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 14 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.00'13 cf x 26 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 7,307 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.504,91200 112.044,91212,47612,476 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary110.40' C= 0.600 1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.50' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 11.97 hrs HW=110.08' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.51 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=110.78' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.51 cfs @ 2.11 fps) Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Northwest Runoff=5.22 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.352 af, Depth>2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Area (sf)CNDescription 36,09898Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 33,59148Brush, Good, HSG B 76061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 70,44974Weighted Average 34,35148.76% Pervious Area 36,09851.24% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Southwest Runoff=3.11 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.217 af, Depth>3.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Area (sf)CNDescription 22,93498Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 7,29148Brush, Good, HSG B 30,22586Weighted Average 7,29124.12% Pervious Area 22,93475.88% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1C: East Runoff=4.22 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.293 af, Depth>3.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Area (sf)CNDescription 29,20398Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 5,77248Brush, Good, HSG B 6,98061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 41,95585Weighted Average 12,75230.39% Pervious Area 29,20369.61% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Reach PB: Overflow Pipe B Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 25 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 0.00 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.0 min Avg. Velocity = 0.00 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.0 min Peak Storage= 0 cf @ 5.00 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.00' Bank-Full Depth= 0.50' Flow Area= 0.2 sf, Capacity= 1.41 cfs 6.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 19.7' Slope= 0.0635 '/' Inlet Invert= 111.00', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PC: Pipe C Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.58" for 25 YRS event Inflow=1.22 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.126 af Outflow=1.21 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume=0.126 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 4.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.30 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.2 min Avg. Velocity = 1.07 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.7 min Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Peak Storage= 160 cf @ 12.44 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.64' Bank-Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 1.65 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 303.0' Slope= 0.0021 '/' Inlet Invert= 110.40', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PCP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 25 YRS event Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond IB-1A: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.75" for 25 YRS event Inflow=5.23 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.478 af Outflow=1.96 cfs @ 13.40 hrs, Volume=0.478 af, Atten= 63%, Lag= 78.3 min Discarded=1.96 cfs @ 13.40 hrs, Volume=0.478 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.23' @ 12.61 hrs Surf.Area= 5,631 sf Storage= 3,324 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 10.7 min ( 809.2 - 798.6 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.25'3,974 cf Listed below (Recalc) 14,318 cf Overall - 4,384 cf Embedded = 9,934 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2109.75'4,384 cf x 160 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 15 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3109.75'14 cf x 28 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 8,372 cfTotal Available Storage Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.255,61500 111.805,61514,31814,318 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.90' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.25' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.96 cfs @ 13.40 hrs HW=109.79' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.96 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=109.25' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1B: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.75" for 25 YRS event Inflow=3.11 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.217 af Outflow=1.25 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume=0.217 af, Atten= 60%, Lag= 30.6 min Discarded=1.25 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume=0.217 af Primary=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 110.67' @ 12.32 hrs Surf.Area= 3,584 sf Storage= 1,196 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 4.4 min ( 773.5 - 769.1 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1110.00'2,517 cf Listed below (Recalc) 9,012 cf Overall - 2,720 cf Embedded = 6,292 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.50'2,720 cf x 99 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 12 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.50'28 cf Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 20 rows 5,265 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 110.003,54800 112.543,5489,0129,012 Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 25 YRS Rainfall=5.55" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.00' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded110.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.25 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=110.52' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.25 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 5.00 hrs HW=110.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond IB-1C: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.65" for 25 YRS event Inflow=4.22 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.293 af Outflow=1.33 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.236 af, Atten= 68%, Lag= 19.3 min Discarded=0.12 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume=0.110 af Primary=1.22 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.126 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 111.04' @ 12.41 hrs Surf.Area= 4,912 sf Storage= 4,973 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 106.8 min calculated for 0.236 af (81% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 54.8 min ( 826.5 - 771.7 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.50'3,455 cf Listed below (Recalc) 12,476 cf Overall - 3,838 cf Embedded = 8,638 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.00'3,838 cf x 140 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 14 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.00'13 cf x 26 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 7,307 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.504,91200 112.044,91212,47612,476 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary110.40' C= 0.600 1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.50' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=110.01' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.21 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=111.04' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.21 cfs @ 2.72 fps) Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Summary for Subcatchment P-1A: Northwest Runoff=8.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.585 af, Depth>4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf)CNDescription 36,09898Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 33,59148Brush, Good, HSG B 76061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 70,44974Weighted Average 34,35148.76% Pervious Area 36,09851.24% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1B: Southwest Runoff=4.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.329 af, Depth>5.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Area (sf)CNDescription 22,93498Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 7,29148Brush, Good, HSG B 30,22586Weighted Average 7,29124.12% Pervious Area 22,93475.88% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Subcatchment P-1C: East Runoff=6.30 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.448 af, Depth>5.58" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Area (sf)CNDescription 29,20398Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG B 5,77248Brush, Good, HSG B 6,98061>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 41,95585Weighted Average 12,75230.39% Pervious Area 29,20369.61% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) Direct Entry, 6 Min. 6.01500.42 Summary for Reach PB: Overflow Pipe B Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.07" for 100 YRS event Inflow=0.15 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.004 af Outflow=0.15 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume=0.004 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 4.70 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.1 min Avg. Velocity = 3.55 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.1 min Peak Storage= 1 cf @ 12.41 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.11' Bank-Full Depth= 0.50' Flow Area= 0.2 sf, Capacity= 1.41 cfs 6.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 19.7' Slope= 0.0635 '/' Inlet Invert= 111.00', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PC: Pipe C Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.27" for 100 YRS event Inflow=2.60 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume=0.262 af Outflow=1.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.262 af, Atten= 37%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.37 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.1 min Avg. Velocity = 1.32 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.8 min Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Peak Storage= 238 cf @ 12.15 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.00' Bank-Full Depth= 1.00' Flow Area= 0.8 sf, Capacity= 1.65 cfs 12.0" Round Pipe n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior Length= 303.0' Slope= 0.0021 '/' Inlet Invert= 110.40', Outlet Invert= 109.75' Summary for Reach PCP-1: Wright Avenue Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.24" for 100 YRS event Inflow=2.63 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume=0.065 af Outflow=2.63 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume=0.065 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Pond IB-1A: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =3.274 ac,61.86% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.12" for 100 YRS event Inflow=9.59 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=0.852 af Outflow=4.58 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume=0.851 af, Atten= 52%, Lag= 21.6 min Discarded=1.96 cfs @ 15.18 hrs, Volume=0.787 af Primary=2.63 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume=0.065 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 112.91' @ 12.47 hrs Surf.Area= 5,615 sf Storage= 8,372 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 32.6 min ( 823.4 - 790.8 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.25'3,974 cf Listed below (Recalc) 14,318 cf Overall - 4,384 cf Embedded = 9,934 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2109.75'4,384 cf x 160 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 15 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3109.75'14 cf x 28 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 8,372 cfTotal Available Storage Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.255,61500 111.805,61514,31814,318 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 12.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.90' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.25' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.96 cfs @ 15.18 hrs HW=109.82' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.96 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.34 cfs @ 12.46 hrs HW=112.78' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.34 cfs @ 3.20 fps) Summary for Pond IB-1B: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.694 ac,75.88% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.69" for 100 YRS event Inflow=4.60 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.329 af Outflow=1.39 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.329 af, Atten= 70%, Lag= 19.5 min Discarded=1.25 cfs @ 13.25 hrs, Volume=0.325 af Primary=0.15 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.004 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 111.24' @ 12.41 hrs Surf.Area= 3,573 sf Storage= 2,815 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.1 min ( 770.6 - 759.5 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1110.00'2,517 cf Listed below (Recalc) 9,012 cf Overall - 2,720 cf Embedded = 6,292 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.50'2,720 cf x 99 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 12 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.50'28 cf Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 20 rows 5,265 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 110.003,54800 112.543,5489,0129,012 Fairfield Inn - Proposed Drainage Analysis Conz StreetType III 24-hr 100 YRS Rainfall=7.68" Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Printed 11/29/2012 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 00752 © 2011 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary111.00' C= 0.600 15.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded110.00' Discarded OutFlow Max=1.25 cfs @ 13.25 hrs HW=110.50' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 1.25 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=111.24' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.15 cfs @ 1.65 fps) Summary for Pond IB-1C: Cultec R-150 Bed Inflow Area =0.963 ac,69.61% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 5.58" for 100 YRS event Inflow=6.30 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=0.448 af Outflow=2.72 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume=0.384 af, Atten= 57%, Lag= 12.2 min Discarded=0.12 cfs @ 11.10 hrs, Volume=0.122 af Primary=2.60 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume=0.262 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 111.80' @ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 4,912 sf Storage= 6,833 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 83.8 min calculated for 0.383 af (86% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 41.8 min ( 803.5 - 761.7 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) #1109.50'3,455 cf Listed below (Recalc) 12,476 cf Overall - 3,838 cf Embedded = 8,638 cf x 40.0% Voids Cultec R-150 @ 10.25' L #2110.00'3,838 cf x 140 Inside #1 Effective Size= 29.8"W x 18.0"H => 2.65 sf x 10.25'L = 27.2 cf Overall Size= 33.0"W x 18.5"H x 8.50'L with 1.00' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.00' x 2.65 sf x 14 rows Cultec HVLV FC-24 #3110.00'13 cf x 26 Effective Size= 15.3"W x 12.0"H => 0.91 sf x 0.50'L = 0.5 cf Overall Size= 16.0"W x 12.0"H x 2.02'L with 1.52' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +1.52' x 0.91 sf x 1 rows 7,307 cfTotal Available Storage ElevationSurf.AreaInc.StoreCum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 109.504,91200 112.044,91212,47612,476 DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices 10.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate #1Primary110.40' C= 0.600 1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2Discarded109.50' Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 11.10 hrs HW=110.01' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.60 cfs @ 12.29 hrs HW=111.80' (Free Discharge) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.60 cfs @ 4.77 fps) Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix B – Soils Information The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices 0427864002786406178640217864080786404078640007864 ''32'73°27''32'73°27 ''14'73°27''14'73°27 0427864002786406178640217864080786404078640007864 Location Address or Lot No. 115-117 Conz Street, Northampton, MA On-site Review Deep Hole Number 3Date: 9-14-12 Time: 12:20 Weather Sunny 81 Location (identify on site plan) See Sketch Land Use Open field Slope (%) 2-6 Surface Stones none Vegetation Grass Landform Outwash Plain Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Sketch Open Water Body >200 Feet Drainage way 50 Feet Possible Wet Area >200 Feet Property Line 40 Feet Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG * Depth from SoilSoil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches)Horizon(USDA)(Munsell)(Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0” - 23” A SL 2.5Y 3/2 Friable, No Stones, SABK 23” - 48” B LS 2.5Y 4/3 V. Friable, No Stones, SABK 48” – 62” C LS 2.5Y 5/3 55” 2.5Y 5/4 V. Friable, No Stones, SABK 1 5-8% 62” - 120” C Sand 2.5Y 5/1 Loose, Alternating 1’ layers of 2 mostly stones and no stones, no structure * MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material (geologic) Glacial Outwash Depth to Bedrock: N/O Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 120” Weeping from Pit Face: N/O Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 55” from ground surface Location Address or Lot No. 115-117 Conz Street, Northampton, MA On-site Review Deep Hole Number 4Date: 9-14-12 Time: 1:00 Weather Sunny 81 Location (identify on site plan) See Sketch Land Use Open Field Slope (%) 2-6% Surface Stones none Vegetation Grass Landform Outwash Plain Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Sketch Open Water Body >200 Feet Drainage way 50 Feet Possible Wet Area >200 Feet Property Line 10 Feet Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG * Depth from SoilSoil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches)Horizon(USDA)(Munsell)(Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0” - 8”” A SL 2.5Y 3/2 Friable, No stones, SABK 8”-32” B Silt Loam 2.5Y 4/2 Moist, friable, no stones, SABK 32” - 72” C Silt 2.5Y 4/1 >10% No stone, friable-firm, very moist, 1 loam/clay10YR5/6mottling throughout may be from @ 42” surface drainage. 72” – 90” C Sand 2.5Y 5/2 Alternating layers of dry 2 stones/pebbles and sand, loose * MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material (geologic) Glacial Outwash Depth to Bedrock: N/O Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: N/O Weeping from Pit Face: N/O Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 42” Location Address or Lot No. 115-117 Conz Street, Northampton, MA On-site Review Deep Hole Number 1Date: 9-14-12 Time: 11:30 Weather Sunny 79 Location (identify on site plan) See Sketch Land Use Open field Slope (%) 2-6 Surface Stones none Vegetation Grass Landform Outwash Plain Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Sketch Open Water Body >200 Feet Drainage way 20 Feet Possible Wet Area >200 Feet Property Line 30 Feet Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG * Depth from SoilSoil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches)Horizon(USDA)(Munsell)(Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0” - 26” A SL 2.5Y 3/2 Friable, No Stones, SABK 26” - 42” B LS 2.5Y 4/3 V. Friable, No Stones, SABK 42” – 48” C1 LS 2.5Y 4/1 45” 10YR V. Friable, No Stones, SABK 5/6 5-8% 48” - 56” C2 Sand 2.5Y 5/2 Loose, Many Stones (50%), no structure 56” - 96” C3 Sand 2.5Y 5/1 Loose, No Stones, no structure * MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material (geologic) Glacial Outwash Depth to Bedrock: N/O Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: N/O Weeping from Pit Face: N/O Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 45” from ground surface Location Address or Lot No. 115-117 Conz Street, Northampton, MA On-site Review Deep Hole Number 2Date: 9-14-12 Time: 11:43 Weather Sunny 79 Location (identify on site plan) See Sketch Land Use Open Field Slope (%) 2-6% Surface Stones none Vegetation Grass Landform Outwash Plain Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Sketch Open Water Body >200 Feet Drainage way 100 Feet Possible Wet Area >200 Feet Property Line 10 Feet Drinking Water Well N/A Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG * Depth from SoilSoil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches)Horizon(USDA)(Munsell)(Structure, Stones, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) 0” - 28”” A SL 2.5Y 3/2 Friable, No stones, SABK 28”-45” B LS 2.5Y 4/3 v. friable, no stones, SABK 45”-51” C LS 2.5Y 4/1 >10% No stone, v. friable, SABK 1 10YR5/6 @ 48” 51” – 60” C Sand 2.5Y 5/2 Stones/pebbles, loose 2 60” – 84” C Fine Sand 2.5Y 5/1 Fine sand, few stones, loose, 6” 3 layer of stones at 72” * MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material (geologic) Depth to Bedrock: N/O Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: N/O Weeping from Pit Face: N/O Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 48” ss EnvironmentalSafetyHealthGeotechnical 293BridgeStreet Suite500 [ A S S O C I A T E S ] Springfield,MA01103 Tel4137996222 Fax4137889930 www.otoenv.com J2388-01-02 November 20, 2012 Mr. Mansour Ghalibaf, Manager Tala Hotels Holding, LLC 36 King Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Dear Mr. Ghalibaf: We are pleased to provide these geotechnical recommendations for the proposed new hotel building to be located on Conz Street in Northampton, Massachusetts. Our services consisted of review of published documentation, observation of ten, soil boring and preparation of logs, the collection and laboratory analysis of soil samples, completion of infiltration tests, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. This report is subject to the attached limitations. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Project plans call for the construction of a four-story hotel building with a footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. We understand that the building will be a three or four story, timber framed, slab-on-grade structure. Maximum structural loads are expected to be less than 3 kips per linear foot (klf) for the exterior walls and on the order of 300 kips for the columns. A Site Plan showing the proposed location and footprint of the structure is provided as Figure 2. Presently, most of the Site is grass covered with the exception of a paved access drive, as shown on Figure 2. The existing ground surface is relatively flat between an elevation of 110 and 112 feet. We understand that the slab will likely be approximately two to three feet above existing ground surface. Therefore, a fill of approximately two to four feet will be needed to form the building pad. Storm water will infiltrate into the ground via infiltration galleries located within parking areas. SOIL BORINGS Soil investigations consisted of ten, soil borings (HN-1 through HN-10). The borings were performed by Seaboard Drilling of Chicopee, Massachusetts between October 23 and 25, Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] 2012. They were performed using a Mobile B-53 truck mounted drill rig using either hollow VWHPDXJHURUFDVLQJDQGURWDU\ZDVKGULOOLQJWHFKQLTXHV$Q2·5HLOO\7DOERW 2NXQ Associates, Inc. (OTO) engineer observed and logged the borings. Boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Borings HN-1 through HN-6 were performed within or near the footprint of the proposed building. Borings HN-7 through HN-10 were performed within proposed parking areas. Borings HN-1 and HN-2 were extended to a depth of between 77 and 87 feet below ground surface, and borings HN-3 through HN-6 were performed to a depth of between 22 and 27 feet below ground surface. Parking lot borings HN-7 through HN-10 were performed to a depth of 11 feet below ground surface. Each boring was observed by an OTO field engineer, who collected the soil samples and classified the materials encountered. Boring logs are attached. Soil samples were collected using a 2-inch diameter split spoon sampler driven 24-inches with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches (standard penetration test or SPT). The number of blows required to drive the sampler each 6 inches was recorded. The standard penetration resistance is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the middle 12 inches. Soil properties, such as relative density, are related to the SPT blow count. Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) Screening The headspace of each soil sample was screened in the field using a photo ionization detector (PID). PID screening provides a qualitative assessment of volatile organic content of the samples. PID readings are provided on the boring logs. In summary, the readings were below the instrument detection limit. Field Strength Testing Field strength testing was performed on selected samples of the silt and clay using pocket torvane (E-285 Pocket Vane Shear Tester) and pocket penetrometer devices. These field measurements are intended to provide a measure of the strength of the fine grained soils encountered. The pocket penetrometer provides a measure of the unconfined compressive VWUHQJWKRIVRLOE\IDLOLQJWKHFOD\XQGHUQRUPDOFRQGLWLRQVE\´SXQFKLQJµ7KHWRUYDQH device provides an estimate of the undrained shear strength of fine grained soils by failing the silt and/or clay in a rotational shearing mode. Theoretically, the unconfined compressive strength is twice the undrained shear strength. A total of 21 pocket penetrometer and torvane tests (each) were completed in the field. Pocket torvane and pocket penetrometer results are presented on the boring logs. Moisture Content Testing In addition, four soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis to the Soil and Plant Tissue Testing Laboratory at UMass-Amherst in Amherst, Massachusetts. Six samples, collected from various depths within boring HN-2, were submitted for moisture content Page 2 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] determination. Certain engineering properties of the silt and clay are related to moisture content. Published correlations were used to estimate these properties for our design analyses. Laboratory data sheets are attached. The results of the laboratory testing are discussed below. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS This discussion of subsurface conditions at the Site is based upon published geologic information and soil investigations performed at the Site. Subsurface conditions at the project Site consist of a surface layer of topsoil, underlain by alluvial sand and then a varved silt and clay. The varved silt and clay are in-turn underlain by glacial till. The subsurface profile determined during our exploration program was consistent with published data and is similar to data from other nearby sites. General information regarding each of these layers is provided below. Topsoil: Each of the borings was performed in landscaped areas. Therefore, the ground surface at each boring location consisted of between 6 and 19 inches of topsoil. A paved driveway is located as shown on the plan. Beneath this paved area, near surface soils likely consist of a sand and gravel base course on the order of 12 inches thick. Alluvial Sand: The topsoil was underlain by a loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt to a depth of approximately 20 feet below ground surface. In general, this granular deposit became coarser with depth. In borings HN-1, HN- 2, and HN-4, organic material was observed either in the split spoon samples or the drill cuttings near a depth of 20, 13, 15 feet, respectively. It appears that this layer is approximately one to two feet thick; however, greater amounts may be in other localized areas. The loose upper soil layer is of significance at the Site because of its variable density, (which could result in differential settlement of the structure), it may be compressible under building loads, and the organic matter in the soil may decompose over time (which could result in additional building settlement). Varved Silt and Clay: The sand layer was in-turn underlain by varved clay. The varved clay deposit consists of fine grained, post-glacial, lake sediments that were deposited within ancestral Lake Hitchcock (which filled much of the Connecticut River Valley from the retreat of the last continental glacier until approximately 15,000 years ago). These fine grained soils are characterized by alternating layers (or varves) of silt, sand and clay. The varved clay was found to be soft to very soft between 20 and 70 feet below the ground surface, and medium stiff to stiff between 70 and 80 feet below the ground surface. Four samples were collected from various depths within the varved clay layer and were analyzed for moisture content. The moisture content, based upon the dry unit weight, ranged from 42 to 61 percent. The moisture contents were compared to published Page 3 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] 1 correlations between moisture content and consolidation properties of varved silt and clays to determine recompression ratios for use in settlement analysis. The measured moisture content values are in the high range of typical values for Connecticut River Valley varved silt and clay, indicating that the clay is relatively soft and compressible. The moisture content data are provided in Table 1. Table 1 Moisture Content Boring Depth/Elevation (feet) Moisture Content (%) HN-2 20-22/190-192 50.7 HN-2 30-32/180-182 61.4 HN-2 50-52/160-162 56.0 HN-2 70-72/140-142 42.5 Glacial Till: In boring HN-2, which was the only boring to fully penetrated the varved clay unit, glacial till was encountered at a depth of 80 feet below ground surface. Glacial till was deposited at the base of the continental glaciers that once covered the site area. Glacial till is typically very hard and is incompressible under typical foundation loads (including those for this project). The till consists of a hard, red-brown heterogeneous mixture of silt, clay, sand and fine gravel. Boring HN-2 was terminated within the glacial till at a depth of 87 feet below ground surface. Although we did not fully penetrate the glacial till layer, it is typically on the order of 10 feet or less in thickness. Therefore, the depth to bedrock is on the order of 90 feet. This compares favorably with published geologic data. Groundwater At the time of drilling, groundwater was encountered in each of the borings at a depth of between 7 and 9 feet below ground surface in the borings. Therefore, given the design floor elevations and existing topography of the Site, groundwater will not likely be encountered during construction, with the possible exception of utility excavations HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING AND RESULTS In-situ hydraulic conductivity (or coefficient of permeability) testing was performed at the Site to design the storm water infiltration system. The tests were performed in the native silty, fine sand or sand and gravel layers present in the upper 10 feet using a constant head methodology as described below. The tests were performed using a Guelph permeameter. The Guelph permeameter allows the rate of water recharge into an unsaturated soil to be measured while maintaining a 1 "Foundation Design of Embankments Constructed on Connecticut River Valley Varved Clays", Ladd, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Page 4 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] constant water head. Calculations are then made to estimate the saturated permeability of the soil for storm water infiltration. The permeability test was performed at each location by auguring a shallow hole into the soil, adding water to the apparatus and then recording the change in the rate of water flow from a reservoir over time. These data were then used to estimate the coefficient of permeability or hydraulic conductivity. Results are presented in Table 2 and discussed below. Infiltration test locations are shown on Figure 2. Table 2 Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results Permeability Location Test Number Feet/day West Parking Area IF-1 50 Western portion of IF-2 0.02 North Parking Area Eastern portion of IF-3 0.5 North Parking Area 1.Each test was performed at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet below ground surface, which corresponds to an approximate elevation of 108.5 feet. 2.These elevations were developed by referring to the Site plan provided by Berkshire Design Associates and referring to measurements taken from existing Site features. Data shown in this table should be considered approximate only to the degree implied by the method(s) used. The near surface soils vary in composition across the Site, and therefore, the infiltration rates were observed to vary between each test location. Some areas appear to be favorable for infiltration (higher permeability), while others are not as favorable (lower permeability), as described below. The test completed in the western portion of the Site (IF-1) was performed at a depth of 2.5 feet below ground surface (corresponding to an approximate elevation of 108.5 feet). The soil encountered at this depth consisted of fine to medium sand with trace silt. Near surface soils in nearby boring HN-8 consisted of a medium to coarse sand with some gravel and trace amounts of silt. The saturated hydraulic conductivity value determined for this area was 50 feet per day. The soils in this area are favorable for infiltration. The tests completed in the northern parking lot (IF-2 and IF-3) were performed at a depth of 2.4 feet below ground surface (corresponding to an approximate elevation of 108.5 feet). The soils at test locations IF-2 and IF-3 were similar to the description of soils in nearby boring HN-7 Specifically, the soil encountered at this depth in IF-2 consisted of fine sand and silt with trace (+) clay, and the soil encountered at this depth in IF-3 consisted of fine sand with some to little amounts of silt and trace (-) clay. The saturated hydraulic conductivity value determined for locations IF-2 and IF-3 were 0.02 and 0.5 feet per day, Page 5 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] respectively. This area, in particular the soils encountered in IF-2, is less favorable for infiltration. In general, most of the study borings (9 of 10) indicated that near surface soils consisted of fine sand with little to some silt. These soil conditions are similar to those at test locations IF-2 and IF-3, where soil permeability was on the order of 0.02 to 0.5 feet per day, and is less favorable for storm water infiltration. Therefore, these lower values should be considered for most of the infiltration system design and we recommend the use of 0.1 feet/day be used as a coefficient of permeability. As described above, conditions appear to be more favorable in the western part of the Site (boring HN-8/test IF-1), where near surface soils consist of a fine to coarse sand with gravel and only trace amounts of silt. In these areas, a coefficient of permeability of 30 to 50 feet per day could be used. Since existing data indicates that conditions for storm water infiltration are favorable under only a limited area of the Site, it may be appropriate to perform additional explorations to maximize the location of infiltration systems in favorable areas. GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES The significant geotechnical issues for the proposed construction addressed in this report are the presence of loose granular soils and soft fine grained soils, and the settlement of the structures due the compression and consolidation of these layers. The amount of settlement without improvement would vary due to varying soil stratigraphy and the amount of fill needed to form the building pads. In addition, the near surface granular soils are loose and potentially liquefiable under earthquake loads. Additional geotechnical issues include foundation bearing capacity, seismic related issues, and the suitability of on-Site materials for use in engineered fills. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Design recommendations are presented below based upon the information available to us regarding this project. Recommendations for ground improvement include rammed aggregate piers and a soil preload, and are discussed below. Ground Improvement Ground improvement is recommended to address the liquefaction potential and low bearing capacity of the near surface soils, and the compression of the underlying soft silt and clay under the fill and building loads. As was discussed above, settlement considerations are a significant factor in this construction. We recommend the installation of Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs) to densify the near surface granular soils and to address liquefaction concerns. Preloading is recommended to preconsolidate the underlying soft silt and clay, and thus reduce the amount of post construction settlement. Rammed Aggregate Piers (also known as Geopiers) would also be used to densify the upper granular soils to improve slab and building support and allow for the use of a higher bearing pressure, which would reduce the size of building footings. Preloading would induce the consolidation of the soft silt and clay Page 6 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] in a controlled manner, which will reduce post-construction settlement. This preparation allows the building to perform adequately on a normal spread footing foundation. Because the Site soils contain frequent sand and silt lenses, a significant portion of the anticipated settlement will likely occur relatively quickly after load application (i.e. during construction). Assuming the Site is preloaded, we would anticipate that most of the settlement will occur within three months after load application. Recommendations for preloading and preload monitoring are provided below. The magnitude of consolidation and settlement of the deeper varved silt and clay soils is dependent on depth to top and thickness of this layer, the stiffness of the soil, the maximum pressure which the soil has experienced in the past, and the presence of sand lenses in the fine-grained soil matrix (which affect the time rate of settlement). At this Site, the fill and building loads are not expected to result in stresses beyond the past maximum pressure; however, some settlement is expected to occur, particularly due to soil fill loads. We have developed estimates of the total and differential settlements. These estimates are presented in Table 3. These estimates assume the placement of three feet of fill across the Site and a footing load of 4,000 psf. Table 3 Settlement Estimates Loading Condition Total Settlement Total Differential Fill load (Assumes 3 feet)2 1 Building Load 0.5 0.25 Total 2.75 1.5 In addition to the preload and Geopier recommendation, we recommend that the structural engineer design the building with flexible joints to withstand up to two inches of differential settlement without serious damage or disruption in important services in the building. Preload Recommendations To prevent excessive post-construction total and differential settlement of the clay layer, we recommend that the Site is filled to near final grades early in the construction sequence to allow settlement to occur. If necessary, additional soil fill (which is equal to the weight of the structure) can be placed at the Site to pre-load the Site to further promote settlement prior to construction. The settlement of the fine grained soils should occur rather quickly due to it generally being over-consolidated and the presence of sand lenses, which promote drainage. We expect the settlement to occur over a period of approximately three months. The settlement can be monitored and once settlement rates decrease to tolerable levels, construction can occur. Page 7 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] Rammed Aggregate Piers Recommendations The loose granular soils observed in the upper 20 feet at the Site are not favorable for construction. These soils are susceptible to liquefaction under seismic loads and will also compress under the anticipated foundation loads, due to their loose consistency. This compression could result in differential settlement due to their variability. The MSBC requires that liquefaction susceptible soils be addressed. Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAPs or Geopiers) are a proprietary foundation technique that use drilled and compacted stone columns to stiffen the soil mass. The piers are typically installed in a rectangular grid pattern spaced at approximately 10 ft. on center. Structures founded on stone columns can in-turn be supported on normal spread footings. In New England, these piers are installed by Helical Drilling of Braintree, Massachusetts (781-848- 2110). The installation process introduces lateral stresses into the surrounding soil mass to stiffen and reinforce the surrounding soil matrix. RAPs are typically designed for the contractor by a Professional Engineer working on behalf of the Geopier Foundation Company. In developing a design for a given project, the Geopier Designer determines the anticipated capacity and Geopier design parameters for the project based on the ground conditions observed at the Site and then estimates settlement at the proposed building loads. With this information, the designer then determines the number, size, depth, and location of piers for the project. At this Site, we anticipate that the columns will extend to a depth of approximately 20 feet. For spread footings founded directly on a Geopier reinforced subgrade, we recommend that a bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot be used. Upon request, D/BG, working in cooperation with the Geopier Installer will provide a more detailed design and cost estimate to aid the owner in evaluating building cost. At this Site, we anticipate that the RAPs will extend to a maximum depth of approximately 20 feet. Geopiers are typically installed in a relatively tight spacing beneath structural elements such as footings, shear walls and load bearing slabs. For this project, we anticipate that Geopiers would be installed beneath footings, shear walls and slabs, with wider spacings under normal slabs-on-grade. We recommend that spread footings on rammed aggregate piers be designed based on an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot and strip footings should be at least 30 inches wide to provide full cover over individual rammed aggregate piers. However, the final footing dimensions should be coordinated with the requirements of the rammed aggregate pier Designer to ensure that the footings will provide full coverage above the supporting piers and permit the piers to be constructed at a minimum edge-to-edge distance of one foot. Sequencing We recommend that the ground improvement be sequenced as follows: Page 8 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] Installation of RAPs; Construction of the building pad; Adding the recommended amount of fill with a weight approximately equal to the weight of the building (dead plus live load). We recommend that the preload consist of sand and gravel that could be re-used elsewhere on the project; Installing settlement platforms and measuring the amount and rate of settlement; Once the rate of settlement has slowed to acceptable rates, removing the excess fill; and Installing the footings, building pad and structure. We recommend that this sequencing schedule be discussed with the Project Architect, Construction Manager, General Contractor, RAP designer and installer, and other team members prior to construction, to identify modifications which could potentially improve cost effectiveness and scheduling. Monitoring Settlement platforms and periodic monitoring, as described above, will be necessary to document the settlement response to placement of the new fill and to determine that settlement is essentially complete before foundation construction may begin. Building loads to be supported on the improved granular soils can in-turn be constructed on normal spread footings, and a slab-on-grade floor slab may be constructed to bear on the surface of the new fill. Foundations Provided the near surface soils are reinforced using Rammed Aggregate Piers as described above, the structure can be supported on normal spread footing foundations designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot, or as specified by the RAP designer during the final design. Depending on the construction and spacing of the RAPs, it may be possible to use a higher bearing pressure. The footing subgrades should be prepared using crushed stone or compacted sand and gravel as specified by the RAP designer, since the relatively high bearing pressure used is dependent on appropriate subgrade preparation. If the footing excavations become wet and disturbed following excavation or if soft areas are encountered, it may become necessary to over excavate for footings and backfill with additional sand and gravel. Exterior footings should be embedded a minimum of 48 inches below the exterior finish grade for frost protection. The interior footings should be embedded two feet below the overlying floor slab. Footings shall be at least 18 inches wide for continuous footings and at least 24 inches wide for isolated footings. For the RAP system, isolated footings must be Page 9 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] sized to provide complete coverage over their supporting RAP ground reinforcement, and continuous footings must be at least 30 inches wide to provide full coverage over the piers. All other applicable requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code should be followed. Sand and gravel fill beneath foundations should be compacted to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density as defined in ASTM D1557, Method C. Fill materials should meet grain size requirements presented in Table 5. Concrete Slabs The subgrade within the footprint of the proposed buildings should be stripped of topsoil and densified to treat any loose areas that are present. We recommend that concrete floor slabs bear on at least 6 inches of compacted Sand and Gravel or crushed stone to provide uniform support and a capillary moisture break. The subgrade should also be free of large boulders. The Sand and Gravel fill beneath the concrete slabs should meet the grain size distribution characteristics outlined in Table 5. Fill supporting slabs should be placed in accordance with the recommendations for compaction provided below. Earthquake Considerations Earthquake loadings must be considered under requirements in Section 1613 and 1806 of th the 8th Edition (February 2011) Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC). The 8 Edition of the MSBC is based upon the International Code 2009 with Massachusetts amendments. Section 1613 covers lateral forces imposed on structures from earthquake shaking. Per Table 1604.11, the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short periods (S) and at 1-sec (S) was determined to be 0.22 and 0.066, respectively, for Northampton, s1 Massachusetts. In addition, the Site Class was determined to be Class E based upon soil data collected. Furthermore, the Site coefficients F and F were determined according to Tables av 1613.5.3(1) and 1613.5.3(2), using both the S and S values and the Site Class. For this Site, sv F and F were determined to be 2.5 and 3.5, respectively. av Section 1804.6 relates to the liquefaction potential of the underlying soils. The liquefaction potential was evaluated for the Site soils encountered below the water table using Figure 18.4.6(B) of the MSBC. Without ground improvement, the loose granular soils observed below the water table may be subject to liquefaction and may experience settlement under earthquake loads. However, the ground improvement recommended in this report will densify the soil mass and address any liquefaction concern. The varved silt and clay soils are not subject to liquefaction due to their fine grained nature. Page 10 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] Flexible Pavement Design We understand that the proposed pavement design is for light passenger vehicles with an occasional delivery truck. The proposed flexible asphalt design section is provided in Table 4. Table 4 Pavement Design Sections Layer Thickness Asphalt Finish Course 1-1/2 inch Asphalt Binder Course 1-1/2 inches Gravel Base Course 6 inches Sand & Gravel Sub-base 8 inches Table 4 presents recommendations for gradation requirements for the Sand and Gravel sub- base, and Gravel Base course materials. Please note that the Sand and Gravel sub-base specification is near that for Massachusetts DPW M1-03.0, Type A Sand-Gravel. Earthwork Recommendations We anticipate that earthwork for this project will include fills to form the building pad, subgrade preparation and fills for pavements. Three fill types are recommended, Sand and Gravel Sub-Base for use beneath slabs, footings, and pavements, Gravel Base Course for use beneath pavements, and Granular Fill for use at depths greater than 12 inches beneath floor slabs and footings and as miscellaneous fill. Grain size distribution requirements are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Grain Size Distribution Requirements Size Sand and Gravel Gravel Base CourseGranular Fill Percent Finer by Weight 4 inch 100 100 100 1/2 inch 50-85 50-85 --- No. 4 40-75 40-75 --- No. 10 --- 30-60 30-90 No. 40 10-35 10-35 10-70 No. 100 --- 5-20 --- No. 200 0-8 2-10 0-15 The existing granular Site soils may be suitable for use as fill, if free from deleterious materials. The organic topsoil or organic silt layers observed in the borings would not be suitable for use as fill in building or pavement areas. If on-Site soils are to be used as fill, we Page 11 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Proposed Hotel, Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts [ A S S O C I A T E S ] recommend that testing be performed on excavated materials, to confirm that fill requirements are met. Otherwise, these materials will need to be imported. In addition, any asphalt, vegetation, organic or topsoil soils should be stripped from beneath the proposed structures. Fill, debris, topsoil or organic soils stripped from the excavation should not be re-used as fill beneath structures. To avoid point loads, any cobbles or boulders larger than 4 inch diameter encountered at the subgrade for footings and slabs-on- grade should be removed and replaced with compacted sand and gravel fill. Compaction should achieve at least 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density as defined in ASTM D1557, Method C. Fill placed beneath footings, floorslabs and pavements should be densified to at least 95% of the Modified Proctor dry density as defined in ASTM D1557, Method C. Fill should be placed in lifts of no more than 12-inches and compacted with at least four passes with a vibrating drum roller (minimum of 6,000 pound weight). To facilitate compaction, the moisture content should be maintained at or near the optimum moisture content. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely yours, 2·5HLOO\7DOERW 2NXQ$VVRFLDWHV,QF Ashley L. Sullivan, P.E. Michael J. Talbot, P.E. Sr. Project Engineer Principal Attachments: Limitations, Figures, Boring Logs, Laboratory Data O:\J2300\2388 Hotel Northampton\01-02 CONFIDENTIAL MATTER Conz St Northampton MA-Geotech\Geotech Report 11-20-2012.doc Page 12 LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS 1. The observations presented in this report were made under the conditions described herein. The conclusions presented in this report were based solely upon the services described in the report and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of the project or the time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client. The work described in this report was carried out in accordance with the Statement of Terms and Conditions attached to our proposal. 2. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from widely spaced subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. 3. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretations of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more erratic. For specific information, refer to the boring logs. 4. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the proposed structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun Associates Inc. It is recommended that we be retained to provide a general review of final plans and specifications. 5. Our report was prepared for the exclusive benefit of our client. Reliance upon the report and its conclusions is not made to third parties or future property owners. FIGURES (Site Locus & Site Plan) N SITE 2003 National Geographic Holdings, Inc. C Proposed Conz Street Hotel 2·5HLOO\7DOERW 2NXQ Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts >A S S O C I A T E S @ 6/ ,7(2&86 (1*,1((5,1* November 2012Figure 1 BORING LOGS O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-1 Page1OF3 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION: Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN MikeDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/23/201210/23/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig77'DATUMApprox. 111.5' TYPE BIT RollerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples18UNDIST. CASING3"Rod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.300 lbs.WEIGHTDROPWATER LEVEL (FT.)7' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGSoutheast corner of proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION 140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISTSteve McLaughlin HAMMER Safety SAMPLES SAMPLESDESCRIPTION DEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/SOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 3/2/2/318/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 10", dryTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 4/3/3/316/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, trace(+) silt, dry0 ppm (2'-4') 5 3/3/3/316/24S-3Loose, gray, fine SAND, trace(+) to little silt, trace medium sand, bottom 8" moist0 ppm (5'-7') 7' 8/3/4/48/24S-4Loose, gray, coarse SAND, little medium sand, trace(+) gravel, trace fine sand, wetSAND AND 0 ppm (7'-9')GRAVEL 5/5/8/127/24S-5Medium dense, gray, coarse SAND, little fine to medium sand, little gravel, trace 0 ppm 10(9'-11')silt, wet 15 4/4/8/88/24S-6Medium dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, trace silt, wet0 ppm (15'-17') 2. 200 ppm 3. Organics (wood) in 10/10/12/88/24S-7Medium dense, gray, coarse SAND, some medium sand, little gravel, trace fine (20'-22')sand, wetwash 22' SILTY CLAY 25 1/2/2/210/24S-8Soft, gray, silty CLAY, wetPP = 1.25 tsf (25'-27')TV=0.075 tsf Remarks: 1. Began rotary wash at 10' 2. Bit grinding at 15-20' 3. Wood in wash at 20' 4. Resistance of casing blows less at 22', beginning of silty clay layer 5. WOH = Weight of hammer 6. WOR = Weight of rod 7. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected 2 8. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 9. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-1 Sheet 2of3 Project No.2388-01-02 PROJECT : Conz Street Hotel SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6IN. SILTY CLAY 30' 30 WOH for 18"24/24S-9Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace fine sand, wetVARVED PP=2.25 tsf /2(30'-32')(varves ~1/8" thick)SILTY CLAYTV=0.1 tsf 35 WOR for 6"/24/24S-10Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace fine sand, wetPP=2.0 tsf 1/1/2(35'-37')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.1 tsf 40 WOR for 6"/24/24S-11Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, wetPP=2.1 tsf 1/1/2(40'-42')(varves ~1/2" thick)TV=0.11 tsf 45 WOH 1'/24/24S-12Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, wetPP=2.0 tsf 2/2(45'-47')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.04 tsf 50 WOR for 6"/24/24S-13Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, wetPP=2.3 tsf 1/2/2(50'-52')(varves ~1/4" thick)TV=0.12 tsf 55 1/2/3/424/24S-14Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, wetPP=2.25 tsf (55'-57')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.14 tsf 60 WOR for 6"/24/24S-15Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace fine sand, wetPP=2.6 tsf 1/1/2(60'-62')(varves ~1/4" thick)TV=0.11 tsf O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-1 Sheet 3of3 Project No.2388-01-02 PROJECT : Conz Street Hotel SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6IN. VARVED SILTY CLAY 65 1/1/1/224/24S-16Very soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP = 2.25 tsf (65'-67')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.14 tsf 70 2/2/2/324/24S-17Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP = 2.7 tsf (70'-72')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.1 tsf 75 3/2/3/424/24S-18Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP = 2.0 tsf (75'-77')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.06 tsf End of exploration at 77' 80 85 90 95 O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-2 Page1OF3 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION: Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN MikeDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/23/201210/24/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig87'DATUMApprox. 112' TYPE BIT RollerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples13UNDIST. CASING3"Rod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.300 lbs.WEIGHTDROPWATER LEVEL (FT.)-- SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGNortheast corner or proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION 140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISTSteve McLaughlin HAMMER Safety SAMPLES SAMPLESDESCRIPTION DEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/SOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 2/7/10/1119/24S-1Top 6": Medium dense, brown, fine SAND, little silt, trace(-) organics(roots), trace(-)TOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')coarse sand, moist (TOPSOIL)FINE SAND Bottom 12": Medium dense, gray, fine SAND, little silt, moist 13/13/10/1619/24S-2Medium dense, gray to brown, fine SAND, little silt, dry0 ppm (2'-4') 5' 5 8/8/10/1210/24S-3Medium dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, trace(-) coarse sand, dryFINE TO 0 ppm (5'-7')MEDIUM SAND 9' 7/8/7/510/24S-4Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, little fine sand, trace(+) gravel, wetMEDIUM TO0 ppm 10(9'-11')COARSE SAND 2. Organics (wood) in wash 150 ppm 6/7/9/118/24S-5Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, little fine sand, trace(+) gravel, trace(-)Organics (wood) in (15'-17')organics(wood), wetsample 19' VARVED 20SILTY CLAY 2/2/2/224/24S-6Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.75 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (20'-22')TV=0.09 tsf 25 Remarks: 1. Began rotary wash at 9' 2. Pieces of wood in wash at 13' 3. Color change of wash water at 19', beginning of silty clay layer 4. Bit grinding at 80' 5. Bit grinding at 84' 6. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 7. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft 2 8. WOH = Weight of hammer 9. WOR = Weight of rod 10. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-2 Sheet 2of3 Project No.2388-01-02 PROJECT : Conz Street Hotel SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6IN. VARVED SILTY CLAY 30 1/1/2/324/24S-7Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.6 tsf (30'-32')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=1.1 tsf 35 40 1/1/1/224/24S-8Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.9 tsf (40'-42')(varves ~1/4" thick)TV=0.16 tsf 45 50 WOH for 6"/24/24S-9Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.7 tsf 2/2/2(50'-52')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.12 tsf 55 60 WOH for 1'/24/24S-10Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=3.25 tsf 2/2(60'-62')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.14 tsf O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-2 Sheet 3of3 Project No.2388-01-02 PROJECT : Conz Street Hotel SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6IN. VARVED SILTY CLAY 65 70 3/3/3/424/24S-11Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.3 tsf (70'-72')(varves ~1/8" thick)TV=0.1 tsf 75 80' 80 61/3/24S-12Very dense, reddish-brown, fine SAND, some silt, trace(+) coarse sand,GLACIAL TILL4. 50 for 4"(80'-82')trace gravel, trace(-) medium sand, wet (TILL) 85 73/8/24S-13Very dense, reddish-brown, fine SAND, some silt, trace medium sand,5. 50 for 3"(85'-87')trace coarse sand, trace(-) gravel, wet (TILL) End of exploration at 87' 90 95 O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-3 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN MikeDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/24/201210/24/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig22'DATUMApprox. 111.5' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples8UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)9' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGNorthwest corner of proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 3/5/3/320/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 4", moistTOPSOIL (0-2')FINE SAND0 ppm 5/3/4/524/24S-2Top 19": Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt, moist0 ppm (2'-4')Bottom 5": Loose, brown with rust mottling, fine to medium SAND, trace(+) silt, trace(-) coarse sand, moist 5 3/3/1/14/24S-3Top 2": Loose, gray, fine SAND, little silt, moist0 ppm (5'-7')Bottom 2": Loose, light borwn, medium to coarse SAND, trace(-) fine sand, trace(-) fine gravel, dry 6' 2/1/6/810/24S-4Loose, gray, medium SAND, trace(+) coarse sand, trace(-) fine gravel, bottom 2",MEDIUM TO0 ppm (7'-9')wetCOARSE SAND 10 4/2/1/43/24S-5Very loose, brown, medium to coarse SAND, little gravel, trace(+) fine sand, wet0 ppm (10'-12') 15 2/3/2/37/24S-6Loose, brown, medium to coarse SAND, little fine sand, trace(-) gravel, trace silt, wet0 ppm (15'-17') 6/7/3/312/24S-7Top 10": Medium dense, gray, medium coarse SAND, little gravel, trace fine sand, wet0 ppm (17'-19')Bottom 2": Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, wet 18' (varves ~1/4" thick) VARVED SILTY CLAY 20 1/2/3/318/24S-7Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.25 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (20'-22')TV=0.13 tsf End of exploration at 22' 25 Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected 2 2. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 3. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-4 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig27'DATUMApprox. 111.5' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples8UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)10' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGCenter of proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 4/5/7/417/24S-1Medium dense, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 3",TOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')moistFINE SAND 3/4/4/318/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, moist0 ppm (2'-4') 5 5' 4/5/5/67/24S-3Medium dense, light brown, medium to coarse SAND, trace fine sand, trace(-)MEDIUM TO0 ppm (5'-7')gravel, dryCOARSE SAND 4/4/3/56/24S-4Loose, light brown, medium to coarse SAND, trace gravel, trace fine sand, dry0 ppm (7'-9') 10 3/4/10/96/24S-5Medium dense, brown, medium to coarse SAND, little fine sand, trace(+) gravel,0 ppm (10'-12')trace silt, wet 150 ppm 6/3/4/612/24S-6Loose, gray, medium SAND, some fine sand, trace(+) silt, trace coarse sand, traceOrganics (wood, leaves) (15'-17')organics(wood, leaves), wetin sample 20 20' 2/3/2/311/24S-7Medium, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetVARVEDPP=2.0 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (20'-22')SILTY CLAYTV=0.17 tsf 25 1/3/2/312/24S-8Medium, gray varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.25 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (25'-27')TV=0.16 tsf End of exploration at 27' Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected 2 2. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 3. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-5 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig27'DATUMApprox. 111.5' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples7UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)10' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGCenter of proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 2/2/2/312/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 5", moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 2' 3/6/6/58/24S-2Medium dense, light brown with rust mottling in bottom 2", medium SAND, trace(+)MEDIUM 0 ppm (2'-4')fine sand, trace(-) gravel, drySAND 5 2/3/4/46/24S-3Loose, brown to light brown, medium SAND, trace coarse sand, trace fine sand, dry0 ppm (5'-7') 10 2/3/3/34/24S-4Loose, light brown, medium SAND, trace(+) coarse sand, trace(+) fine sand, wet0 ppm (10'-12') 15 3/4/5/412/24S-5Loose, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) fine sand, trace(-) gravel, wet0 ppm (15'-17') 20 20' 1/2/1/25/24S-6Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand wetVARVEDPP=2.2 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (20'-22')SILTY CLAYTV=0.11 tsf 25 1/2/1/112/24S-7Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine sand, wetPP=2.7 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (25'-27')TV=0.15 tsf End of exploration at 27' Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected 2 2. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 3. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-6 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig27'DATUMApprox. 111' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples6UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)10' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGSouthwest corner of proposed building SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 1/2/4/412/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace organics(roots, wood), moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 2/3/4/517/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, moist0 ppm (2'-4') 5 5' 1/2/3/512/24S-3Loose, light gray, fine to medium SAND, trace(+) silt, moistSAND0 ppm (5'-7') 10 6/9/6/68/24S-4Top 4": Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) gravel, trace fine0 ppm (10'-12')sand, wet Bottom 4": Medium dense, gray, fine SAND, trace silt, trace(-) fine gravel, wet 15 2/1/2/30/24S-5No RecoveryWash in sample (15'-17') 20 4/7/9/510/24S-6Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) gravel, trace fine sand, wet0 ppm (20'-22') 25 25' 1/2/2/322/24S-7Soft, gray, varved SILTY CLAY, trace(-) fine SAND, wetVARVEDPP=2.7 tsf (varves ~1/8" thick) (25'-27')SILTY CLAYTV=0.15 tsf End of exploration at 27' Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected 2 2. Undrained shear strength estimated in field using E285 Pocket Torvane (TV). Values in tons/ft 2 3. Unconfined compressive strength estimated in field using Pocket Penetrometer (PP). Values in tons/ft O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-7 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig11'DATUMApprox. 112.5' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples5UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)9' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGEast parking area SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 2/3/2/317/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 8", moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 2/3/3/421/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, moist0 ppm (2'-4') 5 1/2/2/314/24S-3Loose, brown with rust mottling, fine SAND, little silt, moist0 ppm (5'-7') 3/6/5/13/24S-4Medium dense, brown, fine to medium SAND, trace(+) silt, moist0 ppm (7'-9') 9' 2/2/3/34/24S-5Loose, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace fine sand, trace(-) gravel, wetMEDIUM TO0 ppm 10(9'-11')COARSE SAND End of exploration at 11' 15 20 25 Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-8 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig11'DATUMApprox. 111' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples5UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)8' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGNorth parking area SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 4/5/4/619/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots), moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 2' 8/6/9/1010/24S-2Medium dense, light brown, medium SAND, trace fine sand, trace(-) silt, dryMEDIUM TO0 ppm (2'-4')rust motling bottom 2"COARSE SAND 5 6/7/10/1112/24S-3Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) gravel, trace fine sand, dry0 ppm (5'-7') 6/8/6/912/24S-4Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace fine sand, trace gravel, 0 ppm (7'-9')bottom 3", wet 6/9/11/1416/24S-5Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) fine sand, trace(+) gravel,0 ppm 10(9'-11')trace silt, wet End of exploration at 11' 15 20 25 Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-9 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig11'DATUMApprox. 112' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples5UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)8' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGEast parking area SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 2/3/3/312/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots), moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 4/4/4/314/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt, trace medium sand, moist0 ppm (2'-4') 5 5' 2/2/2/312/24S-3Loose, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace fine sand, trace(-) gravel, dryMEDIUM TO0 ppm (5'-7')COARSE SAND 1/1/1/310/24S-4Very loose, gray, medium to coarse SAND, trace(+) fine sand, bottom 2", wet0 ppm (7'-9') 6/10/19/118/24S-5Medium dense, gray to brown, medium to coarse SAND, little gravel, trace fine0 ppm 10(9'-11')sand, wet End of exploration at 11' 15 20 25 Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected O'REILLY, TALBOT & OKUN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LOG OF BORING HN-10 Page1OF1 PROJECT : Conz Street HotelLOCATION:Northampton, MAPROJECT NO. : 2388-01-02 DRILLING CONTRACTORFOREMAN BobDATE STARTEDDATE FINISHED Seaboard Environmental DrillingHELPERDoug10/25/201210/25/2012 DRILLING EQUIPMENTCOMPLETION DEPTHGROUND SURFACE ELEV. B-53 Truck Mounted Rig11'DATUMApprox. 112' TYPE BIT Hollow Stem AugerSIZE &TYPE OF CORE BARRELNo. Samples5UNDIST. CASINGRod TIMEFIRSTCOMPL.HR. CASING HAMM.WEIGHTDROP WATER LEVEL (FT.)8' SAMPLER: 2" O.D. Split SpoonRod A 1 5/8" O.D.BORINGEast parking area SAMPLERWEIGHTDROPLOCATION HAMMER Safety140 lbs.30" (Wire Line)ENGINEER/GEOLOGISSteve McLaughli Tn SAMPLES SAMPLESDEPTHPENETR.REC.TYPE/DESCRIPTIONSOIL REMARKS FT.RESIST.IN.NO.DESCRIPTION BL/6 IN. 3/4/3/410/24S-1Loose, brown, fine SAND, little to some silt, trace(-) organics(roots) in upper 6", moistTOPSOIL0 ppm (0-2')FINE SAND 3/3/3/417/24S-2Loose, brown, fine SAND, little silt, trace medium sand, moist0 ppm (2'-4') 5 3/3/3/318/24S-3Loose, brown to gray, fine SAND, little silt, trace medium sand, moist0 ppm (5'-7') 7' 5/6/5/48/24S-4Medium dense, gray, medium to coarse SAND, little gravel, trace fine sand, bottomMEDIUM TO 0 ppm (7'-9')1" wetCOARSE SAND 10/19/16/1510/24S-5Dense, brown, medium to coarse SAND, little gravel, trace fine sand, wet0 ppm 10(9'-11') End of exploration at 11' 15 20 25 Remarks: 1. Soil screened in field using MiniRAE 2000 photoionization detector (PID) referenced to benzene in air. Readings in parts per million by volume. "ND" indicates none detected LABORATORY DATA 'SQQIRXWF]%07383 &]QSMWX[IMKLX&]HV]YRMX[IMKLX 1SMWXYVI'SRXIRX     Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix C – Recharge, Water Quality, Drawdown & Mounding Analysis The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix D – TSS Removal Summary and Calculations The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices Worksheet Calculation TSS Removal Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix E – Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Nothampton, MA Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan This plan was developed in compliance with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater requirements. Good Housekeeping The proposed site is designed to maintain high water quality treatment for all runoff. A general maintenance plan has been prepared and will be followed in a strict and complete manner as required. Spill Prevention Plan The following spill prevention plan will be incorporated into the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan: Manufacturers’ recommended methods for spill cleanup will be clearly posted and site personnel will be made aware of the procedures and the location of the information and cleanup supplies. Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the on-site material storage area. Equipment and materials will include, but is not limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, sawdust and plastic and metal trash containers specifically for this purpose. All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery. The spill area will be kept well ventilated and personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from contact with a hazardous substance. Spills of toxic or hazardous material will be reported, regardless of size, to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection at 888-304-1133. Should a spill occur, the spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent another spill and to cleanup up the spill should another occur. A description of the spill, along with the causes and cleanup measures will be included in the updated spill prevention plan. The construction superintendent responsible for daily operation on the construction site will be the spill prevention and cleanup coordinator. The superintendent will designate at least three site personnel to receive spill prevention cleanup and training. These individuals will each become responsible for a particular phase of prevention and cleanup. The names of responsible spill personnel will be posted in the material storage area and in the on-site job trailer. Stormwater BMP Maintenance A full stormwater operation and maintenance plan has been prepared (see Appendix F of this report) in order to ensure that the system will function properly throughout the year. Landscape and Lawn Maintenance Routine mowing and associated maintenance of all landscape features will occur weekly or as needed to prevent excessive growth and debris from occurring on site. 1 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Nothampton, MA Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan Solid Waste Management Solid waste is handled on site and will comply with all requirements on a local, state, and federal level. Parking/Road Area Maintenance Street sweeping shall occur 2-4 times per year. A snow management plan has been prepared (see Appendix F) to prevent dirty snow and salt from entering the resource area. Training of Staff All personnel on site will be well briefed on all requirements for implementing the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan. Emergency Contact for Implementing Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan Mansour Ghalibaf 36 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413)587-8100 2 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix F – Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, MA Operation & Maintenance Plan Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing and stakes sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long will be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may have been damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all rain storms until the completion of construction. In case of any noted breach or failure, the Contractor shall immediately make appropriate repairs to any erosion control system and notify the engineer of any problems involving stormwater management systems. A rain storm shall be defined as all or one of the following: Any storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. Any storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. Any single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one- half inch. Any storm not meeting the previous three thresholds but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is significant. In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. The Conservation Commission shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems and erosion and sediment control measures and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body (stream, brook, pond, etc.). 1 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, MA Operation & Maintenance Plan The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one- half of the original installed height of the barrier. Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: The Owner, Mansour Ghalibaf 36 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 shall own the stormwater management system. Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: The Owner, Mansour Ghalibaf 36 King Street Northampton, MA 01060 shall operate and maintain the stormwater management system. Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: 1) Street Sweeping Street and parking area sweeping shall take place twice annually. 2) Hooded Catch Basin and/or Drain Manhole with Sump Catch Basin and manhole should be inspected at least four times per year and cleaned annually or more often if required. Oil and sediments should be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. In the case of an oil or bulk pollutant release, the system must be cleaned immediately following the spill and the proper authorities notified. 3) Subsurface Infiltration Bed The subsurface infiltration bed requires regular removal of accumulated sediment to maintain an optimal rate of infiltration. Pretreatment BMPs (Deep Sump Hooded Catch Basins, STC 450i) should be routinely inspected and cleaned at least twice a year to prevent sediment from entering the infiltration system. Inspect the subsurface infiltration bed after the first several rainfall events, after all major storms, and on regularly scheduled dates every six months. After large storms the bed should be inspected for ponding water. If ponding is occurring this 2 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, MA Operation & Maintenance Plan may indicate that the bed requires rehabilitation. To rehabilitate a portion of the infiltration bed all accumulated sediment must be stripped from the bottom, the bottom of the bed must be scarified and tilled to induce infiltration, and all of the stone aggregate and filter fabric or media must be removed and replaced. 4) Stormwater Treatment Chambers The Stormwater Treatment System requires minimal routine maintenance; however, it is important that the system be properly inspected and cleaned when necessary in order to function at its best. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit, e.g. heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly, but regular sweeping will slow accumulation. The water quality treatment system shall Storm consist of ceptor or equal treatment chambers. For more detail of how the StormStorm ceptorshould be maintained see the ceptor Owner Manual. 3 INSPECTION AND MAINTANENCE REPORT FORM Fairfield Inn at Conz Street, Northampton, MA INSPECTION ANDMAINTENANCE REPORTFORM INSPECT IONANDMAINTEN ANCEREPORTFORM INSP ECTIONANDMAIN TENANCEREPORTFORM For Fairfield Inn – 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA – Stormwater Infrastructure Inspection Schedule: FORM TO BE COMPLETED PER SCHEDULE PRESENTED IN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN Inspector: Date: Time: Inspector’s Qualifications: Days Since Last Rainfall: Amount of Last Rainfall (inches): Catch Basins Are Sediment Are Catch Basin Is Surface Runoff Are Any TrapsOutlet Hoods Depth of Being Directed to Correction CB Installed at Installed and Sediment in Catch Basins Measures Catch Basin Working Basin Sump Properly Required InletsProperly CB#1 CB#2 CB#3 CB#4 CB#5 CB#6 CB#7 CB#8 CB#9 Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By: On or Before: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1/2 INSPECTION AND MAINTANENCE REPORT FORM Fairfield Inn at Conz Street, Northampton, MA STRUCTURALCONTROLS–CON’T STRUCTURALCONTROLS–CON’T Stormwater Treatment Chambers Is Surface Runoff Being Depth of Sediment in Basin Are Any Correction SWTC Directed Through SWTS SumpMeasures Required Properly STC 450i STC 450i STC 450i Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By: On or Before: OTHERCONTROLS OTHERCONTROLS List Other Miscellaneous Controls and Observations ItemDescribe Failure/Inadequate Control Describe Recommended Remedy Subsurface Infiltration Bed Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By: On or Before: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2/2 Fairfield Inn November 27, 2012 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Drainage Report Appendix G – STC 450i Design Summary The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Appendices