Loading...
2022-10-27 Stormwater Report - 42 Rustlewood42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction 2 II. Existing Conditions 2 III. Proposed Conditions 3 IV. Calculations and Design 3 V. MADEP Stormwater Standards Compliance 5 Figures Sheet TP Test Pit Location Plan Sheet D-1 Existing Conditions and Hydrology Sheet D-2 Proposed Plan and Hydrology Appendices Appendix A NRCS Soil Report Appendix B Test Pit Report Appendix C Stormwater Hydrology Calculations Appendix D Illicit Discharge Statement Appendix E Stormwater Management System – Operation & Maintenance Plan Appendix F Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Checklist Referenced Documents Plans: 42 Rustlewood Ridge – Grading & Drainage Plan 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 2 The proposed development is the construction of a single-family home and associated sitework on a vacant forested lot at 42 Rustlewood Ridge. Berkshire Design Group has prepared a Stormwater Management plan for the site in compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. This report summarizes the design of the system and documents how the design complies with those standards. I. Introduction The proposed site is a 7.5 acre parcel, covered by a hemlock forest with minimal undergrowth. The only non-forested portion of the site is a portion of an existing private roadway at the northeast corner of the property. The proposed work includes site preparation and construction of a single- family house, driveway, septic system, landscaping and associated sitework. A portion of the site is proposed to be cleared of trees for solar access but restored with a heavier brushy low-growth mix of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Soil Data NRCS Soil Survey The NRCS Soil Survey reports that the on-site soils are Paxton Fine Sandy Loam (Hydrologic Soil Group – HSG C) The USGS Surficial Geology survey indicates that the majority of the parcel is part of a drumlin landform making till the soil parent material. The NRCS Soil Report for the site is attached in Appendix A. Subsurface Exploration A total of four test pits were completed on April 1, 1996 and August 18, 2022 for the purposes of septic system design. A test pit location plan is included on Sheet TP. The soil evaluation report is attached as Appendix B. The test pits indicated that the soils included Sandy Loam. The 1996 test pits determined seasonal high groundwater to be 80” below the surface; however the subsequent evaluation in 2022 determined the groundwater depth to be 48”. While this 48” depth has been used as a design value for the enclosed plans. Berkshire Design recommends that a confirming soil evaluation be performed in the locations of the proposed stormwater basins. The proposed design is flexible, and could be modified if differing groundwater conditions are found in the proposed stormwater basin locations. Site Limits Site limits were based both on the parcel property lines, except that the narrow property extension to the south (the “flagpole” of this flag lot) has been excluded for simplification. II. Existing Conditions An Existing Conditions and Hydrology Plan is shown on Sheet D-1. The existing hydrology was analyzed as one drainage area, E-1. Nearly the entirety of this drainage area runs off to the west, either directly via overland flow or via a wide swale running along the southeastern property line. A very small portion of the property near the northeastern property line runs off to the northeast. 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 3 III. Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions are shown in the attached Grading and Drainage Plan. Proposed hydrology is shown on Sheet D-2. The proposed project includes two stormwater management devices to attenuate peak runoff rates, provide for groundwater recharge and treat for water quality. Area P-1 Drainage Area P-1 encompasses the majority of the site, which is primarily undisturbed or minimally disturbed, and which is not routed through a stormwater management device. Impervious area is limited to half of the roof of the detached garage (directed to drip strips), the existing roadway, and the proposed driveway apron. Remaining land within Area P-1 consists of: · Undisturbed woods · Lawn and meadow grasses · Areas where trees are to be cleared that will be restored with a mix of trees, shrubs and grasses which will remain minimally maintained. Note that the restoration area will be replacing an existing hemlock forest containing minimal undergrowth with a heavily vegetated mix of brush and meadow grasses with some trees. The result is that this area is expected to produce less runoff in the post-development condition due to these interventions. Area P-2 Drainage Area P-2 makes up a majority of the developed site, including the proposed house, half of the garage, and most of the landscape hardscape areas. The drainage calculations also account for an additional 1,000 square feet of future impervious area to provide as an allowance for future homeowner improvements. This area is captured by a swale and stormwater basin, designed to provide infiltration and peak runoff attenuation, with an overflow spillway discharging to the south. Impervious area consist of roof and pedestrian pavement, therefore suspended solids are expected to be minimized and pre- treatment is not proposed. Area P-3 Drainage Area P-3 consists primarily of the proposed driveway. Impervious area is collected by a drainage swale on the south side of the driveway, discharging to a sediment forebay, and then a filtering rain garden with underdrain. This feature is designed primarily for water quality and is ignored in the drainage calculations; however, it is expected to provide significant peak flow rate attenuation in smaller storms. IV. Calculations and Design Water Quantity Peak Runoff Rate 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 4 Drainage calculations were performed on HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling System version 10.0 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 Appendix C. Rainfall values are taken from the latest Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC) rain tables and are listed in Table 1. The watershed boundaries for calculation purposes are divided according to the proposed site grading and the parcel boundary. The curve numbers (CNs) for the existing and proposed sub- catchment area are based on the soil type and the existing and proposed cover conditions at the site. The time of concentration (Tc) for large sub-areas with extensive pervious areas is calculated using sheet flow, followed by shallow concentrated flow and channel flow if warranted. Small sub- area TCs are set at a minimum of 5 minutes.1 Conservatively the Storage-Indication method is used for reach routing. Calculations were performed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 1 below. Appendix C presents the HydroCAD output reports. Table 1 Runoff and Volume Summary Tables Point of Analysis 2-Year Storm 3.11” 10-Year Storm 4.60” 100-Year Storm 8.05” Peak Flow Rate(cfs) Peak Flow Rate(cfs) Peak Flow Rate(cfs) Existing Study Point 5.98 14.33 37.33 Proposed Study Point 5.70 13.82 37.04 The analysis shows that peak flow rates for the site are maintained below existing conditions. Infiltration The site consists entirely of soils falling into Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) C; therefore, infiltration of runoff must be achieved to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff from the central portion of the site (Drainage Area P-2) is directed to a large, shallow stormwater basin. Runoff from the proposed driveway is directed to a rain garden. Based on the septic test pit data, groundwater is assumed to be 4+ feet below the existing surface. The large stormwater basin, which is located near the high point of the site is expected to provide infiltration. The rain is located in a relatively low-lying area and is not expected to achieve a 1 Tc values for Drainage Areas E-1 and P-1 were analyzed in HydroCAD utilizing the Lag Method. Despite the large area, the Tc values were determined to be approximately 5 minutes due to the extensive stee slopes. The minimum value of 5 minutes was selected for these areas. 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 5 sufficient separation from groundwater that would allow infiltration. A confirming test pit is proposed at both locations to verify conditions. The project proposes a total of 5,800 square feet of new impervious area. Stormwater Standard 3 requires recharge of 0.25” for impervious areas over HSG C soils. Therefore, the required recharge volume for this project is 138 cu. ft. If recharge is provided solely by the large stormwater basin, a total of 4,000 sq. ft. of impervious area is directed to infiltration structures (69% of new impervious areas). Therefore, the required recharge volume must be adjusted by a factor of 1.45 (5,800/4,000), resulting in an adjusted required recharge volume of 200 cu. ft. The proposed stormwater basin holds approximately 525 cu. ft. of water below the discharge spillway, which exceeds the adjusted required recharge volume. The stormwater basin holds a maximum of 3” of water below the overflow spillway. Infiltration rate is based on the Rawls rate for site soils and is estimated to be approximately 1 inch per hour. Dewater is estimated to finish within 3 hours, less than the 72-hour maximum allowed by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Water Quality Water quality at the proposed site is addressed with overland flow, infiltration, and a rain garden. The primary producer of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) at the site is the proposed driveway. This area is directed to a filtering rain garden with sediment forebay. Per the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, this runoff will be treated to remove 90% of TSS. The total driveway area directed to the rain garden is 1,500 sq. ft. A 1” water quality volume requires storage of 125 cu. ft. The rain garden is sized to hold a total of 235 cu. ft., which exceeds the water quality volume. The sediment forebay must be sized to capture at least 0.1” of runoff, or 12 cu. ft. The proposed forebay is sized to capture 56 cu. ft. of runoff. The large stormwater basin collects runoff from roofs and pedestrian hardscape that sheet flows overland. While these areas are expected to produce minimal TSS, they constitute at total of 4,000 sq. ft. of impervious area (including an allowance of 1,000 sq. ft. of future impervious area. Therefore, the 1” water quality volume for these areas is 333 cu. ft. The proposed basin is sized to hold approximately 525 cu. ft. of water below the overflow spillway. Per the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, this runoff will be treated to remove 80% of TSS if infiltrated. Erosion & Sedimentation Control The project plan set includes provisions for erosion control during construction. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared and previously provided to both the Contractor and Northampton DPW. V. MADEP Stormwater Standards Compliance The following section details how the project will meet the DEP Stormwater Management Policy’s ten stormwater management standards. Low Impact Design (LID) The project utilizes green infrastructure to manage stormwater from the majority of the developed site. A large majority of the site will remain permanently undisturbed. A portion of forested area is 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 6 proposed to be cleared of trees, but would be restored in a way that will provide heavier vegetated groundcover and is expected to reduce runoff. Standard 1 - Untreated Stormwater Discharge The project proposes 2 new discharges from the two proposed stormwater management features. Both discharges are proposed to be treated. The large stormwater basin is not expected to discharge in the 2-year storm. The underdrain discharge from the proposed rain garden will be armored with a stone pad to prevent erosion, which will be inspected as part of the Operation & Maintenance Plan. Standard 2 - Post-Development Peak Discharge Rates The proposed design including the infiltration of the roof runoff from the house and the rain garden provided attenuation of the peak flows from the 2, 10 and 100 year storms. These results are discussed in detail under “Peak Runoff Rate” in Section IV, above. Standard 3 - Recharge to Groundwater The site is comprised of HSG soil group types C. Groundwater recharge is provided by the proposed large stormwater basin. Calculations of recharge are discussed in detail under “Infiltration” in Section IV, above. Standard 4 – Water Quality The site includes two treatment trains that manage runoff from impervious areas, as discussed under “Water Quality” in Section IV, above. Standard 5 - Higher Potential Pollutant Loads This is not applicable to this project. Standard 6 - Protection of Critical Areas This is not applicable to this project. Standard 7 - Redevelopment Projects This is not applicable to this project. Note that stormwater management is not provided for the existing pavement associated with the private road partially located on this property. Standard 8 - Erosion/Sediment Control Proposed erosion and sediment controls are shown on the erosion control plan for the site. Standard 9 - Operation/Maintenance Plan An Operation and Maintenance Plan for the proposed project is included in Appendix F. It includes general controls for construction and long-term maintenance of stormwater features. 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 7 Standard 10 – Prohibition of Illicit Discharges No Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is included with this report. It will be the responsibility of the owner to submit a statement prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMPs. 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group FIGURES CBX T Tree 22" Tree 20" Tree 22" Tree 23" Landscape Light Oi l a n d S t o n e P a v em e n t Bit ConcT r e e l i n e Tr e e l i n e Bit Co n c 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372370 365 360 Concrete Pad Transformer Telecom TP-3 TP-4 TP-1 TP-2 PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION PROPOSED STORMWATER BASINS TEST PIT FROM SEPTIC SYSTEM SOIL EVALUATION (TYP.) Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contactThe Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. Land Surveying Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied orused in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. c 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts 0 160'80'40'240'TP OCTOBER 27, 2022 1"=80' CC TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN CBX T Tree 22" Tree 20" Tree 20" Tree 22" Tree 23" Landscape Light Boulder Oil a n d S t o n e P a v e m e n t Bit ConcPVC Up 2.5 PVC Up 3.5 PVC Up 2 Tr e e l i n e Tr e e l i n e Bit C o n c 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372370 365 360 355 350 34 5 340Concrete PadTransformer Telecom Post and Board Electric Panel Approximate Property Line Appro xi m a t e Pr oper t y L i n e HSG C HSG C DRAINAGE AREA E-1 TOTAL: 287,100 SQ. FT. IMPERV: 1,900 SQ. FT. WOODS: 285,200 SQ. FT. Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contactThe Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. Land Surveying Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied orused in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. c 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts D-1 OCTOBER 27, 2022 1"=80' CC SCALE 1"=80'-0" (if printed full size @ 11" x 17") 0 160'80'40'240' EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA CBX T Tree 22" Tree 20" Tree 20" Tree 22" Tree 23" Landscape Light Boulder Oil a n d S t o n e P a v e m e n t Bit ConcPVC Up 2.5 PVC Up 3.5 PVC Up 2 Tr e e l i n e Tr e e l i n e Bit C o n c 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372370 365 360 355 350 34 5 340Concrete PadTransformer Telecom Post and Board Electric Panel Approximate Property Line Appro xi m a t e Pr oper t y L i n e HSG C HSG C 18'37137 0 370370LAWN LAWN LAWN 36 9 36 8369369368365 364364364365363363.5DRAINAGE AREA P-1 TOTAL: 265,800 SQ. FT. ROOF: 300 SQ. FT. PAVE: 2,200 SQ. FT. GRASS: 11,000 RESTORED: 32,000 WOODS: 220,300 SQ. FT. DRAINAGE AREA P-2 TOTAL: 17,600 SQ. FT. ROOF: 2,000 SQ. FT. PAVE: 1,000 SQ. FT. FUT. IMP: 1,000 SQ. FT.* GRASS: 13,600 DRAINAGE AREA P-3 TOTAL: 3,700 SQ. FT. PAVE: 1,500 SQ. FT. GRASS: 2,200 SQ. FT. Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contactThe Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. Land Surveying Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied orused in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. c 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts D-2 OCTOBER 27, 2022 1"=80' CC SCALE 1"=80'-0" (if printed full size @ 11" x 17") 0 160'80'40'240' EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA * AN EXTRA 1,000 SQ. FT. OF IMPERVIOUS AREA BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN IS INCLUDED TO ACCOUNT FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS SITE. 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix A– NRCS Soils Report United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part October 17, 2022 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface ..................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made .................................................................................. 5 Soil Map ................................................................................................................... 8 Soil Map ................................................................................................................ 9 Legend ................................................................................................................ 10 Map Unit Legend ................................................................................................. 12 Map Unit Descriptions ......................................................................................... 12 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part ............................................ 14 306B—Paxton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, very stony .............. 14 306D—Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony ......... 15 References............................................................................................................. 18 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 6 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 42° 21' 24'' N 691180 691200 691220 691240 691260 691280 691300 691320 42° 21' 24'' N Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 42° 21' 18'' N 691200 691220 691240 691260 691280 691300 691320 42° 21' 18'' N Map Scale: 1:940 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. N 0 10 20 40 Meters 60 Feet 0 45 90 180 270 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 9 4691820 4691840 4691860 4691880 4691900 4691920 4691940 4691960 4691980 4692000 72° 40' 43'' W 72° 40' 43'' W 72° 40' 36'' W 72° 40' 36'' W 4691820 4691840 4691860 4691880 4691900 4691920 4691940 4691960 4691980 4692000 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 29, 2013—Oct 16, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background 10 Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 306B Paxton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, very stony 2.7 71.2% 306D Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony 1.1 28.8% Totals for Area of Interest 3.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 12 Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 306B—Paxton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w673 Elevation: 0 to 1,340 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 71 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Paxton, very stony, and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paxton, Very Stony Setting Landform: Ground moraines, hills, drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from gneiss, granite, and/or schist Typical profile Oe - 0 to 2 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 2 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam Bw1 - 10 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam Bw2 - 17 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam Cd - 28 to 67 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 8 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 43 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F144AY007CT - Well Drained Dense Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Woodbridge, very stony Percent of map unit: 8 percent Landform: Ground moraines, hills, drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Ridgebury, very stony Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Drumlins, drainageways, depressions, hills, ground moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Charlton, very stony Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: No 306D—Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2w67h Elevation: 0 to 1,400 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 71 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Paxton, very stony, and similar soils: 90 percent Minor components: 10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Paxton, Very Stony Setting Landform: Ground moraines, hills, drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Linear, convex Parent material: Coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from gneiss, granite, and/or schist Typical profile Oe - 0 to 2 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 2 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam Bw1 - 10 to 17 inches: fine sandy loam Bw2 - 17 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam Cd - 28 to 67 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 25 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 43 inches to densic material Drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: F144AY007CT - Well Drained Dense Till Uplands Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Woodbridge, very stony Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hills, drumlins, ground moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Hydric soil rating: No Charlton, very stony Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Hydric soil rating: No Ridgebury, very stony Percent of map unit: 1 percent Landform: Ground moraines, hills, drainageways, drumlins, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, toeslope 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes 17 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 18 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf 19 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix B – Soil Evaluation FRom : DENNIS P LACaJRSE PHONE NO. : 413-296+4368 Apr, 28 .999 0-7:35AM P1 No.: Date; April 1,1996 Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1\41:THRofp-rov Massachusetts m n • Performed By:. #140J ,)•Z LALC_Ado. A7-c Certification Number //,f "— Witnessed By: Pre. Z.' et LA/ Ps) Location Address or Lot No_: Owner's Name, Address and Tel. #: • Ell Ar.e,s_.15 rs.). Ahcp-ir tic.4.7.0.tabe p' ,_,c. tire, s oCemv, -e62. /-bit yAr E%-* New Construction la Repair q Office Review Published Soil Survey Available: No q Yee Year Published I I Publication Scale 12 15V YD Soil Map Unit Pc(... / 13 Drainage Class LIE Dtr..a Soil Limitation 5L•103.-: - Geologic Report Available: No oiti Yes (;) Year Published Puclication Scala Geologic Material (Map Unit) Landform T324) Ply LI Flood Insurance Rate Map: Above 500 year flood boundary No q Yes 2 Within 500 year flood boundary No 2 Yes q Within 100 year flood boundary No Yes q Wetland Area: National Wetland Inventory Map (map unit) Wetlands Conservancy Program Map (map unit) Current Water Resource Conditions (USGS); Month Range: Above Normal q Normal q Below Normal*: Other References Rol/Towed: FROM ; DENNIS P LACaJRSE PHONE NO. : 413-296+4388 Apr, 28 :999 02:216Prl P1 QatSiteBayieze Deep Hole Number 1 Date 4? - g Time Agen Weather e- e 4 12 Location (identify on site plan) Land Use ri-E 3 /17 a nt r rt tr Slope (%) A Surface stores Vegetatio Lan Distances from: Open Water Body Xene7 feet Drainageway Ne ►AP4-- feet Possible Wet Areaaltzar_feet Property Line / 75 f feet Drinking Water Well 1\0re-sr" feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Noel from Surface. (inotars) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (US*1 -Sod Color Soil Mottling (Mimed) i Other (Structure, Shales, Boulders, Consistency, % Gravel) CI Ii ?V" Te 7i, ol G. Gaq /,Z.o, I'd' A 1:34v . C .5, L L i a rt alSy '.5 y 3 1-ii fy /4 7 6.,- 2- ,a. ,yr so - /Ova -ps 4.1-4.,,f4.., 5.4 pa,:,.. tzeodr,- e.,44<e- > 1...PsZ 1 t---re2ev 1 fis* ,...,,,;,,E veffl.>., Tai cp,sips„ S. Ara 44-4 .4. Xi 4. 4341 .0024E 0 Ai 4-474 Parent Material (geologic): 714-1— Pepth to Bedrock /..2a peotti ta Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: Axto-re Weeping from Pit Face estimated Seasonal High Ground Water.30" FROM : DENNIS P LACCURSE R-CNE NO. : 41:',-296+43613 APr• 28 ..:999 O':301411 PT FORM 11 - SOIL EVALUATOR FORM Page 3 of 3 Location Address or Lot No.: •a Ft w(Knpp--p R r;›, • - tat • • • • • Method ilea; q Depth observed standing in observation hole inches q Depth weeping from side Of observation hole inches 1S—Depth to soil mottles Tie Inches q Ground water adjustment feet Index Well Number Reading Data Index Well Level Adjustment Factor Adjusted Ground Water Level Depteatillaturally Occurrinc,Parvinkis Material Does at least four feet of naturally occurring pervious material exist ,n all areas observed throughout the area proposed for the soil absorption system? See soil logs and location map. If not, what is the depth of naturally occurring pervious material? gartiliudisa I certify that on me:J•1995 I have passed the soil evaluator examination approved by the Department of Environmental Protection and that the above analysis was performed ay me consistent with the required training, expertise and experience described in 310 CMR 15.017. Date: 7- Depth (in.) Soil Horizon/ Layer Soil Matrix: Color- Moist (Munsell) Redoximorphic Features (mottles) Soil Texture (USDA) Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence (Moist) Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0 -6 " lato3ii ..5L 6 /...2.1 4.) ZicLI Li' (f SC ....._ _ A)'`' 6- .2.-Tit fd 18 " 4/ 5Z a- D itka611,1-,C • ptc.m_. v 0 -6 4 10 1(t3 5 5-i____ -A' 6 w L,...., 6 , S% Zvi-76' C '215'4 c/ or' 2 y/ V Z 5-° /° (...., C C It/ r q(Pe__ 49- AA - Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: 3 & 4 Aeldtho.p..1 kiAg 5 Ou) /T/zz. Additional Notes: E5/14 c,J LZIL€4/ - 'vo" e t5forrn12 soil eva WITH BALNK PAGE form 2014.doc • rev. 3/13 Form 11 — Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal • Page 5 of 8 Performed By: Witnessed By' edification Number PHONE NO. : 413+296+4360 Apr. 29 1999 07*:3" AM PA FROM : DENNIS R LACOURSE Determini1220 for Seasonal High &War Tab& Methosi_Useci. q Depth observed standing in observation hole inches q Cepth weeping from side of observation hole inches 5 Depth to soil mottles go". cc 6 inches O Ground water adjustment feet Index Weil Number Reading Date Index Well Level Adjustment Factor Adjusted Ground Water Level Percolation Test Date: at . ??. 4? lime: a `Da 4 ell Observation Hole # 5.-- 1:11111111 ,T6 Depth of Fero 4zt 8 Start Pre-Soak Cf.' IC, 01 .-by cr;1? End Pre-Soak q:;5- Time at 12" q .' a..;" q). 19 Time at 9" X 41 ; ei C) CI'' 36 Time at 6" i45 ' / i q c--0 Time (9" — 6") 11 20 Rate Min./Inch i 1 -q--- ( Site Suitability Assessment: Additional Testing Needed: Site Passed ta, Site Failed 0 Comments: DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soho.* finches; Soil riorizon Soii Tuve (USDA; Soil Color (SAInsaln) Soil Mottling Other (Struetuit. Stones. 86 WC* fl Consvoncy. % Grows') 0 V' lo" ti lr) ol Yi i /Dim )/4, is, 9e>" cor,Ais,,erot fro4PF :4 ( 4. rAs,,E, eroc,ryi 4451 t r4444/i--- A ?lir to iii „ C (-9 ( 3 Ch tvym- 44 V ef r; a ..t 7b i A F1-Wr7 Sp " Thp : I it" F; e "/ eApie c./ / girek.111;7 s 5- .76, 64...t.y-E- L. Zeb ft.J 17 4. FROM 'TENNIS R LACCURSE RHONE NO. • 413-2964-4368 28 1999 0' : 3641 P2 On-Site Review Deep hole Number Oats - D2 4/ Time, 1410:ts)-.4.0.2 Wester ,- Location (identify on site plan) Lard Use kS n a=7.47--As. L Slope (%) Surface stones Vegetation ..1.•7 r1.• a7 ..a• as- 2›. s- Landform_21,:-.2 4.,./ Distances from Open Water Body 2.426 'eet Drainageway_adig_e_ feet Possible Wet Area 2,p0 feet Properly Line_LAWfeet Drinking Water Well A).o feet Other Parent Material (geologic): 37111. Depth to Bedrock Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: A/AAA... Weeping from Pit-Face: 44‘i. Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water:_ City of Northampton Board of Health 212 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 1.0)/19 ge__ 413-587-1214 Fee Collected:(3200 (..675/ Pere Test Date: PERC TEST WITNESS FEE c $200.00 per 3 hours c $75.00 per hours after 3 hours FEE'S ARE NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED 10 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING OF A PERC TEST Application for Percolation ("Pere") Test Date of Application: 7`2912022 Home Owner Name: Camille Washl nglonton-Ottombre & Garrett Washington Address: 42 Rustlewood Ridge (LOT 2) City Town State Zip Code: Northampton, MA 01060 SOIL EVALLIA TOR LICENSE NUMBER: 933 R.S.113 Engineero ADDRESS 350 Old Enfield Road, Belchertown, MA 01007 PHONE 413-323-5957 E-MAIL Aweiss@Coldspringenvironmental.com EXc AV ATOR Loven Excavating & Construction lovenexc@gmail.com (back-hoe oneraton ADDRESS 230 Reservior Road, Westhampton MA 01027 PHONE _ 413-695-7304 Western New England's Sustainability Leader wright-builders.com Ryan Crandall Vice President for Project Development rcrandall@wright-builders.com PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON CHECK LIST CZ New Construction q Repair/Upgrade VVRaff BUILDERS NC. (o) 413.586.8287 e.101 'ested New Construction only- Give Lot Numbers*** (m) 802.233.9062 Dig Safe Sign-Off: Gas Electrical Trench Permit/Info Sign Off from DPW (413) 587-1570 Fee Board of Health (..4e Or y BOARD OF HEALTH 11/1FRARFRS JOHN T. JOYCE, Chairman ANNE BURES, M.D. CYNTHIA DOURMASHKIN, R.N. PETER J. McERLAIN, Health Agent (413) 587-1214 FAX (413) 587-1264 CITY OF NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 01060 OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH 210 MAIN STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 PERCOLATION TEST FEES Date: April 27, 1999 TO: Paul Kolbjomsen 2 Cider Mill Rd. Haydenville, MA Perc Test requested by: Dennid LaCourse The Northampton Board of Health charges a fee for the witnessing of percolation tests: $20.00/hr. - Repair Peres (minimum fee $20.00) $40.00/hr - New Construction (minimum fee - $40.00). Date of Test Location Lot # Witnessed BY 1. 427/99 Rustel wood Ridge Lot 2_ _Peter McErlain 2. 3. 4. 5. Start Time Stop Time Hours 1. 9:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 2 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Hours: 2 $40.00/hr Amount due: $80.00 Please make checks payable to: The City of Northampton and mail to the Board of Health Office, 210 Main St. Thank you. 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix C – Stormwater Hydrology Calculations E1 Existing Site E Existing Routing Diagram for Northampton 42 Rustlewood Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 10/27/2022 HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Project Notes Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4007 MA Amherst Hampshire County Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4007 MA Amherst Hampshire County Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4324 MA West Springfield Hampden County Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (sq-ft) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1,900 98 Paved parking, HSG C (E1) 285,200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (E1) 287,100 70 TOTAL AREA NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=287,100 sf 0.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.78"Subcatchment E1: Existing Site Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=5.98 cfs 18,571 cf Inflow=5.98 cfs 18,571 cfLink E: Existing Primary=5.98 cfs 18,571 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 18,571 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.78" 99.34% Pervious = 285,200 sf 0.66% Impervious = 1,900 sf NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.98 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 18,571 cf, Depth= 0.78" Routed to Link E : Existing Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11" Area (sf) CN Description 285,200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1,900 98 Paved parking, HSG C 287,100 70 Weighted Average 285,200 99.34% Pervious Area 1,900 0.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E: Existing Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 0.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.78" for 2-Year event Inflow = 5.98 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 18,571 cf Primary = 5.98 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 18,571 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=287,100 sf 0.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.74"Subcatchment E1: Existing Site Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=14.33 cfs 41,747 cf Inflow=14.33 cfs 41,747 cfLink E: Existing Primary=14.33 cfs 41,747 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 41,747 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.74" 99.34% Pervious = 285,200 sf 0.66% Impervious = 1,900 sf NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 14.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 41,747 cf, Depth= 1.74" Routed to Link E : Existing Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 285,200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1,900 98 Paved parking, HSG C 287,100 70 Weighted Average 285,200 99.34% Pervious Area 1,900 0.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E: Existing Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 0.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.74" for 10-Year event Inflow = 14.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 41,747 cf Primary = 14.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 41,747 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=287,100 sf 0.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.51"Subcatchment E1: Existing Site Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=37.33 cfs 107,837 cf Inflow=37.33 cfs 107,837 cfLink E: Existing Primary=37.33 cfs 107,837 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 107,837 cf Average Runoff Depth = 4.51" 99.34% Pervious = 285,200 sf 0.66% Impervious = 1,900 sf NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 37.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 107,837 cf, Depth= 4.51" Routed to Link E : Existing Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05" Area (sf) CN Description 285,200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1,900 98 Paved parking, HSG C 287,100 70 Weighted Average 285,200 99.34% Pervious Area 1,900 0.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link E: Existing Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 0.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.51" for 100-Year event Inflow = 37.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 107,837 cf Primary = 37.33 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 107,837 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Table of ContentsNorthampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2 Project Notes 3 Area Listing (selected nodes) 2-Year Event 4 Node Listing 5 Subcat E1: Existing Site 6 Link E: Existing 10-Year Event 6 Node Listing 7 Subcat E1: Existing Site 8 Link E: Existing 100-Year Event 8 Node Listing 9 Subcat E1: Existing Site 10 Link E: Existing P1 Remaining Site P2 Central Site P3 Driveway 1P Stormwater Basin P Proposed Routing Diagram for Northampton 42 Rustlewood Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 10/27/2022 HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Project Notes Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4007 MA Amherst Hampshire County Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4007 MA Amherst Hampshire County Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 4324 MA West Springfield Hampden County Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (sq-ft) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 26,800 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (P1, P2, P3) 32,000 65 Brush, Good, HSG C (P1) 5,700 98 Paved parking, HSG C (P1, P2, P3) 2,300 98 Roofs, HSG C (P1, P2) 220,300 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (P1) 287,100 71 TOTAL AREA NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=265,800 sf 0.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.78"Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site Flow Length=50' Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=5.53 cfs 17,193 cf Runoff Area=17,600 sf 22.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.27"Subcatchment P2: Central Site Tc=5.0 min CN=79 Runoff=0.64 cfs 1,862 cf Runoff Area=3,700 sf 40.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.61"Subcatchment P3: Driveway Tc=5.0 min CN=84 Runoff=0.17 cfs 496 cf Peak Elev=368.23' Storage=503 cf Inflow=0.64 cfs 1,862 cfPond 1P: Stormwater Basin Discarded=0.12 cfs 1,862 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.12 cfs 1,862 cf Inflow=5.70 cfs 17,689 cfLink P: Proposed Primary=5.70 cfs 17,689 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 19,551 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.82" 97.21% Pervious = 279,100 sf 2.79% Impervious = 8,000 sf NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.53 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 17,193 cf, Depth= 0.78" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11" Area (sf) CN Description 300 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,200 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 32,000 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 220,300 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 265,800 70 Weighted Average 263,300 99.06% Pervious Area 2,500 0.94% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.17 Direct Entry, TC Summary for Subcatchment P2: Central Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.64 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,862 cf, Depth= 1.27" Routed to Pond 1P : Stormwater Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11" Area (sf) CN Description 2,000 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 13,600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,600 79 Weighted Average 13,600 77.27% Pervious Area 4,000 22.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Driveway [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.17 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 496 cf, Depth= 1.61" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11" Area (sf) CN Description 1,500 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,700 84 Weighted Average 2,200 59.46% Pervious Area 1,500 40.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin Inflow Area = 17,600 sf, 22.73% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.27" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.64 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,862 cf Outflow = 0.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 1,862 cf, Atten= 81%, Lag= 26.0 min Discarded = 0.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 1,862 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf Routed to Link P : Proposed Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 368.23' @ 12.55 hrs Surf.Area= 2,409 sf Storage= 503 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 37.0 min calculated for 1,862 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 36.8 min ( 895.0 - 858.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 368.00' 3,057 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 368.00 1,940 416.0 0 0 1,940 369.00 4,332 618.0 3,057 3,057 18,569 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 368.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 368.25'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.75 Width (feet) 5.00 8.00 NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.11"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Discarded OutFlow Max=0.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=368.23' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.12 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=368.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link P: Proposed Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 2.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.74" for 2-Year event Inflow = 5.70 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 17,689 cf Primary = 5.70 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 17,689 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=265,800 sf 0.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.74"Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site Flow Length=50' Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=13.27 cfs 38,649 cf Runoff Area=17,600 sf 22.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.46"Subcatchment P2: Central Site Tc=5.0 min CN=79 Runoff=1.25 cfs 3,609 cf Runoff Area=3,700 sf 40.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.91"Subcatchment P3: Driveway Tc=5.0 min CN=84 Runoff=0.31 cfs 896 cf Peak Elev=368.36' Storage=817 cf Inflow=1.25 cfs 3,609 cfPond 1P: Stormwater Basin Discarded=0.17 cfs 2,911 cf Primary=0.58 cfs 699 cf Outflow=0.75 cfs 3,610 cf Inflow=13.82 cfs 40,244 cfLink P: Proposed Primary=13.82 cfs 40,244 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 43,154 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.80" 97.21% Pervious = 279,100 sf 2.79% Impervious = 8,000 sf NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 13.27 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 38,649 cf, Depth= 1.74" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 300 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,200 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 32,000 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 220,300 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 265,800 70 Weighted Average 263,300 99.06% Pervious Area 2,500 0.94% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.17 Direct Entry, TC Summary for Subcatchment P2: Central Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.25 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3,609 cf, Depth= 2.46" Routed to Pond 1P : Stormwater Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 2,000 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 13,600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,600 79 Weighted Average 13,600 77.27% Pervious Area 4,000 22.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Driveway [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.31 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 896 cf, Depth= 2.91" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 1,500 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,700 84 Weighted Average 2,200 59.46% Pervious Area 1,500 40.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin Inflow Area = 17,600 sf, 22.73% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.25 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3,609 cf Outflow = 0.75 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 3,610 cf, Atten= 40%, Lag= 5.5 min Discarded = 0.17 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 2,911 cf Primary = 0.58 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 699 cf Routed to Link P : Proposed Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 368.36' @ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area= 2,681 sf Storage= 817 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 34.4 min calculated for 3,604 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 34.5 min ( 871.5 - 837.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 368.00' 3,057 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 368.00 1,940 416.0 0 0 1,940 369.00 4,332 618.0 3,057 3,057 18,569 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 368.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 368.25'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.75 Width (feet) 5.00 8.00 NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=4.60"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Discarded OutFlow Max=0.17 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=368.35' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.17 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.56 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=368.35' (Free Discharge) 2=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 0.56 cfs @ 1.05 fps) Summary for Link P: Proposed Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 2.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for 10-Year event Inflow = 13.82 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 40,244 cf Primary = 13.82 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 40,244 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-30.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 601 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=265,800 sf 0.94% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.51"Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site Flow Length=50' Tc=5.0 min CN=70 Runoff=34.56 cfs 99,836 cf Runoff Area=17,600 sf 22.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.55"Subcatchment P2: Central Site Tc=5.0 min CN=79 Runoff=2.76 cfs 8,147 cf Runoff Area=3,700 sf 40.54% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.14"Subcatchment P3: Driveway Tc=5.0 min CN=84 Runoff=0.63 cfs 1,894 cf Peak Elev=368.49' Storage=1,203 cf Inflow=2.76 cfs 8,147 cfPond 1P: Stormwater Basin Discarded=0.22 cfs 4,869 cf Primary=2.09 cfs 3,278 cf Outflow=2.31 cfs 8,147 cf Inflow=37.04 cfs 105,008 cfLink P: Proposed Primary=37.04 cfs 105,008 cf Total Runoff Area = 287,100 sf Runoff Volume = 109,877 cf Average Runoff Depth = 4.59" 97.21% Pervious = 279,100 sf 2.79% Impervious = 8,000 sf NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Remaining Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 34.56 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 99,836 cf, Depth= 4.51" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05" Area (sf) CN Description 300 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,200 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 32,000 65 Brush, Good, HSG C 220,300 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 265,800 70 Weighted Average 263,300 99.06% Pervious Area 2,500 0.94% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 50 0.17 Direct Entry, TC Summary for Subcatchment P2: Central Site [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 2.76 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,147 cf, Depth= 5.55" Routed to Pond 1P : Stormwater Basin Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05" Area (sf) CN Description 2,000 98 Roofs, HSG C 2,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 13,600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17,600 79 Weighted Average 13,600 77.27% Pervious Area 4,000 22.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Driveway [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.63 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 1,894 cf, Depth= 6.14" Routed to Link P : Proposed Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05" Area (sf) CN Description 1,500 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,700 84 Weighted Average 2,200 59.46% Pervious Area 1,500 40.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin Inflow Area = 17,600 sf, 22.73% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.55" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.76 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 8,147 cf Outflow = 2.31 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 8,147 cf, Atten= 16%, Lag= 2.6 min Discarded = 0.22 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 4,869 cf Primary = 2.09 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 3,278 cf Routed to Link P : Proposed Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs / 2 Peak Elev= 368.49' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 2,997 sf Storage= 1,203 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 30.2 min calculated for 8,133 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 30.1 min ( 841.4 - 811.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 368.00' 3,057 cf Custom Stage Data (Irregular) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Perim. Inc.Store Cum.Store Wet.Area (feet) (sq-ft) (feet) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) (sq-ft) 368.00 1,940 416.0 0 0 1,940 369.00 4,332 618.0 3,057 3,057 18,569 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 368.00'1.020 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 368.25'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.75 Width (feet) 5.00 8.00 NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=8.05"Northampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Discarded OutFlow Max=0.22 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=368.49' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.22 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=368.49' (Free Discharge) 2=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 2.05 cfs @ 1.57 fps) Summary for Link P: Proposed Inflow Area = 287,100 sf, 2.79% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.39" for 100-Year event Inflow = 37.04 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 105,008 cf Primary = 37.04 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 105,008 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Table of ContentsNorthampton 42 Rustlewood Printed 10/27/2022Prepared by Berkshire Design Group HydroCAD® 10.20-2g s/n 00752 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Reports 1 Routing Diagram 2 Project Notes 3 Area Listing (selected nodes) 2-Year Event 4 Node Listing 5 Subcat P1: Remaining Site 6 Subcat P2: Central Site 6 Subcat P3: Driveway 7 Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin 8 Link P: Proposed 10-Year Event 8 Node Listing 9 Subcat P1: Remaining Site 10 Subcat P2: Central Site 10 Subcat P3: Driveway 11 Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin 12 Link P: Proposed 100-Year Event 12 Node Listing 13 Subcat P1: Remaining Site 14 Subcat P2: Central Site 14 Subcat P3: Driveway 15 Pond 1P: Stormwater Basin 16 Link P: Proposed 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix D – Illicit Discharge Statement October 27, 2022 Illicit Discharge Statement The stormwater management system outlined in these plans is the system for conveying, treating, and infiltrating stormwater on site including stormwater best management practices intended to transport stormwater to the ground water. The control measures that have been included in the attached plans will be strictly followed to ensure that only storm water related discharges occur. By definition, an illicit discharge does not include discharges from the following activities or facilities: firefighting, water line flushing, landscape irrigation, uncontaminated ground water, potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, footing drains, individual resident car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, de-chlorinated water from swimming pools, water used for street washing and water used to clean residential buildings without detergents. Illicit discharges, if they exist currently, will be contained and eliminated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations and will be prohibited in the proposed project. Christopher Chamberland, PE for Garrett Washington & Camille Washington-Ottombre 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix E – Stormwater Management System – Operation & Maintenance Plan 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing, stakes and straw bales/wattles, sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long, shall be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may be damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all 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 any of the following: · A storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. · A storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. · A single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one-half inch. · A storm not meeting the previous three thresholds but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is elevated. In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. The Northampton Department of Public Works shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems or erosion and sediment control measures, and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body (stream, brook, pond, etc.). The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one-half of the original installed height of the barrier. This project requires a NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities. Contractor and Owner are responsible for finalizing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and filing for the NDPES permit prior to the start of construction. All clearing, grading, drainage, construction, and development shall be conducted in strict accordance with the SWPPP. 42 Rustlewood Ridge October 27, 2022 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: Homeowner Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: Homeowner Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: 1) Grass Swales The Rustlewood development includes stone and grass swales to convey stormwater. Inspect swales or conveyances multiple times in the first few months after construction and twice per year thereafter. Look for signs of erosion and, if found, repair immediately. Swales shall be mowed at least once per year to prevent the growth of shrubs or trees but may be mowed more often at the discretion of the property owner. 2) Storm Drain Outlet Protection The integrity of riprap outlet armoring shall be inspected twice per year for signs of dislodged stones or erosion at the perimeter of the apron. Any damage shall be repaired to return the apron to the condition shown in the contract documents. While some growth of herbaceous plants is expected, regular trimming is required to prevent growth from restricting the free flow of water across the apron. 3) Rain garden & Stormwater Basin The rain garden and stormwater basin shall be inspected twice per year for sediment accumulation and signs of damage or erosion. Sediment shall be removed any time it has accumulated more than 2”. Sediment shall be removed annually, preferably during spring cleanup. At that time, sediment and the previous year’s mulch shall be removed and new mulch installed. Failure of the system to drain (ponding 48 hours after the end of the storm) shall result in inspection and cleaning. Sediments shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. It is recommended that sediment removal be performed after the completion of the spring snow melt. Inspections shall identify any damage or signs of erosion within basins or the overflow berm. Damage shall be repaired immediately. Plantings shall be maintained (weeding, clipping, mowing if applicable) yearly at a minimum. Clippings and other organic matter shall be removed from the rain garden and disposed of appropriately. 42 Rustlewood Ridge Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix F – Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Checklist Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report A. Introduction Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. The Stormwater Report must include: · The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer (see page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.1 This Checklist is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. · Applicant/Project Name · Project Address · Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report · Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 · Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required by Standard 82 · Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. 1 The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. 2 For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project: No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs LID Site Design Credit Requested: Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) Treebox Filter Water Quality Swale Grass Channel Green Roof Other (describe): Restoration of existing forest disturbance resulting in reduced runoff 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. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge Soil Analysis provided. Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field1 Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. 1 80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge (continued) The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: · Good housekeeping practices; · Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; · Vehicle washing controls; · Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; · Spill prevention and response plans; · Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; · Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; · Pet waste management provisions; · Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; · Provisions for solid waste management; · Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; · Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; · Street sweeping schedules; · Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; · Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; · Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; · List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area is near or to other critical areas is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour) involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: The ½” or 1” Water Quality Volume or The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. All exposure has been eliminated. All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: Limited Project Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff Bike Path and/or Foot Path Redevelopment Project Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: · Narrative; · Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; · Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; · Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; · Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; · Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; · Vegetation Planning; · Site Development Plan; · Construction Sequencing Plan; · Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; · Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; · Inspection Schedule; · Maintenance Schedule; · Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. Stormwater Checklist.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control (continued) The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and includes the following information: Name of the stormwater management system owners; Party responsible for operation and maintenance; Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; Description and delineation of public safety features; Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and Operation and Maintenance Log Form. The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater Report includes the following submissions: A copy of the legal instrument (deed, homeowner’s association, utility trust or other legal entity) that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project site stormwater BMPs; A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMPs.