Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-04-18 Stormwater Mgmt Report SPR
Andover,Stormwater Management Report Merrimack College 0 Athletic Distoct Improvements Massachusetts Prepared for Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 (978) 83.7--5000 Prepared by anasse anen Brus.tlin, Inc. Transportation, Land Development, Environmental Services 101 Walnut Street P:O. Box 9151 Watertown; Massachusetts 02472-4026 (617) 92471770 j' Date: March 7, 2017 Rev 1: March 10, 2017 4 Rev 2: ' April 11, 2017 Rev 3: April 24, 2017 f4vwwAlo'Idf1625.iz`ar,AdslSlortmvaledil q . 625.12-Stonnwaler Re,-t Rev 3[2017V- 1 241 da I Table of Contents Table of Contents Stormwater Report Narrative • Figure 1—Site Locus (USGS) • Figure 2a—Existing Conditions Drainage Areas • Figure 2b—Proposed Conditions Drainage Areas • Figure 3— Martone-Mejail Field Modifications Regulatory Compliance • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): Stormwater Management Standards • Town of Andover: Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations • Town of North Andover: Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations Appendix A:Standard 1 Computations and Supporting Information • Closed Drainage System Calculations Appendix B: Standard 2 Computations and Supporting Information • HydroCAD Analysis: Existing Conditions a) 2-Year Storm Event b) 10-Year Storm Event c) 25-Year Storm Event d) 100-Year Storm Event • HydroCAD Analysis: Proposed Conditions a) 2-Year Storm Event b) 10-Year Storm Event c) 25-Year Storm Event d) 100-Year Storm Event • Martone-Mejail Pond Volume Mitigation Summary Appendix C:Standard 3 Computations and Supporting Information • NRCS Soil Survey Map UMAWALOtId,11625.72tRpoAstStennwate?.11 1 625.12-Stan Iw ,Repel-Rev 2017-04- 111 d. • Geotechnical Investigation Report • VHB Subsurface Exploration Summary • Recharge Calculations Appendix D:Standard 4 Computations and Supporting Information • Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan • Long Term BMP Maintenance Table • Figure Dl—Stormwater BMP Location Plan • Stormceptor Inspection & Maintenance Manual • Water Quality Volume Calculations &STC Design Summary • TSS Removal Worksheets Appendix E:Standard S Supporting Information • Figure El—Critical Areas for Stormwater Discharges Appendix F:Standard 8 Supporting Information • Recommended Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Controls • Construction Period BMP Maintenance Table Appendix G:Standard 10 Supporting Information • Illicit Discharge Statement Appendix H:Approved Stormwater Management Plan Documents • Merrimack College Master Drainage Study and Hydrologic Analysis & Original Order of Conditions (DEP File No. 090-0750) • Amended Order of Conditions(DEP File No. 090-0750)for North Campus Development,October 2016 • Peak Flow Summary by Project per Stormwater Master Plan • Stormwater Flow Monitoring Summary Memorandum Appendix I:Abutter Notifications • Abutter Notification Letter • Town of Andover Abutters List • Town of North Andover Abutter List :7M17AWALOHd177d<5.12\repoAstStonnwate`,17 625.1'[-Stormnater Recur;-Rev 2 2017-0•t- 2 11.1 d. Checklist for Stormwater Report 'AlAVIALOtldit 1625.iP.repodsistcrtnwate+di r� 6 25.12 Stormwaler Ppo,.-Rev 2 20174Ue- l t].d. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program A. Introduction Important:When A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document filling out forms compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards.The following checklist is NOT a substitute for on the computer, (use only the tab p ort the Stormwater Re which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered key to move your here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their cursor-do not Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, use the return the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in key. 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.' 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. '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. z 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. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report.The checklist is also intended to provide conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards. Note: Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not applicable (N.A.)and provide the reasons for that determination. A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional Engineer who prepared the Stormwater.Report. Registered Professional Engineer's Certification I have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations, Long-term Pollution Prevention Plan, the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included), the Long- term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement(if included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. I have also determined that the information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application. Registered Professional Engineer Block and Signature PLAN OF 444 tiG JEFFREY W. 'z KOETTERITZ CIVIC. No,50595�0 �Q NISI STEP SIONAI�`aG� /1v/17 Signature and Dat i Checklist Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and redevelopment? ❑ New development ❑ Redevelopment ® Mix of New Development and Redevelopment 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 2 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report 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): Athletic Field Stone Storage and Infiltration System -- 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. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist>04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program 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 Field' ❑ 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. 21 E 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. 21 E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. '80%TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist-Page 4 of 8 Ilk 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. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist-04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Li u %j K V R Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) ® The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: ® The'/2' 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. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist^04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist^Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection | ' Bureau of Resource Protection 'Wetlands Program | AV%������"�� �= � ��������������� �������=� � ��.� ������������ ���� ������ � mm �� �����m Report Checklist (continued) Stondand7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only tn the maximum . extent practicable The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: [] Limited Project 1771 Small Residential Projects: 5-Q single family houses or5-9 units in multi-family development � provided there io no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. � Fl Small Residential Projects: 2'4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development � with a discharge tou critical area i [l Marina andfor boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure hn rain, snow, snow melt and runoff M Bike Path and/or Foot Path Fl Redevelopment Project Z Redevelopment portion nf mix of new and redevelopment. �� Cehuinstandards are not fully met(Standard No. 1. 8. Q` and 1O must always bo fully nno0and an -� explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. 17� The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to -- improve existing conditions io provided in the StormvvaterReport. The rodeva|opmontchecklist found \nVo|ume2Chapter3ofthoK4aanaohuoettaStormvvobsrHandbookmay bo used to document that the proposed atonnvvoter management system (a)complies with Standards 2. 3 and the pretreatment and structural BN1P requirements of Standards 4'0tothe maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Stondard8: 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 ov 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 StVnnwuterReport. � ��----�� ammnwu�,no»n�cxerme:^Page /o/x ' no���."'�=.°"=' ^"=°"'='~~~^`~ � � Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Repw%ort 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. Z 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. 11625.12-Stormwater Checklist•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 8 of 8 o%rmwater Management Report Narrative This Stormwater Management Report has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations(310 CMR 10.00) and Water Quality Certification Regulations(314 CMR 9.00).This report also demonstrates compliance with the Town of Andover and Town of North Andover rules and regulations for stormwater design and mitigation. Project Description The Athletics District Improvements project(the "Project") at Merrimack College consists of a series of modifications to the existing Athletics facilities located in the south-eastern portion of the campus. The Project includes a modern synthetic turf field and running track, viewing bleachers (2,500 seats), a new field house building for concessions, bathrooms,team/locker rooms and a small Merrimack Club event area, as well as associated hardscaping and landscaping, adjacent to Cullen Avenue. Upgrades are proposed to consolidate existing paths behind the Ash Centre to provide a 20-ft.wide limited access path from Fenton Road up to the new field house building. This path will promote a pedestrian connection from Walsh Way to the Athletics District, and provide an upgrade to emergency vehicle access to the new facilities. The Project also proposes minor modifications to the existing baseball field including reconfiguration of the infield and adjustment of foul lines and fence posts within the existing limits of development. As the existing softball field is displaced by the proposed synthetic field,the Project also includes a modification to the existing Martone-Mejail multi-use synthetic turf field,to provide a bump-out at the southeast corner allowing for softball to be accommodated on the existing field, with backstop, dugouts, upgrades to the existing bituminous concrete walkways and a concrete pad for discus throw as identified in Figure 3. Lastly, in order to improve pedestrian circulation and access to existing available parking,the Project proposes to construct a boardwalk connection through the wetland resource area from the northwest corner of the existing Martone-Mejail field,to the northeast corner of Parking Lot J. The Project is not considered a Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL). IAMWALU,Id,.11625.72k-ep.,t SlonmvaWdI 625.12-Stor [w ,Repel-Rev 2:'.2917aW- 111 d. Site Description The Project Site is an 11.5-acre portion of the Merrimack College campus (the Site) located in Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts.The Site is bounded by Cullen Avenue to the east,the Ash Centre and Fenton Road to the north, and the bordering vegetated wetland system to the south and west. The Site lies within the surface watershed of Berry Brook. See Figure 1,Site Locus Map. The existing site is comprised mostly of the existing Merrimack College athletics fields, some wooded area to the north by the Ash Centre, and existing walkways and paths. A separate Notice of Intent(NOI) has been submitted concurrently with this report pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(WPA)and applicable municipal bylaws. Wetland resource areas on or near the Project Site were identified by VHB environmental scientists in January 2016 in accordance with methods developed by the DEP and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland resource areas identified on the Project Site include bordering vegetated wetlands(BVW) as summarized below, and as further described in the NOI report. Table 1 Wetland Resource Areas Zone 1 or ORW or Zone 11 Name Critical Area Zone A SRW or IWPA Other Wetland 3 No No No No N/A Per the National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS),surface soils on the Site include Ridgebury fine sandy loam,Whitman loam, Woodbridge fine sandy loam and Udorthents urban fill.On-site soils are classified as Hydrologic Soil Groups (HSG) C/D. Based on the soil evaluation included in Appendix C,the Site is not considered to be within an area of rapid infiltration (soils with a saturated hydraulic conductivity greater than 2.4 inches per hour). Refer to Appendix C for the Geotechnical Investigation Report, prepared by John Turner Consulting (JTC)and dated May 16,2016. Per the geotechnical report borings, groundwater levels were observed at approximately 4-8 feet below grade. This geotechnical report has been supplemented with field testing performed in February 2017 by a licensed soil evaluator to provide soil textural analysis and determine estimated seasonal high groundwater table (ESHGWT). Associated summary of findings,test pit location plan, and test pit logs are also included in Appendix C. .+PrtAWALD;id!i1b<"5.iT2�rls�SleRnwale^.11 625,12-Stm tw ,Rear:-Ru2(2017-DE- 5 1 ':]d. Merrimack lle a Stormwater Master Ian The proposed project lies within the area of the Merrimack College Stormwater Master Plan,which was developed in 2001 to address the 2020 Master Plan build-out of the campus. The Stormwater Master Plan included the development of two large extended detention areas on the campus. These detention areas have been constructed and provide capacity to address peak rates of discharge for the Master Plan build-out of the campus. An Order of Conditions(DEP#090-0750)was issued for the Stormwater Master Plan in 2001 by the Andover Conservation Commission, This Order provides for a peak flow rate credit system based on 100-yr storm to address the build-out of the campus, and a mechanism with the Conservation Commission to approve new developments on the campus based on these credits. A copy of the Order of Conditions (DEP#090-0750) and Stormwater Master Plan Narrative are included in Appendix G. Existing Drainage Conditions The Project Site consists mostly of the existing athletic fields on the Merrimack College campus (existing softball, baseball and practice natural grass, and multi-use synthetic turf fields), a few walkways and maintenance access paths, and a wooded area adjacent to Cullen Ave/Ash Centre,with generally flat topography. Figure 2a illustrates the existing drainage patterns on the Site. Sub-catchment areas have been delineated based on existing topography and drainage patterns,and have been identified in accordance with the Master Drainage Study(included in Appendix G) as relative to areas M-1B-2 and M-113-3. The Site is divided into four(4)total drainage areas which drain to two (2) design points,the Wetland Area (for sub- catchments M-1B-2) and the Football Field Area (for sub-catchments M-113-3). Per the Stormwater Master Plan, both project design points are ultimately tributary to the Football Field Detention Basin. Table 2 below provides a summary of the existing conditions hydrologic data. Table 2a Existing Conditions Hydrologic Data Time of Discharge Design Area Curve Concentration Drainage Area Location Point (acres) Number (min) (M-113)2 Wetland Area DP-16-2 1.7 80 8.7 (M-113)3.1 Football Field Area DP-1B-3 2.6 85 12.8 SAIAWAL[Nd111625.t 2lrepotls5lertmvate?.11 n25.t2-Stormwalerkwor:-Rev 2(2017 N- 6 t':]d. (M-1B)3.2 Football Field Area DP-113-3 7.3 83 14.3 (M-113)3.3 Football Field Area DP-1B-3 1.2 98 5.0 Proposed Drainage Conditions Figure 2b illustrates the proposed "post construction"drainage conditions for the project.As shown, the Site will be divided into seven (7) drainage areas that discharge treated stormwater to the two (2) existing design points. The proposed drainage areas have been further subdivided to evaluate the storage benefit of the proposed synthetic turf field and associated stone storage volume. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable and in accordance with the Stormwater Master Plan. Table 3 below provides a summary of the proposed conditions hydrologic data. Table 2b Proposed Conditions Hydrologic Data Time of Discharge Design Area Curve Concentration Drainage Area Location Point (acres) Number (min) (M-113)20 Wetland Area DP-113-2 1.2 80 8.7 (M-113)30.1 Football Field Area DP-113-3 2.1 87 9.8 (M-113)30.2 Football Field Area DP-1B-3 4.6 89 14.5 (M-113)30.3 Football Field Area DP-16-3 1.2 98 5.0 (M-113)30.4a Football Field Area DP-1B-3 1.0 98 5.0 (M-1B)30.4b Football Field Area DP-16-3 1.0 98 5.0 (M-113)30.5 Football Field Area DP-1B-3 1.7 98 5.0 Runoff from the track surface and synthetic turf field drain through the field system. The synthetic turf field drains vertically,through a 12" cross-section containing two layers of filter fabric and 12" of free-draining gravel. The synthetic turf field subbase can hold up to 2/3 of an acre foot of stormwater during a major storm event.The result is that any stormwater that lands on the field is filtered by fabric and stone, encouraging infiltration and eliminating the movements of silt, sand or any solids through the field drainage system. Similarly,the 400m track surface is graded with a constant 1%inward pitch toward a perimeter trench drain on the inside of the first lane line around the entire track. Stormwater from the track is collected in the trench drain and sent into the lateral collector drains as shown in Detail #6 of Sheet L4 of the record set. Because the track surface is covered with a 1/2" resilient rubber surface, vehicles are not allowed on the track and the surface is never treated with salt or sand the way you might expect in a typical parking lot surface.The result is that the track and field drainage are effectively a closed drainage system, filtering water and encouraging infiltration before the flow would typically reach the outfall point. Runoff from the adjacent hardscape areas are collected in deep-sump area drain structures or trench drains, and diverted to the closed drainage system network. The MIAWALD.1d,11625A2kepodslSI..n teM1 625.12-Starmx Ia,Rep,..-Rev2(2d17-0!- 11]d. proposed Fieldhouse Building is included with a series of downspout connections which tie to the proposed drainage network. Proprietary water quality treatment is provided for this area prior to discharge into the existing closed drainage system. Integrated into the site design is a comprehensive stormwater management system that has been developed in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook,Town of Andover stormwater standards,Town of North Andover stormwater standards, and the previous Stormwater Master Plan approval.This design relies in part on the stormwater improvement developed as part of the Master Plan.The proposed stormwater management system has been designed to treat the half inch Water Quality Volume. 6MAWALOA I i 162512'de;.rls'Sloon Ie^dt 017V- O p R25.12-Stmmxaler Repod-Rev2(2 d. Figure l: Site Locus Map ;AMWALD:Id;i 76'<b.124reRodstStortnwateAll n 625.12-St- --tlrRq,.O::-Rev 22017ak- 7 III dx \\vhb\proj\Nat-LD\11625.12\cad\Id\Planmisc\Stormwater Report Figures\11625.12-Site Locus.dwg memonai fV 11 t' San Sch' y Q ST f ri 125-F - " rsE T tie BM 7 Holy ceps Anpi er wID i w r � 1 I � Site CO 62,5 JJ) F '•--- 1 `fit mil/ ' U,' Pb 125 4 . ( . emy { i f t n ••Y t } 7, F 3 , } Figure 1 - Site Locus Map 'Vhb Athletic Distric Improvements Merrimack College, North Andover, MA Source:VHB Prepared for.Planning Board Meeting 0 1000 2000Feet Date:February 27,2017 Figure 2a: Existing Conditions Drainage Areas liPoMALUldl11625.121mpodslSiort teMl 625.12-Stour (w ,Rp,d-Rv22017a)4- 10 11]d. �=���� ����������� u����������=�������� ��1��������� i�~�'m �� ����� � �������� ����� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) - Stormwater Management Standards As demonstrated below,the proposed Project fully complies with the DEP StormwaterK8anagement Standards. ���������������������������������������������������� Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges or Erosion to Wetlands The Project has been designed to fully comply with Standard l. The Best Management Practices (BK4P$ included in the proposed stormwater management system have been designed in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.Supporting information and computations demonstrating that no new untreated discharges will result from the Project are presented through compliance with Standards 4 through 6. All proposed Project stormwute/conveyances have been designed to not cause erosion or scour to wetlands or receiving waters. No new discharge points are proposed. Closed drainage system calculations have been prepared and included under Appendix A. ---------------. ......................--............................................................................................. Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation The Project has been designed to fully comply with Standard 2, in reliance in part on the improvements constructed as part ofthe 5tormvvater Master Plan. The rainfall-runoff response of the Site under existing and proposed conditions was analyzed for storm events with recurrence intervals of2' lO' 25 and I00-years.The rainfall depth values used in the analysis are consistent with the approved Stormwater Master Plan. The results of the analysis, as summarized in Table below, indicate that there is no increase in peak discharge rates between the existing and proposed conditions for design points DP-lB-J. DP-IB-3 and the k4artone-Mpjai| Field improvements result in a net increase in peak flows, but these are well within those approved by the Stormwater Master Plan. �«WA»Id,"ms 13 m^u-�°�°�w-m°,vwx" Computations and supporting information regarding the hydrologic modeling are included in Appendix B. Table 4.1 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) & Volumes (cf) - Existing Conditions Design Point 2-year 10-year 25 year 100-year DP-1B-2 Rate(cfs) 2.7 5.2 6.3 7.3 Volume(af) 0.214 0.410 0.499 0.580 DP-1B-3 Rate(cfs) 18.2 32.6 38.9 44.6 Volume(af) 1.796 3.195 3.818 4.379 TOTAL TO FOOTBALL FIELD BASIN Rate(cfs) 20.9 37.8 45.2 51.9 Volume(af) 2.010 31605 4.317 4.959 Table 4.2 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) & Volumes (cf) - Proposed Conditions Design Point 2-year 10-year 25 year 100-year DP-1B-2 Rate(cfs) 1.9 3.8 4.6 5.3 Volume(af) 0,155 0.297 0.362 0.421 DP-1B-3 Rate(cfs) 23.1 36.2 41.9 46.9 Volume(af) 2.406 3.928 4.591 5.183 TOTAL TO FOOTBALL FIELD BASIN Rate(cfs) 25.0 40.0 46.5 52.2 Volume(af) 2.561 4.225 4.953 5.604 Calculations have also been performed to evaluate the impact of the proposed modifications to the Martone-Mejail field. These proposed improvements result in a net increase in impervious area from existing conditions of 10,080 square feet. Table 4.2 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) - Martone-Mejail Field 100 year Area CN TC Flow Rate Design Point (sfl (cfs) DP-1B-2 EX 10,080 48 5.0 0.25 PR 10,080 98 5.0 1A2 DELTA 1.17 IMAWALNdi 11625.121;e,^,od,'Stonnwat&.11 14 625_12-Sto-ter Rear:-Rev 2 2017-0<- 111 d. The Stormwater Master Plan approval established a credit of 62 cfs for the 100-year storm. This credit is currently under review with the proposed modifications submitted for the North Campus Development and Sakowich Campus Center Expansion, which as proposed, establish the remaining available stormwater credit to 18.53 cfs. As outlined below,the Athletics District project results in a net increase of 1.20 cfs for the 100-year storm, and therefore proposes to reduce the available stormwater credit to 17.33 cfs. A table of all credits applied under the Stormwater Master Plan is also included in Appendix G. Table 4.3 Summary of Athletics Peak Flow Impacts Description 100-year Peak Flow Rate(cfs) Track/Field/Fieldhouse&Hardscape Improvements 0.30 Martone-Mejail Field Improvements 1.17 Total Proposed Deduct from Bank 1.20 As the current Martone-Mejail field is part of the Football Field Detention Basin per the Stormwater Master Plan, a volume mitigation analysis has also been performed to confirm the proposed modifications do not reduce the storage volume of the basin. The Project includes minor re-grading of the area south of the expansion for the proposed basin volumes to meet or exceed the existing volumes at each foot of elevation. It should be additionally noted that per the expanded synthetic turf extents, additional storage volume is proposed in the underlying stone section of the field. Supporting calculations are included in Appendix B. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard 3: Stormwater Recharge Due to the site being comprised of C and D soils and high ESHGWT,the potential for proposed infiltration is limited. Recharge of stormwater has been provided through the use of the athletic field stone storage/infiltration system which has been sized using the static method. The field design includes panel drains as overflow to the closed drainage system, and the stone storage beneath the field provides a substantial area to promote infiltration within a very shallow profile. Per the Subsurface Exploration Summary included in Appendix C,the(3) of the nine (9)test pits performed indicate that the proposed turf stone storage will have less than 2-ft. vertical separation from bottom of stone profile to ESHGWT, with a minimum separation of 6", however a majority of the field system will be situated in areas with 2-ft.vertical separation or greater. The Project results in a net increase in impervious area of 3-acres from existing conditions. With consideration of some additional improvements to the existing pavement at Fenton Road for the proposed access lane,the Project Site Impervious Area is established as 3.26-acres. In accordance with the Stormwater Handbook,the Required Recharge Volume for the Project is therefore 2,961 cubic feet. The infiltration BMP has been designed to drain completely within 72 hours.Table 5 below provides a summary of the proposed infiltration BMPs utilized for the Project. 'AtAWA�Gild'`.I 1 G25.12:�,,AsISlnmm 10,11 q C 825.12-St_--If,Rq.,i-R.,2 2017-04- 1✓ 1)d. Table 5 Summary of Rechar2e Calculations Infiltration BMP Provided RechErge Volume(cubic feet) Athletic Turf Field 1nfiltration System 3,840 Total Provided Recharge 3'840 Total Required R b 2,961 Soil evaluation (indudingGeotechnica| Report)' computations, and supporting information are included in Appendix[. __'___—' _ Standard 4: Water Quality The Project has been designed to fully comply with Standard 4. The proposed stormwater management system implements a treatment train of BMPs that has been designed to provide 80%TSS removal of stormwater runoff from the proposed ha/dscapeareas. It should be noted that there isno parking orprimary vehicular access proposed within the project limits, and that the impervious areas are primarily limited to pedestrian and service/emergency access. It also be noted that the track surface is not tobe treated with salt or sand for deicing. Computations and supporting information, including the Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan, are included in Appendix D. ____ _--------' Standard 5: Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) The Project is not considered aLUHPPL __---_................................. Standard 6: Critical Areas The Project will not discharge stormvvater near orto a critical area, refer to Figure El in Appendix E. ������������������������������_����_����������������. Standard 7: Redevelunpmments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the Maximum Extent Practicable The Project has been designed to fully comply with the Stormwater Management Standards with exception of Standard 3 as noted above,due to the site comprised of [and D soils, and proximity of the ESHGVVT. n�m�w 16 Refer directly to each Standard for applicable computations and supporting information demonstrating compliance with each. Standard 8: Constmmction Period Pollution Prevention and Emmaiunn and Sedimentation Controls The Project will disturb approximately 12.8 acres ofland and is therefore required to obtain coverage under the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit.As required under this permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)will be developed and submitted before land disturbance begins. Recommended construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation controls to be finalized in the , SVVPPP are included in Appendix F. ��������������������������������........................................................ Standard 9: Operati«on and Maintenance Plan ln compliance with Standard 9, a Post Construction Stormwater Operation and Maintenance(]&M) Plan has been developed for the Project. The O&M Plan is included in Appendix D as part of the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan. ���������������������������������������������� ........... Standard 10: Pmohibitixxn of Illicit Discharges The design plans submitted with this report have been designed in full compliance with current standards. The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage structures remaining from previous development which are part of the redevelopment area will be removed or will be incorporated into updated sanitary sewer and separate stormvvoter sewer systems.The design plans submitted with this report have been designed cn that the components included therein are infull compliance with current standards. No statement is made with regard to the drainage system in portions of the site not included inthe redevelopment project area.An illicit discharge statement has been included in AppendixG. Local Municipal Rules and Standards - Town of over Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations As demonstrated below,the proposed Project complies with the Town of Andover Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations to the maximum extent practical. ..................................................................................................................................................................... ................... Standard A: Stormwater Recharge See DEP Standard#3 Above, and Appendix C for supporting information. ............... ............................................................................................................................................. .................. Standard B: Pre-Treatment Basins The Project does not include Pre-Treatment Basins. ....................I...........................................-.....................................................1-...................................................... Standard C: Flooding Protection The project is designed consistent with the Flooding Protection requirements and the approved Merrimack College Stormwater Master Plan. See DEP Standard#2—Peak Rate Attenuation, and Appendix B. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Standard D: Channel Protection The Project does not include channels. ............................................................................................................................................................................................ Standard E: Water Quality Treatment Volumes The water quality treatment volume has been designed to provide treatment for the 1/2" of volume over impervious surfaces in conformance with the Regulations. See DEP Standard#4—Water Quality, and Appendix D. ...........................................................................................__............................................................................................... Standard F: Erosion Controls The Project has been designed in accordance with the standard. Elevations of the proposed athletic facilities have been established in order to minimize earthwork cuts MIAWAL DIM,.I 1625.12',repodvSO—tel 1 625 12-St(�,Repflt-Re,2'2017-04- 18 1111 d. and fills. Grading has been kept to a minimum and is blended into the existing grades as quickly as possible to minimize construction and impacts to existing vegetation. Erosion controls have been proposed to protect downstream areas from sedimentation. The project will require a Stormwater Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a NPDES construction General Permit. The design plans include a reference to the standard and a requirement that the project be constructed in conformance with the Andover Stormwater and Erosion Control Regulations. See DEP Standard#8—Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Controls, and Appendix F. ............................................................................................................................................................................... Standard : Engineering Criteria-Infiltration, Detention and Retention Basins The Project does not include Infiltration, Detention or Retention basins. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard : Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria for All Designs The Project is designed in accordance with Standard H. All sidewalks, roof tops, porches and drive ways are considered impervious area. The project is designed consistent with the approved Stormwater Master Plan and includes no new outlets. Runoff from the site is designed using a 24-hour storm. 11626 1212Poft Slmmwateed 1 1" 625.12-St.—(,Repxi-Rev 2,2t717-01- 7 111 du Local Municipal Rules and Standards - Town of North Andover Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations As demonstrated below,the proposed Project complies with the Town of North Andover Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Regulations to the maximum extent practical. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard : Low Impact Design (LID) The Project proposes to utilize a shallow profile infiltration system within the athletic field stone storage, in order to provide recharge in the constrained soil conditions. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard B: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria A hydrologic analysis has been performed per TR-55 methodology as included in Appendix B, and DEP Standard #2 above. Rainfall events have been held as determined by the Stormwater Master Plan for direct correlation to the stormwater peak flow credit system. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard C: Recharge Recharge is proposed to be met to the maximum extent practicable based on ESHGWT elevations outlined in Appendix C. The Project provides the required recharge volume in full, however due to the variable soil conditions as identified in Appendix C, a portion of the field area does not provide 2-ft,vertical separation to ESHGWT. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard : Water Quality The water quality treatment volume has been designed to provide treatment for the :/z"of volume over impervious surfaces in conformance with the Regulations. See DEP Standard#4—Water Quality, and Appendix D. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard E: Redevelopment The Project consists of redevelopment of the existing athletics facilities. The Project has been designed to fully comply with the Stormwater Management Standards with exception of Standard 3 as noted above, due to the site comprised of C and D soils, and proximity of the ESHGWT. 'AlAWALMIdi_i 7ti25.12 regodslSlennwafe:111 625_12-Stm Wt,R 20 epnd-R.22017-Ot- 2 1 ?1 d. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Standard F: Landscape Design The Project will include landscape plantings to enhance the new Athletic facilities. IAIAWALoudl11625.i2:,�rLsiSlemiwate I rt� $25,12-Stor (w ,Repur:-Rev22017�34- L 1 ?1 d. Appendix A Standard 1 Computations and Supporting Information • Closed Drainage System Calculations 625,12hiDJd1 l7 ,R2 e.-RS21[20a7N- 22 ' fi25.tt-Stormvvaler Reonr:-Rev Z 2077�D�-'- J11A c Closed raina a System Calculations "UWALffild,.17 E25.121reyoAslStertnwatehlt 625.12-St. -ate,Recur-Reu 2[201744- 23 1 d. AR Appendix B Standard 2 Computations and Supporting Information Rainfall volumes used for this analysis were based on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)Type III, 24-hour storm event for Essex County. The rainfall depth values used in the analysis are consistent with the approved Stormwater Master Plan. Runoff coefficients for the existing and proposed conditions, as previously shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively,were determined using MRCS Technical Release 55 (TR-55) methodology as provided in HydroCAD.The HydroCAD model is based on the NRCS Technical Release 20 (TR-20) Model for Project Formulation Hydrology. • HydroCAD Analysis: Existing Conditions a) 2-Year Storm Event—Existing b) 10-Year Storm Event—Existing c) 25-Year Storm Event—Existing d) 100-Year Storm Event—Existing • HydroCAD Analysis: Proposed Conditions a) 2-Year Storm Event—Proposed b) 10-Year Storm Event—Proposed c) 25-Year Storm Event—Proposed d) 100-Year Storm Event—Proposed • Martone-Mejail Pond Volume Mitigation Summary 'M1AWALD'Md 11625.12repoft'St-al'211 �� 625.12-Stor t.,Rep,i-Rev 2[2617�- 111 do HydroCAD Analysis: Existing Conditions tiA-tAVdAL011dt11 G25.72:2po0Stcnnwa1ea,71 2� fi25.t2Stormualer Recue-Rev 2;'[017-0E- J t'J dcu Subcat 3.3 Subcat .1 ubcat 3.2 Subcat 2 DP-1!B-2 Wetlands DP-'I B-3 Detention Basin Subcat Reach on Link Routing Diagram for 11625.12-EX Prepared by WATSCCM2012, Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC -Year Storm Event - Existing 'AlAWAL odd,.11625 26 625.12-St--ta rRp,d-Rev2;2017V 111 d. 11625.12 - E Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (subcatchment-numbers) 7.306 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) 0.184 89 Dirt roads, HSG D (3.2) 0.111 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (3.2) 1.385 98 Paved parking, HSG D (2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) 1.814 98 Roofs, HSG D (3.1, 3.2, 3.3) 2.063 77 Woods, Good, HSG D (2, 3.1, 3.2) 12.863 84 TOTAL AREA 11625.12 - EX Type 111 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 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 Subcatchment2: Subcat2 Runoff Area=73,204 sf 5.93% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=2.66 cfs 0.214 of Subcatchment3.1:Subcat 3.1 Runoff Area=114,258 sf 31.19% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.89" Flow Length=275' Tc=12.8 min CN=85 Runoff=4.63 cfs 0.414 of Subcatchment3.2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff Area=320,082 sf 14.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.74" Flow Length=600' Tc=14.3 min CN=83 Runoff=11.48 cfs 1.066 of Subcatchment3.3:Subcat3.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.13" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=3.98 cfs 0.316 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=2.66 cfs 0.214 of Primary=2.66 cfs 0.214 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=18.23 cfs 1.796 of Primary=18.23 cfs 1.796 of Total Runoff Area = 12.863 ac Runoff Volume=2.010 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.88" 75.13% Pervious =9.664 ac 24.87% Impervious =3.199 ac 11625.12 - EX Type 111 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 2.66 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.214 af, Depth= 1.53" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 4,338 98 Paved parking, HSG D 47,572 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 73,204 80 Weighted Average 68,866 94.07% Pervious Area 4,338 5.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Sucatchent 3.1: Subcat 3.1 Runoff = 4.63 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.414 af, Depth= 1.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 30,523 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 35,436 98 Paved parking, HSG D 48,097 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 201 98 Roofs, HSG D 114,258 85 Weighted Average 78,620 68.81% Pervious Area 35,638 31.19% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.5 100 0.0400 3.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.3 125 0.0500 7.74 2.70 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 8.0" Round Area= 0.3 sf Perim= 2.1' r= 0.17' n= 0.013 Clay tile 12.8 275 Total 11625.12 - EX Type 111 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 . Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 3.2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff = 11.48 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.066 af, Depth= 1.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 27,114 98 Roofs, HSG D 20,368 98 Paved parking, HSG D 8,018 89 Dirt roads, HSG D 38,040 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 221,702 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,840 91 Gravel roads, HSG D 320,082 83 Weighted Average 272,600 85.17% Pervious Area 47,482 14.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 1.8 210 0.0140 1.90 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.2 40 0.0600 3.94 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.3 300 0.0500 18.68 91.72 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 30.0" Round Area=4.9 sf Perim= 7.9' r= 0.63' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE smooth interior 14.3 600 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3.3: Subcat 3.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 3.98 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.316 af, Depth= 3.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking, HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area 11625.12 - EX Type /I/ 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof Summary for Link P-1 B-2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.681 ac, 5.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.53" for 2-YR event Inflow = 2.66 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.214 of Primary = 2.66 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.214 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link D -1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.182 ac, 27.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 2-YR event Inflow = 18.23 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 1.796 of Primary = 18.23 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 1.796 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs - ear Storm Event - Existing \1AVAWALMId,11625121repoO,lSlertnwatenI i ^.� 625.12-Stor ter Repnd-Rev 2 j2017-0d- G 111 d. 11 25.12 - EX Type 1/124-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 7 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 Subcatchment2: Subcat 2 Runoff Area=73,204 sf 5.93% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.93" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=5.18 cfs 0.410 of Subcatchment3.1: Subcat 3.1 Runoff Area=114,258 sf 31.19% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.41" Flow Length=275' Tc=12.8 min CN=85 Runoff=8.29 cfs 0.744 of Subcatchment3.2: Subcat3.2 Runoff Area=320,082 sf 14.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.21" Flow Length=600' Tc=14.3 min CN=83 Runoff=21.12 cfs 1.966 of Subcatchent3.3: Subcat 3.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.80" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=6.01 cfs 0.485 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=5.18 cfs 0.410 of Primary=5.18 cfs 0.410 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=32.62 cfs 3.195 of Primary=32.62 cfs 3.195 of Total Runoff Area= 12.863 ac Runoff Volume = 3.605 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.36" 75.13% Pervious = 9.664 ac 24.87% Impervious =3.199 ac 11625.12 - EX Type 111 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 5.18 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.410 af, Depth= 2.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 4,338 98 Paved parking, HSG D 47,572 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 73,204 80 Weighted Average 68,866 94.07% Pervious Area 4,338 5.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3.1: Subcat 3.1 Runoff = 8.29 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.744 af, Depth= 3.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 30,523 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 35,436 98 Paved parking, HSG D 48,097 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 201 98 Roofs, HSG D 114,258 85 Weighted Average 78,620 68.81% Pervious Area 35,638 31.19% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.5 100 0.0400 3.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.3 125 0.0500 7.74 2.70 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 8.0" Round Area= 0.3 sf Perim=2.1' r= 0.17' n= 0.013 Clay the 12.8 275 Total 1162 .12 - EX Type 111 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 3.2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff = 21.12 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.966 af, Depth= 3.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 27,114 98 Roofs, HSG D 20,368 98 Paved parking, HSG D 8,018 89 Dirt roads, HSG D 38,040 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 221,702 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,840 91 Gravel roads, HSG D 320,082 83 Weighted Average 272,600 85.17% Pervious Area 47,482 14.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 1.8 210 0.0140 1.90 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc(Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.2 40 0.0600 3.94 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.3 300 0.0500 18.68 91.72 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 30.0" Round Area=4.9 sf Perim= 7.9' r= 0.63' n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior 14.3 600 Total Summary for Sucatchment 3.3: Subcat 3.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.01 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.485 af, Depth= 4.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area 11625.12 - EX Type/1/24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof Summary for Link P-1 -2: Wetlands Inflow Area 1.681 ac, 5.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.93" for 10-YR event Inflow = 5.18 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.410 of Primary = 5.18 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.410 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link DP-1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.182 ac, 27.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.43" for 10-YR event Inflow = 32.62 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 3.195 of Primary = 32.62 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 3.195 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs -Year Storm Event- Existing 'AAAWALDtIdi 11625.121repods'Slo—lea 11 2p 625.12-Stor (w ,Report-Rev 2!2017V O 1125.12 - EX Type Ill 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 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 Subcatchment2: Subcat 2 Runoff Area=73,204 sf 5.93% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.57" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=6.30 cfs 0.499 of Subcatchment3.1: Subcat3.1 Runoff Area=114,258 sf 31.19% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.08" Flow Length=275' Tc=12.8 min CN=85 Runoff=9.86 cfs 0.891 of Subcatchment3.2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff Area=320,082 sf 14.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.87" Flow Length=600' Tc=14.3 min CN=83 Runoff=25.35 cfs 2.369 of Subcatchment3.3: Subcat 3.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.52" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=6.88 cfs 0.557 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=6.30 cfs 0.499 of Primary=6.30 cfs 0.499 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=38.90 cfs 3.818 of Primary=38.90 cfs 3.818 of Total Runoff Area = 12.863 ac Runoff Volume =4.317 of Average Runoff Depth =4.03" 75.13% Pervious =9.664 ac 24.87% Impervious =3.199 ac 11625.12 - EX Type/1/24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 6.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.499 af, Depth= 3.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Area (sf) CN Description 4,338 98 Paved parking, HSG D 47,572 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 73,204 80 Weighted Average 68,866 94.07% Pervious Area 4,338 5.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3.1: Subcat 3.1 Runoff = 9.86 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.891 af, Depth= 4.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Area (sf) CN Description 30,523 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 35,436 98 Paved parking, HSG D 48,097 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 201 98 Roofs, HSG D 114,258 85 Weighted Average 78,620 68.81% Pervious Area 35,638 31.19% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.5 100 0.0400 3.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps - 0.3 125 0.0500 7.74 2.70 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 8.0" Round Area= 0.3 sf Perim= 2.1' r= 0.17' n= 0.013 Clay the 12.8 275 Total 11625~12 - EX ''o�ve0Y24-hr 25-Y9Rainfa �ti� 70" Printed 3��2O17 Prepared bvVV/�F��C�(�yN2012 Summary for SubcatK:h00en13'2: Subca03'2 Runoff = 25.35cfs@ 12.20 hrs. Vo|unne= 2.368 af, Deoth= 3.87~ Runoff by 8CG TR-20 method, UH=SCS. VVeighted-CN, Time 8pan= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0D5 hrs Type U| 24-hr 25-YF< RainfaU=5.76^ 20.368 ~~ Paved 89 Dirt roads, H8G D 38.040 77 Woods, Good, HSGO 221.702 80 >75Y6 Grass cover, Good, HSG O 4,840 91 Gravel roads, HG 320,082 83 Weighted Average 272,600 85.17% Pervious Area 47,482 14.83% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Va|mcih/ Capacity Description 1.8 210 0.0140 1.90 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.2 40 0.0600 3.94 S..a"""" Concentrated Flow, Shallow. ~~^.~ `_..p_'__' Unpaved Kv= 1S.1 fps 0.3 300 0.0500 18.68 91.72 Pipe Channel, EXDrain 30.0" Round Area=4.Sof Per(nn= 7.8' r= O.83' 0013 Corrugated PE smooth interior 14.3 GOO Total Summary for SubcatchO0enY3'3: S0bcaK3'3 [4E] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.88cfo@ 12.07hra. Vn|unne= 0.557a[ Oepth= 5.52^ Runoff by GC8 TR-20 method, UH=SCS. VVeighted-CN, Time 8pan= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0.05 hns Type III 24-hr25-YRRa\ntaU=5.7G" Description 51.691 98 Roofo, HSGD 52.752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.8496 Pervious Area 51.887 98.3696 Impervious Area 11625.12 - EX Type/1/ 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof Summary for Link P-1 -2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.681 ac, 5.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.57" for 25-YR event Inflow = 6.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.499 of Primary = 6.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.499 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link D -1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.182 ac, 27.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.10" for 25-YR event Inflow = 38.90 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 3.818 of Primary = 38.90 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 3.818 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs - ear Storm Event - Existing 'AMWALL14d111625.121,rep.As'Sl.—Ie?l 1 2" 625.12-Sturmwaler R-xl-Rev2[2017W 7 111 d. 1162 .12 - EX Type 1/124-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 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 Subcatchent2: Subcat 2 Runoff Area=73,204 sf 5.93% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.14" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=7.30 cfs 0.580 of Subcatchment3.1:Subcat3.1 Runoff Area=114,258 sf 31.19% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.68" Flow Length=275' Tc=12.8 min CN=85 Runoff=11.27 cfs 1.023 of Subcatchment3.2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff Area=320,082 sf 14.83% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.46" Flow Length=600' Tc=14.3 min CN=83 Runoff=29.12 cfs 2.734 of Subcatchment3.3:Subcat 3.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.16" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=7.65 cfs 0.622 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=7.30 cfs 0.580 of Primary=7.30 cfs 0.580 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=44.58 cfs 4.379 of Primary=44.58 cfs 4.379 of Total Runoff Area= 12.863 ac Runoff Volume =4.959 of Average Runoff Depth =4.63" 75.13% Pervious = 9.664 ac 24.87% Impervious =3.199 ac 11625.12 - EX Type 1/124-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Subcatchment 2: Subcat 2 Runoff = 7.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.580 af, Depth= 4.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area(sf) CN Description 4,338 98 Paved parking, HSG D 47,572 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 73,204 80 Weighted Average 68,866 94.07% Pervious Area 4,338 5.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3.1: Subcat 3.1 Runoff = 11.27 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 1.023 af, Depth= 4.68" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 30,523 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 35,436 98 Paved parking, HSG D 48,097 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 201 98 Roofs, HSG D 114,258 85 Weighted Average 78,620 68.81% Pervious Area 35,638 31.19% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.0 50 0.0200 0.07 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.5 100 0.0400 3.22 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.3 125 0.0500 7.74 2.70 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 8.0" Round Area= 0.3 sf Perim= 2.1' r= 0.17' n= 0.013 Clay tile 12.8 275 Total " 7�o�e /024-hr 100-\�R /�a���l�`�40 �����^�� - ��. '. Printed 3/0/2O17 Prepared byVV/�[��<�CyW2O12 Summary for Subcakch0Ne0t 3-2: Subcat 3.2 Runoff = 29.12 efs @ 12.20hre. Vo|ume= 2.734af, OepUh= 4.46^ Runoff by SCG TR-20 method, UH=SCS. VVeighted-CN, Time 8pan= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0.05 hns Type III 24-hr 100-yFlRainfe8=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 38.040 77 Woods, Good, H8GD 221.702 80 >7596 Grass cover, Good, HGGD 4,840 1 Gravel roads, H8 320.082 83 Weighted Average 272.600 85.1796 Pervious Area 47.482 14.O396 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 1.8 210 0.0140 1.90 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.2 40 0.0600 3.94 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 1G.1fps 0,3 300 0.0500 18.68 91.73 Pipe Channel, EX Drain 30.0" Round Areo=4.Sof Pehm=7.S' r= 0.G3' 0013 Corrugated PE smooth interior Summary for Subcatch00ent 3'3: S0bcat 3'3 [4S] Hint: Tc«2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 7.65 cfs @ 12.07 hrs. Vo|ume= 0.632 of, Oepth= 8.16^ Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS. Weighted-C| . Time 8pan= 0.00-30.00 hna. dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yRRaintmU=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >7596 Grass cover, Good, M8GD 51.601 98 Roofs, HGGD 52.752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.G496 Pervious Area 51.887 S8.3S96 Impervious Area 11625.12 - EX Type 11124-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 .Direct Entry, Roof Summary for Link -1 -2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.681 ac, 5.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.14" for 100-YR event Inflow = 7.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.580 of Primary = 7.30 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.580 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link DP-1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area= 11.182 ac, 27.72% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.70" for 100-YR event Inflow = 44.58 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 4.379 of Primary = 44.58 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 4.379 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs HydroCAD Analysis: Proposed Conditions 1Vv1AWAL0':Ids.1ie2s.12lreporlslsmimwate:177 r;o 62612-Sbrmwaler Repo.-Rev2 2017-0E- 111 d. l 20 Subca 30.3 Turf Feld Subdrain Subcat 30.4A Subcat 20 C3O. � — f'—\ "]j 302 � 30 4BIJ %DP-1B-2! Subcat 3 1 }�--7 Sub at 30 Turt ield Subdrain Subcat 30.4E Wetlands 5 Subcat 30.5 DP-16-3 Detention Basin Subcat Reach on [Llnik Routing Diagram for 11625.12-PR Prepared by WATSCCM2012, Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC -Year Storm Event - Proposed :+h1AWAI.Ddd't11625.121mpodi'S5 ormw Well .� 625.12-St-ty r Repor:-Rev 2 20171R- l 1 ')d. 1165.12 - PR Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCADO 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paqe 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (acres) (su bcatch ment-n umbers) 3.878 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (20, 30.1, 30.2,30.3, 30.5) 6.326 98 Paved parking, HSG D (20, 30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 30.4A, 30AB, 30.5) 1.987 98 Roofs, HSG D (30.1, 30.2, 30.3) . 0.670 77 Woods, Good, HSG D (20, 30.1, 30.2) 12.861 91 TOTAL AREA 1165.12 - PR Type 111 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 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 Subcatchment20: Subcat 20 Runoff Area=53,049 sf 8.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.53" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=1.93 cfs 0.155 of Subcatchment30.l:Subcat 30.1 Runoff Area=2.133 ac 42.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.06" Flow Length=150' Tc=9.8 min CN=87 Runoff=4.45 cfs 0.366 of Subcatchment30.2:Subcat 30.2 Runoff Area=198,305 sf 52.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.23" Flow Length=425' Tc=14.5 min CN=89 Runoff=9.01 cfs 0.845 of Subcatchment30.3:Subcat 30.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.13" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=3.98 cfs 0.316 of Subcatchment30.4A:Subcat 30.4A Runoff Area=44,755 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.13" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=3.38 cfs 0.268 of Subcatchment30.4B:Subcat 30.413 Runoff Area=44,754 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.13" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=3.38 cfs 0.268 of Subcatchment30.5:Subcat 30.5 Runoff Area=73,671 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.13" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0050 '/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.56 cfs 0.441 of Pond 1 P: Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.52' Storage=1,002 cf Inflow=3.38 cfs 0.268 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.049 of Primary=1.42 cfs 0.219 of Outflow=1.70 cfs 0.268 of Pond 2P:Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.52' Storage=989 cf Inflow=3.38 cfs 0.268 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.048 of Primary=1.43 cfs 0.220 of Outflow=1.71 cfs 0.268 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=1.93 cfs 0.155 of Primary=1.93 cfs 0.155 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=23.06 cfs 2.406 of Primary=23.06 cfs 2.406 of Total Runoff Area= 12.861 ac Runoff Volume =2.658 of- Average Runoff Depth =2.48" 35.37% Pervious =4.548 ac 64.63% Impervious =8.312 ac 116 .12 - PR Type 1/1 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 20: Subcat 20 Runoff = 1.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.155 af, Depth= 1.53" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36"Area (sf) CN Description 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 27,307 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,448 98 Paved parking HSG D 53,049 80 Weighted Average 48,602 91.62% Pervious Area 4,448 8.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 30.1: Subcat 30.1 Runoff = 4.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.366 af, Depth= 2.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (ac) CN Description 1.061 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.174 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 0.865 98 Paved parking, HSG D 0.034 98 Roofs, HSG D 2.133 87 Weighted Average 1.234 57.86% Pervious Area 0.899 42.14% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 50 0.0400 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow(Grass) Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.7 100 0.0250 2.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.8 150 Total 11625.12 - PR Type 11124-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 30.2: Subcat 30.2 Runoff = 9.01 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.845 af, Depth= 2.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 94,558 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 333 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 70,055 98 Paved parking, HSG D 33,359 98 Roofs, HSG D 198,305 89 Weighted Average 94,891 47.85% Pervious Area 103,414 52.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.6 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 2.9 250 0.0080 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.0 125 0.0040 1.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 14.5 425 Total Summary for Subcatchment 30.3: Subcat 30.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 3.98 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.316 af, Depth= 3.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof 11625.12 - PR Type Ill 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 30. A: Subcat 30. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 3.38 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.268 af, Depth= 3.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 44,755 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,755 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30AB: Subcat 30. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 3.38 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.268 af, Depth= 3.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Area (sf) CN Description 44,754 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,754 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30.5: Subcat 3 . [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.56 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.441 af, Depth= 3.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" 11625.12 - PR Type l!! 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Area (sf) CN Description 1 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 73,669 98 Paved parking, HSG D 73,671 98 Weighted Average 1 0.00% Pervious Area 73,669 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity ,Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 0.6 50 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Paved) Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 1.8 100 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Pond 1 P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.13" for 2-YR event Inflow = 3.38 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.268 of Outflow = 1.70 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.268 af, Atten= 50%, Lag= 8.5 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.049 of Primary = 1.42 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.219 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Bev= 235.52'@ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 1,002 cf Plug-Flow detention time=3.1 min calculated for 0.267 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=3.1 min ( 757.6-754.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 233.24' 10.0" Round Culvert L=44.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 233.24'/232.80' S=0.0100'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L=320.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 234.82'/233.24' S=0.0049 7' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area 11625_12 - PR Type 0Y24-hr 25-YRRainta0=5.76" Prepared bvVV/A'SCCW12O12 Printed 3/6V2017 Summary for Subcatch00e0t 30AA: Subcat 30AA [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.84cfs @ 12.07hns, Vo|ume= 0.473e[ Deoth= 5.52^ Runoff bv8C8TR-20 method, UH=GCS. Weihted-CN. Time Gpan= O.O0-3O.DDhre. dt= O.O5hro Type ||| 24-hr 25-YRRainta||=5.78^ Description 44755 98 Paved parking, H8GD 44.755 10O.0096 Impervious Area To Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 1.3 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Smooth surfaces n= O.O11 P2= 3.36^ 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv 3.3 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subca1chQ0ent30AB: Subcat 30'4B [49] Hint Tc<2dt may require smaUerdt Runoff = 5.84cfs @ 12.07hm. Vo|ume= 0/473a[ Deoth= 5.52^ Runoff bySC}GTR-2O method, UH=SCS. VVeighted-CN. Time 8pen= O.DO-30.00hra. dt= O.0bhna Type III 24-hr 25-yRRoinfaU=5.76" Area (sf) N Description 44,754 98 Paved parking, H 44.754 1OO.00Y6 Impervious Area To Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= D.O11 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0'0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Cmnc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 181 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum To= 5.0 min Summary forSubcatch00ent 30'5: Subcat 30.5 [48] Hint: Tc«2dt may require anna||erdt Runoff = 9.61cfs @ 12.07hna. Vo|ume= 0.778af, Decdh= 5.52^ Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS. VVaighted-CN, Time 8pan= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0.05 hrs Type U| 24-hr 254yF| RoinfaU=5.76" 11625.12 - PR Type/1/24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 19 Summary for Subcatchment 30.2: Subcat 30.2 Runoff = 17.73 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.708 af, Depth= 4.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Area (sf) CN Description 94,558 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 333 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 70,055 98 Paved parking, HSG D 33,359 98 Roofs, HSG D 198,305 89 Weighted Average 94,891 47.85% Pervious Area 103,414 52.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.6 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 2.9 250 0.0080 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.0 125 0.0040 1.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 14.5 425 Total Summary for Subcatchment 30.3: Subcat 30.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.88 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.557 af, Depth= 5.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof ` 11625^12 - PR Tvoe /024-hr35-YRHainfa0=5.7O" Prepared bv\N/A-SCCW12O12 Printed 3K6/2017 Summary for Subcatchment 20: Subcat 20 Runoff = 4.58cfs @ 12.12hra. Vo|ume= 0.362o[ Oepth= 3.57^ Runoff by SC8 TR'20 method, UH=GCG. VVeighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0.05 hre Type III 34-hr 25-yRRminfaU=576^ Area (sf) CN Description 21.285 77 Woods, Good, H8GO 27.307 80 >7596 Grass cover, Good, H8G [} 4448 98 Paved parking, H8GO 53.049 80 Weighted Average 48.602 S1.G296 Pervious Area 4.448 8.3896 Impervious Area To Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Gnass) Grass: Short n= O.15U P2= 3.36^ 4.8 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Cmnc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchme0t 30'1: Subcat 30'1 Runoff = 9.07ofs @ 12.14hre. Vo|unne= 0.782af, [}eoth= 4.29" Runoff by GCS TR-20 method, UH=GCG. VVeighted-CN, Time Gpan= 0.00-30.00 hrs. dt= 0.05 hra Type Ill 34-hr 25-yRRoinfa||=5.76^ Description 1D61 80 »75% Grass cover, Good, HG{SD 0.174 77 Woods, Good, HGGO 0.865 08 Paved parking, H8GD 0034 98 Roofs, HSGO 2.133 87 Weighted Average 1.234 57.8G96 Pervious Area 0.899 42.1496 Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 9.1 50 0.0400 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow(Grass) Woods: Light underbrush n= O.4OO P2= 3.36" OJ 100 0.0250 2.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.8 150 Total 11625.12 - PR Type ///24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 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 Subcatchment20: Subcat 20 Runoff Area=53,049 sf 8.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.57" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=4.56 cfs 0.362 of Subcatchment30.l:Subcat 30.1 Runoff Area=2.133 ac 42.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.29" Flow Length=150' Tc=9.8 min CN=87 Runoff=9.07 cfs 0.762 of Subcatchment30.2:Subcat 30.2 Runoff Area=198,305 sf 52.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.50" Flow Length=425' Tc=14.5 min CN=89 Runoff=17.73 cfs 1.708 of Subcatchment30.3:Subcat 30.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.52" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=6.88 cfs 0.557 of Subcatchment30.4A:Subcat 30.4A Runoff Area=44,755 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.52" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050 T Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.84 cfs 0.473 of Subcatchment30.4B:Subcat 30AB Runoff Area=44,754 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.52" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.84 cfs 0.473 of Subcatchment30.5:Subcat 30.5 Runoff Area=73,671 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.52" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=9.61 cfs 0.778 of Pond 1 P:Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.68' Storage=3,040 cf Inflow=5.84 cfs 0.473 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.081 of Primary=1.84 cfs 0.392 of Outflow=2.12 cfs 0.473 of Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.67' Storage=3,011 cf Inflow=5.84 cfs 0.473 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.080 of Primary=1.85 cfs 0.392 of Outflow=2.13 cfs 0.473 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=4.56 cfs 0.362 of Primary=4.56 cfs 0.362 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=41.91 cfs 4.591 of Primary=41.91 cfs 4.591 of Total Runoff Area = 12.861 ac Runoff Volume= 5.114 of Average Runoff Depth =4.77" 35.37%Pervious =4.548 ac 64.63% Impervious = 8.312 ac 25-Year Storm Event- Proposed 6251NAL011d111625.Rp,,a rlR?S 2-'017-04 33 825.12-Stormwaler Reoar-Rev 2(2017-0E- 11j.d. 11625.12 - PR Type 11124-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Link DP-1 B-2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.218 ac, 8.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.93" for 10-YR event Inflow = 3.75 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.297 of Primary = 3.75 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.297 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link P-1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.643 ac, 70.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.05" for 10-YR event Inflow = 36.24 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3.928 of Primary = 36.24 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 3.928 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 11625_12 - PR Type 0Y24-hr 10-Y/YRa/nfall=5.04" Prepared bvVVATSCCyW2O13 Printed 3/6B2017 Discarded OutRmvvMax=O.28cfs @11.ODhra HVV=235.48' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltratimn (Exfi|tnation Contno|sO.28 cfs) Primary Ou@F|mxn yWax=1.71 cfs @12.28hns HVV=235.63' (Free Discharge) t-1=Cu|vert_� . ) (Passes 1.71 �� o�4.22 �� potentia| MowA � --�=4�oUectmrPipa (Borre| Contno|e1.71ohs004.O3hoo) Summary for Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.D27ac\10O.O096Impervious, )nOovvOeoth = 4.80^ for 10-YRevent |nMovv = 5.10ufe@ 12.07hra. Vo|umnm= 0.411 af C}utOovv = 2.00 ofo @ 12.28 hrs. Vo|unne= 0411 af, Atten= 61Y6. LoQ= 12.7 nn1n Discarded = 0.28cfs @ 11.85hro. Volunne= 0.071 of Primary = 1.72cfs @ 12.28hns. Voiume= 0.348of Routing byStor-|nd method, Time Span=O.00-30.00hns. dt= O.O5hna Peak Bav= 235.82'@12'28hra 8urf.Areo=44.754af Stonege= 2.335cf Plug-Flow detention Unne=5.S min oe|cu|atedfnrO.411 af(1OD96 of inflow) CentoFof-Maoadet. tirna=5.9 min (752'S -747.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13.426cf Custom Stage Date /Prisnnat beow/Reoo|c> 44'754ofOverall n3O.O96Voids Elevation 8ur[Area |nc8tons Cunn.Gtore 235.45 44.754 O O 236.45 44.754 44.754 44.754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 232.96' 10.0~ Round Culvert L= 52.O' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ka= O.1OO Inlet/Outlet |nwart= 232.8S'/232.4O' S=0.0108T Cc= O.8OO n= O.O1U PVC, smooth interior, F|ovvApeo= D.55sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10'0~ Round Collector Pipe L= 37O.O' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= O.1OO Inlet/Outlet |nvert= 234.82'/2S2.SG' 8=0.0050'/' Co= O.9OO n= O.O1O PVC. smooth interior, F|OvvApea= O.56sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hrExfi|tnatimn over Horizontal area Discarded QutF|om/ [Nax=0.28 cfs @ 11.85 hra HVV=235.46' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfi1tration (Exfi|trotion Contro|nO.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow 1.72cfs @ 12.28hrs HVV=235.62' (Free Discharge) u|vert (Passes 1.72 cfs of4.43 cfs potential flow) /-2=Co|Uectorpipe (Barrel Controls 1.73 cfs @4.O7 fps) 11625.12 - PR Type /if 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Area (sf) CN Description 1 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 73,669 98 Paved parking, HSG D 73,671 98 Weighted Average 1 0.00% Pervious Area 73,669 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 0.6 50 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Paved) Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 1.8 100 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Pond 1 P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.80" for 10-YR event Inflow = 5.10 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.411 of Outflow = 1.99 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.411 af, Atten= 61%, Lag= 12.9 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.072 of Primary = 1.71 cfs 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.339 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 235.63'@ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 2,360 cf Plug-Flow detention time=6.0 min calculated for 0.411 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=6.0 min ( 753.0 - 747.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 233.24' 10.0" Round Culvert L=44.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 233.24'/232.80' S=0.0100'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 320.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert=234.82'/233.24' S= 0.0049'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area 11625.12 - PR Type /// 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment 30. : Subcat 30. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.10 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.411 af, Depth= 4.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 44,755 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,755 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow(Grass) Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30. : Subcat 30A [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 5.10 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.411 af, Depth= 4.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 44,754 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,754 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30.5: Subcat 30. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 8.39 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.677 af, Depth= 4.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" 11625.12 - PR Type/1/24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment 30.2: Subcat 30.2 Runoff = 15.12 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.445 af, Depth= 3.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 94,558 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 333 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 70,055 98 Paved parking, HSG D 33,359 98 Roofs, HSG D 198,305 89 Weighted Average 94,891 47.85% Pervious Area 103,414 52.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.6 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 2.9 250 0.0080 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.0 125 0.0040 1.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 14.5 425 Total Summary for Subcatchment 30.3: Subcat 30.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.01 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.485 af, Depth= 4.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof 11625.12 - PR Type 11124-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment 20: Subcat 20 Runoff = 3.75 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= . 0.297 af, Depth= 2.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (sf) CN Description 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 27,307 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,448 98 Paved parking, HSG D 53,049 80 Weighted Average 48,602 91.62% Pervious Area 4,448 8.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow(Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 3 .1: Subcat 30.1 Runoff = 7.68 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.641 af, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Area (ac) CN Description 1.061 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.174 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 0.865 98 Paved parking, HSG D 0.034 98 Roofs, HSG D 2.133 87 Weighted Average 1.234 57.86% Pervious Area 0.899 42.14% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 50 0.0400 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.7 100 0.0250 2.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.8 150 Total 11625.12 - PR Type /// 24-hr 10-YR Rainfall=5.04" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 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 Star-Ind method Subcatchment20: Subcat20 Runoff Area=53,049 sf 8.38% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.93" Flow Length=450' Tc=8.7 min CN=80 Runoff=3.75 cfs 0.297 of Subcatchment30.l:Subcat 30.1 Runoff Area=2.133 ac 42.14% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.60" Flow Length=150' Tc=9.8 min CN=87 Runoff=7.68 cfs 0.641 of Subcatchment30.2:Subcat 30.2 Runoff Area=198,305 sf 52.15% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.81" Flow Length=425' Tc=14.5 min CN=89 Runoff=15.12 cfs 1.445 of Subcatchment30.3:Subcat 30.3 Runoff Area=52,752 sf 98.36% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.80" Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=6.01 cfs 0.485 of Subcatchment30AA:Subcat 30.4A Runoff Area=44,755 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.80" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.10 cfs 0.411 of Subcatchment30.4B:Subcat 30.4B Runoff Area=44,754 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.80" Flow Length=120' Slope=0.0050 T Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=5.10 cfs 0.411 of Subcatchment30.5:Subcat 30.5 Runoff Area=73,671 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.80" Flow Length=100' Slope=0.0050'/' Tc=5.0 min CN=98 Runoff=8.39 cfs 0.677 of Pond 1 P: Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.63' Storage=2,360 cf Inflow=5.10 cfs 0.411 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.072 of Primary=1.71 cfs 0.339 of Outflow=1.99 cfs 0.411 of Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Peak Elev=235.62' Storage=2,335 cf Inflow=5.10 cfs 0.411 of Discarded=0.28 cfs 0.071 of Primary=1.72 cfs 0.340 of Outflow=2.00 cfs 0.411 of Link DP-1 B-2:Wetlands Inflow=3.75 cfs 0.297 of Primary=3.75 cfs 0.297 of Link DP-1 B-3:Detention Basin Inflow=36.24 cfs 3.928 of Primary=36.24 cfs 3.928 of Total Runoff Area= 12.861 ac Runoff Volume=4.368 of Average Runoff Depth =4.08" 35.37% Pervious =4.548 ac 64.63% Impervious =8.312 ac 10-Year Storm Event- Proposed MIAWALO.1d+.11625.121.repodslSlcrt le?l1 �r� &25A2-Stormwaler Report-Rev 2(2017-W- L 11]doc 11625.12 - PR Type /11 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 01038 @ 2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Link DP-1 B-2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.218 ac, 8.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.53" for 2-YR event Inflow = 1.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.155 of Primary = 1.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volurne= 0.155 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link DP-1B-3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.643 ac, 70.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.48" for 2-YR event Inflow = 23.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 2.406 of Primary = 23.06 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 2.406 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 11625.12 - PR Type 111 24-hr 2-YR Rainfall=3.36" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=235.47' (Free Discharge) t•3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.42 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=235.52' (Free Discharge) t =Culvert (Passes 1.42 cfs of 4.11 cfs potential flow) t•2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.42 cfs @ 3.89 fps) Summary for Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.13" for 2-YR event Inflow = 3.38 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.268 of Outflow = 1.71 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.268 af, Atten=49%, Lag= 8.4 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 0.048 of Primary = 1.43 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.220 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 235.52'@ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 989 cf Plug-Flow detention time=3.1 min calculated for 0.267 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=3.0 min ( 757.5- 754.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 232.96' 10.0" Round Culvert L= 52.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert=232.96'/232.40' S=0.0108'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010. PVC,smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 370.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 234.82'/232.96' S= 0.0050'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=235.47' (Free Discharge) t3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.43 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=235.52' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Passes 1.43 cfs of 4.34 cfs potential flow) t•2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.43 cfs @ 3.93 fps) 11625.12 - PR Type /// 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 Area (sf) CN Description 1 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 73,669 98 Paved parking HSG D 73,671 98 Weighted Average 1 0.00% Pervious Area 73,669 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 0.6 50 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Paved) Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 1.8 100 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Pond 1 : Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.52" for 25-YR event Inflow = 5.84 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.473 of Outflow = 2.12 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.473 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 14.5 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.081 of Primary = 1.84 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.392 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 235.68'@ 12.31 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 3,040 cf Plug-Flow detention time=7.4 min calculated for 0.472 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=7.4 min ( 752.2 -744.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 233.24' 10.0" Round Culvert L= 44.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 233.24'/232.80' S=0.0100 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 320.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert=234.82'/233.24' S= 0.0049 7' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area 11625.12 - PR Type/1/24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 11.80 hrs HW=235.46' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.84 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=235.68' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Passes 1.84 cfs of 4.27 cfs potential flow) t-2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.84 cfs @ 4.07 fps) Summary for Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.52" for 25-YR event Inflow = 5.84 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.473 of Outflow = 2.13 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.473 af, Atten= 63%, Lag= 14.3 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.080 of Primary = 1.85 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.392 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev=235.67'@ 12.31 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 3,011 cf Plug-Flow detention time=7.3 min calculated for 0.472 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=7.2 min ( 752.1 - 744.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)-isted below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 232.96' 10.0" Round Culvert L= 52.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert=232.96'/232.40' S=0.0108'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 370.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 234.82'/232.96' S=0.00507' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 11.80 hrs HW=235.46' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.85 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=235.67' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Passes 1.85 cfs of 4.48 cfs potential flow) t-2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.85 cfs @ 4.12 fps) 11625.12 - PR Type /// 24-hr 25-YR Rainfall=5.76" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10 00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 Summary for Link DP-1 -2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.218 ac, 8.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.57" for 25-YR event Inflow = 4.56 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.362 of Primary = 4.56 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.362 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link -1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.643 ac, 70.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.13" for 25-YR event Inflow = 41.91 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4.591 of Primary = 41.91 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 4.591 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs -Year Storm Event — Proposed VIMAWALUA01625.12.repoftSlo alee"1 34 $25.12-Stormwaler Rewri-Rev 2 2Di7V- 1")d. 11625'12 - PR Type III 24-hr 100-Y9/9ain/a/l={[40" Prepared bvVVATSCCyW2O12 Printed 3/6/2017 Time apan=O.00-3O.ODhra. dt=O.O5hre. GO1 points Runoff bvGCGTF-2O method, UH=SC8.Weighted-CN Reach routing byGtop|nd+Tnanamethod - Pond routing byGtop|ndmethod Gubcatchmnent20; Subomt20 Runoff Area=53.D49uf B3896Impervious RunoffDopth=4.14^ F|mwLength=45O' To=8.7min CN=DO Hunnff=529ds 0.421af Subcmtmhmneut30.11:Suboat30.1 Runoff Anaa=2.133ao 42.14% |mpomioua Runoff Dept =4.90^ F|owLeng(h=15O' Tu=Q.Omin CN=87 Runoff=10.30cfs 0.871af Subcmtchmnent30'2:Smbcat3O.2 Runoff Area=18D.3O5nf 52.15Y6Impervious RunnffDepth=5.12^ F|mwLength=425/ To=14.5min CN=80 Runuff=20.04cfs 1.944af Subcatchmnent30'3:Suboat3O.% Runoff Anea=52.752nf 9O.3G96Impervious RunoffDepth=G.1G^ Tu=5.0min CN=88 Runoff=7.65cfs 0.622af Subcahchnment30'4A:Subcet30AA Runoff/\voa=44.755of 100.00% |mpemiouo RunnffDepth=G.1G^ F|mwLengdh=12O' S|ope=O.00SUY' Tn=5.0min CN=QO Runof=6.49efs 0.528of Subcatohnoent30'4B:Suboat30.413 Runoff Anem=44.754of 1OO.00Y6Impervious RunoffDepth=G.18^ Flow Lengdh=12O' S|ope=0.0050Y' To=5.0min CN=QD Runoff=6.49efu 0.528of Subcatcbnoant30'5:Subuat3O.5 Runoff Anaa=73.G71af 1OO.00Y6Impervious RunnffDepth=G.1G^ F|mwLength=1D8' S|ope=0.00507 Tu=5.Umin CN=QO Runoff=10.68ds 0.868of Pond 1P:Turf Field Subdmo[a PeakElev=23572' Storage=3.675«[ |nOow=6/0ds 0.528of Disoanded=0.28cfs O.ODQaf Phmary=1.95efs 0.439af Ou0ow=223Gfs 0.528af Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdmoin PeakBev=335.72' S0nnege=3.642of |nflow=6.49cfs 0.528af Dinounded=028ds 0.088of Phmary=1.96cfs 0.439af OutOmw=2.24Gfs 0.528af Link DP-1B-2:\0et|mmds |nflow=5.29cfs 0.421 uf Primury=529ob 0.421 af Link DP-1B-3:Detention Basin |nflow=48.94ds 5.183af P/imary=46.84cfs 5.183af Total Runoff Area = 12.861 ac Runoff Volume = 5.781 mf Average Runoff Depth = 5.39" 35.37Y6 Pervious =4.54Bmc 64.G3% Impervious = 8'312ao 11625.12 - PR Type ///24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 Summary for Subcatchment 20: Subcat 20 Runoff = 5.29 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.421 af, Depth= 4.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 21,295 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 27,307 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,448 98 Paved parking, HSG D 53,049 80 Weighted Average 48,602 91.62% Pervious Area 4,448 8.38% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 50 0.0500 0.22 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 4.9 400 0.0070 1.35 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 8.7 450 Total Summary for Subcatchment 30.1: Subcat 30.1 Runoff = 10.30 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.871 af, Depth= 4.90" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (ac) CN Description 1.061 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 0.174 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 0.865 98 Paved parking, HSG D 0.034 98 Roofs, HSG D 2.133 87 Weighted Average 1.234 57.86% Pervious Area 0.899 42.14% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.1 50 0.0400 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.36" 0.7 100 0.0250 2.55 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 9.8 150 Total 11625.12 - PR Type Ill 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 Summary for Subcatchment 30.2: Sucat 30.2 Runoff = 20.04 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.944 af, Depth= 5.12" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 94,558 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 333 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 70,055 98 Paved parking, HSG D 33,359 98 Roofs, HSG D 198,305 89 Weighted Average 94,891 47.85% Pervious Area 103,414 52.15% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 9.6 50 0.0050 0.09 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow (Grass) Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.36" 2.9 250 0.0080 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.0 125 0.0040 1.02 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 14.5 425 Total Summary for Subcatchent 30.3: Subcat 30.3 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 7.65 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.622 af, Depth= 6.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 865 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 196 98 Paved parking, HSG D 51,691 98 Roofs, HSG D 52,752 98 Weighted Average 865 1.64% Pervious Area 51,887 98.36% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Roof 11625.12 - PR Type 11124-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 Summary for Subcatchment 30AA: Subcat 30.4A [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.49 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Depth= 6.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 44,755 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,755 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow(Grass) Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30. : Subcat 30. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 6.49 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Depth= 6.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Area (sf) CN Description 44,754 98 Paved parking, HSG D 44,754 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 1.0 70 0.0050 1.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Unpaved) Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.2 120 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Subcatchment 30.5: Subcat 30.5 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 10.68 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.868 af, Depth= 6.16" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" 11625.12 - PR Type /// 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCADO 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 28 Area (sf) CN Description 1 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 73,669 98 Paved parking, HSG D 73,671 98 Weighted Average 1 0.00% Pervious Area 73,669 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 50 0.0050 0.70 Sheet Flow, Sheet Flow Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.36" 0.6 50 0.0050 1.44 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Conc (Paved) Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 1.8 100 Total, Increased to minimum Tc= 5.0 min Summary for Pond 1 P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.16" for 100-YR event Inflow = 6.49 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.528 of Outflow = 2.23 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 15.7 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 0.089 of Primary = 1.95 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.439 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 235.72'@ 12.33 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 3,675 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.6 min calculated for 0.527 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.6 min ( 751.9 - 743.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 233.24' 10.0" Round Culvert L=44.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 233.24'/232.80' S=0.0100 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 320.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 234.82'/233.24' S= 0.0049'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area 11625.12 - PR Type 111 24-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD® 10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 29 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=235.46' (Free Discharge) t-3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.94 cfs @ 12.33 hrs HW=235.72' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Passes 1.94 cfs of 4.32 cfs potential flow) t-2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.94 cfs @ 4.10 fps) Summary for Pond 2P: Turf Field Subdrain Inflow Area = 1.027 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.16" for 100-YR event Inflow = 6.49 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.528 of Outflow = 2.24 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Atten= 65%, Lag= 15.5 min Discarded = 0.28 cfs @ 11.75 hrs, Volume= 0.088 of Primary = 1.96 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.439 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev=235.72'@ 12.33 hrs Surf.Area=44,754 sf Storage= 3,642 cf Plug-Flow detention time=8.5 min calculated for 0.527 of(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time=8.5 min ( 751.7 -743.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 235.45' 13,426 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below(Recalc) 44,754 cf Overall x 30.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 235.45 44,754 0 0 236.45 44,754 44,754 44,754 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 232.96' 10.0" Round Culvert L= 52.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke=0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 232.96'/232.40' S=0.0108'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.55 sf #2 Device 1 234.82' 10.0" Round Collector Pipe L= 370.0' RCP, rounded edge headwall, Ke= 0.100 Inlet/Outlet Invert=234.82'/232.96' S=0.0050'/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 PVC, smooth interior, Flow Area=0.55 sf #3 Discarded 235.45' 0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area Discarded OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 11.75 hrs HW=235.46' (Free Discharge) L3=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.28 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.96 cfs @ 12.33 hrs HW=235.72' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Passes 1.96 cfs of 4.52 cfs potential flow) t-2=Collector Pipe (Barrel Controls 1.96 cfs @ 4.14 fps) 11625.12 - PR Type 11124-hr 100-YR Rainfall=6.40" Prepared by WATSCCM2012 Printed 3/6/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-18 s/n 01038 ©2016 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 30 Summary for Link DP-1 -2: Wetlands Inflow Area = 1.218 ac, 8.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.14" for 100-YR event Inflow = 5.29 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.421 of Primary = 5.29 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.421 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link -1 -3: Detention Basin Inflow Area = 11.643 ac, 70.52% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.34" for 100-YR event Inflow = 46.94 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5.183 of Primary = 46.94 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 5.183 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-30.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs are- ejail Pond Volume Mitigation Summary 4 MAWALDAI11625.i21. ds�Slortmvaledll 35 625.12-Sto-ler Read-Rev 2(2017-N 1 ':]doe �it Computations oVhb Project: Merrimack Track Project# 11625.12 Location: North Andover, MA Sheet 1 of 1 Calculated by: DT Date: 5/17/2016 Checked by: 1 K Date: 3/4/2017 Title: Martone-Mejail Pond Volume Mitigation Summary Football Field Basin Volume Comparison by Elevation: EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS Elevation Storage at Elevation Cumulative Basin Storage at Cumulative Basin Noted Storage Elevation Noted Storage (FT) (CY) (CY) (CY) (CY) 227-228 330 330 335 335 228-229 660 990 695 1,030 229-230 746 1,736 763 1,793 230-231 817 2,553 821 2,614 231-232 904 3,457 904 3,518 Softball Expansion Volumes: Area of Turf Field Expansion 2,255 SF Depth of Stone Storage 8 IN Voids of Storage Volume 33 Additional Pond Storage Volume Provided 18 CY \\MAWALD\Id\11625.12\ssheets\Football Basin Volume\11625.12-Football Basin Volumes Appendix C Standard 3 Computations and Supporting Information • NRCS Soil Survey Map • Geotechnical Investigation Report • VHB Subsurface Exploration Summary • Recharge Calculations UWIAWAL�Jd117 E25A2ke,p.ft1S1—.t&,,Ii �6 Q5_12-3to—,.I(rRepod-Rev2.'20,7-0"- t':}d. NRCS Sit Survey Map 1A,LWALMId,.11625.121,rep.dISI.—M.11 37 625.12-St—water Re ti:-Rev 2(2017-W- 111 d. 3 Hydrologic Soil Group—Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part 3 N F 325780 325870 325960 326050 326140 326230 326320 326410 326500 326590 E 42'401v'N 420 4910"N (� v 01 0 n N I\ d O O a � t v v v � � o a O a 0 N d OmN N C O m n d' ,. 42°39 51'N 42°39'51"N v 325780 325870 325960 326050 326140 326230 326320 326410 326500 326590 3 F Map Scale:1:4,070 if pdrked on A landscape(i l"x 8.5")sheet. _ Meters N 0 50 100 200. 300 A ` 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection:Web Mercator Comer coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UfM Zane 19N WGS84 Web Soil Survey 4/29/2016 USDA Natural Resources Page 1 of 4 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Hydrologic Soil Group—Essex County, Massachusetts,Northern Part MAPLEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) E3 C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Area of Interest(AOI) C/D Soils Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. D Soil Rating Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause 0 A Not rated or not available misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Water Features placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting A/D soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. LJ B Streams and Canals Transportation Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map BID Rails measurements. C Interstate Highways Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Q C/D Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov US Routes Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) D Major Roads ® Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Not rated or not available Local Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts Soil Rating Lines distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Background Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate A Aerial Photography calculations of distance or area are required. A/D This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of B the version date(s)listed below. B/D Soil Survey Area: Essex County, Massachusetts, Northern Part C Survey Area Data: Version 11,Sep 28,2015 ,m C/D Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)formap scales 1:50,000 or larger. D Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Aug 29,2014—Sep 0 Not rated or not available 19,2014 Soil Rating Points The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were A compiled and digitized probably differs from the background El imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting A/D of map unit boundaries may be evident. Ea B B/D USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/29/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part(MA605) Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AO1 70A Ridgebury fine sandy D 27.1 392% loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 72A Whitman loam,0 to 3 D 14.3 20.7% percent slopes 310A Woodbridge fine sandy C/D 19.0 27-5% loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 651 Udorthents,smoothed A 8.7 12.6% Totals for Area of Interest 69.1 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/29/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part escrition Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation,are thoroughly wet,and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups(A, B, C, and D)and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate(low runoff potential)when thoroughly wet.These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture.These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential)when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group(A/D, B/D, or C/D),the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes, Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/29/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 ecicalInvestigation Report 6 25.12-Stormwaler Repur:-Rev 2 2017Jk- <.j d. �.�✓��% �� ,ter, .. �� I NGEOTEa st CHN C L T ENVIRONMENTAL V RESIDENT EN E N TESTING GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED TRACK MERRIMACK COLLEGE ` NORTH ANDOVER9U Prepared For: Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01810 �o 7� H.^f� Prepared By: John Turner Consulting, Inc. 19 Dover Street Dover, New Hampshire 03820 sv e g JTC Project No.: 16-15-015 May 16, 2016 ��;I ES, fin <T ORD, T s JOHNS a .-3n'^'� a.�z'r,s �",��'✓. � ��„N,z�"� ..x�,.v�,��€-„a ,nT./ ,�,.�.fi"a'� „a�.`��,;,�,i..zfa�„-„�.s�,n..sw',,,.�'.a,K.�.-q�,v �-r r,�T, ReportTABLE OF CONTENTS , Limitations, Tables Master Plan, Grading ri a Plan, Test BoringLocation l Test Boring Logs, AugerSummary of Probesq to SymbolsDescriptions Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Site Photographs Report Text, Limitations, and Tables 7 ,,' � .�_� Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report-May 16,2016 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Prepared by.. JOIE111,411=EUP1 ER("ONSULTING,INC, 19 Dover Street Dover,New Hampshire 03820 - www.ConsultITC.com or s,!Zjo� O`er JUDS N R. Z ZACKAR TO: Mr. Felipe Schwarz sty Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street ors-r� AL North Andover, Massachusetts 01810 cxa FROM: Rachel Guptel Judson Zachar,P.E. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer DATE: May 16,2016 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED TRACK& FIELD MERRIMACK COLLEGE 315 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETS JTC Project No. 16-15-015 John Turner Consulting, Inc. (JTC) is pleased to present this Geotechnical Investigation Report for a proposed Track & Field. to be located at Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts. JTC conducted geotechnical explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering evaluations in general accordance with our proposed scope of services submitted to Merrimack College on February 29, 2016.. Our work was authorized on March 6, 2016. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain information on the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations to support the planning,design,and/or construction of the proposed development. JTC performed six(6)widely- spaced geotechnical borings proximate to proposed/future structures (e.g., grandstand and/or light poles). Geotechnical explorations within the footprint of the Track&Field were limited to auger probes and general observations and descriptions of soil cuttings. This investigation/evaluation did not include review of site design or construction issues such as infiltration systems, dry wells, underground utilities, protection of existing structures, retaining walls, temporary excavation support, and/or other site/temporary design issues unless specifically addressed.herein. Geotechnical explorations and laboratory testing services were performed in March of 2016. This report summarizes available project information, presents the geotechnical exploration and laboratory testing programs, describes the subsurface conditions encountered, and provides Page 1 of 15 OF411 ... Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report-May 16,2016 geotechnical engineering recommendations to support the planning, design, and construction of the proposed. Track & Field development. The contents of this report are subject to the attached. Limitations. 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The following subsections provide general descriptions of the site, the regional geologic setting, and the proposed development. 1.1 Site Description The site of the proposed.Track&Field development is located on the eastern side of the Merrimack College campus in North Andover, Massachusetts. Presently, the site consists of the college's current athletic fields and an undeveloped. wooded area adjacent to the fields. A Master Plan (attached)provided by Huntress Associates, Inc. and dated January 25, 2016 indicates moderately sloping and somewhat variable ground surface contours with existing grades ranging from about +233 feet to+243 feet within the footprint of the proposed development. 1.2 Regional Geologic Setting JTC's review of the"Surficial Geologic Map of the Salem Depot-Newburyport East-Wilmington - Rockport 16-Quadrangle Area in Northeast Massachusetts" (U.S. Geological Survey; Stone et. all, 2007; Open-File Report OF-2006-1260-B) indicates that the site soils are characterized primarily by Glacial Till, which is generally described as a heterogeneous matrix of sand with some silt and little clay that commonly contains gravel, occasional cobbles, and a few large boulders. 1.3 Proposed Development JTC understands that the first phase of the proposed development involves the construction of a new outdoor Track & Field, bleachers/spectator seating area, and associated asphalt-concrete- paved walkways (see attached Grading &Drainage Plan prepared by Huntress Associates, Inc. and.dated.April 7, 2016). Subsequent phases of development/construction are expected to include a 2500-seat grandstand and outdoor light towers (see attached Master Plata). We understand that design details are still being developed, but that the intent will be to support the grandstand on a conventional shallow spread footing foundation with a concrete floor slab-on-grade (i.e., no basement). The Grading&Drainage Plan indicates a field"ridgeline"elevation of+237.2 feet and 0.5%slopes from the ridgeline to the perimeter of the field/inside edge of the 8-lane running track. The 0.5% slopes result in a field elevation of about+236.7 feet at the perimeter. The proposed.field grades result in minor cuts and fills of up to 3.5 feet and 4 feet, respectively, based on existing ground surface elevations of about+240 feet to+233 feet within the footprint of the proposed field. Page 2 of 15 Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,Massachusetts P Geotechnical Investigation Report-May 16,2016 The Master Plan does not indicate proposed. grading for future structures. However, JTC has assumed. that proposed grades will be approximately coincident with existing grades such that minimal cuts and/or fills of up to 2 feet each may be necessary. Site-specific structural loading is not known at this time. However, JTC has assumed.the following structural loading conditions for the future grandstand,based on our experience with similar developments: • Strip/wall footing loads will be on the order of 3 kips per linear foot or less; • Column loads will be on the order of 50 kips or less; and • Live loads applied to the floor slab-on-grade will be on the order of 125 pounds per square foot (psf) or less. 2.0 GEOTECNICAL EXPLORATIONS & LABORATORY TESTING The primary components of the geotechnical exploration and laboratory testing programs are described in the following subsections. 2.1 Geotechnical Explorations JTC subcontracted Great Works Test Boring(GWTB)to perform six(6) geotechnical test borings (designated as B-1 through B-6,inclusive)and fourteen(14)auger probes(designated P-1 through P-14, inclusive) via a track-mounted Mobile B53 drill rig. JTC directed the drilling, testing, and sampling activities and logged the subsurface conditions encountered at each exploration location. The proposed exploration locations were selected by the design team. JTC field-located the proposed explorations considering existing site features and proposed development, and under the constraints of drill rig access and utility conflicts. Subsequently, the relative location of each exploration was established via measurements from existing site features and scaling the dimensions onto the provided plan(s). The attached. Exploration Location Plan depicts the approximate exploration locations. The test borings were advanced to depths ranging from 15 to 20.8 feet below the ground surface (bgs) utilizing 2'/4-inch inside-diameter continuous-flight hollow-stem-augers (HSAs). As the borings were advanced, standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted at regular intervals and soil samples were obtained via 2-inch outside-diameter split-spoon samplers driven by a 140- pound hammer. SPTs were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1586, Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. Soil samples were sealed in moisture-tight containers and returned to JTC's office for further review, classification, and/or geotechnical laboratory testing. The auger probes were typically advanced to a depth of 10 feet bgs_ The test borings (and auger probes) were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion of drilling. Detailed records of the drilling, testing, and sampling performed and the soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions observed at each test boring location are provided on the attached Test Boning Logs. General descriptions of the subsurface conditions observed. at each auger probe location are provided in the attached Summary of Auger Probe Findings. �" '�" Page 3 of 15 .. Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 2.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing JTC selected representative soil samples for geotechnical laboratory testing at our in-house laboratory. The following tests were performed: • 5 Moisture contents; and • 5 Particle-size analyses. Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM procedures. Test results are provided on the attached Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Reports. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The following subsections describe the site soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions encountered, based on results of the geotechnical explorations and. laboratory testing. Detailed. descriptions of the conditions observed at each test boring are provided on the attached Test Boring Logs. General descriptions of the conditions observed at each auger probe location are provided in the attached Summary ofAuger Probe Findings. 3.1 Soils The overburden soils encountered at the test boring locations appear to be consistent with those described by the published geologic data. The primary soil strata are briefly described in the paragraphs below. 3.1.1 Topsoil Topsoil materials were encountered at the ground surface at each exploration location. The Topsoil typically consisted of dark brown silty fine to medium sand(SM)and contained occasional roots, rootles, and organics. The Topsoil was about 0.5 to 0.75 feet thick at most exploration locations. The Topsoil was typically loose and moist. In some locations,the Topsoil was wet due to minor ponding of surface water. 3.1.2 Existing Fill Existing Fill materials were encountered directly beneath the Topsoil at each test boring location and at most auger probe locations. The Existing Fill was usually described as brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (SM) or as fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (SW-SM). In some locations (e.g., B-2 and B-3), the Existing Fill contained occasional debris (i.e., brick and wood pieces). Where encountered(or inferred),the Existing Fill was approximately I to 2 feet thick and extended to depths of about 2 to 2.5 feet bgs. The Existing Fill was typically described as medium dense to dense based on SPT N-values. � a Page 4 of 15 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report May 16,2016 3 1 3 Former Topsoil/Subsoil Dark brown silty fine to meditun sand(SM)with occasional rootlets was encountered beneath the Existing Fill in borings B-1, B-2,and B-6 and was also observed/inferred in several auger probes. This stratum is interpreted to be a Fonner Topsoil/Subsoil layer. Where encountered, the Former Topsoil/Subsoil was approximately 1 to 2 feet thick and extended to depths of about 3 to 4 feet bgs. This layer ranged from loose to dense based on N-values. 3.1.4 Glacial Till Tan to gray silty fine to medium sand with few gravel(SM)was encountered beneath the Existing Fill and/or Former Topsoil/Subsoil at each exploration location at depths ranging from about 1.5 to 4 feet bgs. This stratum contains occasional cobbles and boulders and is interpreted to be Glacial Till. Where fully penetrated (i.e.,practical refusal to further penetration of the augers),the Glacial Till varied from about 12.5 to 19.5 feet in thickness and extended to depths ranging from 15.5 to 20.8 feet bgs. The Glacial Till was typically described as medium dense to very dense based on N-values that ranged from 23 to 67 and averaged about 43. Two (2) particle-size analyses performed on representative samples of Glacial Till indicated 14% gravel, 49% and 43% sand, and. 37% and 43% silt/clay. The moisture content ranged from 8.2%to 8.9%,based on two (2) tests. It should be noted that particle-size analyses performed on granular soil samples recovered from split- spoons tend to slightly overestimate the "fines" content and slightly underestimate the gravel content,compared to in-situ conditions,due to the limitations(i.e.,the inside-diameter)of the split- spoon sampler. 3.2 Bedrock Practical refusal to further penetration of the augers and/or split-spoon sampler was encountered at each test boring location at depths ranging from about 15 to 20.8 feet bgs. The refusal in each exploration is interpreted to be refusal on the probable top of bedrock. Bedrock is not expected to impact the project, based on the results of this investigation. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater and/or wet soils were encountered in borings B-1, B-2, and B-6 at depths of 13 feet bgs, 8 feet bgs, and 8.5 feet bgs, respectively, at the time of drilling. These apparent groundwater depths correspond to approximate groundwater elevations of+227 feet,+234 feet,and+229.5 feet. Surface and/or perched groundwater was encountered at borings B-3 through B-5. This investigation occurred after a recent rainfall. Short-term (i.e., during drilling,upon completion of drilling, and/or a few hours after drilling) water levels observed in test borings performed in dense silty Glacial Till should be considered. approximate. Site groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate seasonally and in response to precipitation events, construction activity, site use, and adjacent site use. Page 5 of 15 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 4.0 GEOTECIINICAL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluation of the site and the proposed development was based on the subsurface conditions encountered. at the geotechnical test borings, results of geotechnical laboratory testing, provided site/grading plans, and assumed/prelimmary structural loading conditions, as described herein. JTC believes that the site soils are generally suitable for support of the proposed Track & Field, provided the site/subgrade is prepared as described herein and.the proposed drains/underdrains are installed in accordance with the Project Documents/Technical Specifications. The existing Topsoil,Existing Fill,and Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials are not suitable for direct support of building (e.g., grandstands) and/or light pole foundations. These soils should be completely removed from the building pad (i.e., the proposed building footprint plus at least 5 feet laterally) during the initial phases of site preparation and grading. Subsequently, the proposed building(s) can be supported upon shallow foundations bearing on undisturbed native Glacial Till and/or on Structural Fill or crushed stone built-up from properly prepared native soil subgrades, provided that the design and construction recommendations presented herein are satisfied. 4.1 Proposed Track& Field 4.1.1 Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation and grading should be performed in accordance with the following procedures: • A geotechnical engineer should directly observe site preparation and grading activities; • The site soils contain substantial proportions of fine sand, silt, and clay, and may degrade and/or become unworkable when subjected to construction traffic or other disturbance during wet conditions. As such, site preparations, grading, and earthworks should be performed during a dry season if possible. The Contractor shall be aware of these conditions and must take precautions to minimize subgrade disturbance." Such precautions may include diverting storm run-off away from construction areas, reducing traffic in sensitive areas,minimizing the extent of exposed subgrade if inclement weather is forecast, backfillmg excavations and footings as soon as practicable, grading (and compacting) exposed subgrades to promote surface water run-off, and. maintaining an effective dewatering program, as necessary. Over-excavation to remove degraded or unworkable subgrade soils should be anticipated and budgeted(cost and schedule); • Any existing buildings, structures, and/or associated foundations (including footings, foundation walls, slabs-on-grade, and/or basements) should be completely removed from proposed field,track, and/or pavement areas and replaced/backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill or Common Fill; • Any existing subsurface utilities in proposed.field., track, and/or pavement areas should.be removed (and replaced/backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill) and/or appropriately abandoned in place (e.g., pressure grouting), as approved by the on- site geotechnical engineer; Page 6 of 15 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts w_. p Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 • The site should be cleared and stripped of any existing asphalt-concrete pavement not designated to remain; existing trees/vegetation not designated to remain; Topsoil,rootmat, forest mat; loamy/organic-laden Subsoil; and any otherwise unsuitable materials; o The explorations indicate that most of the proposed Track & Field footprint is presently covered with 0.5 to 0.75 feet of Topsoil. • In cut areas,the final foot of excavation should be performed using a smooth-edged cutting bucket(no teeth)to minimize subgrade disturbance; • Following clearing, stripping, and/or cutting, the exposed subgrade soils should be proof- rolled using a large (10-ton) smooth-drum roller with successive passes aligned perpendicularly. However, proof-rolling should not be performed if/when the exposed subgrade soils are wet (i.e., due to presence of groundwater, stonnwater, perched water, etc.) because this may result in soil pumping and instability. Therefore, the proof-rolling efforts, including the number of passes and whether to employ static or vibratory methods, should be directed by the on-site geotechnical engineer; o Any loose, soft, wet, and/or otherwise unsuitable soils (typically evidenced by rutting, pumping, and/or deflection of the subgrade) should be over-excavated to expose suitable soils, or other remedial measures should be taken, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; and o The over-excavation should then be backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill or Common Fill, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer. • Structural Fill should be used for subgrade fill in confined areas or when walk-behind compaction equipment is used. The placement of Structural Fill materials to achieve design subgrades should not begin until the exposed subgrade soils have been directly observed and approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; • Common Fill is acceptable for subgrade fill in field, track, and parking/driveway areas. The placement of Common Fill materials to achieve design subgrades in pavement areas should not begin until the exposed subgrade soils have been directly observed.and approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; • Structural Fill and Common Fill materials and placement and compaction requirements are provided in the attached Table 1; and • Field/track drainage/underdrainage systems should. be installed in accordance with the Project Documents/Technical Specifications.The placement of the drainage/underdrainage systems should not begin until the design subgrade has been directly observed and. approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer and/or the track & field design engineer of record. 4.1.2 Re-Use of Site Soils Topsoil encountered.at the exploration locations is not suitable for re-use as Structural Fill, Clean Granular Fill, or Common Fill. These soils may be re-used in areas to be landscaped, subject to conformance with the project specifications. Page 7 of 15 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 The Existing Fill, Former Topsoil/Subsoil, and Glacial Till materials encountered at the exploration locations are not suitable for re-use as Structural Fill or Clean Granular- Fill. However,an excavated and stockpiled matrix of Existing Fill,Former Topsoil/Subsoil and Glacial Till should be suitable for re-use as Common Fill (.e., subgrade fill in Track & Field areas), provided that debris-laden Existing Fill materials, excessively organic Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials, excessively silty Glacial Till materials, wet/saturated soils, and/or otherwise unsuitable materials are appropriately segregated/removed from the excavated matrix. 4.2 Proposed/Future Grandstand and Light Poles 4.2.1 Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation and grading should be performed in accordance with the following procedures: • A geotechnical engineer should directly observe site preparation and grading activities; • The site soils contain substantial proportions of fine sand, silt, and clay, and may degrade and/or become unworkable when subjected to construction traffic or other disturbance during wet conditions. As such, site preparations, grading, and earthworks should be perfoniied during a dry season if possible. The Contractor shall be aware of these conditions and must take precautions to minimize subgrade disturbance. Such precautions may include diverting storm run-off away from construction areas, reducing traffic in sensitive areas,minimizing the extent of exposed subgrade if inclement weather is forecast, backfilling excavations and footings as soon as practicable, grading (and compacting) exposed subgrades to promote surface water run-off, and maintaining an effective dewatering program, as necessary. Over-excavation to remove degraded or unworkable subgrade soils should be anticipated and budgeted(cost and schedule); • Any existing buildings, structures, and/or associated foundations (including footings, foundation walls, slabs-on-grade, and/or basements) should be completely removed from proposed building and pavement areas and replaced/backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill; • Any existing subsurface utilities and underground structures should be completely removed from the footprint of the proposed. building(s) and replaced/backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill. Any existing subsurface utilities in proposed pavement areas should be removed and/or appropriately abandoned in place(e.g., pressure grouting), as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; • The site should be cleared and stripped of any existing asphalt-concrete pavement not designated to remain; existing trees/vegetation not designated to remain; Topsoil,rootmat, forest mat; loamy/organic-laden Subsoil; and any otherwise unsuitable materials; o The explorations indicate that most of the site is presently covered with 0.5 to 0.75 feet of Topsoil. • Existing Fill, Former Topsoil/Subsoil, and any otherwise unsuitable materials should be completely removed from the proposed building pads (i.e.,the proposed building footprint plus at least 5 feet laterally); Page 8 of 15 ,:" Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts - . Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 o The geotechnical explorations indicate that Existing Fill and Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials extend to depths on the order of 1 to 4 feet bgs proximate to the proposed Track&Field; and o Additional Undocumented Fill materials should also be expected proximate to existing building(s) and subsurface utilities. • In cut areas,the final foot of excavation should be performed using a smooth-edged cutting bucket(no teeth)to minimize subgrade disturbance; • Following clearing, stripping, and/or cutting, the exposed subgrade soils should.be proof- rolled using a large (10-ton) smooth-drum roller with successive passes aligned perpendicularly. However, proof-rolling should not be performed if/when the exposed subgrade soils are wet (i.e., due to presence of groundwater, stormwater, perched water, etc.) because this may result in soil pumping and instability. Therefore, the proof-rolling efforts, including the number of passes and.whether to employ static or vibratory methods, should be directed by the on-site geotechnical engineer; o Any loose, soft, wet, and/or otherwise unsuitable soils (typically evidenced by rutting, pumping, and/or deflection of the subgrade) should be over-excavated to expose suitable soils, or other remedial measures should be taken, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; and o The over-excavation should then be backfilled with properly placed.and compacted Structural Fill. • Structural Fill should. be used for subgrade fill within building pads. The placement of Structural Fill materials to achieve design subgrades in building pads should not begin until the exposed subgrade soils have been directly observed and approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; • Common Fill is acceptable for subgrade fill in parking and driveway areas. The placement of Common Fill materials to achieve design subgrades in pavement areas should not begin until the exposed subgrade soils have been directly observed and approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; and • Structural Fill and Common Fill materials and placement and compaction requirements are provided in the attached Table 1. 4.2.2 Shallow Foundations Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the exploration locations and our current understanding and assumptions relative to the proposed development, the following preliminary foundation design recommendations are provided: • The existing Topsoil, Existing Fill, and Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials are not suitable for direct support of shallow foundations. These materials should be completely removed from the footprints) of the building(s),plus 5 feet laterally, as described in Section 4.21; • Buildings and light poles can be supported on a system of continuous and/or isolated shallow spread footings bearing on undisturbed native Glacial Till and/or on Structural Fill or crushed stone built-up from properly prepared native soil subgrades; Page 9 of 15 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 • Shallow foundations may be designed. using an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 ps£ Design bearing pressures may be increased by one-third(1/)when considering seismic and or transient wind loading conditions; • Continuous wall footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet. Isolated column footings should.have a minimum width of 3 feet; • Exterior footings should be founded at least 4 feet below the lowest adjacent grade to provide adequate frost protection. Interior footings in heated portions of buildings should be founded at least 2 feet below FFE to develop adequate bearing capacity; • Total post-construction settlements due to applied.foundation loads are estimated to be 0.75 inches or less, based on wall and column footing widths of up to 3 feet and 5 feet, respectively. Differential settlements along continuous wall footings and/or between isolated column footings are estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inches or less. The estimated settlements and resulting angular distortion are anticipated to be within the allowable limits for this type of structure; • A foundation drain system should be installed around the perimeter of the grandstand/building(s)at the exterior toe of the exterior footings.Foundation drains should consist of 4-inch diameter PVC-SDR35 perforated pipe encased in at least 6 inches of 3/4— inch stone protected with a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equal. The drains should be graded to positively drain to a suitable discharge point away from the proposed structure. Drains should not be connected to surface or roof drain discharge points.Clean-outs should be located at bends and no greater than 150 feet on-center. It is recommended that a backflow preventer be installed at the outlet of the drains to reduce the impact of potential surcharges; and • The design of light pole foundations should consider pull-out (uplift), sliding, and overturning due to wind-induced uplift, lateral, and/or rotational loads. o Resistance to net tensile loads (i.e., uplift) can be provided by the weight of the foundation elements, the weight of the soil directly above the foundation elements (if applicable), and the superstructure. The structural designer should evaluate the actual design tensile loads and. the actual tensile resistance (i.e., uplift resistance) based upon the actual foundation configuration, targeting a 1.5 factor of safety; o Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction along the base of the foundations_An interface friction angle,cp,of about 22 degrees is recommended for mass concrete against silty fine to medium sand,which results in a frictional factor, tan y, of 0.40. Only dead loads should. be used in the calculation of available interface friction; o An active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, of 0.33 and a passive earth pressure coefficient,Kp, of 1.5 (3.0 divided by reduction factor of 2)may be considered for resistance to lateral loads and overturning; and o To resist overturning, the net reaction should be located within the middle third of the footing base. x d Page 10 of 15 '-',�' ' � W� Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report May 16,2016 Recommendations for shallow foundation subgrade preparation/construction and foundation backfilling are provided as follows: • A geotechnical engineer or his/her representative should directly observe foundation subgrade preparation activities; • If shallow and/or perched groundwater is encountered, it must be removed in advance of excavation and continuously maintained at least 2 feet below the bottom of excavation and subsequent construction grade until the backfilling is complete; • Excavations for shallow foundations must extend into undisturbed native Glacial Till and/or Structural Fill built-up from properly prepared native soils, as described herein; • The native foundation subgrade soils will be sensitive to moisture and will readily disturb or soften if exposed to wet conditions and construction activities. Therefore,the final foot, at a minimum, of excavation for foundations should be performed using a smooth-edged cutting bucket (no teeth) to minimize subgrade disturbance. If seepage/shallow groundwater and/or precipitation result in wet conditions,the exposed foundation subgrade should be protected with a 6-inch (minimum) thick layer of 3/4-inch minus crushed stone encased in a geotextile fabric (e.g., Mirafi 140N or equal). The crushed stone shall be placed immediately upon exposure of the native foundation subgrade soils and densified with a plate compactor until exhibiting stable conditions. The purpose of the crushed stone is to protect the fine-grained subgrade soils from disturbance, facilitate construction dewatering (if necessary), and provide a dry/stable subgrade upon which to progress construction; o If Undocumented Fill and/or otherwise unsuitable soils/materials are encountered at the foundation subgrade, over-excavations should remove all Fill and/or unsuitable soils within the footing zone of influence, which is defined as the area extending laterally I foot from edges of the footing and then outward and downward at a IH:1.5V (horizontal to vertical) splay of bearing until a suitable native subgrade soil is encountered; and o Any over-excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill or crushed stone as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer. • Prior to setting forms and placing reinforcing steel, a geotechnical engineer should directly observe footing subgrades; o Footing subgrades should be level or suitably benched and free of standing water and/or debris; o Loose,soft,wet,frozen,or otherwise unsuitable soils should either be re-compacted or over-excavated to a suitable subgrade, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; and o Over-excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill or crushed stone as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer. • Foundation subgrade soils should be protected against physical disturbance, precipitation, and/or frost throughout construction. Surface water run-on/run-off should be diverted away Page 11 of 15 �h Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 from open foundation excavations. The Contractor shall ultimately be responsible for the means and methods to protect the foundation subgrade during construction; • Interior footings, piers, and/or walls and the interior side of perimeter foundation walls should be backfilled with Clean Granular Fill and/or 3-inch minus material meeting the requirements of Structural Fill, as described in the attached Table 1; • Exterior footings, piers, and the exterior side of perimeter foundation walls should. be backfilled with non-frost-susceptible fill in order to mitigate potential adverse effects of frost. Backfill for exterior footings, piers, and foundation walls should consist of well- graded,free-draining,granular soil conforming to the requirements of Clean Granular Fill, as described. in the attached Table 1. Alternatively, a suitable bond break (such as rigid polystyrene insulation)may be provided as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer. In this case, footings and walls (excluding unbalanced/basement walls) may be backfilled with Common Fill (see attached Table 1) having a maximum particle-size of 3 inches, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; • Backfill for footings, piers, and. foundation walls should be placed in uniform horizontal lifts having a maxinluin loose lift thickness of 8 inches and compacted to 95 percent of its modified proctor maximum dry density(MPMDD;per ASTM D 1557).Thinner lifts may be required in order to achieve the required compaction criteria; and • To minimize the potential for foundation wall damage during the backfill and compaction activities, it is recommended that foundation wall backfill be placed in a manner that maintains a balanced fill height on both sides of the wall (up to the final exterior grade). 4.2.3 Floor Slabs-On-Grade Design recommendations for the floor slab-on-grade are provided as follows: • A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction,kvi, of 175 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be available for structural design of floor slabs-on-grade, provided that the subgrade, Structural Fill, and the Clean Granular Fill are prepared as recommended in Subsections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3; • The floor slab-on-grade should be underlain by a minimum 9-inch thick layer of Clean Granular Fill to provide a capillary break and a stable working surface; • The floor slab should be isolated structurally from foundation walls and colunms/piers to allow for differential movement; • The need/desire to provide a moisture/vapor barrier beneath floor slab-on-grade should be evaluated by the architect and/or the structural engineer, based on the building's specific interior usage requirements. During construction, we expect that much of the building footprint will be excavated or disturbed during site preparation and grading (Subsection 4.2.1), excavations for shallow foundations (Subsection 4.2.2), and/or excavations for new underground utilities. It is imperative that the subgrade beneath the floor slab-on-grade be reinstated with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill and/or prepared as recommended herein. Additionally: Page 12 of 15 Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report-May 16,2016 • A geotechnical engineer should directly observe the subgrade soils prior to the placement of the recommended.Clean Granular Fill base course; o The subgrade should be level and free of standing water and/or debris; o Loose,soft,wet,frozen,or otherwise unsuitable soils should either be re-compacted or over-excavated to a suitable subgrade, as approved by the on-site geotechnical engineer; and o Over-excavations should be backfilled with properly placed and compacted Structural Fill. • The Clean Granular Fill base course should not be placed until the subgrade has been reviewed by the on-site geotechnical engineer. Subsequently, the Clean Granular Fill should be compacted to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer to 95% of its MPMDD. 4.2.4 Seismic Considerations A site class "C" is recommended based on site class definitions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. The site is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction,based on the conditions encountered at the test boring locations. 4.2.5 Re-Use of Site Soils Topsoil encountered at the exploration locations is not suitable for re-use as Structural Fill, Clean Granular Fill, or Common Fill. These soils may be re-used in areas to be landscaped, subject to conformance with the project specifications. Existing Fill materials are not expected to be suitable for re-use as Clean Granular Fill. Some of the Existing Fill may be suitable for re-use as Structural Fill, provided that it is appropriately segregated from excessively silty,wet,and/or otherwise unsuitable Existing Fill materials,Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials,Glacial Till,and/or other unsuitable materials. Most of the Existing Fill materials should be suitable for re-use as Common Fill, provided that any over-sized debris, organics, or otherwise unsuitable materials are appropriately removed. The Former Topsoil/Subsoil materials are not expected to be suitable for re-use as Structural Fill or Clean Granular-Fill. Some of these materials may be suitable for re-use as Common Fill if appropriately blended with other on-site materials and any excessively organic soils are removed.. Glacial Till is not expected to be suitable for re-use as Structural Fill or Clean Granular Fill. Most of this material should be suitable for re-use as Common Fill provided that it is appropriately segregated from excessively silty,wet, and/or otherwise unsuitable materials. Page 13 of 15 1?1 OW ' 43 .. Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,Massachusetts Geotechnical Investigation Report-May 16,2016 4.3 Construction Monitoring and Quality Control Testing A qualified geotechnical engineer or representative should be retained. to review the site preparation and grading activities and foundation subgrade preparations,at a minimum. Similarly, quality control testing, including in-place field density and.moisture tests, should be performed to confirm that the specified compaction is achieved.. It is recommended that JTC be retained to provide earthwork construction monitoring and quality control testing services. Quality control testing recommendations are provided as follows: • During site grading and foundation subgrade preparation, 3 field density tests should be performed for every 4,000 square feet(per lift)of Structural Fill placement,at a minimum. At least 3 tests should be performed on each lift of material even if the lift is less than 4,000 square feet; • During foundation wall backfilling,3 field density tests should be performed for every 100 linear feet(per lift) of fill placement, at a minimum. At least 3 tests should be performed on each lift of material even if the lift is less than 100 linear feet; • During placement and compaction of Clean Granular Fill as the base course below the floor slab-on-grade and sidewalks,3 field density tests should be performed for every 4,000 square feet of placement. At least 3 tests should be performed on each lift of material even if the lift is less than 4,000 square feet; • During backfilling of utility trenches, at least 1 test should be conducted on Structural Fill per 50 linear feet(per lift)of trench; and • During site grading and subgrade preparation, 3 field density tests should be performed for every 4,000 square feet(per lift) of Common Fill, at a minimum. At least 3 tests should be performed on each lift even if the lift is less than 4,000 square feet. 4.4 Additional Considerations Additional design recommendations are provided as follows: • Exterior concrete sidewalks shall be underlain by at least 15 inches of Clean Granular Fill. The thickness of the Clean Granular Fill shall be increased to no less than 24 inches for exterior concrete slabs located adjacent to exterior doorways and ramps to provide additional frost protection at building entry/exit points; • Roof drains or similar features should be provided to collect roof run-off and prevent ponding near buildings. Roof drains and other stormwater controls should not discharge to foundation drains; • The exterior ground surface adjacent to buildings should be sloped away from the building to provide for positive drainage. Similarly,the final surface materials adjacent to buildings should.be relatively impermeable to reduce the volume of precipitation infiltrating into the subsurface proximate to building foundations. Such impermeable materials include cement concrete,bituminous concrete, and/or vegetated silty/clayey topsoil; and Page 14 of 15 �:-1 Proposed Track&Field—Merrimack College—North Andover,Massachusetts ., . Geotechnical Investigation Report—May 16,2016 • Permanent fill or cut slopes should have a maximum slope of 2.5H:IV (horizontal to vertical)or flatter for dry conditions. Permanent fill or cut slopes should be no steeper than 3H:1V for wet/submerged conditions (e.g_, stormwater basin) unless a properly designed surface slope stabilization system(e.g. rip rap, geosynthetics) is provided. Additional construction recommendations are provided as follows: • Safe temporary excavation and/or fill slopes are the responsibility of the Contractor. Excavations should be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal (OSHA) requirements, at a minimum. If an excavation cannot be properly sloped or benched due to space limitations, adjacent structures, and/or seepage, the Contractor should install an engineered shoring system to support the temporary excavation; • Subgrade conditions will be influenced by excavation methods,precipitation, stormwater management, groundwater control(s), and/or construction activities. Most of the site soils are poorly-drained, moisture-sensitive, and considered susceptible to disturbance when exposed to wet conditions and construction activities. As such, the Contractor shall be aware of these conditions and must take precautions to minimize subgrade disturbance. Such precautions may include diverting storm run-off away from construction areas, reducing traffic in sensitive areas, minimizing the extent of exposed subgrade if inclement weather is forecast, backfilling excavations and footings as soon as practicable, and. maintaining an effective dewatering program, as necessary; • Proper groundwater control and stormwater management are necessary to maintain site stability. Groundwater should be continuously maintained at least 2 feet below the working construction grade until earthworks and/or backfilling are complete; • If groundwater seepage and/or wet soils due to shallow groundwater are observed, a 3/4- inch minus crushed stone base should be placed atop the exposed subgrade soils. The stone should be immediately placed atop the undisturbed subgrade and then tamped with a plate compactor until exhibiting stable conditions.The stone shall be protected,as required,with a geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equal. The purpose of the stone base is to protect the wet subgrade, facilitate dewatering, and provide a dry/stable base upon which to progress construction; and • All slopes should be protected from erosion during(and after) construction. 5.0 CLOSING We trust the contents of this report are responsive to your needs at this time. Should you have any questions or require additional assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Page 15 of 15 . � T � C LIMITATIONS Explorations 1. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from widely-spaced subsurface explorations. Subsurface conditions between exploration locations may vary from those encountered at the exploration locations. The nature and extent of variations between explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions.The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely-spaced explorations and samples; actual strata transitions are probably more gradual.For specific information,refer to the individual test pit and/or boring logs. 3. Water level readings have been made in the test pits and/or test borings under conditions stated on the logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report.However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time the measurements were made. Review 4. It is recommended that John Turner Consulting,Inc.be given the opportunity to review final design drawings and specifications to evaluate the appropriate implementation of the geotechnical engineering recommendations provided herein. 5. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed areas are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by John Turner Consulting,Inc. Construction 6. It is recommended that John Turner Consulting, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,specifications,and recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Use of Report 7. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Merrimack College in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. S. This report has been prepared for this project by John Turner Consulting; Inc. This report was completed for preliminary design purposes and may be limited in its scope to complete an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to preliminary geotechnical design considerations. TABLE 1 Recommended Soil Gradation & Compaction Specifications Structural Fill SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 5-inch 100 3/4-mch 60 - 100 No. 4 20 - 80 No. 200 0 - 10 NOTES: 1. For use as structural load support below foundations and as subgrade fill within building pads. Structural Fill placed beneath building foundations should include the Footing Zone of Influence which is defined as that area extending laterally one foot from the edge of the footing then outward and downward at a IH:1.5V splay. 2. 3/4-inch crushed stone may be used in wet conditions. 3. Structural Fill should be free of construction and demolition debris, frozen soil, organic soil,peat,stumps,brush,trash, and refuse; 4. Structural Fill should not be placed on soft, saturated,or frozen subgrade soils; 5. Structural Fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches for heavy vibratory rollers and 8 inches for vibratory plate compactors. 6. Place and compact within±3%of optimum moisture content. 7. Compact to at least 95%relative compaction per ASTM D 1557. 8. The adequacy of the compaction efforts should be verified by field density testing. T,,,i"U",'C Clean Granular Fill SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT! 3-inch 100 3/4-inch 60—90 No. 4 20—70 No. 200 2-8 NOTES: 1. For miminum 9-inch base below floor slabs-on-grade. 2. For minimum 15-inch base for exterior concrete slabs exposed to frost. 3. For minimum 24-inch base at exterior ramps,aprons,and loading bays adjacent to entrances/exit ways. 4. For use as footing and foundation wall backfill. 5. For use as backfill behind unbalanced foundation/retaining walls. 6. Place in lifts not exceeding 12 inches for heavy vibratory rollers and 8 inches for vibratory plate compactors. 7. Place and compact within f 3%of optimum moisture content. 8. Compact to at least 95%relative compaction per ASTM D 1557. 9. Compaction efforts should be verified by field density testing. Common Fill SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 6-inch 100 3/4-inch 60— 100 No. 4 20—85 No. 200 0—25 NOTES: 1. For use as common/subgrade fill for athletic fields,parking areas,and embankments. 2. For use as foundation wall backfill if used in conjunction with a bond break and. sized/screened to 3-inch minus. 3. Place in lifts not exceeding 12 inches. 4. Maximum stone size should not exceed%the actual lift thickness. 5. Compact to at least 92%relative compaction per ASTM D1557 when placed as subgrade fill in parking areas or roadway embankments. 6. Compact to at least 95%relative compaction per ASTM D 1557 when placed as foundation wall backfill in conjunction with a bond break. 7. Compaction efforts should be verified by field density testing. Master Plan & Test Boring LocationIan Test Boring Logs & Keyto Symbols and Descriptions JOHN TURNER CONSULTING Project: PROPOSED TRACK&FIELD Boring NO.: B-1 Soil/Rock Exploration Loo Location: MERRIMACKCOLLEGE PIN: US UNITS NORTH A.NDOVER. TvLASSACHUSETTS Driller: GNYTB Elevation(ft.) 240 Auger ID/OD: 425"OD Operator: JEFF LEE Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer Wt./Fall: 140 LBS 30" Date Start/Finish: 0311W2016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing IDIOD: NA Water Level`: 13 ft bgs Definitions: Definitions: Definitions: D=Split Spoon Sample Su=Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water ctm ent,percent MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt TV=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Wall Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(ksf) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) PI=Plasticity Index V=InsRu Vane Shear Test W OH=weight of 1401b.hammer G=Grain Size Analysis SSA=Solid Stem Au er WOR=wei ht of rods C=Consolidation Test Sample Information Laboratory t Testing 0 5 0 o o Results/ Z g L o Visual Description and Remarks AASHTO Q m Ca = and V' mc�d m G3 > a I m a�i m o L u tr o m E nified Class. O u3 d to 07 to to°-`o Z U m W t0 p Dark browv silty'sand(SM. )-TOPSOIL SS01 24i18 0.0-'_.0 9/21/23/26 44 239.5 0.5 Brown,silty f-c sand with gavel(SM)-dense;moist:FILL SS02 2448 25-4.5 12/19/20/50 39 237.5 2'5) Dark brown,silty sand(SM)-trace rootlets;dense;moist:FORMER TOPSOIL:SUBSOIL 4 236.0 ' 4.0 Tan mottled rv/oxidation,silty f-m sand(SM)-few gavel;media n dense; SS03 24%24 5.0-7.0 12/12/17i20 29 moist:GLACIAL TILL 8 Cobbles Tan,silty f-in sand(SM)-few gravel;deivse;moist:GLAML TILL SSO4 24,124 10.0-12.0 17/19/17132 36 12 Gray.silty sand(SM)- few gravel: very dense_moist:GLACIAL TILL SS05 241M 15.0-17.0 20/32/35/50 67 16 221.5 Bottom of Exploration at I&S feet below ground surface. :queer refitsal at 18.5 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) 20 1 Remarks: Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types;transitions may be gradual. Page 1 Of 1 Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Boring No.: B-1 JOHN TURNER CONSULTING Project: PROPOSEDTRACK&ITELD Boring No.: B-2 Soil/Rock Exploration Lo Location: MERR[MACK COLLEGE US UNITS 9 NORTH ANDOVpR, PIN: MASSACHUSETTS Driller: GWTB Elevation(ft.) 242 Auger ID/OD: 4.25"OD Operator: JEFF LEE Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer WL/Fall: 140 LBS/30" Date Start/Finish: 03i 17/2016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing ID/OD: NA Water Level": 8 ft bgs Definitions: Definitions: Definitions: D=Split Spoon Sample Su=Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water content,percent MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt Tv=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Wail Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(ksf) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) PI=Plasticity Index V=Insitu Vane Shear Test WOH=weight of 1401b.hammer G=Grain Size Analysis SSA=Solid Stem Auger WOR=wei ht of rods C=Consolidation Test Sample Information t Laboratory z° ^ 0 Testing c e c c —e Visual Description and Remarks Results/ s Q W CL ti o, +> > o, ° 0 AASHTO m c w O _c u, .r Q and a ° a.° m^ c tll ' N 3 Unified Class. 0 Dark brown silty sand(S'MI)-TOPSOIL SSW 24.�18 0.0-2.0 3?1'_/32iSO 45 241.5 0.5 Brown;silk-f-e sand with gravel(SIVI)-occasional wood and brick pieces 240-01dense;moist:FILL Z4cl.(I - SS02 24r18 2.0-4.0 12,-13115J20 28 _ 2 0 Dark brown,silty laud(SM)-trace rootlets;mediun dense;worst:FOR1M1-ER 2390 ":: TOPSOIL/SUBSOIL 3.0 Gray mottled w(oxidation,silty f-m sand(SM)-few gravel:medium dense; 4 moist:GLACLAL TILL Tan mottled w/oxidation;silty f-m sand(SA4)-few gravel;dense;moist: SS03 24/6 5.0-7.0 17123i20/50 43 GLACLAL TILL 8 SSO4 241,12 10.0-120 15!22i26;3G 48 Tau,silty f-m sand(SM)- few gravel; dense;moist:GLACLAL TILL . ws 12 SS05 6/6 15.0-15.5 50/6" 50 16 20 SS06 6r6 20.0-20.5 50/6" 50 221.5 ,0 Bottom of Exploration at 20.5 feet below ground surface. Auger refusal at 20.5 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) 24 Remarks: Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types;transitions may be gradual. Page 1 of 1 Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Boring No.: B-2 JOHN TURNER CONSULTING Project: PROPOSED TRACK&FIELD Boring No.: B-3 Soil/Rock Exploration Loa Location: MERRIMACK COLLEGE PIN: US UNITS NORTH ANDOVER, I IA SSACIIUSETTS Driller: G\NrTB Elevation(ft.) 239 Auger ID/OD: 4 25"OD Operator: IEFF LEE Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer Wt./Fall: 140 LBS30" Date Start/Finish: 03i 172016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing ID/OD: NA Water Level`: 2 ft bgs Definitions: Definitions: Definitions: S Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water content.percent D=Split Spoon Sample u= � MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt Tv=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Wall Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(ksr) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) Pt=Plasticity Index V=Insdu Vane Sheer Test WOH=weight of 1461b.hammer G=Grain Size Analysis SSA=Solid Stem Au er WOR=wei ht of rods C=Consolidation Test Sample Information Laboratory L Testing z° U co o c -1 Visual Description and Remarks AgSHTO = O U o a o m r and `m c 1.CJ > a E � E r, o=�N� > � o �-- E Unified Class. 0 m tl u) m to rA a`o Z U m w CD 0 Dark brown silty sand(SM)-TOPSOIL SSOl 24;12 0.0-2A 5-6-7-11 13 233.5 0.5 238.0 :: Brown;silty f-c sand with gravel(SM)-medium dense:.moist:FILL 10 Gray mottled w-oxidation.silty f-m sand(SW-few gravel;medium dense; moist GLACLAL TILL SS02 24124 20-4.0 12-20-22-32 42 Tan mottled vvi oxidation,silty f-m sand(SM)-few gravel;dense;moist: GLACIAL TILL 4 SS03 24/24 5.0-TO 11-19-26-26 45 Cobbles 8 12 Gray,silty'sand(SM)- few gravel:, dense:moist:GLACIAL TILL SSO4 24'18 15.0-17.0 14-20-24-36 44 16 20 SS05 10,110 20.0-20.8 24-504' 218.2 I` 20.8 Bottom of Exploration at 20.8 feet below ground surface. Spoon refusal at 20.8 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) Remarks: Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types;transitions may be gradual. Page t of 1 `Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Boring No.: B-3 JOHN TURNER CONSULTING Project: PROPOSED TRACK&FIELD Boring NO.: B-4 SoillRock Exploration L� Location: MERRIMACK COLLEGE US UNITS NORTH ANDO'VER- PIN: MASSACHUSETTS Driller: GWTB Elevation(ft.) 233 Auger IDIOD: 425"OD Operator: JEFF LEE Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer Wt./Fall: 140 LBS30" Date Start/Finish: 03/17i2016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing IDIOD: NA Water Level": 1/2"of surface water Definitions: Definitions: Definitions: D=Split Spoon Sample Su=Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water content,percent MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt Tv=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Well Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(kst) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) PI=Plasticity Index V=Insitu Vane Shear Test WOH=weight of 1401b.hammer G=Grain Size Analysis SSA=Solid Stem Auger WOR=weight of rods C=Consolidation Test Sample Information _ Laboratory o m Testing z L J Visual Description and Remarks Results/ AASHTO o. E E E 3 a1°i �w� m y 3 > a and °t t0 Q m °_ e ° m E Unified Class. 0 fn 0- u) m to cn n.`o z U m IS t� U Dark brown sily sand(SW-SM)-TOPSOIL 2 SS01 4/12 0.0-2.0 3-10-34-50 44 232.5 0.5 Brown;f-c sand with silt and gravel(SM)-dense;moist:FILL 2310 ::::::: 2.0 SS02 6'6 2.0-2.5 50;6" Cnay,silty f-m sand(SMn- few gravel;dense;moist:GLACIAL TILL 4 SS03 18112 5.0-6.5 9-26-50/6" 76 s Gray,silty sand(SM))- few gravel; very dense:moist:GLACIAL TILL SSO4 24,124 10.0-12.0 21-30-30-40 60 12 ss 217 5 15.5 16 Bottom of Exploration at 15.5 feet below ground surface. Anger refusal at 15.5 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) 20 24 Remarks: Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types;transitions may be gradual Page t of 1 `Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conciftions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Boring NO.: B-4 JOIN TURNER R CONSULTING Project: PROPOSED TRACK&FIELD Boring No.: B-5 Location: MERRIMACK COLLEGE US UNITS Soil/Rock Exploration Log NORTH ANDOVER PIN: NI ASSACM TSETTS Driller: GRTTB Elevation(ft.) 233 Auger IDIOD: 4.25"OD Operator: JEFF LEE Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer Wt./Fall: 140 LBS30" Date Start/Finish: 03AT2016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing IDIOD: NA Water Level`: 1;2"of surface water Definifions: Definitions: Definitions: D=Split Spoon Sample Su=Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water content,percent MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt Ty=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Wall Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(ksf) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) PI=Plasticity Index V=Insitu Vane Shear Test WOH=weight of 1401b.hammer G=Grain Size Analysis SSA=Solid Stem Auger WOR=weight of rods C=Consolid-lion Test Sample Information Laboratory = Testing o Results/ z 6 Visual Description and Remarks AASHTO O V m m N r and a E c E 3 " m .N 3 > a a) Coo tv o m ipUnified Class. o to d to ur n to°`o z U m w c9 p Dark brown silty sand(SM)-TOPSOIL SSO1 24,118 0.0-2.0 2-7-13-22 20 232.3 ' 0.8 Brown,f-c sand with silt and gravel(SW-SM)-medium,dense;.moist:FILL SS02 24,112 2.5-4.5 17-12-18-20 30 230.5 2'1 Tan mottled wi oxidation,silty f-ur sand(SM)-few gravel:medium dense; moist:GLACIAL TILL 4 SS03 24%12 5.0-7.0 4-10-17-40 27 ff Gray,silty sand(SW- few gravel; deuce;moist:GLACIAL TILL SSO4 12rI2 10.0-11.0 21-50r"6" 12 218.0 iiiP 1$, Bottom of Exploration at 15.0 feet below ground surface. Auger refusal at 15 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) 16 20 14 Remarks Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types:transitions may be gradual Page 1 Of 1 `Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Boring No.: B-5 JOHN TURNER CONSULTING Project: PROPOSED TRACK&FIELD Boring NO.: B-6 Soil/Rock Exploration Log Location: 1vIERRUv1ACK COLLEGE US UNITS NORTHANDOVER, PIN: NCNSSACHUSETTS Driller: GNN'TB Elevation(ft.) 238 Auger ID/OD: 4 25'OD Operator: 7EFF LEE. Datum: Sampler: 2"SPLIT-SPOON Logged By: R GUPTEL Rig Type: MOBILE B53 RUBBER TRACK Hammer Wt./Fall: 140 LBS30" Date Start/Finish: 03/172016 Drilling Method: HSA Core Barrel: Boring Location: SEE LOCATION PLAN Casing IDIOD: NA Water Level*: 8.5 ft bgs Definitions: Definitions: Definitions: D=Split Spoon Sample Su=Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength(psf) WC=water content,percent MD=Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt Tv=Pocket Torvane Shear Strength(psf) LL=Liquid Limit U=Thin Wall Tube Sample qp=Unconfined Compressive Strength(ksf) PL=Plastic Limit R=Rock Core Sample Su(lab)=Lab Vane Shear Strength(psf) PI=Plasticity Index V=Insitu Vane Shear Test WOH=weight of 14011h.hammer G=Grain Size Anai sas SSA=Solid Stem Auger WOR=weight of rods C=Consolidation Test Sample Information L Laboratory z CS c o o Testing w m o m w c —' Visual Description and Remarks Results/ °' °— — AASHTO n E c E 3 1° c'�m m E �' .t0_ a and w m o o= w m o Unified Class. 0 W a- to' to t7 in a`o Z U m w (.� 0 2 �_ Dark brown silty sand(SM)-TOPSOIL SSOI 4r 12 0.0-�.0 4-6-6 10 237.5 OS Brown;f-c sand with silt and gravel(SW-SM)-medium dense:moist:FILL 236.0 2.0 SS02 24/12 2-0-4.0 4-3-3-4 6 Dark brown,silty sand(SM)-trace rootlets;loose;moist:FORMER 235.0 TOPSOIL;SUBSOIL 3.0 Gray mottled w/ox;idation,silly f-tn sand(SM)-few gravel:medium dense: 4 moist:GLACIAL TILL SS03 24/12 5.0-7.0 4-11-12-11 23 8 Tau,silty f-in sand(SM)- few gravel;dense_moist:GLACIAL TILL SSO4 24/18 10.0-12.0 11-25-5016" 75 12 16 20 217.5 s Bottom orExplorafion at 20.5 feet below ground surface. Auger refusal at 205 ft bgs(probable BEDROCK) 24 Remarks: Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types:transitions may be gradual. Page 1 of 1 "Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated.Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions other than those present at the time measurements were made. Bring NO.: B-6 Client: Merrimack College Project: Proposed Track&Field 1TC Proj.No.: 16-15-015 Drill Date(s): 03/18/16 1TC Rep.: Rachel Guptel Driller: Great Works Test Boring SUMMARY OF AUGER PROBE FINDINGS Probe Topsoil/Forest Subsoil Thickness Existing Fill Farmer Topsoil Depth Depth Notes No. Mat Thickness Thickness Thickness to to Glacial Till Water (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft bgs) (ft bgs) P-1 0.5-0.75 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 2.0-4.0 7 Cobbles at 2'bgs. P-2 0.5-0.75 - 1.0-2.0 - - Boulders at 2'bgs. P-3 0.5-0.75 - 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 2.0-4.0 - Cobbles at 7.5'bgs. P-4 0.5-0.75 - 1.0-2.0 - 1.5-3.0 - Cobbles at 7'bgs. P-5 0.5-0.75 - 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 2.0-4.0 7 P-6 0.5-0.75 - 2.0-3.0 2.5-4.0 - Cobbles at 5'bgs. P-7 0.5-0.75 - 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 1.5-3.0 4 - P-8 0.5-0.75 - 2.0-2.5 0.5-1.0 3.0-4.0 - Cobbles at 7'bgs. P-9 0.5-0.75 - 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 2.0-4.0 Cobbles at 6'bgs. P-10 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 - - 2.0-2.5 - P-11 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 - - 2.0-2.5 4 P-12 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 - - 2.0-2.5 - Cobbles at 5'bgs. P-13 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 - - 2.0-2.5 - Cobbles at 6' bgs. P-14 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 - - - Notes: 1 Stratum thicknesses are based on visual observations of cuttings and drilling difficulty and should be considered approximate. 2 Glacial Till was encountered in each probe location beneath Topsoil,Existing Fill,and/or Former Topsoil. 3 Each probe was advanced to 10 feet bgs without refusal. MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS TYPICAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS • GW Well graded gravels or gravel-sand Shelby Tube Auger Cuttings CLEAN mixtures;trace or no tines. Y g GRAVELS GRAVELS (Less than 5%fines) o QQ (gip Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand ("More than 50% mixtures;trace or no fines. VStandit Spoon Sample 3"Split Spoon Sample of coarse fraction RETAINED) GRAVELS • GM Silty gravels or gravel-sand-sift mixtures. D namic Cone Penetrometer No.4 sieve) WITH FINES —4 COARSEGRAINED More than 12%o fines � Clayey gravels or gravel-sand-claySOILS mixtures. Bulk/Grab Sample (More than 50%r RETAINED on SW Well graded sands or sand-gravel G robe Sample No.200 sieve) CLEAN mixtures;trace or no tin enes. P P Sonic or Vibro-Core Sample SANDS SANDS (50%or more (Less than 5%fines) Sp Poorly graded sands or sand-gravel Water Table at time of drillin Water Table after 24 hours of coarse fraction mixtures,trace or no fines. - g - the No.4 sieve) CORRELATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST(SPT) No.4 sieve) SANDS WITH .' SM Silty sands or sand-gravel-silt mixtures. FINES WITH RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY More than 12%fines GRAVEL.SAND,&SILT(NON-PLASTIC) SILT(PLASTIC)&CLAY SC Clayey sands or sand-gravel-clay mixtures. N-Value Relative Density N-Value Su(psf) Consistency ML sligtly Inorganic silts o PI< flo plots below-pastic or line.very 0-4 Very Loose 0-2 0-250 Very Soft 4- 10 Loose 2-4 250-500 Soft SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic lean clay. Low to medium plasticity. 10-30 Medium Dense 4-8 500-1.000 Medium Stiff (Liquid Limit LESS than 50) CI' PI>7 and plots on or above"A"line. FINE 30-50 Dense $-15 1000-2000 Stiff GRAINED — OL Organic silts,clays,and silty clays. Low to Over 50 Very Dense 15-30 2000-4000 Very Stiff SOILS = medium plasticity. Over 30 i Over 4000 Hard (50% or more PAS SPT Notes:WR-Wei ht of As;WI I-Weis*ht of Ilammer PASSES the MH Inorganic elastic silt. PI plots below"A"line. g ° No.200 sieve) TERMS DESCRIBING SOILS TERMS DESCRIBING MATERIALS SILTS AND CLAYS CH PI fat clay. High plasticity. (excludes particles>3",organics,debris,etc.) (i.e.particles>3 organics debris,etc.) (Liquid Limit of 50 or GREATER) PI plots on or above"A"line. Trace: Particles present,but<5%n Occasional:Particles present,but<10%e OH Organic silts and clays. High plasticity. Few: 5%to 1.5% Frequent: 10%to 2.5% Little: 15%n to 25%r.• Many: >25% IIIGI-ILY ORGANIC SOILS , `�, PT Peat and other highly organic soils. Decomposed Some: 25%to 50% vegetable tissue. Fibrous to amorphous texture. TERMS DESCRIBING MOISTURE TERMS DESCRIBING STRUCTURE Dry: Absence of moisture;dusty Layer: >3"thick BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations Moist: Damp,but no visible water Seam: 1/J6"to 3"thick of group symbols. Wet: Visible/free water Parting: <1/16"thick SAND GRAVEL KEll" TO" SYMB""LS AND SILT OR CLAY Cobbles Boulders Fine Medium Coarse Fine Coarse No 200 No.40 No.10 No.4 3/4" 3" 12" a U.S.STANDARD SIEVE S17F m References: ASTM D 2487(Unified Soil Classification System)and ASTM D 2488(Visual-Manual Procedure). I'_ ' I.t ```t ,;;` 'ttV" Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Particle ize Distributi _ = a o00a�pp ova 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 90 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 8o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 49 70CC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I z 60 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Z 50 1 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0Y 40 I 1 W I I I 1 a 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I O I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Gravel %Sand %Fines %Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 27.2 10.5 18.8 23.8 19.7 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening [-Percent Spec" Pass? Silty sand with gravel Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 3,14 100.0 1/2 91.6 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) 3/8 84.0 PL= LL= PI= #4 72.8 0 62.3 Classification #1 410 52 7 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= #40 43.5 Coefficients #50 38.5 D90= 11.9337 D85= 9.9194 D60= 1.6367 #100 28A D50= 0.6852 D30= 0.1677 D15= h200 19.7 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks In-Situ Moisture:8.2% Date Received: 3-21-16 Date Tested: 3-21-16 Tested By:Justin Sigouin Checked By:Travis Carpenter Title:Director of Geotech:Eng. (no specification provided) Location:B-1 (S-1) Date Sampled: 3-17-16 am le S Number: 16-199 De the 0'?' Client: Menimack College Project: Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,MA Pro'ect No: 16-15-015 Fi ure 001 Particle ize Distributi 000 100 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 90 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I i l 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 70 Of LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Z 60 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 pp 1 1 Z `�0 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I Ijf 1 I I 1 U I I 1 I I I I I I I l I I I or W 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 30 1 i 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 I I 10 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Cobbles %Gravel Sand %Fines Coarse Fine f55 e Mftlo Fine Silt Clay 0.0 2.2 11.8 28.8 37A TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.` Pass? Silty sand,few gravel Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1 100.0 3/4 97.8 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318j 1/2 94.2 PL= LL= PI= 3/8 91.0 #4 86.0 Classification #10 80.5 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= 920 74.0 Coefficients #40 66.2 D90= 8.6162 D85= 3.9879 DB0= 0.2847 #50 61.2 D50= 0.2002 D30= D15= #100 42.4 D10= Cu= CC= #200 37.4 Remarks In-Situ Moisture:8.8% Date Received: 3-21-16 Date Tested: 3-21-16 Tested By:Justin Sigouin Checked By: Travis Carpenter Title:Director of Geotech.En . (no specification provided) Location:B-3(S-3) Date Sampled: 3-17-16 Sample Number: 16-200 Depth:5'-7' Client: Merrimack College Project: Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,MA �r Project No: 16-15-015 Figure 002 Particle ize Distributi o00 100 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 90 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I i I z 60 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I z 1 I 1 �JO 1 I 1 1 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 40 I I 1 1 I WCL 1 i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0,01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Gravel %Sand %Fines %Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 8.1 6-3 3.9 9.8 29.0 42.9 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.` Pass? Silty sand,few gravel Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1 1/2 100.0 1 91.9 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) 3/4 91.9 PL= LL= PI= 1/2 90.1 Classification 3/8 89.4 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= 44 85.6 #10 81.7 Coefficients #20 77.5 DgO= 12.3673 D85= 4.2527 D60= 0.1884 #40 71,9 D50= 0.1097 D30= D15= #50 67.6 D10= Cu= Cc_ #100 55.8 Remarks 9200 42.9 In-Situ Moisture:8.2% Date Received: 3-21-16 Date Tested: 3-21-16 Tested By:Justus Sigouin Checked By:Travis Carpenter Title:Director of Geotech.Eng. (no specification provided) Location:B-4(S-4) Date Sampled: 3-17-16 Sample Number: 16-201 Depth: 10'42' �FCIient: Merrimack College foject: Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,MA Project No: 16-15-015 Figure 003 Particle i Distribution ert 10080 70 W Z 60 U :t__I I i LY 40 W 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 j GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Gobbles %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 31.3 28.7 15.0 14.7 10.3 TEST RESULTS Sand with silt and gravel Opening Percent Spec.* Pass? Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) L'2 100.0 3/8 98.2 Atterberg Limits(ASTM D 4318) 94 68.7 PL= LL= PI= #10 40.0 920 30.3 Classification #40 25.0 USCS(D 2487)= SW-SM AASHTO(M 145)= ft50 22.2 Coefficients #100 15.7 D90= 7.3416 D85= 6.5755 DB0= 3.9035 4200 10.3 D50= 2.9619 D30= 0.8163 D15= 0.1389 D10= Cu= Cc= Remarks In-Situ Moisture:9.9% Date Received: 3-21-16 Date Tested: 3-21-16 Tested By:Justus Sigouin Checked By: Travis Carpenter Title:Director of Geotech.En . (no specification provided) Location:B-5(S-1) Date Sampled: 3-17-16 Sample Number: 16-202 De the 0'-2' Client: Merrimack College i Project: Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,MA f Project No: 16-15-015 Ficiure 004 riarticle Sizei ri i c c o 0 0 c c m o 0 0 s0� (0tO,p o v o 100 I t I I I I I I I I t I 1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I 70--_ TT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I W 1 1 Z 60 t.L I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I I— 1 Z 50 1 1 1 W I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I rl� 40CL 1 I W I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I i I i I I I 1 I I to-- 0 I 1 I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %Gravel %Sand %Fines %Cobbles Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 6.2 3.2 5.0 15.7 37.8 311 TEST RESULTS Material Description Opening Percent Spec.` Pass? Silty sand,few gravel Size Finer (Percent) (X=Fail) 1 100.0 3/4 93.8 Atterbere,LLimits(ASTM D 43181 1/2 93.8 PL= LL= Pl= 3/8 92.7 4 90.6 Classification # #4 90.6 USCS(D 2487)= SM AASHTO(M 145)= #20 79.3 Coefficients 940 69.9 D90= 4.0706 D85= 1.8213 D60= 0.2612 950 63.1 D50= 0.1725 D30= D15= #100 46.7 D10= Cu= Cc= #200 32.1 Remarks In-Situ Moisture:21.4% Date Received: 3-21-16 Date Tested: 3-21-16 Tested By:Justin Sigouin Checked By: Travis Carpenter Title:Director of Geotech.Eng. (no specification provided) Location:B-6(S-2) Date Sampled: 3-17-16 Sample Number: 16-203 Depth:T-4' Client: Merrimack College Project: Proposed Track&Field-Merrimack College-North Andover,MA Project No: 16-15-015 Figure 005 �' O O N SITE PHOTOGRAPHS PROPOSED TRACK & FIELD MERRIMACK COLLEGE NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS N Y� i 1 w ' Site,to south Using mats on baseball field µ - st�r" Split-spoon sampling,typical Drilling activities,typical 1 N i YY i Split-spoon sample(Topsoil over Fill),typical Split-spoon sample(Former Topsoil),typical Page 1 of 1 1.11-113 Subsurface Exploration Summary uawWALU;W11625121,,p, i St.—Ie ll 39 625.12-St.—te,Repxi-Rev 2 2017-W- 111 d. ♦jO 0 Vhb. To: File Date: March 9,2017 Memorandum Project#: 11625.12 From: Jeff Black,VHB Re: Merrimack College Mass Soil Evaluator License#13781 Athletics District Improvements Subsurface Exploration Summary On March 3rd,2017,VHB performed 8 test pits in the area of the proposed athletic field development. 5 pits were dug around the existing softball field and soccer field,while 3 were dug in the wooded area west of the softball field. Refer to Figure C1—Subsurface Exploration Location Plan for the locations of the test pits. All test pits were dug until ground water was encountered. Test pit logs,textural analysis and depth to ground water was analyzed at each hole. General subsurface conditions at the site were assessed based upon the results of the test pit analysis Test pits#1, 2 and 5 were performed in the wooded area west of the softball field. In general,these test pits consisted of a 1.5-2' layer of topsoil, leaf litter, roots and organic material. Following the topsoil layer was layer generally 3.5'thick comprised of a very firm fine sandy loam and silt with approximately 10%gravel. Following this layer was a wet sandy loam down to the termination of the test holes(10.5' below ground surface). Test pits#3 and 6 were performed on the south-western slope of the softball field.These test pits were generally comprised of a 0.5'top soil layer,followed by a layer of sandy loam and silt,followed by a very firm,compacted sandy loam layer 1' in depth. Below this layer was a wet,sandy loam and silt layer with approximately 20%cobbles and gravel down to the termination of the test holes. Test Pits#7,8 and 9 were performed on the existing soccer field. In general,this area consisted of 1.5' of topsoil, followed by a 1' layer of gravel fill,followed by a layer of compacted fill, before reaching native soil.This layer of compacted fill was approximately 1.5' deep in test pits 7 and 8.Test pit 9, performed closest to the wetland at the south end of the soccer field, had a much larger fill layer, approximately 4.5' in depth. It is evident that much of the area of the proposed athletic development has been previously disturbed and is non- native.The compacted layer, ranging in depth from 3'-5' below ground surface,appears to act as a barrier to the surface runoff that infiltrates in the athletic field area,creating a perched water table. Redoximorphic features were observed throughout the compacted layer, as well as throughout the layer below.Groundwater was observed weeping into the test pits approximately 7' below ground surface.The redoximorphic features present within the compacted layer appear to be a result of surface water that slowly infiltrates through the compacted layer,and is not indicative of seasonal ground water. Based on the above,VHB established estimated season high groundwater based on redoximorphic features observed within the parent material, as shown by the elevations on Figure C-1—Subsurface Exploration Location Plan. Due to variable amounts of silt encountered during textural analysis of the parent material,a conservative approach of 0.27 in/hr was utilized to analyze infiltration. 101 Walnut Street PO Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02472-4026 \\MAWALD\ld\11625.12\cad\Id\Eng\Subsurface Exploration\Merrimack Soils_1RB-Memo.doa P 617.924,1770 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of lug I Form 1 - Soil Suitability Assessmentfor On-Site w a Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Coarse Fragments Soil Redoximorphic Features %by Volume Soil Horizon]Soil Matrix:Color- Sail Texture Soii Structure Consistence Other Depth(in.) Layer Moist{Munseli} (USDA) Cobbles (Moist) Depth Color Percent Gravel &Stones Additional Notes. C ;t t5forml1.doc-rev.8i15 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 0 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of r 1 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragments Depth(in,) Soil Horizon!Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture %by Volume Soil Layer Moist(Munseii) (USDA) Soil Structure Consistence Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles (Moist) &Stones Additional Notes: fT CIO�k it,fo p 6 VC, t5forml 1.doc•rev.8/15 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of FForm 1 - Soil SuitabilityAssessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal G. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: ' Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragmentsy V Soil oho by Soil Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture Soil Structure Consistence Other Depth(in.) Layer Moist(Munsell) (USDA) Cobbles (Moist) Depth Color Percent Gravel &Stones I r�4 1 ,31 1 '7( Le Y•d G UUU ".dj (l YSp+, V VVV e Additional Notes: c ( ,. � '' , t5form1 l.doc-rev.8/15 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of a Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragments Soil Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture %by Volume Soil Depth{in.} Layer Moist(Munseit) Soil Structure Consistence Other USDA Depth Color Percent (USDA) Gravel Cobbles (Moist) &Stones tt �a�t (C4 Additional Notes: .ox hro 4 0 kv ,,. t5form1l.doc-rev.8115 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 11 - Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number: L Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragments Soil Soil Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture %by Volume Soil Structure Soil (USDA) (Moist) Other Depth(in.) Layer Moist(Munsell) Cobbles .st) Depth Color Percent Gravel &Stones t R Additional Notes: 2, V --.....................--- - iW r ... t5form I I.doc-rev.8115 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of a or 1 - Soil Suitability Assessment forOn-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole Number. / Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragments Soil Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture �o by Volume Soil Depth(in.) Layer Moist(Munsell) (USDA) Soil Structure Consistence Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles (Moist) &Stones ` > ` c10tY5'074iu : yr r Additional Notes: ice?°-f j? tLX,e kt� 1't sw e. i4f tt i Yk e '*P It C t5form11.doc-rev.8115 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form 1 oil Suitability AssessmentforOn-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) p- Deep Observation Hole Number: !P Coarse Fragments Sail Redoximorphic Features o Soil Horizon/Sail Matrix:Dolor- Sail Texture /�by Volume Depth(in.} USDA Soil Structure Consistence Other Layer Moist(Munseli) ( ) Cobbles (Moist) Depth Color Percent Gravel &Stones FAQ( 'e., 5 Additional Notes: t'� r .` G �•4*t i (�Wit,, �tit" �� �°]"�„ tJ�(" c1 �C.�,�-�� t5form11.doc•rev.8/15 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City/Town of Form - oil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal C. On-Site Review (continued) Deep Observation Hole(Number: Redoximorphic Features Coarse Fragments Soil Horizon/Soil Matrix:Color- Soil Texture /a by Volume Soil Depth(in.) Layer Moist(Munsell) (USDA) Soil Structure Consistence Other Depth Color Percent Gravel Cobbles (Moist) &Stones Additional Notes: Y t5form1l.doc•rev.8/15 Form 11—Soil Suitability Assessment for On-Site Sewage Disposal •Page 3 of 8 Recharge Calculations VMAWALDiId01625.121,,p rt'SloimwaW71 ®25.12-Stortmvater Rp.A-St 2017Ik- 40 i?�dcc Project Name: Athletics District Improvements Project No.: 11625.12 Merrimack College Date: March 2017 Project Location: Andover/North Andover,MA Calculated by: JWK MA DEP-Required Recharge Volume(Cubic Feet) HSG Area Recharge Depth* Volume acres in. c.f. A 0.00 0.60 0 B 0.00 0.35 0 C 3.26 0.25 2,961 D 0.00 0.10 0 TOTAL 2,961 Assumptions: former Massachusetts DEP Infiltration requirement:HSG A=0.60 in;HSG 6=0.35 in.HSG C=0.25 in:HSG D=0.10 in. Provided Recharge Volume(Cubic Feet)and Drawdown Times Athletic Turf Field Infiltration Svstem Void(%)of Stone 33% Stone Storage Volume Up To Panel Drain Elevation Area Incremental (s.f.) Volume(c.f.) 235.67 89,510 0 235.80 89,510 11,636 TOTAL 3,840 Assumptions: Recharge Rate: 0.27 in/hr* 'Conservative Recommended Rawls Rate per Soil Textural Analysis Drawdown Time: 1.9 hours Total Recharge Volume: 3,840 c.f. \\MAWALD\ld\11625.12\ssheets\Stormwater\11625.12-Recharge Calculations Standard 4 Computations and Supporting Information • Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan • Long Term BMP Maintenance Table • Figure D1-Stormwater BMP Location Plan • Stormceptor Inspection&Maintenance Manual • Water Quality Volume Calculations&STC Design Summary • TSS Removal Worksheets NAWALMIdtl 1625.10,ep is SlennwaisM1 625.12-Sturm ter Reoori-Rev2 2017-N 41 1':1.d. Lonq Term PollutionPrevention Plan ltH1AWAi-D',Idlitu25.721re,^,orisiStnrmwate?.ii q 625.72-Stannwaler Repari-Rev2 2017Ik- `2 11j.da Pollution Prevention Plan This Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan has been developed to establish site management practices that improve the quality of stormwater discharges from the Project. Pollutant Control Approach Maintenance of Pavement Systems Regular maintenance of pavement surfaces will prevent pollutants such as oil and grease,trash,and sediments from entering the stormwater management system.The following practices should be performed: • Routinely pick up and remove litter from the parking areas,islands,and perimeter landscaping and vegetated areas. Maintenance of Vegetated Areas Proper maintenwnce of vegetated areas can prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff by controlling the source of pollutants such as suspended sediments,excess nutrients,and chemicals from landscape care products.Practices that should be followed under the regular maintenance of the vegetated landscape include: • Inspect planted areas on a semi-annual basis and remove any litter. • Maintain planted areas adjacent to pavement to prevent soil washout. • Immediately clean any soil deposited on pavement. • Re-seed bare areas;install appropriate erosion control measures when native soil is exposed or erosion channels are forming. • Plant alternative mixture of grass species in the event of unsuccessful establishment. Management of Snow and Ice Storage and Disposal Snow shall be stockpiled on standard pavement surfaces and/or upland lawn areas upstream of stormwater systems so sand and salt may be swept in the sprung or removed as snow melts and drains through the stormwater management system. Key practices for the safe storage and disposal of snow include: • Under no circumstances shall snow be disposed or stored in wetland resource areas. • Under no circumstances shall snow be disposed or stored in stormwater basins, ponds,rain gardens,swales,channels,or trenches. Salt and Deicing Chemicals The amount of salt and deicing chemicals to be used on the site shall be reduced to the minimum amount needed to provide safe pedestrian and vehicle travel.The following practices should be followed to control the amount of salt and deicing materials that come into contact with stormwater runoff: • Devices used for spreading salt and deicing chemicals should be capable of varying the rate of application based on the site specific conditions. • Sand and salt should be stockpiled under covered storage facilities that prevent precipitation and adjacent runoff from coming in contact with the deicing materials Spill Prevention and Response Plan Spill prevention equipment and training will be provided by Merrimack College Initial Notification In the event of a spill the facility and/or construction manager or supervisor will be notified immediately. Facility Manager(name): James Finn-Director Physical Plant Facility Manager(phone): (978)835-7023 Construction Manager(name): Construction Manager(phone): The supervisor will first contact the Fire Department and then notify the Police Department,the Public Health Commission and the Conservation Conunission.The Fire Department is ultimately responsible for matters of public health and safet' and should be notified immediately. Further Notification Based on the assessment from the Fire Chief,additional notification to a cleanup contractor may be made.The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) and the EPA may be notified depending upon the nature and severity of the spill.The Fire Chief will be responsible for determining the level of cleanup and notification required.The attached list of emergency phone numbers shall be posted in the main construction/facility office and readily accessible to all employees.A hazardous waste spill report shall be completed as necessary using the attached form. Emergency Notification Phone Numbers 1. FACILITY MANAGER PHONE: NAME: BEEPER/CELL: HOME PHONE: ALTERNATE CONTACT: NAME: PHONE: BEEPER/CELL: HOME PHONE: 2. FIRE&POLICE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY: 911 3. CLEANUP CONTRACTOR: PHONE: ADDRESS: 4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY PHONE: (978)694-3200 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP) 5. NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER PHONE: (800)424-8802 6. ANDOVER HEALTH DIVISION: PHONE:978-623-8295 ANDOVER CONSERVATION COMMISSION: PHONE:978-623-8311 NORTH ANDOVER HEALTH DEPARTMENT: PHONE:978-688-9540 NORTH ANDOVER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT: PHONE:978-688-9530 Hazardous Waste 1 Oil Spill Report Date: / / Time: AM/ PM Exact location Type of equipment: Make: Size: License or S/N: Weather Conditions: On or near water Yes If yes,name of body of water: No Type of chemical/ oil spilled: Amount of chemical/ oil spilled: Cause of spill: Measures taken to contain or clean up spill: Amount of chemical/ oil recovered: Method: Material collected as a result of clean up drums containing: drums containing: drums containing: Location and method of debris disposal: Name and address of any person,firm,or corporation sufferuig damages: Procedures,method,and precautions instituted to prevent a similar occurrence from recurring:: Spill reported to General Office by: Time: AM/PM Spill reported to DEP/ National Response Center by: DEP Date: / / Time: AM/ PM Inspector: NRC Date: / / Time: AM/ PM Inspector: Additional comments: 1fMAWALIN&,11926.12'.rportststomiwale:;_ Submi—,i ,.2017-04-07-Response to Peer Review G.—N<I-L—Teon Pd(.§. Prevention Pin&. Assessment-Initial Containment The supervisor or manager will assess the incident and initiate containment control measures with the appropriate spill containment equipment included in the spill kit kept on-site.A list of recommended spill equipment to be kept on site is included on the following page. Emergency Response Equipment The following equipment and materials shall be maintained at all times and stored in a secure area for long- term emergency response need. Supplies Recommended Suppliers > SORBENT PILLOWS/"PIGS" 2 http//www.nezipig.com > SORBENT BOOM/SOCK 25 FEET Item#KIT276 — mobile container with tzvo pigs,26 feet > SORBENT PADS 50 of sock,50 pads,and five pounds of absorbent(or > LITE-DRI®ABSORBENT 5 POUNDS equivalent) > SHOVEL 1 http//zt7zi,u,.fores"-stippliers.com > PRY BAR 1 Item#43210 — Manhole cover pick(oi-equivalent) > GOGGLES 1 PAIR Item#33934 — Shovel (or equivalent) > GLOVES-HEAVY I PAIR Item#90926 — Gloves(or equivalent) Item#23334 — Goggles (or equivalent) 0MAWALDIdd i 625.72;rerorts,Sionnwale?,_ Su6misei ,2017-W-07-Response to Peer - Review Cmnmanls?N-Long Tenn Polla5on Prevention Plan doc Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan Project Information Site Athletics District Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street North Andover,MA Owner Name: Jeff Doggett-Chief of Staff-Merrimack College Telephone. (978)837-5118 Email: doggetq@merrimack.edu Site Supervisor Name: James Finn-Director of Physical Plant-Merrimack College Tel hone: (978)837-5275 Cell phone: (978)852-0394 Email: linnj«{?r�:7en in�a k.edu. 6MAWALM&.11625.12;:ep.WSt.--11:'•_ &bni-.s,O17-0--07-Resp—t.P— R'.—C.m—W-M-L-9 Tenn Palluii.n Prevent:..Rands Description of Stormwater Maintenance Measures The following Operation and Maintenance(O&M)program is proposed to ensure the continued effectiveness of the stormwater management system.Attached to this plan are a Stormwater Best Management Practices Checklist for use during the long term operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. Annual reports of this maintenance/evaluation shall be submitted to the Town of Andover Planning Division. Structural Water Quality Devices • Inspect devices in accordance with manufacturer requirements but no less than twice a year following installation,and no less than once a year thereafter. • Remove sediment and other trapped pollutants at frequency or level specified by the manufacturer. • Sedirnent and/or tloatable pollutants shall be pumped from the basin and disposed of at an approved ottsite facility in accordance with all applicable regulations. • Follow manufacturer instructions for inspection and clearung and contact manufacturer if system is malfunctioning. Deep Sump&Hooded Catch Basins,Area Drains and Trench Drains • All catch basins,area drains and trench drains shall be inspected at least quarterly • All catch basins,area drains and trench drains shall be cleaned quarterly or whenever the depth of the sediment deposits are greater than or equal to one half the depth from the bottom of the invert of the lowest pipe in the basin. • Sediment(as described above)and/or tloatable pollutants shall be pumped from the basin and disposed of at an approved offsite facility in accordance with all applicable regulations. • Any structural damage or other indication of malfunction will be reported to the site manager and repaired as necessary • During colder periods, the grates must be kept free of snow and ice. • During warmer periods,the grates must be kept free of leaves,litter,sand,and debris. Roof Drain Leaders Roof runoff from the proposed building is directed to the closed drainage system. • Perform routine roof inspections quarterly 'MAWALLAIdd 192&12':T;odsistormwafe:4_ Su6missirms2t717-04-07-Re'p—ie Peer Review(:mnmenlstUt-Long dean MO. - Preven(ion Plan.doc • Keep roots clean and free of debris • Keep roof drainage systems clear • Keep roof access limited to authorized personnel • Clean inlets twice per year or as necessary VMAWALLYWO 162fi 1T,;eponslSlormwalen_ Sub—si.M,17-04-07-Response to Peer Review(,-- DI-L,ma Senn Pallu�ion P-,Mcon Plan doc Long Term BMP Maintenancele 'NMWALUM,11625.12\repoAstSlertnwalerl7l �� 625.1<-Starmwzler Repur:-Rev 2(2017-N 11 do Figure Dl - Stormwater BMP Location Plan UAAAWAID,ld,11625.126�ports�Sl—wat&,l1 �� 625.12-Stonnwater Repvi-Ru2 2017V- 111 d. for cer Inspection & Maintenance Manual 62512 t.,,—zs-R2:�xdR.2[017-W 45 &25.1'[-Stonnwaler Repnr-keu 2 2017ak- i?]d. �5 Slormosp- lor M fc`?F ro ��r � +`�, "s P -&'�' I <"b ti E'" '' "f`�,-Zh x"'aF ,V. "C�i. v.ep. i � �,7 �+. r`f� on When it rains, oils, sediment and other contaminants are captured and contained by over 20,000 Stormceptor units operating worldwide. While Stormceptor's patented scour prevention technology ensures captured pollutants remain in the unit during all rainfall events, the accumulated pollutants must eventually be removed as part of a regular maintenance program. If neglected, oil and sediment gradually build up and diminish any BMP's efficiency, harming the environment and leaving owners and operators vulnerable to fines, surcharges and bad publicity. r w - ., Ease, frequency and cost of maintenance are often overlooked by specifiers when considering the merits of a stormwater treatment system. In reality, maintenance is fundamental to the long-term performance of any stormwater quality treatment device. While regular maintenance is crucial, it shouldn't t be complicated. An ongoing maintenance program with Stormceptor is convenient and practically effortless. With virtually no disruptions, you can concentrate on your core business. Quick inspections Inspections are easily carried out above ground from any standard surface access cover through a visual inspection of the orifice and drop tee components. A sludge judge and oil dip-stick are all that are needed for _ sediment and oil depth measurements. E sy unit access t. Yr £ti A Maintenance is typically conducted from the same surface access cover, eliminating the need for confined space entry into the unit. Your site remains undisturbed, saving you time and money. imb un No muss, no fuss and -fast Maintenance is performed quickly and inexpensively with a y standard vacuum truck. Servicing usually takes less than r , two hours, with no disruption to your site. a 1 Y� �'sr4 —.�••„ �Y A complete stormwater management plan for Stormceptor y=' extends beyond installation and performance to regular maintenance. It's the smart, cost-effective way to ensure n your unit continues to remove more pollutants than anys � other separator for decades to come. 7 • Units should be inspected post-construction, prior to being put into service. • Inspect every six months for the first year of operation to determine the oil and sediment accumulation rate. In subsequent years, inspections can be based on first-year observations or local requirements. Cleaning is required once the,sediment depth reaches 15% of storage capacity, (generally taking one year or longer). Local regulations for maintenance frequency may vary. Inspect the unit immediately after an oil, fuel or chemical spill. • A licensed waste management company should remove captured petroleum waste products from any oil, chemical or fuel spills and dispose responsibly. With over 20,000 units operating worldwide, Stormceptor performs and protects every day, in every storm. '' num NINE, Water Quality Volume Calculations & STC . Design Summary 'AWALMId711625.72ke;urislSlonnwale?.ii �`U 525.12-St« tw ,Repo,-Rev2 2017-04- 1 ?]d. N hbProject Name: Merrimack Athletics Proj. No.: 11625.12 Project Location: Andover/North Andover, MA Date: Mar.2017 Calculated by: DT Revised: Stormceptor STC-450 (WQU-121) Total Impervious Area = 0.600 Acres Required: Runoff Depth to Required be Treated (in.) Volume (c.f.) Water Quality Volume 0.5 1,089 Hydrograph 0.4 0 36 cfs Runoff 0.35 :Type 111 12 fir 1„;VUQV Rainfall 1'00,,, D 3 kurioff Area 0 600 Ac I Rs 00YvAume- 02�af. iU 0.25 Runoff Depth 0$0- _.. ElAai✓,Lettgth iSO- 3 0.2 T B chin a 0.15 0.1 0.05 ` 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Time (hours) 12-hr Duration Type III 24-hr Storm producing 0.5" of runoff from Impervious surfaces: The above hydrograph shows a peak flow rate of 0.4 cfs must be treated for the drainage area to treat a volume of 1,089 cf. Provided: Stormceptor STC-450 particle separator with a treatment capacity of 0.4 cfs at 84% TSS removal efficiency. The product has been tested by Tennesse Tech and verified by NJCAT. WQU-A1\\vhb\proj\Wat-LD\11625.12\ssheets\Stormwater\11625,12-Water Quality Volumes for Proprietary Separators Stormceptorte Stormceptor Design Summary PCSWMM for Stormceptor Project Information Rainfall Date 3/6/2017 Name BOSTON WSFO AP Project Name Merrimack Athletic Fields State MA Project Number 12209.04 Location N/A ID 770 Designer Information Years of Records 1948 to 2005 Company N/A Latitude 42°21'38"N Contact N/A Longitude 71°0'38"W Notes Water Quality Objective N/A TSS Removal(%) 80 Drainage Area Upstream Storage Total Area(ac) 0.6 Storage Discharge Imperviousness(%) 77 (ac-ft) (cfs) 0 0 The Stormceptor System model STC 450i achieves the water quality objective removing 84%TSS for a Fine (organics,silts and sand)particle size distribution. Stormceptor Sizing Summary Stormceptor Model TSS Removal 1 STC 900 90 STC 1200 90 STC 1800 90 STC 2400 93 STC 3600 93 STC 4800 95 STC 6000 95 STC 7200 96 STC 11000 97 STC 13000 97 STC 16000 98 Stormceptor Design Summary- 1/2 NMATERIALS' Stormiceptor Particle Size Distribution Removing silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants,such as hydrocarbons and heavy metals that adhere to fine particles,are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists the particle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal. Fine(organics,silts and sand Specific Settling Specific Settling T15 Distribution Gravity Velocity Particle Size Distribution Gravity Velocity % ft/s m % ft/s 20 1.3 0.0013 20 1.8 0.0051 20 22 0.0354 400 20 2.65 0.2123 2000 20 2.65 0.9417 Stormceptor Design Notes • Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor. • Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended solids(TSS)removal. • Only the STC 450i is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes. • Only the Stormceptor models STC 450i to STC 7200 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes. • Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows: Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 450i STC 900 to STC STC 11000 to 7200 STC 16000 Single inlet pipe 3 in. 1 in. 3 in. Multiple inlet pipes 3 in. 3 in. Only one inlet pipe • Design estimates are based on stable site conditions only,after construction is completed. • Design estimates assume that the storm drain is not submerged during zero flows. For submerged applications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative. • Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptor representative for further assistance. • For pricing inquiries or assistance, please contact Rinker Materials 1 (800)909-7763 www.rinkerstormceptor.com Stormceptor Design Summary-2/2 MATERIALS'" TSS Removal Worksheets 'iMAWAL D.1dt 11625 121mpodsl5lmmwaI"'1 625.12-Siarmw2ler Rep d-Rev2 2011-IK- 47 111 d. Project Name: Merrimack Athletics Sheet: 1 of 1 VHB,Inc.. Project Number: 11625.12 Date: Mar. 2017 101 Walnut Street Location: Andover/North Andover, MA Computed by: DT Post Office Box 9151 Watertown, MA 02471 Discharge Point: DP-1B-3 Checked by: P 617.924,1770 Drainage Area(s): 30.2 A B- C D E 'Amount Removed Remaining Load BMP* TSS Removal Rate* Starting TSS Lead** VD) (D-E) Deep sump and Flooded 5% 1.00 0.25 .7 Catch Basin Structural Water Quality 4% .75 0.63 0.12 Unit * BMP and TSS Removal Rate Values from the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1. Treatment Train Removal rates for proprietary devices are from approved studies and/or manufacturer data. 88% Stormceptor sizing calculations provide TSS removal rate of 84% based on manufacturer's �5$ Removal = sizing criteria. Refer to attached calculations. ** Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) \\vhb\prof\Wat-LD\11625.12\ssheets\Stormwater\11625,12-TSS Removal Worksheets Appendix E Standard 5 Supporting Information Figure El-Critical Areas 6AMWALD:d,.t 1625.12:;epods'�Siertmvaledl1 625.12-Sto—te,Rep,114 Rev 2(20174)4- 48 111 do, Figure El — Critical Areas atanwuoad%11625_12:epadsislom at`a" C�11 625.12-Star [w ,Repdt-Rw2 2017-04- 47 ill d. \\vhb\proj\Wat-LD\11625.12\cad\Id\Planmisc\Stormwater Report Figures\11625.12-Critical Areas.dwg I' r i �v t r:. < r a Y r ,n a �f a u 1 �7 Legend ® Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) Surface Water Protection Area — Zone A IWPAs Zone Its Outstanding Resource Waters: ONE Public Water Supply Contributor ORW For ACEC MEN ORW For Both Water Supply and Other Figure E1 - Critical Areas for vhb Stormwater Discharges Athletic District Improvements Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 0 250 500 Feet Source:VHB Prepared for Pla Vlanning Board Meeting Date:February 28,2017 Standard 8 Supporting Information • Recommended Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Controls • Construction Period BMP Maintenance Table 11MAWALMIds..11625.1T-�e;mASSlc+mnvaleFtt CO 626.12-Storm t- ,Recnd-Rer+2 2017ak- J 111 d. Recommended Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Controls ',WAWALG,Ids.11625.12`,zp.&Slortmv 10,11 625.12-Stormwaler Revd-Rev 2 2017V- 52 1":]doe Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures The following erosion and sedimentation controls are for use during the earthwork and construction phases of the project.The following controls are provided as recommendations for the site contractor and do not constitute or replace the final Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that must be fully implemented by the Contractor and owner in Compliance with EPA NPDES regulations. Straw Bale Barriers Straw bale barriers will be placed to trap sediment transported by runoff before it reaches the drainage system or leaves the construction site. Bales will be set at least four inches into the existing ground to minimize undercutting by runoff. Silt Fencing In areas where high runoff velocities or high sediment loads are expected, straw bale barriers will be backed up with silt fencing.This semi-permeable barrier made of a synthetic porous fabric will provide additional protection.The silt fences and straw bale barrier will be replaced as determined by periodic field inspections. Catch Basin Protection Newly constructed and existing catch basins will be protected with straw bale barriers (where appropriate) or silt sacks throughout construction. Gravel and Construction Entrance/Exit A temporary crushed-stone construction entrance/exit will be constructed.A cross slope will be placed in the entrance to direct runoff to a protected catch basin inlet or settling area.If deemed necessary after construction begins, a wash pad may be included to wash off vehicle wheels before leaving the project site. Diversion Channels Diversion channels will be used to collect runoff from construction areas and discharge to either sedimentation basins or protected catch basin inlets. Temporary Sediment Basins Temporary sediment basins will be designed either as excavations or bermed stormwater detention structures(depending on grading)that will retain runoff for a ;�1AWAL0!Idit 7625.121reporls\Slomnr ler`A pperdia F-Standard k C-pfi n - ConsiNdon Period\?airten—fl- F_ ded Cn A.0.n Period P6:Nion Prevention d. sufficient period of time to allow suspended soil particles to settle out prior to discharge.These temporary basins will be located based on construction needs as determined by the contractor and outlet devices will be designed to control velocity and sediment. Points of discharge from sediment basins will be stabilized to minimize erosion. Vegetative Slope Stabilization Stabilization of open soil surfaces will be implemented within 14 days after grading or construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, unless there is sufficient snow cover to prohibit implementation.Vegetative slope stabilization will be used to minimize erosion on slopes of 3:1 or flatter.Annual grasses, such as annual rye,will be used to ensure rapid germination and production of root mass. Permanent stabilization will be completed with the planting of perennial grasses or legumes. Establishment of temporary and permanent vegetative cover may be established by hydro-seeding or sodding.A suitable topsoil, good seedbed preparation, and adequate lime,fertilizer and water will be provided for effective establishment of these vegetative stabilization methods. Mulch will also be used after permanent seeding to protect soil from the impact of falling rain and to increase the capacity of the soil to absorb water. Maintenance > The contractor or subcontractor will be responsible for implementing each control shown on the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.In accordance with EPA regulations, the contractor must sign a copy of a certification to verify that a plan has been prepared and that permit regulations are understood. > The on-site contractor will inspect all sediment and erosion control structures periodically and after each rainfall event. Records of the inspections will be prepared and maintained on-site by the contractor. > Silt shall be removed from behind barriers if greater than 6-inches deep or as needed. > Damaged or deteriorated items will be repaired immediately after identification. > The underside of straw bales should be kept in close contact with the earth and reset as necessary. • Sediment that is collected in structures shall be disposed of properly and covered if stored on-site. > Erosion control structures shall remain in place until all disturbed earth has been securely stabilized.After removal of structures, disturbed areas shall be re-graded and stabilized as necessary. ',WAWAL0111h11625. teerorls:Slomnvale:-A ppendl F-Standard N Con:pla - Cbnsn m Period Mad enancelF1- Fe:am ,dn d Con 1-fi'..f eriod Rxtution Pre .'I(on.. Construction Period Maintenance Table 'dk1AWALD'Idi1162512:2podskSlo a1e.Ii C1 R25.12-Stormaaler Report-Ru [0171k- J 1":]da Standard 10 Supporting Information • Illicit Discharge Statement 1111AWALD'Ad'M625.121,Gp.sS[--tell 53 625.12-Siur -ta,R-xi-Rev 2(2)17-W 1 1)d. Standard 10 Supporting Information + Illicit Discharge Statement 1MAWALU11dl.11625.12\:„odslslertnwaledil GO 625.12-Sto—ter Repor!-Rev 212017N JJ 1 1)d.. Illicit Discharge Statement The design plans submitted with this report have been designed so that the components included therein are in compliance with the current MassDEP and municipal standards as noted. Sanitary sewer and storm drainage structures remaining from previous development, which are part of the redevelopment area, will be removed or will be incorporated into updated sanitary sewer and separate stormwater sewer systems. All proposed building sanitary connections are to new sanitary sewer systems as part of the project design. Measures to prevent illicit discharges are included in the Construction Period and Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plans included in the Stormwater Report. The Owner, Merrimack College, understands that no illicit discharges are allowed into the stormwater system. "2 IwnWALAH,1,625.1YepwWslwnwomaw c-ssmte,oc --I& 1 mew SWa�ldoo Appendix H Approved Stormwater Management Plan Documents • Merrimack College Master Drainage Study and Hydrologic Analysis& Original Order of Conditions(DEP File No.090-0750) • Town of Andover—Amended Order of Conditions, October 2016 • Peak Flow Summary by Project • Stormwater Flow Monitoring Summary Memorandum 'AlAWALDlld,11625.121reporlsiSlmm Ier I 54 625.12-Stuw.I rReport-Rev2i2017-04- d.. Merrimack College Master Drainage Study and Hydrologic Analysis & Original Order of Conditions File No. 090-0750) \iPolAWA1�;Id111625.1212p.0'Slortmvate?II CC 625,12-Slm Iw ,R d%-Rev22617 N- J✓ ,Ild. APR 2 r . 4,.f ..�;�r r17-{his It tV'�;I.,�n=R:`i���•t1 k Merrimack ll e Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY,Adel® HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SA # 71897.01. 315 Turnpike Street lelartla Andover,Massachusetts f: Date: April 26, 1999 Applicant: Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street North Andover, MA 01845 Application Prepared by-' Sasaki Associates, Inc. 64 Pleasant Street Watertown, MA 02172 1.1 OVERVIEW Merrimack College is located on 228±acres in both Andover and North:Andover,Massachusetts. The school is bounded by Route 114 to the east,Elm Street to the north and residential development to the west and south. Part of the campus is within the watershed of Berry Brook,a tributary to the Shawsheen River. The Berry Brook Watershed contains approximately 479±total acres. In 1996 and 1997,the Town of Andover and Merrimack College retained Charles Puller to study the Berry Brook watershed, identify problem drainage areas,and make recommendations. Three sites were identified as creating flow restrictions during high flow storm events:the Elm Street/Rock Ridge Road intersection,High Street and the B&M Railroad culvert. To mitigate downstream flooding problems, the Fuller Study recommended two wet pond,detention basins located on the Merrimack campus. However,the proposed basin sizes,shapes,and locations conflict with developable sites as proposed in the College.Master Plan. Therefore, it is the goal of this study to evaluate the Berry Brook watershed as it relates to the Merrimack College campus, the College Master Plan, the Elm Street/Rock Ridge Road problem area, and develop a mitigation plan which benefits both the Town of Andover and Merrimack College 1.2 DESIGN OBJECTIVE Objectives where established by the school and the Town of Andover Department of Public Works for a stormwater management plan. They are as follows: 1. Solve current flooding problems experienced by residents of Rock Ridge Road. 2. Mitigate increases in peak flows attributed to full development:under the Merrimack College Master Plan. 3. Arrange an accounting system that enables Merrimack College to earn peak flow reduction"credits" through the construction of both detention basins,and draw on these credits for future campus development projects. . The Fuller Study was used as a reference during preparation of this report. Though the watershed nomenclature is consistent between both reports,this study was completed with a greater emphasis on detailing contributing watershed areas on the college campus. 1.3 METHODOLOGY The Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS),formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Technical Releases No. 20 and No. 55,were used in this study to model the hydrology of the watershed. The stormwater management system was analyzed for peaks up to the 100 year, 24-hour,Type III storm ` event for northeastern.Massachusetts. Total rainfall amounts for each design storm are as follows: Type III,24-hour rainfall: 2-year 3.36 inches 10-year 5.04 inches , 25-year 5.76 inches 50-year 6.24 inches I00-year 6.40 inches TR-55 was used to establish CN and Tc values. TR-20 was used to create hydrographs which could be reach routed as well as routed through multiple detention basins_ i 1.4 SOURCES e Report on Berry Brook Drainage Study by Charles E. Puller, 1/97 (Fuller Study) • Drainage Analysis, Merrimack College by Andover Consultants, Inc.,9190 ® Record design and as-built drawings. ® Visual observation j E EXISTING RUNOFF/DRA+IAGE CONDITIONS h and The study analyzes 23I t acres of the Upper ferry Brook Watershed, k Ridgeows Road,tElm Streets,andthraugh a series of drains located south of the college campus,on-campus, Roc northwest of Elm Street. Rock Ridge Road hour catch bsed drainage sins a During large storm vents the system reinforced concrete pipe, several feeder pipes and numerous surcharges,causing flooding in the street and ds tithe sizthe e Ofthe dacent omes. A ain within Ro k RidgelRoad,b t thpreviousy performede e Andover Consultants,Inc. recommended increasing e is concern regarding increasing peak flow rates the he downstream Rock Ridge Raad is not an alternative sheen River. It is assumed that increasing the size of 1.5.1 On-Site Wcaersheds The Merrimack College campus drains to two note aluatevthe Rogatersheds, the Berry Brook Watershed and die ers Brook Watershed. The section of campus Rogers Brook Watershed. This study does tively flat with an average slope less than within the Berry Brook Watershed is 132± acres. This area is rela at the north section of the watershed to I% and ranging in grades from elevation 207— elevation 240±at the south section of the watershed. There are wetlands located in various locations throughout the watershed area. According to the"Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts", the soils found on the Campus are Paxton ' {PaJ3},Ridgebuty(RdA and RdII),Ridgebury and I.iester(RlA),and Woodbridge(WrA and WsB) which are classified in Hydrologic Soil Group C,and Whitmaki(Wg),which is identified as Group D. (See Figure I) The campus is moderately developed and contains large areas of open space used for recreational and competition athletics. 1.s. off-Site Watersheds The Campus receives flow from two general areas {see accompanying watershed M-IhDe, is outhArea he Campus is south of Highland Road and is comprised of five sub-areas. The second , beyond Route 125. and Revisions with respect to the Fuller study include changes to the overall through reachlroutng.c Sub Veal times through downstream sub-areas were incorporated into y -IC-1,M-IC-2,etc. The sub-areas are identified by breaks watershed areas within M-IC are identified as M in the larger area caused by roads. Watershed delineation was completed with reference to plans entitled, "Wetland Areas of Andover, Massachusetts by Terrain Investigation, Inc." and record site surveys. Each sub-area in M-I C discharges through a culvert to the nextdownstream well as watershed. smalledetention basin located the restrictions imposed on the flow by the culverts under t4, in area M-1D were ignored. 2 we tersheds(Continued) west of) Alcott us via a channel located behind( 'Originates£tom the south and reaches the Camp There is an earth berm.and m nd area south of the football and soccer fields. The wetland ,site flow°C1g then Progress' to a large wetla 1B-2. age. The flow P art of the watershed labeled M- ei's drain within the berm and laying fields,discharging to a small pond at the es as a natural detention area and is p e arating the wetland from the foot all and soccer fields. A axrn h landform s P vides a hydraulic connection between the wed-and- of the field. e the wetland,the farmer's r h drographs were then e capacity d the berm land£orm was included as-an oy flow weir. d discharge p of this farmer's drain cannot bedetermine o an e g to rm in was given an assumed discharge rate an s roduced a Stage/Storage/Discharge model far the wetlan d.d, Peak flood elevations within the wetland were then chec e ,a Mlatton p and calculate ,tea through the wetland, Past storm events. firmed,against.visual observations made during P drain i " RCP pipe which runs beneath the field to a Based upon retard information,it is possible there are up to ed e ll the field leered.The Ponding �e pond at the edge of thfootball£'field enters one i ndin area. These were peg included within inhole along the northerng elds and a second wetland to the west of the fields,are inc u .�farmer's drains which alsfai serve as outlets from the P° �a,the football and soccer ears under the practice }tershed area M-1B-5. disapp Cp catch basins north of the football field, via two 3a„ R he 1S" RCP drain connects to two The three fields, football,soccer =.ld,and presumably connects to a system of farmer's der's drain sys em�r flow continue r fields,act as a with-a wetland area along the west side of the football and sot rains,which are Presume d connected co the same arm i es and the traffic island cut-through 'kd practice,combined events. detention basin. Tho outlet of this basin include r du ing se 30"P storm . a.tural us(area i Monican Boulevard,which functions as an overflow from the Carrie additional piped and overland drainagereduces in " s continue north,collecting f he infirmary. At this paint the hat wase system used o establish a these 3Q drain stem .� �g_6},until reaching a manhole northeast o " din functioning as and size to one 24,, RCP drain. it is this section of the drainage sy the jumber atianship for the football field detentionluded n hihanalysis. �t 0storagelDischarge 1 °f the 30' P1P s v''as no cutlet control. he storage capaLitS' At the intersection of Ridge Road,collecting addttiona�piA Via&C} erland stormwat e us and the adjacent neighborhood(areas M 1 he 24" drain continues beneath Roc g , to a 3G" reinforced concrete pip he 24' pipe ' then turns 9fl° to discharge to a ows from both the Camp e i e increases from approximately 14, , ock Ridge Road and Elm Street, pipe nnel continues west,cannectiog to a number of feeder streams as he 36` pipe Proceeds southwest under Elm Street for app din er the street no of Elm Street. This cha reef,causing fcts $ el he drain in Rock Ridge Road is st dersized for even moderate sir harm into the c f(ows toward the Shawsheen River- in the drain backs up the roadway acts as a channel, surcharging Cinder flooding conditions, rem. events. As the°f he rea ISfesidents along the r°ad. d instead of through the pipe sys and the yards Brook overlap ;conveying stormwater to Berry Campus as overland flow,which is included Brook n thedownstream aftalys 4 reach the Portions of drainage draRage runs au h beneath the right of-way, discharging to Berry Remaining Route 11 from the limit of the analysis. 3 1.6 PROPOSED RUNOFF/DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 1.6.1 On-Site Watersheds r Note that the following phase designations are not to be considered the date of construction completion,but rather reference the mitigation provided by construction of each detention basin as summarized in this report. proposed 1999 The year,1999 scenario assumes that the"Football Field Detention Basin" is constructed only in the first phase. A new landform is proposed to create a more defined northern edge and a conventional outlet structure added to control flows during the various storm events. The existing tennis courts adjacent to the football field will be removed and the area regraded to provide additional storage. Proposed 2000 The year 2000 scenario assumes that the"Elm Street Detention Basin" is constructed in the second phase, with the Football Field Detention Basin in operation. Little will change in terms of newly developed area. Instead, downgradient campus watersheds will be redirected away from Rock Ridge Road and routed to the Elm Street Detention Basin site via a 48"dia.drain. The Elm Street Basin essentially controls flows from campus watersheds downstream of the Football Field Basin. To complete this work,a drainage easement is required from the owner of#485'Andover Street to convey stormwater to the Elm Street site. i Proposed 2020 The year 2020 scenario assumes that both detention basins are in operation, and the campus is fully developed as proposed in the Merrimack College Master Plan. Both detention basins have been designed to mitigate the increase in peals flows attributed to full development under the Master Plan,while still providing flooding relief to the residents of Rock Ridge Road and areas downstream of the campus. 1.6.2 Off-Site Watersheds It has been indicated by the Town of North Andover DPW that the upstream portion of the watershed is at or close to full build-out. Any future development that may occur is expected to implement a stormwater management plan of its own and not impact downstream areas_ 1.7 FOOTBALL FIELD DETENTION BASIN The hydrology of the upper part of Berry Brook Watershed is such that most of the sub-areas upstream of the Campus flow through small drainage channels and are collected by the extensive wetland at the south end of the Campus. This wetland detains the runoff before discharging to the football field area. This area in turn detains the flow again before discharging to the drain in Rock Ridge Road_ The adjacent, non-bordering wetlands west of the football field flood during periodic storm events. By , increasing the ability of this area to impound water through construction of the berm,the wetlands will flood for a longer period of time. The following table summarizes flooding impacts associated with this additional flooding_ Approximately 0.75 feet of freeboard is provided during the 160 year flood elevation within the basin,under 2020 conditions. 4 , Tables 1 2: Effects of Increased Flooding on the Football Field Wetlands t 2-Your 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year } Proposed 1999 & 2000 Storm Storm Storm Storm Storm } Existing Peak Elevation (Ft) 226.93 228.19 228.34 228.43 228.45 Proposed Peak Elevation (ft) 227.82 229.16 229,80- 230.25 230,40 Additional Depth of Flooding (ft) 0.89 0.97 1.46 1.91 1.95 i . Proposed Meets Existing Peak 12.95 12,95 12-75 12.60 1155 J Elevation @ Time=T, (hr) r 1 Proposed Drops.Below Existing Peak 33.78 34.68 39.30 42.23 43.28 3 Elevation @ Time-T2(hr) ' Time Associated with Increased 20.83 21.73 1 26,55 =.63 30,73 e, Flooding:TZ T, (hr) 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year k Proposed 2020 Storm Storm Storm Storm Storm { Existing Peak Elevation (ft) 226.93 228.19 228.34 228.43 228.45 t x Proposed Peak Elevation (Et) 228,00 229.46 230.15 230.62 230.78 ( Additional Depth'of Flooding (h) 1.07 1.27 1.81 2.19 2.33 Proposed Meets Existing Peak 12.50 12.68 12.53 12.45 12.41 F Elevation @ Time=T, (hr) x Proposed Drops Below Existing Peak 35.40 37.50. 42,15 45.20 47.10 F Elevation @ Time=Tz(hr) 'Time Associated with Increased 22.90 24.82 29.62 32.75 34.69 Flooding,Tz T, (hr) f - c Table 3: Flows to Rock Ridge Road r Flows(CFS) 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year 1 Design Storm Storm Storm Storm Storm Storm Existing Conditions 81,10 131.49 153.41 168.07 172.96 1999 Conditions 67.12 120.90 145.08 161,05 166.34 2000 Conditions 22,44 42.85 5150 58.68 60.67 2020 Conditions 16.96 32.57 39.38 43.54 44.75 a k { } t it r 7 5 t i t 3 , } 1 e$ ELM STREET RETENTION BASIN 4 This basin area will be located on Merrimack College owned property northwest of Elm Street. The site is an a undeveloped,wooded ridge nestled between*two intermittent streams. A 48" dia. drain will collect campus i runoff, traversing southeast to northwest across the campus to the main driveway. From this location the 48" drain will transition to two 36" dia.drains to avoid utility crossing conflicts,cross Elm Street,#4$5 Elm Street,and discharge to the basin area. 1 The basin,with a capacity of approximately 5.18 ao-ft will discharge via a 36" dia_outlet control. From the outlet stormwater will be conveyed to Berry Brook downstream of Elm Street via a combination rock lined and grass lined channel. Approximately 2.0 feet of freeboard is provided during the 100 year flood elevation within the basin. .1 , 1,9 CONCWSIONS { t i As stated at the beginning of this report, the design objective's for this project are as follows: 1. Solve current flooding problems experienced by residents of Rock Ridge Road. r . 2. Mitigate increases'in peals flows attributed to full development under the Merrimack College Master PIan. 3. Arrange an accounting system that enables Merrimack College to earn peak Flow reduction"credits" through the construction of both detention basins,and draw on these credits for future campus development projects_ The results of the hydrologic analysis prove that through the construction of both the Football Field and Elm Street Detention Basins,there are significant benefits for both Merrimack College and the Town of Andover. With respect to full development under the College.Master Plan,for the 25 year design storm peak flow rates within Rock Ridge Road will be reduced 74%. The remaining 266/6 of flow to Rock Ridge Road,which includes 17cfs of controlled flow from the football field and 28cfs of uncontrolled flow from the adjacent neighborhood,still exceeds the 25 year storm design capacity of the existing drain,approximately 23cfs, but has been greatly improved. Sites downstream of the campus along the Berry Brook flow path also experience benefits from construction of the detention basins. For the 25 year design storm, flows downstream of the campus will observe a 19% reduction in peak flows,and for the 100 year design storm a 21% reduction in peak flows,which will help is ease periodic flooding experienced by these areas during severe storm events. t The aforementioned peak flow mitigation within Rock Ridge Road and downstream areas assumes full -development under the Master Plan. There will be even greater reductions in the short term. As of this report, Merrimack College is scheduling development of 2-3 projects on campus in the next few years as part of their strategic plan. Construction of the detention basins will provide peak flow mitigation for these and f other projects not yet scheduled for development,while providing both short term and long term benefits to the town. ' 1 1 g:171897.001proimgmtlengineerlgif-rpdrepo rLdoc 1 t 3 ,I 6 f June 13,2001 Mr.James Greer,Administrator Andover Conservation Commission 36 Bartlett Street,Town Hall Andover,MA re: Merrimack College-Stormwater Management Plan SA#71897.01 Dear Jim: As discussed at our public hearing on May 15"',Sasaki has reanalyzed the hydrology for the Merrimack College—Stormwater Management Plan assuming a percentage of impervious coverage in excess of that previously analyzed under the Master Plan for the affected campus watersheds. This has been done to establish a stormwater peak Sasaki Associates Inc. runoff"account"for the College to draw upon for future campus development. 64 Pleasant Sheet Watertown Massachusetts 1. Summary The analysis concludes that for a 25%increase in impervious coverage over what was 02472 USA previously calculated under the Master Plan--`Year 2020 development scenario,the total peak rate of runoff generated by the campus prior to nutigationldetention is 62 cfs. t 611926 3300 Under this'scenario,the ancillary benefit for the Town of Andover regarding peak flow f 617 924 274$ reduction via construction of both detentions basins is approximately 46%. It should be noted that the emergency spillway elevation for the Football Field Detention Basin w www•sasaki.com shall be raised approximately 0.2',from 230.8 to 231.0. A copy of the computations is included for your reference. IL Draft Order of Conditions—Special Conditions As also suggested at the May 15"'Conservation Commission hearing,Merrimack College proposes the following language to be incorporated into the Order of Conditions to set protocol for administering the peak flow accounting system. 1. The Town of Andover and Merrimack College agree that the College will construct two detention basin sites for the_purposes storm water mitigation for development of the College Master Plan. As directed by the Commission,the Town of Andover will receive the ancillary benefit of reduced peak stormwater runoff downstream of the detention basin sites. This is achieved through overcompensation and reduction of peak runoff rates above and beyond what is required in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection—Stormwater Management Guidelines under full implementation of the College Master Plan. 2. It is understood that the timeframe for full build-out of the College Master Plan is approximately 30 years. June 13,2001 Page 2 3. Construction of the two detention basin sites will provide mitigation for increases in peak runoff rates associated with future campus development projects. The total increase in post-development peak rate of runoff with respect to existing conditions under the Merrimack College Master Plan,with contingency allowances,is 62 efs. It is understood that this total peak flow increase is mitigated through the construction of the two basin sites,and that this value will serve as the credit upon which Merrimack College may compensate future development and resultant increases in peak runoff rates. 4. After issuance of this Order,future Merrimack College development projects needing permits and approvals from the Town of Andover will require an estimate of the increase in peak rate of runoff for that particular project. This estimate will be submitted to the Commission for review and upon approval, will be subtracted from the total remaining credit existing at the time of the application. The Commission will then issue a letter to the College stating their understanding of the peak flow credit remaining for future development by the College. Sasaki Associates Inc. 5. Merrimack College is responsible for the construction,maintenance,and monitoring of the detention basin sites so that optimal performance of the basins is maintained. Merrimack College has the right to modify the detention basins and associated drainage structures for the purposes of increasing; detention efficiency and/or to merge the basin sites with future development projects. Detention basin modification is subject to review and approval of the Commission. 6. The Elm Street Detention Basin is designed with a 725 If water quality swale to convey storm flows and to provide.pollutant attenuation. Merrimack College has the right to take credit for the water quality swale as.a Best Management Practice(BMP)for future development projects. Use of the water quality swale for pollutant removal is subject to review and approval of the Commission. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the draft conditions,please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-M-7I62 incerely, W o as J. ett,PE tPro'ect Manager cc: David Breen,Robert Copp a;Merrimack College John Hollywood,Ginger Eagundes,Mo Gomez-,Sasaki dn1g:17 1897.0otadminUettersV-gcmdit,doc i c � ra ^tea June 13,2001 Mr.James Greer,Administrator Andover Conservation Commission 36 Bartlett Street,Town Hall Andover,MA re. Merrimack College Stormwater Management Plan SA#71897.01 Dear Jim: As discussed at our public hearing on May 15`t',Sasaki has reanalyzed the hydrology for the Merrimack College-Stormwater Management Plan assuming a percentage of impervious coverage in excess of that previously analyzed under the Master Plan for the affected campus watersheds. This has been done to establish a stormwater peak Sasaki Associates Inc, runoff"account"for the College to draw upon for future campus development. 64 Pleasant Street Watertown Massachusetts 1. Summary The analysis concludes that for a 25%increase in impervious coverage over what was 02472 USA previously calculated under the Master Plant-Year 2020 development scenario,the total peak rate of runoff generated by the campus prior to mitigation/detention is 62 cfs. r 617 926 3300 Under this scenario,the ancillary benefit for the Town of Andover regarding peak flow f 617 924 2748 reduction via construction of both detention basins is approximately 46%. It should be noted that the emergency spillway elevation for the Football Field Detention Basin w www.sasaki.com shall be raised approximately 0.2',from 230.8 to 231.0. A copy of the computations is included for your reference. H. Draft Order of Conditions—Special Conditions As also suggested at the May 15`h Conservation Commission hearing,Merrimack College proposes the following language to be incorporated into the Order of Conditions to set protocol for administering the peak flow accounting system. 1. The Town of Andover and Merrimack College agree that the College will construct two detention basin sites for the purposes storm water mitigation for development of the College Master Plan, As directed,by the Commission,the Town of Andover will receive the ancillary benefit of reduced peak stormwater runoff downstream of the detention basin sites. This is achieved through overcompensation and reduction of peak runoff rates above and beyond what is required in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental -Protection—Stormwater Management Guidelines under full implementation of the College Master Plan. 2. It is understood that the timeframe for full build-out of the College Master Plan is approximately 30 years. June 13,2001 Page 2 3. Construction of the two detention basin sites will provide mitigation for increases in peak runoff rates associated with future campus development projects. The total increase in post-development peak rate of runoff with respect to existing conditions under the Merrimack College Master PIan,with contingency allowances,is 62 cfs. It is understood that this total peak flow increase is mitigated through the construction of the two basin sites,and that this value will serve as the credit upon which Merrimack College may compensate future development and resultant increases in peak runoff rates. 4. After issuance of this Order,future Merrimack College development projects needing permits and approvals from the Town of Andover will require an estimate of the increase in peak rate of runoff for that particular project. This estimate will be submitted to the Commission for review and upon approval, will be subtracted from the total remaining credit.existing at the time of the application. The Commission will then issue a letter to the College stating their understanding of the peak flow credit remaining for future development by the College. Sasaki Associates Inc. 5. Merrimack College is responsible for the construction,maintenance,and monitoring of the detention basin sites so that optimal performance of the basins is maintained. Merrimack College has the right to modify the detention basins and associated drainage structures for the purposes of increasing detention efficiency and/or to merge the basin sites with future development projects. Detention basin modification is subject to review and approval of the Commission. 6. The Elm Street Detention Basin is designed with a 7251f water quality swale to convey storm flows and to provide pollutant attenuation. Merrimack College has the right to take credit for the water quality swale as:a Best Management Practice(BMP)for future development projects. Use of the water quality swale for pollutant removal is subject to review and approval of the Commission. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the draft conditions,please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-923-7162 incerppely, V'1 o as J.pnett, E Pro' ct Manager cc: David Breen,lobert`Copp a;Merrimack College John Hollywood,Binger Fagundes,Mo Gomez,Sasaki dh�g:171897,001adm n\Jr,ttersV-greedit doc FILE COPY Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DE'File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands 90-0750 WPA Form 6 - Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 A. General Information Important. From: When filling out forms on Andover the computer, Conservation Commission use onlythe tab key to This issuance if for(check one): move your cursor_do Order of Conditions not use the return key. 0 Amended Order of Conditions To:Applicant Property Owner(if different from applicant): Merrimack College same Name Name 316 Turnpike Street Mailing Address lMailing_Address North Andover MA 01845 cityfrown, State Zip Code Cityfrown state Zip Code 1. 'Project Location: 315 Turnpike Steet and Elm Street Andover Street Address CWrown 3.and 1 5 and 5 Assessors Map/Plat Number Parcel/Lot Number 2. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for: Essex North District 30 329 County Book Page NA Certificate(if registered land) 3, Dates: 04-26-99 July 17,2001 October 5,2001 Date Notice of Intent Filed Date Public Hearing Closed Rate of Issuance 4. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents(attach additional plan references as needed): Merrimack College Stormwater Management Plan, Andover and North Andover 07-02-2001 rev. (CM,C1-2, C2-1, C2-2,C3-1,C3-2&�4-fl Date Suppfementat Calculations: Hvdrol6,qic Analysis adjusting Year 2020 06-19-2001 5. Final Plans and Documents Signed and Stamped by: �ah n D—Ho I I wnnr3 P-R 6. Total Fee: $525.00 (from Appendix 8:Wetiand Fee Transmittal Form) WPA Fam 5 PIVO 10 7 Rev.OM a r I Massachusetts Department*of-Environmental Protection DEP rile Number. Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands 90_0750 WPA r — Order of Conditions Provided by DEP a Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L c. 131, §40 a B. Findings Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the Information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing,this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act.Check all that apply: ❑ Public Water Supply M Land Containing Shellfish 0 Prevention of Pollution ❑ Private Water Supply ❑ Fisheries ❑ Protection of Wildlife Habitat ❑ Groundwater Supply Storm Damage Prevention 0 Flood Control Furthermore,this Commission hereby finds the project,as proposed,is(check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: ® the following conditions.which are necessary,in accordance with the performance standards set forth In the wetlands regulations,to protect those interests checked above.This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the Notice of Intent referenced above,the following General Conditions,and any other special conditions attached to this Order.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans,specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent,these conditions shall control. Denied because: ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations to protect those interests checked above.Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a new Notice of Intent Is.submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect these Interests,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant Is not sufficient to describe the site,the work,or the effect of the work on the Interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act.Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Acts interests,and a final Order of Conditions is issued.A description of the specific information which Is lacking and-why k is necessary is attached to this Older as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). General Conditions (only applicable to approved projects) 1. Failure to comply,with all conditions stated herein,and with all related statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order_ 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges;it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. `3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all ,+ ' other applicable federal,state, or local statutes,ordinances, bylaws,or regulations. �.4_ WPA Form b Rev,02W 'ago$of" Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 90-0760 WPA Provided by DEP Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) 4. The work au'thorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act,or b, the time for completion' has been extended to a specified date more than three years,but less than five years,from the date of issuance. If this Order Is intended to be valid for more than three years,the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5, This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill.Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, Including but not limited to lumber,bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper,cardboard, pipe,tires,ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 7. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed,or if such an appeal his been taken,until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. 8. No work shall be undertaken until the.Order has become final and then has been recorded In the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land Is located,,wlthin the chain oftitle of the affected property. In the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted In the - Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land,the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work Is done,The recording Information shall be submitted to this Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order, which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds,prior to the commencement of work. 9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Peotection"[or,"MA DEP"] "File Number90-0750 10. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order,the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before DEP. 11. Upon completion of the work described herein,the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 12, The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 13. Any change to the plans Identified In Condition#12 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. 14. The Agent or members of the Conservafio6 Commission and the Department of Environmental - Protection shall have the right to enter and Inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order,and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. V4PA Fom 5 P40301 Rev,oZW Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands 90-0750 WPA Provided by DEP Form 5 - Order of Conditions Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 B. Findings (cont.) 16, This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor In Interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 16. Prior to the start of work,and it the project Involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging.Once In place,the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. 17, All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means.At no time shall sediments be deposited In a wetland or water body.During construction,the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed.The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also Immediately notify the Conservation Commission,which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary.Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. Special Conditions(use additional paper,If necessary): See attached sheets for special conditions and findings. Findings as to municipal bylaw or ordinance Furthermore,the hereby finds(check one that applies): 'Conservation Commission ❑ that the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the standards set forth In a municipal ordinance or bylaw specifically: Name Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to meet these standards,and a final Order of Conditions is issued. ❑ that the following additional conditions are necessary to comply with a municipal ordinance or bylaw, specifically: Name Municipal Ordinance or Bylaw The Commission orders that all work shall be performed In accordance with the said additional conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above.To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans,specifications,or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control. V4PA FWM 5 Page 4 of 7 Rev.OM it 1. FINDING-NOTICE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT,M.G.L.C. 131,S.40. The Andover Conservation Commission hereby finds that all or part of the property on which the work authorized by this Order is proposed is subject to jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act,M.G.L.C, 131,s.40. The owner is hereby notified of.his or her responsibility to comply with the provisions of that I survive statute. This condition shall remain in effect in perpetuity w d shall s ive the issuance ce of a Certificate of Compliance. 2, TESTIMONY. During the course of the Public Hearings on this project the Andover Conservation Cornnussion considered and weighed extensive written and oral testimony, including the following. The Applicant submitted the following materials prepared by Sasaki Associates,Inc.: 2.1 Document entitled"NOTICE OF INTENT—APPLICATION FOR MASTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN",dated: April 26, 1999. 2.2 Engineering design plans. 2.3 Hydrologic Analysis. 2.4 Document entitled"NOTICE OF INTENT—APPLICATION FOR MASTER STORmWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN,REVISED SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS"; revised date: June 1, 1999, 2.5 Letter dated August 11, 1999 from Douglas J.Hartnet,PE(5 pages,responding to the July 14,1999 peer review letter from Judith Nitsch Engineering,Inc.). 2.6 APPENDIX—A, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE,PLAN FOOTBALL FIELD AND ELM STREET DETENTION BASIN (2 pages,dated August 12, 1999). 2.7 Three pages,dated 11 August 1999,prepared by Sasaki Associates,Inc.: ELEVATION VS. DISCHARGE—Football Field Basin; ELEVATION VS.DISCHARGE—Elm Street Basin; and TSS Removal Calculation—Elm Street Detention Basin. 2.8 Letter dated April 17,2001 from Douglas J.Hartnet,PE(2 pages,summarizing events since the last Publk Hearing,peer review,design alternatives and outlining the project's design objectives)with revised engineering pla]ns. 2.9 Letter dated April 17,2001 from Douglas J.Hartnet,PE(1 page,I transmittal of revised hydrologic calculations and summary spreadsheet and summarizing plan changes,with revised plans dated Rev.April 11,2001). 2.10 Letter dated July 2,2001 from Douglas J. Hartnet,PE(1 page,transmittal of revised plan's dated Rev.July 2,2001). 2.1 IDetail sheets(2)describing the location and methods to be utilized for a temporary haul road (plan view and cross-section)"Haul Road Across Wetland". Judith Nitsch Engineering,Inc, (acting as consultant to the Conservation Commission)submitted the following: 2.12 Peer review of the engineering plans and calculations,July 14, 1999(consisting of 6 pages). 2.13 Peer review of the engineering plans and calculations,September 7, 1999(consisting of 5 pages). T' 2.14 Peer review of the engineering plans and calculations,October 1, 1999(consisting of 4 pages)- 2.15 Peer review of the revised engineering plans,April 27,2001 (consisting of 2 pages). Interested parties submitted the following: 2.16 Letter dated May 7,2001 from Mr.Kevin J.Porter(of 8 Westwind Road)concerning potential effects of the proposed project on flood levels at Elysian Drive and Twin Brook Circle. 3. FINAL APPROVED PLAN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.Work shall conform to the plans referenced*on Page 1 of this Order and to the most recent of the above-referenced materials submitted by the applicant(on file with the Andover Conservation Commission). 4. MASTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. This project consists of the proposed construction of a campus-wide stormwater drainage system,including two stormwater detention basins. The applicant has stated the design•objectives for this project as follows: I. Solve current flooding problems experienced by residents of Rock Ridge Road. 2. Mitigate increases in peak flows attributed to full development under the Merrimack College Master Plan. 3. Arrange an accounting system that enables Merrimack College to e=peak flow reduction"credits"through the construction of both detention basins,and draw on those credits for future campus development projects. The applicant and the eomm ssioa understand that this Order of Conditions establishes_a mechanism by which the applicant may in future utilize the surplus capacity created by the proposed construction. S. PROTOCOL FOR ADMINISTERING THE PEAK FLOW ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. 5.1 The Town of Andover and Merrimack College agree that the College will construct two detention basin sites for the purposes of'storm water mitigation for development of the , -College Master Plan. As directed by the Commission,the Town of Andover will receive the ancillary benefit of reduced peak stormwater runoff downstream of the detention basin sites. This is achieved through overcompensation and reduction of peak rates above and beyond what is required in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection—Stormwater Management Guidelines under full implementation of the C ollege Master Plan. 5.2 It is understood that the timeframe for full build-out of the College Master Plan is approximately 30 years. 53 Construction of the two detention basin sites will provide mitigation for increases in peak runoff rates associated with future campus development projects. The total increase in post- development peak rate of runoff'with respect to existing conditions under the Merrimack College Master Plan,with contingency allowances,is 62 efs. It is understood that this total peak flow increase is mitigated through construction of the two basin sites,and that this value will serve as the credit upon which.Merrimack College may compensate future development and resultant increases in peak runoff rates. 5.4 After issuance of this Order,fixture Merrimack College development-projects within the ^� watershed outlined in the Notice of Intent are subject to the following standards of review by the Commission for the purpose of evaluating peak flow and storm water quality impacts, including any new Notice of Intent filed where proposed work is located within a protected resource area or applicable buffer zone within the Town of Andover. 0< 2.000 sCnet impervious area increase—Activity does not need to be reported to the Commission,except as a summary in an annual report to be filed with the Commission at the end of each calendar year. 4 2,000 sf<S.000 sfnet impervious area increase—Activity shall be reported to Commission staff-with supporting documentation evaluating the estimated increase in peak runoff rate,estimated reduction in peak flow credits to offset a peak runoff increase,and Best Management Practices(BW's)proposed to enhance water quality. These projects will be reviewed by Commission staff to verify compliance with DEP-Stormwater.,Management Guidelines(1995),and shall be considered acceptable by Commission staff•if the Stormwater Management Standards are met. 5.000 sfor greater net impervious area increase—Activity shall be reported to Commission staff with supporting documentation evaluating the estimated increase in peak runoff rate,estimated reduction in peak flow credits to offset a peak runoff increase,and Best Management Practices(BMPs)proposed to enhance water quality. These projects will be reviewed by Commission staff to verify compliance with DEP-Stormwat6r Management Guidelines(1995),and shall be considered insignificant by the Commission if the Stormwater Management Standards are met. Upon satisfactory proof of project insignificance by the College,work may proceed with no further review by the Commission. The Commission reserves the right to require an Amended Order of Conditions for projects involving 5,000 sf or greater of net impervious area increase,in the event the project has an impact to a resource area under the Commission's legal jurisdiction. For projects requiring Planning Board review and approval,the Conservation Commission may defer review of the project until Planning Board action is taken. For projects proposed within the Town of North Andover,technical review of the submitted materials will be completed by an outside consultant as designated by the North Andover Planning Board and as outlined in the Site Plan Review Ming requirements of the North Andover Zoning By-law. The College shall be responsible for submitting a letter to the Commission at the end of each calendar year to summarize projects completed during that year and a statement that the College has implemented all aspects of an Operation and Maintenance Plan. Remaining peak flow credits will be tracked informally by the Commission offices and formally documented in an Amended Order of Conditions under one of the following scenario's,whichever occurs first: 1. When a Notice of Intent is made for an amended Order of Conditions for a project, which occurs within the jurisdiction of the Andover Conservation Commission. a ' 2. When the College applies for an extension of the existing Order of Conditions at five-' year-intervals. Requests for an Amended Order of Conditions shall be in writing and extensions will be granted at five-year intervals up to six times,at the Applicant's request. Upon completion of each authorized phase of construction,the College shall have their engineering consultant evaluate the effectiveness and function of-the drainage improvements. The engineering consultant shall prepare and submit a report to the Commission together with any recommendations for improvement or modifications of the drainage system.to maintain the system's performance. The College shall be responsible to implement all aspects of the Operation and Maintenance Flan for the Master Stormwater Management Plan,including all maintenance measures on the detention pond,parking lot sweeping,and catch basin maintenance. Merrimack College is responsible for the construction,maintenance,and monitoring of the detention basin sites so that the optimal performance of the basins is maintained Merrimack College has the right to modify the detention basins and associated drainage structures for the purposes of increasing efficiency and/or merge the basin sites with future development projects. Detention basin modification is subject to review and approval of the Commission.' 5.4 FINDING—WATER QUALITY. The Conservation Commission finds that in order to protect the interests of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act the Applicant shall be responsible to incorporate Best Management Practices for stormwater enhancement/quality on a project by project basis throughout the implementation of the Master Stormwater Management plan. d. WORK AUTHORIZED UNDER.TFUS ORDER. Only work explicitly described in the above-referenced plans and Notice of Intent is authorized under this Order of Conditions. 7. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. The Applicant or his successors in interest shall be responsible in perpetuity to maintain all drainage and stormwater management features, including stormwater best management practices(BMFs)in good working order. The Conservation Commission reserves the right to enter upon the property and.make independent examination of these BMP measures,and to require the Applicant or his successors in interest to perform such maintenance as is needed in its judgment: The Conservation Commission shall provide prior notice to the property owner of its intent to perform such inspection not less than forty-eight hours prior to such inspection. This condition shall remain in effect in perpetuity and shall survive the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 8. CERTIFICATE OF COWLiANCE. Not more than thirty days following completion of the project,the applicant shall submit with their request for a Certificate of Compliance.an affidavit prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; stating that the site has been developed in accordance with the requirements of this Order of Conditions,based upon an on-site inspection and the referenced site plan. Such request shall be accompanied by an as-built drawing prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer,registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,and depicting the final and actual condition of all areas within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 9. INSTALLATION OF EROSION CONTROL. Prior to commencement of work the applicant shall retain the services of the design professional or a Professional Land Surveyor to stake out the location of the proposed sediment controls. The applicant shall then install the sediment controls in accordance with the above-referenced plans. A written request for inspection of the erosion gQntrol shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission,and a satisfactory inspection performed before My land-disturbing g2fiv_ity may commence. Other sediment controls may be required by the Conservation Commission or its agents as field conditions warrant. The siltation control device shall be the Limit of Construction beyond which no earth-disturbing activity shall occur or heavy equipment shall be allowed. All siltation and erosion controls shall be maintained in a state of good repair. The siltation control devices shall not be removed until the c6nmiission or its agent has reviewed and found satisfactory the stabilization of the disturbed area. 10.EXCAVATION'DEWATERING. In the event that excavation dewatering is required within any area subject to jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act the applicant shall notify the Conservation Commission in advance of such work,and shall be responsible to ensure that such water is free of suspended solids before being discharged into either a wetland or into any storm water drainage system. This condition applies to all forms of dewatering,including pumping and trenching. 11. NOTIFICATION OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. The applicant shall notify the Conservation Commission,in writing,48 hours before any activity commences on the project site and shall advise the Conservation Commission ofthe name(s)and telephone number(s)of the person(s)responsible on site for compliance with this Order.This list shall be resubmitted if any changes are made to it. The developer or contractor responsible for the projeoVs completion shall be notified of,and understand,the requirements of this Order of Conditions. The developer and/or contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the Order of Conditions by submitting a letter to that effect to the Conservation Commission. A copy of this Order,as well as copies of the above-mentioned documents,plans, and reports shall be on-site while activities regulated by this Order are being performed. This Order of Conditions shall be made part of all construction documents for this project. All contractors worldng at the site shall be made aware of the provi]sions contained within this Order of Conditions and shall adhere to all the Special Conditions contained herein. The applicant, or his designee,shall,at all times,have a copy of the Final Order of Conditions at the site and shall monitor compliance with the provisions of this Order. 12. CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW BY DESIGN ENGtINEER./REPORTS. The applicant shall be responsible to secure the services of the design professional or similarly credentialed professional on an on-going basis throughout all phases of the project that are within the jurisdiction of this Order of Conditions. Inspections shall take place during once every 7 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a 2 year storm event or greater(i.e.,3.2 inches i of rainfall within a twenty-four hour period),throughout the duration of the project. This period ! shall begin when siltation controls are installed,and shall end with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The weelrly logs/reports shall be submitted on a monthly basis to the Conservation Commission and shalt state whether such work is in his or her opinion in compliance with the Order of Conditions. The Conservation Commission reserves the right to require submission of such reports on a more frequent interval. The applicant or his authorized representative must prospectively request approval for temporary cessation of reports in writing. Failure to submit satisfactory reports shall be deemed,sufficient iicient cause for revocation of this permit without further review. 13. GRADING AND STABILIZATION. Grading shall conform to the,plaus and data referenced above. In all cases final grades shall have a minimum of two inches of topsoil (measured in place)over all disturbed areas. In all cases exposed soil areas shall be,stabilized with vegetation,e.g.,grass or some form of ground cover plant. In no case shall wood chips, mulch,or similar covering be acceptable on sloping ground in lieu of vegetation. 14. STOCKPILING. Staked hay bales to prevent sediment from surface runoff from entering the wetland must surround all debris,fill and excavated material stockpiles within.160 feet of a wetland area. 15. CONTROL OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. No construction debris(paper,wood,-metal, concrete,etc.)may be allowed to enter the wetland resource areas at any time. Windblown material shall be promptly removed from wetland resource areas. 16. DAMAGE TO RESOURCE AREAS. Any damage caused as a direct result ofthis project to any wetland resource areas,beyond that authorized by the Order,is the responsibility of the applicant to repair,restore or replace. Sedimentation or erosion into these areas shall be considered damage to wetland resource areas. The Conservation Commission shall be promptly notified of any damage to wetland resource areas. Following notification,the applicant must submit a plan for abatement of the problem and restoration. The Conservation Commission prior to implementation must approve this plan. 17. SURPLUS EARTH MATERIALS. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that any and all surplus materials that are not needed for use on the project are lawfully disposed of outside any area subject to protection under M.G.L.c 131,s.40,unless such disposal area and activity are regulated under either a valid Order of Conditions or Determination of Applicability. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands 90.0750 WPA C Order '� Conditions P�vtdeabyDl;P Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L.c. 131, §40 lug B. Findings (cant.) Additional conditions relating to municipal ordinance or bylaw:, i This Order Is valid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of Issuance. October 5, 2004 A4)i -2004(expirationdate" ;subject to five—yam. extens in nay Date This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission.The Order must be mailed by certified mail(return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate department of Environmental Protectiori Regional Office(see Appendix A)and the property owner(if different from applicant). • Signatures: 0126 On 17°i Of July 2001 Day Month and Year before me personally"appeared Philip L. Sutherland to me known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same as his/her free act and deed. July 22,2005 N ry Public My Commission Expires This der is issued to the applicant as follows: �] by hand delivery on by certified mail,return receipt requested,on October 5, 2001 Date Date WPA Form 5 fit 5�Lp Rev.02l00 .. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number: Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands 9C)iD750 WPA Form 5 - Order-of Conditions Ptovided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G;L. c. 131, §40 C. Appeals The applicant,the owner,any person aggrieved by this Order,any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order,or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located,are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate DEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions. The request must be made by certified Mail Or hand delivery to the Department with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Appendix E:Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, If he/she is not the appellant. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which Is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the Interests Identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, (M.G.L.c.131,§40)and is Inconsistent with the wetlands regulations(310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based.on a municipal ordinance or bylaw,and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations,the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. D. Recording Information This Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the land Court for the district In which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index,under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order.In the case of registered land, this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions.The recording information on Page 7 of Form 5 shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Andover Conservation Commission VMA Form 5 Pap G tf 7 ftav,W" Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection DEP File Number. Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands 90-0750 WPA Form 5 — Order of Conditions Provided by DEP Massachusetts Wetlands Protectiori Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 D. Recording Information (cont.) Detach on dotted line,have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission, ---------------------- ................... --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- To: Andover Conserv4tion Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at Merrimack College(315 Turnpike St, &Elm St.)90-0750 Projecti-ocaWn DEP File Nurftber. Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of County Book Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land,the instrument number identifying this transaction is: instrument Number If registered land,the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number Signature of Applicant WPA Fom S ft2s 7 097 it 020 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ANDOVER TOWN OFFICES ANDOVER,MA 01910 Tracey 1.Gangi,PE Sasaki Assoc.,Inc. 64 Pleasant Street Watertown,MA 02472 =324 7 1.`+ i 6. 4 w 111E3ItIIIIIIII list 1I1IItli1 III fill IIII III II III IIIIIIIfIfill "w aw o Zle Zl it I � Town of Andover - Amended Order of Conditions, October 2016 :4AMWALUM,11 625.iT�re;orls5lnrtnwales.71 56 625.12-Stonrvszler R-xi-Rev 2 2017-W- „j dx 10-21-2016 1222:3 Essex Korth Land Court Registry Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Provided by MassDEP: 090-0750(2nd Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Amendment) WPA For 5 — Order of Conditions- Mass6—EPFile# AMENDED eDEP Transaction# Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act M.G.L. c. 131, §40 Andover And ARTICLE XIV,ANDOVER WETLAND PROTECTION BY-LAW Cityrrown A. General Information Important: Andover When filling i.From: —Conservation Commission out forms on the 2.This issuance is for a.®Order of Conditions b.Z Amended Order of Conditions computer, (check one): use only the tab key to 3,To: Applicant: move your cursor-do not use the a.First Name b.Last Name return key. Merrimack College c.—Organization 315 Turn ike Street ff d.Mailing Address MA 01845 North Andover f.State g.Zip Code e.City/Town 4. Property Owner(if different from applicant): a.First Name b.Last Name _c—Organization d. Mailing Address e.City/Town f.State g.Zip Code 5.Project Location: 315 Turnpike Street Andover a. Street Address b.Cityrrown 3 and 1 5 and 5 c.Assessors Map/Plat Number d.Parcel/Lot Number Latitude and Longitude, if known: d.Latitude e.Longitude This document consists of Pagel of 12 wpaforrn5.doc•rev.03/212010 r P A. General Information (cunt.) s. Property recorded at the Registry of Deeds for(attach additional information if more than one parcel): Essex North District a.County b.Certcate Number(if registered land) 30 329 c.Book d.Page March 22, 2005(orig.) May 10, 2005(orig.) Oct. 23, 2014 (orig) 7, Dates: a.Date Notice of Intent Filed b.Date Public Hearing Closed c.Date of Issuance s. Final Approved Plans and Other Documents(attach additional plan or document references as needed): North Camus Academic a, Plan Title Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Christopher M. Lovett, P.E. b.Prepared By c.Signed and Stamped by July 15, 2016 1"=40' d.Final Revision Date e.Scale f.Additional Plan or Document Title g.Date B. Findings 1. Findings pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: Following the review of the above-referenced Notice of Intent and based on the information provided in this application and presented at the public hearing, this Commission finds that the areas in which work is proposed is significant to the following interests of the Wetlands Protection Act(the Act). Check all that apply: a. ❑ Public Water Supply b. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish c. ® Prevention of Pollution d. ® Private Water Supply e. Fisheries f. ® Protection of Wildlife Habitat g. ® Groundwater Supply h. ® Storm Damage Prevention i. ® Flood Control 2. This Commission hereby finds the project, as proposed, is: (check one of the following boxes) Approved subject to: a. ® the following conditions which are necessary in accordance with the performance standards set forth in the wetlands regulations.This Commission orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with the.Notice of Intent referenced above, the following General Conditions, and any other special conditions attached to this Order. To the extent that the following conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications, or other proposals submitted with the Notice of Intent, these conditions shall control. B. Findings (cont.) Denied because: b. ❑ the proposed work cannot be conditioned to meet the performance standards set forth in the wetland regulations. Therefore,work on this project may not go forward unless and wparomG5.doc•rev.09l2I2010 Page 2 of 12 until a new Notice of Intent is submitted which provides measures which are adequate to protect the interests of the Act, and a final Order of Conditions is issued, A description of the performance standards which the proposed work cannot meet is attached to this Order. c. ❑ the information submitted by the applicant is not sufficient to describe the site, the work, or the effect of the work on the interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act. Therefore, work on this project may not go forward unless and until a revised Notice of Intent is submitted which provides sufficient information and includes measures which are adequate to protect the Acts interests, and a final Order of Conditions is issued. A description of the specific information which is lacking and why it is necessary is attached to this Order as per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(c). 3. ❑ Buffer Zone Impacts: Shortest distance between limit of project disturbance and the wetland resource area specified in 310 CMR 10.02(1)(a) a.linear feet Inland Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Resource Area Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement 4. ❑ Bank a.linear feet b.linear feet c.linear feet d.linear feet s. ❑ Bordering -- Vegetated Wetland a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 6. ❑ Land Under Waterbodies and a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Waterways e.cty dredged f.afy dredged 7. ❑ Bordering Land -- Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g.cubic feet h.cubic feet 8. ❑ Isolated Land Subject to Flooding a.square feet b.square feet Cubic Feet Flood Storage c.cubic feet d.cubic feet e.cubic feet f.cubic feet g. ❑ Riverfront Area a.total sq.feet b.total sq.feet Sq ft within 100 ft C.square feet d.square feet e.square feet f.square feet Sq ft between 100- 200 ft g.square feet h.square feet i.square feet j.square feet B. Findings (cunt.) Coastal Resource Area Impacts: Check all that apply below. (For Approvals Only) Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Alteration Alteration Replacement Replacement io. ❑ Designated Port Indicate size under Land Under the Ocean, below Areas 11,-❑ Land Under the Ocean a.square feet b.square feet c.c y dredged d.c/y dredged Indicate size under Coastal Beaches and/or Coastal Dunes 12. ❑ Barrier Beaches below wpaforrn5.doc• rev.03r2r2010 Page 3 of 12 13. El Coastal Beaches cu cuxd a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishmee nt d.nourishment u yd cu yd 14. ❑ Coastal Dunes c a.square feet b.square feet c.nourishment d.nourishment 15. ❑ Coastal Banks a.linear feet b.linear feet 16. ❑ Rocky Intertidal Shores a.square feet b.square feet 17. ❑ Salt Marshes a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 1s. ❑ Land Under Salt Ponds a.square feet b.square feet c.cry dredged d.cly dredged 19. ❑ Land Containing Shellfish a.square feet b.square feet c.square feet d.square feet 20. ❑ Fish Runs Indicate size under Coastal Banks, Inland Bank, Land Under the Ocean, and/or inland Land Under Waterbodies and Waterways, above a.Gy dredged b.c/y dredged 21. ❑ Land Subject to Coastal Storm a.square feet b.square feet Flowage B. Findings (cont.) p#2 ct2.lis for the 22. ❑ Restoration/Enhancement*: the purpose of restoring or a.square feet of BVW b.square feet of salt marsh enhancing a wetland resource area 23. ❑ Stream Crossing(s): in addition to the square footage that a,number of new stream crossings b.number of replacement stream crossings has been C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act entered in Section 13.5.c (BVuv)or The following conditions are only applicable to Approved projects. B.17.c(Sat Marsh)above, 1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related statutes and other please enter regulatory measures,shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order. the additional 9 rY fY amount here. 2. The Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges; it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights. 3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, bylaws, or regulations. 4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: wp&orm5.doc•rev.030=10 Page 4 or 12 a. the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act;or b. the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than five years,from the date of issuance. If this Order is intended to be valid for more than three years, the extension date and the special circumstances warranting the extended time period are set forth as a special condition in this Order. 5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order. 6. If this Order constitutes an Amended Order of Conditions, this Amended Order of Conditions does not extend the issuance date of the original Final Order of Conditions and the Order will expire on unless extended in writing by the Department. 7. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill. Any fill shall contain no trash, refuse, rubbish, or debris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper,cardboard, pipe, tires, ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles,or parts of any of the foregoing. 8. This Order is not final until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed, or if such an appeal has been taken, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed. C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(cont.) 9. No work shall be undertaken until the Order has become final and then has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of the registered land, the Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is done.The recording information shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission on the form at the end of this Order,which form must be stamped by the Registry of Deeds, prior to the commencement of work. 10. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less then two square feet or more than three square feet in size bearing the words, "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"[or, "MassDEP"] "File Number 090-0750 2"d " Amendment 11. Where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before MassDEP. 12. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall submit a Request for Certificate of Compliance(WPA Form 8A)to the Conservation Commission. 13. The work shall conform to the plans and special conditions referenced in this order. 14. Any change to the plans identified in Condition#13 above shall require the applicant to inquire of the Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is significant enough to require the filing of a new Notice of Intent. wpa(orm5_doc• rev.031212M Page 5 of 12 15. The Agent or members of the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environmental Protection shall have the right to enter and inspect the area subject to this Order at reasonable hours to evaluate compliance with the conditions stated in this Order, and may require the submittal of any data deemed necessary by the Conservation Commission or Department for that evaluation. 16. This Order of Conditions shall apply to any successor in interest or successor in control of the property subject to this Order and to any contractor or other person performing work conditioned by this Order. 17. Prior to the start of work, and if the project involves work adjacent to a Bordering Vegetated Wetland, the boundary of the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed work area shall be marked by wooden stakes or flagging. Once in place, the wetland boundary markers shall be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance has been issued by the Conservation Commission. C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(cont.) 18. All sedimentation barriers shall be maintained in good repair until all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized with vegetation or other means. At no time shall sediments be deposited in a wetland or water body. During construction, the applicant or his/her designee shall inspect the erosion controls on a daily basis and shall remove accumulated sediments as needed. The applicant shall immediately control any erosion problems that occur at the site and shall also immediately notify the Conservation Commission, which reserves the right to require additional erosion and/or damage prevention controls it may deem necessary. Sedimentation barriers shall serve as the limit of work unless another limit of work line has been approved by this Order. NOTICE OF STORMATER CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 19. The work associated with this Order(the"Project") is(1)® is not(z)❑ subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. If the work is subject to the Stormwater Standards,then the project is subject to the following conditions: a) All work, including site preparation, land disturbance, construction and redevelopment, shall be implemented in accordance with the construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control plan and, if applicable, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit as required by Stormwater Condition 8. Construction period erosion, sedimentation and-pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) shall remain in place until the site is fully stabilized. b) No stormwater runoff may be discharged to the post-construction stormwater BMPs unless and until a Registered Professional Engineer provides a Certification that: i. all construction period BMPs have been removed or will be removed by a date certain specified in the Certification. For any construction period BMPs intended to be converted to post construction operation for stormwater attenuation, recharge, and/or treatment, the conversion is allowed by the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook BMP specifications and that the BMP has been properly cleaned or prepared for post construction operation, including removal of all construction period sediment trapped in inlet and outlet control structures; h. as-built final construction BMP plans are included, signed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer, certifying the site is fully stabilized; iii. any illicit discharges to the stormwater management system have been removed, as per iwpalortn5.doc•rev.03=10 Page 6 of U j I ' the requirements ofStormwater Standard 10; iv. all post-monstnxzUonstormwatmrBK8Poare installed in accordance with the plans (including all planting plans)approved by the issuing authority, and have been inspected to ensure that they are not damaged and that they are in proper working condition; u any veg �etob naamociahadvvithpost-conntrucUon8K8Pmiseuibeb|yesbab|iohadho withstand erosion. C. General Conditions Under Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (cont.) c) The landowner is responsible for BMP maintenance until the issuing authority is notified that another party has legally assumed responsibility for BMP maintenance. Prior to requesting a Certificate of Com |ianoe or Partial Certificate ofCompliance, the responsible party(defined in General Condition 18(e)) shall execute and submit to the issuing authority an Operation and Maintenance Compliance Statement('O&M Statement)for the Stormwater BMPs identifying the party responsible for implementing the stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan ("O&M Plan")and certifying the following: i.) the O&M Plan is complete and will be implemented upon receipt of the Certificate of Compliance, and ii.)the future responsible parties shall be notified in writing of their ongoing legal responsibility to operate and maintain the stormwater management BMPs and implement the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. d) Post-construction pollution prevention and source control shall be implemented in accordance with the long-term pollution prevention plan section of the approved S8ornnwoberReport and, if applicable, the Gb7rmwabor Pollution Prevention Plan required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Multi-Sector General Permit. o) Unless and until another party accepts responsibility,the landowner,or owner of any drainage easement,assumes responsibility for maintaining each BK8P. To overcome this presumption, the landowner of the property must submit to the issuing authority a legally bindingagreementofnaoord. accoptab|etotbe \sauingauUhohh/. evidenoingUhatanother entity has accepted responsibility for maintaining the BMP, and that the proposed responsible party shall be treated as a permittee for purposes of implementing the requirements of Conditions 18(H through 18(k)with respect to that BMP. Any failure ofthe proposed responsible party bo implement the requirements of Conditions 18(0through 18(k)with respect iothat BWqPohaU beaviolation mf the Order of Conditions orCertificate of Compliance. |n the case nfshonmvvaterBK8Pm that are serving more than one lot, the legally binding agreement shall also identify the lots that will be serviced by the shormwmtmr ByNPo. A plan and easement deed that grants the responsible party access boperform the required operation and maintenance must be submitted along with the legally binding agreement. f) The responsible party shall operate and maintain all stormwater BMPS in accordance with the design plans,the O&M Plan, and the requirements of the Massachusetts GburmwobarHandbook. ) ~pamxm6m"'rev.omcr2ono Page rmo AMENDED ORDER Merrimack College — North Campus DEP FILE NO.090-0750 AMENDED SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1 FINDING-NOTICE OF JURISDICTION UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT, M.G.L.C. 131, S. 40. The Andover Conservation Commission hereby finds that all or part of the property on which the work authorized by this Order is proposed is subject to jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, M.G.L.C. 131,s. 40. The owner is hereby notified of his or her responsibility to comply with the provisions of that statute. This condition shall remain in effect in perpetuity and shall survive the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 2 FINDING—ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BY-LAW. The Conservation Commission finds that all conditions set forth in this Order of Conditions are necessary to protect the interest described in the Andover Wetlands Protection By-Law. The owner is hereby notified of his or her responsibility to comply with the provisions of that By-Law. This condition shall remain in effect in perpetuity and shall survive the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 3 FINDING—This Amended Order allows for the modification on the plans detailed below. All other Conditions remain in effect. The Commission finds that the change is minor in nature and compliant with applicable State Laws and the Local Bylaw. Please refer to previous Amended Order. The modified Amendment Plans are: • Legend and General Notes—Sheet C-I • Site Preparation Plan— Sheet C-2 • Layout and Materials Plan—Sheet C-3 • Grading and Drainage Plan—Sheet C-4 • Erosion Control Plan—Sheet C-5 • Utility Plan—Sheet C-6 • Andover Sewer Plan and Profile—Sheet C-7 • Site Details 1,2 and 3 —Sheet C-8, C-9 and C-10 4 RELIANCE UPON PEER REVIEW. The Conservation Commission is in partial reliance upon a peer review of the filing completed by Janet Bernard of Horsley Witten. The documentation for this review is comprised of a letter report dated August 1,2016. I E. Signatures This Order is valid for three years,unless otherwise specified as a special A1111 1-: condition pursuant to General Conditions#4,from the date of issuance. 1.We of is uance Please indicate the number of members who will sign this form. This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission. 2.Number of Signers The Order must be mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested)or hand delivered to the applicant.A copy also must be mailed or hand delivered at the same time to the appropriate Department of Environmental Protection Regional Office,if not filing electronically, the property owner,if different from applicant. Signatures; AJJ i ' ❑ by hand delivery on by certified mail, return receipt requested,on. Date Date F. Appeals The applicant,the owner, any person aggrieved by this Order, any owner of land abutting the land subject to this Order,or any ten residents of the city or town in which such land is located, are hereby notified of their right to request the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office to issue a Superseding Order of Conditions.The request must be made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department,with the appropriate filing fee and a completed Request of Departmental Action Fee Transmittal Form, as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7)within ten business days from the date of issuance of this Order.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by certified mail or hand delivery to the Conservation Commission and to the applicant, if he/she is not the appellant. Any appellants seeking to appeal the Department's Superseding Order associated with this appeal will be required to demonstrate prior participation in the review of this project. Previous participation in the permit proceeding means the submission of written information to the Conservation Commission prior to the close of the public hearing, requesting a Superseding Order, or providing written information to the Department prior to issuance of a Superseding Order. The request shall state clearly and concisely the objections to the Order which is being appealed and how the Order does not contribute to the protection of the interests identified in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M.G.L. c. 131, §40), and is inconsistent with the wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.00). To the extent that the Order is based on a municipal ordinance or bylaw, and not on the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or regulations,the Department has no appellate jurisdiction. wpaform5.doc•rev.0 3/212 01 0 Page 10 of 12 I I G. Recording Information Prior to commencement of work,this Order of Conditions must be recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected property. In the case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner of the land subject to the Order. In the case of registered land,this Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land subject to the Order of Conditions. The recording information on this page shall be submitted to the Conservation Commission listed below. Andover Conservation Commission Detach on dotted line, have stamped by the Registry of Deeds and submit to the Conservation Commission. To: Andover Conservation Commission Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the Project at: 315 Turnpike Street,Andover,MA 090-0750 Amended Project Location MassDEP File Number Has been recorded at the Registry of Deeds of: Essex North District County Book Page for: Property Owner and has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in: Book Page In accordance with the Order of Conditions issued on: Date If recorded land, the instrument number identifying this transaction is: Instrument Number If registered land, the document number identifying this transaction is: Document Number signature of Applicant i i wpafonnS.doo• rev.03212010 Page 11 of 12 Peak Flow Creditr rject NMAWALD11di11625.121mpdslSertnw W,,11 C�j 625.12-Stm tw ,RpwA%-Ru2201��- J/ i'1 d. Peak Flow Credit Summary by Project Athletics District Improvements Net Increase in 100-yr Remaining Peak Flow Project Date Peak Rate(cfs) Credit Sophomore Housing 2/2002 3.4 58.60 Lot D Parking Lot Extension 3/2003 11.5 47.10 Monican Boulevard Relocation 5/2004 -2.54 49.64 Game Field Renovations 3/2005 0.00 49.64 Elm Street Entrance 5/2006 -0.69 50.33 Volpe Center Expansion 1012011 1.6 48.73 Student Residences Project 7/2012 4.4 44.33 * 4�2 1 4443 40-49 * Q 22 079 49-49 North Campus Updated Phase 1 Residential,Academic Buildings 2/2017 25.8 18.53 A, B,C and Sakowich Expansion' Athletics District 3/2017 1.20 17.33 *Peak Flow Credit deducted from 712014 and 812016 North Campus superseded by current updated model for North Campus Updated Phase 1 Residential,Academic Buildings A,B,C and Sakowich Expansion,as noted above. **Currently pending review with Town of Andover Conservation Commission Stormwater FlowMonitoring Summary Memorandum ",MAWALt 1111625.i2::„orlslStormv a,ea,1 58 625.12-St.,m-(l,Rq-d-R.2 2717V- 11.1 d. April 11, 2017 vhb,, Ref: 11625.01 Mr. Robert Douglas, Director Andover Conservation Commission Town Office 36 Bartlet Street Andover, MA 01810 Re: Merrimack College Detention Basin Flow Monitoring Dear Mr. Douglas, Merrimack College has been conducting a stormwater monitoring program since 2012 in accordance with the Stormwater Master plan approved by the Andover Conservation Commission in 2001(DEP #090-075).The program requires outflow monitoring from two detention basins to confirm that they are functioning as designed. The Merrimack College Stormwater Management Plan included predicted peak flow values discharging from each detention basin for various 24-hour storm events,with a 2-year storm (3.4 inches) being the smallest. The peak outflows from the stormwater basins are expected to be 43.95 cfs for the Elm St Basin and 12.01 cfs for the Football Field under 2020 full-build conditions in a 24- hour, 2-year storm event. To monitor the flow, Merrimack College contracted with EST Associates, Inc.who installed two continuous area velocity flow meters on April 20, 2012;one flow meter is located at the Football Field Detention Basin outlet and the other at the Elm Street Detention Basin outlet. In addition, EST installed a rainfall gauge to record local rainfall depths.VHB regularly reviews the monitoring data and evaluates the detention basins performance following rainfall events. EST provides regular inspection and calibration of the equipment to insure it is functioning properly. On May 12, 2012,the Football Field outlet control structure was modified to function as detailed in the Stormwater Master Plan and the flow gauge was relocated to a point farther downstream in the outfall pipe to avoid turbulence associated with the outlet control structure modifications. Table 1 below summarizes the storm events since 2012 that have had over 0.5 inches of rainfall within a 24-hour period along with the associated peak flows from the Football Field Basin and then Elm Street basins.The peak flows never exceeded the expected flow for the proposed full-build conditions for the 2- year event- It is notable however,that four storm events, December 91h 2014,August 10th 2014,August 101 Walnut Street PCB Box 9151 Engineers I Scientists Planners j Designers Watertown,!Massachusetts n.2471 P 617.924,1770 F 517,924.2286 Mr. RoDert lac ca =:as, D'rector r Nord 11,2017 �Vhb Facie 2 22"d 2014 and October 215t 2016,show some uncharacteristically high peak flows compared to the amount of precipitation that fell for those storms.These specific events are notable because the vast majority of the rain fell in a short timeframe(less than 9,3,3,&6 hours respectively) instead of the distribution of rainfall associated with the modeled 24-hour events.The basins are designed for 24 hour events, not short intense storms which would explain the higher peak flow results for those storms. On Oct 22, 2014,a 48-hour rain event occurred resulting in 3.66 inches of rain,just greater than the 2-year, 24-hour storm event rainfall depth.The Elm Street Basin had a peak outflow of approximately 8.0 cfs,which significantly below the 2020 full-build predicted flows of 43.95 cfs from a 2-year storm. The Football Field Basin had a peak outflow of 10.63 cfs,which is also below the 2020 full-build predicted flows of 12.01 cfs.This storm event confirms that both detention basins are functioning as designed and that the Elm Street Basin has additional capacity for future flow. Table 1: Merrimack College Detention Basin Monitoring Summary 24-hr rainfall Elm Street Football Field Storm Event (in) peak flow(cfs) peak flow(cfs) Notes 2-year 24-hour 3.40 43.95 12.01 Modeled Peak Flow design event 4/22/2012 2.08 4.60 20.14 (Flow constriction control installed at football field 5/1/2012 0.56 * 2.82 basin on 5/10/2012-Monitoring equipment relocated 5/10/2012 0.94 0.61 16.71 downstream from outlet control structure on 6/2/2012 1.35 0.32 3.72 5/12/2012) 10/29/2012 2.33t 0.47 9.75 (Hurricane Sandy) 12/18/2012 0.83 0.37 12/27/2012 1.37 1.38 2/27/2013 0.76 2.07 7.50 6/8/2013 2.04 1.75 8.06 6/13/2013 0.95 0.92 6.27 7/1/2013 1.35 2.21 9.59 7/23/2013 0.92 1.68 7.01 8/9/2013 0.68 1.05 4.62 9/12/2013 0.93 0.47 3.89 11/27/2013 0.96 0.56 4.58 12/20/2013 0.74 0.19 2.07 12/29/2013 0.78 1.52 5.99 2/20/2014 0.68 0.44 2.04 3/30/2014 1.57 4.55 9.05 4/15/2014 0.55 0.43 3.43 4/30/2014 0.53 0.15 1.38 Mr, Robert DOLA"as, D',ector r 5 'a(: 7/4/2014 0.96# 0.23 3.85 7/15/2014 0.9 2.70 5.84 7/28/2014 0.68 1.52 3.60 8/13/2014 0.76 0.90 2.67 9/7/2014 0.63 0.23 4.14 10/2/2014 0.56 0.17 10/22/2014 3.66 8.00 10.63 11/17/2014 0.99 0.86 4.58 12/6/2014 1.07 0.96 4.80 12/9/2014 2.2 - 8.40 11.02 all precip in a 9-hour period 1/4/2015 0.78 1.52 3.90 4/20/2015 0.61 1.50 4.24 5/31/2015 1.59 2.53 5.57 Could be reported as a 2.85"storm in 48 hours or 2.96" 6/1/2015 1.33 3.21 6.57 storm in 50-hour storm 6/21/2015 0.81 1.25 5.13 6/28/2015 0.96 0.96 4.30 8/22/2015 0.82 1.59 3.47 9/30/2015 1.65 5.68 8.10 10/29/2015 0.57 0.89 3,19 11/20/2015 0.56 1,09 3.28 12/24/2015 0.61 2.64 5.15 1/10/2016 0.76 5.87 7.03 2/16/2016 0.56 4.64 5.91 2/24/2016 0.68 3.36 5.22 3/15/2016 0.62 1.33 4.27 3/28/2016 0.5 1.22 3.83 4/7/2016 0.61 3.88 6.67 8/10/2016 0.64 2.88 3.42 all precip in a 3-hour period,0.5"in a 1-hour period 8/22/2016 0.7 4.78 4.27 all precip in a 3-hour period,0.65"in a 1.5-hour period 9/19/2016 0.56 0.59 1.62 9/30/2016 0.73 0.69 0.88 10/8/2016 1.34 0.42 4.36 10/21/2016 1.81 14.67 6.13 1.54"in 6 hours,1.05"in 1 hour,0.76"in 30 mins. 10/28/2016 1.06 2.35 5.30 11/15/2016 0.80 2.39 4.33 11/30/2016 0.81 2.16 5.68 12/30/2016 0.59 4.34 4.67 1/4/2016 0.56 1.87 5.12 1/23/2017 1 1.73 5.87 2/15/2017 0.51 0.13 0.54 Mr. o.»rt Douglas, [):rector Ref: 11.625.01 April .i.S_,2011 f Pa_, 4 3/28/2017 0.63 2.02 5.26 *Data not available due to technical issues with monitoring equipment t Rainfall from Nashua NH Airport rain gauge Overall,the monitoring data has shown that the basins are functioning as designed.The predicted build out for the portion of the college campus that drains to the Football Field Basin is close to complete which will cap the amount of stormwater routed to the basin.The majority of all future plans for the Merrimack College Campus have the stormwater routing to the Elm Street Basin which has capacity when compared to the predicted flows. Sincerely, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Jeff Koetteritz, P.E. Senior Project Engineer jkoetteritz@vhb.com Appendix Abutter Notifications • Abutter Notification Letter • Town of Andover Abutters List • Town of North Andover Abutters List iWAWALD'W,11625.iT.z;.odslSlortmvale:'d 1 625J2-Stortnwaler Reoor`:-Reu2(2077-0z- 59 1 t]da Abutter Notification Letter I,WAWALCI,.W,11u25.121repods!StcrtnwaiertI i `O 62612-Sto—aler Report-Re 2W17�1k- U i?j dw NOTIFICATION TO ABUTTERS UNDER THE MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION ACT AND THE TOWN OF ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW In accordance with the second paragraph of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, section 40 and the Town of Andover Wetlands Protection Bylaw,you are hereby notified of the following: The Applicant, Merrimack College, has filed a request for an Amended Order of Conditions with the Andover Conservation Commission pertaining to alteration of stormwater flows within areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. This work is proposed at the Merrimack College campus located at 315 Turnpike Street in North Andover. The request for an Amended Order of Conditions relates to proposed improvements to the Athletics District facilities,including a modern synthetic turf field and running track,viewing bleachers(2,500 seats),a new field house building,modification of the existing multi-use synthetic turf field to accommodate softball use, a boardwalk connection from the Athletics district to the campus parking Lot J, and associated handscaping and landscaping. The request is being submitted as an amendment to the Merrimack College Stormwater Management Master Plan_ Copies of the Request for Amended Order may be examined at the Andover Conservation Commission office located in the Town Hall at 36 Bartlett Street between the hours of 8:00 am to 3:00 pm Monday through Friday.For more information, call the Andover Conservation Commission at(978) 623-8311. The Request for Amended Order may also be examined at the offices of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. by appointment.For more mforination call Jeff Koetteritz at(617)924-1770. Copies of the Request for Amended Order of Conditions may be obtauled from the Andover Conservation Commmission or by calling Jeff Koetteritz at Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. at(617) 924-1770. You may be charged for the cost of the copy. Notice of the Public Hearing, including its date, time and place, will be published in a local newspaper at least 5 days in advance, and will be posted in the Town Hall not less than 48 hours in advance of the Hearmg. You may also contact the Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office at(978)694- 3200 for more information about this application or the Wetlands Protection Act. Town of Andover Abutters List :`.AIAWALD:Idi17625.12treporlslSlnrtnwafe�.ii 1 6 fi25.i2-Stormwzler Ream,-Rev2 2017�- V i?]dcc UPDATED AT ANDOVER ASSESSORSOFFICE FEBRUARY 1 , 2017 Parcel ID Owner Co=Owtaer ' Address City/State/Zip ✓1 0 5 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓2 0 103 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓2 0 104 DC'P";��;tL- -,,�, T.Ida NG�A1 Jrc Ci47G1 29 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ../ 2 0 105 LYNCH CAROLYN 27 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓2 0 106 HARRER WILLIAM M HARRER ANNA V TE 23 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓2 0 107 GIBSON CRAIG D LESLEY G GIBSON TE 17 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓2 0 108 LEVINE STEPHEN H LEVINE SANDRA K TE 13 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 -/2 0 109 BUSTA THOMAS GRACE BUSTA 9 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓2 0 110 BEAN CURTIS H SARA H BEAN 5 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2 0 111 NAt A6t.^&'&+ ;; Cr. 1 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2 0 112 HUDKINS THOMAS R JUDITH K HUDKINS TE 151 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2 0 45 KARNIK ASHUTOSH P SMITA A KARNIK TE 188 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2 0 46 CARLEO JR ROBERT A MCCARRON TE DIANE M 1 NAPIER RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2 0 48 MERRIMACK COLLEGE INC 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 2 0 49 WILSON MATTHEW R WILSON MARIA TE 200 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 205 GRACE M BERNARDIN IRREVOC TR BERNARDIN ROBERT+PETER TRS 138 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 2051 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 J 2 0 51 A AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 2052 SALLY SHOCKRO 33 ROCK RIDGE RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2053 -FAUt-THENERGE Lc 31S P11GE sr 27 ROCK RIDGE RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2054 ME CC COL.l..646 31S IY-h S1- 23 ROCK RIDGE RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2055 RECK JOANNA 15 ROCK RIDGE RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2056 DAVID JOHNSON 61 BROOKFIELD RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 206 EVERETT HOME BUILDERS PO BOX 508 MALDEN MA 02148 ✓ 2064 HASKELL BETH C RAYMOND R JEFFREY JT 18 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2 0 65 DIETZ JOHN P 24 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2066 OUELLETTE BERTRAND A CAMILLE L OUELLETTE TE 30 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2067 LANDRY JR JAMES L LANDRY TE KIMBERLY R 15 WOODCLIFF RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2068 HASKELL BETH RAYMOND RICHARD J TE 14 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 %/' 2076 MERRIMACK COLLEGE 7 ROCK RIDGE RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2077 MERRIMACK COLLEGE 185 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2096 MORAVA NORMAL 11 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2097 THOMSON ALAN W SUSAN THOMSON TE 41 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 2 0 98 GRUNDEEN PAULETTE - 37 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 2 0 99 HAYWOOD CLAIRE F LE 33 FOX HILL RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 210139 MAYS ROBERT J LISA HOLIHAN MAYE TE 139 143 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 21 0 144 MAYE LISA H UbfTr ' 143 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 210147 AVIS PO BOX 5097 ANDOVER MA 01810 J 21 0 156 WANG HANLI JHANG JU TE 63 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 J 21 0 157 & E 59 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 210158 a4 unn NKI�eEL A 55 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 21 0 159 M l N H Ak] av_ 49 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 21 0 160 SPURR GREGORY W III BONNIE A SPURR TE 43 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 210161 J 301511A AS :'AYlt_' r,EME zT 39 LUCERNE DR ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 3 0 1 OWNER UNKNOWN TT %COLLECTOR/TREASURER 36 BARTLET ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓. 302 PAGLIA PETER M PAGLIA LORI M TE 3 FARNSWORTH-RD ANDOVER MA 01810 V 303 ONE 47 ELM ST REALTY TRUST WILLIAM +BERNICE DOWNS TRS 147 ELM ST ANDOVER MA 01810 v 304 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓ 305 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓ 3 0 5 A AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 3 0 5 B AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓ 306 MERRIMACK COLLEGE INC 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓. 4061 TOWN OF ANDOVER CONSERVATION COMMISSION 36 BARTLET ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4062 KWOLYK DONA M 124 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 4063 KARLBERG JEFFREY A KARLBERG TE MICHELE 1 134 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4064 WOODWARD GEORGE S HOPE P WOODWARD TE 138 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 4065 ST JEAN DAVID L 144 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 4066 MERRIMACK COLLEGE C/O DONNA COUTURE 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 4067 KEIL MARK A ELIZABETH L ANDERSON TE 148 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 4068 EDHOLM JAMES L EDHOLM KATHLEEN D TE 158 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4069 VALLEAU A REED LOUISE D VALLEAU TE 166 SUMMER ST ANDOVER MA 01810 4070 DONALD E JOHNSON IRREV TRUST JANE W JOHNSON IRREV TRUST 4 APPLECREST RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4071 BANZI FREDERICK J JEAN M BANZI TE 6 APPLECREST RD ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4072 AUGUSTINIAN COLLEGE THE MERRIMACK VALLEY 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓ . 4073 MERRIMACK COLLEGE vu&sT Ju A ui3 315 TURNPIKE ST NORTH ANDOVER MA 01845 ✓ 4077 T GF2o'd 19 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4078 PELTIER LEONARD J VERONICA C PELTIER 17 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4079 LAHOOD JOSEPH W SANDRA J LAHOOD TE 15 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4080 THIRTEEN DOWNING STREET RT II O'BRIEN THOMAS+GERALDINE TRS 13 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 %/ 4081 49PKI PA4 S SASUND VA 11 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4082 ROMAN REALTY TRUST BARBARA L ROMAN TR 9 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4083 MONTANI ANN M GEORGE V O'REILLY ETAL 7 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4084 ;E;;,'raw c a cn io GAr,,T`zmmr "'� " ��TE 5 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 A SwVvi Y D Scu 4085 ' G !J 1J 3 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 ✓ 4086 LYNCH JOHN K LYNCH JANE B TE 1 DOWNING ST ANDOVER MA 01810 NorthTown of over Abutters List WAlrDM111625.12,p OslSI---tea,ii �! 625_i2-Stormnater Recur,-Rev 22017Ak- U 1+�d� Abutter to Abutter( ) Building Dept. ( ) Conservation ( ) Zoning ( ) REQUIREMENT: MGL 40A,Section tt states in part'Partles In Inlemst as used In this chapter shall mean the petitioner, abutters,owners of land directly opposheon any public or private way,and abutters to abutters within three hundred(30g)feet of the property Gne of the petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable lax list,not withstanding that the land of any such owner is located In another city or lows,the planning board of the city or tam,and the planning board of every abutting city or town: Sublect Property: MAP PARCEL Name Address 25 13,14,&67 Merrimack College 315 Turnpike Street North Andover,MA 01845 Abutters Properties Map Parcel Name Address "*see attached sheets** I Date 2/16/2017 Page 1 of 8 This cerdfi::- that the r;arties. apperarirg or) the i c rtifisc' Date i i 024.0-0008-0000.0 024.0-0028-0001.E 024.0-0028-0002.13 MC KALLAGAT,STEPHEN F LABUSA,INC. NEOS,LLC PAMELA A MC KALLAGAT 108R MERRIMACK STREET 203 TURNPIKE STREET,STE.G2 3 WILSON ROAD HAVERHILL,MA 01830 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0003.A 024.0-0028-0003.13 024.0-0028-0004.A NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0005.0 024.0-0028-OOOS.A 024.0-0028-0006.A 451 ANDOVER STREET LLC 451 ANDOVER STREET LLC NAOP,LLC C/O TALLMAN EYE ASSOCIATES C/O TALLMAN EYE ASSOCIATES 93 UNION STREET 451 ANDOVER STREET#5 451 ANDOVER STREET#5 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0007.A 024.0-0028-0008.A 024.0-0028-001LA 451 ANDOVER STREET,LLC HERITAGE DRIVE INVESTMENTS LLC NAOP,LLC 451 ANDOVER STREET 4G7 80 HERITAGE DRIVE 93 UNION STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 LOWELL,MA O1853 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0100.A 024.0-0028-0100.13 024.0-0028-0105.A 451 ANDOVER STREET SUITE 100 RLT NANO PROPERTIES,LLC NA PROPERTY,LLC MICHAEL S.CALHOUN,TRUSTEE 203 TURNPIKE STREET,STE.100 446 DUDLEY ROAD 451 ANDOVER STREET SUITE 100 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0110.A 024.0-0028-0115.B 024.0-0028-0120.A NAOP,LLC 230 TURNPIKE ST SUITE 115 LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 203 TURNPIKE STREET#115 C/O LISBRIA REALTY,LLC NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 40 SUGARCANE LANE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0120.13 024.0-0028-0125.A 024.0-0028-0125.B NANO PROPERTIES,LLC SUITE 125 REAL ESTATE,LLC NAOP,LLC 203 TURNPIKE STREE,STE. 120 C/O SEAN CONNOLLY,MANAGER 93 UNION STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 451 ANDOVER STREET U:125 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0130.A 024.0-0028-0150.A 024.0-0028-0160.A CERULLI&ASSOCIATES,LLC HASSEY,DAVID J. HASSEY,DAVID J. 451 ANDOVER STREET C/O MILL CITY INSURANCE C/O MILL CITY INSURANCE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 493 WESTFORD STREET 493 WESTFORD STREET LOWELL,MA 01851 LOWELL,MA 01851 024.0-0028-0165.A 024.0-0028-0170.A 024.0-0028-0185.A NAOP,LLC HERNANDEZ,CARIDAD VERSIE GROUP LLC 93 UNION STREET 451 ANDOVER STREET U:170A 451 ANDOVER STREET U:185 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0190.A 024.0-0028-0195.A 024.0-0028-0200.A KISHORE REAL ESTATE NA,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC C/O NAOP 93 UNION STREET#315 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON CENTER,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0200.13 024.0-0028-0201.A 024.0-0028-0202.A LOWELL GENERAL HOSPITAL NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 295 VARNUM AVENUE 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET LOWELL,MA 01854 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0205.A 024.0-0028-0206.A 024.0-0028-0207.A NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC INPAKI LLC 93 UNION STREET C/O N@TRUST,LLC 451 ANDOVER STREET U:207 NEWTON,MA 02459 PO BOX 2105 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 ANDOVER,MA 01810 024.0-0028-0208.A 024.0-0028-0209.A 024.0-0028-0210.A INPAKI LLC GB&MOE LLC NAOP,LLC 451 ANDOVER STREET U:208 362 E.BROADWAY 93 UNION STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 HAVERHILL,MA 01830 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0211.A 024.0-0028-0213.A 024.0-0028-0214.A NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0301.A 024.0-0028-0301.13 024.0-0028-0302.A WACHTEL REALTY,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 451 ANDOVER STREET U:301 A 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0302.B 024.0-0028-0303.E 024.0-0028-0305.A NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 i 024.0-0028-0315.A 024.0-0028-0330.A 024.0-0028-0335.A NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0400.B 024.0-0028-0401.B 024.0.0028-0402.B NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 NEWTON,MA 02459 024.0-0028-0403.B 024.0-0028-0404.B 024.0-0028-0406.E NAOP,LLC 203-404 TURNPIKE STREET RLTY TRS NAOP,LLC 93 UNION STREET MICHAEL 3.LAROCQUE,TRUSTEE 93 UNION STREET NEWTON,MA 02459 203 TURNPIKE STREET U:404 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0028-0407.13 024.0-0029-0000.0 024.0-0030-0000.0 NAOP,LLC MERRIMACK COLLEGE WHOVILLE HOLDINGS,LLC 93 UNION STREET 315 TURNPIKE STREET PO BOX 6087 NEWTON,MA 02459 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 MOSS BEACH,CA 94038 i 024.0-0031-0000.0 024.0-0032-0000.0 024.0-0044-0000.0 471 ANDOVER STREET LLC THOMPSONS RESTAURANT,INC HANNA,COLETTE,Y. 471 ANDOVER STREET P O BOX 155 246 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 i 024.0-0045-0000.0 024.0-0046-0000.0 024.0-0047-0000.0 PLEASANT STREET HOLDINGS,LLC SZCZAPA,MICHAEL,J. TOMASHEVSKY,GREGORY A 231 SUTTON STREET GOUDREAU,LAURA,L. SVETLANA P TOMACHEVSKY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 13 WILSON ROAD 21 WILSON ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 i ; 024.0-0050-0000.0 024.0-0051-0000.0 024.0-0052-0000.0 GORHAM,FREDRICK,P. FOREST VIEW REALTY LLC LURVEY,ROBERT,E. 10 COCHRAN STREET 674 TURNPIKE STREET LURVEY,DEBORAH,J. METHUEN,MA 01844 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 19 TOLLAND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0053-0000.0 024.0-0054-0000.0 024.0-0055-0000.0 VALENCIA,ANTHONY,S. BEKKER,ABRAM ARLEQUE,JEFFREY W. VALENCIA,JENNIFER,M. BEKKER,LUDMILA 14 BERKELEY ROAD I TOLLAND ROAD 50 TOLLAND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024.0-0056-0000.0 024.0-0069-0000.0 024.0-0073-0000.0 WILSON,MATTHEW R. LIZOTTE JR,THOMAS J PERRY,LOUISE WILSON,MARIA LIZOTTE,NICOLE M 6 BERKELEY ROAD 200 ELM STREET 17 HIGHLAND TERRACE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 ANDOVER,MA 01810 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 024,0-0075-0000.0 024.0-0080-0000.0 025.0-0011-0030.0 BOLLS,PETER,G. WHEELER,MEGAN,COLLINS JOHNSON TR,THOMAS F BOLLS,JUDY,L. 24 BERKELEY ROAD CTTJ NOMINEE TRUST 26 TOLLAND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 555 TURNPIKE STREET#30 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0011-0031.0 025.0-0011-0032.0 025.0-0011-0033.0 JOHNSON,THOMAS F,MD ORTHO REALTY TRUST CTTJ NOMINEE TRUST 555 TURNPIKE STREET STEPHEN M WEISNER,TR JOHNSON,THOMAS NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 555 TURNPIKE STREET U:32 555 TURNPIKE STREET#33 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0011-0041.0 025.0-0011-0042.0 025.0-0011-0043.0 GALIZIO,STEPHEN J.MD TURNER REALTY TRUST C A P REALTY TRUST 555 TURNPIKE STREET#41A TURNER,IAN M TRUSTEE JAMES F CHATTON,JR,TR NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 555 TURNPIKE STREET 555 TURNPIKE STREETU-43A NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0011-0044.0 025.0-0011-0045.0 025.0-0011-0047.0 ADVENTURE REALTY TRUST CAP REALTY TRUST TORRISI ET AL TRS,CAROL ELIZABETH L BOULANGER,TR JAMES F CHATTON,JR,TR CDN REALTY TRUST 555 TURNPIKE STREET#44A 555 TURNPIKE STREET U-45A 191 COVENTRY LANE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0011-0051.0 025.0-0011-0052.0 025.0-0011-0053.0 BOURASSA,WILLIAM L CHATSON MD,GEORGE P WEISS,JONATHAN 30 ALQONGUIN AVE KIMBERLEE CHATSON 555 TURNPIKE ST.UNIT 53 ANDOVER,MA 01810 555 TURNPIKE STREET#52 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0011-0054.0 025.0-0011-0055.0 025.0-0011-0056.0 DEMINSKI TURNPIKE REALTY TRUS ABOU-EZZI,JEAN RICHARD,PATTI A KENNETH E.DEMINSKI,TRUSTEE ABOU-EZZI,RACHELLE 15 MAYFLOWER LANE 555 TURNPIKE STREET U:56 555 TURNPIKE STREET#55 HAVERHILL,MA 01832 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0012-0000.0 025.0-0013-0000.0 025.0-0014-0000.0 REEB,LLC MERRIMACK COLLEGE MERRIMACK COLLEGE C/O RITE AIDE CORPORATION 315 TURNPIKE STREET 315 TURNPIKE STREET 30 HUNTER LANE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 CAMP HILL,PA 17011 025.0-0016-000LA 025.0-0016-0002.A 025.0-0016-0003.A MC ANDREW,MICHAEL J RANDALL,MARK MCGUIRE,BARBARA,W. KATHLEEN P MC ANDREW RANDALL,MAJA,EBIARY 3 ALCOTT WAY I ALCOTT WAY 2 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0004.A 025.0-0016-0005.13 025.0-0016-0006.B OTTO,ELIZABETH,C. SUNDARARAJAN,PARTHPAN CLAUSEN,ERICA,K. 4 ALCOTT WAY 5 ALCOTT WAY 6 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0007.13 025.0-0016-0008.B 025.0-0016-0009.13 MADER,ALLISON JOSEPH I.SABELLA TRUST CAFFERY,SUSAN,L. 7 ALCOTT WAY SABELLA,JOSEPH I. 9 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 8 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0010.0 025.0-0016-0011.0 025.0-0016-0012.0 MORAN,VALERIE L. AZNOIAN,LESLEE N COLLINS FAMILY LIVING TRUST 10 ALCOTT WAY C/O JANA SCALISI WILLIAM A.&MAUREEN E.COLLIN NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 11 ALCOTT WAY 12 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0013.0 025.0-0016-0014.0 025.0-0016-0015.0 GRIFFITHS,PAULA PROVENZANO,MICHAEL BEATS,KAREN A 13 ALCOTT WAY#13 14 ALCOTT WAY 15 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0016.D 025.0-0016-0017.D 025.0-0016-0018.1) FOULDS,WILLIAM LEWIN,ELAINE E GOLDBERG,DENISE M FOULDS,SHEILA 17 ALCOTT WAY 18 ALCOTT WAY 16 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0019.1) 025.0-0016-0020.D 025.0-0016-0021.D CHABOT,PAUL L OBRIEN,WILLIAM,T. JOSEPHINE A.MARTELL 1999 TRST 19 ALCOTT WAY 20 ALCOTT WAY JOSEPHINE A.MARTELL,TRUSTEE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 21 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0022.E 025.0-0016-0023.E 025.0-0016-0024.E GREWAL,LESLEY FULLER,JOHN TRIANTAFILOU,NICHOLAS 22 ALCOTT WAY WOO,KYUNGMI DIANE X TRIANTAFILOU NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 23 ALCOTT WAY 24 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVE,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 e` 025.0-0016-0025.E 025.0-0016-0026.E 025.0-0016-0027.E MAHONEY,JOHN G NAWFEL,PETER,M. BYERS,SHEILA G MARY J MAHONEY 26 ALCOTT WAY 27 ALCOTT WAY 25 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0028.E 025.0-0016-0029.E 025.0-0016-0030.1' PITERA,CYNTHIA,J. ROBINSON,SUSAN E WELLS,RONALD,J. 28 ALCOTT WAY MAHER,JAMES J. 30 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 29 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0031.1' 025.0-0016-0032.F 025.0-0016-0033.F JONES,SARAH W LUO.XUNSHAN PAQUETTE,JACQUELINE 31 ALCOTT WAY 14008 175TH PLACE NE 33 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 REDMOND,WA 99052 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0034.G 025.0-0016-0035.G 025.0-0016-0036.G MERRIMACK COLLEGE LEE,PATRICK SERRAO,SHEILA ACCOUNTS PAYABLE A13 CHERI SIU KWAN LEUNG 40 MORTON STREET 315 TURNPIKE STREET 35 ALCOTT WAY ANDOVER,MA 01810 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0016-0037.G 025.0-0016-0038.G 025.0-0016-0039.G MCKINNON,ROBERT,S. 38 ALCOTT WAY REALTY TRUST 39 ALCOTT REALTY TRUST MCKINNON,PAULA 89 CHRISTIAN WAY ROBERT&CHING LIEN KIRK,TRUST 37 ALCOTT WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 89 CHRISTIAN WAY NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0021-0000.0 025.0-0039-0000.0 025.0-0064-0000.0 MERRIMACK COLLEGE TIC TIC REALTY INC PICO TRUST 315 TURNPIKE STREET 1134 ISLE OF PALMS PATH JOHN F MC GARRY,TR NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 THE VILLAGES,FL 32162 401 ANDOVER STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0067-0000.0 025.0-0069-0010.0 025.0-0069-0011.0 MERRIMACK COLLEGE M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES,LLC M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES,LLC 315 TURNPIKE STREET 575 TURNPIKE STREET U-10 575 TURNPIKE STREET#11 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0069-0012.0 025.0-0069-0014.0 025.0-0069-0016.0 LAGRASSE,LLC M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES 40 SUGARCANE LANE 575 TURNPIKE STREET 575 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0069-0017.0 025.0-0069-0021.0 025.0-0069-0022.0 M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES,LLC GOGJIAN,MICHAEL A 575 TURN PIKE STREET U-17 575 TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 11 575 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0069-0023.0 025.0-0069-0024.0 025.0-0069-0025.0 M&B REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC GOGJIAN,MICHAEL A TURNPIKE REALTY TRUST 575 TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 11 575 TURNPIKE STREET#22 JOAN I GITLIN,MD,TR NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 116 BRADFORD STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0069-0026.0 025.0-0069-0027.0 025.0-0069-0028.0 OBER FAMILY TRUST PRAKASH REALTY,LLC OBER FAMILY TRUST ANDREW I&SUNANTA L OBER,TR 575 TURNPIKE STREET#27 ANDREW I&SUNANTA L OBER,TR 739 A MAIN STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 739 A MAIN STREET BOXFORD,MA 01921 BOXFORD,MA 01921 025.0-0071-0061.0 025.0-0071-0062.0 025.0-0071-0064.0 CK MANAGEMENT,LLC CHESTNUT GREEN SIXTY-TWO,LLC RISSIN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:61 CIO FENIGER AND ULIASZ LOUIS&MARILYN RISSIN,TRUSTEE NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 45 BAY STREET 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:64 MANCHESTER,NH 03104 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0071-0071.A 025.0-0071-0071.B 025.0-0071-0072.0 ZOLOT,HOWARD,M. ZOLOT,HOWARD,M. MARJULIN,LLC 59 SUNSET ROCK ROAD 59 SUNSET ROCK ROAD 181 JOHNNY CAKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0071-0073.0 025.0-0071-0074.0 025.0-0071-0075.0 RINALDI,STEVEN M&S REALTY,LLC HMC REALTY TRUST 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:73 565 TURNPIKE STREET#74 H.MANNING CURTIS,TR NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 565 TURNPIKE STREET#75 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025,0-0071-0076.0 025.0-0071-0077.0 025.0-0071-0081.0 HMC REALTY TRUST HMC REALTY TRUST TURNPIKE HOLDINGS,LLC H MANNING CURTIS,TR H MANNING CURTIS,TR 565 TURNPIKE STREET#81 565 TRUNPIKE STREET#76 565 TURNPIKE STREET#75 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0071-0083.0 025.0-0071-0084.0 025.0-0071-0085.0 ANDOVER PULMONARY REALTY TR ELECTRA REALTY TRUST ANDOVER PULMONARY REALTY TR B M PISICK,MD&D E COLEMAN,M L M BARASH,P DHIMITRI&T B HE DANIEL E COLEMAN&BARRY PISIC 565 TURNPIKE STREET#83 565 TURNPIKE STREET#84 565 TURNPIKE STREET#85 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-0071-0086.0 025.0-0079-0000.0 025.0-6915-OOOO.A NEU REALTY COMPANY LLC SOOD REALTY TRUST FRANAT REALTY TRUST 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:86 SANJEEV&BABITA SOOD,TRUSTE ROBERT BEAUDOIN,TR NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 100 ANDOVER BY PASS 575 TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 15 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-6915-00003 025.0-7163-OOOO.A 025.0-7163-OOOO.B M&B REALTY TRUST D.N.BARDWELL,LLC COPPOLA,FRANK,A. R M MARVIN&R M BARGER,TR 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:63A COPPOLA,ELAINE 575 TURNPIKE STREET NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 33 BRADY LOOP NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 ANDOVER,MA 01810 025.0-7165-0000.A 025.0-7165-00003 025.0-7182-OOOO.A MALLARD REALTY TRUST 565.66 LLC P G A REALTY TRUST CAROL A BODNAR,TR 565 TURNPIKE STREET U:66 R W&H L CROCKER&K DOTY 565 TURNPIKE STREET UNIT 65A NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 565 TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 80 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 025.0-7182-0000.B 047.0-0014-0000.0 047.0-0015-0000.0 ANDOVER PULMONARY REALTY TR LEYLAND,ROBERT C,JR PALMTEER,WILLIAM 1, DANIEL COLEMAN&BARRY PISICK VIRGINIA G LEYLAND 112 THORNDIKE STREET 565 TURNPIKE STREET#82B 312 TURNPIKE STREET ARLINGTON,MA 02474 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 047.0-0016-0000.0 047.0-0031-0000.0 FARNUM,BENJAMIN,S. SNOW,DEBORAH J 1370 TURNPIKE STREET SNOW,GARETT E. NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 1 BERKELEY ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA 01845 Jl-i'T i' Of i I is ,, n; c, ors:0 s