CDM Northampton Stormwater System Assessment and Plan 2012-05 Vol 1

Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan
Northampton, Massachusetts Department of Public Works
Volume I Final Report

May 2012
TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary Section1Introduction
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................11 . FederalStormwaterManagementRegulationsHistoricalOverview.............15 FederalStormwaterManagementRegulationsPendingChanges................15 FloodControlRegulatoryMandates............................................................17 InfrastructureFunding...................................................................................18 ProjectSummary...........................................................................................18 ScopeofWork...............................................................................................19 Introduction ..................................................................................................21 . StormwaterDrainageandFloodControlSystemOverview.............................21 2.2.1 FieldInspectionApproach..................................................................24 2.2.2 DrainageAnalysisApproach...............................................................24 FloodingProblems.........................................................................................25 2.3.1 BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea.............................................................25 2.3.1.1 SiteInspectionandAreaDescription.....................................25 2.3.1.2 ExistingConditionsHydraulicModel.....................................28 2.3.1.3 PreliminaryReviewofAlternatives.......................................28 2.3.2 ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea.........................................................29 2.3.2.1 SiteInspectionandAreaDescription.....................................29 2.3.2.2 ExistingConditionsHydraulicModel...................................211 2.3.2.3 PreliminaryReviewofAlternatives.....................................212 2.3.3 KingStreet/MarketStreet/DowntownArea.....................................213 2.3.3.1 SiteInspectionandAreaDescription...................................213 2.3.3.2 ExistingConditionsHydraulicModel...................................214 2.3.3.3 PreliminaryReviewofAlternatives.....................................214 2.3.4 AustinCircle/RyanRoadArea...........................................................216 2.3.4.1 SiteInspectionandAreaDescription...................................216 2.3.4.2 ExistingConditionsHydraulicModel...................................216 2.3.4.3 PreliminaryReviewofAlternatives.....................................219 FloodControlSystems .................................................................................220 . 2.4.1 EastLeveeDescription .....................................................................220 . 2.4.2 WestLeveeDescription....................................................................220 2.4.3 EastandWestLeveeInspection........................................................221 2.4.4 East/WestLeveeRecommendedImprovements...............................222
Section2ExistingConditionsandAlternativesAnalyses
2.3
2.4
i
51147714790311
2.5
2.6
2.4.5 NorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationHockanumRoad Inspection........................................................................................224 2.4.5.1 RecommendedImprovements............................................225 2.4.6 WestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationInspection .....................226 . 2.4.6.1 RecommendedImprovements............................................227 RiverErosion ...............................................................................................227 . 2.5.1 RiverRoadMillRiver.....................................................................227 2.5.2 FederalStreetFloodWall.................................................................228 2.5.3 RobertsMeadowBrookChannel......................................................228 CurrentOperationalCostandFundingLevels...............................................228 2.6.1 RegulatoryCompliance ....................................................................228 . 2.6.2 StormwaterDrainageOperationsStaffing........................................228 2.6.3 FloodControlOperationsStaffing.....................................................229 Introduction ..................................................................................................31 . SummaryofRecommendedPlan....................................................................31 3.2.1 StreetImprovementProjects..............................................................31 3.2.2 MunicipalGreenInfrastructure/BuildingProjectRetrofit/Capital Allowance..........................................................................................35 3.2.3 BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea.............................................................35 3.2.4 ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea.........................................................36 3.2.5 KingStreet/MarketStreetArea..........................................................36 3.2.6 AustinCircle/RyanRoadArea.............................................................37 3.2.7 FloodControl/PumpingStationImprovements...................................37 3.2.8 LeveeImprovements..........................................................................37 3.2.9 RiverErosionImprovements ..............................................................37 . FutureOperationalCostProjections...............................................................38 EstimatedCostsandPreliminarySchedule.....................................................38 ProjectPrioritization....................................................................................315 Introduction ..................................................................................................41 . DescriptionofApplicablePermits ..................................................................42 . 4.2.1 FederalPermits/Approvals.................................................................42 4.2.1.1 CleanWaterAct,Section404................................................42 4.2.1.2 FederalEndangeredSpeciesActof1973................................43 4.2.1.3 NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES) ConstructionGeneralPermit.................................................43 4.2.2 StatePermits/Approvals....................................................................43 4.2.2.1 CertificatefromtheExecutiveOfficeofEnvironmentalAffairs (MEPAApproval)..................................................................43 4.2.2.2 MassachusettsWetlandsProtectionAct(M.G.L.c131,s.40;310 CMR10.00)...........................................................................44 4.2.2.3 MassachusettsRiversPotectionAct(Ch.258oftheActsof 1996;310CMR10.58)...........................................................44 ii
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements
3.1 3.2
3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2
Section4EnvironmentalPermitting
51147714790311
4.3 5.1
4.2.2.4 401WaterQualityCertificationProgram(314CMR9.00)......44 4.2.2.5 MassachusettsEndangeredSpeciesAct(M.G.L.c.131A;321 CMR10.00)...........................................................................45 4.2.2.6 WaterwaysLicensingProgram(M.G.L.Chapter91;310CMR 9.00).....................................................................................45 4.2.2.7 EnvironmentalResultsProgram(310CMR7.26[42:43])........45 4.2.3 LocalPermits/Approvals ....................................................................45 . 5.2.3.1 WetlandsProtectionActandCityOrdinance.........................45 Conclusion.....................................................................................................46 Introduction ..................................................................................................51 . 5.1.1 Objectives.........................................................................................51 5.1.2 StormwaterUtilitiesinOtherCommunities........................................51 5.1.3 Methodology.....................................................................................54 5.1.4 KeyFindings.......................................................................................54 StormwaterandFloodControlUtilityImplementationConsiderations...........55 5.2.1 StormwaterandFloodControlUtilityBackground..............................55 5.2.2 StructuralConsiderations...................................................................56 5.2.3 PublicEducationandInvolvement......................................................57 5.2.4 ManagementandBudgeting..............................................................57 5.2.4.1 Budgeting.............................................................................58 5.2.4.2 Billing...................................................................................58 5.2.5 FundingOptions.................................................................................58 5.2.6 StormwaterCredits..........................................................................510 ProjectRevenueRequirement......................................................................511 5.3.1 GeneralAssumptions.......................................................................511 5.3.2 OperationsandMaintenanceExpenses............................................512 5.3.2.1 IncrementalO&M...............................................................512 5.3.2.2 AllocatedO&M...................................................................513 5.3.3 DebtServiceExpenses......................................................................513 5.3.4 RevenueRequirement......................................................................514 ParcelAnalysisandEquivalentResidentialUnitCalculation..........................515 5.4.1 ImperviousArea...............................................................................515 5.4.2 EquivalentResidentialUnitCalculation.............................................517 5.4.3 EstimatedTotalBillingUnits.............................................................518 CalculationofStormwaterandFloodControlFee.........................................518 Recommendations.......................................................................................520
Section5StormwaterandFloodControlUtility
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5 5.6
Appendices AppendixAFieldInspectionMemorandaandPhotographs AppendixBDrainageAnalysis AppendixCPipeCapacityAnalysis AppendixDDetailedDebtServiceSchedule

iii
51147714790311
ExecutiveSummary
Drainageandfloodcontrolsystems,whileoftentakenforgranted,arecriticaltotheeconomic wellbeingofanycommunity,asthesesystemsarevitaltotheprotectionofpropertyandthesafety ofindividualsthatresidewithinthecommunity.Inrecentyears,thedeterioratingconditionof drainageandfloodcontrolinfrastructureacrossthecountryhasbeenwelldocumentedand,in combinationwithextremeweatherevents,hasresultedinseveraldramaticfloodingeventsthathave createdenormouseconomicdisruptionanddamagetopersonalandpublicproperty. LikeNorthampton,manycommunitiesacrossthecountryhaveaginginfrastructurethatisinurgent needofrefurbishmentorreplacement,followedbyperiodicmaintenance.Inmanyinstances, infrastructureconstructeddecadesagohasnowexceededitsusefullifeand/orisnowoperating beyonditsintendedcapacityduetotheimpactofcontinueddevelopmentandincreasedimpervious areawithinurbanareasandupstreamwatersheds.Additionally,newregulatorymandatesplace furtherburdenoncommunitiestomonitorandcontrolboththequantityandqualityofstormwater dischargedtoponds,streamsandrivers,resultinginnewcapitalandongoingmaintenance requirements. Whilethechallengesaredaunting,manycommunitiesaretakingstepstoaddressthesechallengesin athoughtful,systematicmanner.Fundamentaltothiseffortistheneedtoevaluateexistingdrainage andfloodcontrolsystems,identifyweaknessesanddeficienciesinthesesystems,anddevelopa technicallysound,costeffectiveplantoaddressthesedeficiencies.However,inthepast,suchplans oftenlackedasustainablesourceoffundstofinancetheimplementationofneededimprovements. Accordingly,progressivecommunitiessuchasNorthamptonareconsideringacriticalnewcomponent totheirstormwatermanagementplan theimplementationofanewstormwaterfeethatisfairand equitable,andprovidesareliable,dedicatedsourceofrevenuetofundneededimprovementsto drainageandfloodcontrolsystems.Thisnewfeewouldbeadministeredbyanewlyformed StormwaterandFloodControlUtilityand,aswithotherutilities,thestormwaterfeewouldbebased directlyonthecostofserviceprovided.TheprocessundertakenbyNorthamptontoevaluatesucha feeandtheresultsoftheevaluationaredescribedinthisStormwaterandFloodControlSystem AssessmentandUtilityPlan.
ExistingInfrastructureCondition
TheCityofNorthamptonownsandisresponsiblefortheoperationandmaintenanceof approximately3,750catchbasinsandinletsandapproximately108milesofdrainagethatleadto morethan280outfalls.Alargepercentageofthesedrainlinesareover100yearsoldandrequire replacementbecauseoftheirdeterioratedcondition,theneedforadditionalstormwaterconveyance capacity,orboth.
ES1
106678803490311
ExecutiveSummary Additionally,theCityownsandisresponsiblefortheoperationandmaintenanceofafloodcontrolsystemthat wasconstructedbytheArmyCorpofEngineers(USACE)in1940toprovideprotectionagainstfloodingfromthe ConnecticutandMillRivers.Thissystemrequiressignificantrefurbishment,asleveesandretainingwallsthat protectthedowntownareafromhighriverwatersneedmaintenancetoensuretheirstructuralintegrity,and the70yearoldfloodcontrolpumpingstationthatdivertsfloodwaterthroughtheleveeunderfloodconditions requiresreplacement. TheCityfacesmanyseriouschallengesinrestoringandmaintainingfullyfunctionaldrainageandfloodcontrol systems,including: Replacementandrefurbishmentofolderdrainageandfloodcontrolinfrastructurethatnolongerfulfills itsintendedpurpose UpgradesoftheexistingdrainagesystemtoserveareasoftheCitythatnowexperienceflooding CompliancewithnewEPAregulationsgoverningstormwatermanagementthatwillmandateawide rangeofsystemimprovementsandmonitoringofstormwaterqualityandquantity CompliancewithUSACErequirementsthatwillrequiretheCitytorepairandcertifythatexistingflood controlsystemsmeetUSACEstandards.
AlloftheaboverepresentrealandsignificantcoststotheCitythatmustbeaddressedtoavoidtheriskofnon complianceor,worse,theriskofseriousdamagetopublicandprivatepropertyandtheassociatedfinancialand qualityoflifeimpactsonNorthamptonresidents,businessowners,andvisitors.
FinancialNeedAssessment
Todeveloprealisticestimatesoftheleveloffundingrequiredtoaddressdrainagesystemandfloodcontrol needs,preliminaryengineeringwasperformedandarecommendedplandevelopedtoaddressrepresentative knowndrainagesystemdeficienciesinthefollowingareasoftheCity: BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea KingStreet/MarketStreetArea AustinCircle/RyanRoadArea
Additionally,recommendationsweredevelopedtoaddressneededfloodcontrolsystemimprovements, includingrepairstolevees,replacementoftheWestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationwithaportablepump, andreplacementoftheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationwithanewfacility.Allowanceswerealso madeforcompliancewithnewEPApermitrequirements,rivererosionimprovements,generaldrainage infrastructureimprovements,andgradualimplementationofgreenstormwatermanagementpractices(which arestronglyencouragedbynewregulations). Theseprioritizedrecommendationsformthebasisofa$95.6millionprogramofcapitalimprovementstobe implementedovera20yearperiod,asshowninTableES1.Intheinitialfiveyearsoftheprogram,itis estimatedthatanexpenditureofapproximately$33.1millionisrequiredtoimplementhighpriorityprojects, includingdrainageimprovementsintheBridgeStreet/MeadowsareaandElmStreetBrook/Florencearea, RiverRoadfloodwallimprovements,RobertsMeadowsBrookchannelimprovements,leveeimprovementsand certification,WestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationimprovements,andreplacementoftheFloodControl PumpingStation(notethatreplacementoftheFloodControlPumpingStationrepresentsabout$17.4millionof therequiredexpenditure thelargestsingleitemintherecommendedimprovementsprogram). ES2
1066788034900311
ExecutiveSummary
TableES.1 SummaryProjectCostSchedule
ProjectDescription BridgeStreet/MeadowsPhase1Improvements RiverRoadFloodwallImprovements RobertsMeadowBrookChannelImprovements FederalStreetRetainingWallImprovements ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceAreaPhase1Improvements KingStreet/MarketStreetAreaPhase1and2Improvements LeveeCertification LeveeCapitalImprovements FloodControlPumpingStationUpgrades WestStreetPortablePumps AustinCircle/RyanRoadAreaPhase2Improvements BridgeStreet/MeadowsAreaPhase3Improvements ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceAreaPhase3Improvements KingStreet/MarketStreetAreaPhase3and4Improvements EPAMS4PermitRequirementsAllowance AnnualAllowanceforDrainageInfrastructure MunicipalGreenDesign/ConstructionAllowance TotalCostsperYear GrandTotal $250,000 $500,000 $258,000 $1,761,680 $95,586,000 Planning/Operations Design Construction
ES3
1066788034900311
2012
2013 $441,000
2014 $5,072,000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Year 2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
$155,000 $43,680
$1,453,000 $502,320 $120,000 $516,000 $5,939,000 $911,000 $5,160,000 $5,315,000 $1,380,000
$275,000 $280,000
$275,000 $275,000 $56,000 $647,000 $1,391,000 $46,000 $15,998,000 $533,000 $327,000 $3,757,000 $448,000 $5,156,000 $1,033,000 $5,850,000 $6,025,000 $643,000 $250,000 $500,000 $265,000 $3,961,320 $250,000 $500,000 $273,000 $6,151,000 $250,000 $500,000 $281,000 $3,115,000 $250,000 $500,000 $290,000 $18,087,000 $500,000 $299,000 $7,769,000 $500,000 $307,000 $7,347,000 $500,000 $317,000 $6,132,000 $500,000 $326,000 $1,153,000 $500,000 $336,000 $4,593,000 $500,000 $346,000 $1,294,000 $500,000 $356,000 $7,045,000 $500,000 $367,000 $6,717,000 $500,000 $378,000 $7,546,000 $500,000 $389,000 $4,532,000 $500,000 $401,000 $4,653,000 $500,000 $413,000 $913,000 $500,000 $426,000 $926,000 $500,000 $438,000 $938,000 $500,000 $452,000 $952,000 $3,643,000 $3,752,000
ExecutiveSummary This20yearprogramofcapitalimprovementsformsthebasisforevaluationofastormwaterfee,withcapital costsannualizedontheassumptionthatprojectswillbefinancedthroughtheissuanceof20yearbonds.By completingpreliminaryengineeringanddevelopingcapitalcostestimatesforspecificpriorityprojects(as opposedtoallowancesforgenericprojects),theCitycanhavegreaterconfidencethatthestormwaterfee estimatesdevelopedaspartofthisstudyarerealisticandreflectthecurrentinfrastructureinvestmentneedsof theCity.
BasisofaNorthamptonStormwaterandFloodControlUtility
WhiletherearearelativelysmallnumberofstormwaterutilitiesinNewEnglandandacrossthecountry,interest insuchutilitieshasgrowndramaticallyinrecentyearsascommunitieshaverecognizedtheneedforareliable, dedicatedsourceofrevenuetofundneededimprovementstodrainageandfloodcontrolinfrastructure.While thedetailsofspecificutilitiescanvary,theunderlyingpremiseofallstormwaterutilitiesisthatcostsfor drainageandstormwaterimprovementsshouldbesharedequitably,withtheamountofimperviousarea associatedwithaparticularparcelservingasaproxyforthecontributionofstormwatergeneratedbythat particularparcel(parcelswithmoreimperviousareageneratemorestormwaterandthereforeplaceagreater burdenondrainageandfloodcontrolsystems).Becausethereisadirectandprovenrelationshipbetween imperviousareaandtherateandvolumeofstormwatergenerated,allocationofstormwaterrelatedcosts basedonimperviousareaismoreequitablethantraditionalmethodsofcostallocation,suchasallocationbased onwaterconsumptionorpropertyvalues. Essentially,therearethreestepstodeterminingadefensiblestormwaterfee: 1. Step1:EstimatetherevenuerequirementsfortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility.Theannual revenuerequirementsfortheutilityarebasedonannualizedcapitalprogramrequirements(debtservice), systemoperation,andsystemmaintenancecosts.EstimatesofannualizeddebtserviceforaNorthampton utilityhavebeendevelopedbasedonthecapitalprogrampreviouslydiscussed,aswellasrequirementsfor systemoperationandmaintenancebasedonanalysisofcurrentsystemexpendituresandestimatesof increasedexpendituresrequiredtocomplywithnewpermitrequirements.Theresultsoftheseanalyses areshowninTableES2andFigureES1,andshowaninitialannualrevenuerequirementofapproximately $1.5milliongrowingtoapproximately$3.9millionoverafiveyearperiod. 2. Step2:AssesstheCitysimperviousareaanduseittodevelopanERUtypebillingsystem.Itis recommendedthatanEquivalentResidentialUnit(ERU)systembeusedasthebasisofthestormwaterfee. UnderanERUsystem,residentialunitsareassignedonebillingunitperdwellingunit,aduplexisassigned twobillingunits,andathreefamilyhomeisassignedthreebillingunits.Additionally,largerresidentialand nonresidentialparcelsareassignedbillingunitsbasedontheamountofimperviousareaforaspecific parcelrelativetotheimperviousareaassociatedwithanequivalentresidentialunit.Theamountof imperviousareaforagivenERUisdeterminedusingtheCitysGeographicInformationSystem(GIS) database,whichallowsforcalculationofatypicalERUbasedonanalysisofimperviousareaatresidential parcelsacrossthecity.ForNorthampton,oneERUisestimatedtobe2,671squarefeet. 3. Step3:Calculatearateperequivalentunitandtheimpactontypicalratepayers.Basedontheannual revenuerequired(Step1)andtheimperviousareaidentifiedwithintheCity(Step2),arateforeachERUis determined.ForNorthampton,astormwaterrateof$66.63perERUhasbeenestimatedforFY2012,with theimpactonvarioustypesofpropertiessummarizedinTableES3.So,ifimplemented,asinglefamily homewillpayanannualstormwaterfeeof$66.63,withlargerresidentialandcommercialpropertiespaying proportionallyhigherfeesbasedontheERUsystem.
ES4
1066788034900311
ExecutiveSummary TableES2 RevenueRequirement 2011 O&M ExistingDebtService AnticipatedDebtService RevenueRequirement $48,340 $0 2012 $54,644 $69,850 2013 $41,944 $316,548 2014 $38,684 $789,821 2015 $1,714,261 $37,484 $1,337,643 $3,089,388 2016 $1,766,013 $35,474 $2,048,693 $3,850,180
$1,470,232 $1,567,960 $1,615,279 $1,664,031
$1,518,572 $1,692,454 $1,973,771 $2,492,536 FigureES1 RevenueRequirement(thousands)
$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $ 2011 O&M 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ExistingDebtService
AnticipatedDebtService
TableES3 ProposedEquivalentResidentialUnitStormwaterFeeSchedule,FY2012 Classification SingleFamily TwoFamily ThreeFamily Classification LargeResidential Commercial/Industrialwith1,000squarefeetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith10,000squarefeetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith100,000squarefeetofIA BillingUnits 1 2 3 Impervious Area 10,821 1,000 10,000 100,000 ERU 1.00 2.00 3.00 ERU 4.05 0.37 3.74 37.44 RateperERU $66.63 $133.26 $199.90 RateperERU $269.95 $24.95 $249.46 $2,494.58
ES5
1066788034900311
ExecutiveSummary
PolicyConsiderationsforaStormwaterandFloodControlUtility
Inadditiontofinancialconsiderationsandrateequity,anumberofpolicyissuesshouldbeconsideredaspartof theimplementationofastormwaterandfloodcontrolutility.Theseconsiderationsinclude: PublicEducation:Acriticalcomponentofanyimplementationplanisapubliceducationprogramthatwill explaintobothresidentsandthebusinesscommunitytheneedforinvestmentinstormwaterandfloodcontrol infrastructureandthebenefitsofraisingthisrevenuethroughastormwaterfeeasopposedtoalternatecost allocationmetricssuchaswaterconsumptionorpropertyvaluation.Examplesofpubliceducationactivities includedistributionofpressreleasesthatdescribetheroleandpurposeofthestormwaterandfloodcontrol utility,incorporatingthebasicsofstormwatermanagementintoschoolcurriculum,andholdingpublicmeetings todiscussthenewutility. StormwaterCredits:Tohelpalleviatetheimmediateimpactofastormwaterfeeoncustomerswithlarge imperviousareasand/orencouragepracticesthatreducethemagnitudeofstormwaterdischarges,theCitymay consideraprogramofstormwatercreditsthatcanservetoreducetheoverallstormwaterfeepaidbycertain propertyowners.Stormwatercreditsmaybeprovidedwhenapropertyownerhasputinplacestormwater controlsthatprovidereliefbeyondwhatmayhavebeenrequiredasaconditionofpropertydevelopment. Examplesofpracticeswherestormwatercreditsmaybeappliedincludetheconstructionofdetentionpondsor greenrooftops,theconservationofnaturalareasinnewdevelopment,andtheapplicationoflowincome creditsforresidentialcustomerswithfinancialhardship.Inadditiontostormwatertreatmentpractices,some utilitiesandmunicipalitiesalsoprovidecreditrelatedtostormwatereducation,aswellasforstormwater systemsthatareseparatefromthemunicipalsystem,buthavebeenrequiredtocomplywithMS4permitting requirements.Whilestormwatercreditscanprovidebenefitsintermsofequityand goodpractice incentives,it isrecommendedthattheCitydevelopclearguidelinesforsuchcreditspriortofullimplementationofthe stormwaterutilitysothatthepublicunderstandstherulesforsuchcreditspriortoreceivinganinitial stormwaterfeeassessment.
Summary
ImplementationofaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitywillprovidetheCitywithadedicatedmeansof fundingforneededinvestmentinstormwaterandfloodcontrolinfrastructure.Themethodologydescribedin thisevaluationseekstoalignthecostofprovidingstormwaterandfloodcontrolprotectionwiththecostburden imposedbyindividualcustomersonstormwaterandfloodprotectionsystems,andtherebyprovidesan equitableallocationofthesenecessarycosts.Additionally,thedirectrelationshipbetweenthequantityof stormwatergeneratedbyaparticularparcel(usingimperviousareaasaproxy)andthestormwaterfeeapplied toaparceldirectlyencouragescustomersandnewdeveloperstofindwaystominimizestormwaterimpacts. ThesebehavioralincentiveswillhelptheCityachievecompliancewithnewstormwatermanagement regulationsthatencouragegreendesignpracticesandareductioninthevolumeofstormwatergenerated. Asaresultofthisevaluation,theCityhasadefensiblebasisforestimatingthemagnitudeofsuchastormwater fee.Thisestimateisnotbasedongenericorhypotheticalcosts,butonpreliminaryengineeringusedtodevelop sitespecificcostestimatestoaddressseveralofthemoreseriousdeficienciestotheCitysdrainageandflood controlsystems.Basedonthisanalysis,itisrecommendedthat,forFiscalYear2012,theCityadopta stormwaterchargeof$66.63basedonanERUwithanimperviousareaof2,671sq.ft.AstheCitybeginsto undertakespecificstormwaterrelatedcapitalimprovements,thisstormwaterfeecanbeadjustedbytheCityto fundinfrastructurepriorities.SuchafeewillallowtheCitytoundertakeareasonableprogramofneededcapital
ES6
1066788034900311
ExecutiveSummary improvements,provideneededmaintenanceofexistingassets,andmaintaincompliancewithincreasingly stringentstormwatermanagementregulations. TheabilityofaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitytoaddresstherealandseriousissuesofstormwater managementandfloodcontrolinacareful,consideredmannerwithcostsallocatedfairlyandrationallywill benefittheresidentsandbusinessesofNorthamptonfordecadestocome.Itwillprovidesecurityagainstthe disruptionandeconomicdamagethatcanresultfromthefailureofaginginfrastructurethathasexceededits usefullifeand/orisoperatingbeyonditsintendedcapacity.
ES7
1066788034900311
Section1Introduction
1.1 Introduction
TheCityofNorthamptons(City)stormdrainagesystemincludesabout3,750catchbasinsandinlets andapproximately108milesofdrainagepipesthatleadtomorethan280outfalls(Figure1.1).A largepercentageofthedrainlinesareover100yearsold.Thesesystemsareinneedofreplacement andmanyareasoftheCityrequireimproveddrainageinfrastructure. TheCityadoptedtheSustainableNorthamptonComprehensivePlan(SustainablePlan)onDecember 19,2007.TheplanoutlinedmanysustainabilitygoalsincludingGoalIC3UpgradetheCitysAging StormwaterManagementSystem.Theobjectivesofthisgoalinclude: 1. Developandimplementaplantomaintain,repair,replace,andimproveaginginfrastructure throughouttheCity. IncludelowimpactandNationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystemdrainage improvementsconcurrentlywithanypavementmanagementprogramorproject. Investinstormwatermanagementimprovements. Makecertainthatinvestmentsinstormwateraredistributedbycomparableinfrastructure needs.
2.
3. 4.
Thestrategyandactionsoutlinedforaccomplishingtheseobjectivesareasfollows:Completean engineeringassessmentontheabilitytomeetpresentandfuturestormwatermanagement requirements.Includelowimpactandgreendesignconsiderationsintheassessment.Createalong termpriorityimprovementplan. TheCityisprovidedfloodprotectionfromtheConnecticutandMillRiversviaafloodcontrolsystem thatwasconstructedin1940bytheArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE).Anothergoalinthe SustainablePlanisGoalEEC7DevelopStrategiestoProtecttheCityfromtheImpactsofNatural Hazards.TheneedtocosteffectivelymaintaintheCitysfloodcontrolfacilitiesisinkeepingwiththe goalsoftheSustainabilityPlan. ThisstudypresentsanapproachtomeetthegoalsoftheSustainablePlan.Itdescribesthetypesof stormwaterandfloodcontrolimprovementsthattheCityrequiresandalsopresentstheframework toimplementanewStormwaterandFloodControlUtility.IfadoptedbytheCity,thisnewUtility wouldestablishanEnterpriseFundtomanageacomprehensiveprogramthatwillprovidefundingfor capitalprojectsandtheannualoperationandmaintenanceoftheCitysstormwatersystemandflood controlsystems. TheCityfaceschallengesonmanylevelsrelatedtomanagementofitsstormwatermanagementand floodcontrolsystems.Briefly,thesechallengesinclude:
11
106678803490311.docx
WILLIAMSBURG
N
O
RT H
oa B d roo k
City of Northampton
Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan
Figure 1.1 City-Wide Drainage and Flood Control System Map
Ro
Bea v e
rB
n ar i
oo k
Br
RM S
HATFIELD
C O LE S M
RO AD
ok
D EA
OW
R
RE ET
R O AD
LE O NAR
r o ok
R IV
RA
le B
M r a
Lower Robert Meadow Res.
Ha
D OA
Roberts M Res e
MILL RIVER
LO
FRO N
HI
ow ead r io rv
LL
NC
E STREET
ro
ad
Broo k
FI TZG ERALD LA KE
NO
fw
R IC
RT H
AD
ER
A U DU B ON RO
GE
PO
ND
Br oa d Bro o k
ay
Br oo k
KI N
l
ST
RO AD
AD RO
G S T R E ET
RO
AD
IR
RV O
RE
SE
ro Cla rk
B
OAD
ro o k Day B
H AY D
E N V IL
L E RO
WATER
STREE
T
AD
F LO
R
O UT
V ER O
DRI V
Legend
Town Boundary Stormwater Pumping Station Stormwater Pipe < 12" Stormwater Pipe 12" to 24"
B R IDG E
WE
R
P I N E BR
MO ME
AD
R EET
IA
LAKE STREET
DY
NORTH M APL E S T
C H ESTN
Ro
s M eado bert
w Br o
ok
Bro ok
HI LLC R
Ch
UT ST REE T
CH E S
FIEL D RO AD TER
DR I V E
RO
L PAR K DRI V E
OK
NO
NE
H RT
ne l
KE N
EST
an
N AI
RE ST
ET
wB
a do w
ok
Rob
RO AD
ON R O D AM
ad
S TR
EE T
M EADO W ST R E E T
PA R K
PI N E
ST
91
OS CR S PATH R O AD
T EE
LO CU
JA C KSO
ST R
EET
NG
NS T
Ro
er
RE
e s M
ert e s M
ET
IN D
AD
Stormwater Pipe > 24" to 82" Levee
US TR IA
SP
EET
AD
BLIS S STR
ST R
S A N D Y IL L
ST
FR A
ET
MA SS AS
NK
TR E
DH OAD IL L R
OI T
STR EE
LI N S
NO
E LM
BRO
TR E
EE
RO AN RY
ET
EE
RI
L
DR
HADLEY
Drainage Areas Parcel Boundary Streams Lakes and Rivers
E IV
H UT SO
MA
ST S T
r Ba r r ett St B
RE E T
NO NO T
IN
ST
EE
UCK STR E ET
PR O S
oo k
EY R H I NC K L
P EC
T ST REE
gh Br o u
to ns B r oo k
RT
Connecticut River
OLD FE
DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS)
WI LLO W S
T REET
Pa
NO
RO A
EL D
C LEM ENT
VE N
S
D OA
WOO D
RM
LE
PPER
RO
AD
FA
CO NZ
SI
B
D E CIR
ST R
N OO
KR
BR OO K D ME TH
RE N C
R KEY H IL L T UR
OA D
BURTS PI T ROAD
ER OA
a rs on B o r ok
s set B
TR EE T PR IN C E S
EE
FO
LY M
ok
OD
RT
AN
RO
AD
HUNTS RO AD
OA D
W EST F AR MS R
Parsons or Bassett Brook
UN
ND
PO
O DL
SL
AND D RIV
IP
PER
West Street Pumping Station

MA P L
ROCKY H I L
LA
A RO
LADY
WO
W ESTH A
M PTO N
RO AD
PH Y DR I
YE
D UN
EA
NE
R ID G
LE E N AF D GRE RI
VE
PY
r an ch
er - - Nor th
B R OK O
B r oo
RK PA
LR HI L
OA
WI
O LS
IE
West Levee
H
ul
AD
RO
LD
O W
RO
AD
SP
RI
NG
UM
n Ri
M an h
HA
NN
LA NE
DR UR Y
EASTHAMPTON HOLYOKE
\\Camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\Figure2_1.mxd JD 11/21/11
I TE
W
AY
WI
FLO
AL
EL CH A P G R OV E STREET
TH S OU
R ST
OA LR
EE STR
T
P OTAS H RO AD
O CK
AM TH
ON PT
RO
AD
NU
AN RB VE RI
AD RO
RO
AD
CURT IS
A B BAYE POND 2
OA D O X BO W R
A RO
OLD MILL RIVER
Ox
bow
R ND OA D
Northampton Flood Control Pumping Station

0 2,000 4,000 Feet
IS L A
HE
AC R
S R O AD
EB
TU
RO
PA R
OK
DR
DS
I VE
MILL RIVER
RS
M AI N S
RO AD
TR
BROOKWOOD MARSH POND
TR
EE
VE
HA
R R IVE
SI
DE
DR
IV
ROUN
WESTHAMPTON
t . Br ook S TR E ET
FI
S Y L V ES
R RY
EE T ST R
ROA D
Y OU
G N
TR FAI R S
RR O Ba et o
AI
BO
WR
BS EB
AD
WILLOW LAKE
ss
K IN G
OAD
El
DG RI
E ET WA LN
T UT
W LL O HO
East Levee
OL D BO W RA IN
R OA
ST
B n s rso
STATE STRE ET
RE
R EE
ET
D RO A
ATH SP
ok
W
Y LE
T EE
ET STR E
S AN EA PL
REET T T ST EE
BR
OO
L ow e
ICE P O ND
ro k r M ea dow B o
a
RDI N CA
ro
REE T ST
IS T
IVE DR
SH KI N G
M OU
ERB E NT RR
IG H W
D M R OA N T TO
F IR
AY
Y L AN E
Q ST S UAR
VE
RO
AD
NC
HO
Bas s
ME
AD
et
be
rt
on
GLEN D A
LE
AD RO
SOUTH HADLEY
Da n ks P o nd
Basemap: Planimetrics Sources: City of Northampton and MassGIS Coordinate System: NAD83 Mass. State Plane Mainland FIPS 2001 (feet)
Section1Introduction AgingStormwaterInfrastructureMuchoftheCitys stormwaterinfrastructureisover100yearsoldandin needofrepairorreplacement.Photo1.1isa photographofa2010drainfailureonFlorenceRoad. NewStormwaterInfrastructureisNeededWherethe needfornewstormwatersystemshavebeen identified,nosourceoffundingexiststoconstruct neededimprovements.Photo1.2aphotographof floodingintheAustinCircleandRyanRoadarea. AgingFloodControlInfrastructureTheCityhasan extensivefloodcontrolpumpingsystemandlevee systemthatwasbuiltinthe1940sbytheUSACEafter thehistoricfloodsof1936and1938.Thisimportant infrastructureprotectsmuchofthedowntownarea fromfloodingbytheConnecticutRiverandtheMill River.Importantcomponentsofthissystemneed capitalimprovementsorreplacement.Photo1.3a photographoffloodingdowntownin1936andPhoto 1.4isaphotographoftheWestStreetfloodwallthat waserectedinAugust2011priortoHurricaneIrene. RiverErosionTheCityisblessedwithscenicbrooks andrivers.However,theMillRiverandotherbrooks causestreambankerosionthatthreatensbothprivate andpublicpropertyifnotcontrolled.Thereisno fundingavailableforerosioncontrolprojectsthatare importanttoprotectprivateandpublicpropertyfrom damage.Photo1.5isaphotographshowingthe dilapidatedconditionoftheMillRiverretainingwall.
Photo 1.1FlorenceRoadDrainFailure
Photo1.2AustinCircle/RyanRoad
NewStormwaterRegulatoryMandatesRevisedU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)regulations governingstormwatermanagement(National PollutantDischargeEliminationSystemorNPDES) regulationsareanticipatedtobereleasedinthenext fewmonths.Theseregulationswillincludenew mandatessuchasadditionalmaintenanceactivities, outfallmonitoringrequirements,aswellasstormwater Photo1.31936Flood retrofitcapitalprojects.Photo1.6isaphotographofa smalldiameteroutfalloffWardAvenueandPhoto1.7isaphotographofalargediameteroutfalloff HamptonAvenue.
13
106678803490311
Section1Introduction NewFloodControlRegulatoryMandatesTheUSACEis requiringacompleteengineeringassessmentandupgradeof theCitysfloodcontrolsystem.Inaddition,theFederal EmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)isalsointheprocess ofupdatingFloodInsuranceRateMaps(FIRM)inseveral MassachusettsCounties.Aspartofmapupdating,FEMAwill requirethattheCitycertifythatthefloodcontrolsystemsmeet USACEstandards.TheFIRMmappingupdateforHampshire Countyisnotyetscheduledbutisexpectedinthenearterm. Photo1.8isaphotographoftheConnecticutRiverleveein August2011.
Photo1.4WestStreetFloodWall
InadequateFundingCurrently,theCityprovidesverylittlefundingonanannualbasisforstormwaterand floodcontrolrelatedwork.Inthelastdecadeormorethecapitalfundingamounthastypicallybeenunder $100,000peryear,withfundingforcapitalprojectszeroedoutofthebudgetthreeyearsago.Current fundingisfromtheGeneralBudgetwhereCitywidedemandsaregreat.Anewsourceofsustainable fundingisneededtomeettheneedsdescribedabove.
Photo1.5MillRiverRetainingWall

Photo 1.6WardAvenueOutfall
Photo1.7HamptonAvenueOutfall

Photo1.8ConnecticutRiverLevee
14
106678803490311
1.2 FederalStormwaterManagementRegulations HistoricalOverview

TheCitysstormdraindischargesaresubjecttotheNPDESStormwaterPhaseIIMunicipalSeparateStormSewer System(MS4)GeneralPermit. Since2003,theCityhascompliedwiththeEPAsNPDESStormwaterPhaseIIpermitforsmallercommunities withmunicipalseparatestormsewersystems.TheNPDESStormwaterPermitregulatesdischargesfrom NorthamptonsmunicipalstormsystemandmandatesstepstheCitymusttaketocontrolthequantityand qualityofwaterdischargedfromthestormdrainsystem.OverthefirstfiveyearsoftheNPDESStormwater Permitcoverage,theCitymettheEPAsrequirementstoimplementastormwatermanagementprogramthat includedthefollowingsixminimumcontrols:PublicEducation,PublicInvolvement,IllicitDischargeDetection andElimination,ConstructionSiteStormwaterRunoffControl,PostConstructionStormwaterManagement, GoodHousekeepingandPollutionPrevention. InJuneof2004theNorthamptonCityCouncilapprovedboththeIllicitConnectionsandDischargestothe MunicipalStormDrainSystemOrdinanceandtheErosionandSedimentControlandPostConstruction StormwaterManagementOrdinance.SincethattimethemainfocusoftheNorthamptonStormwater ManagementProgramhasbeentheimplementationoftheStormwaterManagementPermitprogram.Between June2004andAugust2011theNorthamptonDepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW)issuedatotalof61 StormwaterManagementPermitsfordevelopmentprojectsdisturbingoveroneAcre.Thefeescollectedare directlydependentonthenumberandsizeofdevelopmentprojectseachyear.Arevolvingfundwasestablished thatwasintendedtofundtheimplementationoftheStormwaterManagementProgram.However,therevenue fromthestormwaterpermitfeesprovedtobeinadequatetoconsistentlypayforthecostofmaintaining compliancewiththeCitysNPDESStormwaterMS4Permit.In2006therevolvingfundwasendedand stormwaterpermitfeesarenowdepositeddirectlyintheCitysGeneralFund. ThestormwatersystemisoperatedandmaintainedonalimitedbudgetfundedthroughtheCitysGeneralFund. Thebudgetisusedforemergencyrepairsofthesystem,catchbasincleaningandrepair,engineering,new connectionpermits,andcompliancewiththeNPDESpermit.Overthepast25yearstheCityhasperformed repairsonthestormwatersystemonanemergencybasisonly.Otherthancatchbasincleaning,noroutine inspection,maintenance,andrepairtakesplace,andeachyearthesystemconditioncontinuestodeteriorate. InMarch2011theCitycompletedtheeighthyearofimplementationoftheStormwaterManagementProgram asrequiredbytheEPA.TheprogramhasbeenimplementedwiththesmallestbudgetpossibletokeeptheCity incompliance.Theabilitytocomplywithregulatoryrequirementsisafunctionofconsistentfundingneededfor staffingandequipmentcostsneededtoproperlyoperateandmaintainthemunicipalstormdrainsystem, includingactivitiessuchasstreetsweepingandcatchbasincleaning.Lookingahead,theCitysNPDES StormwaterpermitcompliancecostswilllikelyincreasefourtofivefoldwhenthenewEPAregulationsare instituted.
1.3 FederalStormwaterManagementRegulations PendingChanges

InDecember2010theEPAissuedaDraftofproposedchangestotheMassachusettsInterstate,Merrimack,and SouthCoastalSmallMS4GeneralPermit(DraftPermit)forpubliccomments.InformationaboutthisDraftPermit canbefoundontheEPAwebsite(www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/mimsc_sms4.html)Itisprojected
15
106678803490311
thatthefinalpermitchangeswillbeissuedbyearly2012.TheproposedchangestothisMS4permitinclude manynewandcostlyobligationsfortheCity.Asmallsampleofthenewrequirementsisdiscussedbelow. DataRequirements:TheDraftPermitrequiresthegathering,andinsomecasesmapping,ofanenormous quantityofdata.Muchofthisinformationisrequiredinthefirsttwoyearsinordertoperformtheanalyses requiredtomeetthepermitmilestones.EventhoughNorthamptonhasawellestablishedGeographic InformationSystem(GIS)system,thedatacompilationandanalysisalonecouldconsumethebetterpartofthe fiveyearpermitcycle.Theindividualdatarequirementsbythemselvesmaybefeasibletoobtain,but collectivelytheypresentaconsiderableeffortinvolvingpersonnelwithahighlevelofknowledgeandskill. ProposedOutfallSampling:Thenewpermitrequiressampling25percentofthedrainageoutfallseachyear duringbothdryandwetweather.TheCityofNorthamptonhasabout287stormwateroutfalls.Thesamplingof thismanyoutfallsiscostlyandwouldrequireeitherCitystafftime,orhiringaconsultanttocompletethe sampling.Newsamplingequipmentandanalyticalcostswillalsobeincurredtocomplywiththisnew requirement. IllicitDischargeDetectionandElimination(IDDE)Program:Thedischargeofsanitarysewageandother pollutantsthroughstormwatersystemsisprohibitedandanyillicitconnectionsfoundthroughsamplingneedto becorrectedwithin30days.Insomecasestheconnectionsaretheresponsibilityofprivatelandownerstofix andinothercasestheCitymayberesponsibleforconstructingtheimprovementandtheassociatedrepaircost. NitrogenReductionRequirements:SincetheCityislocatedwithintheConnecticutRiverbasinandthus ultimatelydischargestoLongIslandSound,a10percentreductioninnitrogenisproposedtomeetwaterquality standards.GiventhelevelofattentionNorthamptonhaspaidtoourstormwatersamplingandmitigation programtodate,weareconcernedthateventhebesteffortsmayresultinfailuretocomply,andweare concernedabouttheassociatedconsequencesifadditionalappropriateBestManagementPractices(BMPs) cannotbeimplementedinatimelyandcosteffectivemanner.ThetypesandcostofBMPsisexpectedtobe significant. BMPsConstructedRetrofits:TheDraftPermitrequiresthattheCitycompleteaninventoryandpriorityranking ofCityownedpropertyandinfrastructure(includingpublicrightofways)thatmayhavethepotentialtobe retrofittedwithBMPsdesignedtoreducethefrequency,volume,andpeakintensityofstormwaterdischarges. Byyear3ofthepermit,EPArequiresthatsomeBMPretrofitprojectsbecompleted.Theinventoryandpriority fortheentireCityisalargeundertaking.Thedesign,permitting,andconstructionofBMPretrofitswillbetime consumingandcostly. PublicEducationandOutreach:TheDraftPermitincludestheproductionanddistributionofeightpublic educationnotices,inadditiontoseveralordinancesandprogramsintendedtoteachthepublichowtominimize theirimpactsonstormwaterquality. CatchBasinInspectionandCleaning:TheDraftpermitrequiresinspectionandcleaningofeverycatchbasin suchthatnosumpismorethan50percentfull.Thismayrequirecleaningcatchbasinsmoreoftenthanoneper year.Currently,theCitycleanscatchbasinsannually. FloorDrainInspections:ThedraftpermitrequiresIdentifyinganddeterminingtheoutletofeveryfloordrainin everymunicipalbuildingwithinoneyearoftheeffectivedateofthepermit.InoldercitieslikeNorthampton, plumbingplansarenotavailableformanymunicipalbuildings,anddyetestingwouldberequiredtounderstand theplumbingconfigurationandoutletlocationofeveryfloordrain.Again,additionalCitystafftimeortheuseof contractorswouldbeneededtocomplywiththisrequirement.
16
106678803490311
Therearemanyothercostlyrequirementstocomplywiththisnewpermit.Thecoststomaintaincompliance withtheDraftpermitmayrequirespendingnearlythreetimesthecurrentbudgetorapproximately$250,000 peryearfortheCityofNorthampton.
1.4 FloodControlRegulatoryMandates
TheCityisprovidedfloodprotectionfromtheConnecticutandMillRiversviaafloodcontrolsystemthatwas constructedin1940bytheUSACE.TheCityisresponsibleformaintainingfloodcontrolinfrastructure.Thelevees (ordikes)andpumpingstationsalongbothriversprotecttheCityfromfloodingincriticallowlyingelevations. ThefloodcontrolsystemfortheCityconsistsoftwomainparts.Anearthenleveeaboutamileinlengthonthe easternpartoftheCityprovidesprotectionagainsthighwaterfromtheConnecticutRiver.Inaddition,an earthenleveeandconcretefloodwallaboutahalfmileinlengthinconjunctionwiththeMillRiverdiversion canalprovidesprotectionagainstflashfloodsontheMillRiverandbackwaterfromtheConnecticutRiverviathe OxBow.TheCitymaintainsafloodcontrolpumpingstationlocatedatthewastewatertreatmentplanton HockanumRoad.WastewatertreatmentplantstaffoperatesthepumpingstationswhiletheentireDPWis engagedinthemaintenanceandoperationofthefloodcontrolleveesandMillRiverdiversionchannel.A smallerpumpingstationislocatedonWestStreetadjacenttotheMillRiver. TheUSACEissuedinspectionreportsdatedAugust26,2011fortheMillRiverFloodControlSystemandforthe ConnecticutRiverFloodControlSystem.Thesereportsincludedalonglistofrequiredimprovementsthatmust becompletedbySeptember2012.Generally,theseimprovementswererelatedtoremovaloftreesand vegetation,establishingnewturfonleveesystems,videoinspectionsoftoedrainsystems,andrelatedwork. ThecompletionofthisworkisbeyondthemeansoftheDPWstaff.Biddingofthecompletionofthisworkis needed,inordertohaveacontractorcompletetheimprovements.Currently,thereisnofundingsourceto completethisworkotherthantheGeneralFundbudget. Also,inameetingattheUSACEofficeinConcord,MassachusettsonAugust26,2011,theCitywasinformedthat notificationwillbesentinthenextfewmonthsthatsignificantengineeringstudiesmustbecompletedbythe Cityforallfloodsystemcomponents.Theseengineeringstudieswillberequiredtoinclude: Preparationoftopographicsurveystodetermineelevationsandfreeboardallowances; Geotechnicalborings; Hydraulicandhydrologicanalyses; Seepageandslopestabilityanalysesofdikes;stabilityanalysesoffloodwalls;settlementanalysesfordikes, pumpingstations,andfloodwalls;andseismicassessmentforfloodcontrolstructures;and Inspectionsofallpenetrationsthroughthelevees. TheUSACEhadpreliminarilyindicatedthatthesestudieswillberequiredtobecompletedwithintwoyearsof receivingwrittennotificationofthisrequirement.TheCityanticipatesreceivingthisnotificationbytheendof 2011,resultinginanestimateddeadlineoftheendof2013forcompletionofthiswork.Thesestudiesare expectedtocosthundredsofthousandsofdollarstoperform.OtherCitiesalongtheConnecticutRiversuchas Chicopee,SpringfieldandHartfordhavecompletedthesestudiesandfoundthatmillionsofdollarsofleveeand floodcontrolpumpingstationimprovementswererequired. InadditiontotheUSACErequirements,FEMAisintheprocessofupdatingFloodInsuranceRateMaps(FIRM) acrossMassachusetts,withHampshireCountymapsscheduledforupdatingin2012orlater.AspartoftheFIRM updates,FEMAwillrequiretheCitytocertifythatfloodcontrolsystems,includinglevees,meetcurrentUSACE 17
106678803490311
standards.Thiscertificationprocessincludesengineeringassessmentsimilartotheabovelistedstudiesand associatedfloodcontrolcapitalimprovements.ThecertificationprocesshascostotherMassachusetts communitiesmillionsofdollars.IftheCityfloodcontrolsystemisnotcertified,thepropertiescurrently protectedbythissystemwouldnolongerbeprotected.Propertyownersinthefloodzonethathavefederally backedmortgageswouldthenberequiredtopurchaseexpensivefloodinsurance.
1.5 InfrastructureFunding
TheuseoftheGeneralFundtopayforstormwaterinfrastructureisnearlyuniversalinMassachusetts,butin mostcasestheGeneralFundisinsufficienttomeetalloftheneedsofagingandinadequateinfrastructure,noris therefundingtomeettheincreasinglystringentregulations.Thereisinadequatefundingtomeetthe stormwater,floodcontrolandstreamerosionprojectneedsintheCity.Verylimitedfundingforthis infrastructurehasbeenprovidedthroughtheCitysGeneralFund.ThefinancialresourcesoftheCitytofund infrastructurethroughtheGeneralFundappearstobeverylimited,whereGeneralFundresourcesareusedfor allCityoperationssuchasschools,FireandPoliceDepartments.MoniesfromtheGeneralFundhavebeen unabletokeeppacewiththerequirementstomaintainand/orreplaceexistinginfrastructureorconstructnew infrastructureinlocationswheretheneedisgreat. Sincetaxexemptproperties,suchascolleges,stateandfederalpropertiesdonotpaypropertytaxes,theydo notcontributetotheGeneralFund.Manytaxexemptpropertieshavelargeexpansesofimperviousareathat generatesignificantstormwaterflows.ThecostsassociatedwiththeCitymanagingthisstormwaterispaidby taxpayers.Stormwaterutilitieshavebeenestablishedinothercommunitiesonanequitablefeeforservice basiswherefeesaredeterminedbasedonusage(amountofimperviousareaisonealternativefordetermining fees). ManyCitiesandTownshaveimplemented,orareintheprocessofevaluatingtheformationofnewutilitiesfor themanagementofstormwaterandrelatedinfrastructure.LocallyinwesternMassachusetts,Chicopeeand Westfieldhaveimplementedastormwaterutility.Thechargingofuserfeesforstormwatermanagementis authorizedunderstatelaw(MGLc.83s.16).Theimplementationofastormwaterutilityisanequitablemeansto providethestablerevenuesourceneededtomanagestormwaterinfrastructureandtomeettheeverexpanding regulatorystateandfederalmandates.Also,shiftinginfrastructurecoststoautilityfeebasisprovidessome relieftotheGeneralFundbudgetbyremovingstormwaterrelatedcostsfromthatbudget.
1.6 ProjectSummary
Thisprojectconsistsoftwoparts.Thefirstpartofthestudyinvolvedidentifyingdrainage,rivererosionand floodcontrolimprovementsprojects.Preliminarycostestimateswerepreparedfortheseprojectsand summarizedina20yearcapitalimprovementsplan.Thesecondpartofthestudyconsideredestablishinga stormwaterandfloodcontrolutilityandthevariousapproachesusedsuccessfullybyothercommunities.The 20yearcapitalimprovementsplanandprojectedoperationalcostswereusedtoevaluatevariousutilityrate structures. Thedrainageprojectsthatwereevaluatedincludedareasthatarefloodproneorareknowntohavestormwater capacityissues.Thesedrainageprojectsareconsideredrepresentativeofprojectsthatmaybeneededacross theCity.Theprojectsanalyzedinclude: KingStreet/MarketStreet/DowntownArea; BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea;
18
106678803490311
Section1Introduction ElmStreetBrookArea(FlorenceArea);and RyanRoad/AustinCircleArea. Rivererosionprojectsconsideredareknownproblemareaswherevariousgrantfundinghasbeensoughtfor repairs.Theprojectsinclude: RiverRoadRetainingWall/Floodwallimprovements(MillRiver); RobertsMeadowBrookchannelimprovementsanderosionrepair;and FederalStreetretainingwallrepair(MillRiver). FloodControlprojectswereselectedbasedonanengineeringinspectionoftheseCityfloodcontrolsystems. Theprojectsincluded: FloodControlpumpingstationreplacement;and Leveesystemevaluationsandimprovements. Therecommendedplanfocusesonimprovementstoalleviateexistingfloodingandrivererosionproblemsin theserepresentativeareas.Floodcontrolprojectsarealsoidentifiedandincluded.Thestudypresentsa preliminary20yearcapitalimprovementplan.Inaddition,futureoperationsandmaintenancecostswere estimatedasneededtocomplywiththeDraftEPAMS4StormwaterPermit.Thecapitalimprovementsplanand operatingcostswereusedintheevaluationofvariousstormwaterutilityoptions.
1.7 ScopeofWork
Specifictaskscompletedforthisstudyinclude: 1. Inventoryandassessmentofexistingstormwaterdrainageinfrastructure,includingstreamerosionprojects. WorkincludedfieldinspectionsandhydraulicmodelingofsampleproblemareasidentifiedbytheCity. Inventoryandassessmentofexistingfloodcontrolinfrastructureincludingpumpingstationsandlevee systems. Reviewandaccountingofcurrentoperationalbudgetsfordrainageandfloodcontroloperations. Determinationofa20yearCapitalImprovementPlanforstormwaterdrainage,rivererosionandflood controlprojects. Determinationoffuturebudgetallocationsneededtomeetregulatorymandates. EvaluationofanewStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,includingrevenuerequirements,ratestructure options,ratemodifiers,discountsandexemptions,billingoptions,andimplementationsteps.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
19
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditionsandAlternatives Analyses 2.1 Introduction

Thissectionprovidesanassessmentoftheexistingconditionsforrepresentativeareasofthe stormwaterdrainagesystem,areascurrentlyexperiencingrivererosion(Figure2.1)andtheflood controlsystem.ThissectionalsodiscussestheDepartmentofPublicWorkscurrentoperationalcost andfundinglevelstomanagetheCitysstormwaterdrainageandfloodcontroloperations.Forthe stormwaterdrainagesystem,asummaryofmodelingresultsandalternativesanalysesforfourflood proneareasselectedbytheCityasbeingrepresentativeofthetypesofprojectsthatwouldrequire fundingisprovided.Forthefloodcontrolsystem,recommendationstoaddressdeficienciesinthe leveesystemandpumpingstationsareprovided.
2.2 StormwaterDrainageandFloodControlSystem Overview

Figure1.1inSection1isamapoftheNorthamptondrainageandfloodcontrolsystems,includingthe WestStreetstormwaterpumpingstation,NorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationandlevees. Overall,thedrainagesystemincludesapproximately108milesofdrainpipe,rangingindiameter from4to82inches.Thereareapproximately3,750catchbasinsandmorethan280outfalls dischargingtorivers,brooks,wetlands,andponds.Atmanylocations,theCitystormwaterwas initiallymanagedthroughacombinedseweroverflow(CSO)system,withonlyonepipe(combined sewer)collectingsanitarysewerflowandstormwaterrunoff,insteadoftwoseparatepipes(sewers anddrains).Duringwetweather,combinedsewerflowthatexceededthecapacityofthesystem wouldoverflowtoriversandstreamsaroundtheCity.AstheCityperformedsewerseparation,many oftheoriginalcombinedsewerswereconvertedintostormdrainsandnewsewerswereconstructed tocollectsanitaryflowseparately.Asaresult,manyofthedrainsaresmallerthan12inchesin diameter(therecommendedminimumdrainsizetoreducecloggingproblems,highlightedinredon Figure1.1).Also,asignificantportionofthestormwaterdrainagesystem,consistingofturnofthe centuryvitrifiedclay,iron,stoneandbrickpipe,andasbestoscementpipefromthe1950s,isaging, deteriorating,lackinghydrauliccapacity,andmayneedtobereplaced.Areviewofthestormwater drainagesystemwithintheKingStreet/MarketStreet,BridgeStreet/Meadows,andElmStreet Brook/Florenceareasindicatesthatnearly47percentofthepipes(approximately6.1miles)are madeofvitrifiedclay,iron,stone,brick,orasbestoscement.Thelargepercentageofclaypipe,stone andbrickpipeisanindicationoftheageofthisinfrastructure.Table2.1providesthebreakdownof pipelengthsbymaterialfortheseareas.
106678803490311
21
WILLIAMSBURG
B
Ro
o ar in
ar ing Br o o
ro o
oa B d ro o k
City of Northampton
HATFIELD
ME CO L E S
River Road Retaining Wall/ Floodwall Improvements

Ro
rB Bea v e
oo k
n ar i
Br
ok
R oar n
ro o k
o ok
Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 2.1 Representative Project Areas
LEO NAR
NORT
AD RO
Hal f
R VO I
l e B r oo k
ES E
IL L
NC
a rb
FRO N
R E ST E ET
D OA
Br
ad
Bro o k
NO R
ay
RI
Roberts Meadow Brook Channel Improvements and Erosion Repair
ST RE ET
R O AD
VE R
RA
TH
A U D U BON RO AD
HF AR
ND O
GE
Br oa d Br o o k
Br o
RI
CK
LO
DRI V
K IN
RO AD
MS
RO
G ST R E E T
w
ok
roa
R O AD
ro Cl ark B
AD
W O
ok
OAD
ro o k Day B
D ay
Br
H AY D
B r oo
k
E NV I L
B ro ad Br ook
AD LE RO
WATER
STREE
T
FLO
R
M A IN S T R
S EETL E E D
V ER O OUT
Legend
P I N E BR
NORTH M APLE ST R EET
IA
L PARK DRI V E
WE
O EM RM
AD
RO
BR ID G E RO AD
Town Boundary Parcel Boundary Streams
LAKE STREET
DY
R o
sM bert
eadow
Ch r ook
ok
TNU T S TR E ET
C HES
TE
RFI EL D RO AD
OK
NO
NE
RT
ne l
KE N
an
Br o
wB
CHES
a d ow
ok
BR I D G E R
ad
OA D
E BRO O
N AI
HADLEY
P IN
R ST
T EE
Lakes and Rivers DEP Wetlands
ST
PAR K
US T ST R EET
JAC
RE E
MEADO W S T R
ST R E
K SO
NG
T EE
ET
NS
Ro
SP RI
TR
s M er
EE
Ro be r t
s M
DA
K IN G
MO
RO
AD
Wetlands (MassGIS)
EE T ST R
L OC
ST
IT
MA
ER
A H I L L RO D
SS AS O
FRAN
KL IN
S TR
EE
BRIDGE STREET
ST
EL M
RE
R EE
ns B r oo
ET
Elm Street Brook Area

SY L V E S
T
B ar r ett St
B ro o
C RO S
D S PATH R O A
PRO
to
u Br o
H I N C K LEY
STR EET
SPE CT S
TRE ET
gh
Connecticut River
OLD FER R Y RO AD
S FA IR
K IN
TR EET
RO
G ST
A1
EL
Ryan Road/Austin Circle Area

A2
N
C
IV
E R S IDE
DR
IV
R OU ND
AD
RE E T
ST
O FL
RE
R
RE
ET
Bridge Street/Meadows Area

DS EP AR
AD
E
AD RO
F AR M
N YA R
RO
SI
B
D E C IR
Federal Street Retaining Wall Repair

D
F L OR ENC ER OA
RO A
CO
CL
NZ
ST
U P PER
R YA N
ok
D ME TH
KEY H I L T UR
D L RO A
BURTS P IT ROAD
ROA
s set B
R EE PR INC E ST
LY M
91
NO O
OA K R
AN
OD
RO
AD
HUNTS RO AD
K IN G
o ok
W EST F AR M S RO AD
UN
ro
ok
D OA LR R OCKY H I L
ND
PO
O DL
SL
AND D RIV
E PP R L
GE
A RO
AN
LE
LAD Y
RI D
WO
DU N PH
YE
Y DRI
O AD P TO N R WE STH AM
LEAF D RI REE N V
R O AD
r an ch
B R O OK
er - - No rth
TO N RO AD
RK PA
L HIL
n Ri
NU
a nh
LA N E
EA ST
HA
MP
HA
DR URY
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxds\WatershedOverviewMap_11x17.mxd MB 4/2012
B roo
RO
AD
WI
LS
ON
RO AD
OL
Ox b
ow
B AYE
IN
IE GF
R O
LD
PO
EASTHAMPTON
ITE
P a rsons B
AL
WI
ce
nd
King Street/ Market Street/ Downtown Area

CURT IS
N
P OTASH R O AD
HO
CK
NU
N BA ER IV
AD O
RO
Br ook
AD
OK
BA
RO
AD
OX B O W R
OA D
ND
SH
TS P IT RO AD BU R
91
NUT WAL
RO
OW HOL L BB S WE
A4
C LEM EN T
WESTHAMPTON
A3 D
A D
RO
EE TR
WIL
LIAMS STR EET
W OOD D S ROA
BR
B as se tto r Pars o n s B
O
OK
TR E E
T EE
L ow e
o k r M ea d ow Br o
AT H SP
a
RD I N CA
ro
IST
IVE DR
S HIG
AY
ERB ER NT R
HWAY
F I RS
E Y L AN
MAP
Po
T SQ
E UA R
MO U N T
VE
R
AD O
TO M
N PY
CH
RO A D
ON
Bass
AD ME
et
0
I SL
AN D
1,750 Feet
3,500
RO A
Ox bow
GLEN D
O xb
ow
SOUTH HADLEY
AL
E
AD RO
HOLYOKE
Section2ExistingConditions Table2.1 SummaryofPipeMaterialinFourStudyAreas PipeType Concrete VitrifiedClay(VC) Iron Stone Brick AsbestosCement(AC) PolyvinylChloride(PVC) Total TotalFeet 35,943 24,055 1,017 1,870 1,890 3,238 78 68,090 TotalMiles 6.81 4.55 0.19 0.35 0.36 0.61 0.01 12.87 %Total 53% 35% 1.5% 2.7% 2.8% 4.8% 0.1% 100%
TheCityhasnotassessedtheCitysdrainagesysteminacomprehensivewaysince1971.Portionsofthe drainagesystemhavebeeninspectedsincethattime.Forexample,inJuly1981,AlmerHuntleyJr.&Associates performedaninspectionoftheMarketStreetBrooksystemintheKingStreetarea,presentingtheresultsinthe reportNorthIndustrialParkDrainageStudy(AlmerHuntleyreport).TheMarketStreetBrooksystem dischargesintotheHistoricMillRiverbed,downstreamofHockanumRoad.Thereportdocumentedthe conditionofthis1800svintagesystemfromtheoutfalltoitsbeginningupstreamofNorthStreet.Inspections revealedthattheMarketStreetBrooksystemisacompositeofvariouspipediameters,shapes,andmaterials,at timesgoingunderexistingbuildingsandthroughprivateproperty.Oneoftheearliestsectionsislocatedinthe vicinityofHolyokeStreet.Constructedin1846,itismostlya5tby6ftbrickboxwithabrickarchroofand woodenplankfloor.BetweenHolyokeandBridgeStreets,thedrainagesystemiscomprisedmostlyofastoneor brickboxwithabrickarchroofandwoodenplankfloor.Eventhoughthissectionwasconstructedbetween 1846and1893,itwasfoundtobeingoodoverallcondition.However,fromBridgeStreettothebeginningof thissystemupstreamofNorthStreet,thepipeswerefoundtobeinoverallpoorcondition.Constructedmostly inthemidtolate1800s,thepipevariesbetweenadoublebrickringandastoneboxwithabrickarch.The inspectionfoundsectionsofthebrickringoutofround,longitudinalcracking,andmissingbricksandstones. Thissystemhasnotbeeninspectedsince1981. TheleveefloodcontrolsystemwasconstructedbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)aspartofthe ComprehensivePlanforControlofFloodintheConnecticutRiverBasin.Constructionofthefloodprotection systemwasstartedinDecember1938andcompletedinJune1941.Theleveefloodcontrolsystemconsistsof twolevees,asshownonFigure2.1:theeasternpartofthesystem(EastLevee)includesanearthembankment aboutonemilelongwiththreeconcretefloodwallsthatprovidesfloodprotectionagainstrisingwatersofthe ConnecticutRiver,andthewesternpart(WestLevee)includesearthembankmentsegmentsandaconcrete floodwalldesignedtoprotectagainstrisingwatersandflashfloodsfromtheMillRiverandbackwaterfroma diversioncanallinkedtotheConnecticutRiver.Aspartofthisproject,adiversiondike,consistingofanearthen embankmentwithacoreofselectedimperviousmaterial,wasconstructedjustdownstreamfromtheWest StreetBridgeattheSmithCollegepowerplant.ItdivertstheMillRiverfromthediversiondikethroughthe formerHulbertsPondtotheConnecticutRiverOxbowLakeviaan11,000footlongdiversioncanal.The purposeofdivertingtheMillRiverwastoeliminatefloodingintheCitysdowntownarea.Existingclosed drainagesystemsintheKingStreet/MarketStreetareacurrentlydischargetotheoriginalMillRiverbed, referredtoastheHistoricMillRiverinthisreport.
23
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions
2.2.1 FieldInspectionApproach
AsdiscussedinSection1,theCityDepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW)identifiedthefollowingareaswithinthe Cityasbeingindicativeofthetypesofprojectsthatwillrequirefunding: KingStreet/MarketStreetarea BridgeStreet/Meadowsarea ElmStreetBrook/Florencearea RyanRoadarea
Theseprojectsillustratethescaleandcostoftypicalcapitalprojects.Therearesimilarcapitalprojectsneeded acrosstheCity. CampDresser&McKeeInc.(CDM)conductedfieldinspectionsoftheseareastoassessthecurrentconditionof thedrainagesystems.Thiswasaccomplishedbyphysicallywalkingthesystemandinspectingselected structures,landusetypes,topography,verifyingGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)mapping,andnoting defectsorotherconditionsthatshouldbeconsideredduringhydrologicmodeling.Highlightsofthefield inspectionsareprovidedhereinthefollowingsections;AppendixAprovidesdetailedfieldinspection memorandaandphotographs.
2.2.2 DrainageAnalysisApproach
CDMperformeddrainageanalysesofthesefourfloodproneandcriticaldrainageareasunderexistingand futurebuildoutconditionstoexaminethedrainagesystemscapacitiesandsizenewdrainsifneeded.The drainageanalysesdeterminedpeakratesofrunoffduring2,10,25,and100year24hourstormeventsusing theU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersHECHMSFloodHydrographPackage,version3.5.Thiscomputermodel simulatesrunoffandroutingofstormwaterflowsthroughthewatersheds,andisbasedontheSoilConservation Service(SCS)Method.CDMusedspreadsheetsbasedonManningsEquationandtheOrificeEquation(allowing systemsurchargingtowithinonefootofthemanholecover)toevaluatethecapacityofselectedclosed drainagesystemstocontrolpeakratesofrunoffduringa10year24hourstormunderfuturebuildout conditions.Chapter290,Section52oftheCityCoderequiresthatcloseddrainagesystemsbedesignedfora minimum10yearstormevent.Openchannelsandculvertsservingmajordrainageareas,aswellasstormwater detention/retentionbasins,wherefloodingwouldproducepropertydamageorasafetyhazard,aredesignedto controlpeakratesofrunoffduringaminimum25year24hourstorm,andifpossible,a100year24hourstorm. PrecipitationdataforstandardstormsusedinthemodelsweretakenfromCornellUniversityAtlasof PrecipitationExtremesfortheNortheasternUnitedStatesandSoutheasternCanada(September1993).The estimatedprecipitationdepthsduringthe2,10,25,and100year24hourstormsare3.11,4.38,5.37,and 7.35inches,respectively.ComparedtorainfalldepthsinTechnicalPaperNo.40(RainfallFrequencyAtlasof theUnitedStates),therainfalldepthsfromtheCornellUniversitystudyarehigherforstormsgreaterthana10 year24hourstorm,andprovideamoreconservativeevaluationanddesignofexistingandproposed stormwatermanagementfacilities,aswellasafactorofsafetyforpotentialclimatechange. CDMdelineatedsubdrainageareaswithineachstudyareausingtopographicandexistingdrainagesystem informationtakenfromtheCitysGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)mapping.TheGISmappingwasalso usedtodeterminethelanduse,hydrologicsoilgroup(HSG),andimperviousareawithineachsubdrainagearea. Curvenumbers(CNs)wereassignedtoeachlandusebasedontheHSGtodevelopaweightedCNforeachsub drainagearea.
24
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions Todeterminefuturebuildoutconditions,CDMconsultedwiththeDirectoroftheNorthamptonOfficeof PlanningandDevelopmenttodeterminewhichsubdrainageareasarelikelytoundergodevelopmentinthe future.CurvenumbersintheHECHMScomputermodelwereadjustedtoreflectfuturebuildoutconditions. Runoffvelocitiesforestimatingtimeofconcentration(Tc)werebasedontheSCSNationalEngineering Handbook,Figure15.2VelocitiesforUplandMethodofestimatingTc.AminimumTcof10minuteswasused forallsubdrainageareaslessthan1acre,whileaminimumTcof15minuteswasusedforallsubdrainageareas greaterthan1acre.CDMusedMuskingumroutingtoaccountforattenuationofpeakflowswithindrainage areas.
2.3 FloodingProblems
AsdiscussedinSection1,theDPWidentifiedfourdrainageareasthatarepronetosignificantfloodingand/or areincriticalareas(Figure1.1).Foreachstudyarea,CDMperformedafieldinspectionofthedrainagesystem, developedanexistingconditionsHECHMScomputermodel,anddevelopedpotentialalternativestorelieve flooding.Thissectionprovidesasummaryofthiseffort.InAppendixB,TablesB.1throughB.4presenttheHEC HMSmodelingresultsunderexistingconditionsforthefourstudyareas.Similarly,TablesB.5throughB.8 presenttheHECHMSmodelingresultsunderfuturebuildoutconditions. CDMalsoperformedpipecapacityanalysesforexistingandfuturebuildoutpipeconditionsformajordrainlines andforstreetsknowntohavefloodingproblemsintheKingStreet/MarketStreetarea,BridgeStreet/Meadows area,andElmStreetBrook/Florenceareas.TablesinAppendixCprovidetheexistingandfuturebuildoutpipe capacityanalyses.Thepipecapacityanalysisevaluatedtheadequacyofthepipesforpeakratesofrunoffduring a10year24hourstormevent.AManningsnvalueof0.013wasusedforallproposedreinforcedconcrete pipes.Pipesthathaveinadequatehydrauliccapacityandarerecommendedforimprovementsarehighlighted intheTablesinAppendixC.Insomecases,somepipesthatareshowntonothavesufficientcapacityarenot recommendedforimprovementsandjustificationisprovidedinthetable.Thissectionofthereportdescribes themajordrainlinesthatneedtobeimproved,butadditionalsmallerlinesarepresentedinthisappendix.All pipeslessthan12inchindiameterarealsohighlightedandrecommendedforreplacementwithaminimum12 inchdiameterpipe.Upgradingofthesepipesisnotascriticalasotherrecommendeddrainagesystem improvementsandshouldbetargetedforthelaterphasesoftheCapitalImprovementPlan.
2.3.1 BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea
2.3.1.1SiteInspectionandAreaDescription
AreaDescription TheBridgeStreet/Meadowsareaiscurrentlyservedbytwoseparatedrainagesystems.Portionsoftheareaare locatedintheConnecticutRiverfloodplainontheeasternsideoftheCityandupstreamportionslieathigher elevationswestandnorthofthefloodplain.ThedrainagesystemisshownonFigure2.2.Theopendrainage channelalongCrossPathRoaddowntotheleveeinthevicinityofEasternAvenue,andthecrosscountryclosed drainagesystemparalleltoBridgeStreetarepronetoflooding. OnthewestsideofBridgeStreet,theDayAvenueBrookdrainageareaisconnectedtoalowlyingdrainlinethat runsthroughresidentialbackyardsbetweenDayAvenueandMarshallStreetandflowsinanortheasterly directionacrossDamonRoaddischargingtotheConnecticutRiverthroughthe42inchMassDOToutfall.This outfallrecentlycollapsedonariverbankthatwashedout.Thelargeindustrialareanorthwestofthese neighborhoodsalsodischargestothisoutfall,andisapotentialareaformanagingstormwateronsitewithBest ManagementPractices(BMPs),suchasraingardens,permeablepavementandstreetplanters.MassDOTis currentlypreparingdrawingstorepairthecollapsedoutfall.
25
106678803490311
15 7
15 7
15
21
118
7 13
15 7
13 7
60
14 7
12
157
7 14
18
6
7 18
12
18
BR IDG E
14 7
18
60
7 14
127
CEMETERY ROAD
24 18
7 16
SOUTH BRANCH
15
7 14
7 12
11 8
7 15
CROSS PATH
12
RO AD
18
18
CU ROOK PINE B RVE
15
12
IN D
HAM PS
15 JA CK SO NS TR EE T
18 7
HIRE HE
IGH TS
DR IV E
24
13 7
12 7
15
12
118
12
12
8 6
10
13 7
36
15
DA MO
118
18
12
18
12
21
24
12
10
14 7
NR OA D
118
10 8
11 8
12 7
15
12
10
48
10 8
11 8
24
12
16 7
15
36
13
14 7
18
BR ID G
17 7
15 7
ST RE ET
12
36
48
12
7 13
42
36
CO N
12
NE CT
12
24
IC UT
RI
BAY ROAD
18
AQUAVITAE ROAD
7 17
ROAD
118
11 8
91
15
H RT NO KI NG E RE ST T
17 7
HA MP
TO NM
118
AN OR D
8 11
RIV E
18
16 7
8 10
11 8
15
12
15 7
LAN EP
15 7
LAN TR OA D 12
8 10
11 8
18
18
18
14 7
15
12
14 7
15 7
12 7
ST RUSSELL
REET
BAY ROA D
118
11 8
US TR IA L
24
18
118
21
12
18
18
13 7
BARRETT
12
ST RE ET
HILL DR IV
24
18
24
24
PHEASA NT
CR OS B
12
13 7
24
7 14
30
24
24
STREET
12
15 7
24
15
18
137
15
18
12
15
ISE DEN
E STR KING
7 14
RT COU
15 7
ET
11 8
VE R
30
12
21
21
18
D IN VE RI LD IA TR US 12
M ER SH
15
7 14
7 14
12 7
K AN RB VE RI
15
S TE BA
CO OLI DG EA VEN UE
E AV
12
30
A RO
15
13 7
AN E NU
12
8
13 7
12
10
12
AD UNNAMED RO
7 14
ET RE ST
24
7 13
14 7
16 7
14 7
12
NU E
12 7
12
DA Y
8
AV E
1
S OS CR
12
14 7
E
E NU VE A
NU E
10
STR EET
FRA NKL IN
18 7
14 7
12
12
36
7 17
15
18 7
36
19 6
12
RD
6 20
DP FIEL WAR
LACE
14 7
12
G
12
FINN STREET
10
12
12
12
12
25 5
15
H
48
48
13 7
HL HIG
UE EN AV ND A
4 N
ST RE E
137
S NT CE ES CR
18 7
19 6
12
14 7
OR CH A
12
T
15
T EE TR
12
24
F
12
PE OS PR
12
RO AD
12
36
RD DA OD ST
137
ST
ET RE
V SA KIN 2 ER 1 P
UE EN
30
18
18
W O
147
18
30
R TE IN W
E RE ST
15
AV EN U
NO RT H
W LA
E AV
7 15
ST RE E
YE HA
12
E NU
B
VI E
14 7
15
14 7
14 7
2
NT RA G
13 7
NO RT HE RN
10
AV E
EL I
ZA B
18
ET H
12
ST RE ET
OLD FE RRY RO AD
3
12 7
OD M
NT
CROSS PATH
14 7
RD FO AD BR
RE ST
12
ROAD
17 7
17 7
15
12
ET
13 7
21
18
12
15
TH PA
21
AD RO
12
21
15
7 13
12 7
12
30
E AV
15
E NU
30
36
12
ILL DH UN RO A RO
30
36
36
13 7
12
S CT
12
T EE TR 18 7
Fairgrounds
15
15
10
21 6
I
13 7
12
10
24
24 6
10
10
24
12
S SQ ARD EDW
6
6
26 5
15
R ER CH
N IO UN
FA IR
12
12
RE SUMMER ST
ET
ST RE E
12
8 8
8
12
CLARK S CHOOL DRIV
REET BRIGHT ST
18
N IO UN
E RE ST
5
12 7
W AL
15
12
O
10
12
NU TT
12
RE ES
15
L
18
23 6
36
12
127
TYLE R
10
COU RT
24
36
10
14 7
10
15
8 11
10
15
36
R
54
36
10
12
19 6
12
30
66
18
BA NK
12
Q
CEN TER STR EET
12
15 7
12
12
24
GO TH IC
AV E
18 7
NU E
K
15
12
66
12
24
24
18
ST RE ET
16
18
ST RE ET
K COC HAN
7
24
10
13 7
12
66
AR M
10
MILL RIV
ER
12
12
CRAFTS AVENUE
48
BUTTON STREET
18
16
RY
12
E ENU N AV TER EAS

12 7
18
10
12
15
E STR
ET
11 8
10
66
118
12
S
18
Approximate Wetland Boundary Estimated by City
91
8
IVE E DR LLE G
10
U
18
66
8
12
12
H SMIT
CO
12
12 7
NU E
16 7
FACTORY STRE ET
36
10
FL O RI DA
18
NG KI
VE N TU R ER S
AV E
FI E
ET TRE EN S GRE
E SL
LD
15
12
UE EN AV
ET E STRE HOLYOK
R O AD
24
24
13 7
18
13 7
18
7 14
15
X
60
9
118
12
UE CLARK AVEN
10
ST R
60
EE T
15
10
12
SCHOOL STREET
12
SE RV IC E
12
12 7
12 7
18
FORT HILL TERRACE
16
HE NR Y
CO NZ
10
ST RE E
14
18
AV EN UE
10 8
MO NT V IE
12 7
11 8
12 7
118
66
82
W
13 7
LLA S ISABE
T TR EE
118
10
MAIN STREET
13 7
12
18
15
ST RE E
12
12
12
IT H
10
10
11 8
18
18
12
11 8
14 7
SM
11
G KIN
24
PAQ
15 7
12
LY MA
12
36
NU M
10 8
HO CK A
12 7
FR UI 12 T ST RE ET
24
36
15
DEW E
24
12
10
10 8
YC OU R T
CE NT ER
60
10 8
10
K NOO
10
24
West Street Stormwater Pumping Station

HEBERT AVEN UE
12 7
RO AD
13 7
8
MU NR OE
7 16
10
10
15 7
12 7
14 7
7 13
ER
LL
RI
EA S
15
S XA TE
7 13
13 7
12
10
TS
AD RO
12
TR EE T
16 7
137
SO
H UT
RE ST
12
ET
17 7
12
118
12 7
ST RE ET
108
11 8
12
13 7
12
15
RO AD
11 8
Legend
Drainage Area Boundary
King Street Brook Drainage Area ID Williams Street Brook Drainage Area ID
Stormwater Pumping Station Drain Pipe Drain Lateral Culvert Drainage Channel Detention/Retention Basin
Contour Levee Parcel Boundary

91 91
Area Prone to Flooding Drain Manhole Catch Basin/Inlet Stormwater Outfall Building DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS)
350
175
0 Feet
350
700
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 2.2 King Street/Market Street and Bridge Street/Meadows Drainage Areas
\\Camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\KingSt_WilliamSt_DrainageArea_Map.mxd JD 11/21/2011
ST R O N G
PA TH
EE TR
D ROA
12
EE 15 STR Y
R O
REET MYRTLE ST
15
12
AD
118
12
12
18
14
27 5
22 6
EET FAIR STR
8
6
48
E UAR
18
12
44
12
8
167
13 7
ET STATE STRE
54
18
157
54
24
12
12
TTE UE AVE E NU
7 17
12
24
54
21
44
17 7
36
18
18
12
10
12
7 12
72
15
24
15
NE E LA LE G COL
8
8 11
12
7 12
14 7
24
15
48
E NU VE DA OA ILR RA
25
13 7
HI S
TO
A PLE
18
T SAN
8
12 7 13 7
C RI
LL MI
EET STR
12 7
24
RIV
10
ER
15
12
L BE M NT O UE EN AV
118
15
24
12
14 7
18
118
SH
WAY IGH
G ED EW O D O E AC R R TE
12 7
12
15
7 12
12
18
Section2ExistingConditions TheseconddrainagesysteminthisareaistheWilliamsStreetBrookdrainagesystemwhichincludesdeveloped areasalongandwestofBridgeStreet,PomeroyTerrace,andWilliamsStreet,aswellaslessdevelopedareas eastofBridgeStreetintheConnecticutRiverfloodplain.TheWilliamsStreetBrookdrainlineflowssouthand dischargestotheHistoricMillRiver.Thefloodplainareahasexperiencedrepetitivefloodingparticularlyinthe followingareas:SheldonFieldandParkingLot,theThreeCountyFairgrounds,OldFerryRoad,CrossPathRoad, FairStreet,andtheundevelopedareatothesouthofFairStreetparticularlytothewestofCrossPathRoadand alongthealignmentoftheWilliamsStreetBrookdrainagepipe.Thisfloodinghascausedlocalroadstobecome impassibleinmoderatestormsandcausedicingproblemsinthewinterinthislowlyingfloodplain.Thedrainage systempassesthroughtheEastLevee(describedbelow)andincludesavalvestructurewiththepurposeof preventingfloodwatersfrompassingthroughthedike.ThevalveisshutonlywhentheConnecticutRiverhas reachedalevelof115feetatthegaugingstationattheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStation,arare occurrencewhichresultsinathesystembeingtemporarilyoutofservice.AlargeredevelopmentoftheThree CountyFairgroundsisplannedinthenearfuture;thus,upgradestoexistingdrainageinfrastructuretoimprove thedrainagesystemsinthisareaareneededinconcertwiththisprojectscompletion. FieldInspection OnTuesdayNovember30,2010,CDMconductedafieldsurveyofthe BridgeStreet/Meadowsareadrainagesystem. TheWilliamsStreetBrooksystemsoutfallislocatedintheeastbankof theHistoricMillRivernearthewastewatertreatmentplantentrance.The 24inchconcretepipewasabout30percentfilledinwithsiltand sediment.ItwasalsoobservedthattheHistoricMillRiveritselfwashighly silted. Upstream,themaintrunklineofthedrainagesystemrunscrosscountry Photo2.1WilliamsStreetBrook betweenWilliamsStreetandValleyStreet.Thereisalsoabranchof15 Outfall and12inchdrainsonWilliamsStreet,whichcombineswiththemain trunklineonHockanumRoad.Therewasnosignofrecentstreetfloodinginthisarea. InthewoodedwetlandareainthefloodplainadjacenttotheEastLevee,severalinletstothestormwater systemwerefound,alongwithanetworkofdrainageditches.Theseshallowditchesconveystormwaterfrom upstreamfieldareasduringhighwaterevents.Theinletstothestormwatersysteminthisareaactasrelieffor thedrainduringpeakflowsandalsoallowfloodedareastodrainafterraineventshavesubsided. Thereisacollapsed42inchdiameterMassachusettsDepartmentofTransportation(MassDOT)outfallatthe ConnecticutRivernearDamonRoadthatisconnectedtodrainsinthenearbyindustrialparkandresidential areas.Theoutfallareahasfallenintosignificantdisrepairandincludespipesotherthanthe42inchdrain. Severebankerosionattheoutfallsitehassloughedoffsoilabout50feetbackfromtheoriginalbankofthe river.Approximately50yardsupstream,amanholeadjacenttoDamonRoadwasinspectedandfoundtobein excellentcondition. LastlythefloodplainareaaroundtheThreeCountyFairgroundswasinspected,includingFairStreet,OldFerry Road,andCrossPathRoadandassessedforthepotentiallocationforstormwatermanagementfacilities.
27
106678803490311
2.3.1.2ExistingConditionsHydraulicModel
TheBridgeStreet/Meadowsareawatershedisapproximately185acresandisamixtureofindustrial,dense urbanresidential,andspecialconservancydistricts.ThisareaincludestheThreeCountyFairgroundsand agriculturalland.Figure2.2showsthesubdrainageareadelineations(identifiedbynumbers)anddrainage systemsfortheBridgeStreet/Meadowsarea. TheBridgeStreet/Meadowsareacloseddrainagesystemconsistsoftwomainlines,oneflowingsouthandthe otherflowingnorth.ThedividinglinebetweenthesouthandnorthsystemsisatLincolnAvenue.Thesouth flowingdrainline(WilliamsStreetBrook)rangesinsizefrom12to24inchesindiameter.ItoriginatesonBridge Street(Route9)andbecomesacrosscountrysystemattheThreeCountyFairgroundsatOldFerryRoad.It traversesthroughresidentialandagriculturallandandgoesthroughtheEastLeveebeforedischargingtothe HistoricMillRiver.Thenorthflowingdrainline(DayAvenueBrook)rangesinsizefrom12to42inchesin diameter.ItoriginatesatLincolnAvenueandtravelscrosscountrythroughanoldstreambeduntilthe intersectionofMarshallandCrosbyStreets.AttheintersectionofCrosbyStreetandtheNorwottuckRailTrail, thedrainlineconvergeswithadrainlinefromtheindustrialpark,andthencrossesunderInterstateRoute91, dischargingtotheConnecticutRiveratDamonRoadviatheMassDOT42inchdiametercollapsedpipe Thepeakratesofrunoffduring2,10,25,and100year24hourstormeventsforeachsubdrainageareacan befoundonTableB.1inAppendixB.Thepipecapacityanalysisforexistingconditionsfoundthatseveralpipes areundercapacity,asshownonthetablesinAppendixC.Theresultsofthepipecapacityanalysisarediscussed ingreaterdepthinthefollowingsection.
2.3.1.3PreliminaryReviewofAlternatives
ToaddressfloodingthatoccursinthefloodplainareabetweenBridgeStreetandRouteI91,includingthe Fairgroundarea,CDMconsideredthreealternatives. 1. CreateafloodstorageareaupstreamoftheEastLeveenearPomeroyTerrace.Thisareacurrentlyfloods whenthe24inchsystemisabovecapacity.Preliminarymodelingindicatesthattheproposedfloodstorage areawouldhaveasurfaceareaofapproximatelythreeacresanda25yearstormmaximumstagedepthof 3.5feet.However,thisalternativewaseliminatedfromconsiderationbecauseafieldinvestigationofthe areabyNorthamptonstaffindicatesthattheproposedfloodstoragearealocationisawetland,asshownon Figure3.1.CDMhasreceivedpermissionfrompermittingagenciesinMassachusettsinthepasttoenhance thefloodstoragecapabilitiesofwetlandsasameasuretoprotectpropertiesfromextremeflooding; however,theMassachusettsDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionprefersthatthisnotbedone. Stormwaterdetention/retentionbasinsaregenerallydesignedtoprotectwetlandareas,nottousethemas basins. Collectstormwaterrunofffromsubdrainageareas2and4androutetheflowsnorththroughtheexisting crosscountrydrainagesystemtotheexistingMassDOT42inchdiameterpipethatdischargestothe ConnecticutRiver.Theadditionalflowtothenorthflowingdrainagesystemfromareas2and4is40cfs. Thepipecapacityanalysisunderexistingconditionsindicatesthatthe42inchdiameterpipeisundersized andneedstobea66inchdiameterpipe.Similarly,thecrosscountrypipesfromLincolnAvenuetoMarshall Streetareundersizedunderexistingconditionsandneedtobereplacedwitha18inchto36inchdiameter drains.Constructionofthisreplacementdrainagesystemwouldrequireobtainingeasementsfromallthe privatepropertyownersabuttingthepipe.CDMalsoconsidereddirectingtheflowsfromareas2and4to BridgeStreet.However,BridgeStreetisabusystateroad(Route9),whosegroundelevationisnearly10 feethigherthanthegroundelevationofthecrosscountrypipe.Thus,becauseofthedifferencesinthe groundelevations,itwouldbedifficulttoconveyflowstotheexisting42inchdiameterpipeviagravity flow. 28
106678803490311
2.
Section2ExistingConditions 3. RedirectflowsfromtheThreeCountyFairgrounds,andsubdrainageareas1,2,and3toOldFerryRoad, throughtheairport,totheConnecticutRiverinordertoaddressthefloodinginthefloodplainarea.An alternativealignmentisdirectingflowstoOldFerryRoad,thentoCrossPathRoad,dischargingatthe ConnecticutRiver.Thetotalflowcollectedis90cfsandrequiresa48inchdiameterpipe.Thepipe alignmentfromOldFerryRoadtoCrossPathRoadremainsonallpublicroads,avoidingtheneedfor easementsattheairport,butitislongerthanthepipealignmentthroughtheairport.Bothalignments createanewdischargetotheConnecticutRiver.Despitethelogisticalandpermittingconsiderations associatedwiththisalternative,itachievestheobjectiveofreducingthefloodingtotheagriculturalland adjacenttoPomeroyTerrace,whilestillcontinuingtoprovideflowstotheexistingwetlandlocatedadjacent tothelevee.
Aspreviouslystated,thepipecapacityanalysisindicatesthattheexistingMassDOT42inchdiameterpipethat dischargestotheConnecticutRiverneedstobeupsizedtoa66inchdiameterpipe.Calculationsindicatethat the48inchdiameterpipeservingtheindustrialareajustupstreamofthispipeshouldbeupsizedtoa60inch diameterpipe.SimilartothecommercialareaupstreamofChurchStreetintheKingStreetarea,thereare opportunitiesinthisindustrialareatoinstallonsitestormwaterBMPstoreducepeakstormwaterdischarges. CDMrecommendsthatthepropertyownersintheindustrialparkmanagestormwateronsitewithBMPsto reduceflowsinsteadofupsizingtheexisting48inchdiameterpipe.CDMdoesrecommendthattheMassDOT upsizetheexisting42inchdiameteroutfalltoa66inchdiameterpipewhentheyrepairthepipeinthenear future.Repairingtheexisting42inchdiameterpipeandusingtheexistingparallel24inchdiameterpipedoes notprovidesufficientcapacitytoconveythecalculatedflows. ThepipecapacityanalysisindicatesthatothersectionsoftheBridgeStreet/Meadowsareadrainagesystems needtobeupsizedtoconveyfuturebuildoutflows.Insubdrainagearea12,theexisting12to18inch diametercrosscountrysystemneedstobereplacedwith18to36inchdiameterpipes.However,giventhat thissystemislocatedinaformerstreambed,obtainingsufficientcoverforthosepipesmaybedifficult.Twin pipesoralternativeboxculvertorovalpipesystemsmayneedtobeusedhere.Insubdrainagearea9the existingsysteminWilliamsStreetneedstobereplacedwith18to24inchdiameterpipes.The24inch diameterpipeatthedownstreamendoftheWilliamsStreetBrookneedstobeupsizedtoa42inchdiameter pipefromtheoutfallattheHistoricMillRivertojustupstreamofHockunamRoadandthenupsizedtoa30inch diameterpipetojustupstreamofMontviewAvenue.SeeSection3.2.3foradiscussionoftherecommended planandpreliminarycostestimate.
2.3.2 ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea
AreaDescription TheElmStreetBrookwatershedincludesamixtureofrural/lightlydevelopedlandandmoderatedensity developmentincluding:alargeportionoftheFlorencedowntownarea,residentialareas,CooleyDickinson Hospital,NorthamptonHighSchool(NHS),andSmithVocationalandAgriculturalHighSchool.Thebrookenters acloseddrainagesystemattheMassDOTpropertyonLocustStreetandattheNorthamptonHighSchooland ultimatelydischargestotheMillRiver.FloodingcurrentlyoccursattheintersectionofElmStreet,MiltonStreet andRiversideDrive,alongandsouthofElmStreetwestofthisintersection,NuttingAvenue,andatthe intersectionofMiltonStreetandOrmondDrive.Thefloodingcausestheseroadstobecomeimpassableat times.ThedrainagesystemisshownonFigure2.3.
29
106678803490311
15
NORTH MAPLE STREET
BURNCOLT ROAD
24 6
295
24 6
25 5
27 5 26 5
29 5
24 6
25 5
V CLO
STERLING ROAD
OL HAR
T REE D ST
M CIRARC CL E
28 5
MA JA RY LA NE NE
25 5
10
12
LEENO TERRACE
OLYN CAR ET E STR
12
12
25 5
NU E
12
GR AN DV IEW
HASTINGS HEIGHTS
CL AIR E
ES PIN GE ED IVE DR
ST RE ET
12
18
AV E
10
BRIDGE ROAD
23 6
18
10
ET
HOWES ST RE
6 22
15
5 30
KIMBALL ST REET
28 5
25 5
25 5
26 5
12
27 5
12
LAUREL RIDGE DRIVE

6 21
15
10
POWELL STREET
A
HILLC R EST DRIV E
265
LAKE STREET
12
12
HAWTHORN LANE
EM LA IL NE Y
15
H
RMS ROA D
C
ghton s B roo B r ou
k
12
GO CH LDE LA AIN N NE
EMILY LANE
FOX FA
12
27 5
31 4
28 5
BR PI N E O OK
E
27 5
22 6
12
BR ID G
22 6
12
NORTH MAPLE STREET
Brou g Br ht o oo n s k
D
10
27 5
SHALLOW B
12
25 5
12
BER HILL RY
12
12
WARRE N STREET
STRA W
RO AD
ROOK DR IVE
K OO BR W E O IV AD DR ME
12
17 7
ASPEN LANE
12
12
KING AVENUE
AS P LA EN NE
12
ASPE N LANE
L IE TF HA
15 7
ET RE ST
15
12
12
BARDWELL STREET
12
NE
I
24 6
NORTH ELM STREET
B
LD S TREE T
12
216
SHEF FIELD LA
VER ON A S
7 16
TRE ET
20 6
12
18
PI BR NE OO K
BRIDGE ROAD
NUE
15
STREE
24
236
12
12
12
N AVE
GAR FIE
STILS O
CHEST NU T
F
HIGH STRE ET
STRA W
GARF IE AVEN LD UE
15
10
20 6
K
s ton gh k ou o Br Bro
25 5
GLE ASO N
ROA D
FRA STR NCIS EET
AVEN UE
18
18
21
FRA STR NCIS EET
GLE ASO
12
NR OAD
27 5
KEYES STREET
T STR EET
12
TR EE
PR OS PE
26 5
PARK STRE ET
NO R M TH ST AIN RE ET
24
27
PLACE
PLYMOUTH STREET
MEADOW BROOK DRIVE
B ro ug h Br to ns o ok
18
L
ST R EE T
BRA TT COU ON RT
NUE
AVENUE
WILDE R
PLYMO UTH AV E
24
SUMNER AVENUE
FAIRFIELD
12
8
MAPLE STREET
10
CHES TN STRE U T ET
MAIN STREET FLORENC E
O
12
12
18
N
MIDDLE STREET
18
NOR T STR H ELM BRA EET NCH
PA STR RK EET
TER RAC E LA
NE
RID GE TER WOOD RAC E
TRINIT Y ROW
12
12
15
6 22
10
12
12
15
20 6
21
DAN AS TRE ET
HOL LY HEI WOOD GHT S
18
P
DANA ST
12
HOL LY HEI WOOD GH TS
Broughton Brook s
255
H AT FI EL
OW AD T ME REE ST
18
MAIN S FLOR TREET ENC E
12
KING BR S T OO K
12
206
19 6
36
187
IAN SM CO ENUE AV
CHES TNU
12
10
12
CT AVE
15
19 6
NU E
DE PO TS
21 6
ALL IS
12
HIGH STREE T
ON S
TRE ET
BLA CKB LAN ERRY E
24
12
RID GE TER WOO RAC D E
12
275
12
HA TF 8 IE LD ST RE ET
18
REET
30
L TH E NOR
PILGRIM
21 6
WEST CE NTER STR EE
BERKS H IR TERRA E CE
12
187
SUN HIL LD RIV E
D ST ANA RE ET
18
10
10
12
24
PI STR NE EET
10
PINE STREET
10
236
10
R S
o ns
ughtons Bro ok ro B
TRE ET
23 6
10
15
LO ST CUS RE T ET
23 6
DICKINSON STREET
12
15
RO EA VE
ET
TER RAC E
12
12
ok
rou g ht
NO R AVE FOLK NU E
Bro
SMI TH S
10
12
275
12
10
12
LO ST C RE US ET T
23 6
MAPLE STREE T
NE WS
ST RE E
EN U E
12
236
18
BAK ER HIL LR OA
CHI LDS
6 20
V
NORTH ELM STREET
20 6
20 6
ROA D
10
ELM
167
STR EET
12
10
PIO N VAL EER L DRI EY VE
MA P 12 TE LEW RR OO AC D E
NUT AVE TING NUE
WILL O STR W EET
4 32
12
IVE DR
285
12
12
NER WAR ET E STR
MA S ST SAS RE OI ET T
VE RI
RS
ID
21
OR MO ND
MIL ST TON RE ET
48
12
12
15
10
18
10
15
L HI L SAN DY OK BRO
29 5
314
305
SAN DY I H B RO O K
15
IL
LL
K
E
6
26 5
15
12
CC
12
10
CH IL DS
PA RK
RO AD
15
15
LOW WINS UE AVEN
Bro u Bro ghtons ok
Y
10
15
19 6
12
DD
L RA DE T FE REE ST
Br o u gh on s Br ook
CH ILD SP AR KR OA D
21 6
HOS PITA L RO AD
AR L ST ING RE TO ET N
19 6
CHI LDS
PAR K
WOO DLA W
18
N AV
ENU E
15
X
10
PAR K
15
PLACE DENNISTON
12
DR
AA
18
IVE
ST EL R M EE T
ON GT T LIN REE AR ST
255
275
ST EL RE M ET
24
18
19 6
WARNER STREET
24 6
10
16 7
12
12
KLEY HINC
18 7
10
MUR TER PHY RAC E
12
ROA D
CH ILD SP AR KR OA D
LAN DY AV
PRO SP
ECT
STR EET
24
8
JE W ET T
12
Z
ST RE E T
SAN DER AVEN SON UE
12
10
10
10
R O AD
RO AD
15 7
M AY N AR D
EE
12
RN EY
FI E
EL M
LD
KE A FI RN RO ELD EY AD
KE A
4 31
BB
ST RE ET
15
HIG MEA H DO ROA W D
24
18
15
OD E WO NU E AV
16 7
15
12
32 4
. m St El Bro ok
F AV OR EN BE UE S
12
W AS AV HIN EN G U TO E N
ER
RO AD
20 6
26 5
VE ST RN RE ON ET
IV
AD OW
24
21
HA RR IS O
IL
LR
. m St El rook B
18
JA M
W AS PL HIN AC GT E ON
ME
20 6
AV E
33 4
10
NU E
15 7
GH
N TO G E IN NU S N E KE AV
12
HI
10
6 22
ES
AV E
7 18
NU E
DR YA DS
15
10
6 19
17 7
T EN EM ET CL TRE S
7 15
12
12
WARD AVENUE
GR EE
30
DR EX GR YA TE EE DS NS N IO N
7 15
8
O R AD
7 14
12
21 6
E IS AD R PA
10
13 7
24 6
255
275
26 5
16 7
IL
E IV
R
147
15 7
167
19 6
7 13
17 7
28 5
20 6
18 7
196
216
13 7
Legend
Drainage Area Boundary Area Prone to Flooding Drain Manhole Catch Basin/Inlet Stormwater Outfall Stormwater Pumping Station
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\ElmSt_DrainageArea_Map.mxd SCC July 2011
Drain Pipe Drain Lateral Culvert Drainage Channel Detention/Retention Basin
Contour Parcel Boundary Building

91
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 2.3 Elm Street Brook/Florence Drainage Areas
350 175 0 Feet 350 700
DEP Wetlands
91
Wetlands (MassGIS)
FRANKLIN STREET
18 7
18 7
8
L DE AN M LE R AD O
10
M AP
10
12
12
LE
12
K TUC NO NO
10
10
NONO TUCK STRE ET
15
EET STR
T
SM ITH SE SCH R O RO VICE OL AD
18
10
10
18 7
10
24
10
236
TAY LO
RS
12
TRE ET
12
10
H UT SO AIN T M EE R ST
10 12
PRO S HEI PECT GHT S
JACK
CHO OL DRI VE
H RT NO ELM EET P R R ST OS ST RE PE ET CT
M EL H ET RT RE NO ST
SON STR E
BEA STR CON EET
10
NU E
MAN N
187
15
12
24
NE PI EET TR S
D RIVE
24
12
CA TER LVIN RA CE
206
12
33
15
15
36
12
16 7
16 7
12
HATFIELD
STREET
177
26 5
PINES EDGE DRIVE
24 6
24 6
S ALE ER D ET TRE
275
24 6
26 5
246
6 24
12
TA UN MO IN E RE ST T
4 32
12
5 29
5 27
28 5
VE EA OK CO
ns h to Broug Broo k
E NU
18 7
7 16
E NU VE EA 12 OK CO
10
12
36
12
AK T O EE R ST
6 19
H RT NO LM T E EE R ST
12
12
15
s t on gh o u ok Br Bro
H E LM NORT E STRE T
30
48
10
ET TRE MS
12
20
23 6
8
15
5 29
12
M EL H T RT EE NO STR
12
6 21
12
17 7
15
6 21
20 6
6 19
KLEY HINC EET STR
H RT NO M EL ET E STR
10
15
ELM ET H STRE RT T NO M EE EL ET STR E ELM STR
36
EET STR
RA DE FE
D OO RW NO
LS
18
EE TR
24 6
18 7
UE EN AV
10
10
ON GT XIN UE LE VEN A
TY ER LIB REET ST
L RA T DE EE FE TR S
7 14
R VE RI SI D DE
18
28 5
27 5
VE RI
29 5
5 30
BO OM TT RO AD
6 23
15
DD E LA NU E AV
5 25
6 20
18
15
AD RO CE EN OR FL
H
IC E PO ND
6 19
5 30
21
Section2ExistingConditions FieldInspection OnWednesday,December22,2010CDMconductedafieldsurveyoftheElmStreetBrookdrainagesystem. ThestormwaterretentionpondlocatedadjacenttoFederalStreet,southoftheNorthamptonHighSchool athleticfields,isfedbya36inchhighdensitypolyethylene(HDPE)drainpipeoriginatingonElmStreet.The retentionpondwasfoundtoneedsomeroutinemaintenancetoremovesomeofthevegetationinthepond. ElmStreetBrook(Brook)crossesunderneathFederalStreetandemptiesintotheMillRiverthroughachannel thatisabout10feetwideand4to5feetdeep.TheboxculvertunderFederalStreetisinpoorcondition. Headwallsonbothsidesshowadvanceddegradation;theconcretehaschippedawaytoexposeasignificant amountofrebar. AttheintersectionofElmandMiltonStreetstheBrookisconveyedvia36inchand48inchculvertsunderElm Streetandthehighschoolgrounds,reemergingsouthofthetrack.Noblockageswerepresentduringthetime ofinspection,howeversomelargebrancheswerefoundinthedownstreammanholenearthehighschool parkinglot. Upstreamofthe36inchand48inchculverts,ElmStreetBrookflowsalongthenorthernsideofElmStreet.The streamiswellestablishedandismigratingveryclosetoElmStreet,exposingexistinggaslines.Upstreamofthis section,thebrookveersoffawayfromElmStreettowardstheSmithVocationalandAgriculturalHighSchools land.Thisareawasassessedforthepotentiallocationofastormwatermanagementbasin. TheBrookcrossesunderRoute9throughaculvertandmeandersupstreamthroughanareathatisgenerally heavilywoodedandundeveloped.
TheElmStreetBrookareawatershedisapproximately690 acresandisprimarilyamoderatelydenseresidentialareawith smallareasofindustrialandbusinessdevelopment,aswellasa specialconservancydistrict.The watershedalsoincludestheSmithVocationalandAgricultural HighSchool,CooleyDickensonHospitalandNHS.Subdrainage areadelineationsanddrainagesystemsareshownonFigure 2.3. Photo2.2ElmStreetBrook ThedrainagesystemfortheElmStreetBrookareawatershed consistsofanextensivenetworkofclosedpipesandopen channels,asshownonFigure2.3.Mostofthesubdrainageareas(totalingapproximately535acres)draintoan openchannellocatedalongthenorthsideofElmStreet.ThischannelcrossesunderElmStreetin36and48 inchdiameterculvertsatNHS.The36inchculvertconveysflowstoadetentionbasinonschoolproperty,which outletsunderFederalStreettoachannelthatdischargestotheMillRiver.The48inchculvertundertheplaying fieldsdaylightsintoanopenchannelonschoolpropertythatflowsunderFederalStreet,dischargingtothesame channelastheoutletfromthedetentionbasin. Thepeakratesofrunoffduring2,10,25,and100year24hourstormeventsforeachsubdrainageareacan befoundonTableB.2inAppendixB.Thepipecapacityanalysisforexistingconditionsfoundthatseveralpipes areundercapacity,asshownonthetablesinAppendixC.Theresultsofthepipecapacityanalysisarediscussed ingreaterdepthinthefollowingsection. 211
106678803490311
FloodingatElmStreetnearNuttingAvenueistheprimaryfloodingissueinthisdrainagearea.CDMconsidered threealternativestoalleviatefloodingintheseareas. 1. ConstructfloodstorageareajustdownstreamofthedirtroadontheSmithVocationalandAgriculturalHigh Schoolproperty.Thedrainageareatributarytothefloodstorageareaisverylarge478acres.Preliminary modelingindicatesthatthesurfaceareaofthefloodstorageareawouldneedtobecorrespondinglylarge, 32acres,withafourfootdesignflowdepth,tohaveasignificanteffectonreducingdownstreamflows.A floodstorageareaofthissizeisnotfeasibleatthissite. Eliminatethe18inchpipedischargetoElmStreetBrookattheintersectionofSouthMainStreetandElm Street,andupsizetheexistingpipeinFederalStreettoconveyanadditional32cfs.Thepipecapacity analysisunderfuturebuildoutconditionsforthisalternativeindicatesthattheexisting18inchdiameter pipeatthedischargepointtotheMillRiverneedstobeupsizedtoa54inchdiameterpipe.Thisalternative waseliminatedbecauseapproximately2,600feetofpipeinFederalStreetneedstobeupsizedandwillnot providereliefofthelocalizedfloodingalongElmStreet. ModifytheElmStreetBrookchanneltoprovidereliefatthelocationofflooding.AnalysisoftheElmStreet BrookchanneladjacenttoElmStreetindicatesthatitscapacityatitsnarrowestpointisapproximately90 cfs.ThenarrowestsectionofthechannelisclosesttothestreetandresultsinfloodingofElmStreetwhen itovertops.The10yearstormpeakrateofrunoffenteringthechannelatthislocationis270cfs.The channelisanenvironmentalresourceareathatpermittingagencieswillwanttopreserve.Any improvementstoenlargethechanneltoconveymoreflowmustpreservethechannelsnaturalpathand characteristics.Analternativetoenlargingthebrookistoinstalla7footby4footboxculvertinElmStreet toconveybrookoverflowstoMiltonStreet.Aweirstructureinstalledinthechannelcanredirectthe overflowsintothisculvert.TheexistingdrainagesysteminElmStreetwilltieintothissystem.Theexisting 12inchdiameterpipeinMiltonStreetwillbereplacedwitha48inchdiameterpipefromElmStreetto FederalStreet.TheboxculvertwilltiedirectlyintothispipeandanysurchargingwillbackupintotheElm StreetBrookchannelandflowintotheexisting36and48inchculvertsthatcrossunderElmStreet.In FederalStreet,theexisting18inchdiameterpipewillbeupsizedtoa48inchpipeandconveyflowswestto anewdischargepoint. Anew72inchdiameterpipewillbeconstructedfromFederalStreetandgothroughaparkinglot, dischargingupstreamofexistingwetlandsadjacenttotheMillRiver.AnewdischargepointtotheMillRiver protectstheexistingchannelandabuttersbetweenFederalStreetandtheMillRiverfromflooding.The proposeddischargepipesizeis72inchestoaccommodatefutureflowsfromFederalStreetaspartof neededfutureupgradestothedrainagesystem.InstallinganewpipeatMiltonStreetprovidesreliefatthe sourceoffloodingnearNHSandwillalsoreduceflowstothedetentionbasinatthehighschool.Milton Streetisscheduledforfulldepthreconstruction,makingitmorepracticaltoinstallanewpipeinMilton StreetandinashortersectionofFederalStreet,ratherthanconstructingnearly2,600feetofnewpipein FederalStreet. ThepipecapacityanalysisforthemajordrainlinesintheElmStreetBrookareaindicatesthatseveralpipesneed tobeenlargedtoaccommodate10year24hourpeakratesofrunoff.InFederalStreet,fromWarnerStreetto theproposednew72inchdiameterdischargepoint,itisrecommendedtheexistingsystembereplacedwith newpipesrangingindiameterfrom24to48inches.Inaddition,inFederalStreet,fromVernonStreettothe existingoutfalltotheMillRiver,theexisting10inchdiameterpipeneedstobeupsizedtoa36inchdiameter pipe.WithinsubdrainageareaF,fromHighStreettoStrawAvenue,theexistingdrainagesystemshouldbe
2.
3.
212
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions replacedwithanewsystemwithdiametersrangingfrom12to36inches.SeeSection3.2.4foradiscussionof therecommendedplanandpreliminarycostestimate.
2.3.3 KingStreet/MarketStreet/DowntownArea
AreaDescription ThetwomaintrunklinesintheKingStreetsystem(i.e.,KingStreetandMarketStreetBrooksystems)havean interconnectionatMainStreet(Rte.9)underneaththerailroadbridge.Thisinterconnectionwasinspectedby CDMandCitystaff.Itwasconfirmedthattheoldculvert(carryingsanitaryandstormflows)locatedinthe FitzwillysPubparkinglotwasabandonedandanewdiversionstructureconstructedinMainStreet.TheKing Streetmaintrunklineentersthediversionstructureasa66inchpipeandexitsthestructureasa60inchpipe. A36inchreliefpipeinthediversionstructureconnectstotheMarketStreetBrooksystem. ThedowntownKingStreetareahastwomaindrainlines.TheKingStreetdrainlineconveysstormwaterrunoff fromthehighlydevelopedcommercialareaalongRoute5(KingStreet)anddischargestotheHistoricMillRiver bed.TheMarketStreetBrookdrainline(discussedabove)originatesalongtheexistingabandonedrailroadbed inthevicinityofNorthStreet,betweenWoodmontRoadandHighlandAvenue,anditdischargestotheHistoric MillRiverbed.Thetwodrainagesystemsareconnectedtoeachotherthroughadiversionstructurelocatedon MainStreet.ThesedrainagesystemsareshownonFigure2.2.ThesectionofMainStreetundertherailroad bridgeandStateStreetfromjustnorthofMainStreettoSummerStreetarepronetolocalizedflooding. FieldInspection OnTuesdayDecember7,2010CDMconductedafieldsurveyoftheKing Streetareadrainagesystem. Therearetwodrainagesystems,bothofwhichdischargetotheHistoric MillRiverbed:a60inchcircularconcretepipelocatedunderthe railroadbridgeoffHockanumRoad,anda66inchcircularconcretepipe locatedbehindthecondominiumsonRandolphPlacenearthebikeway. Theriverbedhassignificantsedimentaccumulationinareas;however, theoutfallshadlessthan20percentsedimentattheendofthepipes andlooktobeingoodcondition. Photo2.366inOutfallatRandolphPlace ThefieldcrewmetwithDPWstafftodiscusssomespecificareas wherelocalizedfloodinghadoccurredinarecentstorm.Theseareas weretheNorthStreetunderpassbetweenMarketandKingStreets, condominiumsonGothicStreet,andStateStreetatStoddardStreet. OnNorthStreet,twocatchbasinsatthelowpointoftheunderpass directlyconnecttotheoldMarketStreetBrookculvertandflooding maybeduetotheneedformorefrequentcatchbasinmaintenanceor
Photo2.460inOutfallatHockanumRoad additionalgrate.
213
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions StoddardStreetisexperiencingfloodingfrombackwatercomingfromthewetlandbehindStop&Shop.Heavy beaveractivityhascausedwatertopoolupstreamofthewetlandssedimenttrapandmigratethrough homeownersyardsintothestreetalongthesideofthebikeway. StateStreethadbeenobservedwithlargepuddlesduringhighintensitydownpours.
TheKingStreetareawatershedisapproximately397acresandisamixtureofindustrial,businessandurban residentialdistricts.Businessandresidentialdevelopmentisdense,andincludessectionsofdowntown Northampton.ThehighlyimperviousbusinessdistrictisgenerallycenteredalongKingStreet.Thisdrainage areaalsoincludesportionsoftheSmithCollegecampus.SubdrainageareadelineationsandtheKingStreet areadrainagesystemsareshownonFigure2.2.TheKingStreet/MarketStreetareasubsystemsareidentified bylettersandtheBridgeStreet/Meadowsareasubsystemsareidentifiedbynumbersonthisfigure. TheKingStreetcloseddrainagesystemconsistsoftwomainlines,withtheoveralldrainageareanearlyequally dividedbetweenthetwosystems.TheKingStreetdrainlinerangesinsizefrom12inchesto66inchesin diameter.ItfollowsKingStreettoMerrickLane,andthentravelsdownStrongAvenue,PearlStreetand PleasantStreetbeforedischargingtotheHistoricMillRiverbed. TheMarketStreetBrookdrainlineoriginatesalongtheexistingabandonedrailroadbedinthevicinityofNorth Street,betweenWoodmontRoadandHighlandAvenue.ItgenerallyfollowstherailroadbedtoHockanum Road,beforedischargingtotheHistoricMillRiverbed.Itbeginsasa36inchdiameterpipeandthengradually increasesinsizethroughavaryingseriesofcircular,boxandarchpipes.Theapproximatemaximumequivalent diameterinthesystemis82inches.UpstreamoftheMarketStreetBrookcloseddrainagesystem,thereisa seriesofopenchannelsthatconveysstormwaterrunofffromtheindustrialparktotheMarketStreetBrook system.Additionally,thereisaprivate12inchcloseddrainagesystemthatoriginatesfromarearsectionof retailbusinessesalongKingStreet,whichalsotiesintotheupstreamendoftheMarketStreetBrooksystem.At theintersectionofMainStreetandStrongAvenue,thereisadiversionstructureintheKingStreetsystemthat divertsflowstotheMarketStreetsystemviaa36inchdiameterpipe. Thepeakratesofrunoffduring2,10,25,and100year24hourstormeventsforeachsubdrainageareacan befoundonTableB.3inAppendixB.Thepipecapacityanalysisforexistingconditionsfoundthatseveralpipes areundercapacity,asshownonthetablesinAppendixC.Theresultsofthepipecapacityanalysisarediscussed ingreaterdepthinthefollowingsection.
WithintheKingStreetarea,ChurchStreetiscurrentlypronetolocalizedflooding.Thepipecapacityanalysis indicatesthattheexisting21inchdiameterpipeinthisstreetcannotadequatelyconveyflowsunderexisting andfuturebuildoutconditionsduringa10year24hourstormevent.A36inchdiameterpipealongtheentire streetlengthisneededtorelievefloodingonChurchStreet. UpstreamofChurchStreet,theKingStreetsystemisslightlyundersizedfora10year24hourdesignstorm (thereisanexisting30inchdrainanda36inchdrainisneeded).Thereareopportunitiesonlargelyimpervious commercialpropertiesinthisareatomanagestormwateronsitewithBestManagementPractices(BMPs),such asbioretentionstreetplanters,raingardens,greenroofsandporouspavement.Arecommendedalternativeto upsizingthepipefrom30to36inchesistoinstallthesetypesofBMPstoreduceratesandvolumesof stormwaterrunofftothedrainagesysteminthissectionofKingStreet.Iftheproposedstormwaterutility programdescribedinSection5isadopted,propertyownerscanbeprovidedtheoptionofreceivingcreditand
214
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions reducingthecostoftheirutilitybillsforinstallingBMPsthatreducestormwaterrunoffandimprovethewater qualityofreceivingwaters. DownstreamofChurchStreet,itisrecommendedthattheKingStreetsystembeupsizedtoa48inchdiameter pipeatChurchStreetandgraduallyincreasedtoa72inchdiameterpipeatTrumbullRoad.Thesepipeswere sizedassumingthatBMPsarenotinstalledintheupstreamretailproperties. InStateStreetnearTrumbullRoad,thepipecapacityanalysisindicatesthata36inchdiameterpipeisneededto alleviatefloodingthatcurrentlyoccursnearTrumbullRoad.Upstreamofthe36inchdiameterpipe,itis recommendedtheexisting10inchlateralsystemthattiesintoStateStreetbeupsizedto12to24inch diameterpipes.InsubdrainageareaM(seeFigure3.1),itisrecommendedtheexisting12inchdiameter systembereplacedwithanewsystemthatrangesfrom12to18inchesindiameter.Theexisting24to36inch diameterpipeinTrumbullRoadshouldbereplacedwithanewsystemthatrangesfrom48to54inchesin diameter. DownstreamofTrumbullRoadtothediversionmanhole,thepipecapacityanalysisindicatesthattheexisting 48to66inchdiameterpipeinKingStreetneedstobeupsizedtoa78inchdiameterpipe.Thepipes downstreamofthediversionmanholeareadequatetoconveyflowsanddonotneedtobeupsized. Ingeneral,theMarketStreetBrooksystemhasnearlysufficientcapacitytoconveyflowsassociatedwiththe10 year24hourstormeventtotheHistoricMillRiverbed;however,upstreamofBridgeStreet,thepipesarein poorstructuralcondition,whichmaycontributetofloodingproblems.UpstreamofNorthStreet,thepipe capacityanalysisindicatesthatthe48inchdiameterequivalentsystemdescribedinSection2isadequateto conveyflows.However,the1981NorthIndustrialParkDrainageStudypreparedbyAlmerHuntley(Almer Huntleyreport)onthissystemnotedthattheoverallconditionofthissectionofpipeispoor.BetweenBridge StreetandNorthStreet,AlmerHuntleywasnotabletoinspectthepipebecausethemanholeswerenot accessible.TheydidinspectthepipejustdownstreamofNorthStreetandjustupstreamofBridgeStreet,and foundtheconditiontobepoor.Intheseareas,theAlmerHuntleyreportdocumentedlongitudinalcracksand missingbricksandstones.BetweenNorthStreetandBridgeStreet,theaverageequivalentpipediameteris44 inchesandCDMspipecapacityanalysisindicatesthata48inchdiameterpipeisneededtoadequatelyconvey flows.Thus,giventhepoorconditionoftheexistingsystemandthelackofsufficientcapacityinsomesections ofthesystem,CDMrecommendsreplacingthe44and48inchdiameterequivalentpipeswitha48inch diameterpipe.Repairingandupsizingthissectionofpipewillreducethelocalizedfloodingthatcurrentlyoccurs atNorthStreet. DownstreamofBridgeStreet,AlmerHuntleyfoundtheexistingMarketStreetBrooksystemtobeingood condition.However,aninspectionisrecommendedtoconfirmthecurrentcondition.Thepipecontinuestobe acompositeofpipediameters,shapesandmaterials,suchasabrickboxwithabrickarchroofandawooden plankfloor.CDMspipecapacityanalysisindicatesthatfromBridgeStreettotheoutfallattheHistoricMillRiver bedtheMarketStreetBrooksystemhasthecapacitytoconveyfuturebuildoutflowsand,thus,itisnot recommendedthatthissectionofpipebeupsized. ThedrainagesystemassociatedwithMarketStreetcurrentlytiesintotheMarketStreetBrooksystematBridge Street.Thesystembeginsasa12inchdiameterpipenearWalnutStreetandgraduallyincreasestoa24inch diameterpipeatBridgeStreet.ThepipecapacityanalysisindicatesthatthedrainagesysteminMarketStreetis insufficienttoconveyflowsduringa10year24hourstorm.Itisrecommendedthatthesystembereplaced witha24inchdiameterpipebeginningatWalnutStreetandgraduallyincreasedtoa48inchdiameterpipe towardsBridgeStreet.
215
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions SubdrainageareaDshownonFigure3.1iscurrentlyservedbyaprivate12inchdiameterdrainagelinethat connectsintotheMarketStreetBrookdrainagesystem.Thefeasibilityofreroutingthisdrainagelinetothe KingStreetsystemwasconsideredinthefuturebuildoutanalysis.Modelingindicatesthatredirectingflows fromsubdrainageareaDfromtheMarketStreetBrooksystemtotheKingStreetsystemwouldhaveaminor effectoneithersystem.Forthe10year24hourstormevent,itaccountsforonly3and4percent(6to8cfs)of thetotalflowstotheKingStreetandMarketStreetBrooksystems,respectively.Thus,ifoneorbothsystems areenlarged,thedrainagesystemfromsubdrainageareaDcouldbeconveyedineithersystem. Overall,theKingStreet/MarketStreetbusinessdistrictishighlyimperviousandislikelytoseeextensive redevelopmentoverthenext10to20years.Thisisapotentialareaforincorporatinggreeninfrastructure/Best ManagementPractices(BMPs),suchasgreenroofs,porouspavementandbioretentionsystemsintheformof streetplantersandraingardens,duringredevelopment.Inareaswheresoilsarenotconduciveforinfiltration (i.e.,clay)theseBMPscanstillprovidestormwatertreatmentpriortodischargetothestormdrainsystemviaan underdrainsystem.SeeSection3.2.5foradiscussionoftherecommendedplanandpreliminarycostestimate.
2.3.4 AustinCircle/RyanRoadArea
OnWednesday,December22,2010CDMconductedafieldsurvey oftheRyanRoadarea.BetweenAustinCircleandtheelementary schoolonRyanRoad,thereisadrainageditchthatperiodically overtopsandfloodsintothebackyardsandbasementsofresidents livingonAustinCircle.Thisflatditchreceivesstormflowsfrom RyanRoadschool,RyanRoad,andtheareanorthofRyanRoad,in thevicinityoftheMatthewDrivearea.Furtherdownstreaminthe channel,thebuildupofsedimentisoccurringattheculvert crossingsatBrierwoodDriveandAcrebrookDrive.Thesesections ofchannelareinneedofsedimentremoval. MatthewDriveisalsoaffectedbydrainageproblems.Thetopofthe hillaboveMatthewDrivehasaperchedpondthatatthetimeof inspectionhadnofreeboardandwasdischargingtoaseasonal streambedwhichflowsdownthehill,througharesidentsyard, ontothestreetandintoacatchbasin. TheculvertsunderBrierwoodDriveandAcrebrookDriveshow evidenceofsignificantsedimentbuildupresultingfromponding andslowflowvelocitiesthroughthisarea.Thedrainagesystemis shownonFigure2.4.ThedrainageditchbetweenAustinCircle andtheelementaryschool,aswellasthelowlyinggrassedarea alongRyanRoadontheschoolproperty,arepronetoflooding.
Photo2.5SwalebehindAustinCircle
TheRyanRoadareawatershedisapproximately121acresandisamediumdensityresidentialarea.Mostofthe areanorthofRyanRoadiswoodedandundevelopedland,withtheexceptionofonehousingsubdivisionanda shootingrange.Thiswoodedareacontainsasmallnaturalpondthatoverflowsdownthehill,causingerosion onapropertyatthecornerofMatthewDriveandGregoryLane.TheRyanRoadElementarySchoolislocated withinthisdrainagearea.SubdrainagedelineationsanddrainagesystemsareshownonFigure2.4.
216
106678803490311
46 2
44 2
383
364
30 5
35 4
45 2
32 4
5 28
43 3
37 4
29 5
5 30
43 3
3 39
IL CE H SPRU
L AVE
NUE
3 41
42 3
42 3
12
40 3
41 3
305
12
30 5
36 4
IVE GOLDEN DR
35 4
12
A1
39 3
ALAMO COURT
12
15
5 29
G R EG O
RY
LA N E
12
3 39
4 31
30
CL CIR RA TA E
38 3
36 4
A2
39 3
33 4
12
15
28 5
12
29 5
A3
12
T UR CO LY L HO
D
8
27 5
12
28 5
G
IVE DR OD WO IER BR
5 27
29 5
12
12
B
IN ST AU
AS NC PE
LE RC CI
27 5
AN RY
AD RO
12
12
12
5 30
12
15
18
31 4
12
KD OO ERL OV
RIV
12
31 4
16
48
60
18
12
10
EL RFI DEE
E RIV DD
CAHILLANE TERRACE
28 5
27 5
15
FOREST GLEN DRIVE
33 4
12
15
32 4
WOODS ROAD
12
12
314
24
28 5
30 5
LON GVI E
WD
RIV E
34 4
5 29
SUMMERFIELD STREET
Legend
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\RyanRoad_DrainageArea_Map.mxd JD 11/21/2011
Contour
91
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan
91
Parcel Boundary Building DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS) Wetlands (Delineated by City)
150 75 0 Feet 150 300
Figure 2.4 Austin Circle/Ryan Road Drainage Areas
28 5
12
Y OR CK HI E IV DR
H RC BI LL HI RO
O PI
44 2
AD
ER NE LL O KN S
37 4
12
18
12
AI LR GI N A RR TE CE
18
EW TTH MA IVE DR
28 5
B RE AC O RO K E IV DR
5 29
34 4
10
12
10
12
12
12
15
12
12
TIE AT BE IV E DR
KS OO BR
IVE DR AL
IDE E CL CIR
12
18
5 27
KS OO BR E CL IR EC ID
Section2ExistingConditions Approximately45acresoftheareanorthofRyanRoadareroutedthroughthetwodetentionbasinsassociated withthehousingsubdivision.TheremainingnorthernareasheetflowstoRyanRoad.Stormwaterrunofffrom theareanorthofRyanRoadandfromtheelementaryschoolbuildingandparkinglotsiscollectedina15inch diameterpipethatcrossestheelementaryschoolpropertyanddischargesupwardthroughagratethatis adjacenttoanopenchannelthatrunsthroughthebackyardsofresidencesonAustinCircle.Mostofthe remainingdrainageareasheetflowsdirectlytothischannel.LocalstreetdrainageassociatedwithBrierwood andAcrebrookDrivesdischargesdirectlyinto36inchdiameterculvertslocatedunderthesestreets. Thepeakratesofrunoffduring2,10,25,and100year24hourstormeventsforeachsubdrainageareacan befoundonTableB.4inAppendixB.
ThreealternativeswereconsideredforRyanRoadtoaddressthedrainageditchthatperiodicallyovertopsand floodsintothebackyardsandbasementsofresidentslivingonAustinCircle. 1. Installanewstreetdrainagesystemthatinterceptstheexisting15inchdiameterpipethatcrossesRyan Roadwitha30inchdiameterreliefpipeinRyanRoad.ThissystemwouldconveyflowtoBrierwoodDrive andthendownBrierwoodDrive,dischargingjustupstreamofthe36inchdiameterculvertinBrierwood Drive.Avariationofthisalternativeisinterceptingthe15inchdiameterpipewitha30inchdiameterrelief pipeandcrossingdiagonallyacrosstheelementaryschoolsathleticfields,dischargingjustupstreamofthe 36inchculvert.ThisalternativeconveysflowsfromthedrainageareanorthofRyanRoad.Itincreasesthe peakflowattheculvertfrom21to37cfs,causinganincreaseinthehydraulicgradelineattheculvertby approximatelyonefoot.The36inchdiameterculvertwouldneedtobeincreasedinsizetolowerthegrade line,whichwouldincreasepeakratesofrunofftodownstreamproperties. Upsizethe15inchdiameterpipeacrosstheelementaryschoolpropertytoa30inchdiameterpipeto conveyrunofffroma25yearstormevent,andprovidechannelimprovementsinthechanneladjacentto AustinCircle.Theimprovedconveyanceofflowthroughthe30inchpipewillresultinadownstream increaseinthehydraulicgradelineattheBrierwoodDriveculvert.Thus,thisalternativeandthefirst alternativedonoteffectivelyaddressthefloodingproblemsthatresidentsoftheAustinCirclecurrently experience.TheBrierwoodDriveculvertactsasacontrolandtheheadwaterbacksupintothechannel,a conditionthefirsttwoalternativeswillexacerbatebecauseoftheincreasedflowstotheculvert. CreateafloodstorageareajustupstreamoftheBrierwoodDriveculvertandusetheculvertastheoutlet controlforthefloodstoragearea.Withasurfaceareaofapproximately1.3acres,thefloodstoragearea hasatotaldepthoffourfeet(25yearstormmaximumstageplusonefootoffreeboard).A24inch diameterpipewillinterceptthe15inchdiameterpipeatRyanRoadandconveyrunofffromthedrainage areanorthofRyanRoaddiagonallyacrosstheathleticfieldstothefloodstoragearea.The15inchdiameter pipewillcontinuetoconveyrunofffromtheelementaryschooltotheexistingchannel,whichwilldischarge intothefloodstoragearea.Thisalternativelowersthehydraulicgradelinebyapproximately0.8feet, resultinginlesswaterbackingupintothechannel.Italsoreducesflowsdownstreamoftheculvertby13 cfsduringa2year24hourstormevent.TheCityperformedawetlandssurveyalongthedrainageditchin September2011.Thewetlandssurveyindicatesthatthereareborderingvegetatedwetlandsalongthe alignmentoftheditch.Thefloodstorageareahasbeenlocatedtonotimpactthesewetlandareas. ThisalternativeisavariationofAlternative#3.Becauseofthehighdegreeofimperviousnessoftheschool andtheshorttimeofconcentration,therunofffromtheschoolwascalculatedtobe19cfsforthe25year storm.Theexisting15inchdiameterpipewouldconveythisflowtothechannel.However,achannelto conveyaflowofthismagnitudewouldhaveatopwidthofapproximately26feet.Thus,insteadofinstalling 218
106678803490311
2.
3.
4.
Section2ExistingConditions a24inchdiameterpipefromRyanRoadacrosstheathleticfieldstothefloodstoragearea,the15inchpipe throughtheschoolpropertywouldbeupsizedtoa30inchpipetocollectandconveyflowsfromthe drainageareanorthofRyanRoadandfromtheelementaryschool,andthenturneasterlyatthe southeasterncorneroftheelementaryschool,crossingthefields,tothefloodstoragearea.Thisoption significantlyreducestheflowtothechanneltoapproximately10cfs.Thechannelwouldhaveatotaldepth of3ftandatopwidthof21ft. Forallfouralternatives,channelimprovementsarerecommendedtoimproveconveyanceofflows.Currently, thechannelbetweentheBrierwoodDriveculvertandAcrebrookDriveculvertisnotwelldefinedanditis recommendedthatabetterdefinedchannelbecreated.ThechannelalongAustinCircleneedstobecleanedto removebrushandotherdebris.Itisnotedthattheseschannelsareonprivateproperty,havenoeasementsto theCityandwerecreatedbythedeveloperforthesesubdivisions.SeeSection3.2.6foradiscussionofthe recommendedplanandpreliminarycostestimate.
2.4 FloodControlSystems
2.4.1 EastLeveeDescription
TheEastLeveefloodcontrolsystemisanearthenfillleveeandthreeconcretefloodwalls,withatotallengthof approximately4,950feetandamaximumheightofapproximately23feet.Thewidthofthecrestisabout10 feetwithan8footwidegravelsurfaceandgrasscoverededges.Thecrestoftheleveewasconstructedatan elevationofaboutEl.131.6toEl.131.3NAVD88. AsshownonFigure2.1,theearthembankmentstartsattheintersectionofPomeroyTerraceandHancock Street,continuessoutheasterlyandcrossesVenturesFieldRoad.BeyondtheVenturesFieldRoadcrossing,the embankmentbendsandthealignmentextendssouthwesterlyandcrossesHockanumRoadandmeetsthe NorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationattheOldMillRiver.Fromthepumpingstation,theearth embankmentbendsandcrossestheBoston&MainerailroadtracksandthenRoute5.Concreteretaining walls/abutmentsareconstructedattherailroadcrossingandthehighwaycrossingandfunctionasstoplog structuresduringapotentialfloodevent.Stoplogsarestoredincorrugatedmetalstoragehousesconstructed nexttothecrossings.TheearthembankmentextendswesterlybeyondRoute5approximately500feetwhere theembankmentisincontactwiththenaturalearthhighground. Designandrecorddrawingsshowthatthecoreoftheembankmentisconstructedwitharandomsoilmaterial. Theembankmentmaterialriversideofthecoreisanimperviousclaylikeblanketmaterial,andasandypervious materialisshownlandsideofthecore.Basedontherecordplans,mostoftheriversideslopeoftheleveewas presentedasa2.5horizontal:1vertical(2.5H:1V)slope,anda3H:1VslopeatthesegmentbetweenVentures FieldRoadandHockanumRoad.Mostofthelandsideslopeoftheleveewasshowntobea2H:1Vslope,anda 3H:1VslopeatthesegmentbetweenVenturesFieldRoadandHockanumRoad. Atoedrainsystemconsistingof8inchto15inchporousconcretepipeingravelbeddingfiltertrenchesexists belowgradealongmostoftheembankmenttoeofslope.Intermittentmanholesareinstalledtoservicethetoe drainsystem.Thetoedrainsystemcollectstheseepagewaterthroughtheleveefillanddischargestothe stormwatercollectionsystem.
2.4.2 WestLeveeDescription
TheWestLeveefloodcontrolsystemconsistsofearthenfillleveesegmentsandaconcretefloodwall,witha totallengthofapproximately2,300feet.Basedontherecordplans,thecrestoftheleveesegmentsisshownto begenerally10feetwideandgrasscovered.ThecrestoftheleveesegmentnorthofWestStreetwas
219
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions constructedatelevationsrangingfromEl.145.5toEl.144.8ftNAVD88.Thecrestoftheleveesegmentsouthof thebridgeoftheformerrailroadcrossingwasconstructedatanelevationofaboutEl.139.1NAVD88.The embankmentisapproximately16feethigh. ThesystembeginsathighgroundnearParadisePondjustnortheastoftheParadisePondDam,andadjacentto CollegeLaneonthepropertyofSmithCollege(Figure2.1).Theembankmentextendssoutherly,parallelwiththe eastbankoftheMillRiverforabout1,100feettothecrossingatWestStreet.AconcreteTfloodwallextends southerlyfromWestStreettothecurrentbikepathbridgecrossing,formerlytheNewYork,NewHaven& HartfordRailroad.Theconcretefloodwallisabout450feetlongandcontactsthestoneabutmentofthebridge oftheformerrailroad.Mostofthelengthofthewallisabout10feetabovegroundsurfacewithatopelevation ofaboutEl.140NAVD88.ThetopofthewallandstoplogstructureattheWestStreetsouthcurbisaboutEl. 145.3NAVD88tomatchtheelevationoftheleveeandstoplogretainingwallatthenorthcurb.Aconcreteflood wallandanearthembankmentwithslightcurvatureextendfromtheformerrailroadcrossingabutmentina southerlydirectionabout900feettothenaturalearthabutmentandhighgroundatHebertAvenue.Thislast earthembankmentsegmentservesasadam,whichpermittedtheMillRivertobedivertedintotheDiversion Canal. Basedontherecorddrawings,theriversideslopeofthenortherlyleveesegmentisshownasa2.5H:1Vslope. Theleveesegmentsouthofthefloodwallwasbuiltwitha3H:1VslopetotheendatHebertAvenue.Theslope surfaceisprotectedwithaonefootlayerofhandplacedriprap.Mostofthelandsideslopeoftheleveeis showntobea2H:1Vslope. Atoedrainsystemconsistingof8inchto10inchporousconcretepipeinfilteredtrenchesexistsbelowgrade alongmostoftheembankmenttoeofslope.Intermittentmanholesareinstalledtoservicethetoedrainsystem. TheconstructionoftheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationattheEastLeveeinvolvedthediversionof theMillRiver,whichoriginallyflowedthroughtheCity.FlowsoriginatingfromtheupstreamMillRiverwere divertedintothenewdiversioncanal,whichbeginsatthesouthernportionoftheWestLeveeanddirectsflow totheoldConnecticutRiverOxBow,currentlycalledOxBowLake.Thediversionroutemadeitnecessaryto closeGroveStreetandtobuildanewbridgewithadropstructurewherethecanalcrossesSouthStreet. Downstreamofthedropstructure,thecanalbottomisabout35feetwide,with3H:1Vsideslopes.Thebottom andsideslopesarelinedwithstoneriprap.Thecanalextendsabout8,000feetbeyondtheendofthedrop structuretothedischargepointatOxBowLake.
2.4.3 EastandWestLeveeInspection
OnDecember22,2010,CDM,accompaniedbyarepresentativefromtheCity,performedageneralvisual inspectionoftheleveesystem.Aseparate,moredetailedinspectionandevaluationoftheleveesystemis currentlybeingperformedbyothersfortheUSACE. Ingeneral,theleveesystemswerefoundtobeinverygoodcondition.Onlyisolatedareaswerenotedtohave deficienciesthatwouldusuallybecorrectedwithnormalmaintenancepractices.Ingeneral,thedeficiencies included: 1. Afewtreesandthickbrushgrowingnearthetoeoftheriversideslopesoftheleveeandattheriverside faceoftheconcretefloodwallatisolatedareas; 2. Ruts,smalldepressionsonthecrestoftheearthembankments; 3. Thegrassonthecrestoftheearthembankmentswornbyfoottrafficexposingbaresoiltopotential erosion; 220
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions 4. IsolatedareaofmissingriprapontheslopeofthediversionchannelneartheendoftheWestLevee;and 5. PotentialcloggingofthetoedrainsystemasreportedbyrecentUSACEinspection. Recently,theUSACEhasinspectedtheleveesontwoseparateoccasions:September18,2009andonDecember 10,2010/January14,2011. The2009inspectionfoundtheleveestobeinaMinimallyAcceptablecondition,meaningthatnodeficiencies wereidentifiedthatwouldpreventthesystemfromperformingasintendedduringafloodevent.Thereport noteddeficienciesthatincluded: 1. Heavyvegetation,includinglargebushes,trees,andtallgrass,growingonandalongthetoeofslopeofthe levees; 2. Heavyvegetation,includingtrees,growingintheriprapchannelbanksofthediversioncanal; 3. Sectionsoftheleveecrownandslopewithlittletonosodcoverduetopedestriantraffic; 4. Areasofriprapalongtheleveetoehavebeendisplaced; 5. Animalburrowsonthecrownandslopeofthelevee; 6. Vegetationandsedimentintheintakepondatthepumpstation. Similarly,the2010/2011inspectionfoundtheleveestobeinaMinimallyAcceptablecondition.Thereport notedthesamedeficienciesasthosefoundduringthe2009inspection.Theinspectionalsofoundsomespalling occurringontheconcretefloodwalls.TheUSACEhasrequiredthatdeficienciesberepairedbyJanuary2013or 2014,dependingontheitem.
2.4.4 East/WestLeveeRecommendedImprovements
BasedonthevisualinspectionoftheEastandWestLeveesperformedbyCDM,werecommendthefollowing activitiesthatimprovetheoverallconditionsofthelevees,butdonotalterthecurrentdesign. Cutandcleartreesandthickbrushontheleveeandatleast15feetbeyondtheabutmentsandatthetoe ofthelevee.Thisisthecurrent(new)USACErequirements.Theremovalofthetreesgreaterthanfour inchesindiameterandanyplannedexcavationofrootsshouldbedesignedbyaqualifiedlevee/dam engineer.Holesshouldbefilledwithlowpermeabilityfillontheriversideslopeandcompactedfillon thelandsideslope. Removeburrowinganimalsandbackfillholeswithcompactedfill.Alternatively,flowablefillcouldbe usedtofillthehole.Thematerialmayhavetoberoddedtoforcethemixfurtherintothehole.Afterthe mixisinstalled,theupper6in.+/oftheholeshouldbebackfilledwithsoilandseededtopromotegrass growth Repairareasofsparsevegetationandsmalldepressionsonthecrestandlandsideslopebyestablishinga healthystandofgrasstopreventfutureerosion.Continuetomonitorfornewbarespots,andmaintain grasssincethecrestoftheleveesystemisusedforhiking/walkingbythepublic. Potentialcloggingofthetoedrainsystematthelandsidetoeoftheembankmentsshouldbe investigated,andsedimentshouldberemovedfromthetoedrainpipeandmanholes.
221
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions Removethesaltshedlocatedagainstthelandsidefaceoftheconcretefloodwallofthewestlevee systematthephysicalplantpropertyofSmithCollege. UpdatetheOperationandMaintenanceManualtoincludeinspectionschedules,annualtraining,and operationalandmaintenanceproceduresrequiredtoensuresatisfactoryoperationoftheleveesystem toreducethepotentialfordeteriorationtothefacility. Whenfloodcontrolleveesystemaccreditationisrequired,followthegeneralguidelinesoutlinedinthe memoinAppendixAinaccordancewithCFR65.10.
Theserecommendationswillrequiredesignbyaprofessionalengineer,applicationforapplicablepermits,and constructionbyacontractorexperiencedinleveerepair.CDMalsorecommendsthefollowingactivitiesbe undertakenonaregularoryearlybasis. Regularmaintenanceactivitiesshouldbeperformedatleasttwiceayearorasconditionswarrantfrom theSpringtoFallseasonstocontrolandlimitgrowthofvegetationontheleveeandthebanksofthe diversioncanal. Monitorareasfordislodgedriprap,andreplaceriprapstonestoprotectexposedembankmentsoils. Annualtrainingtoresponsiblestaffforerectionoffloodcontrolstoplogstructures.
The2009and2010/2011inspectionsmadesimilarrecommendationsforrepairingthelevees. Excessvegetationshouldberemovedandvegetativegrowthcontrolledinthelongtermwitha maintenanceprogram. Sodshouldbereestablishedonthebareareasoftheleveecrownandmaintained. Animalborrowsshouldbeexcavatedandbackfilled,andananimalcontrolprogramestablished. Areasofmissingriprapshouldbereplacedwithnewriprap. Thetoedrainsystemshouldbeinspectedbyremotecameraeveryfiveyears. Theintakepondatthepumpstationshouldbeclearedofvegetation.
Inaddition,the2010/2011USACEReportidentifiedseveralsystemdatagapsthatwillrequireextensive engineeringtobecompletedbyJanuary2014.Themostnotablesystemdatagapsinclude: Recenttopographicsurveyinformationandcomparisontothedesignheight/availablefreeboard; Hydraulicandhydrologicanalysesoftheentirefloodcontrolsystem; Seepageandslopestabilityanalysesforthedikes,floodwallsanddiversioncanal; Settlementanalysesforthedike,pumpingstation,andfloodwalls; Confirmationwithadditionaltestboringthattheartificialfillwasremoveddowntothemoderately imperviousformationpriortoconstructingthedikenearSmithCollege;and Pipeinspectionreportsforallpipesthatpassthroughorunderthefloodcontrolsystem.
222
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions ForfloodcontrolprojectstoberecognizedbyFEMAontheNFIPmaps,adequateevidencemustbeprovided showingthefloodcontrolsystemprovidesreasonableassurancethatprotectionfromthebasefloodexistsin accordancewithCFR65.10.Theaccreditationprocesswithrespecttothestabilityoftheearthenembankment leveesandfloodwallsincludes: Atopographicsurveyofthesystemtoconfirmsystemgeometryandthe3footfreeboardrequirement; Asubsurfaceexplorationprogramtoevaluatethecompositionandinsitustrengthofembankmentand foundationmaterials; Evaluatingerosionprotectionfromcurrentsand/orwaveaction; Embankmentandfoundationstabilityandseepageanalysesoftheearthenembankmentsinaccordance withUSACEEM111021913,DesignandConstructionofLevees; StabilityandseepageanalysesofthefloodwallsinaccordancewiththeUSACEPhaseIIInterimGuidance forEvaluatingExistingIWalls,datedOctober25,2006;and Settlementevaluationstoassessthepotentialandmagnitudeoflossoffreeboard.
SeveralofthesystemdatagapsthathavebeenidentifiedbytheUSACEareconsistentwiththedata requirements(shownabove)fortheaccreditationprocess.DatagapanalysestobecompletedfortheUSACE shouldalsoincludeallscopeitemsthatareneededforFEMAaccreditation.
2.4.5 NorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationHockanumRoad Inspection

TheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationwasconstructedin1940bytheUSACEaspartofthe NorthamptonFloodControlSysteminconjunctionwiththeConnecticutRiverFloodControlProject.Itislocated ontheOldMillRiverapproximately1.4milesupstreamofthe confluencewiththeConnecticutRiver,andprovidesflood protectionforamajorportionoftheCity,includingthedowntown businessdistrict.Stormwaterflowduringnormalriverlevelisby gravity.Theprimaryfunctionofthepumpingstationistopump stormwaterthroughtheleveewhentheConnecticutRiverisin floodstage.Thepumpingstationiscurrentlymanuallyoperated byDPWemployees. Thepumpingstationisabrickbuildingconstructedbetweentwo earthembankmentsoftheleveewithinterconnectingconcrete Photo2.6NorthamptonFloodControl counterfortfloodwalls.Ithousesfourpumps:three48inch PumpingStation propellerpumpsthatcanpumpatotalof150,000gpm,two poweredbygasolineenginesandonepoweredbydieselengine; andasingle16inchWorthingtontrashpumpthatisdesignedtopassupto6inchdiametersolids,poweredby anelectricmotor.Whenfloodstageisreached,stormwaterisdivertedfromthegravityflowchambertothe pumpingchambersusingtwoelectricallyoperatedsluicegates.Whileinoperation,thepumpinletchambers areprotectedfromlargedebrisbytwotrashrackslocatedupstreamoftheinletsluicegate.Thepumping stationincludesagasolinefueledemergencystandbygeneratorifthemainpowerfeederfails.Thestandby generatorissizedtoprovidepowerforthe16inchpump,valveoperatorsandlighting.
223
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions CDMaccompaniedNorthamptonstaffonfieldinspectionsoftheNorthamptonFloodControlandStormwater PumpingStations. InterviewswithDPWstaffandinspectionoftheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationrevealedthat thereareonlyminorimminentmechanicalproblemswiththepumpingequipmentandthedrives.Themajor issueatthestationisthatitismanuallyoperated,anditmustbemonitoredcontinuouslywhenoperatingor whenoperationmaybeexpectedtocommence.Otherdeficienciesnotedduringtheinspectioninclude: 1. InfluentScreenArea:Accessforaportablemechanicaldevicetoreachandcleantheupstreamfaceofthe influentscreensispoorbecauseoftheconfigurationofthescreenstructure.Inaddition,raisingand loweringoftheexistingscreensisamanualoperation,andispotentiallydangeroustoCityworkers.The screensareleftloweredinplacethroughouttimesoftheyearwhenthestationmayneedtooperate.This causesdebristobecollected,evenwhenpumpsarenotoperating. 2. SluiceGates:TheCityworkersareconcernedthattheoperatorsforthemainsluicegatesmaynotwork reliablyinelectricmode.Iftheyfailtowork,openingthegatesmanuallywillbealengthyoperationforCity workers. 3. StandbyGenerator:Becauseofsafetyconcerns,gasolinepoweredstandbygeneratorsarenolongerused; theyaretypicallyfueledbydiesel,naturalgas,orpropane.Inaddition,currentcodesnolongerallow standbygeneratorstobecooledbymunicipalwatersuppliesbecauseofreliabilityconcerns.TheCity currentlyusesitswatersupplytocoolthegenerator,whichcouldfailduringafloodingsituation. Ingeneral,thepumpingstationisover70yearsoldandatthisadvancedage,theCityrunstheincreasedrisk thatthepumpingstationwillnotoperatereliablyunderfloodconditions.Inaddition,becauseoftheageofthe pumpingstation,theavailabilityofrepairpartsisquestionable.TheCityrunstheriskofhavingsignificant downtimeatthepumpingstation,whiletheCitysearchesfor,orpossiblyfabricates,repairparts.Thus,CDM recommendstheCitytakeaproactiveapproachtoimprovethereliabilityofthepumpingstationby implementingtherecommendedimprovementsdescribedinthefollowingsection.
2.4.5.1RecommendedImprovements
IftheCityoptstokeeptheexistingfacilityandonlyrepair/replacethedeficienciesidentifiedduringthe inspectiontopotentiallysavemoney,CDMrecommendsthefollowingactivitiesinorderofimportance. 1. Replacebothoftheelectricmotoroperatedsluicegateoperatorsbecauseoftheconcernsovertheir currentreliability. 2. Reworktheinfluentscreenarea. a. Theexistingscreenswiththeirhazardousmanualoperatorsshouldberemoved. b. Installamechanicallycleanedscreenbecausethescreensneedtobecleanedfrequentlyduringstation operation.Thescreensshouldbecoarsetype,with3to4inchclearopenings.Screenwidthis8feet. c. Forreliability,abypassmanuallycleanedscreenshouldbeprovidedincasethemechanicallycleaned screenexperiencesoperationalproblems. d. Thescreenareashouldalsobemadeeasilyaccessibletocatchbasincleaningtypeequipmentsothat objectstoolargeforthemechanicallycleanedscreencanberemoved.
224
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions e. Modificationoftheinfluentscreenstructurewillrequiredemolitionoftheexistingscreenstructureand constructionofanewstructure. 3. Replacetheexistinggasolineenginedrivenstandbygenerator.Thegeneratorshouldbereplacedwitha radiatorcooleddieselenginedrivengeneratorcapableofrunningallbuildingsystems(lights,heat,gate operators,sumppump,etc.)plustheelectricmotordrivenpump.Wedonotrecommendanaturalgas enginebecausetheengineneedstobephysicallylargerthanadieselengineinordertogettherequired horsepower,andisthereforemoreexpensive.Also,inafloodingsituation,thesupplyofnaturalgasmaybe cutoff,leavingthestationinoperable. 4. Replacetheexistingelectricmotordrivenpump.Becauseofitsadvancedage,itmaynotoperatereliablyin thefuture.Thus,itshouldbereplacedwithanewpumpthathasthesamecapacityoftheexisting50 horsepowerpump. 5. Becauseoftheirage,replacethethreeexistingstormwaterpumps,includingtheirenginedrivesandright anglegeardrivesinkind,withthreenewdieselenginedrivenpumps.Similartothegenerator,the replacementenginedrivesmustberadiatorcooledwithunitmountedradiators.Thiswillrequiremajor revisionstotheventilationandairhandlingsystemsinthebuildingtoobtainadequateventilationairand exhausttheheatedairoutdoors. 6. Inconjunctionwithreplacementofthepumps,theexistingpumpdischargepiping,isolationvalves,and outletflapvalvesshouldbereplacedbecausethepipewillneedtobereworkedtoalignwithreplacement pumps. 7. Existingelectrical,lighting,andventilationsystemsshouldbereplacedbecauseoftheageofthesesystems. 8. Upgradethepumpingstationbuildingtomeetcurrentaccessibilityandegressrequirements.Implementing therecommendationslistedabove,suchasreplacementoftheventilationsystem,willresultin modificationstothephysicalstructureofthebuilding.Thesechangestothebuildingwilltriggercompliance withcurrentbuildingcodesforaccessibilityandegress. 9. Assumingtheprecedingrecommendationsareimplemented,newmonitoringandautomatedcontrol systemsshouldbeprovidedtoallowthestationtooperateautomaticallywithminimalsupervisionto reducepersonnelcostsforpumpingstationoperation.Thistaskwillrequirereplacementorupgradeof existinglevelmonitorsontheConnecticutRiversideofthedike,aswellasintheinfluentchannelandpump wells.ASupervisoryControlandDataAcquisition(SCADA)typepanelshouldbeprovidedtocoordinate monitoringwithcontrolofthepumps. Alternatively,basedonafieldevaluationoftheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStation,CDMrecommends replacingtheexistingpumpingstationwithanentirelynewfacility.Thenewfacilitywillreplacetheengine drivenpumpsandstandbygeneratorinkindwiththreenewdieselengines,rightanglegeardrives,stormwater pumps,andonestandbygenerator.Becausethepumpenginesaretheonlysourceofpowerforoperationofthe pumps,theywillbeevaluatedascontinuousdutyapplication,requiringahighdegreeofemissionscontrol(EPA Tier4).Thedesignofthenewfacilitywillneedtotakeintoaccountthepotentialforincreasedflowstothe pumpingstationduetotherecommendedupgradesintheupstreamdrainagesystems.Thecostestimate providedinthisreportassumesanewfacility.
2.4.6 WestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationInspection
TheWestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationislocatedontheMillRiver,adjacenttotheWestStreetriver crossing.SimilartotheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStation,itsprimaryfunctionistodivert 225
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions stormwaterthatcollectsbehindtheleveeandfloodwallthroughtheleveewhentheMillRiverisinfloodstage. ThemanuallyoperatedWestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationservesa14.6acreareainsidetheleveethatis alowpointforcollectionofstormwaterrunoff. Thepumpingstationisanongradestructure,withexteriordimensionsofapproximately12by9feet.The buildinghousesoneenginedrivenselfprimingtypepump.Thepumpingstationwasbuiltafterthefloodof 1955in1957. ThepumpisconnectedtotheWestStreetstormwatercollectionsystembya6inchsteelsuctionpipethatrises justoutsidethebuildingfromamanhole.Theselfprimingpumpisa6inchRexChainbelt.Noratingdataplate couldbeidentified,butitscapacityislikelytobeapproximately800to1,000gpm.Thepumpisdrivenbya sparkignitedenginepowerunit(assembledbyHanlonWaters)fueledbypropane.Thepropanefueltankisa 300lbpropanebottlelocatedoutsidethestation. CDMaccompaniedNorthamptonstaffonafieldinspectionoftheWestStreetpumpingstation. NoobviousdeficienciesattheWestStreetPumpingStationwere observedduringtheinspection.However,thefuturereliabilityof thepumpingstationisquestionablebecauseitisrarelyused. Nearthepumpingstation,twostormwatercollectionsystem outletswereobserved.Theydischargeintotheriver,onehigher thantheother,andbothwerebuiltintotheretainingwallalong theriverbank.Bothhavecastironflapvalves,whichappearto openfreely.Thelowerofthetwoflapvalvesappearstobenew, andusesaresilientseat.However,theseatappearstohave swollentothepointthattheflapcannotcloseontoitsseat.Theflap Photo2.7WestStreetPumping cannotbeforcedmanuallytofullclosure,resultinginfloodingofthe Station stormwatercollectionsystemtributarytothisflapgatewhentheriverelevationishigh.Thus,theleakagemay fullynegatethecapacityofthepumpingstation. SimilartotheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStation,thispumpingstationismanuallyoperated.When thestationmustbeoperated,anoperatormustbeonsiteatalltimes.Becausethepumpingstationisnot automated,determinationoftheneedtooperatethepumpingstationisdependentuponvisualobservationsof floodinginthestormsystemonWestStreet.
2.4.6.1RecommendedImprovements
TheWestStreetStormwaterPumpingStationdoesnothavethecapacitytodischargeadequateflowtoprevent floodingoftheWestStreetdrainagearea.Assumingthatutilitypowerisnotavailableduringflooding conditions,apumpatthislocationshouldbeenginedriven.Insteadofinstallingapermanentpumpatthis location,CDMrecommendstheCitypurchaseaportabledieselenginedrivenpumpwithcapacityof approximately6,000gpm,whichcanbebroughttothesiteandsetuptemporarilyforfloodcontrol.
2.5 RiverErosion
2.5.1 RiverRoadMillRiver
TheproposedRiverRoadRetainingWall/FloodwallimprovementsarelocatedintheLeedsVillagesectionof Northampton(seeFigure2.1andPhoto1.5).FlowsfromtheMillRiverhavescouredandundercutsignificant sectionsofthewall,andsurfacerunoffhascompromisedtheintegrityoftheupperportionsofthewall.In 226
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions addition,theWilliamsburgsanitarysewerinterceptorislocatedwithinRiverRoadandisindangerofcollapsing duetorivererosion.TheCityisproposingtoremovetheexistingstonemasonrywallandreplaceitwithacast inplaceconcreteretainingwallthatwillprotecttheroadandsewerfromthe100yearfloodevent.
2.5.2 FederalStreetFloodWall
TheFederalStreetretainingwallimprovementsareproposedalong theMillRiverinthevicinityofVernonStreetandWardAvenue(see Figure2.1andPhoto2.8).Thepurposeofthisprojectistoprotecta 30inchsewerinterceptor.Erosionisoccurringalongthesharpbank angle,whichisleadingtotheexposureoftheinterceptor.
2.5.3 RobertsMeadowBrookChannel
TheRobertsMeadowBrookchannelislocatedbetweentheLower RobertsMeadowReservoirDamandReservoirRoadinLeeds(seeFigure2.1 andPhoto2.9).Thechanneliscomprisedprimarilyofdrymasonrysidewalls andanaturalizedboulderandcobblebottom.Highflowevents haveresultedinsignificanterosionofthechannelsidewalls,whichis threateningthedwellingsanddrivewaysofadjacentprivate properties.TheCityhasproposedtoextendthefloodwallupstream fromtheReservoirRoadbridgetothecriticalareainthechannel. Thenewfloodwallwouldbeacastinplaceconcreteretainingwall withsufficientheighttoprotectadjacentpropertiesfromthe100 yearfloodevent. Photo2.8FederalStreet FloodWall
2.6 CurrentOperationalCostand FundingLevels

2.6.1 RegulatoryCompliance
Photo2.9RobertsMeadowBrook Channel
TheCityiscurrentlycomplyingwithallrequirementsofthe2003NPDESPhaseIIpermit.TheCitymaintainsa publiceducationandparticipationprogram,whichincludeseducationalbrochures,stormwatereducationinthe highschool,availabilityofrainbarrels,stormdrainlabeling,outfallmonitoringbyvolunteergroups,household hazardouswastecollectiondays,andcommunitycleanups.Thestormdrainmaps,withoutfalls,havebeenput intoaGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)andarecontinuouslyupdated.In2004,theCityapprovedboththe IllicitConnectionsandDischargestotheMunicipalStormDrainSystemOrdinanceandtheErosionandSediment ControlandPostConstructionStormwaterManagementOrdinance.Theseordinancesarecurrentlyenforced. TheCitysstreetsweepingprogramsweepsallwardsonceperyearandallstreetsinthedowntownbusiness districteveryweekfrommidApriltoJune.TheCitys3,750catchbasinsarecleanedonceperyear,generating 20tonsofdebris.Intotal,theCityhasspentinexcessof$l00,000annuallyonimplementingtherequirements ofthispermit.
2.6.2 StormwaterDrainageOperationsStaffing
Operationandmaintenanceactivitiesassociatedwithstormwaterdrainageoperationsfallmainlyunderthe StreetsDivisionandtheSewer/DrainDivision.Currently,fundstopaythecompensationforseweranddrain staffareallocated2/3fromthesewerEnterpriseFundand1/3fromtheGeneralFund.Compensationfor
227
106678803490311
Section2ExistingConditions overtimeissplit50percentbetweentheenterpriseandGeneralFunds.Stormdrainmaterialsandequipment relatedcostsarefundedthroughtheGeneralFund. Generally,thecurrentstaffingisasfollows: StreetsDivision:Threestaffspendabouthalftimeonstreetsweepingoperations. Sewer/DrainDivision:NinestaffprovidemaintenanceactivitiesontheCityseweranddrainsystems,including televisioninspectionsofdrains,cleaningcatchbasinswithaclamshellorvactortruckandinfrastructurerepairs. VehicleMaintenance:Onevehiclemaintenancestaffpersonisassignedtovehiclemaintenanceonsweepers anddrainrelatedequipment. RegulatoryCompliance:Currently,oneparttimeplannerismainlyresponsibleforcompliancewiththeNPDES PhaseIIpermit.HeisassistedbytheGISCoordinator,whencompliancerequiresGISmapping.Other engineeringandscientiststaffmayprovidetechnicalsupportasneeded.Theparttimeplannerisfunded throughtheGeneralFund.OthertechnicalstaffarefundedthroughvariousEnterpriseFundsandtheGeneral Fund.
2.6.3 FloodControlOperationsStaffing
FloodcontrolactivitiesarepaidforthroughtheGeneralFund.Laborassociatedwithfloodcontrolactivitiesis paidforthroughtheSewerEnterpriseFundforstraighttimeandtheGeneralFundforovertime.Staffingfor floodcontrolactivitiesareassignedtotheWastewaterTreatmentDivision.Typically,thestaffincludestwoto threefloodcontroltechniciansplusonesupervisor.Duringfloodingsituations,stafffromotherdepartments participateinfloodcontrolactivitiesasneeded,suchaserectingtheWestStreetfloodwall.
228
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanand OperationalBudgetRequirements
3.1 Introduction
Thissectionsummarizestherecommendeddrainagesystemandfloodcontrolimprovementsplan, includingconstructionphasing,additionaltelevisioninspectionneedsforfinaldesign,costestimates andschedules.Italsoincludesthefollowingproposedrivererosioncontrolprojects:RiverRoad floodwallimprovements,RobertsMeadowBrookchannelimprovements,andFederalStreet retainingwallimprovements. Therecommendeddrainagesystemimprovementshavebeenphasedasfollows: Phase1and2projectsneededtoaddresshighpriorityfloodingproblemsorotherissues, suchaspipecollapses;and Phase3and4projectsareinareaswithlessfloodingproblems,designedtoprovidecapacity tocontrol10year24hourstormpeakratesofrunoff.
3.2 SummaryofRecommendedPlan
Figures3.1through3.3illustratetherecommendedplansforeachoftheprojectareas.Thesemaps alsoprovidelocationsofCityownedpropertywherethereareopportunitiesfortheCitytoinstall stormwaterBestManagementPractices(BMPs)/greendesignfacilitiestoreducestormwaterrunoff todrainagesystems,improvethewaterqualityofreceivingwatersandcomplywiththeupcoming newEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)MunicipalSeparateStormSystem(MS4)permit.
3.2.1 StreetImprovementProjects
TheDPWmaintainsaconditionalassessmentdatabaseofallcitystreetspavement.Thispavement conditiondatabaseisupdatedyearly.Thepurposeofthedatabaseistodeterminetheprioritylisting forstreetworkrangingfromcracksealing,toasphaltmillandoverlay,tofulldepthreconstruction. FundingforroadwayrepairprojectsisprimarilyprovidedbythestateundertheChapter90program. Chapter90fundingprovidesforthecostofasphaltresurfacing.Theconstructionfundingfornew sewerlinesthatmaybeneededaspartofastreetreconstructionprojectisprovidedthroughthe CitysSewerEnterpriseFund.Ifnewwaterlinesarerequired,thefundingisprovidedbytheWater EnterpriseFund.Historically,theCityhasfundeddrainageimprovementsthroughtheGeneralFund, asdeterminedbytheCityCouncilthroughthecapitalimprovementsprocess.Becauseofthelackof availablemoniesintheGeneralFund,fundingforstormdrainconstructionhasbeenextremely limited.TheDPWreportsthata$62,000budgetlineitemforstormdrainconstructionwasremoved fromthebudgetin2010aspartofaDPWbudgetcut.Ifastreetisidentifiedasahighpriorityandin needofreconstruction,andfundingisnotavailableforconstructionofanewdrainagesystem,that streetisremovedfromtheprioritypavinglist.AgoodexampleofthisfundingdilemmaisMilton Street,astreetthatisdesperatelyinneedofreconstruction,butisonholdbecauseofthelackof fundingtoinstallanewdrainagesystem. 31
106678803490311
127
KI N B R G ST OO K
12 7
16 7
14 7
CEMETERY ROAD
11 8
21
12
17 7
177
15 7
13 7
CO
118
118
NN
5
118
SOUTH BRANCH ROAD
KING BRO ST OK
14 7
18
14 7
KING BRO ST OK
12
17 7
IN D
118
HAM PS
24
12
18
12
10
24
PHEASANT HILL DRIVE B
HAMPTON GARDEN DRIVE
14 7
13 7
18
a St B rrett rook
DU S RO DR TR I TA VE IAL RY
IN
ct Bro
ok
12
" 66
14 7
15 7
42
18
36
BR ID G
6
36
KING T EE STR
48
15 7
ST RE ET
du
ia 2 V
137
12
HILL DR IV
24
13 7
12
24
15 7
18
PHEASA NT
AVE RD NU E
BR ST ID RE GE ET
15
30
A BR
F AD BR
D OR DF
DBR O OK OR
7 14
SH AV ERM EN AN UE
15
15
RE ST
CO OLI DG EA VEN UE
18
ET
13 7
OS CR
S BY
T EE TR
36
12
7 14
18
13 7
24
12 HU BBA
30
137
14 7
10
DA Y AV E
12
9
18
13 7
13 7
18
12
12
15
NO AV RTH EN ER UE N
14 7
12
10
12
7 14
12
15
S OS CR
14 7
15
12
BR ST IDGE RE ET
7 18
14 7
12
S YE E HA ENU AV
KI N BR G S OO T K
17 7
10
15 7
15
12
A BR DFOR OO D K
10 12
18
CROSS PATH
Manage Stormwater On-Site with BMPs

16 7
12
W O AV OD EN BI UE NE
12
ROAD
14 7
12
30
D AR DD ET TO TRE S S
BR
12 8
EE TR T
EL I ZA B
OLD FE RRY RO AD
36
12
12
36
18
CHURCH STREET
6 19
S CRE
147
24
HILLSIDE ROAD
10
D FIEL WAR CE PLA
12
VE DA AN E NU
12
15
T REE T ST CEN
12
S IN RK E PE ENU AV
PE OS PR
12
12
H RT NO
OR ST CH RE AR ET D
12
W O O RO DM AD O N T
ET H
ST RE ET
12
OLD FE
91
RRY ROAD
Alignment #1 New 48" RCP Drain
OL D
FE RR YR OA D
FINN STREET
FINN STREET
12
24
15
RO AD
FT
BA NC RO
CROS S PATH ROAD
5 27
12
18
SUMMER STREET
25 5
24
CROSS PATH ROAD
UT LN T WA REE ST
12
RO UN DH ILL
12
15 RY ER ET
CH TRE S
EDWARDS SQUARE
12 ION T UN EE
R ST
226
12
8
12
12
8
12
FA IR ST RE E
RO A
BA R PL RE AC TT E
CLARK S CHOOL DRIV
REE BRIGHT ST
18
12
12
Nelson/Nygaard Design Charrette Area

36 18
15
ES AV UE GR EN AV
12
ST RO NG
MYRTLE STREET
15
15
12
118
RO
FAIR S TREET
AD
5 26
23 6
10
I
48
12
EN U E
10
HEN SHA W AV
PR OS STR PECT EET
ROAD TRUMBULL
24
147
196
15
127
18
48
36
12
12
10
E ST LM RE ET
36
S LLIP PHI ACE PL
10
11 8
12
12
18 8
78
12
15
66
12
24 0
1
RD E FO AC ED RR B E T
30
10
36
12
36
LER BUT CE PLA
12
12
18
24
18
Approximate Wetland Boundary Estimated by City

15
12
13 7
118
G ST OTH RE IC ET
12
12
17 7
5
12
N AI T M EE TR S
12
16
RS FIE L
18
12
12
STATE STREET
VE NT UR E
13 7
12
16
12
24
24
8
18
10
CE N ST TER RE ET
15
DR OA D
12
18
24
12
11 8
91
13 7
66
HA 48 AV MP EN TO UE N
10
H SMIT
CO
IVE E DR LLE G
12
8
12
H SOUT T E STRE
10
CRAFTS AVENUE
10
18
12 7
12
Phase 1 and 2 Levee Improvements

118
12
13 7
W ST EST RE ET
15
12
147
18
127
EN GRE ET E STR
30
NG KI
EY SL
E NU VE A
82
KE HOLYO
12 7
STREET
12
118
36
13 7
24
10
5
12
10
18
18
12
10
FACTORY STREET
15
18
SCHOOL STREET
11 8
18
12
12
15
24
36
W AV RIG EN HT UE
12
15
118
42
15
12 12
F ST RU RE IT ET
NTE R
10 8
12
HE NR Y
SER VICE CE
24
12
ST RE E
Phase 1 and 2 Levee Improvements

NT O E LM NU BE VE A
127
66
16
10
12 7
ST R
10
VA ST LL RE EY ET
CLARK AVENUE
14
15
10
12
10 8
18
CO NZ
EE T
9 60x 5 B ox
15
MO NT V IE
AV EN UE
10 8
12
K NOO D ROA
24
8 10
10
15
18
12
12
8 10
12
M IL
7 13
10
12
12
13 7
West Street Stormwater Pumping Station

RI
10
12 7
C ST ON RE Z ET
18
12
36
12
HO CK
147
AN UM
OK NO
RO AD
12 7
A RO
Phase 2 Portable Stormwater Pumping Station

17 7
8
E RE ST T
MU ST N R RE OE ET
10
15
12
12
12
13 7
12
12 7
SO
H UT
CO L AV UM EN BU UE S
12
MU ST N R RE OE ET
11 8
Phase 2 Northampton Flood Control Pumping Station

13 7
12 7
12
10"
10
24"
Existing Pipe Diameter Proposed Pipe Diameter
EN UE
16 7
Proposed Drainage System Improvements OL IV Phase 1 12 E ST RE ET Phase 2 Phase 3 10 RE VE Phase 4 LL AV
10
12
10
10
11 8

14 7
11 8
D OA SR NT HU
HUNTS ROAD
LY MA
11 8
15
N RO AD
KE DY AD RO
FA I AV RVIE EN W UE
12
12
12
127
118
118
10
Legend
Drainage Area Boundary Area Prone to Flooding Manage Stormwater On-Site with BMPs Drain Manhole Catch Basin/Inlet Stormwater Outfall Stormwater Pumping Station
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\KingSt_WilliamSt_Recommendations.mxd JD 11/21/2011
Drain Pipe Drain Lateral Culvert Drainage Channel Detention/Retention Basin Contour
Levee Parcel Boundary City of Northampton Property Building DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS)
91 91
400
200
0 Feet
400
800
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 3.1 King Street/Market Street and Bridge Street/ Meadows Areas Recommended Plan
118
12
24
15
14 7
EC TI
12 7
60
CU TR
118
IV
7 14
H RT NO ING K EET R ST
17 7
7 17
12
18
ER
Y CEMETER
CROSS PATH
7 14
11 8
15
7 15
ROAD
MP HA
N O R ST TH R K EE IN T G
CU ROOK PINE B RVE
17 7
N TO
16 7
MA
12
118
R NO
18
LAN EP
LAN TR OA D
IVE DR
15
12
15
6
7 16
8 11
11 8
8 11
7 18
18
15 7
FORD BRAD K BROO
O BAY R
15 7
12
12 7
ST RUSSELL
REET
15 7
BR IDG E
RO AD
12 7
9
BAY ROAD
BAY ROA D
AD
12
HIRE HE
15
IGH TS
US TR IA L
14 7
12
13 7
7 13
BAY RO
DR IV E
DA MO
AD
18
24
NR OA D
21
6
10
18
118
8 11
15
14 7
21
24
10
118
10
118
18
12
12
36
12
10 8
12
12
15
15
15
AQ UA VIT AE RO AD
ISE DEN RT COU
24
12
CO N
9
12 7
30
BARRETT STREET
12
BARRETT STREET

AL RI ST E DU IV IN DR
NE CT
IC UT RI VE R
7 14
42
18
12
118
24
BR B R AD O
MA R ST SHA RE LL ET
15
12
RD FO K O
21
S TE BA
24
12
ET RE ST
e Ba rr
tt St B
12
15
24
K AN RB VE RI
rook
127
NU E
Alignment #2 New 48" RCP Drain
A RO
KING T STREE
21
M WOOD
12
ONT R OAD
KING T STREE
12
TH PA
LN O E U NC N LI VE A
21
AD RO
12 7
12
24
12
15
NT RA G E AV
30
7 13
E NU
48
36
30
118
18
54
G 36 KIN EET
STR
8 11
S CT T EE TR
12
HL HIG
FAIRG ROU ROAD ND S
12
36
STATE STREET
NT SCE CRE EET STR
Fairgrounds
12
10
60
S ON T RS EE PA TR S
48
N DE T LIN REE T S
12
STATE STREET
13 7
12
14
12
TREET FAIR S
15
12
ALDRICH STREET
18
24 6
21 6
20 6
48
36
12
18
STATE STREET
66
18
44
54
72
12
Y RO ME E PO RAC TER
78
6
54
54
21
18
36
44
18 7
48
54
36
48
12
NE E LA LE G COL
18
64
12
10
L WA TT NU ES RE
18
TH PA
72
Y LE W ET HA TRE S
7 13
167
18
M EL ET RE ST
E NU VE DA OA ILR RA
12 7
15
12
S WILLIAM
12
15 7
12
15
STREET
12
24
25
HI S
TO
G KIN
24
C RI
8
15
SH
NEW H SOUT ET STRE
12 7
WAY IGH
IV E L R MI L
18
30
60
12 7
21
12
8 11
12
CE RA TER ILL TH FOR
10
18
12 7
7 12
G KIN SH
L
R VE
WAY IGH
15
7 15
12
12
12
12
ERT HEB UE AVEN
15
12 7
T MOUN
AN NH MA E RE ST T
7 16
OAD TOM R
127
12
15
FORT STREET
SH KING
10 8
8 11
AY IGHW
12
275
236
15
NORTH MA PLE STRE ET
CLO E DAL VER
ET TRE
24 6
29 5
295
24 6
24 6
25 5
275
26 5
25 5
STERLING ROAD
S OLD HAR
187
28 5
275
24 6
AN E
285
26 5
25 5
246
ET STRE OLYN CAR
12
18
24 6
25 5
6 24
NU E
ST RE ET
12
CL AIR E
AV E
GR AN DV IEW
10
12
BRIDGE RO AD
18
STR EET
ET
HOWES ST RE
ED G E DRIVE
15
5 30
KIMBALL ST REET
18
15
30
28 5
27 5
25 5
25 5
26 5
26 5
14
21 6
22 6
12
10
POWELL ST REET
265
12
STR EET
12
30
15
BR IDG
RO A
CHE STN UT
RMS ROA D
12
EM ILY LA NE
FOX FA
EST DRIV E
12
27 5
31 4
Brought ons Brook
12
7 15
28 5
BR PI N E O OK
22 6
HILL CR
27 5
DRIVE
12
LA UR EL
12
5 28
PI NE S
RIDGE DRIVE
H AT FIEL
18
12 MEA D OW BRO O
BROOK DRIVE
42
12
12
24
22 6
KING AVENUE
SHALLOW
10
27 5
12
Brou g Br ht o oo n s k
18
8
12
25 5
24
10
12
16 7
10
147
18
18
36
12
BARDWELL STREET
15
23 6
216
SHEF FIELD LA
NE
12
STREE T
VERO NA S
IE TF HA
LD
ET RE ST
12
TREE T
36
12
N AVE NUE
24
8
24 6
12
12
BRIDGE ROAD
12
CHEST NU T
12
18
STILS O
18
REE T
10
15
NU E
IELD ST
24
HIGH S TREE T
12
21
20 6
FRA NCI SS
TR E E
KEYES STREET
GARF
275
PR OS PE
21 6
CT
12
18
s ton gh k ou o Br Bro
25 5
GLE AS
12
ON R
AVE
OA D
ALL ISO NS
12
10
12
12
18 7
19 6
15
18
B rou gh Br to ns o ok
BLA CKB E
24
265
RR YL
COU RT
18
12
PLACE
PLYMOUT H STREET
27
MEADOWBRO OK
E RIV
12
KING BR S T OO K
ANE
WILDE R
D AVEN
STRA 255 W A VENU E
F LO REN CE
ENUE
STR EET
PLYMOU TH AVEN UE
BRA TTO N
UE
MAIN
18 7
SUMNER AV
FAIRFIEL
206
12
19 6
EIG HTS
12
10
ROW
18
12
AT 12
TRINIT Y
12
12
15
RID GEW OO DT ERR ACE
HOL LY
LOCUST ST REET
12
D EL FI
TER
RAC E
LAN E
WO OD H
EE TR
12
Broughton Brook s
36
24
24
9
12
10
20 6
18
MIDDLE STREET
10
PI
ET 12 TRE S NE
21
12
12
15
18
12
12
HIRE TE RRACE
STR EET
18
SUN HIL LD RIV E
10
10
24
12
12
UST
12
21 6
LOC 24
12
DAN A ST REET
30
206
12
33
10
236
BERKS
24
STRE ET
10
STR EET
ET STRE PINE
E MANN TERRAC
12 AVE NU E
15
JACK SON
12
10
12
NE WS TR EET

23 6
SPE C
10
H UT SO
NO RFO L
ughtons Bro ok ro B
ro g ht o o Br o
u
12
LO ST CU R S EE T T
KA VEN
PRO
PRO SP
12
10
AP L
12
10
18 7
24
10
STR EET
STRE E
15
ST
T EE
NON OTUC K
EN U E
PHY TER RA CE
12
LAN DY AV
15
D
PLACE
PRO SPE CT
18
12
17 7
STR EET
BAK ER HIL LR OA
AVE NUE
ST RE ET
15
18
WOO DLA W
20 6
6 20
MA S
New 7x4 Box Drain
CHIL DS P A RK RO AD A
PITA L RO AD
167
12
10
u Bro ght o ns Broo k

AVE NUE
H OS
20 6
20 6
12
NU E
AV E
NU TT ING
AW N
15
WILLOW
275
AR L IN GT ON
255
STREE
4 32
RIVERSIDE DRIVE
TE RR AC E
OR MO ND
W OO
12
12
DR
DL
285
12
IVE
W I LL O W L A KE
12
ST RE ET
21
OD
LE WO
12
10
STREET
18
BANCROFT
MA P
New 48" RCP Drain

AL ER FED
8
EE T
MA SS AS OI
12
WARNER
24 6
MI LT ON 12 ST R
12
48
12
15
10
10
ST RE ET
18
18 7
24
ROAD
12
10
10
X LE
New 72" RCP Drain

15 7
ST RE E
10
R O AD
E
RO AD
AV EN U
M AY N AR D
18 7
EL M
FRANKLIN
FIE LD
AV EN U
STREET
JE W ET T
SAN DER SON AVE NUE
12
DE SI ER V RI
16 7
E IV DR
10
16 7
15
24
27 5
ST RE
295
21
E RIV
20 6
IDE RS
I DR
28 5
VE
ET
W AS H
HA RR IS O
RI
VE
t. mS El Brook
FEDERAL
STREET
18
AV E
IL
33 4
206
10
NU E
15 7
36
18
18
12
15
5 26
VE R
305
2 IN G 4 TO N PL AC E
12
18 7
NO N
10
32 4
Federal Street Retaining Wall Improvements
314
15 7
JA M
8
ES AV E
12
TO G N SI N KE N E AV
E U N
15
12
R AD O
YA D
NU E
10
12
WARD AVENUE
30
REET CLEMENT ST
12
18 7
14 7
15 7
10
32 4
314
21 6
MI LL
R PA
19 6
AD
IS
AD O R
RIVE R
24 6
255
275
147
7 16
14 7
13 7
15 7
Phase I
10"
13 7
Proposed Drainage System Improvements

Existing Pipe Diameter Proposed Pipe Diameter
26 5
MI
Phase 3 (
24"
)
28 5
216
16 7
19 6
7 13
17 7
20 6
18 7
196
Legend
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\ElmSt_Recommendations.mxd SCC July 2011
Contour Parcel Boundary City of Northampton Property

91
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 3.2 Elm Street Brook/Florence Area Recommended Plan
Building
91
DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS)
350
175
0 Feet
350
700
13 7
14 7
157
6 19
18
S
H
IC
15
5 25
12
DR
GR EE
8
7 17
15
D OO W
12
EN AV
UE
7 14
. m St El Bro ok
12
W AS
KE
HI NG TO
Y NE AR
1 FO 5 R
ST RE ET
12
BE
36
15
216
ST RE ET
AV EN U
29 5
314
305
12
12
YH B RO O K
I
6
15
SAN D
15
24
10
10
E
10
12
18
18
12
LL
EL M
FRA NKL IN
15
UE AVEN LOW WINS
NUT TIN G
12
24
STR EET
Bro u Br g htons o ok
15
12
SA S
OIT
Weir Structure
20 6
FIFT H AV ENU E
ST RE ET
ELM
MUR
RI VE RS ID ED
23 6
12
RI VE
DEN NIST ON
AD 8 AR EP LA CE
17
10
12
12
12
15
UE
RO EA VE
12
12
36
ECT
8
10
6 22
236
HEI GHT S
10
17 7
30
10
TAY LO R
167
12
NU E
10
17 7
10
23 6
BEACO N
15
12
23 6
15
15
12
BARRETT ST REET
15
6 19
18 7
TRE ET
12
18
12
BRIDGE RO AD
18
PI NE BR OO K
15 7
12
2 MA RY JA NE L
EET STR
6 24
12
5 28
MO IN TA UN
ET RE ST
5 29
4 32
23 6
12
12
12
5 27
KE COO NUE AVE
HAW NE THO RN LA
ns h to Broug Broo k
7 16
60
10
187
177
12
12
36
12
6 20
12
12
6 24
15
s ton gh ou k B r roo B
H RT NO
REET ELM ST
30
48
12
6
12
12
20
23 6
MA IN
E RE ST T
12
12
10
K LEY HINC
EET STR
NORTH ELM STREET
15
FE L RA DE
12
20 6
RE ST
6 19
ET
15
24
26 5
36
36
18
48
D OO RW NO
UE EN AV
EE STR T
18
8
N TO ING
8
10
10
U EN AV E
TY ER LIB
ET RE ST
UE EN AV DD 5 LA 1
BO OM TT RO AD
6 20
6 22
23 6
L DE AN M LE
15
24
NC RE FLO
AD E RO
E PO ND
21
L
L R IV E R
14 7
383
42 3
44 2
46 2
45 2
285
29 5
3 43
44 2
41 3
30 5
12
40 3
39 3
30 5
12
12
SPRUCE HILL AVENUE
15
32 4
334
RY GO RE G
LA
E N
31 4
12
12
383
393
AD
RO
RY AN
30
12
CL CIR RA TA E
28 5
12
12
15
AC
12
New 30" RCP Drain Flood Storage Area
C LLY HO
R OU
Channel Improvements
27 5
28 5
27 5
12
275
New 30" RCP Drain
29 5
RY AN
RO AD
Plug and Abandon Existing Pipe
IN ST AU
LE RC CI
Channel Improvements
28 5
12
29 5
DR
IVE
30 5
O BR RE AC
OK
31 4
OVERLOOK DRIVE
15
18
31 4
12
12
12
32 4
16
48
60
18
5 27
12
334
DR IV E
48
12
E RIV DD
O VE
RLO OK
VI EW
10
5 28
EL RFI DEE
E IV DR
WOODS ROAD
30 5
24
5 28
15
CAHILLANE TERRACE
27 5
FOREST GLEN DRIVE
BROO KS
15
IDE CIRC LE
LO NG
4 34
29 5
Proposed Drainage System Improvements

Phase 2
SUMMERFIELD STREET
Legend
Flood Storage Area Drainage Area Boundary Area Prone to Flooding Drain Manhole Catch Basin/Inlet Stormwater Outfall Stormwater Pumping Station Drain Pipe Drain Lateral Culvert Drainage Channel Detention/Retention Basin
Contour Parcel Boundary City of Northampton Property Building

91 91
City of Northampton Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan Figure 3.3 Austin Circle/Ryan Road Area Recommended Plan
DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS) Wetlands (Delineated by City)

150 75 0 Feet 150 300
\\camgissvr1\Projects\M_Billings\Northampton\mxd\RyanRoad_Recommendations.mxd JD 11/21/2011
12
314
295
3 42
30 5
3 43
3 42
3 41
C SPRU
E HILL
UE AVEN
Y OR CK HI E IV DR
393
IVE GOLDEN DR
H RC BI
36 4
LL HI RO AD
IVE GOLDEN DR
35 4
12
29 5
4 37
O PI ER NE
ALAMO COURT
LL O KN
10
4 36
3 39
4 34
12
29 5
GI
18
N AI LR
R TE C RA E
18
32 4
EW TTH MA IVE DR
10
12
BR RE
10
12
K OO
IVE DR
12
IVE DR OD WO IER BR
D TIE AT BE
12
VE RI
15
AS NC PE IVE DR AL
C IDE KS OO BR
IN ST AU LE RC CI
IRC LE
12
OK BRO SIDE L CIR C E
18
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements InthefuturereestablishinganannualbudgetamountfornewdrainsystemconstructionwouldallowtheDPW tobetterprioritizestreetreconstructionprojectsbecausecompletefundingwouldbeavailableforpavingand allstreetutilities.Theannualbudgetwouldneedtobesignificantlygreaterthanpreviousbudgetsinorderto maintainthecitystormwatersystem.Thisfundingwouldresultinanimprovementinthemanagementofcity streetsandrelatedutilities. BasedonconversationswiththeCity,anannualbudgetof$500,000issuggestedforconstructionofnewstorm drainsorreplacementofolddrainsaspartofstreetimprovementprojects.Thisiscomparabletotheannual amountbudgetedbytheCityforwaterlineandsewerlineimprovements.
3.2.2 MunicipalGreenInfrastructure/BuildingProjectRetrofit/Capital Allowance

TheproposedNPDESpermitcontainsrequirementsforGoodHouseKeepingandPollutionPreventionfor PermitteeOwnedOperations.Thesectionoftheproposedpermithaswiderangingrequirementsthatwill involveonetimecapitalexpendituresandannualmaintenancerequirementsbeyondwhatiscurrentlydone. Theserequirementsincludesmallandlargeobligations.Thefollowingprovidessomeinformationaboutthe capitalrequirements,whiletheoperationalrequirementsarediscussedinSection3.3: ParksandOpenSpace:Wherewaterfowlmaycongregateandfeedingbythepublicoccurs,theCityisrequired toinstalleducationalsignageaboutthethreatposedtoreceivingwaters.Petwasterequirementsinclude preparationanddistributionofeducationalflyers,signage,provisionofpetwastebags,anddisposalreceptacles. BuildingsandFacilities:AninventoryofallfloordrainsinCityownedbuildingsmustbepreparedandallfloor drainconnectionsthatareconnectedtothedrainsystemmustbedisconnectedandpipedtothesewersystem. GiventheageofmanyCitybuildings,manyfloordrainsmaynotbeproperlyconnectedtothesewer.Thedesign andconstructionofnewconnectionsfromfloordrainstothesewersystemwillberequired. VehiclesandEquipment:Cityvehicleswithfluidleaksmustbestoredindoorsorinacontainedareauntil repairedandallvehiclewashingmustbedischargedtothesewersystem.Constructionofimprovementsto DPWfacilitiesandothercityfacilitiesmaybeneededtomeetthisrequirement. Citypropertyandrightsofwayretrofits:ThedraftpermitrequiresthecitytoconstructBMPsonCityproperty andwithinrightofwaysforCitystreets.TheseBMPSaretobedesignedtoreducethefrequency,volume,and peakintensityofstormwaterdischarges,aswellastoreducepollutantloadingsintothedrainagesystemand receivingwaters.Thecostsassociatedwiththesecapitalprojectscouldbeconsiderablegiventhatthe constructionofdetentionbasins,waterqualityswales,raingardens,permeablepavementandothercapital intensiveBMPswouldberequired. BasedonconversationswiththeCity,anannualbudgetof$200,000issuggestedforgreeninfrastructureand otherretrofitconstruction.ThisbudgetisescalatedwithtimeinTable3.6.
3.2.3 BridgeStreet/MeadowsArea
TherecommendedPhase1BridgeStreet/Meadowsareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.1)consistof approximately5,500feetofnewdrainagepiperangingfrom48to66inchesindiameter.Theseimprovements includethe48inchdiameterdrainfromtheThreeCountyFairgroundstotheConnecticutRiverandthe66inch diameterMassachusettsDepartmentofTransportation(MassDOT)drainreplacementatDamonRoad.Onsite managementofstormwaterwithBMPsisrecommendedintheindustrialarea,insteadofincreasingpipesizesin
35
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements thatarea.Phase3improvementsconsistof7,500feetofnewdrainagepipe,rangingfrom12to42inchesin diameter.Thepreliminaryprojectcostestimatefortheseimprovementsis$11,117,000.SeeTable3.1fora breakdownofthesecosts.
3.2.4 ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea
TherecommendedPhase1ElmStreetBrookareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.2)consistofapproximately 1,900feetofnew48inchdiameterdrainagepipeand1,600feetof7by4footboxculvert.Therecommended Phase3ElmStreetBrookareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.2)consistofapproximately15,000feetofnew drainagepiperangingfrom12to72inchesindiameter.TheSmithVocationalandAgriculturalHighSchoolis locatedonaCityownedparcelandonsitemanagementofstormwaterwithBMPsisrecommendedatthis location.Thetotalestimatedcostfordrainageimprovementsinthisareais$19,364,000.SeeTable3.2fora breakdownofcostsandphasing.
3.2.5 KingStreet/MarketStreetArea
TherecommendedPhases1and2KingStreetareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.1)consistofapproximately 5,400feetofnewdrainagepiperangingfrom36to78inchesindiameter,and560feetof9footby5footbox culvertintheHistoricMillRiver.DrainagepipeimprovementsincludereplacementofpipesintheMarketStreet BrooksystemfromNorthStreettoBridgeStreet,andreplacementofpipesinKingStreet.Televisioninspections ofthedrainsintheMarketStreetBrooksystemupstreamofMainStreetshouldbeperformedduringthefinal designofimprovementsinthisareatodeterminetheconditionofthissystemandwhetheritneedstobe replaced. TherecommendedPhases3and4KingStreetareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.1)consistofapproximately 7,200feetofnewdrainagepiperangingfrom12to60inchesindiameter.Onsitemanagementofstormwater withBMPsisrecommendedintheretailareaalongupperKingStreetinsteadofincreasingpipesizesinthat area.TheseBMPscouldberequiredduringtheplanningboardapprovalprocessoraspartoftheCitys stormwaterpermitprogram. OnMarch1416,2011Nelson\NygaardconductedathreedaydesigncharrettewiththeCitytoaddressbicycle andpedestrianaccess,whilemaintaininglevelsofvehiclethroughput,forportionsofKingandMainStreets. ThecharretteidentifiedtheneedtoreduceKingandMainStreetsfromafourlanecrosssectiontoatwolane crosssection(alsoknownasaroaddiet)toimprovepedestrianandbicyclesafety,whilealsocreatingseveral opportunitiesfornewpublicspaces. TheroaddietalsoprovidesseveralopportunitiesfortheinstallationofstormwaterBMPsonMainandKing Streets.OnMainStreet,theNelson/Nygaardstudyrecommendedusingtheadditionalspacetowidensidewalks toallowoutdoordining,streettreesandothervegetation.OpportunitiesforBMPsonMainStreetinclude permeablepaversonthesidewalksforinfiltrationandstreetplantersandbioretentiongardenstocollectand treatstormwaterrunofffromthestreet.OnlowerKingStreet,thestudyrecommendedcenterleftturnlanes withvegetatedmedians.Thesevegetatedmedianscouldbedesignedasbioretentionareasorstreetplantersto collectandtreatstormwater. OnupperKingStreet,inadditiontocenterleftturnlanes,thestudyrecommendedonewaycycletracks constructedatgradewiththesidewalks,butseparatedfromthesidewalkbya10footwidevegetatedstrip. Opportunitiesforgreeninfrastructureincludepermeablepaversforthesidewalks,porouspavementforthe cycletracks,bioretentionareasinthevegetatedstrip,andstreetplantersinthevegetatedmedian.Allofthese stormwaterBMPswillreducepeakrunofftotheKingStreetdrainagesystemandprovidetreatmentof 36
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements stormwater,improvingreceivingwaterquality.Itisrecommendedthatpipecapacityimprovementdesignfor theKingStreetdrainagesystemoccurconcurrentlywithmodificationstoKingandMainStreetsbecause detailedhydrologic/hydraulicanalysesassociatedwiththeproposedstormwaterBMPsmayindicatethatpipe sizessmallerthanthoseshownontherecommendedplan(Figure3.1)maybefeasible..Thetotalestimated costfordrainageimprovementsinthisareais$19,424,000.SeeTable3.3forabreakdownofcostsandphasing.
3.2.6 AustinCircle/RyanRoadArea
TherecommendedPhase2AustinCircle/RyanRoadareadrainageimprovements(Figure3.3)consistof approximately1,300feetofnew30inchdiameterdrainagepipe,a1.3acrefloodstoragearea,and1,500feetof channelimprovements.Thetotalestimatedcostfordrainageimprovementsinthisareais$4,084,000.See Table3.4forabreakdownofcosts.
3.2.7 FloodControlPumpingStationImprovements
RecommendationsfortheNorthamptonFloodControlPumpingStationandtheWestStreetstormwater pumpingstationarediscussedinSections2.3.5.1and2.3.6.1.FortheNorthamptonFloodControlPumping Station,thecostestimateisbasedonacompletenewfacility.FortheWestStreetPumpingStation,itis recommendedthattheCitypurchaseaportabledieselenginedrivenpumpwithcapacityontheorderof6,000 gpm,insteadofinstallingapermanentpumpatthislocation.Pumpingstationimprovementsarescheduledfor Phase2.ThetotalestimatedcostfortheFloodControlPumpingStationimprovementsis$23,653,000.See Table3.5forabreakdownofcostsandphasing.
3.2.8 LeveeImprovements
AsdiscussedinSection2.3.4,theleveeimprovementsmandatedbyUSACEincluderepairingareaswithruts, smalldepressions,sparsevegetation,andmissingriprap,andremovingtreesandthickbrushontheleveeandat least15feetbeyondtheabutmentsandatthetoeofthelevee.Regularmaintenanceactivitiesarealso recommendedatleasttwiceayear,orasconditionswarrant,tocontrolandlimitgrowthofvegetationonthe leveeandthebanksofthediversioncanal.TheUSACEhasalsomandatedanengineeringevaluationofthe leveestoassessdatagaps.LeveeimprovementsmustbecompletedbyJanuary2013or2014,dependingonthe item,asdiscussedinSection2.
3.2.9 RiverErosionImprovements
TheproposedRiverRoadRetainingWall/FloodwallImprovementsarelocatedintheLeedsVillagesectionof Northampton(SeeFigure1.1).FlowsfromtheMillRiverhavescouredandundercutsignificantsectionsofthe wall,andsurfacerunoffhascompromisedtheintegrityoftheupperportionsofthewall.Inaddition,the WilliamsburgsanitarysewerinterceptorislocatedwithinRiverRoadandisindangerofcollapsingduetoriver erosion.TheCityisproposingtoremovetheexistingstonemasonrywallandreplaceitwithacastinplace concreteretainingwallthatwillprotecttheroadandsewerfromthe100yearfloodevent.Thisprojectis scheduledforPhase1. TheRobertsMeadowBrookchannelislocatedbetweentheLowerRobertsMeadowReservoirDamand ReservoirRoadinLeeds(seeFigure1.1).Thechanneliscomprisedprimarilyofdrymasonrysidewallsanda naturalizedboulderandcobblebottom.Highfloweventshaveresultedinsignificanterosionofthechannel sidewalls,whichisthreateningthedwellingsanddrivewaysofadjacentprivateproperties.TheCityhas proposedtoextendthefloodwallupstreamfromtheReservoirRoadbridgetothecriticalareainthechannel. Thenewfloodwallwouldbeacastinplaceconcreteretainingwallwithsufficientheighttoprotectadjacent propertiesfromthe100yearfloodevent.ThisprojectwillbeperformedduringPhase1. 37
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements ThethirdprojectimprovestheFederalStreetretainingwallalongtheMillRiver,asshowninFigure3.2.The purposeofthisprojectistoprotecta30inchsewerinterceptor.Erosionisoccurringalongthesharpbank angle,whichisleadingtotheexposureoftheinterceptor.ThisprojectwillbeperformedduringPhase2.
3.3 FutureOperationalCostProjections
Additionaloperationalstaff,equipmentandfundingwillbeneededtoaddressthemaintenanceand replacementneedsoftheCitysagingdrainageinfrastructureandtocomplywiththenewrequirementsofthe pendingchangestotheNPDESPhaseIIpermit.TheproposedNPDESpermithasmanyrequirementsthatwill requirebothoperationalandtechnicalstaff,aswellasnewequipmentneeds.Someoftheserequirementsare discussedbelow. DataRequirements:TheDraftNPDESPermitrequiresthegathering,andinsomecasesmapping,ofan enormousquantityofdata.Muchofthisinformationisrequiredinthefirsttwoyearsafterpermitissuancein ordertoperformtheanalysesrequiredtomeetthepermitmilestones.Northamptonhasawellestablished GeographicInformationSystem(GIS),butasignificantamountofprofessionalstafftimewillberequiredforthe datacompilationandanalysis. ProposedOutfallSampling:Thenewpermitrequiressampling25percentofeachcommunitysoutfallseach yearduringbothdryandwetweather.TheCityofNorthamptonhasalmost300stormwateroutfallsthat dischargetovariousbrooks,streams,andrivers,resultingintheneedtosampleabout75outfallstwotimesper year.ThesesamplingeventswillrequireDPWstafflaborandsamplingequipmenttoaccomplish,aswellas possiblelaboratorytestingfees. NitrogenReductionRequirementsandBestManagementPractices(BMPs):TheDraftNPDESPermitrequires theuseofbothstructuralandnonstructuralBMPstoensurewaterqualitystandardswillbemet.Thedraft NPDESpermitrequiresa10percentreductionintheamountofnitrogendischargedinstormwater.Thiswillbe requiredsincetheCityislocatedwithintheConnecticutRiverbasinandthusultimatelydischargestoLong IslandSound.TheconstructionofmanyBMPswithintheCitystormwatersystemwillberequiredtoreducethe amountofnitrogendischarged.ThesetypesofBMPsarestormwaterretrofitconstructionprojectsthatwill requirecapitalfundingtoaccomplish. PublicEducationandOutreach:TheDraftPermitincludestheproductionanddistributionofeightpublic educationnotices,inadditiontoseveralordinancesandprogramsintendedtoteachthepublichowtominimize theirimpactsonstormwaterquality.ProfessionalDPWstaffwillberequiredtomanagetherequirementsofthe publiceducationandoutreachprogram. CatchBasinInspectionandCleaning:Thedraftpermitrequiresstreetsweepingtwiceperyear(springandfall) andacatchbasincleaningfrequencythatensuresthatnocatchbasinwillbemorethan50percentfullofdebris. Currently,mostCitystreetsaresweptonceperyearandonlycertaincatchbasinsarecleanedonaregularbasis. TheCityhasover150milesofpavedstreetsandover3,750catchbasins.AdditionalDPWstaffandequipment willberequiredtomeetthesenewregulatoryrequirements.
3.4 EstimatedCostsandPreliminarySchedule
Tables3.1through3.5presenttheestimatedprojectcostsandprojectedschedulesforconstructionofthe recommendeddrainageandfloodcontrolfacilities.Table3.6summarizesthetotalprojectcostsforthe20year plan.
38
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements Projectcostsincludeestimatedconstructioncosts,a25percentconstructioncontingency,engineeringand implementationcosts.Theneedforlandacquisitionandeasementswasnotdeterminedandthosecostsare notincluded.Estimatedmidpointsofconstructionusedinthecostestimatesvaryforeachprojectandare providedinTables3.1through3.5. Table3.1 BridgeStreet/MeadowsAreaDrainageImprovements PreliminaryProjectCostEstimate Location/Description Phase1 NewDrains HeadwallsandRiprapPads(42to84in pipe) Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase1Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25%) Phase1OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) Phase3 NewDrains Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase3Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25%) Phase3OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) TotalOpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) Notes: Landacquisition/easementcostsnotincluded CostsareApril2011dollars(ENR9027) *Phase1:Apr'11toApr'14,3%peryear;Phase3:Apr'11toApr'23,3%peryear 39
106678803490311
Pipe Size(in)
Quantity
Unit
UnitCost Depth0 to8ft $670 $950 $80,000
ConstructionCost
48 66
4,700 770 1 5,470
lf lf ea lf
$3,149,000 MassDOTProject $80,000 $3,229,000 $807,250 $4,036,250 $4,410,519 $1,102,630 $5,513,000
12 18 24 30 36 42
3,650 1,225 500 1,300 350 490 7,515
lf lf lf lf lf lf lf
$255 $330 $370 $400 $470 $635
$930,750 $404,250 $185,000 $520,000 $164,500 $311,150 $2,515,650 $628,913 $3,144,563 $4,483,394 $1,120,849 $5,604,000 $11,117,000
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements Table3.2 ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceAreaDrainageImprovements PreliminaryProjectCostEstimate Location/Description Phase1 NewDrains NewBoxCulvert HeadwallsandRiprapPads(42to84in pipe) Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase1Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25percent) Phase1OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) Phase3 NewDrains Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase3Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25percent) Phase3OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) TotalOpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded)
Notes: Landacquisition/easementcostsnotincluded CostsareApril2011dollars(ENR9027) *Phase1:Apr'11toApr'17,3%peryear;Phase3Apr'11toApr'24/'25,3%peryear
PipeSize (in)
Quantity
Unit
UnitCost Depth0 to8ft $670 $1,200 $80,000
Construction Cost
48
1,860
lf lf ea lf
$1,246,200 $1,974,000 $240,000 $3,460,200 $865,050 $4,325,250 $5,164,575 $1,291,144 $6,456,000
7ftx4ft 1,645 3 3,505
12 18 24 36 48 72
8,000 1,750 1,580 1,200 1,860 530 14,920
$255 $330 $370 $470 $670 $1,000
$2,040,000 $577,500 $584,600 $564,000 $1,246,200 $530,000 $5,542,300 $1,385,575 $6,927,875 $10,326,425 $2,581,606 $12,908,000 $19,364,000
310
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements Table3.3 KingStreet/MarketStreetAreaDrainageImprovements PreliminaryProjectCostEstimate Location/Description Phases1and2 NewDrains NewBoxCulvert Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase1/2Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25%) Phase1/2OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) Phases3and4 NewDrains Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase3/4Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25%) Phase3/4OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) TotalOpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded)
Notes: Landacquisition/easementcostsnotincluded CostsareApril2011dollars(ENR9027) *Phase1/2:Apr'11toApr'18/'19,3%peryear;Phase3/4:Apr'11toApr'26/'27,3%peryear
PipeSize (in)
Quantity
Unit
UnitCost Depth0 to8ft
Construction Cost
36 48 66 72 78
320 2,800 420 400 1,480 5,981
$470 $670 $950 $1,000 $1,300 $1,800
$150,400 $1,876,000 $399,000 $400,000 $1,924,000 $1,008,000 $5,837,400 $1,459,350 $7,296,750 $9,108,690 $2,277,170 $11,386,000
9ftx5ft 560
12 18 24 36 54 60
1,500 950 2,000 1,360 800 630 7,240
$255 $330 $370 $470 $740 $930
$382,500 $313,500 $740,000 $639,200 $592,000 $585,900 $3,253,100 $813,275 $4,066,375 $6,430,309 $1,607,577 $8,038,000 $19,424,000
311
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements Table3.4 AustinCircle/RyanRoadAreaDrainageImprovements PreliminaryProjectCostEstimate Location/Description Phase2 NewDrains HeadwallsandRiprapPads(upto36in pipe) FloodStorageArea ChannelImprovements Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9027) ConstructionCostatMidPointofPhase2Construction* EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25percent) OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded)
Notes: Landacquisition/easementcostsnotincluded CostsareApril2011dollars(ENR9027) *Phase2:Apr'11toApr'21,3%peryear
Pipe Size(in)
Quantity
Unit
UnitCost Depth0 to8ft $400 $25,000 $500,000 $450
Construction Cost
30
1,300 4 1.3 1,500 2,800
lf ea acre lf lf
$520,000 $100,000 $650,000 $675,000 $1,945,000 $486,250 $2,431,250 $3,267,400 $816,800 $4,084,000
312
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementsPlanandOperationalBudgetRequirements Table3.5 FloodControlSystemImprovements PreliminaryProjectCostEstimate DescriptionofCapitalImprovement Phase1 LeveeCapitalImprovements LeveeCertificationAllowance Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25percent) CapitalImprovementsOnly TotalConstructionCost ConstructionCostatMidPointofConstruction* Phase1OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded) Phase2 LeveeCapitalImprovementsAllowance FloodControlPumpingStationUpgrades WestStreetPortablePumps Subtotal ConstructionContingencies(25%) TotalConstructionCost(April2011ENR9207) ConstructionCostatMidPointofConstruction** EngineeringandImplementationCosts(25percent) Phase1OpinionofProbableCosts(Rounded) OpinionofProbableProjectCosts(Rounded)
Notes: Landacquisition/easementcostsnotincluded CostsareApril2011dollars(ENR9207Estimated) *Mar'123%peryear **April2011toApril2012toApr'18(leveeimprovements),'15(stormwaterP.S.),'16(WestStP.S.)
ConstructionCosts $436,000 $445,000 $881,000 $109,000 $990,000 $1,019,700 $1,020,000 $500,000 $12,000,000 $400,000 $12,900,000 $3,225,000 $16,125,000 $18,106,000 $4,526,500 $22,633,000 $23,653,000
313
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementPlanandOperationalBudget
Table3.6 SummaryProjectCostSchedule
ProjectDescription BridgeStreet/MeadowsPhase1Improvements RiverRoadFloodwallImprovements RobertsMeadowBrookChannelImprovements FederalStreetRetainingWallImprovements ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceAreaPhase1Improvements KingStreet/MarketStreetAreaPhase1and2Improvements LeveeCertification LeveeCapitalImprovements FloodControlPumpingStationUpgrades WestStreetPortablePumps AustinCircle/RyanRoadAreaPhase2Improvements BridgeStreet/MeadowsAreaPhase3Improvements ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceAreaPhase3Improvements KingStreet/MarketStreetAreaPhase3and4Improvements EPAMS4PermitRequirementsAllowance AnnualAllowanceforDrainageInfrastructure MunicipalGreenDesign/ConstructionAllowance TotalCostsperYear GrandTotal $250,000 $500,000 $258,000 $1,761,680 $95,586,000 Planning/Operations Design Construction
2012
2013 $441,000
2014 $5,072,000
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Year 2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
$155,000 $43,680
$1,453,000 $502,320 $120,000 $516,000 $5,939,000 $911,000 $5,160,000 $5,315,000 $1,380,000
$275,000 $280,000
$275,000 $275,000 $56,000 $647,000 $1,391,000 $46,000 $15,998,000 $533,000 $327,000 $3,757,000 $448,000 $5,156,000 $1,033,000 $5,850,000 $6,025,000 $643,000 $250,000 $500,000 $265,000 $3,961,320 $250,000 $500,000 $273,000 $6,151,000 $250,000 $500,000 $281,000 $3,115,000 $250,000 $500,000 $290,000 $18,087,000 $500,000 $299,000 $7,769,000 $500,000 $307,000 $7,347,000 $500,000 $317,000 $6,132,000 $500,000 $326,000 $1,153,000 $500,000 $336,000 $4,593,000 $500,000 $346,000 $1,294,000 $500,000 $356,000 $7,045,000 $500,000 $367,000 $6,717,000 $500,000 $378,000 $7,546,000 $500,000 $389,000 $4,532,000 $500,000 $401,000 $4,653,000 $500,000 $413,000 $913,000 $500,000 $426,000 $926,000 $500,000 $438,000 $938,000 $500,000 $452,000 $952,000 $3,643,000 $3,752,000
314
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementPlanandBudgetOperationalRequirements
3.5 ProjectPrioritization
Constructionphasingoftherecommendeddrainageandfloodcontrolimprovementswilldependuponthe Citysavailabilityoffundingtoimplementtheseimprovements.Twentyyearbondswilllikelybeissuedto accomplishtheprojects.Section5usesthecostssummarizedinSection3.4above,assumingissuanceof20 yearbonds,toevaluatecreationofaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitytofundtherecommended stormwaterandfloodcontrolimprovementprojects,aswellasannualmaintenanceofdrainageinfrastructure andpermittingrequirements. Thehighestprioritiesarefloodcontrol,streetimprovements,theBridgeStreet/Meadowsarea,whichincludes theFairgrounds,andtheElmStreetBrookareawherechronicfloodinglimitsaccesstotheareaaround NorthamptonHighSchool.Asdiscussedabove,therecommendeddrainagesystemimprovementsconsistof twotypesofprojects: Phase1and2projectsneededtoaddresshighpriorityfloodingproblemsorotherissues,suchaspipe collapses Phase3and4projectsdesignedtoprovidecapacitytocontrol10year24hourstormpeakratesofrunoffin areaswithlesssignificantfloodingproblems Table3.7providesapreliminaryprioritizationrankingsystemforthedrainageandfloodcontrolprojectsthat canbeusedbytheCityforfuturestormwaterandfloodcontrolsystemassetmanagementusingtheCitys VUEworksprogram.Theprioritizationrankingsystemincludesalistofkeyqualitative(noncost)and quantitative(cost)assessmentcriteriausedtoscreeneachproject.Eachprojectisratedbasedonkey assessmentcriteria,andthecriteriaisassignedweightingfactorstoaccountforvaryingdegreesofimportance. Itisrecommendedthatthematrixbereevaluatedeveryfewyearstodeterminewhetheritwouldbemore beneficialtoreorderprojectpriorities.
315
106678803490311
Section3CapitalImprovementPlanandBudgetOperationalRequirements Table3.7 StormwaterCapitalImprovementProjectsPrioritizationRankingSummary

5.0%
Acres Impacted System Design Capacity (year) Project affects parcels in FEMA floodplain Cost (Engineering Design, Permitting & Construction)
10.0%
Facility Capacity
2.5%
Environmental Quality
10.0%
Access & Easements
15.0%
Connection to City-Planned Projects
22.5%
Constructability
25.0%
Roadways/Prop erty Flooded
10.0%
Total Cost Score
Watershed
Improvement
Nature of Problem
Bridge Street/Meadows Area Elm Street Brook/Florence Area
King Street/Market Street Area
Austin Circle/Ryan Road Area Bridge Street/Meadows Area
48" drain from 3C Fairgrounds to Connecticut River, 66" drain replacement at Damon Road. (Phase 1) Install weir structure and box drain in Elm Street, new drain in Milton and Federal Streets, and new outfall from Federal Street to Mill River. (Phase 1) 48" drain in Market Street Brook from North Street to Bridge Street, 36" drain in Market Street, 66" to 78" drain in King Street from North Street to Main Street, 9' x 5' box culvert in Old Mill River. (Phase 1 and 2) Creation of a Flood Storage Area, installation of 24" drain, and improvements to existing channel.
Flooding at Fairgrounds and lower Williams Street Flooding along Elm Street, particularly at the intersection of Milton Street. Drainage systems do not accommodate 10-year storm
10 10
$5,513,000
YES NO
5 4
4 4
0 0
4 4
5 4
4 3
5 5
3 3
4.250 3.825
$6,085,000 10 $11,386,000 Flooding along existing channel 25 10 $6,456,000 10 $12,908,000 10 $8,038,000 Ranking Based on Quantifiable Data Project Affects Parcels in FEMA Floodplain No 3 2 0 4 2 2 3 4 2.650 No 3 4 0 4 1 3 2 5 2.775 $3,225,000 No No 2 3 4 5 5 0 3 2 0 1 3 1 5 5 2 3 3.050 2.775 NO 4 3 0 3 4 2 3 5 3.100
Elm Street Brook/Florence Area
Upsize all pipes <12" to 12" pipes, upsize cross-country drainage Drainage systems do not accommodate 10-year storm system near Coolidge Avenue, upsize pipes in Pomeroy Terrace, upsize pipes in Williams Street. (Phase 3) Upsize all pipes <12" to 12" pipes, upsize pipes in Federal Street, Drainage systems do not accommodate 10-year storm North Elm Street, Locust Street, Stitson Avenue, High Street, Straw Avenue, Fox Farms Road, Bridge Road, Strawberry Hill Street, and Chestnut Street. (Phase 3) Upsize all pipes <12" to 12" pies, upsize pipes in Upper King Street, Walnut Street, State Street, Trumbull Avenue and Church Street. (Phase 3 and 4) Drainage systems do not accommodate 10-year storm
King Street/Market Street Area LEGEND:
Notes: (1) Costs that occur annually - MS4 permitting, drainage infrastructure, and municipal green design projects - are not included in this table. (2) Capital projects that are subject to a FEMA grant - River Road floodwall improvements, Roberts Meadow Brook channel improvements and Federal Street retaining wall improvements - are not included in this table. (3) Levee accreditation not included because subject to FEMA scheduling.
316
106678803490311
4.1 Introduction
Section3presentedtherecommendedplansfortheKingStreet/MarketStreetArea,Bridge Street/MeadowsArea,ElmStreetBrook/FlorenceArea,AustinCircle/RyanRoadareadrainageareas, tobedesigned,permittedandconstructedinfourphases,aswellastheNorthamptonfloodcontrol systemandrivererosionrecommendedimprovements. Theseanticipatedprojectscanproceedasstandaloneprojects.Henceeachphaseoftheworkin eachwatershedandthefloodcontrolimprovementswillbedesigned,permittedandbuiltseparately. FollowingaretheanticipatedenvironmentalpermitsandapprovalsforeachwatershedforPhases1 through4,andforthefloodcontrolandrivererosionimprovements: Federal Approvals Location USACE Permit NPDES Permit MEPA StateApprovals Water Quality Certification CH.91 License Local Approvals Orderof Conditions
Phase1and2 KingStreet/Market StreetArea Bridge Street/MeadowsArea ElmStreet Brook/FlorenceArea AustinCircle/Ryan RoadArea Phase3and4 KingStreet/Market StreetArea BridgeStreet/ MeadowsArea ElmStreet Brook/FlorenceArea FloodControlProjects RiverErosionProjects X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
41
1067880349
Inaddition,thenewpumpenginesandemergencystandbygeneratorforthereplacementFloodControl PumpingStationwillneedtoobtainInstallationComplianceCertificationaspartoftheMassDEPEnvironmental ResultsProgram. Duringpreliminarydesigntheproposedimprovementswillbeevaluatedtodeterminewhatpermitsand approvalsareneededandastrategytoeffectivelynavigatetheapprovalprocesswillbeprepared.Apermitting planwillbeincorporatedintothepreliminarydesignreportforeachproject.
4.2 DescriptionofApplicablePermits
Thereareanumberoffederal,stateandlocalpermitsrequiredtoimplementthedrainageimprovements. Becausecitydrainagesystemsarelinkedto,orincorporatewatercoursesandwetlands,e.g.ElmStreetBrook andtheConnecticutRiver,permitsandapprovalswillberequiredtoworkinoradjacenttotheseresources. Thefollowingidentifiesfederal,stateandlocalpermits/approvalsrequiredtoworkinoradjacenttoregulated naturalresources.
4.2.1 FederalPermits/Approvals
4.2.1.1CleanWaterAct,Section404
Section404oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)regulatesthedischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialsintotheWatersof theU.S.,includingadjacentwetlands.AnydischargeofdredgedorfillmaterialintoWatersoftheU.S.and/or adjacentwetlandstoprosecutedrainageimprovements,willrequireapprovalfromtheU.S.ArmyCorpsof Engineers(USACE)inaccordancewithSection404oftheCWA. InMassachusetts,theUSACEissuedaGeneralPermit(GP)tostreamlinethepermittingprocess.TheGP establishesthreecategoriesofreview:CategoryIinvolvesapredischargenotificationbutnoformalreviewby theUSACEprovidedallapplicableGPconditionsaremet;CategoryIIactivitiesrequirescreeningbytheUSACE forcompliancewithGPconditions;and,anIndividualPermitisrequiredforlargescaleprojects(e.g.,those alteringmorethan1acreofvegetatedwetlandorlandfillbank)whichdonotmeetthetermsandgeneral conditionsoftheGPbasedonconcernsfortheaquaticenvironmentorforotherfactorofthepublicinterest. Section10oftheRiversandHarborsAct Section10oftheRiversandHarborsActof1899(Section10)requiresapprovalfromtheUSACEtoplacefillor constructstructuresinNavigableWaters.Note,theMassachusettsGPwasissuedpursuanttoSection404ofthe CWAandSection10oftheRiversandHarborsActof1899.Therefore,reviewforworksubjecttoSection10is thesameasdescribedaboveforSection404oftheCWA. ExecutiveOrder11988(E.O.11988),ProtectionofFloodplains E.O.11988directsthatfederalactions(i.e.federalfundingorapprovals)occurringwithinfloodplainsmustbe performedsoastoavoidadverseimpacttothefloodplain,andtominimizepotentialharmandtorestoreand preservethenaturalandbeneficialvaluesofthefloodplain. ThisrequirementisaddressedbytheUSACEconcurrentwiththeirreviewpursuanttoCWASection404, describedabove.FloodplainassociatedwiththeConnecticutRiverwillbealteredduringconstruction,including excavationandrefill.Preliminarydesigncalculationshaveindicatedthattherewillbenonetlossoffloodplain storagecapacity.Thiswillbeconfirmedduringfuturedesignwork. 42
1067880349
ExecutiveOrder11990(E.O.11990),ProtectionofWetlands E.O.11990directsthatfederalactions(i.e.federalfundingorapprovals)occurringwithinafederaljurisdictional wetlandmustbeperformedsoastominimizethedestruction,loss,ordegradationofwetlands.This requirementisaddressedbytheUSACEconcurrentwiththeirreviewpursuanttoSection404oftheCWA describedabove.
4.2.1.2FederalEndangeredSpeciesActof1973
Section10oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)isdesignedtoregulateawiderangeofactivitiesaffectingplants andanimalsdesignatedasEndangeredorThreatened,andthehabitatsuponwhichtheydepend.Withsome exceptions,theESAprohibitsactivitiesaffectingtheseprotectedspeciesandtheirhabitatsunlessauthorizedby apermitfromtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS)ortheNationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS). Permittedactivitiesaredesignedtobeconsistentwiththeconservationoftheprotectedspecies. TheESAmakesitunlawfultoimportorexport;deliver,receive,carry,transport,orshipininterstateorforeign commerceinthecourseofacommercialactivity;sellorofferforsaleininterstateorforeigncommerce;take (includesharm,harass,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,kill,trap,capture,orcollectanywildlifewithintheUnited States);takeonthehighseas;possess,ship,deliver,carry,transport,sell,orreceiveunlawfullytakenwildlife; removeandreducetopossessionanyplantfromareasunderFederaljurisdiction;maliciouslydamageordestroy anendangeredplantonareasunderFederaljurisdiction;and,remove,cut,digup,ordamageordestroyany endangeredplantinknowingviolationofanyStatelaworregulationorinthecourseofaviolationofaState criminaltrespasslaw.Theseprohibitionsapplytoliveordeadanimalsorplants,theirprogeny(seedsinthecase ofplants),andpartsorproductsderivedfromthem. Section7oftheESArequiresFederalagenciestoconsultwiththeUSFWStoensurethatactionstheyfund, authorize,permit,orotherwisecarryoutwillnotjeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofanylistedspeciesor adverselymodifydesignatedcriticalhabitats. Thepresenceorabsenceoffederallyprotectedspecieswillbedeterminedduringpreliminarydesign.
4.2.1.3NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)ConstructionGeneral Permit
TheNPDESConstructionGeneralPermit(CGP)authorizesstormwaterdischargesfromconstructionactivities thatresultinatotallanddisturbanceofequaltoorgreaterthanoneacre,wherethosedischargesenterWaters oftheUnitedStatesoramunicipalseparatestormsewersystem(MS4)leadingtoWatersoftheUnitedStates subjecttotheconditionssetforthinthispermit.Theproposeddrainageandfloodimprovementprojectswill altermorethan1acreoflandandstormwaterwillbedischargedtotheWatersoftheU.S.;therefore, compliancewiththeCGPisrequired. PursuanttotherequirementsoftheCGP,theprojectproponent,ordesignee,willprepareaStormWater PollutionPreventionPollutionPlan(SWPPP)todocumentstormwatercontrolmeasuresduringtheconstruction periodsfortheprojects.FollowingcompletionoftheSWPPP,theproponentordesigneewillcompleteand submittoEPAaNoticeofIntenttodischargestormwater.
4.2.2 StatePermits/Approvals
4.2.2.1CertificatefromtheExecutiveOfficeofEnvironmentalAffairs(MEPAApproval)
TheMassachusettsEnvironmentalPolicyAct(MEPA)requiresthereviewandevaluationofcertainlargescale projectstodescribetheenvironmentalimpactandrequiresthatpermitgrantingagenciesidentifyfeasible
43
1067880349
measurestomitigatepotentialenvironmentaldamage.TheMEPARegulations(301CMR11.00)establish thresholds,aprocedure,andtimelineforatwotieredreviewprocess,whichgenerallyproceedsasfollows:the projectproponentsubmitsanEnvironmentalNotificationForm(ENF)totheSecretaryofEnvironmentalAffairs (Secretary).AtwentydaypubliccommentperiodfollowsduringwhichtimetheSecretaryreceivescomments fromthepublicandagencies,andholdsasitevisitandconsultationsession.Uptotendaysfollowingtheclose ofthecommentperiod,theSecretaryissuesaCertificatestatingwhetheranEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR) isneededandwhatthescopeoftheEIRshouldinclude,ifrequired.IfnoEIRisneededthestatepermitting agenciescanissuetherequiredpermitsandtheprojectcangoforward.Pleasenote,MEPAapprovalisnot requiredbeforeanOrderofConditionsisissuedbyalocalConservationCommission.IfanEIRisrequired,itis preparedbytheproponentandsubmittedtotheSecretary.TheEIRisreviewedandcommentedonatboth DraftandFinalstagesbythepublic,stateagencies,theSecretary,andtheMEPAUnit.Aftercompletionof reviewtheSecretaryissuesaCertificateapprovingtheproject. ApproximatetimerequiredtofileanENFisabouttwotofourweeks.Theapproximateagencyreviewtimeis fiveweeks(includingthepubliccommentperiod).ApproximatetimetocompletetheEIRprocessisdependent uponthetimeneededtopreparetheEIRs,butitisnormallycompletedintwelvetotwentyfourmonths.
4.2.2.2MassachusettsWetlandsProtectionAct(M.G.L.c.131,s.40;310CMR10.00)
TheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionAct(MWPA)regulatesalterationofstatedefinedwetlandresource areasandtheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionRegulations(310CMR10.00)identifywetlandresourceareas subjecttoprotectionandpresenttheregulationsforworkinthesewetlandresourceareas.Althoughastate law,theMWPAisadministeredatthelocallevelbythemunicipalConservationCommission.Areasknowntobe subjecttoprotectionatthistime,basedonMassGISdatasourceandCityinvestigations,areshownonthe recommendedplanfigures,andalongtheConnecticut,MillandOldMillRivers. ANoticeofIntent(NOI)willbepreparedandsubmittedtotheNorthamptonConservationCommissionfor activitieswithinareassubjecttoprotectionundertheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionAct.
4.2.2.3MassachusettsRiversProtectionAct(Ch.258oftheActsof1996;310CMR10.58)
TheRiversProtectionActprotectsperennialrivers,streams,brooks,etc.,intheCommonwealthandisenacted throughSection10.58oftheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionRegulations.Itestablishesa200footwide RiverfrontAreathatextendshorizontallyonbothsidesofperennialwaterways.Incertainurbanareas,the RiverfrontAreaisonly25feetwide.TheConnecticut,MillandOldMillRiversareperennialriversandhavean associated200footwideRiverfrontArea. BecausetheRiversProtectionActisadministeredthroughtheWetlandsProtectionRegulations,theNOIsforthe projects,describedabove,willaddresscompliancewiththeRiversProtectionAct.
4.2.2.4401WaterQualityCertificationProgram(314CMR9.00)
Section401oftheCleanWaterActrequiresthatstatescertifythatfederalactionswillnotpreventthe attainmentofstatewaterqualitycriteria.TheproposedprojectswillinvolveworkintheConnecticut,Milland OldMillRiversandassociatedwetlands,therebyrequiringapermitfromtheUSACEperSection404oftheClean WaterAct.Consequently,aWaterQualityCertificationisrequiredfromtheMassDEPper314CMR9.00.For minorimpactprojects[projectsthatalterlessthan5,000squarefeetoffederalandstatejurisdictionalwetlands and/orinvolvedredginglessthan100cubicyardsofmaterialandreceiveanOrderofConditions(wetlands permit)pertheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionAct]noindividualWaterQualityCertificationisneeded.For projectsthatexceedthosethresholds,anIndividualWaterQualityCertificationisneededfromtheMassDEP.
44
1067880349
MassachusettsStormwaterRegulations:Recentrevisionsto314CMR9.00establishstormwaterstandardsasa regulatoryrequirement.Thesestandardsweredevelopedtoregulatethequantity(flow)andqualityof stormwaterrunofffromprojectsites.Theproposeddrainageandfloodcontrolimprovementswillrequire stormwaterrunoffcontrolfeaturesandwillneedtocomplywiththestandardstothemaximumextent practicable.TheseprovisionsarereviewedbytheConservationCommissionpursuanttotheWPAandMassDEP viaWQCapplicationreview.
4.2.2.5MassachusettsEndangeredSpeciesAct(M.G.Lc.131A;321CMR10.00)
TheMassachusettsEndangeredSpeciesAct(MESA)prohibitsthe"take"ofanyrareplantoranimalspecieslisted asEndangered,Threatened,orofSpecialConcernbytheMassachusettsDivisionofFisheries&Wildlife(MDFW). "Take"isdefinedintheActastoharass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,hound,kill,trap,capture,collect,process, disruptthenesting,breeding,feedingormigratoryactivityofananimalortocollect,pick,kill,transplant,cutor processaplant.Drainageimprovementsarelocatedwithestimatedhabitatsandwillinvolveworkinthe Connecticut,MillandHistoricMillRivers,whicharealsomappedashabitatforprotectedaquaticspecies. WhenprojectsinvolveMESAreviewandalsorequireapprovalpursuanttotheMassachusettsWetlands ProtectionAct,MESAreviewcanbeinitiatedbysubmittingtheNOI(wetlandpermitapplication)toMDFW. Throughthisjointreview,theMDFWwilldeterminewhetheraTakePermitisneeded.
4.2.2.6WaterwaysLicensingProgram(M.G.L.Chapter91;310CMR9.00)
TheWaterwaysLicensingProgramwasformallyestablishedin1866withthepassageofM.G.L.Chapter91. Chapter91jurisdictionextendstothemeanhighwatermarkoftidalwaterbodiesandtheordinaryhighwater markofnontidalwaterbodies,andalsoincludes"filledtidelands.AWaterwaysLicensewillberequiredfor placementoffillorstructuresbelowordinaryhighwaterline,oftheConnecticut,MillandHistoricMillRivers.
4.2.2.7EnvironmentalResultsProgram(310CMR7.26[42:43])
UndertheEnvironmentalResultsProgram(ERP),operatorsofnewenginesandnewemergencyenginesare requiredtocertifytoMassDEPthattheyarecomplyingwiththeenvironmentalprotectionrequirementsthat applytothenewengines.OperatorscompletetheInstallationComplianceCertificationForm,whichhasthree sections.Thefirstsectionidentifiesthefacilityandcontactinformation.Thesecondpartisaseriesofquestions aboutwhetherthefacilityisfollowingapplicableenvironmentalrequirements.Thelastpartisthecertification statement.Thecertificationneedstobecompletedwithin60daysofstartingoperation.
4.2.3 LocalPermits/Approvals
4.2.3.1WetlandsProtectionActandCityOrdinance
TheMassachusettsWetlandsProtectionActandRegulationswereestablishedtoprotectwetlandresourceareas becauseofthevaluablefunctionswetlandsprovidesuchas:protectionofpublicandprivatewatersupply; protectionofgroundwatersupply;floodcontrol;stormdamageprevention;preventionofpollution;protection oflandcontainingshellfish;protectionoffisheries;andprotectionofwildlifehabitat.Authorizationisrequired fromthemunicipalConservationCommissionforanyworkinandadjacenttoprotectedwetlandresourceareas asdescribedabove. Inadditiontothestatelaw,theCityadoptedawetlandsprotectionordinancetoaugmentwetlandprotection. Theworksubjecttotheordinancewillbeaddressedinasinglejointapplication(NOI)toaddressbothstateand localrequirements. Pleasenote,additionallocalapprovalsmayberequiredbylocalZoningBoardofAppealsforworkwiththe floodplain,PlanningBoardReview,andauthorizationtoconnecttomunicipaldrainagesystems.Sincethis 45
1067880349
projectiscurrentlyintheconceptualdesignstage,evaluationofthesepermittingrequirementsisbeyondthe scopeofthisdocument.Theseissueswillbeevaluatedintheirentiretyasneeded.
4.3 Conclusion
Theproposeddrainageimprovement,floodreliefandrivererosionimprovementprojectswillrequireworkin regulatedresources,e.g.riversandwetlands,andthusmeetingapplicablestatutoryandregulatory requirementsisacriticalprojectcomponentduringthepreliminarydesignphase.Aprogramspecificpermitting planwillbedevelopedtoidentifyanticipatedprojectimpactstoregulatedresources;permitthresholds; requiredpermits;suggestedmeasurestomitigateanticipatedimpacts;andastrategyandscheduletoapplyfor environmentalpermitsandapprovals.
46
1067880349
Section5StormwaterandFloodControl Utility
5.1 Introduction
Belowisasummaryofthedriversandmainobjectivesofthissection,abriefoverviewofthe approachandmethodologyusedindevelopingthisreportandasummaryofthekeyfindings.
5.1.1 Objectives
TheCityofNorthampton(theCityorNorthampton)hasactivelybeguntoevaluatethefunding needstomaintaintheCitysfloodcontrolandstormwaterinfrastructure.Aspartofthisevaluation, theCityrequestedthatCampDresser&McKeeInc.(CDM)assesstheoptionofimplementinga stormwaterandfloodcontrolutilitybydevelopingafinancialframeworkandstormwaterfeethat couldbeusedtorecovercostsincurredbytheutility.ToprovidetheCitywithanunderstandingof howStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityfeesarestructured,wehavedevelopedthefollowing information: AplanninglevelbudgetfortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,whichincludesstormwater relatedexpensescurrentlyfundedthroughthesewerrateandGeneralFund,aswellas anticipatedcapitalimprovements. AnanalysisofGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)dataandapplicationofastandardindustry methodologytodeterminetheCitysequivalentresidentialunit(ERU)basedonimperviousarea. AfinancialmodelthatcombinesbudgetarydatawithGIS/ERUdatatodevelopastormwaterfee andassessitsimpactontypicalcustomers. Adiscussiononsomeoftheimportantpolicyconsiderationsthatareimportanttotakeinto accountwhendevelopingaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityandtheassociatedfees. Theremainderofthissectionwillpresenttheresultsofthisevaluation.
5.1.2 StormwaterUtilitiesinOtherCommunities
InordertoprovidetheCitywithabasisofcomparisonforstormwaterandfloodcontrolutility implementationpractices,CDMdevelopedacomparisontablewhichprovidesinformationon population,organizationalstructure,staffingneeds,budget/fundingactivitiesfundedbytheutility andrates/fees.Thetablehastwosections.Thefirstsectionofthetablereviewsstormwaterutilities inNewEngland.Thesecondsectionreviewsstormwaterutilitiesacrossthecountry.This comparisonhasbeencompiledusinginformationfromtheEPA,planningcommissionsandCDM clientexperience.Thefollowingisalistofsourcesandfollowupdocumentsthatcanbeusedtogain additionaldetailonstormwaterutilityimplementation:
51
106678803490311.docx
Table5.1 StormwaterUtilitiesinOtherCommunities
NewEnglandComparisons Municipality Population OrganizationalStructure StaffingNeeds Budget/Funding ActivitiesFunded Operations:stormwaterengineer,pollution prevention,waterqualitysampling,corrective actions,personneltraining,publiceducationand outreach. Capitalimprovements:drainageimprovements, sedimentremoval,culvertreplacementandpump stationrehab. Operations:streetsweeping,vacuumtruckrental, materialsandsupplies,consultingfeesandstaffing. Capitalimprovements:GISmapping,drainage improvements,riverrestoration,streetsweeper, vacuumtruckanddumptruck. Operations:legalservices,consultingfees,water qualitymonitoring,permitting,equipmentand maintenance. Capitalimprovements:upgradestoculverts, retentionponds,drainageandcatchbasins,GIS servicesandinfrastructuremaintenance. Rates/Fees Originally,annualuniformrate:$25residential and$150commercial.RecentlyswitchedtoERU chargeof$25perunitannually,throughwater andsewerbills.
Newton,MA
85,000
StormwaterManagement ProgramwithinDPW
Fulltimeengineerandfour laborers
$1.149million(2011)
Reading,MA
25,000
EnterpriseFund
3equivalentlaborers allocatedtoutility,10%ofDPW director,10%ofbusiness supervisorand10%ofhealth administrator.25%of accounting/financeclerk.
$540,350(2007)
ERUchargeof$39.84annually,billedthrough waterandsewerbills.
SouthBurlington,VT
16,000
StormwaterManagement Department,DPW
4DPWlaborers/engineersand 10%cityplanner.
$1.250million(2007 estimate)
ERUchargeof$54annually,throughthewater district.
Lewiston,ME
42,000
EnterpriseFund
N/A
$2.2million(2011 estimate)
Operations:billingandcollections,streetsweeping, catchbasincleaning,drainagerepairsandgeneral ERUchargeof$40forsinglefamilyand$60for O&M. duplex,annually.Allothercustomers,$40base rateand.045centspersq.feetofimperviousarea Capitalimprovements:GISMapping,piperenewal above2,900sq.feet. andreplacement,stormwaterinfrastructure maintenance. N/A Operations:labor,catchbasincleaning,street sweeping,illicitdischargedetectionand elimination,stormwatercontroldevicemonitoring andinspection,waterqualityprogramsand monitoring,billingandadministrativecosts. Capitalimprovements:engineering,design, financingandconstructioncostsfornewfacilities orimprovementofexistingfacilities. ERUchargeof$100
Chicopee,MA
55,000
StormwaterUtilityBureau,DPW
N/A
N/A
Westfield,MA
41,000
StormwaterUtility,Special RevenueFund
$20flatfeeforresidentialandimperviousarea basedfeefornonresidential:$0.045persquare footimpervioussurface,witha$100minimum and$640maximum
52
106678803490311.docx
Section5_050212.docx
Table5.1(cont) StormwaterUtilitiesinOtherCommunities
UnitedStatesComparisons Municipality Population OrganizationalStructure StaffingNeeds Budget/Funding ActivitiesFunded Operations:publiceducationandoutreach,illicit dischargedetectionandelimination,construction siterunoffcontrol,streetsweeping,catchbasin cleaning,GISmappingandstormwater managementstafftraining. CapitalImprovements:N/A Rates/Fees
Lancaster,PA
500,000
EnterpriseFund(planninglevel)
N/A
$1.832million (2011estimate)
ERUchargeof$16.53(planningstages)
Bellevue,WA Charlotte/Mecklenburg County,NC Tulsa,OH Louisville/Jefferson CountyMetropolitan ServiceDistrict,KY SarasotaCounty,FL Griffin,GA
117,000 1,500,000 392,000
PartofUtilitiesDepartment CountyUtilitywithinter governmentalagreements PartofPublicWorks
45to50fulltimeequivalent employees 105fulltimeequivalent employees 600fulltimeequivalent employees(includessewer) 120employees 15fulltimestaff
$10million(2004) $85million
GrossAreaandIntensityofDevelopment,$120 annually FlatrateforsinglefamilyresidentialwithERU basisforothercustomerclasses.Ratesvaryby location. Imperviousarea/ERUbasis$42annually. Flatrateforsinglefamilyresidential.Impervious area/ERUbasisforother2.$56.40annually. Assessmentsvarybygeographiclocation. ERUchargeof$35.40annually. FlatFeeSystem(Imperviousareawastoo complexforasmallcommunity) AnnualCost: Residential:$36 Commercial:$72 Industrial:$108 Eachparcelischargedabasinfeerate,which variesbygeographiclocationandtakesinto accountonsitedetentionreductionfactoranda runoffcoefficientforeachparcel Therunoffcoefficientusesaformulathattakes intoaccountthepercentagesofimperviousarea, perviousareaandsemiperviousareaonaper parcelbasis ERUof$36,withmultiplierforimperviousarea, whichisbrokeninto6ranges,thelargestofwhich charges$1,152annuallyforimperviousarea> 160,000sq.feet
$12$14million (2002) $26.7million (2006)
PartofSewerDistrict 340,000 25,000 CountyUtility CityDepartment,withshared DPWDirector
$20million(2005) $1.2million (2000) Operations:personnelandbenefits,contracted services,supplies,debtservice
Union,OH
6,400
7hourlyemployees
$75,000
Operations:stormdrainmaintenance,catchbasin cleaning
ProgramwithinDPW
FortCollins,CO
109,000
25fulltimeequivalentstaff, somestaffedaresharedand someexclusivetothe stormwaterprogram ProgramwithintheUtility Department Nofulltimeemployees,only reimbursesCitystaffforlabor onstormwaterrelatedbusiness
$7.2million (2000)
Operations:stormdrainmaintenanceandrepair, waterqualityimprovement,newconstruction developmentreviews,floodplainmanagementand designofrelevantcapitalprojects.
Valparaiso,IN
25,000
DepartmentofStormwater Managment
$520,000(2000)
Operations:collection,disposalanddrainageof stormwater.
53
106678803490311.docx
Section5_050212.docx
1. 2.
AssessmentofStormwaterFinancinginNewEngland,CharlesRiverWatershedAuthority,March30,2007. GuidanceforMunicipalStormwaterFunding,NationalAssociationofFloodandStormwaterManagement Agencies,January,2006. HowtoCreateaStormwaterUtility,PioneerValleyPlanningCommission,November13,1998. Stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu,CenterforUrbanPolicyandtheEnvironment. UtilityStormwaterSurvey,Black&Veatch,2010. SouthBurlingtonStormwaterUtility,StormwaterCreditFeeManual,Hoyle,Tanner&Associate,Inc.sand AMCEarth&Removal,Inc.,February,2006.
3. 4. 5. 6.
5.1.3 Methodology
TodeveloptheanalysisofaseparateStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,stormwaterrelatedcostscurrently beingfundedthroughtheGeneralFundandSewerUtilitywereidentifiedthroughdiscussionswiththeCity. Basedonthesediscussions,theportionofGeneralFundandSewerUtilitycostsattributabletostormwaterwere allocatedtotheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility.Havingcombinedthesecostswithanticipatedcapital improvementsoutlinedinSection3,CDMdevelopedrevenuerequirementprojectionsfortheStormwaterand FloodControlUtilityandpairedourfinancialprojectionswithimperviousareaparceldatatodeterminearate perERU. Theresultsofthisanalysisarecompiledinthisreport,thegoalofwhichistoprovidetheCitywiththenecessary informationtomakeaninformeddecisiononhowitcouldimplementaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityin ordertoequitablyrecoverthecostsofcollectingandtreatingstormwaterthroughaseparaterate.Giventhis objective,wefocusedonthreesequentialtasksinouranalysis,whichareasfollows: 1. 2. 3. EstimatedStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityrevenuerequirements AssessedtheCitysimpervioussurfaceareaandusedittodevelopanERUtypebillingsystem Calculatedarateperequivalentunitandsummarizedtheimpacttheratewouldhaveontypicalcustomers
ThisanalysisusesFY2011asthebaseyearfortheprojections.TheCitywouldnotanticipateimplementingthe StormwaterandFloodControlUtilitywithintheremainderofthefiscalyear.However,itisshownasabasisfor theprojectionstoindicatehowtheratewouldbecalculatedunderthemostcurrentexpenseperiod.
5.1.4 KeyFindings
ShouldtheCitychoosetoimplementastormwaterutility,CDMrecommendsusinganERUfee,whichwebelieve willmostappropriatelydistributethecostsofthestormwatersystem.Thisisanequitableapproachthat dependsonimperviousarea,butsimplifiesthebillingsystemandGISdatarequirementsneededfor implementation.UndertheERUsystem,residentialunitswouldbeassignedonebillingunitperdwellingunit, uptoathreefamilyunit.Therefore,asinglefamilywouldbeassignedonebillingunit;aduplex,twobilling units;andathreefamily,threebillingunits.Largerresidentialunits(i.e.morethanthreeunits)andnon residentialparcelswouldbeassignedbillingunitsbasedontheamountofparcelimperviousareatothe equivalentresidentialunitamountwhichCDMhasestimatedforpurposesofthisanalysistobe2,671square feet(fullcalculationisshowninTable5.8).Thisapproachequitablyallocatesthecostsofthesystem,since customerswithmoreimperviousareacreateagreaterburdenonthesystemandthusshouldberesponsiblefor moreofthecosts. 54
106678803490311.docx
TheresultingstormwaterfeefromanERUapproachisshowninTable5.2.
Table5.2 ProposedFY2012EquivalentResidentialUnitStormwaterFeeSchedule
Classification Singlefamily 2Family 3Family Classification LargeResidential Commercial/Industrialwith1,000sq.feetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith10,000sq.feetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith100,000sq.feetofIA 1 2 3 Impervious Area 10,821 1,000 10,000 100,000 BillingUnits ERU 1.00 2.00 3.00 ERU 4.05 0.37 3.74 37.44 RateperERU $66.63 $133.26 $199.90 RateperERU $269.95 $24.95 $249.46 $2,494.58
Acommonconcernabouttheimplementationofastormwaterandfloodcontrolfeeistheimpactto commercialandindustrialcustomers,whichtypicallyhaveahigherproportionofimperviousareathansmall residentialcustomers.Additionally,insomecases,commercialuserswhodonotdischargesignificantlevelsof wastewatermayhaveasignificantlevelofimpervioussurfacearea.Theshiftingcostburdencanbedifficultfor businessestoappropriatelybudgetfor.IftheCityisconcernedabouttheeffectofstormwaterandfloodcontrol feesoncertaincustomerclasses,therearecertainmeasuresthatcanbetakentomitigatetheirimpact,suchas stormwatermanagementcredits,phasedimplementation,orcontinuingtorecoveraportionofstormwaterand floodcontrolcoststhroughtheGeneralFund.
5.2 StormwaterandFloodControlUtilityImplementation Considerations

DespiteincreasingstatewideinterestinStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitycreationasameanstoeffectively managepermitrequirementsandequitablydistributethecostofstormwaterimpacts,theconceptisstill relativelynewtotheworldoffloodcontrolandpollutionmanagement.Implementingstormwaterutilitiesisa significantundertakingand,unfortunately,thelackofexistingutilitiesservestolimitthenumberofexamples thatcanbeusedinassessingbestpractices.Giventhoselimitations,thissectioncombinesinformationfrom existingutilities,planningdocumentsandCDMsexperienceinhelpingclientstoestablishstormwaterutilities,in ordertoassisttheCityinitsevaluationofcreatinganewutility.
5.2.1StormwaterandFloodControlUtilityBackground
TheestablishmentofstormwaterutilitiesisaconceptthathasachievedgrowingpopularityintheUnitedStates sincethemid1970s.ThefundamentalbasisfortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityisthatastheamount ofimperviousareaincreasesonaparcel,theamountofrunofffromthatparcelincreasesproportionately. Therefore,theamountaparcelownerischargedisrelatedtoitsimperviousarea.Theimperviousareachargeis anequitablefundingmechanism,sincechargesassessedtoeachparceloflandarebaseduponusageofthe drainagesystem..
55
106678803490311.docx
Theaverageimperviousareaperdwellingunitforresidentiallandusecategoriesistypicallydesignatedasthe baseunitfortheutilityfeestructure.Thebaseunitrepresentstheimperviousareadischargepotentialofthe averageresidentialdwellinganditsassociatedlot.Itcanbebaseduponallresidentialdevelopment(including multifamily),onsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopmentonly,oracombinationtoencompasssmallerresidential developments.Forthisanalysis,theaverageimperviousareaofthebaseunitiscalculatedbysummingthe imperviousareaforsmallerresidentialparcels(definedasstructureslessthanfourunits)anddividingbythe totalnumberofdwellingunitswithinthosestructures.Thisbasicunitisreferredtoasanequivalentresidential unit(ERU). Underthisapproach,largeresidentialproperties(greaterthanthreeunits),andnonresidentialparcelsarebilled basedontheamountofimperviousareaontheparcelrelativetotheERUamount.Forexample,ifacommercial parcelhasfourtimesasmuchimperviousareaasthebaseERUunit,thecommercialsitewouldbebilledfour timestheresidentialflatfee. Duringtheinitialhistoryofstormwaterutilities,itwasrelativelyexpensivetodevelopthenecessaryparcel informationtodeterminebillingunitsandassignbillingunitstospecificparcels.Itfrequentlyrequiredhand measuringparcelsandconductingsamplesofresidentialparcelstoestimatetheERU.However,asGIS technologyhasimproved,thecostsofdevelopingandimplementingutilitieshavedeclined.Manymunicipalities nowincludeimperviousareaasalayerwithintheirGISanditispossibletodetermine,withahighlevelof accuracy,theimperviouscoveroneachparcel. Duetothedecliningcostsandincreasingeasewithwhichimperviousareacanbemapped,someutilitiesnow billcustomersindividuallybasedontheactualamountofimperviousareaontheparcelregardlessofwhether thepropertyisresidentialornonresidential.Theresultisthateachparcelorcustomersfeeisbasedonits impactonthemunicipalsystemmakingthestormwaterchargemoreconsistentwithotherutilitycharges(i.e., water,sewer,electric).ThemainobstacletothisapproachisdevelopingthedetailedGISimperviousareamaps, whichdespitetechnologicaladvancements,stillrequiresasignificanteffort,specificallyininstancesofopen polygons.Acommonexampleofthisisadriveway,whichGISapplicationshavedifficultydelineating,relative tosomethinglikearoof,whichisaclosedpolygon.
5.2.2 StructuralConsiderations
ThefirststeptowardscreatingaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityisgenerallydraftingappropriatelanguage aspartofanordinance.TheCityCouncilwouldtypicallyapprovetheordinancetoestablishtheutility.Some generalguidelinestoconsiderinclude: CitingtheexistinglegalauthoritytoestablishtheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility ShowingevidenceoftheneedtocreatetheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,andtheprocesses requiredforitscreation Creatingtheutilityinawaythatensuresconsistencywithlocal,state,andfederalguidelines
Theordinanceshouldexplicitlydefinetheroleandpurposeoftheutility,aswellastheutilitysabilitytocharge andcollectfees.Itshouldfurtherestablishtheprocessbywhichthestormwaterfeesandchargesareset, includingthemethodologybehindthecalculationandanypotentialexclusionsforparcelssuchasundeveloped landormunicipalproperties.Theordinanceshouldalsodetailanycreditsthatareavailableandtheprocessby whicharesidentcouldappealacharge.WesuggesttheCitybeginreviewingexistingstormwaterordinancesin othercommunities,aswellastheCitysSewerUtilityordinance,asabasisforitsownstormwaterordinance.
56
106678803490311.docx
5.2.3 PublicEducationandInvolvement
TheCityshouldconsiderdevelopingapubliceducationprogramdesignedtoeducatethecommunityonthe reasonsbehindcreatingaStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,highlightingthenegativeimpactsofstormwater pollution.Publicsupportfortheutilitymaymakeiteasiertoimplementthefeesandchargesnecessarytofund theutility.Educatingthepubliconthebasicsandtheimpactofpollutantsinstormwatermayalsohavethe effectofcreatingachangeinbehaviorandencouragingbetterstormwatermanagementpracticesfrom residentsandbusinesses. TheCityshouldidentifytheamountavailabletoallocatetowardspubliceducationandoutreach,andformulate activitiesitbelieveswillbemosteffectiveforpublicconsumption.Examplesofactivitiesincludedistributing flyersorpressreleasesoutliningtheroleandpurposeoftheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,incorporating thebasicsofstormwaterintoschoolcurriculum,and/orhostingpublicevents.Asaplanninglevelestimate, CDMhasincludeda$20,000lineitemforpubliceducationintoitsincrementalbudgetintherevenue requirementsubsection. IndefiningthestepsforpubliceducationandacceptanceforthecreationofaStormwaterandFloodControl Utility,itisimportanttodefinethemessagetheCitywantstoconveytothepublic,andthemeansbywhichto conveyitinaneffectivemanner.Generally,beforethecreationoftheutility,thefocusofpublicoutreachisto describetheutilityanditsgeneralfunctionsandtojustifytheneedforaseparatestormwaterfee.FortheCity, themessagewouldmostlikelyhighlighttheenvironmentalandhealthimpactsofstormwaterpollutantsand requirementstoremainincompliancewithpermitguidelines. Acommonmethodtofacilitatepubliceducationisthroughthedistributionofflyersandeducationalpackets, incorporatingstormwaterinformationintoschoolcurricula,publichearingsorpressreleases,insertsthat accompanywaterandsewerbillsoutliningtheneedforaStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,and/a dedicatedwebsitewithstormwatereducation.GiventhattheCityhasdecidedtoestablishtheutilityasa standaloneenterpriseutility,establishingaseparatepageontheCitywebsitededicatedtotheStormwaterand FloodControlUtilitymaybeuseful,withinformationonwhytheutilityisbeingestablished,andajustification forthestormwaterandfloodcontrolfee.Thesitecouldalsocontainlinkstovariouswebresourcesthat facilitatepubliceducationonthetopic.SeethewebsitefortheSouthBurlington,VTstormwaterutilitythat providesdetailedinformationabouttheirutility(sburlstormwater.com). InconjunctionwitheducatingthepublicontheneedforthenewStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityandfee, itcouldalsobeusefultohighlightbehaviorsthatwouldencouragestormwaterpollutionprevention.Partofthe educationprocessfortheacceptanceoftheutilitycreationwillincludeshowingthepublicthenegativeimpacts ofstormwaterpollution,consistentwiththeEPANPDESPhaseIIrequirements,sotheCitymayconsiderusing thatopportunitytoprovidethepublicwithwaystheycanhelpreducestormwaterpollution.Itwouldbeuseful tocontinuethissortofpublicoutreachonanongoingbasisafterthecreationoftheStormwaterandFlood ControlUtilityandtheimplementationandacceptanceofthefee.
5.2.4 ManagementandBudgeting
AnotherkeyaspecttocreatingaStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityisdetermininghowtheutilityistobe managed.AnewStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitywouldoperateasastandaloneenterpriseutility,which meansthattheutilitywouldhaveitsownseparatebudgetwithlineitemexpenses,andthestormwatercharges wouldbesetannuallytodirectlyoffsettheseexpenses.
57
106678803490311.docx
5.2.4.1Budgeting
TheCityworkedwithCDMtoidentifythestaffingandbudgetaryneedstooperatetheStormwaterandFlood ControlUtility.Inordertodevelopplanninglevelestimates,CDMworkedwiththeCitytoallocatestormwater relatedexpensesfromtheGeneralFundandSewerUtility.Inadditiontothis,CDMdevelopedincremental StormwaterandFloodControlUtilitycosts.Theseareoperationandmaintenance(O&M)coststhatwillbe requiredtooperatetheCitysStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityandmeetpermitrequirements. CDMalsoprovidedtheStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitywithacapitalimprovementsplan(CIP),whichis includedinrevenuerequirementprojectionsandmustbeconsideredinthebudgetingprocess.Inadditionto theCDMpreparedCIP,theCitymayneedtoconsidermakingsomeadditionalcapitaloutlays,suchasadditional streetsweepersandmaintenancevehicles,asitmovesforwardwithitsStormwaterandFloodControlUtility implementation.AstheCitygainsabetterunderstandingoftheoperatingcostsandcapitalneedsforthe StormwaterandFloodControlUtility,theseestimateswillneedtobeadjustedtomoreaccuratelyreflectthe truecostofservice.
5.2.4.2Billing
TheCitywillneedtoestablishanappropriateandfunctioningbillingsysteminordertoensurebillingaccuracy forthestormwaterfee.Acommonpracticeistoincludethestormwaterchargeaspartofanalreadyexisting municipalbill(e.g.waterandsewer).Itisgenerallyassumedthatthemunicipalitywouldhaveamasterfileof accountsthroughsomecomputerizedbillingprogram,sothemostreasonablewaytoincorporatethechargeis topopulatethemasterfilewiththerelevantinformationpertainingtothestormwatercharge. ApotentialissuewiththeimplementationofthisratestructurethattheCitywouldneedtoconsiderisland areasnotconnectedtoothermunicipalutilities.Oneexampleofthisisparcelsthathaveprivatewellsand septicsystems.Anotherexampleisvacantparcels,whichdonothaveutilityservices.TheCityhasover2.7 millionsquarefeetofundevelopableimperviouslandarea,andanother4.2millionsquarefeetinimpervious areawithunknownclassification.IftheCityweretoincludethestormwaterchargeaspartofanotherutilitybill andincorporatethesamecustomerlisting,itwouldomitthevacantland. Analternativeapproachtobillingwouldbetoincludethestormwaterfeeaspartofthepropertytaxbill.All taxablepropertylistingswouldbeaccountedfor,soapropertywouldnotneedtohavemunicipalutilityservice inordertobeincludedforthefee.However,thisapproachcreatesasimilarbutseparateissuetheexclusion oftaxexemptproperties.Exempt(municipal,colleges,etc.)imperviousareatotalsaround16.2millionsquare feet,andwouldnotappearonthetaxrollsorreceiveapropertytaxbill.TheCitywillneedtoassessthebilling issuesassociatedwiththenewstormwaterfeeanddeterminetheappropriatecourseofaction. Athirdapproachwouldbetoconductstandaloneutilitybilling.However,CDMrecommendsagainstthis practice,asitwouldberedundantwithcurrentservicesandwouldaddanadditionallayerofadministrative coststotheutility.Forthisreason,astandalonebillingapproachisrarelyusedbystormwaterutilities.
5.2.5 FundingOptions
Thereareavarietyofrate/feemechanismsforrecoveringStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityrevenue requirements.Aswehavedevelopedthisreport,basedondiscussionswiththeCity,wehavetakenanERU approach.WehaveincludedthissectiononfundingoptionsforthepurposeofprovidingtheCityalternative approachestotheoneproposedinthereport,aswellasprovidinganunderstandingofwhytheERUwasused asthecostrecoverymethodinthisreport.
58
106678803490311.docx
Inlargepart,rate/feesettingprinciplesfocusontheequityofcostrecovery.Equityreferstosettingratesata levelthatgeneratesadequaterevenuetofundrevenuerequirements,whilealsoaligningtorecovertheactual costofservicetooperateandmaintainthesystem. Someofthegeneralmethodologiesforstormwaterrateandfeesettingutilizedbyothercommunitiesinclude: uniformchargesbasedonpropertytype,ratesbasedsolelyonimperviousarea,acombinationofimpervious andgrossarea,imperviousareaandpercentofimperviousarea,grosspropertyareaandintensityof development,andrunofffactors.Inadditiontothevariousratesandfees,theCitymayalsochoosetorecover stormwatercoststhroughtheGeneralFund,whichislargelywhatitdoesatpresent.Abriefanalysisofthese typesofrateandfeestructuresfollows. Uniformcharge/flatfeebasedonpropertytypeEachpropertyisdefinedaseitherresidentialornon residential,andchargedauniformfeebasedoncustomerclass.Thisstructurehasthebenefitofbeingeasyto understandandeasytoimplement,asitonlyrequiresanalysisofpropertydatawitharesidentialornon residentialdesignationforeachproperty.Themainshortcomingisthatitdoesnotnecessarilymatchtherate withapropertysimpactonthestormwatersystem.Forexample,asmallretailstorewithatotalof1,000 squarefeetwouldbepayingthesamenonresidentialuniformchargeasalargecommercialbuildingwitha propertysizeof100,000squarefeet.Recently,theCityofNewton,MAswitchedfromthisratestructuretoan ERUbasedstructureforitsstormwatersystemtomorecloselymatchtherateswithacustomersburdentothe system. RatesbasedsolelyonimperviousareaThisisacommonapproachforstormwaterutilities,asitissimpleto understand,easytocalculateandreadilyjustifiabletothepublic.Theunderlyingprincipalofanimperviousarea feeisthatthemoreimperviousareaapropertyhas,thelargertheimpactithasonthestormwatersystem. Thus,itshouldhaveaproportionalchargetoitsimpactonthesystem.Thisstructureisusedwithacalculated chargeperERUforsmallresidentialcustomersbasedontheaverageimperviousareaforthatclasscategory. Largerresidentialandcommercialcustomersarechargedbasedonactualimperviousareaasamultipleofthe rateperERU.ThisistheratestructurewerecommendfortheCity,andthedetailedcalculationsanddescription ofthisstructureareinSection5.4ofthisreport. RatesbasedonimperviousareaandgrossareaImperviousareaandgrossareaarebothincludedinthis methodologybasedonthelogicthatalllandareahassomeimpactonthestormwatersystem.Settingthe stormwaterfeeinvolvesallocatingeitherapercentdistributionbetweenimperviousareaandgrossarea,ora detailedcostofservicethatallocatescoststooneortheother.Abenefitofthisratestructureistheimplicit decisiontochargeunderdevelopedland,whichexpandsthebasefordistributingthecostsamongthe communityresidents.Onedeterrenttoimplementingthisapproachisequitablydeterminingtheallocation factorsusedandeffectivelyeducatingcustomersonthemethodology. ImperviousareaandpercentageofimperviouscoverUsersarechargedarateper100squarefeet,whichis definedbythepercentageofimperviousareatogrossareaonaproperty.Theratesaregenerallysetas increasinginapercentagerange(e.g.015%,1520%,etc.),withtheideabeingthatthemoreimperviousarea onaproperty,thegreatertheburden.ThisratestructureiscurrentlyusedbytheCityofDenver,CO. GrossareaandintensityofdevelopmentAnintensityofdevelopmentfactorisassignedtopropertiesto estimatetheamountofimperviousareaperparcel.Thecalculationcanbeassimpleastakingaparcelsgross areaandmultiplyingitbythefactor.Cincinnati,OH,forexample,assignsafactorofzerotoundevelopedland uptoafactorof0.85forcommercialcustomers.ApotentialbenefitofthisstructureisemployedbyBellevue, WA,inwhichasmallrateisassessedtoundevelopedproperties,allowingforsomecostrecoveryfrom
59
106678803490311.docx
undevelopedlands.Thejustificationfollowsthesamelogicastheimperviousandgrossarearatestructureall landcontributestothestormwatersystem,andsoshouldbeassessedsomecharge. RunofffactorThisstructureaimstoapplyasetoffactorstoparcelsgenerallyinlandusecategoriesinorderto accountfortheamountofstormwaterestimatedduringastormevent.Itissimilartotheintensityof developmentfactor,howeveritisusuallyconsideredabettergaugeoftheamountofactualstormwaterbyland usetype,butmoredifficulttodescribeandjustifytothepublic.
5.2.6 StormwaterCredits
Theimpacttocustomerswithlargeamountsofimperviousareacanoftenbesignificant,relativetotheircurrent costsincurredthroughGeneralFundtaxation.Whileastormwaterfeeisthemostequitablemeansfor recoveringstormwatercosts,relativetochargingforthebehaviorandconditionsthatcreatestormwaterrunoff, insomecases,itmaybeconsideredoverburdensometocertainusersinthesystem.Thereareseveralmethods thatcanbeusedtohelpcontrolcostsfortheseusers,includingphasinginstormwaterfees,orprovidingusers withstormwatercredits.Thissubsectionfocusesonthelatterofthethreealternatives. AsdiscussedinSections2and3,creditsorexemptionscanbeusedtoincentivizecertainpracticesortoprovide relieffromutilityfeesbasedonspecifictypesoflanduses.Stormwaterutilitiestypicallyprovidecreditsintwo circumstances.Thefirstiswhenapropertyownerhasputinplacestormwatercontrolsthatproviderelief beyondwhatmayhavebeenrequiredasaconditionofpropertydevelopment.Thesecondisforpropertiesthat candemonstratethattheyhavemitigatedtheirimpactonthemunicipalstormwaterinfrastructurethrough improvedstormwatertreatmentpractices,whetheritisareductioninquantityorimprovementinwaterquality ofstormwaterrunoff. Someexamplesofpracticeswherestormwatercreditsmaybeappliedare: Detentionponds Streambuffersandfilters Greenrooftops Conservationofnaturalareasinnewdevelopment Reforestation Lowincomecreditsforresidentialcustomersprovingfinancialhardship Inadditiontostormwatertreatmentpractices,someutilitiesandmunicipalitiesalsoprovidecreditrelatedto stormwatereducation,aswellasforstormwatersystemsthatareseparatefromthemunicipalsystem,buthave beenrequiredtocomplywithMS4permittingrequirements. Inordertoimplementastormwatercreditsystem,itisnecessarytodevelopawelldefinedsetofguidelinesand procedurestogovernthem.TheCitymustdefinethetypesofcreditstheycanofferandthespecificcriteriafor meetingthecreditrequirements.Someexamplesofspecificcriteriathatmaybenecessarytodevelopare determiningaminimumcontiguousareaforconservationareas,determiningtheminimumdistanceforabuffer zone,settingamaximumgradientforfiltersandbuffersanddeterminingthemaximumamountoffeereduction foragivencredit. Itisalsonecessarytosupportthecreditprogramthroughapermittingprocessthatrequiresapplication, certificationandfollowupinspectionstoensurethecreditcontinuestobemaintainedandvalid.Relativeto 510
106678803490311.docx
theapplicationprocessitisnecessarytodeveloptheappropriatepaperworkandmaintainadministrativestaff tomanagetheprocess.Forcertificationandinspection,theCitymustalsomaintainstaffthatiscapableof evaluatingthestructuralandenvironmentalaspectsofstormwatercontrols.ShouldtheCityseektodevelopa stormwatercreditprogram,therearenumerousexamplesandguidelinespresenttohelpguidethisprocess. InSection3,CDMidentifiedlocationsintherecommendedplanwhereretail,commercialandindustrial businessesshouldimplementonsitestormwaterBMPstoreduceflowstothedrainagesystem.These businesseshaveasignificantamountofimperviousareaandwillpaycomparativelyhigherfees;thus,toreduce theirburden,theywouldbenefitfromastormwatercreditprogramsuchastheonediscussedinthissection.
5.3 ProjectedRevenueRequirement
ThepurposeofthissectionistoprojecttherevenuerequirementfortheCityshypotheticalstormwaterutility. Ingeneral,therevenuerequirementiscalculatedbyaddingoperationsandmaintenanceexpenses,existingand anticipateddebtservice,cashfundedcapitalexpenditures,andnettingmiscellaneousrevenue.Sincethe stormwaterutilitywouldhavenomiscellaneousrevenueassociatedwithit,therevenuerequirementissimply thetotaloftheallocatedO&Mexpenseanddebtserviceonstormwatercapital. TheCityidentifiedbothdirectandindirectoperatingexpenseitemsthatwereapplicabletooperatingthe stormwatersystem.
5.3.1 GeneralAssumptions
Inordertoprojectthestormwaterexpenses,asetofassumptionswereusedinthisanalysis.CDMbelievesthe assumptionstobereasonableandprudentforthepurposesoftheanalysis.Keyassumptionsareasfollows: ProjectionsarebasedontheCitysFY2011RevisedBudgetandFY2012DepartmentRequest; Operationsandmaintenancecostsareinflatedat3.0percentannually.Thisincludespersonneland overtimeexpenses; Energyrelatedcostsareinflatedat5.0percentannually; TheentiretyoftheoperatingexpensescurrentlycoveredintheGeneralFundrelatedtofloodcontrolwould beallocatedtothestormwaterutility; GeneraloperationsandmaintenanceexpensescurrentlycoveredintheGeneralFundrelatedtostorm drainswouldbeallocatedtothestormwaterutility.Onethirdofthepersonnelcostswouldbecoveredby thestormwaterutility,withtheexceptionofovertimewhichissplit50/50; Sincenoindirectcostallocationcurrentlyexistsforthestormwaterutility,theallocationscheduleis assumedtofollowtheschedulecurrentlyusedforthesewerfund.Themajorexceptionisindirectcostsfor PILOT,whichhavebeenexcludedfromtheallocationtothestormwaterutility. Capitaloutlaysarenotassumedtobefundedaspartofthestormwaterutility; TheCitycurrentlyhas$250,000inauthorizedborrowingnotyetspent.Itisassumedthatthisamountwill bebondedasGeneralObligation(GO)debtforstormwaterrelatedprojectsinFY2012; ThecapitalprojectsintheproposedCIPareinflatedtothemidpointofconstruction,andareassumedtobe financedthroughGObonds(i.e.nocashfundedcapitalprojects);
511
106678803490311.docx
Section5StormwaterandFloodControlUtility GOdebtisassumedissuedatarateof5.5percentwithanamortizationperiodof20years.Costofissuance isassumedtobe1percent; Stormwaterutilitypersonnelareassumedtohaveafullyloadedsalary,includingbenefits,of$50,000 annually; MunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(MS4)permitcompliancestaffatthestormwaterutilityare assumedtohaveafullyloadedsalary,includingbenefits,of$60,000;and Rentalratesforstormwaterutilityvehicleshavebeencalculatedbasedonthe10yearamortizationperiod forthecostofthevehicle,plusa10percentmarkupformileagecosts.
5.3.2 OperationsandMaintenanceExpenses
O&MexpensesfortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityhavebeenbrokenintotwocategories.Thefirstis incrementalO&Mcosts,whicharenewcoststhatwillbeincurredbytheutilitytomeetMS4compliancecosts. ThesecondcategoryisthecostallocationspresentlyincurredbytheCitythatarebeingtransferredtothe StormwaterandFloodControlUtility.
5.3.2.1IncrementalO&M
IncrementalexpenseshavebeendeterminedbasedondiscussionswiththeCityandbestestimatesfor stormwaterimplementationcosts.IncrementalcostsincludedintheanalysisareasshowninTable5.3. MonitoringandMS4compliancestaffhavebeenincludedbasedonestimatesfromCDM.Perdiscussionswith theCity,twoO&Mstaffhavebeenincludedforcatchbasincleaning,streetsweepingandvactoroperations,a billingclerkhasbeenaddedtohandleadditionalbillingadministrativeresponsibilitiesandanexpenselineitem hasbeenaddedforpublicoutreach.Additionalequipment,includingastreetsweeper,parttimeuseofavactor truckandavehicleforcatchbasincleaning,havebeenincludedtosupporttheseO&Mactivities.A$20,000 increaseinenergyexpenseshasalsobeenassumedtosupporttheseactivities.
Table5.3 ProjectedIncrementalO&M
Monitoring MS4Staff O&MStaff O&MVehicle VactorTruck StreetSweeper BillingClerk PublicEducation EnergyCosts Total 2011 $100,000 $60,000 $100,000 $2,877 $19,927 $29,891 $50,000 $20,000 $20,000 $402,695 2012 $103,000 $61,800 $103,000 $2,963 $20,525 $30,788 $51,500 $20,600 $20,600 $414,776 2013 $106,090 $63,654 $106,090 $3,052 $21,141 $31,711 $53,045 $21,218 $21,218 $427,219 2014 $109,273 $65,564 $109,273 $3,144 $21,775 $32,663 $54,636 $21,855 $21,855 $440,036 2015 $112,551 $67,531 $112,551 $3,238 $22,428 $33,643 $56,275 $22,510 $22,510 $453,237 2016 $115,927 $69,556 $115,927 $3,335 $23,101 $34,652 $57,964 $23,185 $23,185 $466,834
512
106678803490311.docx
5.3.2.2AllocatedO&M
Thestormwateroperatingexpenseshavebeenseparatedintofivecategories:Overtime,FloodControl,Storm DrainsPersonnel,StormDrainsO&M,andIndirectCosts.ThedetailedallocationfactorsfromboththeGeneral FundandtheindirectcostschedulearelistedintheGeneralAssumptions(Section5.3.1).Itshouldbenoted thatwithinthisallocationarethesalariesofkeystaffmembers,includingengineering,administrativeservices andkeymanagementpersonnel. Table5.4summarizestheoperatingexpenseallocationforeachcategory,andthetotaleligibleforcostrecovery throughthestormwaterandfloodcontrolfee.Theseamountsdonotincludecapitaloutlay.OftotalO&M expenses,incrementalexpensesaccountforslightlylessthan30percentoftotalO&M.
Table5.4 StormwaterO&MandCapitalOutlaybyCategory,FY2011FY2016
2011 ExistingBudgetAllocations Overtime FloodControl StormDrains Personnel StormDrainsO&M IndirectCosts TotalAllocatedO&M IncrementalO&M TotalAllocatedO&M Expenses $23,000 $32,625 $109,397 $54,050 $848,465 $1,067,537 $402,695 $1,470,232 $23,000 $32,625 $109,639 $54,050 $933,870 $1,153,184 $414,776 $1,567,960 $23,690 $33,884 $112,928 $55,672 $961,886 $1,188,059 $427,219 $1,615,279 $24,401 $35,194 $116,316 $57,342 $990,743 $1,223,995 $440,036 $1,664,031 $25,133 $36,559 $119,805 $59,062 $1,020,465 $1,261,024 $453,237 $1,714,261 $25,887 $37,980 $123,399 $60,834 $1,051,079 $1,299,178 $466,834 $1,766,013 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
5.3.3 DebtServiceExpenses
Table5.5summarizesthedebtservicefortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtility.Theexistingdebtserviceis associatedwiththe$310,000GObondissueinFY2007relatedtoRidgewoodTerraceReconstruction,andthe $100,000GOdebtissueinFY2011pertainingtodrainageprojects.TheCityhas$250,000inauthorized borrowingremainingonthemostrecentdrainageimprovementspending,whichforthepurposesofthis exerciseisassumedtobebondedinFY2012forgeneraldrainagesystemimprovementsandincludedinthe anticipateddebtservice.AnticipateddebtservicealsoincludestheproposedCIP,$95.6Mincapitalspendingon thestormwatersystemoverthenext20years.Forthepurposesoftheseprojections,nocashfundedcapital projectsassumed.
513
106678803490311.docx
Table5.5 DebtService
ExistingDebtService AnticipatedDebtService TotalAnnualDebtService 2011 2012 2013 $41,944 $316,548 $358,492 2014 $38,684 $789,821 $828,505 2015 $37,484 $1,337,643 $1,375,127 2016 $35,474 $2,048,693 $2,084,167
$48,340 $54,644 $0 $48,340 $69,850 $124,494
5.3.4 RevenueRequirement
Table5.6showstheanticipatedrevenuerequirementfortheStormwaterandFloodControlUtilitythroughFY 2016.
Table5.6 RevenueRequirement
2011 O&M ExistingDebtService AnticipatedDebtService RevenueRequirement $48,340 $0 2012 $54,644 $69,850 2013 $41,944 $316,548 2014 $38,684 $789,821 2015 $1,714,261 $37,484 $1,337,643 $3,089,388 2016 $1,766,013 $35,474 $2,048,693 $3,850,180
$1,470,232 $1,567,960 $1,615,279 $1,664,031
$1,518,572 $1,692,454 $1,973,771 $2,492,536
Figure5.1 RevenueRequirement(thousands)
$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $ 2011 O&M 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
ExistingDebtService
AnticipatedDebtService
514
106678803490311.docx
5.4 ParcelAnalysisandEquivalentResidentialUnit Calculation

5.4.1 ImperviousArea
Indeterminingastormwaterandfloodcontrolfee,itisnecessarytoseparateoutimperviousareadataforthe Citybylandusecharacteristics.Inundertakingthistask,CDMusedexistingGISinformationmadeavailableby MassGIStogenerateasortedlistofimperviousareabylanduse.Theintentofthisanalysisistounderstandthe imperviousareacharacteristicsintheCityandinturnthefinancialimpactofassessingimperviousareabased stormwaterandfloodcontrolratesonapermanentbasis. Inconductingitsanalysis,CDMsortedavailableGISdataintofourmaincategories:Residential, Commercial/Industrial,TaxExempt,andOther(whichincludescategoriessuchasagricultural,forestationand recreational).ThesummaryofthisdataisshowninTable5.7anddisplayedgraphicallyinFigure5.2.
Table5.7 TotalImperviousAreaandParcelCountbyClassification
CustomerClassification Residential Commercial/Industrial TaxExempt Other TotalImperviousArea ImperviousArea(squarefeet) 28,595,854 21,336,871 16,191,191 1,641,422 67,765,338
515
106678803490311.docx
Figure5.2 TotalImperviousAreaandParcelCountbyClassification
516
106678803490311.docx
5.4.2 EquivalentResidentialUnitCalculation
InordertoassessthepotentialimpactofincorporatingastormwaterfeewithanERUstructure,itwasnecessary todeterminetheimperviousareaperequivalentresidentialunit(ERU).ThebaseERUforthisanalysisisdefined astheaverageimperviousareaperERUforsmallresidentialstructuresupthroughthreefamilyunits. DeterminingaverageimperviousareaperERUrequiredmatchingtheresidentialcategorieswithinthe MassachusettsDepartmentofRevenuelandusecodeswithestimatesondwellingunits.Basedondata providedbytheCity,Northamptoncontains9,600unitsdefinedaseithersinglefamily,twofamily,orthree family(Table5.8).Basedonthetotalnumberofresidentialaccounts,theaverageimperviousareaperunitis approximately2,671squarefeetforsmallresidentialcustomers.
Table5.8 DistributionofDwellingUnits,ImperviousAreaandERUCalculation
ERUCalculation ImperviousArea(sq.ft.thousands) SingleFamily1 TwoFamily ThreeFamily Total NumberofUnits(thousands) SingleFamily1 TwoFamily ThreeFamily Total NumberofUnits(thousands) TotalImperviousArea TotalUnits EquivalentResidentialUnit(sq.ft.) 1Includescondominiumsandmobilehomes 25,696 9.6 2,671 7.3 1.8 +0.5 9.6 21,315 3,551 +829 25,696
ThenextstepindevelopingastormwaterfeeistodeterminethenumberofERUsineachoftheremaining customerclasses.Thisincludes:commercial/industrial,taxexempt,largeresidentialandothercustomers.This datawascompiledbytotalingtheamountofimperviousareawithineachcategoryanddividingitbythe averageamountofimperviousareapersmallresidentialdwellingunit(i.e.theERU).Table5.9belowreflects thecalculationsdeterminingthedwellingunitsfortheothercustomerclasses.
517
106678803490311.docx
Table5.9 NumberofBillingUnitsbyCustomerClassification(NonResidential)
NonResidentialCustomers Commercial/Industrial TaxExempt LargeResidential Other
3
AreaSquareFeetImpervious (Total) 21,336,871 16,191,191 2,900,131 1,641,422
NumberofEquivalent ResidentialUnits (thousands) 8.0 6.1 1.1 0.6
3Largeresidentialisdefinedasapartmentswith4dwellingunitsormore.
5.4.3 EstimatedTotalBillingUnits
Addingthelargeresidentialandnonresidentialequivalentresidentialunitstothenumberofsmallresidential unitsprovidesatotalresidentialequivalentforbillingunits.Table5.10summarizesthetotalequivalent residentialbillingunitsbycustomertype.
Table5.10 BillingUnitsbyCustomerType
CustomerClass SmallResidential LargeResidential Commercial/Industrial TaxExempt Other Total Billingunits(thousands) 9.6 1.1 8.0 6.1 0.6 25.4
5.5 CalculationofStormwaterandFloodControlFee
ThissectionevaluatestheimpactoffundingtheCitysStormwaterandFloodControlUtility.Astormwaterfee recoversthecostsassociatedwithstormwatermanagement,basedontheamountofimperviousareacontained oneachparcel.Thefundamentalbasisforthisapproachisthatthereisadirectrelationshipbetweenimpervious areaandstormwaterrunoff(i.e.themoreimperviousareathereisonaparcel,thegreatertheamountofrunoff fromthatparcel).Therefore,theamountaparcelischargedusingastormwaterandfloodcontrolfeeisrelated tothequantityofimperviousarea.Asignificantbenefitofthisapproachisthatitequitablydistributes stormwatercosts,inthesensethatparcelownersarechargedproportionally,relativetotheircostimposedon thesystem. PriortotheavailabilityanduseofGIS,theabilitytomaintainadatabaseofparcelandimperviousareawas cumbersomeandcostly.Duetothisimplementationbarrier,thetradeoffofmoreequitablydistributing stormwaterrelatedcostshastypicallybeenoutweighedbyitscomplexity,eventhoughthesecostsareclosely
518
106678803490311.docx
tiedtoimperviousarea.However,withtheadventofGIStechnology,theprocessofimplementinga stormwaterfeehasbecomesignificantlylessburdensomeandisnolongercostprohibitive. Furthermore,astormwaterandfloodcontrolfeeprovidesthebenefitofmoreequitablydistributingthecosts associatedwithstormwatermanagementandfloodcontrol.Thisinturnhasasignificantbenefit,inthatby aligningthemeanswithwhichstormwatertreatmentcostsarerecoveredwiththecharacteristicsofcustomers thatcreatetheservicerequirement,itprovidesincentiveforcustomerstoimprovestormwatermanagement practices. HavingshownthecalculationsfordevelopingtheERUintheprevioussection,thefollowingsubsectionswill providethebasisforthestormwaterfeecalculationandthefinancialimpact. GivenprojectedrevenuerequirementsandERUs,CDMdevelopedastormwaterfeewhichwouldbeassessedto customersbasedonimpervioussurfacearea.Inordertoillustratetheimpactofthefee,asetofrepresentative customerclasseshasbeendeveloped.Thesecustomerclassesarehypotheticalandhavebeencreatedto providemeansbywhichtheCitycanmeasuretheimpactacrosscustomerclasses.Therepresentativecustomer typesexaminedareasfollows: Singlefamilyresidence; Twofamilyresidence; Threefamilyresidence; 20unitapartment(LargeResidential); Commercialpropertywith1,000squarefeetofimperviousarea; Commercialpropertywith10,000squarefeetofimperviousarea;and Commercialpropertywith100,000squarefeetofimperviousarea. ThebaserateperERUiscalculatedbydividingtheannualrevenuerequirementbythetotalcalculatedERUsof 25,400.ThenecessaryrevenuetofullyfundthebaselineStormwaterandFloodControlUtilityshowninTable 5.11is$1.692millioninFY2012.DividingtheprojectedrevenuerequirementbythetotalnumberofERUs wouldyieldarateof$66.63perERUforFY2012.
Table5.11 ProjectedAnnualERUCharge
RevenueRequirement ResidentialChargeperERU 2011 $59.79 2012 $66.63 2013 $77.71 2014 $98.13 2015 $121.63 2016 $151.58 $1,518,572 $1,692,454 $1,973,771 $2,492,536 $3,089,388 $3,850,180
UsingtheERUsystem,parcelswithlargeramountsofimperviousareaarechargedproportionallyhighercoststo offsettheircostburdenonthesystem.Forexample,acommercialcustomerwith100,000squarefeetof imperviousareawouldbechargedapproximately$2,495inordertoaccountforthecostofstormwaterthatthe parcelcontributestothesystem.TheimpactoftheseratesonthevariouscustomerclassesisshowninTable 5.12.
519
106678803490311.docx
Table5.12 ComparisonofImpactsforStandardCustomerTypes,FY2012
Classification SingleFamily TwoFamily ThreeFamily Classification LargeResidential Commercial/Industrialwith1,000squarefeetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith10,000squarefeetofIA Commercial/Industrialwith100,000squarefeetofIA BillingUnits 1 2 3 Impervious Area 10,821 1,000 10,000 100,000 ERU 1.00 2.00 3.00 ERU 4.05 0.37 3.74 37.44 RateperERU $66.63 $133.26 $199.90 RateperERU $269.95 $24.95 $249.46 $2,494.58
Table5.13summarizesthetotalrevenueexpectedfromgeneralcustomerclassesforFY2011.Itcanbeseen thattherevenuesgeneratedbycustomerclassaredirectlyproportionaltothebillingunits,andinturnthe imperviousareaofeachcustomerclass.
Table5.13 ExpectedRevenueperCustomerClass,FY2012
Classification SmallResidential LargeResidential Commercial/Industrial TaxExempt Other Total Billingunits(thousands) 9.6 1.1 8 6.1 0.6 25.4 ApproximateRevenue $639,668 $73,295 $533,056 $406,456 $39,979 $1,692,454
5.6 Recommendations
AstheCityevaluatestheoptionofdevelopingaStormwaterandFloodControlUtility,andasameansfor meetingrevenuerequirements,itwillneedtoconsidernotonlytheimpactofitschosencostrecovery mechanism,butalsoissuesrelatedtoequityandbehavioralincentives.Relativetotheequityofitsstormwater andfloodcontrolratestructure,theCityshouldseektoalignitscostofservingcustomersascloselyaspossible withthechargeassessedtothosecustomers.Usingthiscriterion,astormwaterandfloodcontrolfeewill accuratelyreflectthelikelycostburdenimposedbyindividualcustomersasstormwaterrunoffiscloselytiedto imperviousarea.Relativetobehavioralincentives,astormwaterandfloodcontrolfeebasedonimperviousarea createsapricesignalforstormwatercustomersastothecostassociatedwithstormwaterrunoffandflood control.Thisdirectlyencouragescustomersandnewdeveloperstofindwaystominimizestormwaterimpacts.
520
106678803490311.docx
ShouldtheCitychoosetomoveforwardwithimplementingastormwaterandfloodcontrolfee,givenitscurrent stormwaterrelatedcosts,anticipatedcapitalcostsandtheCitysgeographiccharacteristics,wehaveprojected theCityscurrentstormwaterchargeforFY2012tobe$66.63.Giventheanticipatedgrowthinthestormwater chargeovertime,shouldtheCitybeinterestedinmitigatingtheimpactofthestormwaterandfloodcontrolfee oncustomerswithhighimperviousarea,itcanseektoeithermaintainaportionofthestormwatercostson sewerratesorimplementastormwatercreditprogram.
521
106678803490311.docx

CDM Northampton Stormwater System Assessment and Plan 2012-05 Vol 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDM Northampton Stormwater System Assessment and Plan 2012-05 Vol 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stormwater and Flood Control System Assessment and Utility Plan

Northampton, Massachusetts Department of Public Works

Volume I Final Report

3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2

Appendices AppendixAFieldInspectionMemorandaandPhotographs AppendixBDrainageAnalysis AppendixCPipeCapacityAnalysis AppendixDDetailedDebtServiceSchedule

AlloftheaboverepresentrealandsignificantcoststotheCitythatmustbeaddressedtoavoidtheriskofnon complianceor,worse,theriskofseriousdamagetopublicandprivatepropertyandtheassociatedfinancialand qualityoflifeimpactsonNorthamptonresidents,businessowners,andvisitors.

$1,453,000 $502,320 $120,000 $516,000 $5,939,000 $911,000 $5,160,000 $5,315,000 $1,380,000

$1,470,232 $1,567,960 $1,615,279 $1,664,031

$1,518,572 $1,692,454 $1,973,771 $2,492,536 FigureES1 RevenueRequirement(thousands)

Lower Robert Meadow Res.

Stormwater Pipe > 24" to 82" Levee

Drainage Areas Parcel Boundary Streams Lakes and Rivers

DEP Wetlands Wetlands (MassGIS)

Parsons or Bassett Brook

West Street Pumping Station

OLD MILL RIVER

Northampton Flood Control Pumping Station

BROOKWOOD MARSH POND

1.2 FederalStormwaterManagementRegulations HistoricalOverview

1.3 FederalStormwaterManagementRegulations PendingChanges

Therearemanyothercostlyrequirementstocomplywiththisnewpermit.Thecoststomaintaincompliance withtheDraftpermitmayrequirespendingnearlythreetimesthecurrentbudgetorapproximately$250,000 peryearfortheCityofNorthampton.

Section2ExistingConditionsandAlternatives Analyses 2.1 Introduction

2.2 StormwaterDrainageandFloodControlSystem Overview

River Road Retaining Wall/ Floodwall Improvements

Roberts Meadow Brook Channel Improvements and Erosion Repair

Town Boundary Parcel Boundary Streams

Lakes and Rivers DEP Wetlands

Elm Street Brook Area

Ryan Road/Austin Circle Area

Bridge Street/Meadows Area

Federal Street Retaining Wall Repair

King Street/ Market Street/ Downtown Area

LIAMS STR EET

CLARK S CHOOL DRIV

E ENU N AV TER EAS

Approximate Wetland Boundary Estimated by City

West Street Stormwater Pumping Station

Northampton Flood Control Pumping Station

Contour Levee Parcel Boundary

EET FAIR STR

OLYN CAR ET E STR

LAUREL RIDGE DRIVE

NORTH MAPLE STREET

NORTH ELM STREET

FRA STR NCIS EET

FRA STR NCIS EET

MEADOW BROOK DRIVE

NOR T STR H ELM BRA EET NCH

HOL LY HEI WOOD GHT S

HOL LY HEI WOOD GH TS

MAIN S FLOR TREET ENC E

BLA CKB LAN ERRY E

WEST CE NTER STR EE

SUN HIL LD RIV E

PIO N VAL EER L DRI EY VE

NUT AVE TING NUE

WILL O STR W EET

LOW WINS UE AVEN

Bro u Bro ghtons ok

MUR TER PHY RAC E

SAN DER AVEN SON UE

HIG MEA H DO ROA W D

Drain Pipe Drain Lateral Culvert Drainage Channel Detention/Retention Basin

Contour Parcel Boundary Building