The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171003 Application 0 Great Pond LDP-Brooks Solar SANBORN HEAD € �O Foundry Street BuildingTrust.Engineering Success. „� tnCorLl=NH 03301 9 9 2y Jean Enright } June 22 2017 Planning Director QR falls#� Xl 30. 3471.01 Town of North Andover ZI 120 Main Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Re: Land Disturbance Permit Filing Brooks School Solar Farm North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Jean: Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. (Sanborn Head) prepared the enclosed Land Disturbance Permit application on behalf of North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. (Nexamp) for a proposed 1.1 megawatt (MW) solar power generation system on the Brooks School property across from the school's main entrance at 1160 Great Pond Road. The proposed development is on a 33.3 acre parcel identified by the Town of North Andover Assessors' Office as Map 103, Parcels 1 and 10. The property is currently an unused grass-covered hill with some wooded areas and down-gradient wetlands. The Brooks School and Nexamp have entered into agreement to develop this land into a solar farm, similar to a previously permitted solar project on this land by a firm that is no longer in business. The Land Disturbance Permit granted in July 2013 for the previous project expired. The Conservation Department Order of Conditions for the project was extended and is still valid. Please note that the previous project and the one currently proposed are similar. For information purposes, the enclosed application includes a copy of the review comments from the Town of North Andover's outside consultant on the previous application, as well as Sanborn Head's responses to those comments. Please contact the undersigned should you require additional information. Very truly yours, SANBORN,HEAD&ASSOCIATES,INC. Ry L. Clay Eric S. Steinhauser, CPESC, CPSWQ Project Manager Principal RLC/ESS:rlc Enclosure: Land Disturbance Permit Application&Check for Filing Fee P:\3400s\3471.01\Source Files\Land Disturbance Permit\20170622 Cover Letter.docx SANBORN, HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC. www.sanbornhead.com SANjj�� EA Building Trust,Engineering Success. LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for North Andover Solar,LLC%Nexam p,Inc. File No.3471,01 June 2017 SANBORN, HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC, www.sanbornhead.com F i a € � _ } •J t 2017 29 PLANNING DEPARTMENT S A Community& Economic Development Divisior7 " " Land Disturbance Permit Application Please type or print clearly. 1. Petitioner: North Andover Solar,LLC c/o NEXAMP,Inc. Petitioner's Address: 4 Liberty Square,3rd Floor,Boston,MA 02109 Telephone number: 617-431-1444 2.Owners of the Land: Brooks School Address: 1160 Great Pond Road,North Andover,MA 01845 Number of years of ownership: +85 Years 3.Address of Property Being Affected: SAME Zoning District: R2 -- Assessors Map: 103 Lot#: 1&10 Registry of Deeds: Book#: Page#: 4. Description of Project: Development of a 1.1 megawatt,ground-mounted photovoltaic array over approximately 5 acres of a 33.26-acre parcel located across Great Pond Road from the Brooks School. Limited earthwork is required to install the array. A gravel access road and staging area will be created for maintenance of the facility. A wood post and wire fence will be installed around the perimeter of the facility. Stormwater runoff from the facility will be managed using vegetated treatment swales and level spreaders. Erosion and sediment controls will be installed prior to,and maintained throughout construction. 5.Total Area to be Disturbed The project involves about 5 acres of land;however,actual disturbed land is less than 1.5 acres. 6. Has there been a previous application(Special Permit or Definitive Subdivision)from the Planning Board on these premises? Yes If so,when and for what type of construction? A land disturbance permit was granted for this project by another developer. That permit expired. 7. Has there been a previous application (NOIIRDA,Small Project,Certificate of Compliance)from the Conservation Commission on these premises?Yes If so,when and what type? An Not was submitted November 2012.The Order of Conditions was issued and was extended till June 13,2018. 7. Petitioner and Landowner signature(s): Every application for a Land Disturbance Permit shall be made on this form, which is the official form of the Planning Board, Every application shall be filed with the Town Clerk's office. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to furnish all supporting documentation with this application. The dated copy of this application received by the Town Clerk or Planning Office does not absolve the Page 1 of 2 120 Main Street, Planning Dept.; North Andover, (Massachusetts 01845 Phone 978.688,9535 Fax 978,688.9542 Web wwwnor handoverma applicant from this responsibility. The petitioner shall be responsibly-for all expenses fqr filing and legal notification. Failure to comply with application requirements,:as cited lierelnWand in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations may result In a dismissal-by the Planning Board of this application as incomplete. Petitioner's Signature:. Print or type name here: . i Owner's Signature: Print or type name here: l-- 8.Please list fide of plans and documents you wiQ be attaching to this application. i A Engineeriggjpra*q§ .-,. B GeoiepW6i Engineering Report C Stq""jgr Report D Prior technical review comments on stormwater repart(Prepared for expired ap iication, proVrded'for infoiinati6n.1 t Certified Abutters List - „F,_VV9-Fomt G Outside ConsuttarrtEscrow .`.o Page 2 of 2 120 Main Street,Planning Dept„North Andover,Massachtaseits M45 ; Phone 978,688.9535 Fax 978.688.9542 Web www.nor#fiandoverma;4ov, applicant from this responsibility. The petitioner shall be responsible for all expenses for filing and legal notification. Failure to comply with application requirements, as cited herein and in the Planning Board Rules and Regulations may result in a dismissal by the Planning Board of this application as incomplete, Petitioner's Signature: Print or type name here; Owner's Signature: Print or type name here: 8. Please list title of plans and documents you will be attaching to this application. A Engineering Drawings B Geotechnical Engineering Report C Stormwater Report D Prior technical review comments on stormwater report(Prepared for expired application. Provided for information.) E Certified Abutters List F W9 Form G Outside Consultant Escrow Page 2 of 2 120 Main Street, Planning Dept., North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Phone 91-8,688,9535 Fax 978.688,9542 Web www,no han over a,00v NEXAMP, INC. 2400 24(q Town or North Andover 5/5/2017 4/26/2017 Bill#050517-02571.1 300.00 300.00 300.00 02571 Brooks School-Planning Board Appliation Fe 300.00 a N Z 3 O N EffNkm (A30"'kINEERING DRAWINGS O BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM U N W Y O O 1160 GREAT POND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS JUNE m 0 a 1 ' �"V-'Nr PROJECT OWNER: SHEETINDEX BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR DEVELOPER: SHEET NO. TITLE {�,« � � _ � J _• �.: NORTH ANDOVER SOLAR, LLC c/o NEXAMP, INC. 1 GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, AND ABBREVIATIONS A. �. ENGINEER (SITE/CIVIL ONLY): 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN - _ SANBORN HEAD &ASSOCIATES, INC. I _ — ? E 3 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN (NORTH) � - IAA, dam . I �� j I� 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN (SOUTH) = ~-°p 6-7 DETAILS r 8 WETLAND RESOURCE PLAN Z. REVISION TABLE $E - FROM:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-SOUTH GROVELAND MA REV:1987 e, LOCUS PLAN o�� µN w SCALE: 1:25,000 a"` 49:O o G/STEP� � p JUNE 2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. RlC 'S/OHAL ENG N0. I DATE DESCRIPTION BY PREPAREOFOR• PREPAREOBY.• . SANBORN HEAD nex., Amp 8 20 FOUNDRY STREET, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301 NORTH ANDOVER SOLAR, LLC c/o NEXAMP, INC. (603) 229-1900 FAX (603) 229-1919 4 LIBERTY SQUARE, 3RD FLOOR, BOSTON, MA ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 6 4 h p �5;o LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW i NOTES: ABBREVIATIONS: LEGEND: $ 1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM A PLAN ENTITLED,"TOPOGRAPHICBOUNDARY PLAN-GREAT MW: MEGAWATT EXISTING PROPOSED POND ROAD",PREPARED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.OF NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE,DATED s AUGUST 29,2012 ORIGINAL SCALE:1"=60'. DC: DIRECT CURRENT 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR 202 '.. 0 2. TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY FT: FEET -- '- --- 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR —210— HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.BETWEEN AUGUST 13 AND AUGUST 24,2012, O.D. OUTER DIAMETER UTILITY POLE .m 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88). TYP: TYPICAL TREE CANOPY LINE '.. 4. PROPERTY LINES AND TOWN BOUNDARY LINE DEPICTED ARE BASED ON COMPLIED DEEDS,PLANS, TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ASSESSORS MAPS OF RECORD. STC: STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS TREE LOCATION 5. SOIL BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY SANBORN HEAD PERSONNEL ON AUGUST 29,2012. GOAB: GROUP OPERATED AIR BREAK LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES — — 6. WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED BY WETLAND CONSULTANT SERVICES OF MERRIMAC, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER MASSACHUSETTS ON AUGUST 16 AND 17,2012,AND SURVEYED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.IN AUGUST 2012. WETLAND FLAGS WILL BE RESET AND MADE VISIBLE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. GENERAL SEED MIX: WOOD POST AND WIRE FENCE X 7. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT — — PROPERTY LINE ARE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES IN THIS DISTRICT. POUNDS POUNDS PER MIXTURE PER ACRE 1,000 SQ.FT. — — APPROXIMATE TOWN LINE '.. 8. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS PROMULGATED BY THE '.. NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION. TALL FESCUE 20 0.45 - - STRUCTURE/ENCLOSURE CREEPING RED FESCUE 20 0.45 WETLANDS SPECIFICATIONS: — — — — BIRDSFOOTTREFOIL 8 0.20 '. TOPSOIL AND SEEDING TOTAL 48 1.10 WETLAND FLAG A. TOPSOIL SHALL BE FERTILE SOIL CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH,FREE NOTE:GENERAL SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE APPLIED TO — — GENERAL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OTHERWISE NOT WETLANDS BUFFER FROM STONES GREATER THAN 3-INCHES,ROOTS,STICKS,PEAT,WEEDS,AND SOD. IT SHALL NOT SPECIFIED TO BE SEEDED WITH NEW ENGLAND WET MIX. CONTAIN MATERIAL HARMFUL TO PLANT GROWTH. STONE WALL B. APPLICATION OF HYDROSEED SHALL ONLY BE PERFORMED DURING THOSE PERIODS WITHIN THE __________ PATHWAY SEASONS WHICH ARE NORMAL FOR SUCH WORK AS DETERMINED BY THE WEATHER AND NEW ENGLAND WET MIX: LOCALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE,AND AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. GUARDRAIL C. ANY PART OF THE SEEDED AREA WHICH FAILS TO YIELD AN ACCEPTABLE STAND OF GRASS COMMON NAME NWI COMMENTS PAVED ROADWAY AFTER TWO MONTHS AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER SHALL BE RETREATED WITH ADDITIONAL (SCIENTIFIC NAME) RATING _____ SEED. A LOW GROUND COVER THAT TOLERATES VARYING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD L———__J LURID SEDGE OBL HYDROLOGY,PROLIFIC SEEDER IN SECOND GROWING (CAREX LURIDA) SEASON PROPOSED TEMPORARY GRAVEL AREA F-17 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: FOWL MEADOW GRASS TO BE RESTORED WITH VEGETATION L�' (GLYCERIA OBL PROLIFIC SEED PRODUCER THAT IS A VALUABLE 1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS PRIOR TO CANADENSIS) WILDLIFE FOOD SOURCE SOLAR ARRAY HEM THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE FRINGED SEDGE A MEDIUM TO LARGE SEDGE THATTOLERATES ;I--I-"I A \' LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF SANBORN HEAD BORINGS INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED REGULARLY DURING CONSTRUCTION. (CAREX CRINITA) OBL SATURATED AREAS,GOOD SEED PRODUCER -- - ----- WATER PROTECTION DISTRICT OVERLAY 2. STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT JOE-PYE WEED EROSION. (EUPATORIADEIPHUS FACW FLOWERING PLANT THAT IS VALUABLE FOR WILDLIFE ELECTRIC LINE — — — MACULATUS) COVER,GROWS TO 4 FEET 3. DEBRIS GENERATED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LEGALLY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE. SWALE BROOM SEDGE FACW- TOLERATES A WIDE RANGE OF HYDROLOGIC 4. ALL TOPSOIL ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROPOSED PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY (CAREX SPP.,OVALES OBL CONDITIONS I STONE LEVEL SPREADER GRAVEL AREAS,EQUIPMENT PAD AREA,AND AREAS OF CUT AND FILL SHALL BE STRIPPED TO ITS GROUP) '.. FULL DEPTH AND STOCKPILED FOR REUSE.TOPSOIL PILES SHALL REMAIN SEGREGATED FROM (-------I EXCAVATED SUBSURFACE SOIL MATERIALS. SOFT RUSH FACW+ PROVIDES GOOD WILDLIFE COVER,TOLERATES A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT L_____J (JANCUS EFFASUS) VARIETY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS LIMIT OF NON-DISCHARGE ZONE(325 FEET FROM 5. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS CONDITIONS WARRANT OR WOOLGRASS FACW+ TOLERATES FLUCTUATING HYDROLOGY TRIBUTARY WETLAND) AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER,OWNER,OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. (SCIRPUS CYPERINUS) e 6. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO PREVENT TRACKING OF SEDIMENT BONESET �-, . ZONE A(NON-TRIBUTARY TO LAKE COCHICHEWICK) 5.2 EUPATORIUM FACW+ FLOWERING PLANT THAT IS VALUABLE FOR WILDLIFE ^H ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. ( COVER,GROWS TO 3 FEET '�, '"' ZONE A TRIBUTARY TO LAKE COCHICHEWICK fa PERFOLIATUM) 7 s . ,i`. ( ) 39 7. WETLANDS ARE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED.NO ENCROACHMENT IS PERMITTED. TUSSOCK SEDGE CREATES ELEVATED HUMMOCKS ON WET SITES,MAY (CAREX STRIETA) OBL REMAIN LEVEL ON DRIER SITES :3 8. IF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE SEEDED AREAS DO NOT SHOW A PROMPT"CATCH",THESE AREAS SHALL �4a BE RE-SEEDED AT THE SAME RATE AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS BEFORE IN INTERVALS OF TEN BLUE VERVAIN A NATIVE PLANT THAT BEARS ATTRACTIVE BLUE 3H (10)DAYS,WHICH PROCESS SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL A GROWTH OF GRASS IS ESTABLISHED OVER (VERBENA HASTATN) FACW+ FLOWERS 33 THE ENTIRE AREA. NOTE: 9. NEWLY TOPSOILED,GRADED AND/OR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM TRAFFIC AND NEW ENGLAND WET MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1 L8.PER 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN EROSION. THE VEGETATED TREATMENT SWALES WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 10. GRADES IN SETTLED,ERODED AND/OR RUTTED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED. 11. ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL OR SEED MIX SHALL BE MADE WITH MATERIAL EQUIVALENT TO THE DESIRED MATERIAL IN OVERALL FORM,HEIGHT,BRANCHING HABIT,FLOWER, '.. LEAF,COLOR,FRUIT AND CULTURE. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF SUBMITTED WITH ENUMERATED REASONS WHY SUBSTITUTIONS ARE PROPOSED. ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER r LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIETY DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECTNUMBER: tAoF DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM s oe� MO"W. 6 3471.01 ® g R`CD REVIEWED BY: TREED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL o e ® q � PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, SHEET NUMBER: _ °f �ST��.a Plc: E.STEINHAUSER eF FSS/OrygLE' AND ABBREVIATIONS 1 of s JUNE2D17 ISSUED FOR PERhUTTiNG-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIC DATE: .TUNE ZOI7 DATE DESCRIPTION BV �3�0 i NOTE: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR NOTES AND LEGEND. o / ' / STv:k / WASHINGTON \ Z- TRe � I — _ _ — SH 5 LOT 1 MAP 103 — — — — ' LOT 1 MAP 103 BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. ` BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. �a _G 1 1160 GREAT POND ROAD 1160 GREAT POND ROAD � NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 t NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 _3 SH,1 SF! v i i 9393 3sv GRAPHICAL SCALE '.. B ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER so ao a so Tso LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIET17 DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: f OF BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM a a� i DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 SANBU'-"'RN HEAD ®Ampt nor pw tD REVIEWED BY: TREED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS ° ® Qeess PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: QIST a Plc: E.STEINHAUSER EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN e Na.2 p JU111 D11 ISSUED FOR PERIIITTING-NOT FOR C0111TRUCTION RLC DATE: JUNE 2017 2 OF$ NO. I DATE DESCRIPTION BY So, i NOTES: 2 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. 8 2. LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED UTILITY POLES ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY a NGRID. k / / STREET /WASHINGTON -� / L � S 14 / - LEVEL WOOD POST& - VEGETATED q _ WIRE FENCE ql �(@SPREADER - "'" - ! TREATMENT SWALE e 1.1 MW-DC(STC)SOLAR ARRAY \ 1,000 KW-AC INTERCONNECTED TO NGRID � _ i� " -"' -- ENTRANCE _ 7 MINIMUM 0.3ACRES OF STAGINGAREA GATE 6 r^.'.. x -- � SHALL BE RESTORED WITH LOAM AND SEED x x x -- ,.�-•, '' I AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT - APPROXIMATE LIMIT STAGING AREA 18 FT WIDE GRAVEL 3 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF CLEARING 0.6AC a( ) ACCESS ROAD eP TEMPORARY 1 OF CLEARING } ,\�' ti s' tEL209.5' / I 3 CONSTRUCTION e ,'' sW ENTRANCE/EXIT y - ACG ROAD ES� / GRAVi i §� VEGETATED EXISTING NGRID 13.2 KV e4g TREATMENT e SWALE -- 3 PHASE UTILITY POLE#1746 \ a TREES TO BE MAINTAINED OR :gg 6 PERSONNEL Ck x x ate e GATE 5 LEVEL OVERHEAD UTILITY POWER LINE REPLACED AS REQUIRED FOR Ey`n 39@ .... ., eSPREADER ACCESS TO SITE s e LEVEL e VEGETATED - -- 333 SPREADER 4 PERSONNEL PROPOSED UTILITY POLE(TYP.) 4i 6 6 TREATMENT e SWALE 6 GATE e3 CONCRETE PAD FOR UNDERGROUND MEDIUM VOLTAGE LINE Q INVERTERITRANSFORMER VI.:i� (FV/BLJC GRAPHICAL SCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 1. 40' a 1. 169 LAND DISTURBANCE PERAHT APPLICATION REVIEW k DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER: H Of z 1 Rlq�, 4, DESIGNED 8Y: R.CLAY 3471.01 o almevw. c NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS ® C"eD REVIEWED BY: T.REED SANBORN HEAD a�L ° .<eacs PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY v ® A SHEET NUMBER: °FSScOis�T �, PIC: E.STEINHAUSER PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN JUNE 1D77 ISSUED FOR PERh9Ti1N6-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLC 3 OF 8 o DATE: JUNE 2017 5 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY _S�o i NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. \ _-—Wh_. J,Z - =I- APPROXIMATE LIMIT a QIW OF CLEARING Am x x x x ® � x x _x 1 x e WOOD POST&WIRE FENCE ® o` \\� All ® / \\ Ail APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF \\ CLEARING 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION 7 OF WATTLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT ® ° CONTROL BARRIER ® { o/ — — .— — — — — — — — — — .— — — — — — — — / \ _I ® — — — — —GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD — — — — — — — — — ° g PERSONNEL GATE x x x am/ ow eSTONE LEVEL ® ® °- w� rs 5 I 6 SPEADER I e TREATMENT I � g SWALE a \ I i3€ LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES §a; I 0\49 ass - '. -- �- "'---�.�. .�•-' �� '. VARIES) �' _. W/o I", : ° GREAT =— �_• — x� W 1. ZIZ _q- Qo1w w 2I= U) GRAPHICAL SCALE 8 ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER '.. sa zs a 11 goo LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIETY DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER: e �� tHOfr DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 q O AIOIHYW. G ® z R`�o fD REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS HEACIVIL 9 e ® A .aess PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: CIS `°a Plc: E.STEINHAUSER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN NORTH a�ONpL E' O DUNE M7'! ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOTFORCONSTRUCTiON RLC DATE: JUNE 2017 4�F$ 2 5 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION DY i tf � / NOTES: � 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. 2. LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED UTILITY POLES ARE ` Z•= APPROXIMATE. FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY i __� i' - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF — 2 NGRID. wI� WATTLE EROSION AND _�'�_ _ — — �' — — /SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIERe - APPROXIMATE LIMIT 00 -- APPROXIMATE LIMIT I OF CLEARING &ft ! OF CLEARING mom �, _o®o-° rJ STONE LEVEL -o ° e S P E A D E R VEGETATED I x' WOOD POST& TREATMENT 6 204 a x I� WIRE FENCE g SWALE 206 / X X 2 —�208 x t I MINIMUM 0.3 ACRES OF STAGING AREA / ° SHALL BE RESTORED WITH LOAM AND SEED - AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT f / STAGING AREA >%M/ ° r (0.6 AC) �N ■ 18 FT WIDE GRAVEL 3 TEMPORARY APPROXIMATE LIMIT I ±EL.209.5' I / ACCESS ROAD Q CONSTRUCTION e OF CLEARING ENTRANCE/EXIT 7 GRAVEL SHOULDER FOR TRUCK TURNING fto D ° o�o� ' O O 0 \ Roes /l TRUCK ACCESS TO THE SITE i 1 CESS ROP i _ / IS RESTRICTED TO GRAVELA� _ ✓ ® \ \ / I NORTHBOUND VEHICULAR OVERHEAD UTILITY ® \ TRAFFIC ALONG GREAT POWER LINE _._.----40*„'At.. POND ROAD(TO BE POSTED) 00 ENTRANCE 2 PROPOSED UTILITY %/ ®� / D GATE 6 POLE(TYP.) % ® \ so'e -'naakx tsz rtA PERSONNEL ® Nos euFgp } o-,GATE 6 ¢ °TREATMENT n ° / SWALE /o/ ' EXISTING NGRID 13.2 KV 3 PHASE UTILITY POLE#1746 nAmos �R STONE LEVEL-�•'�,� °-nX°-n °-°- I o'O,.'o�'�o SPEADER '® / TREES TO BE MAINTAINED OR _ REPLACED AS REQUIRED FOR / ACCESS TO SITE as ® ® / am f ( APPROXIMATE LOCATION 2 - I _ OF WATTLE EROSION e7 AND SEDIMENT g ( / CONTROL BARRIER eo€ i � alb LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES � L I �99 lC - yylpTN VARIES) """. <t dlU Z = GRAPHICALSCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 50• 29 a 50, 100, LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW 3 DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: € e� SNOFs DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM 3471.01 F ne>® � °MOTw fP REVIEWED BY: TREED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 4QVIL Am SANBORN % .awe F PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER:Plc: E.STEINHAUSER. _ G/5 � EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN a p`�'s/Gwuea�� aigt p JUNE 2017 ISSUED FOR PERh9TTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLC DATE: JUNE 2017 (SOUTH) 5 OF 8 5 d NO. DATE DESCRIPTION By jQ° i 9GUAGE,HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED WOVEN STEEL NOTE WIRE CONFORMING TO ASTM A116,6"MESH,(TYP) (SEE NOTE 2) 1.� ENTRANCE GATE DETAIL SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL.PROVIDEAND {{9 INSTALL GATE CLOSELY MATCHING WOOD 8 WIRE FENCE TYPE. GATE POST 20'WIDE DOUBLE LEAF GATE s 12' 17 GATE BRACING u f 1B0'OFFSET HINGES PLUNGER BAR i 7 .._ , _- 1.5-MIN.LONG 9 _—_ _ 'I- ___ _—— _.1 7 I ___ L —--_._ __.__— ; 1 . i �.. — l 'I IGAGE STAPLE NOTE 3 1 Ti - _ 1 it III_ �� I - . ;- -- -L - _ 1 _I T =--r f _ L 6• BRACEWIRE 3' II I MIN. ..' I I 4' GATE SHALL BE I _ CAPABLE OF ADDITION LJ L� L J L J L p)' CONCRETE POST OF LOCKING MECHANISM WOOD POST(TYP.) NOTES: (SEE NOTE 1) 1. FURNISH PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POSTS CONSISTING OF EITHER DOUGLAS FIR,WESTERN LARCH,CEDAR,OR PINE OF ANY SPECIES.USE LINE POSTS WITH A MINIMUM 104N.POST CIRCUMFERENCE AND A 31N.MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN OPPOSITE FACES OR BETWEEN ANY FACE AND AN OPPOSITE CORNER.PROVIDE ITS IN CIRCUMFERENCE POSTS FOR CORNER,TERMINAL OR BRACES; AND A4-IN.MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN OPPOSITE FACES OR BETWEEN ANY FACE AND AN OPPOSITE CORNER. FENCE i/ \ T�ijJ N C E ENTRANCE GATE 2. PROVIDE WOVEN WIRE CONFORMING TO ASTM A116,EXCEPT WIRE SIZE AND STRENGTH OPTIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING j' SUBSECTIONS OF TABLE 1:NO.12 Jj GRADE 60,NO 121 GRADE 125,OR 14 Jj GRADE 125. NOT TO SCALE 3. FURNISH 9 GAGE STAPLES WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 1.54N.,EXCEPT THAT LIN.STAPLES MAY BE USED IN LOCUST POSTS.PROVIDE 9 GAGE STAY WIRES AND BRACE WIRES,AND 125 GAGE TIRE WIRE AND WIRE CLAMPS.PROVIDE GALVANIZED STAY WIRE,BRACE WIRE, TIE WIRE AND WIRE CLAMPS CONFORMING TO ASTM A116, '... n WOOD AND WIRE FENCE I'WIDE GATE NOT TO SCALE TOPSOIL/ HYDROPHRIC VEG� � -• \/ , �EEENOT TATON (SLOP VARIE S) NG GRADE GATE SHALL BE 18, CAPABLEOF I ADDITION OF EXISTING PROCESSED GRAVEL FOR SUBBASEi �,__, 1� 1 DOT A91.031) GRADE (MASS EXISTING GRADE i 2 B' LOCKING 12* 2%MIN. 2%MIN. // T 4 MECHANISM TOPSOIL /.'TOPSOIL :' / -- ,,�.. i I LL— COMPACTEDSUBGRADE\ NOTE: l�J 1. SEED THE SWALE WITH NEW ENGLAND WET MIX BY NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS,INC.OR MIX ( I I I APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AT A RATE OF 1 LB.PER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.ONCE SEEDED,CLEAN I I I I CROWNED AT CENTERLINE STRAW MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS INCLUDING THE BUFFER AREAS.SEED LJ LJ SHALL BE FREE OF INVASIVE SPECIES. 2. SEE SHEET 1 FOR DETAILED SEED MIX INFORMATION. NOTE: 1. PERSONNEL GATE DETAIL SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL 16 PROVIDE AND INSTALL GATE CLOSELY MATCHING EXISTING WOOD 8 WIRE FENCE TYPE. GRADE PROCESS ED GRAVEL FOR SUBBASE SIDESLOPE TREATMENT SWALE 12° (MASS DOT ITEM M1.031) 2%MIN. EXISTING GRADE 4 TOPSOIL n NOT TO SCALE PERSONNEL GATE ' -TOPSOIL - NOT TO SCALE 2 MIN. S COMPACTED SUBGRADE� 3 11 4°TOPSOIL MIN. SEEDED TURF SLOPED ACROSS ROAD > �� Vy FINISH 3'MIN. u1�4 GRADE ,../ ---I \ i NOTES: 3/4-INCH CRUSHED STONE 1. LOCATIONS AND TYPE OF ROADWAY SECTION WILL DEPEND ON SLOPE CONDITIONS (MASS DOT M2.01.4) 1 O- COMPACTED OR NONNWOWO VEN UNDISTURBED " AND SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO PROMOTE DRAINAGE FROM GEOTEXTILE SUBGRADE AND ACROSS ROADWAYS. 2. SOILS EXCAVATED FOR ROADWAYS SHALL BE RELOCATED TO RAISE GRADES OF NOTE: / 1 TYPICAL T LOAM AND SEED Tl OTHER PORTIONS OF ROADWAY OR STAGING AREA OR REMOVED FROM THE SITE. j I AL M D SEE D SOILS SHALL NOT BE STOCKPILED ON SITE,UNLESS ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL 1. INSTALL LEVEL SPREADER AT A ZERO PERCENT GRADE ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE DISCHARGE LIP. PRECAUTIONS ARE MADE AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. FLOW MUST DISCHARGE UNIFORMLY ALONG THE LEVEL SPREADER NOT TO SCALE '.. n TYPICAL ACCESS ROAD n LEVEL SPREADER NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIETIT a I DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER: i txoFbyA,� DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 OVA )Mnww"Amp SANBu' ."yG "RN HEAD ® USED 'A REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL 9 E ® eeas PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: g sx = o cNSTEQ �� Plc: E.STEINHAUSER FBNAL E' DETAILS 6+ p a¢o� p JUNE2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NO TFORCONSTRUCTION RIC 40FU DATE: JUNE 2017 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY L i 4 50'MIN NOTES: y 1'X1"X24"WOODEN STAKE PLACED 4'O.C. /j / UNPAVED PAVED 1. THE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET EXISTING EXISTING WATTLE FILTER SOCK ,/ REPAVE WERE PROVIDED TO SANBORN HEAD BY NEXAMP. u GROUND ROAD 12"DIAMETER MIN(TYPICAL) AS SPECIFIED `ORDINARY FILL AREA TO B'IE'd'PROTECTED COMPACTED WORK AREA '{' ��)r•y�(�� 'k,.:�. AS SPEC.I \\ w wAhi-green.com/solar/en 6"MINIMUM 12"MIN ° PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FILTER CLOTH BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION SECTION COMPACTED ENTRANCE AND ROAD \ > ELECTRIC CONDUIT / SAND MEW EW ® I"X1'X24"WOODEN STAKE (AS REQUIRED) �� \ PLACED 4'O.C. 6 �' 50'MINIMUM ® WATTLE FILTER SOCK WATER FLOW "\ \,\,\�� 12"DIAMETER MIN(TYPICAL) AS REQUIRED Hyundai Heavy Industries was founded in 1972 and is a Fortune 500 company.The company employs more than 48,000 people,and has a global 10'MIN WORK AREA AREA TO BE PROTECTED ELECTRIC CONDUIT TRENCH leading 7 business divisions with sales of 40.9 Billion USD in 2015.As one of our core businesses of the company,Hyundai Heavy Industries is F4 NOT TO SCALE - ® committed to develop and invest heavily in the field of renewable energy. PLAN Hyundai Solar is the largest and the longest standing PV cell and module manufacturer in South Korea.We have 800 MIN of module production �r 20, EXISTING 1)WATTLE SHALL BE 12•vat DIAYEIFB. capacity and provide high-quality solar PV products to more than 3,000 customers worldwide.We strive to achieve one of the most efficient PV '.. ROAD modules by establishing an R&D laboratory and investing more than 20 Million USD on Innovative technologies. 2 WATTLE EROSION CONTROL BARRIER EXISTING NOT TO SCALE GROUND 10' IN Poly-crystalline Type CRUSHED STONE PLAN VIEWHiS-M31ORI I HI5-M315RI I HIS-M32ORI I HI5-M325RI zx PORTR MODULE RACAIT RI-Series 3D•TILT Mono-crystalline Type MIN,4•SLAB HIS-S33ORI I HIS-S33511I 1 HiS-S340RI I HiS-S345RI HiS-S350R1 HiS-S355RI ABOVE GRADE 9'-10" N. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 1. STONE FOR A STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE 1 TO 2 INCH - (m'') FOR CONCRETE PAD DETAILS STONE,RECLAIMED STONE OR RECYCLED CONCRETE EQUIVALENT. uw.4',1-t/2' S al r rcA t re urkkr cen t t rr pro:ess FABRI 2. THE LENGTH OF THE STABIUZED ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50 (iUtEX11LE C(_IBW oR i _p STONE F si FEET. APPROVED 998mm(39.29")(W)x1,960mm(77.17")(L)x40mm(1.57")(H) EWAL) .... 3. THE THICKNESS OF THE STONE FOR THE STABILIZED ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE FINISH GRADE LESS THAN 6 INCHES. MIN.6•,3/4'S7oNE 3'-0" RAGE Approx.22.9 kg(50.5165) 4. THE WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE FULL WIIDH OF THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE. B•( ,) B',3/a'CRUSH STONE 72 cells in series(6 x 12 matrix)(Hyundai cell,Made in Korea) 5. GEOTEXTILE FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR TO PLACING THE STONE. 4 ram'(12AWG)cables with polarized weatherproof connectors, 6. ALL SURFACE WATER THAT IS FLOWING TO OR DIVERTED TOWARD THE -MIN B'covp uw.tz•sTRueTURu Flu 5 R CK DETAIL IEC certified(UL listed and UL 4703 certified),Length 1.2 m(47.2) CONSTRUCTION ENRRANCE SHALL BE PIPED BENEATH THE ENTRANCE. BEDDING SAND 3'COMPACTED SAND 7. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT -- NOT TO SCALE IP67,wea[herproOf,IEC certified(UUisted) TRACKING OR FLOWING TO DR SEDIMENT ONTO EXISTINMONALG ROAD. THIS MAY NOTE 3 bypass diodes to prevent power decrease b partial shade REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDIRONAL STONE OR ADDITIONAL cauPACTtD SuomwE ELEC.CONDUIT YP P P Y P LENGTH AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY (SUITABLE SOIL MAiEwAL) SIZE VARIES Front:Anti-reflection coated lass An MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED,DROPPED, 1. SOLAR MODULES TO BE INSTALLED WITH SCREW-TYPE ANCHOR SYSTEM. g ( ti reflection coated),3.2 mm(0.126') ' _— WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO EXISTING ROAD SHALL RE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY, Encapsulant:EVA Back Sheet:Weatherproof filmCONCRETE PAD - , 3 NOT TO SCALE Clear anodized aluminum alloy type 6063 _ 1 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE _ NOT TO SCALE •IEC 61215(Ed.2)and IEC 61730 by VDE I •UL listed ILL 1703),Type 1 for Class A Fire Rating I -Output power tolerance+3/-0 96 •ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001:2004 Certified `o •OHSAS 1 8001 200 7 Certified s E •Advanced Mechanical Test(5,400 Pa)Passed(IEC) ' /Mechanical Load Test(40lbs/ft')Passed(UL) j •IEC 62716(Ammonia Corrosion Resistance Test)Passed •IEC 61701(Salt Mist Corrosion Test)Passed . .( •Potential induced Degradation(PID)Test Passed (85"C/85%/600 hr-PVEL) I a •VDE(Test Data Acceptance Program) •UL(Witness Test Data Program) , Tg t 3 •10 years for product defect •10 years for 90 96 of warranted min.power „ •25 years for 80%of warranted min.power ex Important Noticeon Warranty e Th-ouant'esa I mm,PVr—le rnth F' da' 'N pp)on y yun Feav)Industr�s Co_ - 3 logo(sh-tt oelo,,)and produ,t senal number on it 6 {t��'gg fiTgg## �� V C .L US P,CYCLE rA—, 2:3 E I n, AHYUNDAI D E E �® �Y, _VA HEAVY HEIAVY INDUSTRIES ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW A Y DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER: ZW OF l,GIy,B, o MOnrvw. o DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 ® R=CO u REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS SANBOMN HEME), n CLVIL .ee+� PROJECT R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: o csTEe� Pic: E.STEINHAUSER 3s/DIIALE DETAILS DUNE�117 ISSUED FOR PERANTTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLC 7 OF 8 3g t, D DATE: JUNE 2017 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 81' .3�e i NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 2. 25'NO-DISTURBANCE ZONE IS THAT PORTION OF THE BUFFER ZONE WHICH EXTENDS TWENTY-FIVE FEET(25')FROM THE EDGE OF DEP MAPPED ZONE A a THOSE WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW.DISTURBANCE OF ANY KIND 11 (NON-TRIBUTARY TO LAKE u IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THIS ZONE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GRADING,LANDSCAPING,VEGETATION REMOVAL,DUMPING OF COCHICHEWICK) LANDSCAPING DEBRIS,PRUNING,FILLING,EXCAVATING,ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND/OR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION. 3. 50'NO-BUILD ZONE IS THAT PORTION OF THE BUFFER ZONE WHICH EXTENDS FIFTY-FEET(50')FROM THE EDGE OF WETLAND RESOURCE / AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW.CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THIS ZONE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FOUNDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WA�H)NGTON STREET / '' COMMERCIAL AND/OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS,PORCHES,DECKS(I.E.,FOOTING,PILING,SONOTUBE),PATIOS,HOUSE ADDITIONS, BUILDING ADDITIONS,POOLS,SEPTIC SYSTEMS,AND SHEDS.DRIVEWAYS,ROADWAYS,RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPE BOULDER / WALLS MAYBE ALLOWED IN THE 50-FOOT NO-BUILD ZONE WHEN NO OTHER FEASIBLE LOCATION OR ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF ACCESS EXISTS. jam ' A 4. 100'BUFFER ZONE IS THE AREA WHICH EXTENDS 100'FROM THE EDGE OF WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH / ,S ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW. \ l i % ova r .z �yW x x x x TRIBUTARY WETLAND 400, b y9F ' —_ ___- _. — __ _- — _- - - - - - - - - � [ \ A4Wm'tenw,e^ LIMIT OFNON-DISCHARGE ZONE(325 FEET FROM x ,,.��'_"' •"" / �/ TRIBUTARY WETLAND) .; 33 ,. APPLICABLE ZONE A BOUNDARY ;:-ro'` ` LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (TRIBUTARY TO LAKE r � COCHICHEWICK) -' ----�...-. '-— - ——--'�—�— /s�-�' wm'rri v w'esI ,�..t- ��J✓ ;� '� �Y�'X GRAPHICAL SCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 6 80• 40' o• 80, Aso LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECTNUMBER: t9UF DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM �� 3471.01 SAN ® Ism ow REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL E ® .4eT55o PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: ols�T PIC: E.STEINHAUSER WETLAND RESOURCE PLAN 8 OF 8 �yvo p JUNE?D 71 ISSUED FOR PERAWTTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLC DATE: JUNE 2017 '.. y o a a NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY '.. ATTACHMENT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SANBORN 1111 HEAD SA.NBORN HEAD Building Trust.Engineering Success, f GEOTECHNI C Brooks School Solar Farm North Andover, Massachusetts Prepared for North Andover Solar, LLC%Nexamp, Inc. File No. 34 71.01 April28,2017 SANBORN, HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC. www.sanbornliead.com SANBORN HEAD D 1 Technology Park Drive Building Trust.Engineering Success. Westford,MA 01886 Mr. Ben Axelman April 28, 2017 Manager of Solar Development File No. 3471.01 North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. 4 Liberty Square, 3rd Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Brooks School Solar Power Generation Project North Andover, Massachusetts Dear Ben: Sanborn, Head & Associates, Inc. (Sanborn Head) prepared this geotechnical engineering report on behalf of North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. (Nexamp) for the proposed large-scale ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) array to be constructed at the Brooks School property located on Great Pond Road across from the Brooks School in North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site). This report and its findings are subject to the attached Limitations. PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 1.1 megawatt (MW) ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) array over approximately 5 acres of a 33.26-acre parcel. It is our understanding that the existing site grades will be utilized to the extent possible (i.e., no significant site cuts or fills). We also understand that the preferred foundation type to support the PV rack is a proprietary earth screw foundation system. SITE DESCRIPTION The Site is located in North Andover on Great Pond Road, as shown on the Locus Plan on Figure 1. The Site is located in a suburban community and is located east of the Brooks School main campus. The site topography is a rolling hillside and falls steeply to the east. Based on topographic data, the ground surface elevations at the Site range from approximately 165 to 255 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Wetlands areas abut the Site to the south and east. A Site Plan is provided as Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Sanborn Head conducted a subsurface exploration program to support this geotechnical engineering report. On August 29, 2012, Sanborn Head observed a five (5) test boring explorations advanced by New Hampshire Boring, Inc. (NHB) of Derry, New Hampshire. These test borings, identified as SH-1 though SH-5, were advanced in the general area of the proposed PV arrays, at locations accessible to the truck-mounted drill rig. The approximate boring locations are presented on the Site Plan, Figure 2. SANBORN,HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC, www.sanbornhead.com April28,2017 Page 2 20170428 North Andover GT Report docx 3471.01 Soil samples from the test borings were field classified based on visual observations including estimates of grain-size distribution. Additional soil characteristics such as consistency, color and moisture were noted on the logs. Soil samples were classified using the Modified Burmister System. The boring logs and a legend describing the classification system are included as attachments to this report. In general, subsurface conditions consist of 1 to 2 feet of topsoil and subsoil overlying natural deposits of sand and glacial till. The topsoil and subsoil consist of fine sand and silt with varying amounts of organic root matter at the surface. The subsoil was typically dense to very dense, with Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) N-values between 41 and greater than 100 blows per foot (bpf). Beneath the subsoil, sand was encountered in SH-3 and SH- 5 at two (2) feet below ground surface, and extended to 4 to 5 feet below ground surface. Glacial till was encountered below the subsoil at SH-1, SH-2 and SH-4. The glacial till consists of varying amounts of sand, silt and gravel,with intermittent cobbles and boulders. The till was very dense,with SPT N-values typically greater than 70 bp£ Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of the field studies. Groundwater levels will fluctuate due to variations in temperature, precipitation, construction activities and other factors. Groundwater monitoring wells were not installed as part of subsurface investigation activities. GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING Two (2) composite soil samples collected from the drilling activities from a depth of 0.5 to 4 from explorations SH-1 and SH-4 were submitted to GeoTesting Express, Inc. (GeoTesting) of Acton, Massachusetts for geotechnical laboratory testing for grain-size distribution (sieve) analysis (ASTM D422) and electrical resistivity. Portions of these composite samples were submitted to Spectrum Analytical (Spectrum) of Agawam, MA for analytical testing for sulfate, chloride and pH. The geotechnical and analytical laboratory reports for these soil analyses are included in Attachment C. Based on the results of the laboratory testing, the soils from the ground surface down to four (4) feet below existing grade exhibit properties which are not considered corrosive to concrete or ductile iron pipe. However, we recommend that the pH, resistivity, sulfate and chloride analyses be shared with the designer of the foundation system and utility pipe supplier to aid in the determination of the need and method of corrosion resistance, if any. The grain-size analysis results are incorporated into our geotechnical engineering evaluation and recommendations. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following paragraphs present our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the subsurface conditions relative to the proposed foundation design and earthwork construction. SANBORN C HEAD f April28,2017 Page 3 20170428 North Andover GT Report.docx 3471.01 Primary Geotechnical Engineering Issues Based on the subsurface information obtained during the advancement of borings, we have identified the following primary geotechnical engineering issues: ® Presence of very dense soils: A majority of the test explorations encountered very dense soil conditions at depths as shallow as 5 feet below ground surface. Based on the drilling action, and our experience with glacial till soils in the region, the earth screw contractor should anticipate the presence of boulders or cobbles in the till, and should consider that in his/her design. ® Frost Susceptible Soils: The silty topsoil and subsoil within the frost depth contain a significant amount of fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) and should be considered frost susceptible. Foundation Design We understand that a proprietary earth screw foundation system is the preferred approach to support the PV arrays. Given the depth at which medium dense to very dense soils were encountered it may be feasible to utilize the earth screw foundation system to support the PV racking systems and panels. It should be noted that very high SPT N-values were recorded during drilling, which may indicate the presence of cobbles and boulders, and as such, may impact the ability to install the earth screw system to the necessary design depth to resist lateral loads. In addition, the cobbles, boulders, and possible shallow bedrock, could cause damage to the earth screw system during installation. We recommend the screw foundation be designed by the manufacturer's design engineer based on the following soil properties: ® A friction angle of 30 degrees and a total unit weight of 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the portion of the earth screw system embedded in subsoil (lateral earth support from the topsoil should be ignored). ■ We recommend a friction angle of 34 degrees and a total unit weight of 140 pcf should be used for the portion of the screw system embedded in the underlying natural sand and glacial till. ® In the event ground anchors encounter shallow refusal, or cannot be advanced into very dense portions of the glacial till, it may be necessary to install additional anchors, or a larger diameter anchor,to develop the load capacity needed to support the PV panel. ■ Given the likely presence of large boulders in the glacial till, it may be necessary for the contractor to pre-drill the holes for the earth screw foundations. We recommend the method for pre-drilling be specified by the manufacturer. Seismic Design The 8th Edition (CMR 780) of the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC8) is based on the International Building Code 2009 (IBC 2009) with amendments. We recommend using the following design parameters as defined by MSBC8 and the IBC 2009: SANBORN 1111 HEAD April28,2017 Page 4 20170428 North Andover GT Reportdocx 3471.01 ■ Site Class: Based on the proposed construction location, elevation and available subsurface information, Site Class C is recommended for the proposed foundation system; ■ Design Spectral Response Accelerations: SDS = 0.26g and SD1 = 0.085g (MSBC8 and IBC 2009). It is our opinion that the soils at the site are not susceptible to liquefaction as defined in Section 1806.4 of the MSBC. Based on our subsurface exploration program, expansive soils were not encountered at the project site. We trust this report meets the current needs of the project. Please call us at (978) 392- 0900 if you have any questions. Very truly yours, SANBORN,HEAD&ASSOCIATES,INC. Stan S. Sadkowski, P.E. Vernon R. Kokosa, P.E. Sr.Associate/Vice President Principal/Senior Vice President ESS/SSS/VRK:rlc h�xj� OF ' Encl. Figure 1 - Locus Plan �� y Figure 2 - Exploration Location Plan ��R�� R. Attachment A- Limitations KOKOSA Attachment B - Subsurface Exploration Logs Na Attachment C - Soil LaboratoryReports "FCISTE�ti p F4SIpNAI P:\3400s\3471,01\Source Files\Design Documents\Revised Geotech Rpt\20170428 North Andover GT Reportdocx SANBORNg HEAD FIGURES 5UN_30R11I III` HEAD u,z nl NAA AUdY4U C) "d:,s F+.CA G-*e�ReprYdaa ryPnIPS= — - IT --- _ _ -_-- "_ SAIIBLN I HEA BASSOCATESI'C 1 �V r r y✓ a c J fill will Pond \ 1 ��r�� \ .,tiro �\ � � \�, ,•t\� T to J A � _ \3 a ) -ram -i I� t � ..; �----��1✓—� �-�'' .� '` ( .�� ) � f0 rnon A , v I�r \ ^75\ •��T=_-- also x Drawn By: R.Clay/D.Dombrowsky', Figure Designed By: R.Clay w e Reviewed By: V.Kokosa ', Project : 01 Locus Ian / s Date: April:April 2017 NOTES: Base map was taken from the"Office of SCALE:1:25,000 Geographic and Environmental Information(MassGIS),Commonwealth Geotechnical Engineering Report of Massachusetts Information n Technology Division" 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle Maps S A N B O R N HEAD Brooks School Solar Farm croveiand,MA,REV:1987 North Andover,Massachusetts i Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan Geotechnical Engineering Report / Brooks School Solar Farm s fREE� / North Andover,Massachusetts WASHINGTON / Drawn By: D.Dombrowsky Designed By: R.Clay Reviewed By: V.Kokosa Project No: 3471.01 Date:April 2017 / Figure Narrative This figure shows location of soil borings / sT - conducted by Sanborn Head on August 29, / RF E� ,, 2012. s r \ _ Notes — — — _ 1. The base map was drawn from a plan entitled, "topographic/boundary plan-great — — — —. pond road", prepared by hayner/swanson, \' inc. of nashua, new hampshire, dated august 29 2012 original scale: 1"=60'. VI Legend 2-Foot contour 10-Foot Contour Utility pole Ail Tree canopy line \. Tree location d — — Property line — — Approximate town line Structure Wetlands Wetland flag Wetland buffer Stonewall -- Pathway Guardrail 0 Paved roadway _ Location and designation - of Sanborn Head borings Feet �.., 100' 50' 0 100, 200' o' 9 SANBORN HEAD ATTACHMENT A LIMITATIONS �fiL BOR' �� LIE-AD LIMITATIONS Explorations 1. The analyses, recommendations, and designs submitted in this report are based in part on the data obtained from subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. 2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized, and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions may be more or less gradual than indicated. For specific information, refer to the test boring logs. 3. Water level readings have been made in the drill holes at the times and under the conditions stated on the test boring logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from those occurring at the time measurements were made. Review 4. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed construction are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this memorandum shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Sanborn Head. Construction S. It is recommended that this firm be retained to provide soil engineering services during the excavation and earthwork construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Use of Report 6. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. for the Brooks Solar Power Generation Project in North Andover, MA, in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 7. This report has been prepared for design purposes only and is not sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of this report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to design considerations only. P:\3400s\3471.01\Source Files\Design Documents\Revised Geotech Rpt\20170428 Limitations.docx ATTACHMENT SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS NTBORN ��( NE D i L LEGEND: 558 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR PATHWAY 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR GUARDRAIL UTILITY POLE PAVED ROADWAY TREE CANOPY LINE WATER PROTECTION DISTRICT OVERLAY -- --- / TREE LOCATION SUBCATHMENTAREA WASHINGTON STREET / / PROPERTY LINE —— FLOW PATH - -- APPROXIMATE TOWN LINE ^— — SUBCATCHMENT DESIGNATION STRUCTURE REACH DESIGNATION 201 R WETLANDS WETLAND FLAG WETLANDS BUFFER — —-—-—-— % L STONEWALL LOT 1 MAP 103 BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. 1160 GREAT POND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 LOT 1 MAP 103 BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. 1 1160 GREAT POND ROAD \\ NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 I �a 1o1s 201 S , � ,�,m<so ten.%ns avrA Es / o� NOTES: 3E \ 1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM A PLAN ENTITLED,-TOPOGRAPHIC/BOUNDARY PLAN-GREAT POND ROAD-,PREPARED BY s3 HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.OF NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE,DATED AUGUST 29,2012 ORIGINAL SCALE:1"=60. i 2. TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC. BETWEEN AUGUST 13 AND AUGUST 24,2012. 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88). 0,,y0 _ 4. PROPERTY LINES AND TOWN BOUNDARY LINE DEPICTED ARE BASED ON COMPLIED DEEDS,PLANS,TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ,Q�..�..�— ASSESSORS MAPS OF RECORD. 5. WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED BY WETLAND CONSULTANT SERVICES OF MERRIMAC,MASSACHUSETTS ON AUGUST 16 AND 17, 201R 2012,AND SURVEYED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.IN AUGUST 2012. GRAPHICAL SCALE 6. SOIL TYPE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE(NRCS)WEB SOIL SURVEY(WSS). ALL ON-SITE SOILS HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS SOIL TYPE C. 8 ao• ao• o• so• so• DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER:BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM F DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 ®A m p REVIEWED BY: T.REEDHEA -,, n NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS e ® PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: qua Plc: E.STEINHAUSER PRE-DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE2017 DRAINAGE PLAN 10F1 2 o b NC. GATE DESCRIPTION BY 'SG5 Description and Classificationof oil L Density or Consistency: The density or consistency of a soil sample is based on ii. Fine Grained Soil: The degree of plasticity of fine-grained soils is the Standard Penetration Test N-value according to the following table: defined as follows: Density of Consistency of Degree of Plasticity Smallest Thread Granular Soil SPT N-Value Cohesive Soil Material Plasticity Index(PI) Diameter(in.) Very Loose 0-4 <2 Very Soft SILT Non-Plastic 0 None Loose 4-10 2-4 Soft Clayey SILT Slight 1 to 5 1/4 Medium Dense 10-30 4-8 Medium Stiff SILT&CLAY Low 5 to 10 1/8 Dense 30-50 8-15 Stiff CLAY&SILT Medium 10 to 20 1/16 Very Dense >50 15-30 Very Stiff Silty CLAY High 20 to 40 1/32 >30 Hard CLAY Very High 40+ 1/64 The Standard Penetration Resistance,or N-value in blows per foot,is the sum of the iii.Organic Soil:An organic soil sample is classified by observation of blows recorded over the second and third 6-inch interval. the sample structure as follows: A number followed by"/3"indicates the distance that the sampler advanced. For example"100/4"indicates that 100 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches Material Description advanced the sampler 4 inches. "WOR/24"indicates the weight of the drilling rods Surficial soils that support plant life and without the hammer caused the sampler to advance 24 inches. TOPSOIL which contain organic matter. "WOH"indicates the static weight of the 140 pound hammer and the drilling rods Soil underlying the topsoil which may attached to the split spoon sampler were sufficient to cause the sampler to advance. SUBSOIL contain roots or plant fibers. "WOR"indicates the static weight of the drilling rods attached to the split spoon Deposits of plant remains in which the sampler was sufficient to cause the sampler to advance. PEAT original plant fibers or root structure are 2.Color: The color of a soil sample is based on visual observation. visible. Deposit of plant remains in which the 3.Soil Components ORGANIC SILT original plant fibers or root structure have A. Description: The components of a soil sample are described by visually decomposed. estimating the percentage of each component by weight of the total sample iv.Non-Soil Constituents:Non-soil constituents(artificial or using a Modified Burmister System, anthropogenic material,organic materials,cobbles and boulders) are i. Major Component: The major soil component is written with upper described as follows: case letters for granular soil (e.g., SAND, GRAVEL) and a The following terminology is used to denote size ranges of non-soil combination of upper and lower case letters for fine grained soil(e.g., constituents such as man-made objects or fill material: Silty CLAY,Clayey SILT). ii. Minor Component: The minor soil components are written with the Descriptive Term Size Range Comparative Term first letter of each soil type in upper case,and the remaining letters in Specks <No.200 Sieve Silt and Clay fines lower case(e.g., Gravel,Silt). The minor components are identified Particles No.200 Sieve to No.4 Sieve Sand and prefaced in the description based on the following percentages: Fragments No.4 Sieve to 3 in. Gravel Pieces 3 in.to 12 in. Cobbles Preface Percentage Blocks >12 in. Boulders and 35-50 some 20-35 The following terminology is used to describe the frequency that a little 10-20 non-soil constituent is observed by estimating the percentage of the constituent by weight ofthe total sample: trace 0-10 iii. Note: The actual percentages of gravel soil may differ from that Descriptor Percentage measured when sampling with a standard split spoon sampler very few 0-5 because of the relatively small sampler diameter. Also, it is not few 5-10 possible to identify the presence of boulders and cobbles using a standard split spoon sampler. common 10-20 frequent 20-35 B.Definitions numerous 35-50 i. Granular Soil:- A granular soil sample is defined by the following particle sizes as referenced to a standard sieve: 4. Moisture Content: The moisture content of a soil sample is based on the observable presence of water according to the following table: Standard Sieve Limit Dry Moisture is not apparent,dusty. Material Description Upper Lower Moist No visible water. C-sized 36 inch Wet Visible free water. Boulders B-sized 36 inch 24 inch A-sized 24 inch 12 inch 5. Other Pertinent Characteristics:Pertinent characteristics observed in a soil sample Cobbles 12 inch 3 inch should be noted according to the following table: coarse 3 inch 3/4 inch Soil Structure Produced by Deposition of Sediments Gravel fine 3/4 inch No.4 coarse No.4 No. 10 Stratified Random soil deposits of varying components of color. f Sand medium No. 10 No.40 Varved Alternating soil deposits o varying thickness (i.e.,clays or silts). fine No.40 No.202__Jl Stratum Soil deposit>12 inches thick. Layer Soil deposit 3 inches to 12 inches thick. Seam I Soil deposit 1/8 inch to 3 inches thick. Parting/Lens I Soil deposit<1/8 inch thick. lcl 2008 Sanborn.Read&Associates.Inc. Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-1 SANBORN III HEAD Location:North Andover,MA I Ground Elevation:250 t feet Project No.:3471.00 Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 09:45 Dry WA 20' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks (ft) Sample Depth Blows Rec Testing Log Description 9 p No. (ft) ear 6 in finl Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/14 TOPSOIL S-lA(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 7 --0.51— Sand,little Organics.Moist.TOPSOIL 6 S-1B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown and gray, 12 SUBSOIL fine to medium SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel Moist.SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-3.4 13 17/13 —2 S-2(2 to 3.4'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine to 22 ° medium SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 100/5" o O 4 0 O S-3 5-6.1 22 13/9 ° S-3(5 to 6.1'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 100/7" o coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. O N 6 O ° 0 c? O u� 8 0 z cc o O m z O N O b 10— S-4 10-12 20 24/22 o S-4(10 to 12'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to N 32 coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. ca 51 O TILL 49 > °. 0 12 O � o O m o Q O N 0 14 0 0 N O a � (n S-5 15-17 22 24/23 ° S-5(15 to 17'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 29 coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 16 38 0 z 34 O af o m o O ° 18 S-6 18-20 56 24/19 S-6(18 to 20'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse 0 63 Q SAND,some Silt,little Clay,little Gravel.Moist.TILL J 70 68 ° O g 20 —20 Boring terminated at 20 feet.No refusal encountered. 'o vo c� Q a 22 0 w Gi c� o z 24 0 0 m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-2 SANBORN IIII HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:236 t feet Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanbom,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 11:10 Dry WA 15.9' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Sample De�hSB Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks ( ) No. ( Rec Testing Log Description in Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/16 TOPSOIL S-1A(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 8 —0.5'-- Sand,little Organics.Moist.TOPSOIL. 15 S-1 B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown,fine to 19 SUBSOIL medium SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 20 24/17 -14 —2 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,brown,fine to medium 23 o SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel,few Organic 30 o 37 fragments to 3 feet.Moist.TILL. � 4 q o Q S-3 5-6.8 14 21/19 ° S-3(5 to 6.8'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 23 o medium SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. i'a6 100/91, � 0 0 2> 0 W 8 0 z O K O o TILL in z o � Q 0 10 o S-4 10-11 51 12/11 o S4(10 to 11'):Very dense,gray and brown,fine to m 100/6" o coarse SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. Q > o a � 12 O N, o m Z N Q 0 14 0 0 N O a � S-5 15-15.9 73 11/10 o S-5(15 to 15.9'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine 0 100/5 to coarse SAND,some Sift,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 16 —15.9— Boring terminated at 15.9 feet.No refusal z encountered. 0 m 0 n 18 0 0 0 0 20 0 a a a 22 0 w Gi O O 0 24 af O m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-3 SANBORN III HEAD Location:North Andover,MA ( Ground Elevation:215 t feet Project No.:3471.00 Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanbom,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 14:35 Dry N/A 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks (ft) Sample Depth Blows Rec Testing Log Description g p No. (ft) per 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 3 24/12 —0 S-1A(0 to 1'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,some 6 i TOPSOIL Sand,trace Gravel.Moist.TOPSOIL. 8 12 N1 S-1 B(1 to 2'):Medium dense,tan,fine to medium SUBSOIL SAND,some Silt.Moist.SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 25 24/20 --2'-- S-2(2 to 4'):Dense,tan,fine to medium SAND, 18 trace Silt,trace Gravel.Moist. 23 21 SAND 4 S-3 5-7 21 24/21 5 S-3(5 to 7'):Dense,brown and gray,fine to medium 22 o SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. 6 22 18 O 0 O � O � O 8 2 z re O O z o 0 10 S-4 10-10.9 63 11/10 0 S-4(10 to 10.9'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine N 100/51, o TILL to medium SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. m a o w 12 2 O x m o z 0 14 O. ',.. 0 N � o. S-5 15-15.8 66 9/7 S-5(15 to 15.8'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine O 100/3" to medium SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. 16 —15.8 Boring terminated at 15.8 feet.No refusal z encountered. 0 0 m o M 18 0 O 3 g 20 'o a M Q a 22 0 w 3 O O O 24 z 0 0 m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-4 SANBORN 1111 HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Ground Elevation:187tfeet Project No.:3471.00 Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 12:05 Dry WA 15.5' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08129/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth �hSB Pen/ Field Geolo is Descri lion Remarks S m le DNo. ( Rec Testing Log Description9 P in Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/18 TOPSOIL S-1A(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 6 --0.5'-- Sand,trace Gravel.Moist.TOPSOIL. 6 S-1 B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown to tan,fine to 6 SUBSOIL medium SAND,some Slit,trace Gravel.Moist. SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 31 24/18 0 J1 -2 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse 51 o SAND,some Slit,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 44 0 42 Q 4 0 Q S-3 5-5.5 100/6" 6/4 ° S-3(5 to 5.5'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse Drill action indicates numerous N o SAND,some Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. Cobbles and Gravel from 5.5 to 7 feet. 0 6 0 0 o a > o 8 0 x � z K TILL o O m z o 0 10 o S-4 10-11.3 33 15/14 o S-4(10 to 113):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse m 100/91, o SAND,some Silt,little Gravel,trace Clay.Moist. TILL. > 0 o 12 O W o O m o Q O 14 0 0 N O a � (n S-5 15-15.5 100/6" 6/6 o S-5(15 to 15.5'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse o --15.5'-- SAND,some Silt,little Gravel._Moist 16 Boring terminated at 15.5 feet.No refusal z encountered. 0 m 0 n M 18 0 0 0 20 n a 'o v c� Q a 22 0 w 3 0 o 0 24 z 0 m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-5 SANBORN III HEAD Location:North Andover,MA I Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:182 t feet Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanbom,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 13:10 Dry N/A 18.1' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks (ft) Sample Depth �c Blows Rec Testing Log Description g p r 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 9 24/19 —0 S-1A(0 to 1'):Medium dense,brown,fine SAND, 5 TOPSOIL some Silt,trace Gravel,trace Organic fragments, 7 r Moist.TOPSOIL. 8 SUBSOIL S-1 B(1 to 2'):Medium dense,tan to gray,fine to medium SAND,little Gravel,trace Silt.Moist. 2 S-2 2-4 16 24/18 --2'-- SUBSOIL. 27 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,tan to gray,fine to coarse 34 SAND,some Gravel,trace Silt.Moist. 41 SAND 4 S-3 5-7 19 24/20 5 S-3(5 to 7'):Dense,tan to brown,fine to coarse 21 o SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 19 6 18 O.0 0 p C'I O Q> O. W 8 0. x z O z 0 z o 0 10 S-4 10-11.1 64 13/13 0 S-4(10 to 11.1'):Very dense,brown to gray,fine to N 100/7" o coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. m c? o > TILL w 12 x 0 0 TO ° vai o 14 0 a v0 S-5 15-15.3 100/4" 4/4 S-5(15 to 15.3'):Very dense,brown to gray,fine to Cl) coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 0. I c� 16 0 0 o S-6 17-18.1 100/1" 1/0 ° S 6(17 to 18.1'):Very dense,No Recovery. Increased drilling effort at o approximately 17 feet. M 18 Boring terminated at 18.1 feet.No refusal o encountered. 0 3 0 20 n M O 7 M Q a 22 >W N 0 0 24 Z X 0 co Sheet:1 of 1 ATTACHMENT SOIL LABORATORY TS i �� Client: Sanborn, Head &Associates 4_a Project: Brooks School Solar Farm s - Location: North Andover, MA E x P R L ` `' GTX#: 12199 Test Date: 9/5/2012 Tested By: ama Checked By: jdt Laboratory Measurement of Soil Resistivity Using the Wenner Four-Electrode Method by ASTM G 57 Electrical Electrical Boring ID Sample ID Depth, ft. Sample Description Resistivity, Conductivity, ohm-cm (ohm-cm)-1 SH-1 Composite 0.5-4 Moist, olive brown silty sand 24,793 4.03E-05 SH-4 Composite 0.5-4 Moist, olive brown silty sand 20,661 4.84E-05 Notes: Electrical Conductivity Is calculated as inverse of Electrical Resistivity (per ASTM G 57) Test conducted in standard laboratory atmosphere: 68-73 F I I i i Client: Sanborn, Head &Associates Project: Brooks School Solar Farm Location: North Andover, MA Project No: GTX-12199 �� Boring ID: SH-1 Sample Type: bag Tested By: jbr h x P m C S S Sample ID:Composite Test Date: 09/04/12 Checked By: jdt Depth : 0.5-4 ft. Test Id: 248577 Test Comment: --- Sample Description: Moist, olive brown silty sand Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002) .- cN 0 O n Ln m d N It ko 1-1 O 0rnl 100 '10 00 # # # # # # # 1 I I I I I I I i I 1 i I I I I I 1 1 90 , 80 1 r I 1 i i I I I I 1 I 70 l 1 1 C 60 1 I I I I I i I i 1 I I I i 1 I i 1 1 1 I I I i 1 1 i 1 I I I LL 50 V I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I i I I I i I 1 I I CL I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 40 1 l 1 I 1 I J I I I I I 1 1 I I i I I I I I I i 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 i 30 i I I I I I I I 1 1 I i I I I I I I I 1 I I 20 1 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size(mm) %Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Silt&Gay Size — 13.2 40.2 46.6 Sieve Name Sieve Size, Percent Finer Spec.Percent Complies Coefficients mm D85=3.4340 mm D30=N/A l in 25.00 100 0.75 In 19.00 94 D60=0.1876 mm D15=N/A 0.5 In 12.50 92 D5o=0.0953 mm Dio=N/A 0.375 to 9.50 89 #4 4.75 87 Cu =N/A Cc =N/A #10 2.00 82 Classification #20 0.85 76 ASTM N/A #40 0.42 70 #60 0.25 64 '.. #100 015 57 AASHTO Silty Soils (A-4 (0)) #zoo 0.075 1 47 Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : ROUNDED Sand/Gravel Hardness : HARD I,H.nt,d 9/6/2012 1:11:5G Pn Client: Sanborn, Head&Associates Project: Brooks School Solar Farm in Location: North Andover, MA Project No: GTX-12199 �� `� Boring ID: SH-4 Sample Type: bag Tested By: jbr l x y R t S S Sample ID:Composite Test Date: 09/04/12 Checked By: jdt Depth : 0.5-4 ft. Test Id: 248578 Test Comment: --- Sample Description: Moist, olive brown silty sand Sample Comment: --- Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422-63 (reapproved 2002) _n O O to 11 O O t- tD O O I 100 90 1 11 I I I I I I I i I I 1 1 I I I I i I I I I I I 80 70 60 it 1 I I I I I I I 1 N 50 U i I I 1 I I I 1 I I t i I I 1 i I dI I i I I I i I 1 40 , 30 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I J I 1 I I I I I i 1 I i I I I 1 1 20 10 - 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size(mm) %Cobble %Gravel %Sand %Silt&Clay Size j — 6.3 45.1 48.6 Sieve Name Sieve Size, Percent Finer Spec.Percent Complies Coefficients mm D85=1.3233 mm D30=N/A 0.51n 12.50 100 0.375 in 9.50 97 D60=0.1525 mm Dis=N/A #4 4.75 94 Dso=0.0818 mm D10=N/A #10 2.00 66 #20 0.85 62 Cu =N/A Cc =N/A #40 0.42 75 Classification #60 0.25 69 ASTM N/A #100 0.15 60 #200 0.075 49 AASHTO Silty Soils(A-4 (0)) Sample/Test Description Sand/Gravel Particle Shape : --- Sand/Gravel Hardness : --- pT'i.nt-i 9/6/2012 1:12:013 Ffi Report Date: 0-11 [Z Final Report 04-Sep-12 15:18 "ht ❑ Re-Issued Report } ❑ Revised Report SPECTRUM ANALYTICAL,INC. Featuring HANIBAL TECHNOLOGY Laboratory Report Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. 1 Technology Park Drive Project: Brooks School Solar Farm-N Andover,MA Westford,MA 01886 Project#: 3471.00 Attn:Max Lamson Laboratory ID Client Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received SB55485-01 SH-1,0.5+04' Soil 29-Aug-12 09:30 30-Aug-12 18:55 SB55485-02 SH-4,0.5+04' Soil 29-Aug-12 12:10 30-Aug-12 18:55 I attest that the information contained within the report has been reviewed for accuracy and checked against the quality control requirements for each method. These results relate only to the sample(s)as received. All applicable NELAC requirements have been met. Massachusetts#M-MA138/MAI 110 Authorized by: Connecticut#PH-0777 Florida#E87600/E87936 � °J�wu Maine#MA138 New Hampshire#2538 Z�u4 i New Jersey#MA011/MA012 New York# 11393/11840 VNicole Leja Pennsylvania#68-04426/68-02924 '4eQ, Laboratory Director Rhode Island#98 USDA#S-51435 Spectrum Analytical holds certification in the State of Massachusetts for the analytes as indicated with an X in the"Celt."column within this report. Please note that the State of Massachusetts does not offer certification for all analytes. Please refer to our website for specific certification holdings in each state. Please note that this report contains 7 pages of analytical data plus Chain of Custody document(s). When the Laboratory Report is indicated as revised,this report supersedes any previously dated reports for the laboratory ID(s)referenced above. Where this report identifies subcontracted analyses,copies of the subcontractor's test report are available upon request. This report may not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval from Spectrum Analytical,Inc. Spectrum Analytical,Inc.is a NELAC accredited laboratory organization and meets NELAC testing standards. Use of the NELAC logo however does not insure that Spectrum is currently accredited for the specific method or analyze indicated.Please refer to our"Quality"u,eb page at irrvw.spectr:on-analytical.coin for a fall listing of our current certifications and fields of accreditation.States in which Spectr uin Analytical,Inc. holds NELAC certification are New York,New Hampshire,New Jersey and Florida.All analytical ivork for Volatile Organic and Air analysis are transferred to and conducted at our 830 Silver Street location(NY-11840,FL-E87936 and NJ-MA012). Please contact the Laboratory or Technical Director at 800-789-9115 with any questions regarding the data contained in this laboratory report. Hembpeariers: 11 A6ngren Drive&830 Silver Street•Agawam,MA 0 100 1•1-800-789-9115•413-789.9018•Fax 413-789-4076 www.spectrum-analytical.com Page I of CASE NARRATIVE: The samples were received 0.2 degrees Celsius,please refer to the Chain of Custody for details specific to temperature upon receipt. An infrared thermometer with a tolerance of+/- 1.0 degrees Celsius was used immediately upon receipt of the samples. if a Matrix Spike(MS),Matrix Spike Duplicate(MSD)or Duplicate(DUP)was not requested on the Chain of Custody,method criteria may have been fulfilled with a source sample not of this Sample Delivery Group. See below for any non-conformances and issues relating to quality control samples and/or sample analysis/matrix. EPA 300.0 Samples: SB55485-01 SH-1, 0.5+04' The Reporting Limit has been raised to account for matrix interference. Chloride Sulfate as SO4 SB55485-02 SH-4, 0.5+04' The Reporting Limit has been raised to account for matrix interference. Chloride Sulfate as SO4 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:l8 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 2 of 7 Sample Identification Client Project# Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SH-1,0.5+04' 3471.00 Soil 29-Aug-12 09:30 30-Aug-12 SB55485-01 Vo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution Method Ref. Prepared Analyzed Analyst Batch Cert. General Chemistry Parameters %Solids 92.1 % 1 SM2540 G Mod, 31-Aug-12 31-Aug-12 BD 1221089 16887-00-6 Chloride <109 R01 mg/kg dry 109 33.3 10 EPA 300.0 31-Aug-12 01-Sep-12 KK 1221103 14808-79.8 Sulfate as SO4 <109 R01 mg/kg dry 109 41.6 10 Toxicity Characteristics pH 5.94 PH pH Units 1 SW8469045D 31-Aug-12 31-Aug-12 TDD 1221014 11:00 11:53 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:18 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 3 of 7 Sample Identification Client Project# Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SH-4,0.5+04' 3471.00 Soil 29-Aug-1212:10 30-Aug-12 SB55485-02 Vo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units ^RDL MDL Dilution Method Ref. Prepared Analyzed Analyst Batch Cert. General Chemistry Parameters %Solids 89.5 % 1 SM2540G Mod. 31-Aug-12 31-Aug-12 ED 1221089 16887-006 Chloride <112 R01 mg/kgdry 112 34.3 t0 EPA300.0 31-Aug-12 01-Sep-12 KK 1221103 14808-7H Sulfate as SO4 <112 R01 mg/kg dry 112 42.8 10 Toxicity Characteristics pH 7.10 PH pH Units 1 SW8469045D 31-Aug-12 31-Aug-12 TDD 1221014 11:00 11:55 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:l8 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 4 of 7 General Chemistry Parameters-Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 1221103-General Preparation Blank(1221103-BLK1) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 Sulfate as SO4 <10.0 mgrkg wet 10.0 Chloride <10.0 Mg/kg wet 10.0 LCS(1221103-BS1) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 Sulfate as SO4 210 mg/kg wet 10.0 200 105 90-110 Chloride 210 mg/kg wet 10.0 200 105 90-110 Calibration Blank(1221103-CC81) Pared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 Chloride 0.390 mgrkg wet Sulfate as SO4 0.580 mgrkg wet Calibration Blank(1221103-CCB2) Prepared:31-Aug-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 0.380 mgrkgwet Sulfate as SO4 0.670 mog wet Calibration Blank(1221103•CCB3) Prepared:31-Auo-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 0.410 mg/kg wet Sulfate as SO4 0.630 mgfkg wet Calibration Check(1221103-CCV1) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 Sulfate as SO4 208 mgrkg wet 10.0 200 104 90-110 Chloride 210 mgrkgwet 10.0 200 105 90-110 Calibration Check(1221103-CCV2) Prepared 31-Aug-12 Analy_zed:01-Sep-12 Sulfate as SO4 211 mgrkg wet 10.0 200 106 90-110 Chloride 212 mgrkg wet 10.0 200 106 90-110 Calibration Check(1221103-CCV3) Prepared:31-Aug-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 213 mgrkg wet 10.0 200 107 90-110 Sulfate as SO4 210 mgrkg wet 10.0 200 105 90-110 Duplicate(1221103-DUP1) Source:SB55485-01 Preared:31-Aug-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 40.2 mg/kg dry 109 48.8 20 20 Sulfate as SO4 63.2 mgrkg dry 109 52.1 2 20 Matrix Spike(1221103-MS1) Source:SB66485-01 Prepared:31-Aug-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 485 mgrkg dry 109 434 48.8 100 90-110 Sulfate as SO4 496 mg/kg dry 109 434 52.1 102 90-110 Matrix Spike Dun(1221103-MSD1) Source:S11355485-01 Preoared:31-Aug-12 Analyzed:01-Sep-12 Chloride 485 mg/kg dry 109 434 48.8 100 90-110 0 20 Sulfate as SO4 617 mglkg dry 109 434 52.1 107 90-110 4 20 Reference(1221103-SRM1) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 Chloride 253 mgrkgwet 10.0 250 101 90-110 Sulfate as SO4 256 mg/kg wet 10.0 250 102 90-110 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:l8 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 5 of 7 Toxicity Characteristics-Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 1221014-General Preparation Reference(1221014-SRM1) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aup-12 pH 5.98 pH Units 6.00 100 97.5-102.5 Reference(1221014-SRM2) Prepared&Analyzed:31-Aug-12 pH 5.72 pH Units 5.51 104 92-108 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:18 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 6 of Notes and Definitions R01 The Reporting Limit has been raised to account for matrix interference. dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis NR Not Reported RPD Relative Percent Difference J Detected but below the Reporting Limit;therefore,result is an estimated concentration(CLP J-Flag). pH The method for pH does not stipulate a specific holding time other than to state that the samples should be analyzed as soon as possible. For aqueous samples the 40 CFR 136 specifies a holding time of 15 minutes from sampling to analysis. Therefore all aqueous pH samples not analyzed in the field are considered out of hold time at the time of sample receipt. All soil samples are analyzed as soon as possible after sample receipt. Laboratory Control Sample(LCS): A known matrix spiked with compound(s)representative of the target analytes,which is used to document laboratory performance. Matrix Duplicate: An intra-laboratory split sample which is used to document the precision of a method in a given sample matrix. Matrix Spike: An aliquot of a sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix. Method Blank: An analyte-free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. The method blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process. Method Detection Limit(MDL): The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99%confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix type containing the analyte. Reportable Detection Limit(RDL): The lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. For many analytes the RDL analyte concentration is selected as the lowest non-zero standard in the calibration curve. While the RDL is approximately 5 to 10 times the MDL,the RDL for each sample takes into account the sample volume/weight,extract/digestate volume,cleanup procedures and,if applicable,dry weight correction. Sample RDLs are highly matrix-dependent. Surrogate: An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s)in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical process,but which is not normally found in environmental samples. These compounds are spiked into all blanks,standards,and samples prior to analysis. Percent recoveries are calculated for each surrogate. Continuing Calibration Verification: The calibration relationship established during the initial calibration must be verified at periodic intervals. Concentrations,intervals,and criteria are method specific. Validated by: June O'Connor Kimberly Wisk This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature oil the cover page. 04-Sep-12 15:18 *Reportable Detection Limit Page 7 of 7 w Special Idtlr<diing: 4n ❑Standard TAT 7 to 10 business days CHAMT i ,�'i'Rush TAT Date Needed: !t_ j t, � All TATs subject to Laboratory approval. SPECTRUM ANALIMCAL,INC. - Min.24-hour nothhcatio[t needed for rushes. j Featuring Page_ of Samples disposed of after 60 days unless wiv[av,xscmNoLocr otherwise instructed. j Report To: SCAN3,rN kv& A,�.r 5 Invoice To: 0 2' / l;[; 5 3 1 t Project No.: 7/r 9 (i:.:..+IN-LvC�•I-tTrZ•Tl"*d`3'4�l;ir'L�2tc�:5 f77 ( e Site Name: 17ontLS 7C H :i— 3at}zFtr/z�: e Location �er4, A,#, �rL Sate: / L To lephone,#: EO.No.: R N: Sam s}:ter 1_3 JZ (�r� f� �JI'1 f p C l Project Mgt �A-1CLAn,Senl Q R ( f 1=Na,8203 2=HC1 3=H2SO4 4=HNO3 5=NaOH 6=Ascorbic Acid 7=CH5011 List reservatice code below: _I QIVQC Reporting Notes: 8=NaHSOI 9=Deiomzed Vh'ater 10=H3PO4 11= 12= y j i 'additional'charges mayappiy DW DrnlcingWater GW=Grohmdwater WW=Wastewater Containers: Analyses: MADEP MCP CAM Rep=Ye,ON,, 0--Oil SW=Surface Water O—Soi) SL=Sludge A=Air CTDPH RCP Report:Y-[INo❑ 'I XI= X2= X3= y v •n QA(QC Reportfiog Level. li ro C7 ie ! S \t3 ❑S[andard ❑No QC ❑DQA" `~ ❑NYASPA" ❑NYASP B" G—Grab C=Composite o m ❑NJ Reduced' ❑NI Full" V L 3 ❑=-RE- ❑TIERB" ❑Other Lab Id: Sample Id: Date: Time. E }° j 4t t `� �j State eotfic r standards: i I i I Relin wished b : Received Date: Time: T=VC ® EDD Format `C"-E,Rh to C 'Lion upon receipt: A."0.n ❑Ic{ l3 Retri.. ❑DIVQAF[ozea M WJwFm 11 Almgren Drive e Agawam,MA 01001^4I3-789-9018^FAX 413-789-4076-wwwspectrum-analytical-com R-ks d Feb 2012 ATTACHMENT C STORMWATER REPORT SANBORN 1111 HEAD i SANBORN HIM, HEAD Building Trust.Bngineering Success. STORMWATER REPORT BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for North Andover Solar,LLC%Nexamp,Inc. °r�4C File No.3471.01 O� mOTHY W. �G June 2017 R E. CIVIL ,49465 D G/STE`�� NA SANBORN, SANBORN, HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC. www.sanbornhead.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY.......................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS...............................................................................................................1 2.1 Site Location and Access.............................................................................................................1 2.2 Watershed.........................................................................................................................................2 2.3 Existing Soil Conditions...............................................................................................................2 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................2 3.1 Proposed Development Area.....................................................................................................2 3.2 Drainage Analysis..........................................................................................................................3 4.0 MASSDEP STORMWATER STANDARDS..............................................................................4 5.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN............................................................................7 5.1 Construction Period 0&M Plan.................................................................................................8 5.2 Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan....................................................................................9 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Locus Map Figure 2 Priority Resource Map DRAWINGS Cover Sheet Sheet 1 General Notes, Symbols,and Abbreviations Sheet 2 Existing Conditions Plan Sheet 3 Proposed Site Development Plan Sheet 4 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (North) Sheet 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (South) Sheet 6-7 Details Sheet 8 Wetland Resource Plan APPENDICES Appendix A Stormwater Report Checklist Appendix B NRCS Soil Survey Appendix C Subsurface Exploration Logs Appendix D HydroCAD Model Report SANBORN �( HEAD 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY This Stormwater Report is being filed by Sanborn, Head and Associates, Inc. (Sanborn Head) on behalf of North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. (Nexamp) for the proposed Brooks School Solar Farm project located across from the Brooks School at 1160 Great Pond Road in North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site). The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposed stormwater management system for the development of the vacant land as a solar farm. This report demonstrates that there is no proposed increase in the peak rate of runoff from the site at each of the study points for all design storm events evaluated. The proposed project is a large scale ground-mounted solar power installation on approximately 13.5 acres of an approximately 37-acre property. The Site is comprised of two parcels: a 33.3-acre hayfield-covered hill with some wooded areas and wetlands and a 3.8-acre single-family residence. Both parcels are owned by the Brooks School. The proposed project would be categorized as New Development under the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Stormwater Management Standards. The proposed alteration to existing stormwater drainage at the Site is minimal. The existing conditions of the site are entirely pervious while proposed conditions are less than 1% impervious. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are incorporated into this stormwater report to provide stormwater quality treatment and conveyance. Given the limited nature of this project, the primary BMPs proposed at the Site are limited to treatment swales and level spreaders. The Stormwater Report checklist is included as Appendix A. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Site Location and Access The Site is located on Great Pond Road in North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site), opposite the main entrance to the Brooks School located at 1160 Great Pond Road. The Site location is depicted on the Locus Map included as Figure 1. The proposed solar farm development area is on a 33.3 acre parcel owned by the Brooks School and identified by the Town of North Andover Assessors' Office as Map 103, Block 001. The property is currently vacant land comprised of hayfield-covered hill with some wooded areas and wetlands. The proposed project area is accessed by a residential driveway located immediately to the south along Great Pond Road. This south abutting property is a 3.8 acre parcel also owned by the Brooks School and identified by the Town of North Andover Assessors' Office as Map 103, Block 010. For the purpose of this application, the Site is comprised of the entire 33.3 acre parcel and the access way portion of the residential property. The Site features are shown on the Existing Conditions Plan,Sheet 2 of the attached drawings set. SANBORN ( HEAD June 22,2017 Page 2 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 2.2 Watershed The Site is located approximately 2,000 feet to the north and east of Lake Cochichewick and a portion of the Site is located within the North Andover Water Protection District. Based on a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Priority Resource .Map, a `Zone A' drinking water resource area overlaps a portion of the Site. This Zone A is associated with the Lake Cochichewick water resource; however, as depicted on Sheet 8 of the attached drawings, a portion of the area mapped as Zone A does not appear to drain to the lake. Based on this Resource Map, there is no 100-year floodplain located within 500 feet of the site. This Resource Map is presented as Figure 2. 2.3 Existing Soil Conditions The on-site soils were identified using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey for Essex County. Soils within the project area primarily consist of Paxton fine sandy loam, which is well drained soil having a hydrologic soil group classification of C. A copy of this soil mapping is included in Appendix B of this report. For the purpose of the stormwater modeling, all soils were assumed to be type C. Sanborn Head conducted soil borings at the Site and observed soils consistent with this classification. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix C. 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development at the Site is a solar farm. The solar farm is comprised of approximately 5 acres of solar modules mounted on racks supported by steel piles that are "screwed" into the ground. The proposed earth screws (Terrafix® or similar) can be driven into the existing terrain. This foundation system can be installed with minimal disturbance,without significant grading or grubbing,while maintaining existing vegetation. Additionally, the earth screw system does not significantly increase the impermeable area of the ground surface. 3.1 Proposed Development Area The five acres of solar modules and racks (or arrays) will comprise a 1.1 megawatt (MW) direct current(DC) power generation system. The solar arrays will be installed in the most upland portion of the Site. The proposed development is depicted on Sheet 3 of the attached drawings. In support of these solar arrays, the development of the following infrastructure is proposed; ■ A gravel access road; ■ A gravel staging area; ■ Concrete pad-mounted power inverter stations; ■ Aboveground and underground electrical conduit; ■ Approximately four wooden utility poles and related overhead power lines; and ® A wood post and wire fence. SANBORN (f HEAD June 22,2017 Page 3 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 The limit of work encompasses an area of approximately 584,000 square feet (so. A majority of the Site will remain mainly undisturbed with the installation of solar panels above existing vegetative cover. A total of approximately 121,400 sf of wooded area will be cleared from the edges of the project area to prevent the shading of the solar arrays. Approximately 1 acre of gravel road and staging area will be constructed at the site. The only impermeable features to be installed on the Site are concrete pads for the power transformer/inverter units. The proposed development is depicted on Sheet 3 of the attached drawings. 3.2 Drainage Analysis The solar arrays do not significantly increase impermeable surfaces as they are raised off the ground with a tilt angle to allow for stormwater and snow to be shed from the array onto the natural ground surface. The rows of solar modules are spaced at a minimum of approximately 15 feet to prevent shading. This spacing will allow for vegetation to be maintained (i.e. mowing) between rows and solar arrays to be accessed for maintenance. As discussed, the gravel road and staging area will be installed near the plateau of the hill and therefore stormwater will drain as sheet flow down the hill, similar to the existing flow. The proposed project will not result in a significant increase of impermeable surface area; therefore, stormwater infiltration, drainage and runoff at the conclusion of the project will be similar to the existing condition. Vegetative treatment swales and level spreaders will be installed to reduce the peak flow of runoff from the Site. The locations and details of these drainage features are presented on Sheets 4 and 5 of the attached drawings. The peak rate of runoff for the Site was calculated using the following models and data: ■ Soil Survey of Essex County, Massachusetts by United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS: This survey information provided soil types and boundaries. ■ HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling Program: The HydroCAD program was used to generate the drainage hydrographs for the existing (pre-development) and proposed (post-development) models. The peals rate of runoff analysis of the existing and proposed conditions includes an estimate from various rainfall conditions, including: 2, 10 and 100-year storm events. The table below provides as summary of pre- and post peak stormwater runoff discharge from the site based on the stormwater model results. 2-year,24-hour Storm Peak Flow Summary Discharge Location Pre-Development Post-Development Node Peak Flow 3 s Peak Flow 3 s East 101E 8.69 8.51 West 201E 11.28 11.12 SANBORN €(s HEAD June 22,2017 Page 4 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 10- ear,24-hour Storm Peak Flow Summary Discharge Location Pre-Development Post-Development Node Peak Flow 3 s Peak Flow OrM East 101R 18.55 18.32 West 201R 24.07 23.89 1 00- ear,24-hour Storm Peak Flow Summary Discharge Location Pre-Development Post-Development Node Peak Flow(ft3 s Peak Flow(ft3 s) East 101R 35.12 34.99 West 201R 45.58 45.44 Based on these results, the post-development peak flows are modeled to be less than the pre-development peak flows for all storm events. The HydroCAD model report is included as Appendix D. 4.0 MASSDEP STORMWATER STANDARDS The MassDEP Stormwater Management Policy was developed to improve water resources and water quality by implementing performance standards for stormwater management. The intent is to implement the stormwater management standards through the review of the Notice of Intent filings by the issuing authority (Conservation Commission or MassDEP). This section outlines how the stormwater management system for the proposed project meets the standards in the policy. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been incorporated into the design of this project to mitigate the potential for increased runoff and pollutant loading. An Operation and Maintenance (0&M) Plan has also been developed for this project to address the long term maintenance requirements of the proposed management system. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls will be incorporated into the construction phase of the project. These temporary controls may include hay bales and/or silt fence barriers, slope stabilization, and seeding. The MassDEP has established 10 Stormwater Management Standards. A project that meets or exceeds these standards is presumed to satisfy regulatory requirements regarding stormwater management. These standards are listed below: 1. No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. 2. Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peals discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peals discharge rates. This Standard may be waived for discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. SANBORN �I HEAD June 22,2017 Page 5 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 347L01 3. Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of infiltration measures including environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater best management practices, and good operation and maintenance. At a minimum, the annual recharge from the post- development site shall approximate the annual recharge from pre-development conditions based on soil type. This Standard is met when the stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. 4. Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This Standard is met when: a. Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and maintained; b. Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required water quality volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook; and C. Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. S. For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. If through source control and/or pollution prevention all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26-53 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. 6. Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply, and stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area, require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural Stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A "storm water discharge" as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1 or (b) to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 SANBORN pI, HEAD I June 22,2017 Page 6 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of a public water supply. 7. A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the pretreatment and structural best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. 8. A plan to control construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented. 9. A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. 10. All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited. The following design features and corresponding calculations demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management system for the project is in compliance with the performance standards as outlined in the MassDEP Stormwater Management Handbook: Q STANDARD #1: The proposed development project will not introduce any new stormwater outfalls that would may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. Potential runoff to wetlands on the Site will be managed with natural and engineered drainage features (i.e.vegetative swales) that promote infiltration and reduce runoff rates. Q STANDARD #2: The proposed development has been designed so that post- development peak discharge rates do not exceed the predevelopment peak discharge rates. A summary of the existing and proposed discharge rates is provided in Section 3.2. Q STANDARD #3: Less than 1% impervious surface is proposed for the development of this project. Vegetative swales are designed at the Site to promote groundwater recharge and reduce stormwater runoff rates. The proposed swales have been designed to infiltrate stormwater at an annual rate of equal to or greater than the existing infiltration rate at the Site. A summary of the existing and proposed discharge rates is provided in Section 3.2. Q STANDARD #4: Less than 1% impervious surface is proposed for the development of this project and therefore the anticipated post-construction loading of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is minimal. The natural wooded and vegetative features, in i SANBORNIf; HEAD I June 22,2017 Page 7 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 combination with the proposed vegetative swales, will minimize the potential for TSS loading at the Site. No additional separators or other engineering controls are anticipated for the Site. Q STANDARD #5: The proposed project is not considered a land use with higher potential pollutant loads. The solar array is constructed of glass, aluminum and steel and does not contain oil or hazardous material that could leach into the environment. Proposed oil-filled electrical equipment at the Site contains non-toxic mineral oil dielectric fluid (typically a food-grade oil) and delivered to the Site sealed and encased. Q STANDARD #6: The proposed project is located adjacent to a mapped Zone A drinking water resource area located to the southeast of the Site. This wetland area appears to ultimately discharge into the Lake Cochichewick water resource. Given the nature of the proposed development, stormwater drainage from the proposed project will be similar to the existing drainage. The proposed vegetative swales are the BMP designed to reduce the potential runoff to this resource area. Q STANDARD #7: The proposed project is considered a new development and is designed to comply with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards. Q STANDARD #8: A plan to control the construction related impacts including erosion, sedimentation, and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities has been developed. A detailed Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is included as Sheet 4 and 5 in the attached drawings. A pollution prevention plan is included the following section (Section 5). The proponent will prepare and submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the commencement of construction activities that will result in the disturbance of one acre or more. This SWPPP plan can be provided to the Conservation Commission for review and comment in advance. STANDARD #9: A long term operation and maintenance plan has been developed for the proposed stormwater management system and included in the following section (Section 5). Q STANDARD #10: There are no expected illicit discharges to the stormwater management system. The applicant will submit an Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction stormwater BMPs and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. 5.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN In accordance with the standards set forth in the MassDEP Stormwater Management Policy, Sanborn Head prepared this Operations and Maintenance (0&M) Plan for the Brooks School Solar Farm Project located across from the Brooks School at 1160 Great Pond Road SANBORN ;[ HEAD June 22,2017 Page 8 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 in North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site). This 0&M Plan has been specifically tailored to this project given the passive nature of the proposed development. This 0&M Plan is divided into the following three main sections. The first section describes the erosion and sedimentation controls and other stormwater management measures taken during the Construction Period Plan. The second section is the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan and the third is the Long Term Maintenance Plan. Sanborn Head prepared this 0&M Plan for North Andover Solar, LLC c/o Nexamp, Inc. (Nexamp), who is responsible for the Stormwater Management System for this project. Nexamp is responsible for the long term 0&M of the project unless the responsibility is transferred (and assumed) in writing to the Conservation Commission. Contact information for this 0&M Plan includes the following: North Andover Solar, LLC (project owner/operator) ..........................................617-431-1444 Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc. (project engineer) ..........................................978-392-0900 Emergency Contacts: North Andover Conservation Commission ..........................................................978-688-9530 North Andover Fire Department ..........................................................978-688-9590 North Andover Division of Public Works ..........................................................978-685-0950 5.1 Construction Period O&M Plan The following outlines the construction period stormwater 0&M plan: ■ Contact the North Andover Conservation Commission and North Andover Engineering Department prior to the start of construction activities to schedule a pre-construction meeting. ■ Install the hay bales and silt-fence as depicted on the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Sheets 4 and 5). ■ Install the construction entrance as depicted on the Proposed Site Development Plan (Sheet 3) and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Sheets 4 and 5). ■ Site shall only be accessed from the designated entrance. ■ All erosion control features (hay bales and silt-fence) will be inspected weekly and after significant rain events in accordance with a site specific SWPPP. ■ All erosion control features shall be maintained, repaired or replaced as needed or as required by the Town of North Andover inspectors. ■ Sediment up gradient of the hay bales and silt fence greater than 6" in depth shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. ® The construction contractors shall comply with the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan details and notes as well as the SWPPP requirements. SANBORN 11111 HEAD I June 22,2017 Page 9 20170622 Stormwater Report.docx 3471.01 ■ The stabilized construction entrance shall be inspected weekly. The entrance will be maintained as necessary to prevent erosion or migration of material off-site. ■ Dust pollution is not anticipated but will be controlled on site as necessary using water trucks or an approved stabilization method. ■ The tree clearing proposed outside the erosion controls is intended to reduce the potential shading of the solar array, therefore these trees can be pruned or topped to meet the desired effect. At a minimum, stumps will be kept in place; therefore, erosion control measures will not be necessary. 5.2 Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan Standard #4 of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Handbook requires that a Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan (LTPPP) be prepared and incorporated as part of the C&M of the Stormwater Management System. The purpose of the LTPPP is to identify potential sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges. The following items describe the source control and proper procedures for a LTPPP: ■ It is prohibited to use herbicides, fertilizers and insecticides beyond the first year of installation of the plant material within the area of the Site. ■ The potential source of spills is limited to oil-filled electrical equipment and periodic visits by maintenance vehicles: ❑ Proposed oil-filled electrical equipment at the Site contains non-toxic mineral oil dielectric fluid (typically a food-grade oil) and delivered to the Site sealed and encased. ❑ Cleaning and storage of maintenance vehicles should be conducted off Site. ■ The solar modules and racks do not contain oil or hazardous materials that could spill or leach into the environmental media at the Site. ® The inspection and maintenance of vegetation (i.e. mowing) at the site should be conducted at least twice per year. The removal of debris and sediment from drainage swales should be conducted as necessary. Vegetation should be re-seeded as necessary. ■ No storage or oil or hazardous materials, including herbicides, fertilizers and insecticides, should be conducted on site (other than oil sealed in electrical equipment). ■ Routine maintenance of the access road and staging area will include inspection, stabilization and repairs as needed. Snow will be physically removed from the road and staging area (i.e. plowed) only if access is necessary. Salt use or other deicing is not anticipated. P:\3400s\3471.01\Source Files\Design Documents\Revised Stormwater Rpt\20170622 Stormwater Report.docx SANBORN �; HEAD j FIGURES SANBORN IIII HEAD i i FeS�CQ40A]A3iNZU<]I OOGapvcsFa CAUTr,,,on la�fi..a F'u N.'a 641n I ®201]$NIDOPN IIEPD BAS�}C\WiES,]:C. Ell Chcdw cs P» Ri \ � � If f _ So R 46 . l � n •'• ��—`D � i /fir \`';.i: 'r r is / �� `J! � iI jf/i \\�+� 1�rf/. �`'_,: / r / ^fir L,j. •( ;� � \��j��q \� Eal aj 'd i �/` � _��, _ C- � 4 �� fir\--v �� t(L� _�\✓i�-I I , y i Camp .� pp1h r ,% V� 45 ll � O r ..�, � •� � J �� A�A\\� J i� ,J ��i .•� :. \� ,i�1, � �� _ UlS� '. •� , .{ � /� ;�� \. '\t, •��:��%�!\ �. \ �:\,�\\�\ \ v Drawn By: R.Clay/D.Dombrowsky! _ Figure 'j Designed By: R.Clay w e Reviewed By: T.Reed Project Date: June 21 Locus Plan s Date:June 2017 1� NOTES: Base map was taken from the"Office of SCALE:1:25,000 b Geographic and Environmental Information(MassGIS),Commonwealth StOrrTlWater Report of Massachusetts Information Techno7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle Maps: i S-r i 1 d L o R 1 V : HEAD Brooks School Solar Farm Groveland,Ma,REV:1987 North Andover,Massachusetts MassDEP - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Site Name: MCP Numerical Ranking System Map: 500 feet & 0.5 it Radii Brooks School Solar Farm Great Brook Road North Andover,MA RTN' I he infoirraflon shown on'hiis rnap is fie 193 MA Coordinates: best available at th e date of pi�nfing.Fcr MassDEP MmE,940113mN nriore slease refer to --L22,q,, s.�rna s a s�n t ry, �j�I 1A r111111"o En.-mil")o�ill 1)ozir��mo September 23,2012 or�1�3 J V, N" V T — II J p -IJ JX I I JPI) Is H & 1 1 t I h i f A B YER H11.L P i J \4, qq A q,r. -J X �j A- J,�/J', y) 114 N IC33 T ND H A � N RUNSELL It" A, % ............112 FOS R HNL 0M IJ P0 0.24ml Roads:Limited Access,Divided,Other Hwy,Major Road,Minor Road,Track,Trail PWS Protection Areas:Zone 11,IWPA,Zone A........... Boundaries:Town,County,DEP Region;Train;Powerline;Pipeline;Aqueduct Hydrography:Open Water,PWS Reservoir,Tidal Flat Wetlands:Freshwater,Saltwater,Cranberry Bog ......... Basins:Major,Sub;Streams:Perennial,Intermittent,Man Made Shore,Dam FEMA I 00yr Floodplain;Protected Open Space;ACEC .fifers:Medium Yield,High Yield,EPA Sole Source......===NHESP:Est Rare Weland Habitat,Certified Vernal Pool... k") Non Potential Drinking Water Source Area:Medium,High(Yield)...== DEP Permitted Solid Waste Landfill.................... Figure 2 Prioritv Resource Man i N S W 2 E N G I N E E OKmIh I a 0 '001 N DRAWIR OGS 3 a �a u. 0 0 m 0 0 BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM x U N m Y O O 1160 GREAT POND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS a PROJECT OWNER: SHEETINDEX BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR DEVELOPER: SHEET NO. TITLE NORTH ANDOVER SOLAR, LLC c/o NEXAMP, INC. 1 GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, AND ABBREVIATIONS ENGINEER (SITE/CIVIL ONLY): 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN `� SANBORN HEAD &ASSOCIATES, INC. _ - 1 3 PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Tt t �J 4 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN (NORTH) qr 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN (SOUTH) 6-7 DETAILS 8 WETLAND RESOURCE PLAN � � I REY751IXJ TABLE FROM:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-SOUTH GROVELAND MA R1:19117 M07HYWLOCUS PLAN . Gn FSD SCALE: 1:25,000 pVI`� p JUNE 2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. RLC ASS/piyALE 'Y NO. DATE DESCRIPTION DY PREPAREDFOR.• PREPARED BY.' SANBORN HEAD nex.Amp ',...... q 20 FOUNDRY STREET, CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301 NORTH ANDOVER SOLAR, LLC c/o NEXAMP, INC. (603) 229-1900 FAX (603) 229-1919 e 4 LIBERTY SQUARE, 3RD FLOOR, BOSTON, MA ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER I= um! LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW °sa I— i NOTES: ABBREVIATIONS: LEGEND: '... 1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM A PLAN ENTITLED,"TOPOGRAPHIC/BOUNDARY PLAN-GREAT MW: MEGAWATT EXISTING PROPOSED POND ROAD",PREPARED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.OF NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE,DATED AUGUST 29,2012 ORIGINAL SCALE:1"=60'. DC: DIRECT CURRENT 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR 202 0 2. TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY FT: FEET _--?"� _---- 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR —210— HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.BETWEEN AUGUST 13 AND AUGUST 24,2012. '.. O.D. OUTER DIAMETER >s UTILITY POLE 10, '.... 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88). TYP: TYPICAL TREE CANOPY LINE (WYY\ 4. PROPERTY LINES AND TOWN BOUNDARY LINE DEPICTED ARE BASED ON COMPLIED DEEDS,PLANS, TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ASSESSORS MAPS OF RECORD. STC: STANDARD TEST CONDITIONS TREE LOCATION '... 5. SOIL BORINGS WERE PERFORMED BY SANBORN HEAD PERSONNEL ON AUGUST 29,2012. GOIAS: GROUP OPERATED AIR BREAK LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 6. WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED BY WETLAND CONSULTANT SERVICES OF MERRIMAC, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER MASSACHUSETTS ON AUGUST 16 AND 17,2012,AND SURVEYED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.IN '... AUGUST 2012. WETLAND FLAGS WILL BE RESET AND MADE VISIBLE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. GENERAL SEED MIX: WOOD POST AND WIRE FENCE X 7. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT — — PROPERTY LINE '... ARE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES IN THIS DISTRICT. MIXTURE POUNDS POUNDS PER — — APPROXIMATE TOWN LINE PER ACRE 1,000 SQ.FT. 8. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS PROMULGATED BY THE NORTH ANDOVER PLANNING BOARD AND CONSERVATION COMMISSION. TALL FESCUE 20 0.45 - STRUCTURE/ENCLOSURE 0 CREEPING RED FESCUE 20 0.45 WETLANDS ',.. SPECIFICATIONS: BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL 8 0.20 TOPSOIL AND SEEDING TOTAL 48 1.10 WETLAND FLAG NOTE:GENERAL SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE APPLIED TO A. TOPSOIL SHALL BE FERTILE SOIL CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH,FREE GENERAL AREAS OF DISTURBANCE OTHERWISE NOT — WETLANDS BUFFER FROM STONES GREATER THAN 3-INCHES,ROOTS,STICKS,PEAT,WEEDS,AND SOD. IT SHALL NOT SPECIFIED TO BE SEEDED WITH NEW ENGLAND WET MIX. CONTAIN MATERIAL HARMFUL TO PLANT GROWTH. STONE WALL B. APPLICATION OF HYDROSEED SHALL ONLY BE PERFORMED DURING THOSE PERIODS WITHIN THE __________ PATHWAY SEASONS WHICH ARE NORMAL FOR SUCH WORK AS DETERMINED BY THE WEATHER AND NEW ENGLAND WET MIX: GUARDRAIL LOCALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICE,AND AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. C. ANY PART OF THE SEEDED AREA WHICH FAILS TO YIELD AN ACCEPTABLE STAND OF GRASS COMMON NAME NWI COMMENTS PAVED ROADWAY (SCIENTIFIC NAME) RATING AFTER TWO MONTHS AS DETERMINED BY THE OWNER SHALL BE RETREATED WITH ADDITIONAL SEED. LURID SEDGE A LOW GROUND COVER THAT TOLERATES VARYING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD L_ __ OBL HYDROLOGY,PROLIFIC SEEDER IN SECOND GROWING (CAREX LURIDA) SEASON PROPOSED TEMPORARY GRAVEL AREA -\��. �� TO BE RESTORED WITH VEGETATION L>'—'——�s1\\-_.Sil EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: FOWL MEADOW GRASS (GLYCERIA OBL PROLIFIC SEED PRODUCER THAT IS A VALUABLE SOLAR ARRAY 1. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS PRIOR TO CANADENSIS) WILDLIFE FOOD SOURCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE FRINGED SEDGE A MEDIUM TO LARGE SEDGE THAT TOLERATES �,. LOCATION AND DESIGNATION OF SANBORN HEAD BORINGS INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED REGULARLY DURING CONSTRUCTION. (CAREX CRINITA) OBL SATURATED AREAS,GOOD SEED PRODUCER - -. WATER PROTECTION DISTRICT OVERLAY 2. STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT JOE-PYE WEED EROSION. (EUPATORIADELPHUS FACW FLOWERING PLANT THAT IS VALUABLE FOR WILDLIFE ELECTRIC LINE MACULATUS) COVER,GROWS TO 4 FEET 3. DEBRIS GENERATED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE LEGALLY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE. SWALE BROOM SEDGE FACW- TOLERATES A WIDE RANGE OF HYDROLOGIC 4. ALL TOPSOIL ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROPOSED PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY (CAREX SPP.,OVALES OBL CONDITIONS STONE LEVEL SPREADER M GRAVEL AREAS,EQUIPMENT PAD AREA,AND AREAS OF CUT AND FILL SHALL BE STRIPPED TO ITS GROUP) _____ FULL DEPTH AND STOCKPILED FOR REUSE.TOPSOIL PILES SHALL REMAIN SEGREGATED FROM TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EXIT r I SOFT RUSH PROVIDES GOOD WILDLIFE COVER,TOLERATES A L______J EXCAVATED SUBSURFACE SOIL MATERIALS. FACW+ (JANCUS EFFASUS) VARIETY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS LIMIT OF NON-DISCHARGE ZONE(325 FEET FROM 5. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS CONDITIONS WARRANT OR WOOLGRASS FACW+ TOLERATES FLUCTUATING HYDROLOGY x TRIBUTARY WETLAND) AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER,OWNER,OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. (SCIRPUS CYPERINUS) a � 7 ZONE A(NON-TRIBUTARY TO LAKE COCHICHEWICK) p3 6. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO PREVENT TRACKING OF SEDIMENT BONESET FLOWERING PLANT THAT IS VALUABLE FOR WILDLIFE a s ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. (EUPATORIUM FACW+ COVER,GROWS TO 3 FEET „ 7,77 ZONE A(TRIBUTARY TO LAKE COCHICHEWICK) PERFOLIATUM) 7. WETLANDS ARE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED.NO ENCROACHMENT IS PERMITTED. TUSSOCK SEDGE CREATES ELEVATED HUMMOCKS ON WET SITES,MAY (CAREX STRIETA) OBL REMAIN LEVEL ON DRIER SITES ag3 8. IF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE SEEDED AREAS DO NOT SHOW A PROMPT-CATCH",THESE AREAS SHALL °s BE RE-SEEDED AT THE SAME RATE AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS BEFORE IN INTERVALS OF TEN BLUE VERVAIN FACW+ A NATIVE PLANT THAT BEARS ATTRACTIVE BLUE 5g? (10)DAYS,WHICH PROCESS SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL A GROWTH OF GRASS IS ESTABLISHED OVER (VERBENA HASTATN) FLOWERS F THE ENTIRE AREA. NOTE: `e it 9. NEWLY TOPSOILED,GRADED AND/OR SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM TRAFFIC AND vo9 NEW ENGLAND WET MIX SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF 1 LB.PER 2,500 SQUARE FEET IN '.. EROSION. THE VEGETATED TREATMENT SWALES WHERE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. '... 10, GRADES IN SETTLED,ERODED AND/OR RUTTED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED. 11, ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL OR SEED MIX SHALL BE MADE WITH MATERIAL EQUIVALENT TO THE DESIRED MATERIAL IN OVERALL FORM,HEIGHT,BRANCHING HABIT,FLOWER, '... LEAF,COLOR,FRUIT AND CULTURE. PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF SUBMITTED WITH ENUMERATED REASONS WHY SUBSTITUTIONS ARE PROPOSED, ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER % LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEIV DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: tNOFµ DESIGNED BY: R.,CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM 3471.01 4 Amp �� I'wTrrtw' w NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS c SANBORN HEAD ne ® ` R�-ED REVIEWED BY: TREED s ® �seass PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY GENERAL NOTES, SYMBOLS, SHEET NUMBER: v e o GIST�'�°°`e PIC: E.STEINHAUSER g HAIE g¢o p JUNE2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �C DATE: JUNE 2017 AND ABBREVIATIONS of$ NO DALE DESCRIPTION BY i 4 NOTE: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR NOTES AND LEGEND. o / S..rFtEET / WASHINGTON / 00 L I _t I LOT 1 MAP 103 LOT 1 MAP 103 BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. SH ,1 1 1160 GREAT POND ROAD 1160 GREAT POND ROAD 1 NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 - r 1 � ; t1 S g i yea 4y s.. §gP 6 0 � 333 � 0 _ _ GREAT. �-,�• _ GRAPHICAL SCALE s ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER $ 8p' 40' a so' 169 LAND DISTURBANCE PERAIIIT APPLICATION REVIEW 8 DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: z iqmpa� tNDfMek DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM 3471.01 1'1PCED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS y ® ` rcED f° REVIEWED BY: T.REED SANBuRN HEAD ® CIVIL 4 .<eaes PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: 9 e A Q - o GIST S°°�� Plc: E.STEINHAUSER HALE� EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN �jo p JUNE 1D 17 ISSUED FOR PER9TTING-NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION RLC DATE: JUNE 2017 2 OF$ IA. DATE DESCRIPTION BV i Y NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. 2. LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED UTILITY POLES ARE APPROXIMATE. FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY NGRID. 0 / / WASHINGTON 5"�REET / wo\ 00 14 rov"'•` L _WOOD POST 5 LEVEL R 1 6 SPREADER- VEGETATED ¢ — — WIRE FENCE 6 _ _. � � TREATMENT SWALE e 1.1 MW-DC(STC)SOLAR ARRAY \ _ 1,000 KW-AC INTERCONNECTED TO NGRID — — ENTRANCE � x x GATE g � MINIMUM 0.3 ACRES OF STAGING AREA z z x x—� -- �1 .��^ SHALL BE RESTORED WITH LOAM AND SEED z x 1 AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT OF CLOEARINGE LIMIT �. ING AREA APPROXIMATE LIMIT �\� } \\ �. //(0.6 AC) 18 FT WIDE GRAVEL 3 a TEMPORARY OF CLEARING } \' tEL209.5' ACCESS ROAD 6 T ) CONSTRUCTION e ENTRANCE/EXIT $ � - — — — — — — — — — — 369a K � 4 VEGETATED EXISTING NGRID 13.2 KV +" e TREASWAIE / 3 PHASE UTILITY POLE#1746 ($o =ae 'a e PERSONNEL �k x x _ x x z TREES TO BE MAINTAINED OR s 6 GATE "" / OVERHEAD UTILITY POWER LINE REPLACED AS REQUIRED FOR y:H e LEVEL SPREADER i ACCESS TO SITE aFv 6 3.e 5 PERSONNEL LEVEL ¢ VEGETATED a� 9SPREADER TREATMENT 6 PROPOSED UTILITY POLE(TYP.) SWALE 6 GATE e7CONCRETE PAD FOR UNDERGROUND MEDIUM VOLTAGE LINE - INVERTER/TRANSFORMER / GREAT GRAPHICAL SCALE d " —J ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER ao ao a eo sa LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW e PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM a tN Of µqv °yz q DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 ® ` '1 W " REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS SANBORN HEAD CIVIL .a94e PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY 8 ® ,o SHEET NUMBER: o csTE��O�°'� PIC: E.STEINHAUSER atS,oHALE PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 OF a JUNE 2017 ISSUED FOR PERIATTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLC 3a D DATE: JUNE2017 NO. I DATE I DESCRIPTION BY L i Y , NOTES: — 3 t. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND, _W \ �. J•Z VIW APPROXIMATE LIMIT F W OF CLEARING ° — Q —_2h- _ x x x x x x x z 6 WOOD POST&WIRE FENCE ® o 0 APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF \\ CLEARING eAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF WATTLE EROSION AND SEDIMENT ® ° CONTROL BARRIER 00 00 o� o I �k p ® - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ - - _ —L GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD - - - - - - - ° x g PERSONNEL �° ,�\ t x x x x x x x x e GATE eSTONE LEVEL p- ® ® ® ® _ ® — 6 SPEADER 4 TREATMENT e SWALE '3� \ LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES eE: h1; a ;aa s VARIES) 1 JIZ 2•F- QoIW W GRAPHICAL SCALE d ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER w 2a' o So, ,00l LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: tNOF"�ss5 BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM a� DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 $ ®Amp .�� 'R w �' REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS SANBuRN HEAD ® "�` PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN GIST SHEET NUMBER: 3 €a oSONAI PLC: E.STEINHAUSER Tga� 0 JUNE2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLC DATE: JUNE 2017 (NORTH) 4OF8 F o NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 'Su, i Y NOTES. '.. 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. LIJ 6 z _ -/ \' f 2. LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED UTILITY POLES ARE �� — r APPROXIMATE. FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY WIS — _� _ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NGRID. F ,> — WATTLE EROSION AND 7 — SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER I APPROXIMATE LIMIT — _.— -_ ° APPROXIMATE LIMIT •` OF CLEARING �" - _. °�O� °�°._� _ OF CLEARING WSW -� >►_oo-°-"° STONE LEVEL ` ® ' 6 S P E A D E R VEGETATED 4 6 204 WOOD POST& 1 TREATMENT 6 ` �— � _ 20 u —x P x WIRE FENCEe - SWALE x \ 1 ° MINIMUM 0.3 ACRES OF STAGING AREA \l \ \ \ \ \l SHALL BE RESTORED WITH LOAM AND SEED � ` ` \ `°� IN\,i - AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT \" \ \��\'.\; % ' I STAGING AREA I%MI ° 1 \ "+\ (0.6 AC) �� I 18 FT WIDE GRAVEL 3 a TEMPORARY 1 } APPROXIMATE LIMIT \ \.'+``\1 f tEL.209.5' / ACCESS ROAD e She CONSTRUCTION 7 -. OF CLEARING \`1 ENTRANCE/EXIT e + GRAVEL SHOULDER _ ` ��\�� — _ I�'�® ftw / FOR TRUCK TURNING440, i'z A\\�✓ • ' °�,�° TRUCK ACCESS TO THE SITE I 1 S ROAD ' - I00 �-- a0A�C ate IS RESTRICTED TO i OVERHEAD UTILITY � 4* �' NORTHBOUND VEHICULAR ' � b TRAFFIC ALONG GREAT POWER LINE A i � POND ROAD(TO BE POSTED) ENTRANCE 2 PROPOSED UTILITY GATE 6POLE(TYP.) ` ° PERSONNEL j °/ —APPRX so'�sErzANo / S SUFFER GATE 6 4 oTREATMENT ° o �. / SWALE o °/ ' EXISTING NGRID 13.2 KV .APPRA,10O• / 3 PHASE UTILITY POLE#1746 Enaaos euFFER G e rj SPEADER STONE LEVEL TREES TO BE MAINTAINED OR x x i o REPLACED AS REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO SITE APPROXIMATE LOCATION 2 - I / OF WATTLE EROSION e AND SEDIMENT g I / CONTROL BARRIER LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES y�a I f`i lop I d WIDTH VARIES) I -It LU dx: GRAPHICALSCALE w~ ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 8 =Q q so, 25' 0' 50 100, LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW DRAWN BY: R.CLAY a PROJECT NUMBER: tNcfAtq� DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM u s;m po AfOTHY W. G HEAD n SANBuRN ® NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS ��ED REVIEWED BY: T.REED ge ® A e1cs PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHEETNUMBER: p o cisrts�°�v� Plc: E.STEINHAUSER $ J a S/OHALE�'' q=t 0 JUNE2011 SSUED FOR PERAUTTINO-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RLO DATE: JUNE 2017 (SOUTH) 5 OF 8 DALE DESCRIPTION BY =3�f i Y 9GUAGE,HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED WOVEN STEEL NOTE: WIRE CONFORMING 70 ASTA1 A716,6ESH,(T 2)) (SEE NOTE 2 1. ENTRANCE GATE DETAIL SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL-PROVIDE AND (S INSTALL GATE CLOSELY MATCHING WOOD&WIRE FENCE TYPE. GATE POST ___ 20'WIDE DOUBLE LEAF GATE � �12 12' 1 .- /-GATE BRACING S PLUNGER BAR HINGES 1 0 1.5-MIN.LONG f ._._�.._.. __ ..._._ — T TIT- T �� T T T T T GAGE STAPLE _—_ +I — ITi L- - �I (SEE NOTE 3) _ } T— I ! --- _ _-_ I Ltd — I L� ( l > B �l1 --i_%.1 i- 1 --=I_I-_- ! i_ 1- IE - - - — a I — — f �_� � 1 i JAI--i - - - - - 6' BRACE WIRE III 7777777 77 �I I �I i 1 ;;I 4 cnrE SHALL BE 1 MIN. t ( I 1 (TYP) CAPABLE OF ADDITION LI CONCRETE PO57 I.� OF LOCKING MECHANISM L WOOD POST(TVP.) (SEE NOTE 1) 12-0(TYP.) NOTES: 4'(TYP) I '... 1. FURNISH PRESSURE TREATED WOOD POSTS CONSISTING OF EITHER DOUGLAS FIR,WESTERN LARCH,CEDAR,OR PINE OF ANY '.. SPECIES.USE LINE POSTS WITH A MINIMUM 10-IN.POST CIRCUMFERENCE AND A 11N.MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN OPPOSITE FACES OR BETWEEN ANY FACE AND AN OPPOSITE CORNER,PROVIDE 17-5-IN CIRCUMFERENCE POSTS FOR CORNER,TERMINAL OR BRACES; AND A4-IN.MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN OPPOSITE FACES OR BETWEEN ANY FACE AND AN OPPOSITE CORNER. FENCE ENTRANCE GATE 2. PROVIDE WOVEN WIRE CONFORMING TO ASTM A116,EXCEPT WIRE SIZE AND STRENGTH OPTIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING ( l SUBSECTIONS OF TABLE 1:NO.12}GRADE 60,NO 12J GRADE 125,OR 14 J GRADE 125. '.. NOT TO SCALE '. 3. FURNISH 9 GAGE STAPLES WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF I.SIN.,EXCEPT THAT I-IN.STAPLES MAY BE USED IN LOCUST POSTS.PROVIDE GAGE STAY WIRES AND BRACE WIRES,AND 12.5 GAGE TIRE WIRE AND WIRE CLAMPS.PROVIDE GALVANIZED STAY WIRE,BRACE WIRE, '.. -BE WIRE AND WIRE CLAMPS CONFORMING TO ASTM A116. '.. n WOOD AND WIRE FENCE I NOT TO SCALE TOPSOIL HYDRO1�ITfC 4'WIDE GATE VEGETATION ON N S � EXISTINGGRADE _ �I (SLOPE VARIES) L T 2 GATE SHALL BE CAPABLEOF PROCESSED GRAVEL FOR SUBBASE ADDITION OF EXISTING MASS DOT ITEM M111.03.1 ; ;, / ��1 12 // % �� 16, LOCKING GRADE EXISTING GRADE ; 2%MIN.2%MIN. ( ) �� MECHANISM 12' / '>-- T /,TOPSOIL TOPSOILS ; 3 ///-/ 2 i j - - C COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE: I I 1. SEED THE SWALE WITH NEW ENGLAND WET MIX BY NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS o INC. R MIX I I 7�i 7� rF� 7�7�TrT� 7�T 77�T APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER AT A RATE OF 1 LB.PER 2,500 SQUARE FEET.ONCE SEEDED,CLEAN ( I I I CROWNED Al CENTERLINE SHALL MULCHBE FREEOFIINVASNESPECIDSOALLDISTURBEDPREASINCLUDINGTHEBUFFERAREAS.SEED LJ LJ 2. SEE SHEET 1 FOR DETAILED SEED MIX INFORMATION. NOTE: '.. 1. PERSONNEL GATE DETAIL SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL '.. 18' PROVIDE AND INSTALL GATE CLOSELY MATCHING EXISTING WOOD 8 WIRE FENCE TYPE. GRADE PROCESSED GRAVEL FOR SUBBASE n SIDESLOPE TREATMENT SWALE 12' (MASS DOT ITEM M7.03.1) EXISTING GRADE 11Z TOPSOIL 2%"" n PERSONNEL GATE NOT TO SCALE -/TOPSOILS/ NOT TO SCALE g� / �2MIN.� g `COMPACTED SUBGRADE� / 3 � 4 0 T', 11 L f 18 MIN �� c 2 4'TOPSOILMIN. SLOPED ACROSS ROAD B" > �' Lc �1 -SEEDED URF e //,/�✓.' �, FINISH t t �" .�—3'MIN. GRADE - 3 NOTES: 3/4-INC H CRUSHED STONE. (MASSDOT M2.01.4) 1G__tyd' COMPACTEDOR 1. LOCATIONS AND TYPE OF ROADWAYSECTION WILL DEPENDON SLOPE CONDITIONS NONWOVEN UNDISTURBED " AND SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO PROMOTE DRAINAGE FROM GEOTEXTILE SUBGRADE AND ACROSS ROADWAYS. 2. SOILS EXCAVATED FOR ROADWAYS SHALL BE RELOCATED TO RAISE GRADES OF NOTE: /^ TYPICAL LOAM AND SEED OTHER PORTIONSNOTOFROADWAY OR SILEDON SITE, U AREA OR REMOVED EROSFROION THE SITE. 1. INSTALL LEVEL SPREADER AT A ZERO PERCENT GRADE ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE DISCHARGE LIP. / l SOILS SHALL NOT BE STOCKPILED ON SITE,UNLESS ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL '.. PRECAUTIONS ARE MADE AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. FLOW MUST DISCHARGE UNIFORMLY ALONG THE LEVEL SPREADER. ' NOT TO SCALE '.. TYPICAL ACCESS ROAD LEVEL SPREADER NOT TO SCALE '.. NOT TO SCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER LAND DISTURBANCE PERILIIT APPLICATION REVIEW n € DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: �� t'AOFM4,gy9 DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM 3471.01 o MOTHYw. y ra`=6D REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS 41VIL a .oess PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY s ® ® a C SHEET NUMBER: ° c/sTBPe�� Plc: E.STEINHAUSER DETAILS slOHALE' 6 OF 8 JUNE201] ISSUEDFORPERIATIING-NOTFORCONSTRIICTION R1C DATE: JUNE 2017 NO. GATE DESCRIPRON OY M. L i Y 50'MIN - NOTES: 1'X1'X24'WOODEN STAKE PLACED 4'O.C. UNPAVED PAVED 1. THE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET EXISTING EXISTING WATTLE FILTER SOCK Y REPAVE WERE PROVIDED TO SANBORN HEAD BY NEXAMP. k GROUND ROAD 12-DIAMETER MIN(TYPICAL) AS SPECIFIED 0 COMP BE TED vN�y.hh)-green.com/solar/en AREA TO PROTECTED r ORDINARY FILL ! \ I J AC \��\��\/<(//\\�\!•` //� WORK AREA �� '� ' 'Yh•r :, - \ AS SPEC acoMsolar/en 6'MINIMUM 12'MIN VA 6 PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION SEC110N �A ,I "r ' FILTER CLOTH BEM'EEN STABNZED CONSTRUCTION COMPACTED "- ,.� � �] •X / ENTRANCE AND ROAD " I'X1'X24'WOODEN STAKE ELECTRIC CONDUIT SAND PROFILE VIEW (AS REQUIRED) \ , ® PLACED 4'O.C. i� / B � WATTLE FILTER SOCK < 50'MINIMUM ® 12'DIAMETER MIN(TYPICAL) AS REQUIRED\ ,-" '"' . "".�:: ,3 '` ,,,,,,' ,,, "„•.,. WATER FLOW Hyundai Heavy Industries was founded In 1972 and is a Fortune 500 company.The company employs more than 48,000 people,and has a global to'MIN WORK AREA AREA TO BE PROTECTED ELECTRIC CONDUIT TRENCH leading 7 business divisions with sales of 40.9 Billion USD In 2015.As one of our core businesses of the company,Hyundai Heavy industries is 4 NOT TO SCALE ® committed to develop and Invest heavily In the field of renewable energy. '.. PLAN Hyundai Solar Is the largest and the longest standing PV cell and module manufacturer In South Korea.We have 800 MW of module production °r capacity and provide high-qualitysolar PV products to more than 3,000 customers worldwide.We strive to achieve one of the most efficient PV 20' EXISTING 1)WATTLE SHALL.BE 12•U9L MAYElF1R. p Y P P ROAD modules by establishing an R&D laboratory and investing more than 20 Million UST)on innovative technologies. '.. 2 WATTLE EROSION CONTROL BARRIER EXISTING NOT TO SCALE GROUND 10'MIN Poly-crystalline Type '.. CRUSHED STONE HIS-M31ORI I HiS-M3l5Rl I HiS-M320RI I HiS-M325RI PLAN VIEW MODULE XPORTRACR RI-Series ®�•TRT Mono-crystalline Type MIN 4•SLAB HIS-533ORI I HIS-S335RI I HiS-5340RI I HiS-5345RI I HIS-S35ORI I HiS-S355RI ABDYE GRADE 9'-10' �•VGR-ADEMIN. EE SIRUCTURAL DRAWNGS 1. STONE FOR A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE 1 TO 2 INCHOR cavcREIE PAD DETAILSSTONE,RECLAIMED STONE OR RECYCLED CONCRETE EQUIVALENT. - - - - 2. THE LENGTH OF THE STABWZED ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50 GEOIEIONE FABRICMIN'4t-I/2• SoeralBBRAFI 16W GRSTONE.FLUSHFEET. APROW4D EOUAL) WITH PAD 998 mm(39.29-)(W)x 1,960 mm(77.17')(L)x 40 mm(1.57')(H) 3. THE THICKNESS OF THE STONE FOR THE STABILIZED ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE FINISH LESS THAN 6 INCHES. MIN.6•,a/4'stONE 3'-0' RADE Approx.22.9 k9(50.5 lbs) 4. THE WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE FULL WIDH OF THE PROPOSED ENTRANCE. 6%31e CRUSHED STORE 72 cells in series(6 x 12 matrix)(Hyundai cell,Made in Korea) 5. GEOTEXTILE FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE AREA PRIOR 4 mm'(12AWG)cables with olarized weather roof connectors, TOPLACING THE STONE. F PE NIN.t2•SIRUCTUflAL FILL C DETAIL6. ALL SURFACE WATER CE IS LL BE G TO OR DEATH D TOWARD THE IECcertified(UL listed and UL4703 certified),Lenglh 1.2 m(47.2') CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PIPED BENEATH THE ENTRANCE. a'couPAcim SAND 5 NOT TO SCALE IP67,weather7. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WUL PREVENT -- proof,IECcertified(UElisted) TRACKING OR FLOWNWNG OF SEDIMENT ONTO EXISTING ROAD. THIS MAY NOTE: 3 b ass diodes[o revent ower decrease b artial shade REQUIRE PERIWIG TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE W ADDITIONAL ONIPACIED SOSGRADE C.CONDUIT YP P P yP LENGTH AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANWT OF ANY (SITABRE Sot OATERIAL) SIZE VARIES Front;Anti-reflection coated glass(Anti reflection coated),3.2 min(0.126') MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED.DROPPED. 1. SOLAR MODULES TO BE INSTALLED WITH SCREW-TYPE ANCHOR SYSTEM. , 9 WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO EXISTING ROAD SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. CONCRETE PAD Encapsulant:EVA Back Sheet:Weatherproof film 3 Nor l Cear anod To scA Eized aluminum alloy type 6063 - STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE — 1 NOT TO SCALE •IEC 61215(Ed.2)and IEC 61730 by VDE •UL listed(UL 1703),Type 1 for Class A Fire Rating -Output power tolerance+3/-0% - •ISO90012000 and 15014001:2004 Certified •OHSAS 180012007 Certified •Advanced Mechanical Test(5,400 Pa)Passed(IEC) /Mechanical Load Test(40lbs/N')Passed(UL) •IEC 62716(Ammonia Corrosion Resistance Test)Passed •IEC 61701(Salt Mist Corrosion Test)Passed -Potential-induced Degradation(PID)TestPassed (85'C/85%/600 hr PVEL) r •VDE(Test Data Acceptance Program) 3 •UL(Witness Test Data Program) •10 years for product defect s •10 years For 90%of warranted min.power ®} •25 years for 80%of warranted min.power r z Important Notice on warranty Tte,•,mrant";appry onN to me vv mxvtzs 1•.,u,I yvnda�rear mdusmes cn,-Ras lalo(shor;.n trJo.•.)and produ,i sHixi numher on it_ '.. 3 a a Egg��LE ii3�`-.1, 5�i'd t.il�(..., I R „•.-.• , Gr'. HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER LAND DISTURBANCE PER111IT APPLICATION REVIEW ,U�, DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER; a 'A OF °rA DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 REED REVIEWED BY: T.REED ® nRHvw, v NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS GSANBORN HEAD ® CYIL v e A .As:rs PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY Amp SHEET NUMBER: s }5 ° GIST Pic: E.STEINHAUSER DETAILS J p JUNE201] ISSUED FOR PEnurtING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FiICDATE: JUNE 20177OF 8 I.b, DATEDESCRIPTIONOY L i NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 1 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND LEGEND. APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 2. 25'NO-DISTURBANCE ZONE IS THAT PORTION OF THE BUFFER ZONE WHICH EXTENDS TWENTY-FIVE FEET(25')FROM THE EDGE OF DEP MAPPED ZONE A THOSE WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW.DISTURBANCE OF ANY KIND (NON-TRIBUTARY TO LAKE k IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THIS ZONE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GRADING,LANDSCAPING,VEGETATION REMOVAL,DUMPING OF "" COCHICHEWICK) ° LANDSCAPING DEBRIS,PRUNING,FILLING,EXCAVATING,ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND/OR DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION. 3. 50'NO-BUILD ZONE IS THAT PORTION OF THE BUFFER ZONE WHICH EXTENDS FIFTY-FEET(50')FROM THE EDGE OF WETLAND RESOURCE / AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW.CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THIS / ZONE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FOUNDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WA�HINGTON COMMERCIAL AND/OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS,PORCHES,DECKS(I.E.,FOOTING,PILING,SONOTUBE),PATIOS,HOUSE ADDITIONS, BUILDING ADDITIONS,POOLS,SEPTIC SYSTEMS,AND SHEDS.DRIVEWAYS,ROADWAYS,RETAINING WALLS AND LANDSCAPE BOULDER / WALLS MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE 50-FOOT NO-BUILD ZONE WHEN NO OTHER FEASIBLE LOCATION OR ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF ACCESS EXISTS. 4. 100'BUFFER ZONE IS THE AREA WHICH EXTENDS 100'FROM THE EDGE OF WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS AS DEFINED IN THE NORTH \ ANDOVER WETLANDS PROTECTION BYLAW. J Y oR°/ g jApJ�R esrz� r , / It /r / zY y' t r h r x , r t x x x x x x - Wit, r } TRIBUTARY /.;.,:'.' . ' WETLAND % �- - - - - - - - - - - - S — — — — — — — — — — — — - -_ ✓ �� `� �¢ oEa 3 1 x X x x x x LIMIT OF NON-DISCHARGE .v. 0 is fi4 •� _ _ ,�, �, ZONE(325 FEET FROM gT ® �,�, �' ® ® m" ' '�.® � / � TRIBUTARY WETLAND) . 8 yam' APPLICABLE ZONE A -�A BOUNDARY TRIBUTARY TO LAKE 1 LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES '? ` ( ;- ;.-k' o COCHICHEWICK) r" GREAT - r GRAPHICAL SCALE ISSUED FOR NORTH ANDOVER 80. 1. a 80, w LAND DISTURBANCE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW DRAWN BY: R.CLAY PROJECT NUMBER: @ tNBF� DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM y o ewnnw. m 3471.01 ® fl=ED REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS eS A N B U'—' R N rlEAD n av e ® A ,SB465 c A m p PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: 3 o`S/07HAL Pic: E.STEINHAUSER WETLAND RESOURCE PLAN a of s JUNE 2017 ISSUED FOR PERMITTING-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RHO DATE: JUNE 2017 d NO. DALE DESCRIPTION BV _3�. APPENDIX STORM WATER REPORT CHECKLIST SANBORN III HEAD Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater OR le p-ft o ft A. Introduction Important:When A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document filling out forms compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for on the computer, the Stormwater Report which should provide more substantive and detailed information but is offered use only the tab P ( P ) key to move your here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their cursor-do not Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, use the return the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in key. Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer(RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. The Stormwater Report must include: • The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer(see page 2)that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.' This Checklist is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. • Applicant/Project Name • Project Address • Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report • Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 • Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required by Standard 82 • Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. 'The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report,the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. 2 For some complex projects,it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event,the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection LlBureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report. The checklist is also intended to provide conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards. Note: Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not applicable (N.A.) and provide the reasons for that determination. A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional Engineer who prepared the Stormwater Report. Registered Professional Engineer's Certification I have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations, Long-term Pollution Prevention Plan, the Cdnstruction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included), the Long- term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement(if included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. I have also determined that the information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application. Registered Professional Engineer Block and SignatureOF A14 G' q TIMOTHY W. y� QViL CA No.4W65 ^p sFQ/STti`��a`�� S/pNA1. } / Signature and Date Checklist Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and redevelopment? ® New development ❑ Redevelopment ❑ Mix of New Development and Redevelopment Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 2 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist (continued) LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project: ❑ No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas ❑ Site Design Practices(e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) ❑ Reduced Impervious Area(Redevelopment Only) ® Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs ❑ LID Site Design Credit Requested: ❑ Credit 1 ❑ Credit 2 ❑ Credit 3 ® Use of"country drainage"versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe ❑ Bioretention Cells(includes Rain Gardens) ❑ Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) ❑ Treebox Filter ® Water Quality Swale ❑ Grass Channel ❑ Green Roof ❑ Other(describe): Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges ® No new untreated discharges ® Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth ❑ Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ,} Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Z03tormwate' r ORllaport Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation ❑ Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. ❑ Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. ® Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge ® Soil Analysis provided. ❑ Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. ❑ Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. ❑ Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. ❑ Static ❑ Simple Dynamic ❑ Dynamic Field' ❑ Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. ❑ Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. ❑ Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. ❑ Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: ❑ Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface ❑ M.G.L. c. 21 E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 ❑ Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 ❑ Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. ❑ Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. ❑ Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21 E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. 80%TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 4 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge (continued) ❑ The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. ❑ Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: • Good housekeeping practices; • Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; • Vehicle washing controls; • Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; • Spill prevention and response plans; • Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; • Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; • Pet waste management provisions; • Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; • Provisions for solid waste management; • Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; • Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; . • Street sweeping schedules; • Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; • Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; • Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; • List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. ® A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. ❑ Treatment BMPs subject to the 44%TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: ❑ is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area ❑ is near or to other critical areas ❑ is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate(greater than 2.4 inches per hour) ❑ involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. ❑ The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. ❑ Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44%TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 5 of 8 1ImMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) ® The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: ❑ The'/"or 1"Water Quality Volume or ® The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. ❑ The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. ❑ A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads(LUHPPLs) ❑ The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. ❑ The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. ❑ The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. ❑ LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. ❑ All exposure has been eliminated. ❑ All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. ❑ The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease(e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas ❑ The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. ❑ Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable ❑ The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: ❑ Limited Project ❑ Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. ❑ Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area ❑ Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff ❑ Bike Path and/or Foot Path ❑ Redevelopment Project ❑ Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. ❑ Certain standards are not fully met(Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. ® The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: • Narrative; • Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; • Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; ® Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; • Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; • Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; • Vegetation Planning; • Site Development Plan; • Construction Sequencing Plan; • Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • Inspection Schedule; • Maintenance Schedule; ® Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. '... ❑ A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 7 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection \� Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater IR'eport Checklist (continued) Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control (continued) ❑ The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with the application.A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. ❑ The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. ❑ The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. ® The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan ® The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and includes the following information: ® Name of the stormwater management system owners; ® Party responsible for operation and maintenance; ® Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; ® Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; ❑ Description and delineation of public safety features; ❑ Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and ❑ Operation and Maintenance Log Form. ® The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater Report includes the following submissions: ❑ A copy of the legal instrument(deed, homeowner's association, utility trust or other legal entity) that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project site stormwater BMPs; ❑ A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges ® The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; ❑ An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; ❑ NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMPs. Appendix A swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 8 of 8 APPENDIX B N CS SOIL SURVEY SANBORN IIII HEAT] USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of 4w NRCS Agriculture and other Essex Federal agencies, State County, Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Massachusetts, Conservation Stations, and local IL 0 Service participants Northern P"'hart �p r � " 34d5 t , .tf � y A r s: 1 •i � October 4, 2012 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http//soiis.usda.gov/sgif) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http:ff ftices.sc.egOV,usda.gov/locator/app? agency=arcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist(http.!/soils,usda.gov/contactil state_cfficesf). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart Web site or the NRCS Web Soil Survey. The Soil Data Mart is the data storage site for the official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 SoilMap..................................................................................................................5 SoilMap................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 MapUnit Legend..................................................................................................8 MapUnit Descriptions..........................................................................................8 Essex County, Massachusetts, Northern Part................................................11 1—Water.....................................................................................................11 6A—Scarboro mucky fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes.....................11 51A—Swansea muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes...............................................12 52A—Freetown muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes..............................................13 6713—Leicester fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes..............................14 706—Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................15 72A—Whitman loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................................16 2608—Sudbury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................17 305C—Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.............................18 305D—Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes...........................19 311 D—Woodbridge fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony.....................................................................................................20 4056—Charlton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.............................21 406C—Charlton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony.........22 406D—Charlton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony.......23 410A—Sutton fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes................................24 410C—Sutton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes..............................25 411 B—Sutton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony..............26 411 C—Sutton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony............27 420C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes.............................28 602—Urban land.........................................................................................29 711 C—Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes......29 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................32 SoilReports........................................................................................................32 SoilErosion.....................................................................................................32 RUSLE2 Related Attributes.........................................................................32 References............................................................................................................35 4 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map.Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map m a n n 329000 329100 329200 329300 329400 329500 329600 329700 42°42'52" 42*42'53" o c � t�l M r Y mm " a V R x r� o � m V 7 6 9 r 0 0 0 0 m m n 1 f O 0a O m m n r w y N "y Y " t r � n V Q 0 0 m M M M V Q 42'42'19" 42°42'19" 329000 329100 329200 329300 329400 329500 329600 329700 '.. Map Scale:1:4,900 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. '... m N Meters ^ 0 45 90 180 270 17 N Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of interest(AOq Very Stony Spot Map Scale:1:4,900 if printed on A size(8.5 x 11")sheet. Area of Interest(AOI) , Wet Spot Soils The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,840. � Other Soil Map Units Special Point Features Special Line Features Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Gully Blowout Short steep slope Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause ® Borrow Pit Other misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line '- placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting Clay spot Political Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. 0 Closed Depression fl Cities Gravel Pit Water Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals (s Landfill Transportation Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service & Lava Flow +++ Rails Web Soil Survey URL http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 19N NAD83 ,�, Marsh or swamp Interstate Highways t�- Mine or Quarry -tr US Routes This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of po Miscellaneous Water -. Major Roads the version date(s)listed below. Q Perennial Water Local Roads Soil Survey Area: Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part Survey Area Data: Version 8,Aug 11,2008 v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/10/2003 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Severely Eroded Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting p Sinkhole of map unit boundaries may be evident. y} Slide or Slip p Sodic Spot Spoil Area 4 Stony Spot Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part1(MA505) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Water 0.0 0.0% 6A Scarboro mucky fine sandy loam,0 to 1 percent 7.4 6.6% slopes 51A Swansea muck,0 to 1 percent slopes 1.2 1.0% 52A Freetown muck,0 to 1 percent slopes 3.1 2.7% 67B Leicester fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes 8.0 7.1% 70B Ridgebury fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent 3.2 2.9% slopes 72A Whitman loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 6.2 5.5% 260B Sudbury fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes 0.8 0.7% 305C Paxton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 10.2 9.0% 305D Paxton fine sandy loam,15 to 25 percent slopes 20.1 17.8% 311 D Woodbridge fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent 2.0 1.8% slopes,very stony 405B Charlton fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes 3.1 2.8% 406C Charlton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent 6.7 5.9% slopes,very stony 406D Charlton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent 2.6 2.3% slopes,very stony 410A Sutton fine sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 4.5 4.0% 410C Sutton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 8.4 7.5% 411 B Sutton fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes, 6.2 5.5% very stony 411 C Sutton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes, 2.2 2.0% very stony 420C Canton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes 10.7 9.5% 602 Urban land 3.3 3.0% 711 C Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex,8 to 15 2.7 2.4% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 112.6 100.0% IvIllap Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named 8 Custom Soil Resource Report according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits forthe properties of the soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes.Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each.A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but ratherto separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or 9 Custom Soil Resource Report anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them.Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 10 Custom Soil Resource Report Essex County, Massachusetts, Northern Part 1—Water Map Unit Setting Frost-free period: 125 to 165 days Map Unit Composition Water: 100 percent 6A—Scarboro mucky fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 0 to 2,100 feet Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Scarboro and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Scarboro Setting Landform:Terraces, depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (6.00 to 20.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Available water capacity: Low(about 5.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Muck 6 to 11 inches: Mucky fine sandy loam 11 to 22 inches: Loamy sand 22 to 60 inches: Stratified sand to fine sand to loamy sand 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Deerfield Percent of map unit: 5 percent Freetown Percent of map unit.- 5 percent Landform: Bogs Wareham Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Terraces 51A—Swansea muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Medisaprists, shallow and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Medisaprists, Shallow Setting Landform: Bogs, drainageways Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Highly-decomposed herbaceous organic material over loose loamy glaciofluvial deposits and/or firm sandy basal till Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. High (about 9.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Muck 12 Custom Soil Resource Report 9 to 26 inches: Muck 26 to 60 inches: Muck Minor Components Freetown Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Bogs Whitman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions Scarboro Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform:Terraces Birdsall Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions 52A—Freetown muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Medisaprists, deep and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Description of Medisaprists, Deep Setting Landform: Bogs, drainageways Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Highly-decomposed herbaceous organic material Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 1 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 12 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very high (about 22.2 inches) 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 5 inches: Muck 5 to 60 inches: Muck Minor Components Swansea Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Bogs Whitman Percent of map unit.- 5 percent Landform: Depressions Scarboro Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform:Terraces Birdsall Percent of map unit.-2 percent Landform: Depressions 6713-1-eicester fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Leicester and similar soils:85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Leicester Setting Landform: Depressions, drainageways Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Poorly drained 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3w Typical profile 0 to 3 inches: Muck 3 to 8 inches: Fine sandy loam 8 to 31 inches: Fine sandy loam 31 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam Minor Components Woodbridge Percent of map unit.- 8 percent Whitman Percent of map unit: 7 percent Landform: Depressions 706—Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 50 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Ridgebury and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Ridgebury Setting Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over dense coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 14 to 25 inches to dense material Drainage class: Poorly drained 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 2 to 18 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. Very low(about 2.4 inches) Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 18 inches: Fine sandy loam 18 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam Minor Components Woodbridge Percent of map unit: 10 percent Whitman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions 72A—Whitman loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 0 to 2,100 feet Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Whitman and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Whitman Setting Landform: Depressions Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over dense coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 12 to 22 inches to dense material Drainage class:Very poorly drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: Frequent Available water capacity: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 5w Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Loam 9 to 20 inches: Sandy loam 20 to 60 inches: Loamy sand Minor Components Ridgebury Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions Leicester Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions 260B—Sudbury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 0 to 2,100 feet Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Sudbury and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Sudbury Setting Landform:Terraces Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Tread Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable loamy eolian deposits over loose sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low(about 4.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):2e Typical profile 0 to 1 inches: Muck 1 to 5 inches: Fine sandy loam 5 to 21 inches: Sandy loam 21 to 27 inches: Loamy sand 27 to 60 inches: Error Minor Components Merrimac Percent of map unit: 15 percent Walpole Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform:Terraces 305C—Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Paxton and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Paxton Setting Landform: Drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over dense coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 18 to 32 inches to dense material Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None 18 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Fine sandy loam 6 to 21 inches: Fine sandy loam 21 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam Minor Components Woodbridge Percent of map unit: 12 percent Ridgebury Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Depressions 305D—Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Paxton and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Description of Paxton Setting Landform: Drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over dense coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 18 to 32 inches to dense material Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very low (about 2.8 inches) 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 6 inches: Fine sandy loam 6 to 21 inches: Fine sandy loam 21 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam Minor Components Woodbridge Percent of map unit:20 percent 311 D—Woodbridge fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Woodbridge and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Woodbridge Setting Landform: Drumlins Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over dense coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from igneous and metamorphic rock Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 25 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:21 to 29 inches to dense material Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 30 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity. Low(about 3.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 6s 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam Minor Components Paxton Percent of map unit: 10 percent Ridgebury Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions 405B—Charlton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Charlton Setting Landform: Hills, ridges Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 2e 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Fine sandy loam 4 to 28 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 28 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam Minor Components Sutton Percent of map unit: 20 percent 406C—Charlton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period. 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Charlton Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, base slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Fine sandy loam 4 to 28 inches Gravelly fine sandy loam 28 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Canton Percent of map unit. 15 percent Sutton Percent of map unit: 5 percent 406D—Charlton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Charlton Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position(two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position(three-dimensional): Base slope, side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 25 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Fine sandy loam 4 to 28 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 28 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 23 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Canton Percent of map unit: 17 percent Sutton Percent of map unit: 3 percent 410A—Sutton fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Sutton and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Sutton Setting Landform: Hills, flats Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Head slope, rise Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 41 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate(about 7.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):2w Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 24 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Leicester Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions Whitman Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Depressions 410C—Sutton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Sutton and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Sutton Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 41 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 25 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Leicester Percent of map unit., 15 percent Landform: Depressions 411 B—Sutton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Sutton and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components:20 percent Description of Sutton Setting Landform: Hills, flats Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 8 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 41 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 26 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Leicester Percent of map unit. 10 percent Landform: Depressions Whitman Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landform: Depressions 411 C—Sutton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Sutton and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Sutton Setting Landform: Hills, ridges, flats Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, rise Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Concave Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 18 to 41 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate(about 7.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Typical profile 0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam 9 to 26 inches: Fine sandy loam 26 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 27 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Leicester Percent of map unit: 15 percent Landform: Depressions 420C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 145 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Canton and similar soils:85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Description of Canton Setting Landform: Hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable sandy and gravelly basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 18 to 36 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Low(about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 3e Typical profile 0 to 7 inches: Fine sandy loam 7 to 33 inches: Fine sandy loam 33 to 60 inches: Gravelly loamy sand 28 Custom Soil Resource Report Minor Components Scituate Percent of map unit: 12 percent Swansea Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Bogs 602—Urban land Map Unit Setting Frost-free period: 125 to 165 days Map Unit Composition Urban land: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Description of Urban Land Setting Parent material: Excavated and filled land Minor Components Udorthents Percent of map unit: 10 percent Charlton Percent of map unit: 2 percent Hinckley Percent of map unit:2 percent Merrimac Percent of map unit:2 percent Paxton Percent of map unit: 2 percent Windsor Percent of map unit: 2 percent 711C—Charlton-Rock outcrop-Hollis complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting Mean annual precipitation:45 to 54 inches 29 Custom Soil Resource Report Mean annual air temperature:43 to 54 degrees F Frost-free period: 125 to 240 days Map Unit Composition Charlton and similar soils:60 percent Rock outcrop: 16 percent Hollis and similar soils: 15 percent Minor components: 9 percent Description of Charlton Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Friable coarse-loamy eolian deposits over friable coarse-loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 1.6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):6s Typical profile 0 to 4 inches: Fine sandy loam 4 to 28 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 28 to 60 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Parent material: Granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated): 8s Description of Hollis Setting Landform: Ridges, hills Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope 30 Custom Soil Resource Report Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Shallow,friable loamy basal till derived from granite and gneiss over granite and gneiss Properties and qualities Slope: 8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 10 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat):Very low(0.00 to 0.00 in/ hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water capacity:Very low(about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability(nonirrigated):4e Typical profile 0 to 1 inches: Muck 1 to 6 inches: Fine sandy loam 6 to 17 inches: Gravelly fine sandy loam 17 to 20 inches: Unweathered bedrock Minor Components Woodbridge Percent of map unit: 5 percent Ridgebury Percent of map unit: 4 percent Landform: Depressions 31 Soil Information Soil Repofts The Soil Reports section includes various formatted tabular and narrative reports (tables)containing data for each selected soil map unit and each component of each unit. No aggregation of data has occurred as is done in reports in the Soil Properties and Qualities and Suitabilities and Limitations sections. The reports contain soil interpretive information as well as basic soil properties and qualities.A description of each report(table) is included. Soil Erosion This folder contains a collection of tabular reports that present soil erosion factors and groupings. The reports (tables) include all selected map units and components for each map unit. Soil erosion factors are soil properties and interpretations used in evaluating the soil for potential erosion. Example soil erosion factors can include K factor for the whole soil or on a rock free basis, T factor, wind erodibility group and wind erodibility index. RUSLE2 Related Attributes This report summarizes those soil attributes used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2)for the map units in the selected area. The report includes the map unit symbol,the component name,and the percent of the component in the map unit.Soil property data for each map unit component include the hydrologic soil group, erosion factors Kf for the surface horizon, erosion factor T, and the representative percentage of sand, silt, and clay in the surface horizon. Report—RUSLE2 Related Attributes 32 Custom Soil Resource Report RUSLE2 Related Attributes-Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct.of Slope Hydrologic group Kf T factor Representative value map unit length (f) %Sand %Silt %Clay 1-Water Water 100 - - - - - - - 6A-Scarboro mucky fine sandy loam,0 to 1 percent slopes Scarboro 85 49 D 2 - - - 51A-Swansea muck,0 to 1 percent slopes Medisaprists,shallow 80 26 D - 2 - - - 52A-Freetown muck,0 to 1 percent slopes Medisaprists,deep 80 26 D - 3 - - - 67B-Leicester fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Leicester 85 125 C - 3 - - - - 70B-Ridgebury fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes Ridgebury 85 125 C .28 2 69.6 23.9 6.5 72A-Whitman loam,0 to 3 percent slopes Whitman 85 49 D .32 3 40.0 35.0 25.0 2606-Sudbury fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes Sudbury 80 98 B - 3 - - - 305C-Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Paxton - 85 151 C .32 3 70.4 22.1 7.5 305D-Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Paxton 80 151 C .32 3 70.4 22.1 7.5 311 D-Woodbridge fine sandy loam,15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony Woodbridge 85 98 C 32 3 70.4 22.1 7.5 40513-Charlton fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes Charlton 80 125 B .32 3 63.9 30.6 5.5 406C-Charlton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony Charlton 80 151 B .32 3 63.9 30.6 5.5 406D-Charlton fine sandy loam,15 to 25 percent slopes, very stony Charlton 80 98 B .32 3 63.9 30.6 5.5 33 Custom Soil Resource Report RUSLE2 Related Attributes—Essex County,Massachusetts,Northern Part Map symbol and soil name Pct.of Slope Hydrologic group Kf T factor Representative value map unit length (ft) %Sand %Silt %Clay 410A—Sutton fine sandy loam,0 to 3 percent slopes Sutton 85 49 B .32 3 71.1 22.4 6.5 410C—Sutton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes Sutton 85 151 B .32 3 71.1 22.4 6.5 411 B—Sutton fine sandy loam,3 to 8 percent slopes,very stony Sutton 80 125 B .28 3 71.1 22.4 6.5 411 C—Sutton fine sandy loam,8 to 15 percent slopes,very stony Sutton 85 151 B .28 3 71.1 22.4 6.5 420C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Canton 85 151 B .32 3 64.6 30.9 4.5 602—Urban land Urban land 80 — — — — — — — 711 C—Charlton-Rock outcrop- Hollis complex,8 to 15 percent slopes Charlton 60 151 B .32 3 63.9 30.6 5.5 Rock outcrop 16 — D — 1 — — — Hollis 15 151 C/D — 1 — — — 34 Kefferences American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO).2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt,G.W.,and L.M.Vasilas,editors.Version 6.0,2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http//soils.usda.govf Soil Survey Staff. 1999.Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://soa is.usda,gov/ Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/ Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. htt ://sils.usda gcv/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http:/t` k.giti.nres.usda.govr' United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http:!is ils.usda.gov/ United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://scails.usda.gov/ 35 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. 36 APPENDIX C SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS SANBORN IIII HEAD Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-1 SANBORN III HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:250 t feet Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 09:45 Dry WA 20' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks A Sample Depth Blows Rec Testing Log Description 9 P No. (ft) r 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/14 TOP OIL S-IA(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 7 --0.5'-- Sand,little Organics.Moist.TOPSOIL 6 12 6 SUBSOIL S-1 B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown and gray, fine to medium SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel Moist.SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-3.4 13 17/13 —2 S-2(2 to 34):Very dense,brown and gray,fine to 22 ° medium SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 100/5" o Q 4 S-3 5-6.1 22 1319 ° S-3(5 to 6.1'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 100/7" o coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 6 o ° O O O Q> ° W $ O Z c) ly ° O ro z O (n O 0 10 b S-4 10-12 20 24/22 o S-4(10 to 12'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to a 32 coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. m 51 q 49 a TILL > ° w 12 O K o O (n O Z O N 0 14 0 o ' N O' S 5 15-17 22 24/23 ° S-5(15 to 17'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 29 coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 16 38 0 z 34 K o O ca o o O r 18 °S-6 18-20 56 24/19 S-6(18 to 20'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse 0 63 O SAND,some Silt,little Clay,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. J 70 x 68 ° 0 O q 20 —20 Boring terminated at 20 feet.No refusal encountered. M O a Q a 22 0 w Gi O O 24 af O in Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-2 SANBORN III HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:236 t feet Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 11:10 Dry WA 15.9' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth t) O Sample Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks No. (ft) Blows Rec Testing Log Description er 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/16 TOPSOIL S-1A(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 8 --0.5'-- Sand,little Organics.Moist.TOPSOIL, 15 S-1 B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown,fine to 19 SUBSOIL medium SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist. SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 20 24/17 j -2 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,brown,fine to medium 23 SAND,some Sift,trace Gravel,few Organic 30 o fragments to 3 feet.Moist.TILL. 37 Q 4 ° 0 Q S-3 5-6.8 14 21/19 0 S-3(5 to 6.8'):Very dense,tan to brown,fine to 23 o medium SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 6 100/91, Q 0 0 (? Q > o u� 8 x � z 0 TILL to z o N O 10 S-4 10-11 51 12/11 0 S4(10 to 11'):Very dense,gray and brown,fine to N m 10016" o coarse SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. i� Q > 0 a w 12 � x Q z o m o a Q 0 14 0 0 N O a Q a0i S-5 15-15.9 73 11/10 0 S-5(15 to 15.9'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine 0 100/51, to coarse SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 z 16 —15'9 Boring terminated at 15.9 feet.No refusal encountered. 0 m S n 18 0 3 0 20 M p a M 0 22 w 0 0 24 z 0 m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-3 SANBORN IIII HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:215 t feet Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 14:35 Dry N/A 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S,Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Sample Depth Spoon Pen/ Field Geologic Description Remarks O No. (n) Blows Rec Testing Log Description r 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 3 24/12 —0 S-1A(0 to 1'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,some 6 i TOPSOIL Sand,trace Gravel.Moist.TOPSOIL. 8 --1'-- 12 S-113(1 to 2'):Medium dense,tan,fine to medium SUBSOIL SAND,some Silt.Moist.SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 25 24/20 —2 S-2(2 to 4'):Dense,tan,fine to medium SAND, 18 trace Silt,trace Gravel.Moist. 23 21 SAND 4 S-3 5-7 21 24121 —5 S-3(5 to T):Dense,brown and gray,fine to medium 22 o SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. 22 6 18 O 0 W '.. 8 ° x 0 Q 0 z ° U 0 10 � S-4 10-10.9 63 11/10 Q S-4(10 to 10.9'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine N 100/5" ° TILL to medium SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. m i? o ° wa 12 x o z m z ° U) o 0 14 O. 0 'a S-5 15-15.8 66 917 S-5(15 to 15.8'):Very dense,brown and gray,fine 0 100/3" to medium SAND,little Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. 0 16 Boring terminated at 15.8 feet.No refusal z encountered. it 0 m 0 r` A 18 0 0 of 0 20 M o ci Q 22 0 W V) O c� 24 z 0 m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-4 SANBORN 1111 HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Ground Elevation:187 t feet Project No.:3471.00 Datum:NGVD 1929 Sanbom,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt. of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 12:05 Dry WA 15.5' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burns Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum DepthS Spoon Pen/ Field GeologicDescription Remarks (ft) No.le D(ft)h Blows Rec Testing Log Description P r 6 in-(hnL Data 0 S-1 0-2 4 24/18 TOP OIL S-1A(0 to 0.5'):Medium dense,brown,SILT,little 6 --0.5'-- Sand,trace Gravel.Moist.TOPSOIL. 6 S-1 B(0.5 to 2'):Medium dense,brown to tan,fine to 6 SUBSOIL medium SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist. SUBSOIL. 2 S-2 2-4 31 24/18 1 _2 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse 51 4 SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 44 0 42 O 4 ° S-3 5-5.5 100/6" 6/4 ° S-3(5 to 5.5'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse Drill action indicates numerous N O SAND,some Gravel,little Silt.Moist.TILL. Cobbles and Gravel from 5.5 to 7 6 feet. o C� O > o. '.. 8 x � z oO. TILL O m z p N Q b 10 S4 10-11.3 33 15/14 o S4(10 to 113):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse m 100/91, o SAND,some Silt,little Gravel,trace Clay.Moist. Q TILL. > o = 12 O � o O z Z � (n O. 14 0 0 N O' a � v0 S-5 15-15.5 100/6" 6/6 o S-5(15 to 15.5'):Very dense,brown,fine to coarse 0 --15.5'-- SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. 0 0 16 Boring terminated at 15.5 feet.No refusal z encountered. 0 m 0 M 18 0 O 0 20 n M O Q a 22 0 W N 0 O 0 24 z x O m Sheet:1 of 1 Project:Brooks School-Solar Farm Log of Boring SH-5 SANBORN III) HEAD Location:North Andover,MA Project No.:3471.00 Ground Elevation:182 t feet Datum.NGVD 1929 Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Drilling Method:4"Hollow Stem Auger Sampling Method:2"Split Spoon with 140 lb Hammer Groundwater Readings Depth Depth Depth Stab. Date Time to Water Ref.Pt, of Casing of Hole Time Drilling Company:New Hampshire Boring,Inc. 08/29/12 13:10 Dry N/A 18.1' 10 Minutes Foreman:R.Burne Date Started:08/29/12 Date Finished:08/29/12 Logged By:J.Lee Checked By:S.Sadkowski Sample Information Stratum Depth Spoon Peril Field(g) Sample Depth Blows Rec Testing Log Description Geologic Description Remarks r 6 in in Data 0 S-1 0-2 9 24/19 —0 S-1A(0 to 1'):Medium dense,brown,fine SAND, 5 i TOPSOIL some Silt,trace Gravel,trace Organic fragments. 7 v1,-_ Moist.TOPSOIL. 8 SUBSOIL S-1 B(1 to 2'):Medium dense,tan to gray,fine to medium SAND,little Gravel,trace Silt.Moist. 2 S-2 2-4 16 24/18 --2'-- SUBSOIL. 27 S-2(2 to 4'):Very dense,tan to gray,fine to coarse 34 SAND,some Gravel,trace Silt.Moist. 41 +: SAND 4 S-3 5-7 19 24/20 v5 S-3(5 to 7'):Dense,tan to brown,fine to coarse 21 o SAND,some Silt,little Gravel.Moist.TILL. n 6 �8 OO 0 H p U' O 7 Q. 0 8 x W OO z 0 90 S-4 10-11.1 64 13/13 Q S4(10 to 11.1'):Very dense,brown to gray,fine to 100/7" o coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. Ca � o TILL ug 12 0. x o z ° � o 0 14 O 0 N � a Y) S-5 15-15.3 100/4" 4/4 S-5(15 to 153):Very dense,brown to gray,fine to 0 0 coarse SAND,some Silt,trace Gravel.Moist.TILL. 16 Z O O o S-6 17-18.1 100/1" 1/0 ° S-6(17 to 18.1'):Very dense,No Recovery. Increased drilling effort at o approximately 17 feet. M 18 U Boring terminated at 18.1 feet.No refusal O encountered. 3 0 20 n M O a M Q Q 22 W 3 N O O 24 Z O (17 Sheet:1 of 1 APPENDIX HYDROCAD MODEL REPORT SANBORN IIII HEAD i LEGEND: s 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR PATHWAY 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR --- GUARDRAIL UTILITY POLE PAVED ROADWAY TREE CANOPY LINE WATER PROTECTION DISTRICT OVERLAY -- -- - / TREE LOCATION SUBCATHMENTAREA WASHINGTON STREET / / PROPERTY LINE — — FLOW PATH - APPROXIMATE TOWN LINE — — SUBCATCHMENT DESIGNATION STRUCTURE REACH DESIGNATION 201RS~ .z""\ WETLANDS �Fl WETLAND FLAG WETLANDS BUFFER STONE WALL LOT 1 MAP 103 \ \ .— — to1R BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. 1160 GREAT POND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 LOT 1 MAP 103 BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. 1 1160 GREAT POND ROAD \\. - NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 fl 1 tots o / r NOTES: 1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM A PLAN ENTITLED,"TOPOGRAPHIC/BOUNDARY PLAN-GREAT POND ROAD",PREPARED BY o� ��, HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.OF NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE,DATED AUGUST 29,2012 ORIGINAL SCALE:1"=60'. oa �\ 2. TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC. BETWEEN AUGUST 13 AND AUGUST 24,2012. �1 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88). _ - 4. PROPERTY LINES AND TOWN BOUNDARY LINE DEPICTED ARE BASED ON COMPLIED DEEDS,PLANS,TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER ASSESSORS MAPS OF RECORD. +GREAT-------------------- --- 5. WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED BY WETLAND CONSULTANT SERVICES OF MERRIMAC,MASSACHUSETTS ON AUGUST 16 AND 17, 201R 2012,AND SURVEYED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.IN AUGUST 2012. GRAPHICAL SCALE 6. SOIL TYPE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE(NRCS)WEB SOIL '.. SURVEY(WSS). ALL ON-SITE SOILS HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS SOIL TYPE C. '... 80' 40' 0' 80, 160, '.,. PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 ® REVIEWED BY: T.REED NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS e ® PROJECTMGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER:A N BO"'R N 11E AL) ne> 96c Amp Pic: E.STEINHAUSER PRE-DEVELOPMENT DATE: �uNE2o1� DRAINAGE PLAN 1 OF 1 e o NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BV 101R Sum ary Node 101 101 S �201 2 1S 201 Summary Node vSubcat' Reach Pon8\ y Linkf Routing Diagram for Pre-Development Prepared by Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc., Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 0 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=352,905 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>0.97" Flow Length=587' Slope=0.1734'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=74 Runoff=8.69 cfs 0.655 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=459,653 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>0.97" Flow Length=569' Slope=0.1560'/' Tc=6.1 min CN=74 Runoff=11.28 cfs 0.854 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=8.69 cfs 0.655 of Outflow=8.69 cfs 0.655 of Reach 20111:Summary Node Inflow=11.28 cfs 0.854 of Outflow=11.28 cfs 0.854 of Total Runoff Area=18.654 ac Runoff Volume= 1.509 of Average Runoff Depth=0.97" 100.00%Pervious= 18.654 ac 0.00%Impervious= 0.000 ac S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paize 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff = 8.69 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.655 af, Depth> 0.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description 151,626 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 201,279 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 352,905 74 Weighted Average 352,905 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 587 0.1734 1.64 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101E Hydrograph 8. 99 cfs E Runoff Type III 24-hr 6- 2-yr 7- 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=352,905 sf w 6 Runoff Volume=0.655 of 3 5 Runoff Depth>0.97" 4- Flow Length=587' Slope=01734 '/' 3- Tc=6.0 min 2- CN=74 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates,Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 201E Runoff = 11.28 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.854 af, Depth> 0.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description 225,103 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 234,551 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 459,653 74 Weighted Average 459,653 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.1 569 0.1560 1.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 201S HydrograpL Runoff 12- jf 8 cfs 11- Type III 24-hr 10- 2-yr 9_ 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" 6- Runoff Area=459,653 sf w 7- Runoff Volume=0.854 of 3 6 Runoff Depth>0.97" LL 5 Flow Length=569' 4- Slope=0.1560 `1' Tc=6.1 min 3 GN=74 2- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01228 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Reach 101R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.102 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 0.97" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 8.69 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.655 of Outflow = 8.69 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.655 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 10111: Summary Node Hydrograpt Inflow El outflow 9- 8.69 Inflow re = .1 c 8- 7- 6 5- 3 0 u 4- 3- 2- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr Z yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Reach 20111: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.552 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 0.97" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 11.28 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.854 of Outflow = 11.28 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.854 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 20111: Summary Node Hydrograpta Inflow S� €12 Outflow L 11.28 cfs Inflow Area=10. ac 11 10- 9- 8- w 7. c 6- LL 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 r, 0 „ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) 101 R Sum ary Node 1 0101S 101S 201 2 1S 3) 201 R Summary Node * Routing Diagram for Pre-Development (Subcar� Reach �once Fitk; 9 9 P — l FHydroCADO epared by Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc., Printed 5/17/2013 10.00 s/n 01228 0 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=352,905 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.97" Flow Length=587' Slope=0.1734'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=74 Runoff=18.55 cfs 1.330 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=459,653 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.97" Flow Length=569' Slope=0.1560'/' Tc=6.1 min CN=74 Runoff=24.07 cfs 1.732 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=18.55 cfs 1.330 of Outflow=18.55 cfs 1.330 of Reach 201R:Summary Node Inflow=24.07 cfs 1.732 of Outflow=24.07 cfs 1.732 of Total Runoff Area=18.654 ac Runoff Volume=3.062 of Average Runoff Depth= 1.97" 100.00%Pervious= 18.654 ac 0.00%Impervious=0.000 ac S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pare 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff = 18.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.330 af, Depth> 1.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sf) CN Description 151,626 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 201,279 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass)HSG C 352,905 74 Weighted Average 352,905 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 587 0.1734 1.64 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101S Hydrograph Runoff 20-19- 18.55 cfs �— 18_ Type III 24-hr 17 ;� 10-yr 16- 15- 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 14 Runoff Area=352,905 sf 13- ,i y 12= Runoff Volume=1.330 of . 11= 3 10- Runoff Depth>1.97" 9. Flow Length=587' Slope=0.1734 '/' 6= Tc=6.0 min 5- 4- CN=74 3- .�,, 2- 1- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 201S Runoff = 24.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.732 af, Depth> 1.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sf) CN Description 225,103 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 234,551 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass)HSG C 459,653 74 Weighted Average 459,653 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.1 569 0.1560 1.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 201E Hydrograph 26- �� Runoff 24.07 cfs 24 _ Type III 24-hr 22 10-yr 20- 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 18- Runoff Area=459,653 sf w 16- Runoff Volume=1.732 of 3 14 Runoff Depth>1.97" 12- Flow Length=569' 10- Slope=0.1560 '/' 8- Tc=6.1 min 6- CN=74 4 2- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 sZn 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Reach 10111: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.102 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.97" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 18.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.330 of Outflow = 18.55 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.330 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 10111: Summary Node Hydrograpk IN Inflow _t £3 5F Gf Outflow low - 20- 18.55 cfs InflowP@a= .1 ac 18, 17- 16- 15- 14- 13 w 12- 'all- 0 10- w 9- 8 7. 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 . �, MIN ME AN M.WO 0- . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Reach 201R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.552 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.97" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 24.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.732 of Outflow = 24.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 1.732 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 201R: Summary Node Hydrograph Is Inflow 26- 24.07 CfS outflow 24- Inflow Area=10. c 22- 20 18- 16- w 14- 3 F0 12- 10- 8- 6- 4 0 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) 101R Sum ary Node 101 — )S 101S 0201S, 2 1S 201 R Summary Node Subcat` [ReachfPonck, I LinkRouting Diagram for Pre-Development -� Prepared by Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc., Printed 5/17/2013 Hydro CAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=352,905 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.69" Flow Length=587' Slope=0.1734'/' Tc=6.0 min CN=74 Runoff=35.12 cfs 2.492 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=459,653 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.69" Flow Length=569' Slope=0.1560'/' Tc=6.1 min CN=74 Runoff=45.58 cfs 3.246 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=35.12 cfs 2.492 of Outflow=35.12 cfs 2.492 of Reach 20111:Summary Node Inflow=45.58 cfs 3.246 of Outflow=45.58 cfs 3.246 of Total Runoff Area=18.654 ac Runoff Volume= 5.738 of Average Runoff Depth=3.69" 100.00%Pervious=18.654 ac 0.00%Impervious= 0.000 ac S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Sanborn,Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff = 35.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2.492 af, Depth> 3.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sf) CN Description 151,626 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 201,279 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass)HSG C 352,905 74 Weighted Average 352,905 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 587 0.1734 1.64 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101S Hydrograph 38 Runoff 36' ! 35 12 cfs 34 Type III 24-hr 32- 100-yr 30 28- r 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" 26= Runoff Area=352,905 sf 24 w 22 Runoff Volume=2.492 of 3 20 Runoff Depth>3.69" c 18- LL 16- Flow Length=587' 14 Slope=0.1734 '/' 12= 10 Tc=6.0 min 8 CN=74 6- 4- ., o= 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development 7�vpe III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Sanborn,Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 2015 Runoff = 45.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af, Depth> 3.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sf) CN Description 225,103 73 Woods,Fair HSG C * 234,551 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 459,653 74 Weighted Average 459,653 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.1 569 0.1560 1.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 201S Hydrograph Runoff ae- 45.58 cfS 46- 44- Type 111 24-hr 42- 100-yr 40- % 38- 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" 36- 34 32 Runoff Area=459,653 sf - � a 30. Runoff Volume=3.246 of w 28- - 26 Runoff Depth>3.69" c 24 22- Flow Length=569' 20` 18- Slope=0.1560 '/' 16- 14, Tc=6.1 min 12- 10- CN=74 8 6- „ 4= 2= 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type II124-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Sanborn, Head&Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD@ 10.00 s/n 01228 ©2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Reach 10111: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.102 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.69" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 35.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2.492 of Outflow = 35.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 2.492 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 10111: Summary Node Hydrograph Inflow U Outflow 3 35.12 cfs 36 Inflow r@a= .1® aC _ . 34- 32 30- 28- 26- 24- w 22- 20 _0 18 LL 16- 14= 127 10, 8. 6- 4 2- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) S:\CONDATA\3400s\3471.00\Graphics Files\CAD\Carlson\ Pre-Development Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Sanborn, Head &Associates, Inc. Printed 5/17/2013 HydroCAD®10.00 s/n 01228 @ 2012 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Reach 2O111: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.552 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.69" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 45.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3.246 of Outflow = 45.58 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 3.246 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 2O111: Summary Node Hydrograph Inflow 50- 45.58 CfS 11 outflow Inflow Area=10.5 ac 45- 40- 35- 30- w 0 25- 0 LL 20- 15- 10- 5- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) i LEGEND: 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR PATHWAY __________ PROPOSED 2-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR -202 Y 3 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR GUARDRAIL PROPOSED 10-FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR —210 a UTILITY POLE PAVED ROADWAY LIMIT OF CLEARING rvwvwrw� t g TREE CANOPY LINE WATER PROTECTION DISTRICT OVERLAY - PROPOSED FENCE x TREE LOCATION SUBCATHMENTAREA PROPOSED GRAVEL AREA L J / PROPERTY LINE -- FLOW PATH PROPOSED TEMPORARY GRAVEL AREA \r�j�C\�`` (r) TO BE RESTORED WITH VEGETATION (�1��`il EEa] WASHINGTO►v APPROXIMATE TOWN LINE — — SUBCATCHMENT DESIGNATION 101S / LEVEL SPEADER STRUCTURE REACH DESIGNATION 201R / WETLANDS — — — POND DESIGNATION WETLAND FLAG "' PROPOSED TREATMENT SWALE ® • / y �"o\h, WETLANDS BUFFER - — — — - PROPOSED SOLAR ARRAYTo STONE WALL PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD B0, _ I FENCE ' -- SOLAR ARRAY \ 103R i 102R 1 � LOT 1 MAP 103 x x 102S BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. LOT 1 MAP 103 X X X 'tiy .a z 1160 GREAT POND ROAD BROOKS SCHOOL,INC. X X 1160 GREAT POND ROAD NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 NORTH ANDOVER,MA.01845 1 � \ / Ix I 16 FT WIDE GRAVEL a _x ��.y j ACCESS ROAD APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF 1o1S CLEARING P � .0 201s 203S $ X X 203R X x X �' NOTES: 3� ar- `•.� 1. THE BASE MAP WAS DRAWN FROM A PLAN ENTITLED,'TOPOGRAPHIC/BOUNDARY PLAN-GREAT POND ROAD",PREPARED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.OF NASHUA,NEW HAMPSHIRE,DATED AUGUST 29,2012 . ORIGINAL SCALE:1"=60'. a9 - ;a 3 2. TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED FROM AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.BETWEEN AUGUST 13 AND AUGUST 24,2012. ��• p� 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988(NAVD88). V 4. PROPERTY LINES AND TOWN BOUNDARY LINE DEPICTED ARE BASED ON COMPLIED DEEDS,PLANS,TOWN F,o,ry® - OF NORTH ANDOVER ASSESSORS MAPS OF RECORD. 5. WETLANDS WERE DELINEATED BY WETLAND CONSULTANT SERVICES OF MERRIMAC,MASSACHUSETTS ON AUGUST 16 AND 17,2012,AND SURVEYED BY HAYNER/SWANSON,INC.IN AUGUST2012. GRAPHICAL SCALE 6. SOIL TYPE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE i 80' 40' a 11 160' (NRCS)WEB SOIL SURVEY(WSS). ALL ON-SITE SOILS HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED AS SOIL TYPE C. E DRAWN BY: R.CLAY BROOKS SCHOOL SOLAR FARM PROJECT NUMBER: DESIGNED BY: R.CLAY 3471.01 ® NORTH ANDOVER,MASSACHUSETTS REVIEWED BY: T.REED e ® PROJECT MGR: R.CLAY SHEET NUMBER: �q Amp PIC: E.STEINHAUSER DATE: JUNE 2017 POST-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PLAN 1 OF 1 NO, DATE DESCRIPTION DV SgBS [10:1R ,Summary Node 1 P ; f Level Spreader [10:3 R] 102R Treat�ient Swale 1` T/rbatment Swale '`101 Sfr 101 S 103S102S 103S 102S t201 S) /\203S 201S 202S 203S �,\ 202S �202 R l 203R �`•� , Tr atment Swale Treatment Swale ` \ Z111 P /Z3P —` Level Spreader Level Spreader [2 01 R Summary Node jac. Stabcat Re fPondw,i [Llnk` Routing Diagram for Post-Development-2017 - Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 6/21/2017 _._ HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr Z yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=228,934 sf 0.13%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.03" Flow Length=359' Slope=0.1837'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=75 Runoff=6.53 cfs 0.449 of Subcatchment 102S: 102S Runoff Area=12,717 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.14" Flow Length=136' Slope=0.1448'/' Tc=1.9 min CN=77 Runoff=0.44 cfs 0.028 of Subcatchment 103S: 103S Runoff Area=122,132 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.03" Flow Length=343' Slope=0.1544'/' Tc=4.0 min CN=75 Runoff=3.46 cfs 0.240 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=383,252 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>0.97" Flow Length=503' Slope=0.1693'/' Tc=5.3 min CN=74 Runoff=9.68 cfs 0.712 of Subcatchment 202S:202S Runoff Area=34,783 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.03" Flow Length=203' Slope=0.1455'/' Tc=2.7 min CN=75 Runoff=1.03 cfs 0.068 of Subcatchment 203S:203S Runoff Area=30,740 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>0.97" Flow Length=185' Slope=0.0659'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=74 Runoff=0.82 cfs 0.057 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=8.51 cfs 0.714 of Outflow=8.51 cfs 0.714 of Reach 10211:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.47' Max Vet=0.69 fps Inflow=0.44 cfs 0.028 of n=0.100 L=121.0' S=0.0165'/' Capacity=18.15 cfs Outflow=0.39 cfs 0.028 of Reach 10311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=1.08' Max Vet=0.73 fps Inflow=3.46 cfs 0.240 of n=0.100 L=490.0' S=0.0061'/' Capacity=11.05 cfs Outflow=2.16 cfs 0.238 of Reach 201R:Summary Node Inflow=11.12 cfs 0.835 of Outflow=11.12 cfs 0.835 of Reach 20211:Treatment Swale Avg,Flow Depth=0.66' Max Vet=0.75 fps Inflow=1.03 cfs 0.068 of n=0.100 L=240.0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=15.79 cfs Outflow=0.81 cfs 0.068 of Reach 20311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.52' Max Vet=1.01 fps Inflow=0.82 cfs 0.057 of n=0.100 L=292.0' S=0.0308'/' Capacity=24.79 cfs Outflow=0.67 cfs 0.057 of Pond 1P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=191.11' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=2.43 cfs 0.265 of Outflow=2.43 cfs 0.264 of Pond 2P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=204.05' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=0.81 cfs 0.068 of Outflow=0.81 cfs 0.067 of Pond 3P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=238.04' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=0.67 cfs 0.057 of Outflow=0.67 cfs 0.056 of Total Runoff Area= 18.654 ac Runoff Volume=1.554 of Average Runoff Depth= 1.00" 99.96%Pervious = 18.647 ac 0.04%Impervious= 0.007 ac Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr Z yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 101E Runoff = 6.53 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.449 af, Depth> 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sQ CN Description 10,192 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 195,875 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 306 98 Unconnected pavement HSG C 22,561 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 228,934 75 Weighted Average 228,628 99.87%Pervious Area 306 0.13%Impervious Area 306 100.00%Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 359 0.1837 1.58 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101E Hydrocdraph Runoff 7 6.53 cfs Type III 24-hr 6 2-yr 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" 5 Runoff Area=228,934 sf 4- Runoff Volume=0.449 of 3 Runoff Depth>1.03" U_ 3 Flow Length=359' Slope=0.1837 '/' 2- Tc=3.8 min CN=75 1 ti 0 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type II124-hr Z yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 102S: 102S Runoff = 0.44 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth> 1.14" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sQ CN Description 2,639 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 9,874 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass)HSG C 203 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 12,717 77 Weighted Average 12,717 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.9 136 0.1448 1.22 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 102S: 102S Hydrograph 0.48 -- — - Runoff 0.46 [444 cfs 0.44= Type III 24-hr 0.42- 0.4- 2-yr 0.38- 0.36- ' 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" 0.34 0.32 Runoff Area=12,717 sf 0.3 w 0.28 Runoff Volume=0.028 of 0.24 Runoff Depth>1.14" FL °0 2 Flow Length=136' 0.18 Slope=0.1448 /' 0.14- Tc=1.9 min 0.12- 0.1- �,"` CN=77 0.08- 0.06-' s, 0.04 0.02 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pai?e 5 Summary for Subcatchment 103S: 103E Runoff = 3.46 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.240 af, Depth> 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description 9,999 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 99,126 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 13,006 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 122,132 75 Weighted Average 122,132 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.0 343 0.1544 1.43 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 103S: 103S Hydrograph 3.46 cfs Runoff Type III 24-hr 3 2-yr 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=122,132 sf w Runoff Volume=0.240 of 3 2- Runoff Depth>1.03" 0 Flow Length=343' Slope=0.1544 '/' ,- Tc= .0 min CN=75 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 201S Runoff = 9.68 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.712 af, Depth> 0.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description 18,315 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 145,215 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 219,722 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 383,252 74 Weighted Average 383,252 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.3 503 0.1693 1.57 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 201S Hydrograph 10- _. 9.68 cfs Runoff I Type III 24-hr 9- 2-yr 8- 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" 7- Runoff Area=383,252 sf 6 Runoff Volume=0.712 of 3 Runoff Depth>0.97" 0 5- U. Flow Length=503' 4_ Slope=0.1693 '/' 3- Tc=5.3 min 2- CN=74 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 202S: 202S Runoff = 1.03 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af, Depth> 1.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description 2,653 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 32,130 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 34,783 75 Weighted Average 34,783 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 203 0.1455 1.25 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 202S: 202S Hydro graph Runoffi 1.03 cfs Type III 24-hr 2-yr 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Runoff Area=34,783 sf Runoff Volume=0.068 of 3 Runoff Depth>1.03" Flow Length=203' r Slope=0.1455 '/' Tc=2.7 min CN=75 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pare 8 Summary for Subcatchment 203S: 203S Runoff = 0.82 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth> 0.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sQ CN Description 995 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 29,745 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 30,740 74 Weighted Average 30,740 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 185 0.0659 0.80 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 203S: 203S Hydrograph 0.9 Runoff 0.85- 0.82 cfs 0.8- Type III 24-hr 0.75 2-yr 0.7 0.65- 24-hr Rainfall=3.10" 0.6 Runoff Area=30,740 sf 0.55- ``' y Runoff Volume=0.057 of 0.5 3 0.45- Runoff Depth>0.97" M 0.4 Flow Length=185' 0.35- 0.3- Slope=0.0659 '/' 0.26- TC=3.8 min 0.2 CN=74 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.1 0" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Reach 101R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.351 ac, 0.08%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.03" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 8.51 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.714 of Outflow = 8.51 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.714 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 101R: Summary Node Hy drograph ------ M Inflow 9- 8.51 cfs Inflow Area 1 ac ouif�ow 8- 7- 6- 0 u. 4- 3- 2- 0 . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Reach 102R:Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.292 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.14" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 0.44 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.028 of Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Atten= 12%, Lag=2.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.69 fps, Min.Travel Time=2.9 min Avg.Velocity=0.31 fps, Avg.Travel Time=6.6 min Peak Storage=67 cf @ 12.07 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.47' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity=18.15 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length= 121.0' Slope=0.0165 '/' Inlet Invert= 193.00', Outlet Invert=191.00' Reach 10211: Treatment Swale Hydrograph 0.48 [ 0.44 cfs El inflow € Outflow 0.46- __ Inflow Area=0. 9 ac 0.44 °04 0.39 cfs Avg. Flow Depth=0.47' 0.38- 0.36` Max Vet=0.69 fps 0.34" 0.32-0.3- n=0.1 00 . 0.28-0.26 L=1 1.0' 0.24 i10 0.22 0.015 '/' 0.2 0.16- 0.16 - Capacity=18.15 cfs - 0.14= 0.12- 0.1- 0.08' 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type Ill 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Reach 1O3R: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 2.804 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.03" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 3.46 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.240 of Outflow = 2.16 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.238 af, Atten=37%, Lag=5.3 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.73 fps, Min.Travel Time= 11.1 min Avg.Velocity=0.36 fps, Avg.Travel Time=22.4 min Peak Storage= 1,442 cf @ 12.16 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.08' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 11.05 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=490.0' Slope=0.0061 '/' Inlet Invert= 194.00', Outlet Invert=191.00' Reach 10311: Treatment Swale Hydro graph Inflow 3.46 cfs 0 outflow --- --- Inflow Area=2.804 ac Avg. Flow epth=1 .08' 3- Max Vet=0.73 fps 2.16 cfs R n=0.100 2- L=490.0' S=0.0061 '/' ` Capacity=11 .05 cfs 1 0 . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type II124-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Reach 201R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.302 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 0.97" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 11.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.835 of Outflow = 11.12 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.835 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 201R: Summary Node Hydrograph Inflow -1.-1.-.2_Gf� Outflow 12- L 11.12 cfs 11_ b Inflow Area=10.302 ac 10- - 9- 8 w 7- 0 6 LL 5- 4- 3- 2- 0 . 10 11 12 13 14 115 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 2 yr,24-hrRainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Reach 20211: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.03" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 1.03 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.068 of Outflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af, Atten=21%, Lag=3.2 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.75 fps, Min.Travel Time= 5.3 min Avg.Velocity=US fps, Avg.Travel Time= US min Peak Storage=259 cf @ 12.10 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.66' Bank-Full Depth= 2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 15.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=240.0' Slope=0.0125 '/' Inlet Invert=207.00', Outlet Invert=204.00' Reach 202R: Treatment Swale Hydrograph Inflow [1.03 efi] PEI outflow Inflow Area=0.799 ac 1 Avg. Flow Depth=0.66' 0.81 cfs Max Vet=0.75 fps n=0.100 L=20.0' U. 0.01 25 '/' Capacity=15.79 cfs r 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Reach 20311: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 0.97" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 0.82 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.057 of Outflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Atten= 18%, Lag=3.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity= 1.01 fps, Min.Travel Time=4.8 min Avg.Velocity=0.47 fps, Avg.Travel Time= 10.3 min Peak Storage= 195 cf @ 12.12 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.52' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area=10.0 sf, Capacity=24.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=292.0' Slope=0.0308'/' Inlet Invert=247.00', Outlet Invert=238.00' Reach 203R:Treatment Swale Hydrograph 0.9- 0.82 cfs El outflow 0.85 Inflow Area=0.706 ac 0.8- 0.75 - Avg. Flow Depth=0. ' 0.7 1 0.67 cfs 0.65 Max Vel=1 .01 fps 0.6- n=0.100 0.55- ' 0.5- L=292.0' 0.45 M 0.4 0.0306 '/° 0.35- 0.3 Capacity=24.79 cfs 0.25- 0.2 0.15 0.1- 0.05 0 . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 1P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 3.096 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.03" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 2.43 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.265 of Outflow = 2.43 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 2.43 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.264 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 191.11' @ 12.14 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 3.1 min calculated for 0.264 of(100%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 0.9 min(869.9-869.1) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 190.50, 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 190.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 191.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 191.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 191.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coef. (English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 Primary OutFow Max=2.43 cfs @ 12.14 hrs HW=191.11' (Free Discharge) ? 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.43 cfs @ 1.15 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr Z yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond 1P: Level Spreader Fl drograph Inflow Primary 43 cfS Inflow rea= ac Peak Elev=l 91 .11' 2 tr =0. 1 of W 3 O U- 1- 0- . . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.1 0" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Pond 2P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.02" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.068 of Outflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.067 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.067 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev=204.05' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 11.1 min calculated for 0.067 of(98%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 2.9 min(866.6-863.7) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 203.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 203.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 204.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 204.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 204.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coe£ (English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 rimary OutFlow Max=0.81 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=204.05' (Free Discharge) T 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.81 cfs @ 0.80 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond 2P: Level Spreader Hydrograph E Inflow 0 9 0.85 0.81 cfs 0.8- i Primary -- Inflow rea=0. c 0.75- Peak Elev=204.05' 0.7- 0.65- toga a=0.001 of 0.6- 0.55 0.5- 3 0.45- 0 � 0.4- 0.35 0.3- 0.25 0.2 0.15- 0.1 0.05 0 . . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 1I124-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Pond 3P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 0.97" for 2-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.057 of Outflow = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Rlev=238.04' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage= 0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 13.1 min calculated for 0.056 of(98%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 3.3 min(870.6-867.3) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 237.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 237.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 238.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 238.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 238.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coe£(English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 Primary OutFow Max=0.67 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=238.04' (Free Discharge) L1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.67 cfs @ 0.75 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 2 yr,24-hr Rainfall=3.1 0" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Pond 3P: Level Spreader Hydro graph M Inflow 0.75 O R7 13 Primary 0.7- C0.67 ifs Inflow Area=0.706 ac 0.65- 0.6- Peak lv= ' 0.55 tr a=0. 1 af 0.5- 0.45- N 0.4- 0 0.35- U. 0.3- 0.25 0.2 0.15- 0.1- 0.05 f r 0 , 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 118 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) 101 R /Summary Node i Level Spr d er 103R � 102 R Treat ent Swale 1 Ts�atment Swale �1S j // 103S, � 101s (102S 103S 102S ,,201 S) {203E� 201 s j �2'702S t� 203S 1 202S F2O R ti 2:03]R Tr atment Swale Treatment Swale - 4 % X Z_2 P�\ -- Lvel Spreader Level Spreader �'" �201 R Summary Node A � SubCat' Reach �'onc*; s Link= Routing Diagram for Post-Development-2017 Fes.. Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=228,934 sf 0.13%Impervious Runoff Depth>2,05" Flow Length=359' Slope=0.1837'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=75 Runoff=13.59 cfs 0.897 of Subcatchment 102S: 102S Runoff Area=12,717 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>2.21" Flow Length=136' Slope=0,1448'/' Tc=1.9 min CN=77 Runoff=0.88 cfs 0.054 of Subcatchment 103S: 103S Runoff Area=122,132 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>2.05" Flow Length=343' Slope=0.1544'/' Tc=4.0 min CN=75 Runoff=7.20 cfs 0.479 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=383,252 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.97" Flow Length=503' Slope=0.1693'/' Tc=5.3 min CN=74 Runoff=20.66 cfs 1.444 of Subcatchment 202S:202S Runoff Area=34,783 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>2.05" Flow Length=203' Slope=0.1455'/' Tc=2.7 min CN=75 Runoff=2.15 cfs 0.136 of Subcatchment 203S:203S Runoff Area=30,740 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>1.97" Flow Length=185' Slope=0.0659'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=74 Runoff=1.75 cfs 0.116 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=18.32 cfs 1.426 of Outflow=18.32 cfs 1.426 of Reach 10211:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.62' Max Vet=0.83 fps Inflow=0.88 cfs 0.054 of n=0.100 L=121.0' S=0.0165'/' Capacity=18.15 cfs Outflow=0.79 cfs 0.054 of Reach 10311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=1.48' Max Vet=0.91 fps Inflow=7.20 cfs 0.479 of n=0.100 L=490.0' S=0.0061'/' Capacity=11.05 cfs Outflow=4.98 cfs 0.476 of Reach 20111:Summary Node Inflow=23,89 cfs 1.694 of Outflow=23,89 cfs 1.694 of Reach 202R:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.88' Max Vet=0.91 fps Inflow=2.15 cfs 0.136 of n=0.100 L=240,0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=15.79 cfs Outflow=1.78 cfs 0.136 of Reach 20311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.70' Max Vet=1.23 fps Inflow=1.75 cfs 0.116 of n=0.100 L=292.0' S=0.0308'/' Capacity=24.79 cfs Outflow=1.51 cfs 0.116 of Pond 1P: Level Spreader Peak Elev=191.18' Storage=0.002 of Inflow=5.55 cfs 0.529 of Outflow=5.55 cfs 0.528 of Pond 2P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=204.09' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=1.78 cfs 0.136 of Outflow=1.78 cfs 0.135 of Pond 3P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=238.08' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=1.51 cfs 0.116 of Outflow=1.50 cfs 0.115 of Total Runoff Area= 18.654 ac Runoff Volume=3.126 of Average Runoff Depth=2.01" 99.96%Pervious = 18.647 ac 0.04%Impervious= 0.007 ac Post-Development-2017 Type II124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 1015 Runoff = 13.59 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.897 af, Depth> 2.05" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(so CN Description 10,192 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 195,875 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 306 98 Unconnected pavement HSG C 22,561 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 228,934 75 Weighted Average 228,628 99.87%Pervious Area 306 0.13%Impervious Area 306 100.00%Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 359 0.1837 1.58 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101E H dro raph 14- 13.5E Cfs] 3 Runoff 13- Type III 24-hr 12- 10-yr 11- 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 10 '= Runoff Area=228,934 sf w 9 Runoff Volume=0.897 of 3 8- Runoff Depth>2.05" 0 7- LL 6- Flow Length=359' 5- Slope=0.1837 '/' 4- Tc=3.8 min 3- CN=75 2- 9211, - o 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 � 18 19 20 21� 22 23 24 Time (hours)) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 102S: 1025 Runoff = 0.88 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= O.OS4 af, Depth> 2.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.S0" Area(so CN Description 2,639 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 9,874 74 Open Space-Good(>7S%grass)HSG C 203 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 12,717 77 Weighted Average 12,717 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.9 136 0.1448 1.22 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 102S: 102S Hydrograph 0.95: �� Runoff o.s 0._88 cfs 0.85- Type III 24-hr 0.8- 10-yr 0.75 0.7- 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 0.65- Runoff Area=12,717 sf 0.6 w 0.55- Runoff Volume=0.054 of 3 05- Runoff Depth>2.21" c 0.45- 0.4 Flow Length=136' 0.35- Slope=0.1448 '/' 0.3 0.25- Tc=1.9 min 0.2 CN=77 0.15- 0.1 0.06 << 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 103S: 103S Runoff = 7.20 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.479 af, Depth> 2.05" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sf) CN Description 9,999 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 99,126 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 13,006 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 122,132 75 Weighted Average 122,132 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.0 343 0.1544 1.43 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 103S: 103S Hydrograph 8- Runoff 7.20 cfs 7- Type III 24-hr 10-yr 6 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 5- Runoff Area=122,132 sf Runoff Volume=0.479 of 3 4- Runoff Depth>2.05" LL Flow Length=343' 3- Slope=0.1544 '/' 2- Tc=4.0 min CN=75 1- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 2015 Runoff = 20.66 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1.444 af, Depth> 1.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sf) CN Description 18,315 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 145,215 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass)HSG C 219,722 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 383,252 74 Weighted Average 383,252 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.3 503 0.1693 1.57 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 201E Hydrograph 23 Runoff 22 20 66 cfs 21= 20_ Type III 24-hr 19 18- 10-yr 17= 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" 15 Runoff Area=383,252 sf 14 w 13 Runoff Volume=1.444 of 3 „ Runoff Depth>1.97" 0 10- Flow Length=503' 9. 8 Slope=0.1693 '/' 7- 6- Tc=5.3 min 5- CN=74 4- 3- 2- 1- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 202S: 202S Runoff = 2.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.136 af, Depth> 2.05" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sf) CN Description 2,653 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 32,130 74 Open Space-Good(>7S%grass) HSG C 34,783 75 Weighted Average 34,783 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 203 0.14S5 1.25 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 202S: 202S HydrograpL Runoff 1 2.15 cfs Type III 24-hr 2_ 10-yr 24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Runoff Area=34,783 sf f Runoff Volume=0.136 of 3 Runoff Depth>2.0 " O LL 1 Flow Length=203' Slope=0.1455 '/' Tc=2.7 min CN=75 , . 10 11 12 13 14 15 1,6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 203S: 203S Runoff = 1.75 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af, Depth> 1.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Area(sQ CN Description 995 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 29,745 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 30,740 74 Weighted Average 30,740 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 185 0.0659 0.80 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 203S: 203S Hydro graph € Runoff 1.75 cfs] Type III 24-hr 10-yr 24-hr Rainfall=4.50' Runoff Area=30,740 sf Runoff Volume=0.116 of 3 , Runoff Depth>1.97" 0 Flow Length=185' Slope=0.0659 '/' Tc=3.8 min CN=74 u 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Reach 101R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.351 ac, 0.08%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.05" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 18.32 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1.426 of Outflow = 18.32 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1.426 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 101R: Summary Node Hydrograph Inflow 20- it outflow 19_ 18.32 cfs Inflow Pea= C 18 17- 16- 15- 14- 13- N 12- u 11- 10- 0 9 u. 8- 7- 6= 5 4 3- 2- 1 0- . . , . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Reach 10211: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.292 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.21" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 0.88 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.054 of Outflow = 0.79 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.054 af, Atten= 10%, Lag= 1.7 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.83 fps, Min.Travel Time= 2.4 min Avg.Velocity=0.35 fps, Avg.Travel Time= 5.8 min Peak Storage= 116 cf @ 12.06 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.62' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 18.15 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length= 121.0' Slope=0.0165'/' Inlet Invert= 193.00', Outlet Invert= 191.00' Reach 102R: Treatment Swale H drograph 0.95- C 0.88 cfs outflow 0.9= Inflow Area=0.29 c 0.85 0.8 079 ifs Avg. Flow Depth=0.62' 0 0.7 Max Vet=0.83 fps 0.7 I 0 0.6 n=0.100 0.6 0 .55= 0.5 L=121 .0' o 0.45- =0.016 '/' 0.4= 0.35 Capacity=18.15 cfs 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1- 0.05 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Reach 10311:Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 2.804 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.05" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 7.20 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.479 of Outflow = 4.98 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.476 af, Atten=31%, Lag=4.3 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.91 fps, Min.Travel Time=9.0 min Avg.Velocity=0.41 fps, Avg.Travel Time= 19.7 min Peak Storage=2,696 cf @ 12.14 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.48' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 11.05 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=490.0' Slope=0.0061 '/' Inlet Invert= 194.00', Outlet Invert= 191.00' r Reach 10311: Treatment Swale Hydro graph M Inflow 6- 7.20 Cfs I Outflow Inflow Area= . 04 ac 7- Avg. Flow Depth=1 . 8' 6- _ Max Vel=0. 1 fps 4.98 cfs 5 n=0.100 L=40.0° 4- 0.0061 '/' 3- Capacity=1 1 .05 cfs 2 1 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Reach 201R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.302 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.97" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 23.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1.694 of Outflow = 23.89 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 1.694 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 201R: Summary Node Hydrograp Inflow 26- 23.89 cfs -- Inflow re =1 . c outflow 22- 20- 18- 16- w 14- 3 ro 12 10 8- 6 4- 2- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paue 13 Summary for Reach 20211:Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.05" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 2.15 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.136 of Outflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.136 af, Atten=17%, Lag=2.7 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.91 fps, Min.Travel Time=4.4 min Avg.Velocity= 0.40 fps, Avg.Travel Time= 10.1 min Peak Storage=467 cf @ 12.09 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.88' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 15.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=240.0' Slope=0.0125 '/' Inlet Invert=207.00', Outlet Invert=204.00' Reach 2O211: Treatment Swale Hydrograph 0 Inflow 2 15 cfs D outflow Inflow Area=0.799 ac 2- 1.78 cfs Avg. Flow epth=0.88' Max Vel=0. 1 fps n=0.100 L= 0.0' LL =0.01 °/' Capacity=1 .79 cfs 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Reach 203R: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.97" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 1.75 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.116 of Outflow = 1.51 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af, Atten= 14%, Lag=2.6 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity= 1.23 fps, Min.Travel Time=4.0 min Avg.Velocity=0.54 fps, Avg.Travel Time=9.0 min Peak Storage=357 cf @ 12.10 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.70' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity=24.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=292.0' Slope=0.0308'/' Inlet Invert=247.00', Outlet Invert=238.00' Reach 203R: Treatment Swale Hydro graph Inflow 1.75 cfs IEl outflow Inflow Area=0.706 ac L1.51 cfs Avg. Flow epth=0.70' Max Vel=1.23 fps n=0.100 1 L= 9 .0' =0.0308 '/' Capacity= 4.79 cfs 0- . . . . , 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 1P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 3.096 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.05" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 5.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.529 of Outflow = 5.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.528 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Primary = 5.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.528 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 191.18' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.002 of Plug-Flow detention time= 1.7 min calculated for 0.528 of(100%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 0.6 min(847.7-847.1) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 190.50, 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 190.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 191.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 191.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 191.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coef. (English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 Primary OutFow Max=5.55 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=191.18' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 5.55 cfs @ 1.52 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond 1P: Level Spreader Hydrograph Inflow 6 ? 5.55 Cfs 0 Primary -- Inflow re = c 5- Peak Elev=191 .18' torage=0. 4- w 3 3- 0 LL 2- 1- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Pond 2P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 2.04" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.136 of Outflow = 1.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 1.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.135 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev=204,09' @ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 6.3 min calculated for 0.135 of(99%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 1.9 min(844.2-842.3) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 203.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 203.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 204.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 204.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 204.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coe£(English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 Trimary OutFow Max=1.78 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=204.09' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.78 cfs @ 1.04 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s jn 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond 2P: Level Spreader Hydrograph Inflow 11 Primary1:7s ifs Inflow r c Peak lev= 0 ' Storage=0.001 of N I LL V 3 1 O 0- . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Pond 3P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 1.97" for 10-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 1.51 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.116 of Outflow = 1.50 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 1.50 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.115 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev=238.08' @ 12.10 hrs Sur£Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 7.2 min calculated for 0.115 of(99%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 2.1 min(847.4-845.2) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 237.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area' Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 237.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 238.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 238.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 238.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coef, (English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 Primary OutFow Max=1.50 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=238.08' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.50 cfs @ 0.98 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 10 yr,24-hr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pane 20 Pond 3P: Level Spreader Hydrograph � M Inflow �1 G 0 Primary L 0 "CfS Inflow Area=0.706 ac Peak Elev=238.08' for e= .01 of N .V. 3 0 LL P 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) [10:1]R /summary Node Level Spred�er E03R % [102 R Treat ent Swale T atment Swale � lr 101 _ 101 S (1 S'` 1025 103S 102S _ 201 S' ff r2O3S �202S l 201 s 203S 202S 202R [203R t r atment Swale Treatment Swale / 2P� 3P�` a� �. .,,� � L vel Spreader Level Spreader 201 RI Summary Nlll ode Routing Diagram for Post-Development ment-2017 Subcat [Reach `Pone ]Ljnk 9 9 P 1 -' Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 0 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 0 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs,2301 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff Area=228,934 sf 0.13%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.80" Flow Length=359' Slope=0.1837'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=75 Runoff=25.35 cfs 1,663 of Subcatchment 102S: 102S Runoff Area=12,717 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>4.01" Flow Length=136' Slope=0.1448'/' Tc=1.9 min CN=77 Runoff=1.59 cfs 0.097 of Subcatchment 103S: 103S Runoff Area=122,132 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.80" Flow Length=343' Slope=0.1544'/' Tc=4.0 min CN=75 Runoff=13.43 cfs 0.887 of Subcatchment 201S:201S Runoff Area=383,252 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.69" Flow Length=503' Slope=0.1693'/' Tc=5.3 min CN=74 Runoff=39.11 cfs 2.707 of Subcatchment 202S:202S Runoff Area=34,783 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.80" Flow Length=203' Slope=0.1455'/' Tc=2.7 min CN=75 Runoff=4.01 cfs 0.253 of Subcatchment 203S:203S Runoff Area=30,740 sf 0.00%Impervious Runoff Depth>3.69" Flow Length=185' Slope=0.0659'/' Tc=3.8 min CN=74 Runoff=3.31 cfs 0.217 of Reach 10111:Summary Node Inflow=34.99 cfs 2.642 of Outflow=34.99 cfs 2.642 of Reach 10211:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.78' Max Vet=0.97 fps Inflow=1.59 cfs 0.097 of n=0.100 L=121.0' S=0.0165'/' Capacity=18.15 cfs Outflow=1.47 cfs 0.097 of Reach 10311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=1.92' Max Vet=1.08 fps Inflow=13.43 cfs 0.887 of n=0.100 L=490.0' S=0.0061'/' Capacity=11.05 cfs Outflow=9.93 cfs 0.883 of Reach 20111:Summary Node Inflow=45.44 cfs 3.173 of Outflow=45.44 cfs 3.173 of Reach 20211:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=1.13' Max Vet=1.08 fps Inflow=4.01 cfs 0.253 of n=0.100 L=240.0' S=0.0125'/' Capacity=15.79 cfs Outflow=3.44 cfs 0.252 of Reach 20311:Treatment Swale Avg.Flow Depth=0.90' Max Vet=1.45 fps Inflow=3.31 cfs 0.217 of n=0.100 L=292.0' S=0.0308'/' Capacity=24.79 cfs Outflow=2.94 cfs 0.217 of Pond 1P:Level Spreader Peak Elev=191.29' Storage=0.002 of Inflow=11.01 cfs 0.980 of Outflow=11.01 cfs 0.979 of Pond 2P: Level Spreader Peak Elev=204.13' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=3.44 cfs 0.252 of Outflow=3.44 cfs 0.251 of Pond 3P: Level Spreader Peak Elev=238.12' Storage=0.001 of Inflow=2.94 cfs 0.217 of Outflow=2.94 cfs 0.216 of Total Runoff Area= 18.654 ac Runoff Volume=5.824 of Average Runoff Depth=3.75" 99.96%Pervious= 18.647 ac 0.04%Impervious=0.007 ac Post-Development-2017 Type III24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 101S: 101S Runoff = 25.35 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 1.663 af, Depth> 3.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sD CN Description 10,192 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 195,875 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 306 98 Unconnected pavement HSG C 22,561 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 228,934 75 Weighted Average 228,628 99.87%Pervious Area 306 0.13%Impervious Area 306 100.00%Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 359 0.1837 1.58 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 101S: 101S Hydrograph 28 ___ Runoff 26 25.35 cfs Type III 24-hr 24- 22 100-yr 20 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" 18- Runoff Area=228,934 sf w 16- Runoff Volume=1.663 of 3 14- Runoff Depth>3.80" 0 u- 12 Flow Length=359' 10- Slope=0.1837 '/' 8- Tc=3.8 min 6- CN=75 4- 2 :. o- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 (D 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 102S: 102S Runoff = 1.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.097 af, Depth> 4.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sf) CN Description 2,639 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 9,874 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 203 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 12,717 77 Weighted Average 12,717 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.9 136 0.1448 1.22 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 102S: 1025 Hydrograpn 1.59 CfS � Runoff � l Type III 24-hr 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Runoff Area=12,717 sf w 1_ Runoff Volume=0.097 of 3 Runoff Depth>4.01" LL Flow Length=136' Slope=0.148 '/' Tc=1.9 min CN=77 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 103S: 103E Runoff = 13.43 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.887 af, Depth> 3.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sf) CN Description 9,999 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 99,126 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 13,006 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 122,132 75 Weighted Average 122,132 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.0 343 0.1544 1.43 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 103S: 103E Hydrogra h 15- 14. `13.43 cfs] Runoff 13_: Type III 24-hr 12- 100-yr 11- 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" 10 Runoff Area=122,132 sf 9- Runoff Volume=0.887 of g 3 Runoff Depth>3.80" 0 7.: LL 6- Flow Length=343' 5- Slope=0.15 '/' 4- Tc=4.0 min 3- CN=75 2- 0 . . . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 201S: 201S Runoff = 39.11 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 2.707 af, Depth> 3.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(so CN Description 18,315 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 145,215 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 219,722 73 Woods,Fair HSG C 383,252 74 Weighted Average 383,252 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.3 503 0.1693 1.57 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 201S: 2015 Hydro graph 42 40, 39.11 Cf Runoff �— 38_ Type III 24-hr 36= 34- 100-yr 32- 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" 30 28 Runoff Area=383,252 sf 26 Runoff Volume=2.707 of w 24 3 22- Runoff Depth>3.69" 0 20- L- 18- Flow Length=503' 16= Slope=0.1693 '/' 14 12'. Tc=5.3 min 1 8 CN=74 - 6- 4- 2- " 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 202S: 202S Runoff = 4.01 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.253 af, Depth> 3.80" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(sf) CN Description 2,653 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 32,130 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 34,783 75 Weighted Average 34,783 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.7 203 0.1455 1.25 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 202S: 202S Hydrograph Runoff _4.01 cfs 4 Type III 24-hr 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=6.60"3-Runoff Area=34,783 sf Runoff Volume=0.253 of 3 Runoff Depth>3.80" 2_ Flow Length=203' Slope=0.1455 '/' Tc=2.7 min 1 CN=75 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 203S: 203S Runoff = 3.31 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Depth> 3.69" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS,Weighted-CN,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Area(so CN Description 995 89 Gravel roads HSG C * 29,745 74 Open Space-Good(>75%grass) HSG C 30,740 74 Weighted Average 30,740 100.00%Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.8 185 0.0659 0.80 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment 203S: 203S Hydrograph 3.31 cfs J Runoff Type III 24-hr 3- 100-yr 24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Runoff Area=30,740 sf Runoff Volume=0.217 of u 2- Runoff Depth>3.69" Flow Length=185' Slope=0.0659 '/' 1 Tc=3.8 min CN=74 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Reach 101R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 8.351 ac, 0.08%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.80" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 34.99 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2.642 of Outflow = 34.99 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2.642 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 101R: Summary Node Hydrograph — -----� M Inflow 38 G OutFlow 36- 34.99 cfs Inflowre = .3 1 c 34- 32 30- 28- 26- 24= - 22: 20' 0 18- e_ 16- 14- 12- 10 8- 6- 4 2 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Reach 10211:Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.292 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 4.01" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 1.59 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.097 of Outflow = 1.47 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 0.097 af, Atten=8%, Lag=1.4 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=0.97 fps, Min.Travel Time=2.1 min Avg.Velocity=0.39 fps, Avg.Travel Time=5.2 min Peak Storage= 183 cf @ 12.05 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.78' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 18.15 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=121.0' Slope=0.0165'/' Inlet Invert= 193.00', Outlet Invert= 191.00' Reach 10211: Treatment Swale Hydrograph Inflow 1.59 cfs:] 1, OU ow Inflow Area=0.292 ac 1.47 cfs Avg. Flow Depth=0.7 ' Max Vet=0.97 fps n=0.100 1_ f L=11 .0' LL =0.01 5 '/' Capacity=1 .1 cfs 0- T . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 7�vpe III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Reach 10311: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 2.804 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.80" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 13.43 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.887 of Outflow = 9.93 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.883 af, Atten=26%, Lag=3.8 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity=1.08 fps, Min.Travel Time=7.6 min Avg.Velocity=0.46 fps, Avg.Travel Time= 17.6 min Peale Storage=4,524 cf @ 12.12 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.92' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 11.05 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=490.0' Slope=0.0061 '/' Inlet Invert=194.00', Outlet Invert= 191.00' r l t Reach 10312: Treatment Swale Hy ro rapd ra Inflow 15 13.43 cfs j a outflow 14- Inflow Area= . 04 ac 13- 12_ Avg. Flow Depth=1 .9 ' 11 �9.93 cfs Max Vel=1.08 fps 10- n=0.100 9 8 L=40.0° U. 7 0.0061 '/' 6- 5- Capacity=1 1 .05 cfs 4- 3- 2- 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Reach 201R: Summary Node Inflow Area= 10.302 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.70" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 45.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3.173 of Outflow = 45.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 3.173 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Reach 201R: Summary Node Hydrograph M Inflow 50r- 42- Outflow 46 46E 45.44 cfs Inflowr =10. 0 c - _ 44 40. 38 36- 34, 32 30- 28- 26- c 24- FL 22, 20- 18` 16- 14. 12- 10 8- 6-- 4- 2- 0- . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type II124-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD@ 10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Reach 202R: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.80" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 4.01 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 0.253 of Outflow = 3.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.252 af, Atten=14%, Lag=2.3 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity= 1.08 fps, Min.Travel Time= 3.7 min Avg.Velocity=0.45 fps, Avg.Travel Time=9.0 min Peals Storage=766 cf @ 12.08 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage= 1.13' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity= 15.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=240.0' Slope=0.0125 '/' Inlet Invert=207.00', Outlet Invert=204.00' Reach 20211: Treatment Swale Hydrograph 0 Inflow 4.01 cfs outflow 4- Inflow Area=0.799 ac 13.44 cfs Avg. Flow epth=1 .13' Max Vet=1 .0 fps 3- n=0.100 L= 0.0' 2 =0.01 '/' Capacity=1 .79 cfs 1 r 0- . . . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type 11124-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Reach 2O311: Treatment Swale Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.69" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 3.31 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.217 of Outflow = 2.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.217 af, Atten= 11%, Lag=2.2 min Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Max.Velocity= 1.45 fps, Min.Travel Time=3.3 min Avg.Velocity=0.61 fps, Avg.Travel Time=8.0 min Peak Storage= 590 cf @ 12.09 hrs Average Depth at Peak Storage=0.90' Bank-Full Depth=2.00' Flow Area= 10.0 sf, Capacity=24.79 cfs 0.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.100 Earth,dense brush,high stage Side Slope Z-value=3.0 2.0'/' Top Width= 10.00' Length=292.0' Slope=0.0308'/' Inlet Invert=247.00', Outlet Invert=238.00' Reach 203R:Treatment Swale Hyrlrograph N Inflow 3.31 cfS_j a outflow Inflow Area=0.706 ac 3- E 2.94 cfs Avg. Flow Depth=0.90' Max Vel=1.45 fps n=0.100 w 2 L= 92.0' v r =0.0308 T Capacity=24.79 cfs 1 ' r r , N 0- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Pond 1P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 3.096 ac, 0.00%Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.80" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 11.01 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.980 of Outflow = 11.01 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.979 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Primary = 11.01 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.979 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 191.29' @ 12.11 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.002 of Plug-Flow detention time= 1.1 min calculated for 0.979 of(100%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 0.4 min(828.7-828.3) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 190.50, 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 190.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 191.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 191.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 191.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coef. (English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 T-Primary OutFlow Max=11.00 cfs @ 12.11 hrs HW=191.29' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 11.00 cfs @ 1.91 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 VdroCAD®10.00-13 sZn 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Pond 1P: Level Spreader Hydrograph Inflow 12 ®�^� Primary 1-01 ifs Inflow rea=3.0 c 11 10Peak I v=1 1 . ' 9- Storage=0.002 8- zo7 3 6- 0 LL 5- 4- 3- 2- 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 @ 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Pond 2P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.799 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.79" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 3.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.252 of Outflow = 3.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.251 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.1 min Primary = 3.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.251 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev=204.13' @ 12.08 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time= 3.8 min calculated for 0.251 of(100%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 1.4 min(825.2-823.9) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 203.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 203.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 204.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 204.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 204.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head(feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coe£(English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 T-rimary OutFlow Max=3.44 cfs @ 12.08 hrs HW=204.13' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 3.44 cfs @ 1.29 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type 1I124-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond 2P: Level Spreader Hydrograph Inflow 0 Primary 3.44 cfs Inflow rea= . aC 3 e lv= 0 .1 ' tore 0.001 af N r-. �V 2- O lL 1. 0- . . . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Pond 3P: Level Spreader Inflow Area= 0.706 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth> 3.68" for 100-yr,24-hr event Inflow = 2.94 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.217 of Outflow = 2.94 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.216 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.1 min Primary = 2.94 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.216 of Routing by Stor-Ind method,Time Span= 1.00-24.00 hrs,dt=0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 238.12' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area=0.003 ac Storage=0.001 of Plug-Flow detention time=4.3 min calculated for 0.216 of(100%of inflow) Center-of-Mass det.time= 1.5 min(828.0-826.5) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 237.50' 0.003 of Custom Stage Data(Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area lnc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 237.50 0.001 0.000 0.000 238.00 0.003 0.001 0.001 238.50 0.003 0.002 0.003 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 238.00' 20.0'long (Profile 9)Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 1.97 2.46 2.95 3.94 4.92 Coef.(English) 3.55 3.55 3.57 3.60 3.66 ]primary OutFow Max=2.93 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=238.12' (Free Discharge) T 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.93 cfs @ 1.23 fps) Post-Development-2017 Type III 24-hr 100 yr,24-hr Rainfall=6.60" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 6/21/2017 HydroCAD®10.00-13 s/n 08733 ©2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 Pond 3P: Level Spreader Hydrograph M Inflow 0 Primary 3- --94 ifs Inflow re = .70 c Peak Elev=238.12' ®rage=0. 1 of 2- w 3 0 LL 1 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) ATTACHMENT D PRIOR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (PROVIDED FOR INFORMATION) SANBORN 1111 HEAD January 4, 2013 North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner RE: Stormwater Review Brooks School Solar Farm Dear Ms. Tymon and Board Members: Per your request, I have conducted a technical review of the December 7, 2012 Application for Land Disturbance Permit prepared by Prince Lobel Tye LLP for the proposed Brooks School Solar Farm at 1160 Great Pond Road in North Andover. Included in the materials I received and reviewed were the following: ■ Land Disturbance Application, filed by Adam Braillard of Prince Lobel Tye LLP on behalf of Mercury Solar Systems, Inc. ■ Conservation Commission Review Drawings, Brooks School Solar Farm, 8 sheets, prepared for Mercury Solar Systems, Inc. by Sanborn Head and dated November, 2012. ■ Stormwater Report, Brooks School Solar Farm, prepared for Mercury Solar Systems, Inc. by Sanborn Head and dated November, 2012. My primary focus in this initial review is on the overall stormwater management approach and design concepts used in the project, as well as its compliance with the Town of North Andover's Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw and zoning requirements for Watershed Protection Districts, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Stormwater Management Standards and Regulations, and the North Andover Wetlands Bylaw. It is my understanding that a Notice of Intent (NOI) application for the project has been filed concurrently with the Conservation Commission. My review is aimed at assisting both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission in their respective reviews of the project. The project site is an approximately 37-acre largely undeveloped property on the northeast side of Great Pond Road, opposite the main entrance to the Brooks School. There is a single family home at the southern end of the site and a bordering vegetated wetland to the east. Although they are not shown on the plans (and may not be jurisdictional), I believe that there are also wetlands downgradient of the site to the north and west. There is an approximately 60 ft elevation gain from Great Pond Road to the top of the hayfield where the proposed solar arrays would be located. i) (_1�%1 i 'dI"7lillz,il<i{I'i 17.Ci Um: J9 f ititlA 01 5018J'-1), 1 1 ' iil, %iS6 APO.7 0 Brooks School Solar, "Technical Review 2 January 4, 2013 My comments on the plan are outlined below: 1. A portion of the project site is shown as being within the Watershed Protection District based on the Town's zoning map. Although it is not indicated on the plan, it appears that some of the proposed swales would be within the Non-Discharge Zone of the Watershed Protection District, since they are within 325 feet of a tributary wetland. (I am assuming the lot was created before 1994). Stormwater structures are an allowed use in the Non-Discharge Zone but only by the granting of a Special Permit under the Zoning Bylaw. 2. Based on Figure 2 of the Stormwater Report, a portion of the site is also within the Zone A for Lake Cochichewick as mapped by DEP. This boundary should be shown on the project plans. Per the DEP regulations, stormwater discharges to a Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of the public water supply. 3. The proposed project entails only minor re-grading and the effective impervious area on the post-development site will be minimal. In that regard it is well suited to the low impact development (LID) approach to stormwater management proposed. The proposed treatment swales are appropriate measures to handle the runoff from the lower portion of the site, although I would prefer to see them kept closer to the development area. I also question why similar swales are not proposed for the perimeter of the development area further up on the hill, including the hammerhead turnaround at the end of the road. 4. The proposed gravel access road has a steep (16%) grade and will likely be prone to erosion. It should be engineered in accordance with the Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual (DEP, 2001), not left to the contractor to design as is called for on the plans. 5. Portions of the vegetated treatment Swale to the south of the staging area will also have a steep grade. Check dams may be needed to slow the rate of flow and promote infiltration.. 6. It is not clear whether the proposed 0.4-acre equipment delivery staging area is a temporary (construction-related) feature or whether it is intended to remain in place permanently. If it is a temporary feature, provision should be made to stabilize and revegetate the area after construction. If the staging area is to remain in place permanently, additional design information is needed. 7. Although much of the proposed site is an existing hayfield, the project calls for approximately 2.75 acres of wooded area to be cleared from the perimeter of the solar arrays to prevent shading. Much of the area to be cleared is on steep slopes and is downgradient of the proposed silt fence location. Additional information is needed as to what erosion control measures will be implemented during clearing, whether tree stumps will be removed, and how the cleared areas will be revegetated. lir()()ks -)chx�u! uarv , 'O I 8. The narrative indicates that the area beneath the solar arrays will remain vegetated. It is not clear whether these areas are to be mown regularly and, if so, how this will be accomplished. 9. The proposed project will entail land disturbance of greater than one acre, hence a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) filed under the EPA General Permit will be needed. The Planning Board and/or Conservation Commission should have the opportunity to review and comment on the Construction SWPPP prior to filing. 10. The O&M Plan should include maintenance of the gravel access road and staging area if it is to remain. It should also address snow storage and deicing practices to be used on the site. 11. The limitations on chemicals in the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan should not be limited to areas that drain to wetlands; the entire site drains to wetlands and/or critical areas. I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Planning Board and Conservation Commission with the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs. Please feel free to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed herein. Sincerely, EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL 9 Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E. C: Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Coordinator S.ANBORN HEAD Building Trust.Engineering Success. Ms.Lisa D.Eggleston, P.E. Eggleston Environmental May 21,2013 32 Old Framingham Rd Unit 29 File No.3471.00 Sudbury,MA 01776 Re: Stormwater Review- Response to Comments Brooks School Solar Farm North Andover,Massachusetts Dear Ms.Eggleston: On behalf of Mercury Solar Systems (Mercury Solar), Sanborn Head & Associates Inc. (Sanborn Head) is pleased to submit this additional information in support of the Land Disturbance permit application for the proposed Brooks School Solar Farm in North Andover, Massachusetts (the Site). The original permit application was submitted by Prince Lobel, LLP (on behalf of Mercury Solar) to the Town of North Andover Planning Board on December 7, 2012. This letter is in response to the Stormwater Review comments letter prepared by Eggleston Environmental on January 4, 2013. We understand that your comments were "aimed at assisting both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission in their respective reviews of the project". The narrative below includes each Eggleston Environmental comment and the Mercury Solar/Sanborn Head team response. Your comments are retyped below in italicized font and our responses to your comments are presented below in common font. Attached to this letter is a revised set of permitting drawings (Attachment A) and a revised Stormwater Report (Attachment B) as additional support information as referenced in the responses. 1. Eggleston Environmental Comment. A portion of the project site is shown as being within the Watershed Protection District based on the Town's zoning map.Although it is not indicated on the plan, it appears that some of the proposed swales would be within the Non-Discharge Zone of the Watershed Protection District, since they are within 325 feet of a tributary wetland. (I am assuming the lot was created before 1994). Stormwater structures are an allowed use in the Non- Discharge Zone but only by the granting of a Special Permit under the Zoning Bylaw. "i'he wetland resource area located to the south of the Site ("D series" flags) has been identified as tributary to Lake Coc:hichewick. To evaluate the potential applicability of'the Non--Discharge Zone of the Watershed protection District, the 325-foot boundary to this tributary wetland has been depicted on Sheet: f; of the revised drawings. Based on this delineation, we ('an confirm that there are no proposed swales or other stormwater structures located within this Non- Discharge Zone. As discussed further in this following cornmient response, the other wetlands resource areas identified in connection with the Site (A, 13 and C series flags) were not determined to be tributary to Labe Cochichewick, SANBORN, HEAD&ASSOCIATES, INC. www.sanbornhead.coni May 21,2013 Page 2 20130521 Letter Response to Eggleston Comments.docx 3471.00 2. Eggleston Environmental Comment: Based on Figure 2 of the Stormwater Report, a portion of the site is also within the Zone A for Lake Cochichewick as mapped by DEP. This boundary should be shown on the project plans. Per the DEP regulations, stormwater discharges to a Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of the public water supply, The Zone A boundary, as mapped by the Massachusetts DEP, has been depicted on Sheet 8 of the revised drawings, Although the wetland resource areas to the east (A, B and C series flags) are depicted within the Zone A boundary, the site-specific wetland assessment conducted determined that these wetlands were not tributary to Lake Cochichewick. Specifically, the wetlands assessment indicated that these resource areas were connected to a forested wetland located further- to the east. Additionally, the topography depicted on Site Locus Plan (Figure I in the Stormwater Report) indicates that these wetlands drain further to the east and into Sperrys Pond rather than Lake Cochichewick. Therefore, it is our opinion, that stormwater discharges within the area of these wetlands are protective of the Zone A resource area. This opinion is consistent with the delineation of the Town of North Andover Watershed Protection District,which does not include these wetlands resource areas. To comply with the Zone A restriction across the remainder of the Site, swales and other stormwater management features were moved outside of the Zone A boundary. Furthermore, it should be noted that the proposed storrnwater features incorporate a low impact development (LID) approach (as discussed below). These design features serve to reduce runoff rages by re- gradinc, the around Surface to influence sheet flow. Culverts, outfalls or other traditional stormwater discharge points are not proposed as part of this project. 3. Eggleston Environmental Comment: The proposed project entails only minor re-grading and the effective impervious area on the post-development site will be minimal. In that regard it is well suited to the low impact development(LID) approach to stormwater management proposed The proposed treatment swales are appropriate measures to handle the runoff from the lower portion of the site, although I would prefer to see them kept closer to the development area. I also question why similar swales are not proposed for the perimeter of the development area further up on the hill, including the hammerhead turnaround at the end of the road. The two proposed swales were moved slightly closer to development area and an additional swale is now proposed near the northern portion of the development. The swales and corresponding catchment areas currently proposed were iterated and designed to accommodate project construction, operation and maintenance while reducing post- development peak runoff rates to below pre-developi-nerit rates. 4. Eggleston Environmental Comment: The proposed gravel access road has a steep (1691o) grade and will likely be prone to erosion. It should be engineered in accordance with the Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual(DEP,2001), not left to the contractor to design as is called for on the plans. The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual (DEP, 2001) provides guidance for the design of unpaved roads and swales, particularly for roads located on slopes with significant tip gradient areas. Consistent with the guidance manual, the proposed gravel road was located along the peak of the existing topography to eliminate the need for roadside swales, The potential for erosion will be mitigated by the location and design of the road, the proposed north/South grade of the access road (averaging from RIX) to 10%), the limited anticipated travel on the road post.-construction and the regular inspections of the road, SANBORN HEAD May 21,2013 Page 3 20130521 Letter Response to Eggleston Comments.docx 3471.00 The slope across the road (i.e. in an east/west direction) will be approximately 2% (minimum) in order to ensure positive drainage as detailed in the drawings. The final direction of drainage across the road will be determined by the contractor and Engineer-of-Record based on field conditions. S. Eggleston Environmental Comment. Portions of the vegetated treatment swale to the south of the staging area will also have a steep grade. Check dams may be needed to slow the rate of flow and promote infiltration. This portion of the treatment swale has been removed. With the addition of a third swale on the northern portion of the site, the other two swales could be truncated (to address other concerns) while maintaining a condition of post-development peak runoff rates below pre- development rates for the entire Site. 6. Eggleston Environmental Comment, It is not clear whether the proposed 0.4-acre equipment delivery staging area is a temporary (construction-related)feature or whether it is intended to remain in place permanently. If it is a temporary feature, provision should be made to stabilize and revegetate the area after construction. If the staging area is to remain in place permanently, additional design information is needed. The staging area is to remain in place permanently. The design of this area is of a similar cornposition as depicted in the road detail. Proposed grades and slopes of the staging area are shown on the drawings. Z Eggleston Environmental Comment. Although much of the proposed site is an existing hayfield, the project calls for approximately 2.75 acres of wooded area to be cleared from the perimeter of the solar arrays to prevent shading. Much of the area to be cleared is on steep slopes and is downgradient of the proposed silt fence location. Additional information is needed as to what erosion control measures will be implemented during clearing, whether tree stumps will be removed,and how the cleared areas will be revegetated. The tree clearing proposed outside the silt fence location is intended to reduce the potential shading of the solar array, therefore these trees can be pruned or topped to meet the desired effect. At a minimum, stumps will he kept in place; therefore, erosion control measures will not be necessary. This, information has been incorporated into the revised Stormwater Report. B. Eggleston Environmental Comment: The narrative indicates that the area beneath the solar arrays will remain vegetated. It is not clear whether these areas are to be mown regularly and, if so, how this will be accomplished.' The areas between the array rows an(! beneath the will he mowed as necessary. 9. Eggleston Environmental Comment. The proposed project will entail land disturbance of greater than one acre, hence a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)filed under the EPA General Permit will be needed. The Planning Board and/or Conservation Commission should have the opportunity to review and comment on the Construction SWPPP prior to filing. A Construction Stormwater pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will he filed under the EPA General Permit to support construction activities, The Planning Board and/or Conservation SANBORN I HEAD May 21,2013 Page 4 20130521 Letter Response to Eggleston Comments.docx 3471.00 Commission will have the opportunity to review and cornment on the Construction SWPPP prior to filing and they could condition their permits accordingly. 10. Eggleston Environmental Comment: The O&M Plan should include maintenance of the gravel access road and staging area if it is to remain. It should also address snow storage and deicing practices to be used on the site. The revised Stormwater Report includes a maintenance plan of the gravel access road and staging area. Routine maintenance will include inspection, stabilization and repairs as needed, Snow will he physically removed from the road and staging area (i.e. plowed) only if access is necessary. Salt Use or other deicing is not anticipated, 11. Eggleston Environmental Comment. The limitations on chemicals in the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan should not be limited to areas that drain to wetlands; the entire site drains to wetlands and/or critical areas. This limitation on chemical use has been clarified in the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan of the revised Stormwater Report, If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me at 978-577-1008. Very truly yours, SANBORN,HEAD&AsSOCIATES,INC. Ae Max E.Lamson Senior Project Manager Encl. Attachment A: Revised Drawings Attachment B: Revised Stormwater Report S:\WESDATA\3400\3471.00\Source Files\Letter from Eggleston Environmental\20130521 Letter Response to Eggleston Comments.docx SANBORN HEAD ATTACHMENT E CERTIFIED ABUTTER LIST ABUTTER NOTIFICATION SANBORN IIII HEAD 4 f Abutter to Abutter( ) Building Dept. ( ) Conservation ( X ) Zoning ( ) f Town of North Andover Abutters Listing REQUIREMENT. MGL 0A,Section 11 states In part"Parties in Interest as used in this chapter shall mean the petitioner, abutters,owners of land directly oppositeon any public or private way,and abutters to abutters within three hundred(300)feel of the property line of the petitioner as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list,not withstanding that the land or any such owner is located in another city or town,the planning board of the city or town,and the planning board of every abulting city or town." Subject Property: i MAP PARCEL.'s Name Address 103 1 BROOKS SCHOOL 1160 Great Pond Road,North Anodver,MA 01845 103 10 BROOKS SCHOOL 1160 Great Pond Road,North Anodver,MA 01845 t Abutters Properties r Map Parcel's Name Address 90.0 22 Gary Martin 179C Lakeshore Road,Boxford,MA 01921 90.0 24 Charles Webb 1367 Great Pond Road,North Andover,MA 01845 90.0 27 Eric Peterson 1 Pond Street,North Andover,MA 01845 103 2,3,25,28 Brooks School 1160 Great Pond Road,North Andover,MA 01845 Town of Boxford Boxford Town Hall 7A Spofford Road,Boxford,MA 01921 Page 1 of 1 f S i This cedifies that the names appearing on the records of the ASsel&SOr ffi as of Certified by: ate ' r S f F Z i kp� 2 5 a A 2 T