Stormwater Report 7-12-2017 PDF
Stormwater Report 7-12-2017 PDF
Stormwater Report 7-12-2017 PDF
Prepared for:
Ameresco, Inc.
111 Speen Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Prepared by:
AMEC Massachusetts, Inc.
The proposed solar array installation work consists of concrete equipment pads and ground screw foundation
poles installed on the existing ground surface. A permanent gravel road extension is proposed for access to
portions of the site. Discharges from access roads are addressed under Standard 8.
This Project will create minimal impervious area. The only new impervious area consists of the ground screw
foundation poles installed on the existing ground surface to support the racks and concrete equipment pads.
The access road will be gravel. All other impacted areas will be restored to vegetated ground cover. This
Project does not involve any change to existing grades. Peak flow rates will be attenuated on-site upgradient
of the on-site wetlands in two proposed stone infiltration trenches.
There will be approximately 6.7 acres of tree clearing for the project. Following tree clearing, the existing
ground surface will be restored with grass. The existing stumps and root systems will remain for the majority
of the Site except where impeding the ground screw installation. The overall hydrologic conditions, including
infiltration into existing rocky soils, are anticipated to remain largely unchanged.
Although tree clearing is proposed, the majority of existing stumps and root systems will remain and will be
restored with grass, which will provide stormwater treatment.
Standard 7: Redevelopments
The Project is a new development. Certain standards are not fully met and an explanation of why these
standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report.
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Construction period pollution prevention and erosion and sedimentation control measures must be
implemented at the site to control construction related impacts during construction and land disturbance
activities. An erosion and sedimentation control plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
will be prepared prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP will be prepared following the US EPA’s
guidelines as this project will require coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit due to land
disturbance greater than one acre. Construction period BMPs will be employed before construction of the
access road extensions and before the installation of the arrays to prevent erosion of exposed soils and retain
sediment on-site.
Restoration activities are detailed on the construction plans, and include revegetating areas in accordance
with the Massachusetts Guidelines for Erosion and Sedimentation Control for Urban and Suburban Areas,
2003. Erosion and sedimentation controls will remain in place during restoration activities, and shall not be
removed until upgradient areas have been stabilized.
Proponents of projects within wetlands jurisdiction must demonstrate compliance with this requirement by
submitting to the issuing authority an Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement verifying that no illicit discharges
exist on the site, and by including in the pollution prevention plan measures to prevent illicit discharges to the
stormwater management system. Illicit discharges are not applicable to this Project and an Illicit Discharge
Compliance Statement is not required.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative
describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID
techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are
required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types,
critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site
where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for
both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations.
As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of
the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The
soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report
Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the
Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the
applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification
must be submitted with the Stormwater Report.
1
The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in
the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to
the post-construction best management practices.
2
For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in
the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the
project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site.
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe
Treebox Filter
Grass Channel
Green Roof
Stone infiltration trench, vegetated ground cover
Other (describe):
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
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.
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
Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included.
1
80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used.
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
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 (See Stormwater Report)
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.
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
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 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.
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Redevelopment Project
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.
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas;
The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges;
Leicester Stormwater - MassDEP Checklist 7-10-17.docx • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8
STORMWATER REPORT
Stormwater Modeling
The stormwater runoff pattern for the Leicester site will not be altered for this Project. The site is an
existing wooded area where tree clearing and minimal site grading is proposed. Surface drainage
from the site is conveyed over the existing wooded areas from west to east to two on-site wetlands
to the north and south. The titles of Wetland 5 (north) and Wetland 3 (south) have been retained in
this stormwater report to coincide with the existing wetlands delineation.
Runoff calculations were performed for the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Type III 2- and 10-year,
24-hour storm events. The documented rainfall was estimated from the Northeast Regional Climate
Center (NRCC) Extreme Precipitation Tables to be 3.24, 4.86, and 8.76 inches for the 2-, 10-, and
100-year storm events, respectively.
The existing and proposed condition peak-design flows were assessed using the National
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Technical Release 55 (TR-55) methodology. Autodesk®
Storm and Sanitary Analysis 2015 stormwater modeling software was used. The software program
is included in the AutoCAD Civil 3D package that utilizes the TR-55 methodology. It is a
comprehensive hydrodynamic modeling program which analyzes and designs site hydrology,
surface drainage systems, and storm drains. It can manage a variety of flow situations such as
overland flow, drainage swales, ponds, and piping systems.
The existing conditions topography is from a field survey performed by AMEC in March 2017. This
topography was used to develop the stormwater model. There were two scenarios evaluated: the
Existing Condition (pre-PV array development) and the Proposed Condition (post-PV array
development). The detailed stormwater model, NRCS Soil Report, and the NRCC precipitation table
for Leicester, MA are enclosed.
The primary impact of the solar PV array on the stormwater runoff rate and volume is a result of the
ground screw foundation poles of the rack assembly and tree clearing to eliminate shading of the
array. There will be a total of 155 panel rack assemblies. Each of these rack assemblies require
four ground screw posts to anchor them to the ground (620 total ground screws). The ground screw
diameter used for this project is 4 inches.
In addition to the ground screws, there will be concrete equipment pads for the required electrical
connection of the solar array. The equipment pad areas used in this stormwater analysis are 162
square feet in Sub-basin A and 438 square feet in Sub-Basin B.
There will be approximately 6.7 acres of tree clearing for the project. Following tree clearing, the
existing ground surface will be restored with grass. The existing stumps and root systems will remain
for the majority of the Site except where impeding the ground screw installation. A proposed gravel
access road will extend from the existing gravel area adjacent to the existing solar site located to
the south of the proposed project. The proposed gravel access road is approximately 16 feet wide
and 680 feet long which includes two turnaround areas and upgrading the existing gravel area east
of the existing solar site. A 6-inch ductile iron culvert is proposed beneath the access road to convey
surface water drainage from west to east in Sub-basin B. With the exception of the ground screws,
concrete equipment pad, and gravel access road, all disturbed areas will be restored with vegetated
ground cover.
The impervious cover associated with the proposed ground screws and equipment pad accounts for
approximately 0.1% of the affected drainage sub-basin area (see summary table enclosed). Also
represented in the summary table are the existing and proposed conditions for peak runoff rate and
volume for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour storm events.
Two proposed stone infiltration trenches are proposed upgradient of each of the wetland discharge
areas (Wetland 3 and 5). The infiltration trenches will attenuate the minimal increase in on-site
runoff associated with the ground screws and equipment pads. As a result, the model shows that
there is no increase in peak runoff to the existing wetland areas and no change in off-site conditions.
A Stormwater Erosion Control Plan will be implemented prior to and during construction. This plan
will address all potential avenues and pathways for erosion during construction and operation. This
section briefly describes what the erosion control plan will encompass.
The primary construction activities that the plan will address will include: the cutting of trees in the
existing wooded areas; the addition of gravel fill material for the proposed gravel road construction;
the movement of heavy machinery; and re-vegetation of disturbed areas (if required). Vegetative
cover outside of the limit of disturbance is to remain. If the vegetative cover outside the intended
work area is damaged or disturbed during construction, it will be repaired to re-establish vegetation.
Erosion control measures will be installed at the perimeter of the work to prevent sediment from
leaving the site. Material stockpiles, if required, will be maintained in one or more central locations.
Perimeter erosion control will placed around all stockpiles and will consist of sediment barriers
sufficient enough to contain sediment.
Disturbance of the existing ground surface and access road by equipment is another possible source
of erosion during construction. Rutting or exposed soil will require repair and attempts to mitigate
future rutting at the same location will be made. Avoiding site work on-site during periods of heavy
precipitation or when the cover soils are saturated and soft should mitigate many of the issues
related to equipment use on-site.
The lower edge of each panel array, or the “drip edge,” has been identified as a potential source of
ongoing erosion. This is not likely to be an issue due to the relatively short drip distance and the
proposed vegetative cover. If erosion along the drip edge becomes an issue it will be mitigated as
part of ongoing maintenance at the landfill, likely with a gravel splash strip or erosion control blanket.
LEICESTER, MA - SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT 7/12/2017
Smoothing Yes
State Massachusetts
Location
Longitude 71.884 degrees West
Latitude 42.212 degrees North
Elevation 0 feet
Date/Time Mon, 22 May 2017 17:32:53 -0400
Extreme Precipitation Estimates
5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120min 1hr 2hr 3hr 6hr 12hr 24hr 48hr 1day 2day 4day 7day 10day
1yr 0.28 0.42 0.53 0.69 0.86 1.09 1yr 0.75 1.07 1.27 1.61 2.06 2.64 2.91 1yr 2.34 2.79 3.19 3.87 4.48 1yr
2yr 0.35 0.53 0.66 0.88 1.10 1.39 2yr 0.95 1.27 1.61 2.03 2.56 3.24 3.50 2yr 2.86 3.37 3.87 4.59 5.22 2yr
5yr 0.41 0.63 0.80 1.07 1.36 1.74 5yr 1.18 1.57 2.03 2.56 3.23 4.08 4.46 5yr 3.61 4.29 4.91 5.75 6.47 5yr
10yr 0.46 0.72 0.91 1.24 1.61 2.07 10yr 1.39 1.85 2.42 3.07 3.86 4.86 5.36 10yr 4.30 5.15 5.88 6.82 7.61 10yr
25yr 0.54 0.86 1.09 1.50 1.99 2.59 25yr 1.72 2.29 3.04 3.87 4.89 6.14 6.84 25yr 5.43 6.58 7.46 8.56 9.43 25yr
50yr 0.60 0.97 1.24 1.74 2.35 3.09 50yr 2.03 2.70 3.64 4.64 5.85 7.33 8.24 50yr 6.49 7.92 8.94 10.17 11.11 50yr
100yr 0.69 1.12 1.44 2.03 2.77 3.66 100yr 2.39 3.17 4.33 5.53 6.99 8.76 9.93 100yr 7.75 9.55 10.72 12.08 13.08 100yr
200yr 0.78 1.27 1.65 2.36 3.27 4.35 200yr 2.82 3.74 5.16 6.62 8.36 10.46 11.98 200yr 9.26 11.52 12.85 14.36 15.40 200yr
500yr 0.93 1.53 2.00 2.90 4.07 5.47 500yr 3.51 4.65 6.51 8.37 10.59 13.26 15.38 500yr 11.73 14.79 16.35 18.06 19.13 500yr
Lower Confidence Limits
5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120min 1hr 2hr 3hr 6hr 12hr 24hr 48hr 1day 2day 4day 7day 10day
1yr 0.21 0.32 0.39 0.53 0.65 0.99 1yr 0.56 0.97 1.09 1.46 1.83 2.27 2.50 1yr 2.01 2.40 2.70 3.27 4.13 1yr
2yr 0.34 0.52 0.64 0.87 1.08 1.25 2yr 0.93 1.23 1.44 1.89 2.43 3.14 3.39 2yr 2.78 3.26 3.75 4.44 5.04 2yr
5yr 0.38 0.59 0.74 1.01 1.28 1.49 5yr 1.11 1.46 1.70 2.23 2.85 3.81 4.15 5yr 3.37 3.99 4.56 5.29 5.94 5yr
10yr 0.42 0.65 0.81 1.13 1.45 1.70 10yr 1.26 1.66 1.93 2.51 3.20 4.40 4.84 10yr 3.90 4.65 5.27 6.05 6.70 10yr
25yr 0.48 0.74 0.92 1.31 1.72 2.02 25yr 1.49 1.97 2.28 2.96 3.74 5.35 5.94 25yr 4.74 5.71 6.40 7.25 7.87 25yr
50yr 0.53 0.81 1.01 1.45 1.96 2.29 50yr 1.69 2.24 2.60 3.35 4.21 6.22 6.96 50yr 5.51 6.69 7.43 8.32 8.90 50yr
100yr 0.59 0.89 1.12 1.62 2.22 2.61 100yr 1.92 2.55 2.96 3.79 4.74 7.25 8.18 100yr 6.41 7.87 8.65 9.57 10.06 100yr
200yr 0.65 0.99 1.25 1.81 2.52 2.98 200yr 2.18 2.92 3.37 4.31 5.35 8.45 9.67 200yr 7.48 9.30 10.09 11.00 11.38 200yr
500yr 0.78 1.16 1.49 2.17 3.08 3.56 500yr 2.66 3.48 4.02 5.13 6.29 10.37 12.11 500yr 9.17 11.64 12.41 13.30 13.37 500yr
Upper Confidence Limits
5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120min 1hr 2hr 3hr 6hr 12hr 24hr 48hr 1day 2day 4day 7day 10day
1yr 0.31 0.48 0.58 0.78 0.96 1.18 1yr 0.83 1.15 1.36 1.77 2.33 2.89 3.15 1yr 2.56 3.03 3.47 4.17 4.81 1yr
2yr 0.36 0.56 0.69 0.94 1.15 1.34 2yr 1.00 1.31 1.53 2.01 2.59 3.34 3.64 2yr 2.96 3.50 4.02 4.77 5.44 2yr
5yr 0.43 0.67 0.83 1.14 1.45 1.72 5yr 1.25 1.69 1.99 2.56 3.23 4.38 4.81 5yr 3.87 4.62 5.28 6.24 7.05 5yr
10yr 0.50 0.77 0.96 1.34 1.73 2.09 10yr 1.49 2.05 2.41 3.09 3.85 5.36 5.93 10yr 4.74 5.70 6.49 7.65 8.56 10yr
25yr 0.62 0.95 1.18 1.68 2.21 2.70 25yr 1.91 2.64 3.12 3.94 4.86 7.01 7.84 25yr 6.20 7.54 8.53 10.00 11.12 25yr
50yr 0.73 1.11 1.38 1.98 2.67 3.28 50yr 2.30 3.21 3.81 4.74 5.78 8.59 9.68 50yr 7.60 9.30 10.49 12.27 13.56 50yr
100yr 0.86 1.30 1.62 2.34 3.22 3.98 100yr 2.77 3.89 4.63 5.72 6.90 10.52 11.94 100yr 9.31 11.49 12.89 15.01 16.53 100yr
200yr 1.01 1.52 1.92 2.78 3.88 4.84 200yr 3.35 4.73 5.64 6.87 8.22 12.90 14.75 200yr 11.41 14.18 15.81 18.38 20.17 200yr
500yr 1.29 1.92 2.48 3.60 5.11 6.26 500yr 4.41 6.12 7.31 8.78 10.36 16.85 19.44 500yr 14.91 18.70 20.71 24.00 26.21 500yr
ZO
ZO
ZO
AMEC MASSACHUSETTS, INC.
271 MILL ROAD
ZO CHELMSFORD MASSACHUSETTS 01824
TELEPHONE: (978) 692-9090
FAX: (978) 692-6633
ZO WEB: WWW.AMECFW.COM
ZO
ZO
765
APPROVED
ZO
APV
APV
ZO
ZO
75
76
0
5
770 ZO
EXISTING TRAIL
77 760
5
ZO
765
ISSUED BY
ZO
DAA
DAA
OH
E 770
DHF 780
78
ZO
ZO
OH 775
ZO
SU
ZO
OH BU
E BU RB
ZO
ZO
ST LR
OH RI UR
E AL AL
-A ZO INTERMITTENT
ZO NE
NE STREAM C
ZO
ZO
780
OH
E
ZO
DHF
ZO
OH
E
WETLAND
WETLAND 5 5
815
810
WETLAND 4 LEGEND:
ZO
OH
ZO
E
07/12/2017
05/23/2017
800 MAJOR CONTOUR
DATE
MINOR CONTOUR
790 PROPERTY LINE
OH 795 APPROXIMATE ABUTTERS PROPERTY LINE
E
ZO
ZO 100' PROPERTY LINE OFFSET
REVISION
ZO
80
WETLAND LINE
0
WETLAND FLAG WITH IDENTIFIER
OH 25' WETLAND LINE BUFFER (NO DISTURB)
0
80
E 100' WETLAND LINE BUFFER
SUB-BASIN A
0
5
ZO
TRAIL
79
79
ZO
FENCE
5 0
78
0
77
LEICESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
78
OH STONEWALL
E
ZO
5
76
UTILITY POLE
ZO
OH GUY
0
E
75
ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE
805
WETLAND
WETLAND33 TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER
DHF
SUB-BASIN B
795
OH 250' POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
E
ZO
790
IPF/IRF SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND
785
ZO
SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
775
OH
780
E SUB-BASIN A SUB-BASIN NAME
ZO
800
WETLAND A
U:\- CAD Projects\Ameresco\NGRID\Leicester - 3652170091\7.0 CAD\7.1 Design - Permitting\Figures\Leicester Stormwater-Pre 7-10-17.dwg - SW-101 - Jul. 12, 2017 10:09am - andrew.vardakis
5 DESIGN MODEL NODE
75 60
7 TIME OF CONCENTRATION
FLOW DIRECTION
ZO
OH INTERMITTENT
E STREAM A
5
76 ET
ZO
ABANDONED
TRE
UTILITY POLES S
D
ZO
OH FOR
E AF
PROJECT:
EXISTING SOLAR SITE ST
TITLE:
ZO
12" HDPE
ZO
OH EXISTING
SD
E TRAIL
RIP RAP NE
ZO
ZO
0
AL
79
UR
ZO
OH LT
U
E IC E
R N
AG O
A N- -1 Z
12" HDPE B AL
795
800 05
ZO E RE
815
ZO
ZO
820
ZO
83
ZO
835
0
ZO 840 OH
ZO E
ZO EXISTING GRAVEL OH
ENTRANCE E
ZO
CLIENT:
ZO NE
IRF ZO ONE OH
A Z
L- E
RIA L-1
T IA
DUS ENT SEAL:
IN SID
ZO E SS RE OH
N S E
SI ES
ZO
BU SIN
BU
ZO OH
E
EXISTING
ZO
GATE
ZO OH
E
ZO EDGE OF
ZO
PROJECT NUMBER:
3652170091.0300.0002
0' 50' 100' 150' DRAWING NUMBER:
1" = 100'
SHEET NUMBER:
ZO
ZO
AMEC MASSACHUSETTS, INC.
271 MILL ROAD
ZO CHELMSFORD MASSACHUSETTS 01824
TELEPHONE: (978) 692-9090
FAX: (978) 692-6633
ZO WEB: WWW.AMECFW.COM
ZO
ZO
765
APPROVED
ZO
APV
APV
ZO
ZO
75
76
0
5
770 ZO
EXISTING TRAIL
77 760
5
ZO
765
ISSUED BY
ZO
DAA
DAA
OH
E 770
DHF 780
78
ZO
ZO
OH 775
ZO
SU
ZO
OH BU
E BU RB
ZO
ZO
ST LR SB
OH RI UR
E AL AL
-A S
ZO TCB
SB
ZO INTERMITTENT
NE
NE STREAM C
SB
ZO
ZO
X
780
OH
E
SB
TC
SB
TC
X
ZO
DHF
TC
ZO
OH TC
X X X
S
TC
E SB
B
WETLAND
WETLAND 5 5 TC
815
SB
810
WETLAND 4 SB LEGEND:
ZO
TC
SB PROPOSED
TC
X
OH INFILTRATION
ZXO
E X
07/12/2017
05/23/2017
800
SB
TC
TRENCH MAJOR CONTOUR
DATE
SB
TC
MINOR CONTOUR
790
X
X PROPERTY LINE
SB
OH 795 APPROXIMATE ABUTTERS PROPERTY LINE
SB
TC
E
O
ZX
ZO 100' PROPERTY LINE OFFSET
REVISION
X
ZO
80
SB
TC WETLAND LINE
0
SB WETLAND FLAG
TC
TC
OH X 25' WETLAND LINE BUFFER (NO DISTURB)
0
80
E
100' WETLAND LINE BUFFER
SUB-BASIN A
0
5
ZO
79
79
TC X TRAIL
ZO
5 0 FENCE
78
0
77
LEICESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
78
OH STONEWALL
E SB
TREE LINE
TC TC
ZO
OUTLET B
OHE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE
SB
5
76
805
UTILITY POLE
ZO
SB
75TXC
OH GUY
0
E X SUB-BASIN B ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE
TC
WETLAND
WETLAND33 TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER
SB
DHF
795
OH 250' POWER LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY
E X X
815
790
ZO
785
820
ZO
SB
775
OH
780
PROPOSED 5x5 SOLAR PANEL RACK
E
ZO
800
TC
TC
U:\- CAD Projects\Ameresco\NGRID\Leicester - 3652170091\7.0 CAD\7.1 Design - Permitting\Figures\Leicester Stormwater-Post 7-10-17.dwg - SW-102 - Jul. 12, 2017 3:40pm - andrew.vardakis
5
75 60
SB 7 PROPOSED 5x4 SOLAR PANEL RACK
PROPOSED
ZO
SB
GRASS SWALE E STREAM A
5 X X PROPOSED FENCE
76 ET UGE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
ZO
ABANDONED PROPOSED TRE
UTILITY POLES INFILTRATION S OHW PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
RD
ZO
OH TRENCH
F FO
E A
PROJECT:
EXISTING SOLAR SITE ST SB PROPOSED SEDIMENT BARRIER
TITLE:
ZO
12" HDPE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
SUB-BASIN A SUB-BASIN NAME
ZO
OH EXISTING
SD
WETLAND A DESIGN MODEL NODE
SB
E TRAIL
E TIME OF CONCENTRATION
RIP RAP N
ZO FLOW DIRECTION
ZO
0
AL
79
UR
ZO
OH LT
U
SB
E IC E
R N
AG O
A N- -1 Z
12" HDPE B AL
795
800 05
S
810
8
ZO E RE
815
ZO
ZO
820
ZO
83
ZO
835
0
ZO 840 OH
ZO E
ZO EXISTING GRAVEL OH
ENTRANCE E
ZO
CLIENT:
ZO NE
SB
IRF ZO ONE OH
A Z
L- E
RIA L-1
T IA
DUS ENT SEAL:
IN SID
ZO SS RE OH
SB
NE S E
SI ES
ZO
BU SIN
BU
ZO OH
E
EXISTING
ZO
GATE
ZO OH
E
ZO EDGE OF
ZO
APV DED
CHECKED BY: SCALE:
DAA AS SHOWN
PROJECT NUMBER:
3652170091.0300.0002
OHE
1" = 100'
SHEET NUMBER:
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 4
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 2
Links............................................................. 2
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 2
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 2-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 2 3.24 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
2-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 0.46 748.23 0.00 0.00
4 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 0.36 784.05 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
2-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
2 Weir-B Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
2-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 4
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 2
Links............................................................. 2
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 2
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 10-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 10 4.86 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
10-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 3.70 748.88 0.00 0.00
4 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 2.99 784.21 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
10-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
2 Weir-B Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
10-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 4
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 2
Links............................................................. 2
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 2
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 100-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 100 8.76 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
100-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 17.45 751.37 0.00 0.00
4 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 15.05 784.82 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
100-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
2 Weir-B Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Pre-Development
100-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 6
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 4
Links............................................................. 4
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 4
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 2-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 2 3.24 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
2-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 InfilTrench-A Storage Node 788.00 790.00 788.00 150.00 0.58 788.00 0.00 0.00
4 InfilTrench-B Storage Node 768.00 770.00 768.00 150.00 0.80 768.00 0.00 0.00
5 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 0.00 748.00 0.00 0.00
6 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 0.00 784.00 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
2-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A1 Weir InfilTrench-A Wetland 5 788.00 784.00 0.00
2 Weir-A2 Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
3 Weir-B1 Weir InfilTrench-B Wetland 3 768.00 748.00 0.00
4 Weir-B2 Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
2-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 6
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 4
Links............................................................. 4
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 4
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 10-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 10 4.86 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
10-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 InfilTrench-A Storage Node 788.00 790.00 788.00 150.00 3.93 790.14 0.03 23.00
4 InfilTrench-B Storage Node 768.00 770.00 768.00 150.00 4.90 770.15 0.04 27.00
5 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 2.93 748.13 0.00 0.00
6 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 2.76 784.02 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
10-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A1 Weir InfilTrench-A Wetland 5 788.00 784.00 2.76
2 Weir-A2 Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
3 Weir-B1 Weir InfilTrench-B Wetland 3 768.00 748.00 2.93
4 Weir-B2 Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
10-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Stormwater Report
Project Options
Flow Units ................................................... CFS
Elevation Type ............................................ Elevation
Hydrology Method ....................................... SCS TR-55
Time of Concentration (TOC) Method ........ SCS TR-55
Link Routing Method ................................... Kinematic Wave
Enable Overflow Ponding at Nodes ............ YES
Skip Steady State Analysis Time Periods ... YES
Analysis Options
Start Analysis On ........................................ May 22, 2017 00:00:00
End Analysis On .......................................... May 23, 2017 00:00:00
Start Reporting On ...................................... May 22, 2017 00:00:00
Antecedent Dry Days .................................. 0 days
Runoff (Dry Weather) Time Step ................ 0 01:00:00 days hh:mm:ss
Runoff (Wet Weather) Time Step ............... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Reporting Time Step ................................... 0 00:05:00 days hh:mm:ss
Routing Time Step ...................................... 30 seconds
Number of Elements
Qty
Rain Gages ................................................. 1
Subbasins.................................................... 2
Nodes........................................................... 6
Junctions ............................................ 0
Outfalls ............................................... 2
Flow Diversions .................................. 0
Inlets ................................................... 0
Storage Nodes ................................... 4
Links............................................................. 4
Channels ............................................ 0
Pipes .................................................. 0
Pumps ................................................ 0
Orifices ............................................... 0
Weirs .................................................. 4
Outlets ................................................ 0
Pollutants .................................................... 0
Land Uses ................................................... 0
Rainfall Details
SN Rain Gage Data Data Source Rainfall Rain State County Return Rainfall Rainfall
ID Source ID Type Units Period Depth Distribution
(years) (inches)
1 Leicester Time Series 100-year Cumulative inches Massachusetts Worcester 100 8.76 SCS Type III 24-hr
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
100-Year Storm
Subbasin Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element Invert Ground/Rim Initial Surcharge Ponded Peak Max HGL Max Min Time of Total Total Time
ID Type Elevation (Max) Water Elevation Area Inflow Elevation Surcharge Freeboard Peak Flooded Flooded
Elevation Elevation Attained Depth Attained Flooding Volume
Attained Occurrence
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft²) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (days hh:mm) (ac-in) (min)
1 Out-A Outfall 761.00 0.00 761.00
2 Out-B Outfall 741.00 0.00 741.00
3 InfilTrench-A Storage Node 788.00 790.00 788.00 150.00 16.59 792.39 0.04 93.00
4 InfilTrench-B Storage Node 768.00 770.00 768.00 150.00 19.42 773.44 0.06 120.00
5 Wetland 3 Storage Node 748.00 754.00 748.00 20178.00 17.33 749.47 0.00 0.00
6 Wetland 5 Storage Node 784.00 790.00 784.00 72180.00 14.40 784.32 0.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
100-Year Storm
Link Summary 7-10-2017
SN Element Element From To (Outlet) Length Inlet Outlet Average Diameter or Manning's Peak Design Flow Peak Flow/ Peak Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Total Time Reported
ID Type (Inlet) Node Invert Invert Slope Height Roughness Flow Capacity Design Flow Velocity Depth Depth/ Surcharged Condition
Node Elevation Elevation Ratio Total Depth
Ratio
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft) (min)
1 Weir-A1 Weir InfilTrench-A Wetland 5 788.00 784.00 14.40
2 Weir-A2 Weir Wetland 5 Out-A 784.00 761.00 0.00
3 Weir-B1 Weir InfilTrench-B Wetland 3 768.00 748.00 17.33
4 Weir-B2 Weir Wetland 3 Out-B 748.00 741.00 0.00
Leicester, MA Solar
Post-Development
100-Year Storm
Subbasin Hydrology 7-10-2017
Subbasin : Sub-basin A
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Where :
Where:
Where :
Input Data
Time of Concentration
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Infiltration/Exfiltration
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
Input Data
Outflow Weirs
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface.................................................................................................................... 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................ 12
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 13
Worcester County, Massachusetts, Northeastern Part................................... 15
71A—Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 15
102C—Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes......16
254A—Merrimac fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes............................19
420B—Canton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................... 21
422C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely stony..22
422D—Canton fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 24
Worcester County, Massachusetts, Southern Part......................................... 27
1—Water..................................................................................................... 27
51A—Swansea muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes...............................................27
71A—Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 28
71B—Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 30
73A—Whitman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, extremely stony... 32
102C—Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes......33
305B—Paxton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes................................36
305C—Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................. 38
307C—Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely stony.. 39
307E—Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 41
420B—Canton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes............................... 42
420C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes............................. 44
422B—Canton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, extremely stony.... 46
422C—Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, extremely stony..47
422E—Canton fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes, extremely
stony..................................................................................................... 49
References............................................................................................................52
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
262400 262600 262800 263000 263200 263400 263600 263800 264000 264200
42° 14' 15'' N 42° 14' 15'' N
4680000
4680000
4679800
4679800
4679600
4679600
4679400
4679400
4679200
4679200
4679000
4679000
4678800
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
4678800
262200 262400 262600 262800 263000 263200 263400 263600 263800 264000 264200
71° 52' 54'' W
Miscellaneous Water This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
Perennial Water of the version date(s) listed below.
Rock Outcrop
Soil Survey Area: Worcester County, Massachusetts,
Saline Spot Northeastern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 14, 2016
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot Soil Survey Area: Worcester County, Massachusetts, Southern
Part
Sinkhole Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 15, 2016
Slide or Slip
Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey
Sodic Spot area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different
scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at
different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
71A Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 0 to 4.0 0.9%
3 percent slopes, extremely
stony
102C Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop 0.2 0.0%
complex, 0 to 15 percent
slopes
254A Merrimac fine sandy loam, 0 to 0.1 0.0%
3 percent slopes
420B Canton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 0.9 0.2%
percent slopes
422C Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 2.2 0.5%
percent slopes, extremely
stony
422D Canton fine sandy loam, 15 to 4.2 0.9%
35 percent slopes, extremely
stony
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 11.5 2.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 445.5 100.0%
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
1 Water 0.5 0.1%
51A Swansea muck, 0 to 1 percent 1.0 0.2%
slopes
71A Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 0 to 5.6 1.3%
3 percent slopes, extremely
stony
71B Ridgebury fine sandy loam, 3 to 15.0 3.4%
8 percent slopes, extremely
stony
73A Whitman fine sandy loam, 0 to 22.9 5.1%
3 percent slopes, extremely
stony
102C Chatfield-Hollis-Rock outcrop 9.7 2.2%
complex, 0 to 15 percent
slopes
305B Paxton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 34.9 7.8%
percent slopes
305C Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 22.7 5.1%
percent slopes
307C Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 3.3 0.7%
percent slopes, extremely
stony
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
307E Paxton fine sandy loam, 15 to 24.6 5.5%
35 percent slopes, extremely
stony
420B Canton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 100.3 22.5%
percent slopes
420C Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 20.6 4.6%
percent slopes
422B Canton fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 131.7 29.6%
percent slopes, extremely
stony
422C Canton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 39.6 8.9%
percent slopes, extremely
stony
422E Canton fine sandy loam, 15 to 1.5 0.3%
35 percent slopes, extremely
stony
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 434.0 97.4%
Totals for Area of Interest 445.5 100.0%
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, base slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Whitman, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Depressions
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Paxton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 12 percent
Landform: Ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Sutton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Paxton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Merrimac
Setting
Landform: Outwash plains, kames, eskers, outwash terraces, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, riser, tread
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Loamy glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite, schist, and
gneiss over sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from granite,
schist, and gneiss
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 10 to 22 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 22 to 26 inches: stratified gravel to gravelly loamy sand
2C - 26 to 65 inches: stratified gravel to very gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
very high (1.42 to 99.90 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 2 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.4 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum in profile: 1.0
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Sudbury
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Deltas, outwash plains, terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread, dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Hinckley
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Deltas, outwash plains, kames, eskers
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Nose slope, side slope, crest, head slope,
rise
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Agawam
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Kames, eskers, outwash terraces, moraines, outwash plains, stream
terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Rise
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Windsor
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Deltas, dunes, outwash plains, outwash terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Riser, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Linear, convex
Hydric soil rating: No
20
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Canton
Setting
Landform: Ridges, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, nose slope
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Coarse-loamy over sandy melt-out till derived from gneiss,
granite, and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 7 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 15 to 26 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
2C - 26 to 65 inches: gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 19 to 39 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.14 to 14.17 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Scituate
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Montauk
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Charlton
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Swansea
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Depressions, bogs, marshes, kettles, swamps
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
22
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Scituate, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Montauk, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, recessionial moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
23
Custom Soil Resource Report
24
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Montauk, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, drumlins, recessionial moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Hollis, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, backslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, nose slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear, convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Scituate, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
25
Custom Soil Resource Report
26
Custom Soil Resource Report
1—Water
Description of Water
Setting
Landform: Lakes
Description of Swansea
Setting
Landform: Bogs, swamps
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Highly decomposed organic material over loose sandy and
gravelly glaciofluvial deposits
Typical profile
Oa1 - 0 to 24 inches: muck
Oa2 - 24 to 34 inches: muck
Cg - 34 to 79 inches: coarse sand
27
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Freetown
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Bogs, swamps
Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Whitman
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions, drainageways
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Scarboro
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions, drainageways
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, tread, dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
28
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, base slope
29
Custom Soil Resource Report
30
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Whitman, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Depressions
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Paxton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
31
Custom Soil Resource Report
32
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Ridgebury, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Depressions, drumlins, ground moraines, drainageways, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, head slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Scarboro
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions, outwash terraces, drainageways, outwash deltas
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Swansea
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Bogs, marshes, swamps
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
33
Custom Soil Resource Report
34
Custom Soil Resource Report
2R - 16 to 26 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 15 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 9.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 8 to 23 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very high
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
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 12 percent
Landform: Ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Sutton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
35
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Paxton
Setting
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, nose slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from gneiss, granite, and/or
schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 8 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
36
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Woodbridge
Percent of map unit: 9 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ridgebury
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Depressions, ground moraines, drainageways, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, backslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, head slope, dip
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Charlton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Hills
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
37
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Paxton
Setting
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Coarse-loamy lodgment till derived from gneiss, granite, and/or
schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 8 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 15 to 26 inches: fine sandy loam
Cd - 26 to 65 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 39 inches to densic material
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately
low (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 18 to 37 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
38
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Charlton
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Woodbridge
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ridgebury
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Depressions, drumlins, ground moraines, drainageways, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, head slope
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Concave, linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
39
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ridgebury, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Depressions, drumlins, ground moraines, drainageways, hills
40
Custom Soil Resource Report
41
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 20 percent
Landform: Hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Woodbridge, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Ridgebury, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Depressions, drumlins, ground moraines, drainageways, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope, head slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
42
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Canton
Setting
Landform: Ridges, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, nose slope
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Coarse-loamy over sandy melt-out till derived from gneiss,
granite, and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 7 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 15 to 26 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
2C - 26 to 65 inches: gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 19 to 39 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.14 to 14.17 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Scituate
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Montauk
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
43
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Canton
Setting
Landform: Ridges, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest, nose slope
Down-slope shape: Convex, linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Coarse-loamy over sandy melt-out till derived from gneiss,
granite, and/or schist
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 7 to 15 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 15 to 26 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
2C - 26 to 65 inches: gravelly loamy sand
44
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Montauk
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Scituate
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Newfields
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, hills, moraines
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Charlton
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
45
Custom Soil Resource Report
46
Custom Soil Resource Report
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Scituate, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, shoulder, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Montauk, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, recessionial moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope, summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope, crest
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Swansea
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Bogs, depressions, kettles, marshes, swamps
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
47
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Scituate, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
48
Custom Soil Resource Report
49
Custom Soil Resource Report
Parent material: Coarse-loamy over sandy melt-out till derived from gneiss,
granite, and/or schist
Typical profile
Oi - 0 to 2 inches: slightly decomposed plant material
A - 2 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw1 - 5 to 16 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw2 - 16 to 22 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
2C - 22 to 67 inches: gravelly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 35 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 9.0 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 19 to 39 inches to strongly contrasting textural
stratification
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.14 to 14.17 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Montauk, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Drumlins, ground moraines, recessionial moraines, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Charlton, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Ground moraines, ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Hollis, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Ridges, hills
Landform position (two-dimensional): Shoulder, backslope, summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Crest, side slope, nose slope
50
Custom Soil Resource Report
51
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
52
Custom Soil Resource Report
53
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
and
LONG-TERM POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
Prepared for:
Ameresco, Inc.
111 Speen Street
Framingham, MA 01701
Prepared by:
AMEC Massachusetts, Inc.
271 Mill Rd, 3rd Floor
Chelmsford, MA 01824
AMEC Massachusetts, Inc. (AMEC) has prepared this Operations and Maintenance Plan and
Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan as a combined document to ensure that the stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) designed and constructed as part of the 1.354 megawatt (MW)
ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) project (the Project) located off of Stafford Street in
Leicester (the Site) continue to function as designed. The elements of this plan were developed
in accordance with the Standards 4 and 9 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and the
requirements of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
The BMPs designed and constructed as part of the Project shall be operated and maintained in
accordance with the requirements identified on the drawings submitted with the Notice of Intent
and this Operations and Maintenance Plan.
► Mow banks at least once per year (preferably mid-June or early July) to avoid growth of
woody vegetation. Do not cut the grass shorter than four inches.
► Remove sediment and debris manually at least once per year during the summer months.
► Take care to protect drainage channels from snow removal procedures.
► If mechanical means are necessary to remove excessive sediment, the channel must be
returned to its original dimensions.
In accordance with EPA Standards, the development and implementation of suitable practices for
source control and pollution prevention shall be incorporated in a Long Term Pollution Prevention
Plan (LTPPP). The primary focus of the LTPPP is to establish procedures and controls for limiting
the potential sources of pollutants, including nutrients that may contribute to excessive
contaminant levels in the site’s stormwater runoff. To this end the following sources controls and
procedures will be in place at the site:
• Good House Keeping – The site shall be kept clean at all times. Refuse disposal and pickup
shall occur on a regular basis and all material shall be disposed of in designated locations.
• Storing Material and waste products inside or under cover – No material storage is to
take place outside at the site on either paved or lawn areas. All materials stored on-site will
be in conformance with all storage requirements of local, state, and federal agencies.
• Spill Prevention and Response – A spill recovery kit shall be readily accessible at the facility
at all times. Contact information for an emergency cleanup vendor shall be visible and
apparent at the facility. All employees shall be briefed on clean-up response and procedures.
• Maintenance of lawns and other landscaped areas – All landscaping and maintenance
shall be performed so as not to disturb stabilized surfaces.
• Nutrient management plan – The goal of the nutrient management plan is to minimize the
potential sources of excess nutrients on the site and the release of nutrients in the stormwater
from the site. This minimization relates both to infiltrated water and runoff. In general, the
nature of the site use will tend to reduce nutrients in the stormwater. Further, procedures
indicated above or in the O&M Plan will act to reduce the levels of nutrients in the stormwater
and the nutrients entering the groundwater.
Solar PV Project
Stafford Street, Leicester, MA
BMP MAINTENANCE LOG PAGE___ of ___
Other
Additional Comments: