Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-01-29_Remmes_193-029_NOI Drainage Report
DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road Centerville, MA PREPARED BY: Allen & Major Associates, Inc. 100 Commerce Way, Suite 5 Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 APPLICANT: Robert J IV & Thomas P Remmes 115 Paula Street Somerset, MA 02726 allenmajor.com Site Locus ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 2 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road Centerville, MA APPLICANT: Robert J IV & Thomas P Remmes 115 Paula Street Somerset, MA 02726 PREPARED BY: Allen & Major Associates, Inc. 100 Commerce Way, Suite 5 Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 ISSUED: November 24, 2025 A&M PROJECT NO.: 3586-01 TREIGS ERE DP R OFESSIONA L E N GINEERSTTESU H CASSAMFOHTLAEWNOMMO CMICHAEL A.MALYNOWSKI No. 47269CIVIL 01-29-20 26 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 - DRAINAGE REPORT .......................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Site Categorization for Stormwater Regulations ...................................................................................................... 5 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Watershed ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Soil Conditions ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 FEMA Floodplain/Environmental Due Diligence ....................................................................................................... 6 Environmentally Sensitive Zones..................................................................................................................................... 6 Drainage Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Conditions – Peak Rate of Runoff .............................................................................................................. 7 MASSDEP Stormwater Performance Standards ........................................................................................................ 7 SECTION 2.0 - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN .......................................................................... 11 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 O&M Responsibility ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan ......................................................................................................................... 13 Long-Term Maintenance Plan – Facilities Description .......................................................................................... 17 Inspection and Maintenance Frequency and Corrective Measures ................................................................. 17 Supplemental Information .............................................................................................................................................. 17 SECTION 3.0 - EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................................... 18 USGS SITE LOCUS MAP .................................................................................................................................................... 19 AERIAL PHOTOS .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 MASSDEP WETLANDS MAP ............................................................................................................................................ 21 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ........................................................................................................................ 22 NHESP PRIORITY HABITATS ............................................................................................................................................ 23 OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATER ............................................................................................................................. 23 SECTION 4.0 - EXISTING DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 24 SECTION 5.0 - PROPOSED DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 25 SECTION 6.0 - APPENDIX........................................................................................................................ 26 Rainfall Data .......................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Standard 6 Compliance Figure ...................................................................................................................................... 28 NRCS Soil Report ................................................................................................................................................................ 29 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 4 SECTION 1.0 - DRAINAGE REPORT ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 1.0 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 5 Introduction The purpose of this drainage report is to provide an overview of the proposed stormwater management system (SMS) for the single-family house located at 536 Shootflying Hill Road in Centerville. The report will show by means of narrative, calculations and exhibits that the proposed stormwater management system will meet or exceed the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) stormwater standards, and the Barnstable Stormwater Management Rules and Regulations, to the extent practicable. The site improvements included the replacement of an existing brick patio with a new permeable paver patio, which was installed in Spring 2025. This analysis has been prepared to document that the improvements did not impose negative impacts on the downstream receiving waters. No additional improvements are proposed for the site or the existing house. Site Categorization for Stormwater Regulations The site improvements at 536 Shootflying Hill Road are considered a new development under the DEP Stormwater Management Standards due to the net increase in impervious area, however, the site is exempt from the Stormwater Management Standards because it is a single-family house. The following shows that the project meets the Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Existing Site Conditions The 536 Shootflying Hill Road property includes a one-story, three-bedroom, single-family house on a 0.4- acre parcel, identified on Assessor’s Map 193 as Lot 29. The parcel has frontage on Shootflying Hill Road through a shared driveway, which will remain. The parcel is entirely within the Village of Centerville, within the Town of Barnstable. The parcel is located on the northwest side of Wequaquet Lake, approximately one mile from Exit 68 offramp from Route 68. Single-family homes abut the site to the east, west, and north and Wequaquet Lake abuts the site to the south. The site topography slopes gradually from north to south, from Shootflying Hill Road down to the lake. Ground cover, other than the home and patio, includes a paved driveway, lawn, and mature trees. The site’s runoff was analyzed at one Study Point, Wequaquet Lake. Watershed The subject property within the Cape Cod Watershed. The Cape Cod watershed is a coastal river drainage area that covers 353 square miles and includes major rivers such as the Bass, Red, Little, and Herring. The Cape Cod watershed overlaps a portion of 15 municipalities in Massachusetts, of which 12 are completely contained within the watershed. Existing Soil Conditions The on-site soils were identified using the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Survey for Barnstable County. The site is categorized as Carver loamy coarse sand, which is in Hydrologic Soil Group “A”. A copy of the NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report is included in the appendix of this report. An exfiltration rate for the loamy sand has been determined to be 2.41 inches per hour based upon Table 2.3.3 1982 Rawls Rate, Volume 3: Documenting Compliance with the Massachusetts’s Stormwater Handbook. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 6 FEMA Floodplain/Environmental Due Diligence The latest Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map 25001C0561J, effective July 16, 2014, was reviewed and indicates that the northern portion of the property is within Zone X, Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, while the southern portion of the property is within Zone X, Area of 0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard (500-year). No portion of the property is within a Zone A or Zone AE (100-year floodplain). A figure is provided in the following Exhibits section. Environmentally Sensitive Zones The Commonwealth of Massachusetts asserts control over numerous protected and regulated areas including: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs); Priority and Protected Habitat for rare and endangered species, and areas protected under the Wetlands Protection Act. Resources Area The limit of work is located within 100 feet of the bank associated with Wequaquet Lake, which is subject to MADEP jurisdiction. The work is also located within the 50-foot buffer zone, as described in section 704- 2 of the Barnstable Code. A Notice of Intent has been filed with the Conservation Commission for the work within the buffer. NHESP Priority & Estimated Habitat A review of the latest Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas; 15th Edition, reveals that there are no Estimated Habitats nor Priority Habitats on the site. A figure is provided in the following Exhibits section. Outstanding Resource Waters / Areas of Critical Environmental Concern A review of the Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) layer available through MassMapper indicates there are no Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or other ORWs located on the site. A figure is provided in the following Exhibits section. Drainage Analysis Methodology A peak rate of runoff will be determined using techniques and data found in the following: 1. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds – Technical Release 55 by the United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service, June 1986. Runoff curve numbers and 24-hour precipitation values were obtained from this reference. 2. HydroCAD © Stormwater Modeling System by HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC, version 10.20- 7a. The HydroCAD program was used to generate the runoff hydrographs for the watershed areas, to determine discharge/stage/storage characteristics for the stormwater BMPs, to perform drainage routing and to combine the results of the runoff hydrographs. HydroCAD uses the TR-20 methodology of the SCS Unit Hydrograph procedure (SCS-UH). DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 7 Proposed Conditions – Peak Rate of Runoff An analysis of the stormwater runoff was performed for two conditions, prior to the installation of the permeable pavers (the “pre” condition), and after (the “post” condition). The stormwater runoff analysis includes an estimate of the peak rate of runoff from various rainfall events. Peak runoff rates were developed using TR55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Engineering Division and the HydroCAD computer program. Further, the analysis has been prepared in accordance with the MassDEP and the Barnstable requirements and standard engineering practices. The peak rate of runoff has been estimated for the 2, 10, 25, and 100-year storm events. As mentioned above, the site improvements included the replacement of an existing brick patio (174 square feet) with a new permeable paver patio (490 square feet), resulting in a net increase of 316 square feet in paver coverage. The new pavers are designed with gaps between the stones allowing runoff to travel into the base of coarse stone below, which provides storage and infiltration of the runoff. So, despite the increase in impervious area, the stormwater runoff model indicates that the peak rate and volume of runoff at the identified Study Point decreases in the post condition during all storm events. The following tables provide a summary of the estimated peak rate, in cubic feet per second (CFS) and total runoff volume, in cubic feet (CF) at the Study Point for each of the design storm events. The HydroCAD worksheets are included in Section 3 and 4 of this report. 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Existing Flow (CFS)0.00 0.05 0.14 0.43 Proposed Flow (CFS)0.000.040.110.37 Decrease (CFS)0.00 0.01 0.03 0.06 Existing Volume (CF) 58 493 939 1,832 Proposed Volume (CF) 40 422 829 1,658 Decrease (CF)18 71 110 174 STUDY POINT #1 (flow to Wequaquet Lake) MASSDEP Stormwater Performance Standards The MA DEP Stormwater Management Policy was developed to improve water quality by implementing performance standards for stormwater management. The intent is to implement the stormwater management standards through the review of Notice of Intent filings by the issuing authority (Conservation Commission or DEP). The following section outlines how the proposed Stormwater Management System meets the standards set forth by the Policy. BMP’s implemented in the design include – Permeable Pavers Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP’s) have been incorporated into the design of the project to mitigate the anticipated pollutant loading. An Operations and Maintenance Plan has been developed for the project, which addresses the long-term maintenance requirements of the proposed system. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls were incorporated into the construction phase of the project. These temporary controls tubular barriers at the downhill limit of disturbance. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 8 The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has established ten (10) Stormwater Management Standards. A project that meets or exceeds the standards is presumed to satisfy the regulatory requirements regarding stormwater management. The Standards are enumerated below as well as descriptions and supporting calculations as to how the Project will comply with the Standards: 1. No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. The proposed development will not introduce any new outfalls with direct discharge to a wetland area or waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. All discharges will be treated for water quality, and the rate will not be increased over existing conditions. 2. Stormwater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. This Standard may be waived for discharges to land subject to coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. The proposed development has been designed so the proposed peak discharge rates do not exceed the existing peak discharge rates. A summary of the pre and post discharge rates is included within this document. 3. Loss of annual recharge to groundwater shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of infiltration measures including environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stormwater best management practices, and good operation and maintenance. At a minimum, the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual recharge from pre-development conditions based on soil type. This Standard is met when the stormwater management system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. As mentioned above, the project resulted in impervious cover on site increasing by 316 square feet. As shown in the tables below, the recharge has been approximated in the post condition, through the infiltration provided by the permeable pavers. Stage storage spreadsheets for the permeable pavers are provided in the appendix of this report. Soil Type Net Increase Impervious Area (SF) Recharge Depth (inches) Recharge Volume Target (CF) A316 0.6 16 B0 0.35 0 C0 0.25 0 D0 0.1 0 Total 316 16 65.0 Groundwater Recharge Volume Target Total Recharge Volume Provided (CF) = DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 9 4. Stormwater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post- construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This standard is met when: Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution prevention plan, and thereafter are implemented and maintained; Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required water quality volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook; and Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The new paver area is intended for pedestrian use only, therefore its runoff is considered clean and does not require pretreatment or treatment. A long-term pollution prevention plan has been prepared and is included in the following section of this report. 5. For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. If through source control and/or pollution prevention all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt, and stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specific structural stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, §§ 26-53 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. The site is not considered a land use with higher potential pollutant loads. 6. Stormwater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply, and stormwater discharges near or to any other critical area, require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shall be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A “storm water discharge” as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1 or (b) to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of a public water supply. The project site does discharge stormwater within a Zone II. As mentioned above, the runoff from the paver patio is from a pedestrian area and considered clean, meaning treatment is not required. Additionally, because the project is a single-family house it is exempt from the Performance Standards. A Zone II is defined in 310 CMR 22.02 as an area of an aquifer that contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 10 7. A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3, and the pretreatment and structural best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. The proposed project is not considered a redevelopment project because there is an increase in the impervious ground coverage. With that said, the project is a single-family house and is exempt from the Performance Standards. 8. A plan to control construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented. This report is being filed after the construction was already completed, therefore a plan to control construction-related impacts has not been included. 9. A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. A Long-Term Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan has been developed for the site and is included within this document. See Section 2.0 of this report. 10. All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited. There are no expected illicit discharges. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 11 SECTION 2.0 - OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 2.0 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 12 Introduction In accordance with the standards set forth by the Stormwater Management Policy issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), Allen & Major Associates, Inc. has prepared the following Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Plan for 536 Shootflying Hill Road in Centerville. The plan is broken down into two major sections. The first section describes the long-term pollution prevention measures (Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan). The second section is a post-construction operation and maintenance plan designed to address the long-term maintenance needs of the stormwater management system (Long-Term Maintenance Plan – Facilities Description). The section describing construction-related erosion and sedimentation controls (typically included as the first section), has been omitted because this report was prepared after construction was already completed. O&M Responsibility The Stormwater Management System (SMS) for this project is owned by Robert J IV & Thomas P Remmes. Contact Information Stormwater Management System Owner: Robert J IV & Thomas P Remmes 115 Paula Street Somerset, MA 02726 Phone: 603-716-5888 Emergency Contact Information: Robert J IV & Thomas P Remmes (Owner/Operator) Phone: 603-716-5888 Barnstable Department of Public Works Phone: 508-790-6400 Barnstable Conservation Commission Phone: 508-862-4093 Centerville Fire Department (non-emergency line) Phone: 508-790-2375 MassDEP Emergency Response Phone: (888) 304-1133 Clean Harbors Inc (24-Hour Line) Phone: (800) 645-8265 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 13 Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan Standard #4 from the MassDEP Stormwater Management Handbook requires that a Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan (LTPPP) be prepared and incorporated as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan of the Stormwater Management System. The purpose of the LTPPP is to identify potential sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges, and to describe the implementation of practices to reduce the pollutants in stormwater discharges. The following items describe the source control and proper procedures of the LTPPP. Housekeeping The development has been designed to maintain a high level of water quality treatment for all stormwater discharge to the wetland areas. An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan has been prepared and is included in this section of the report. The owner (or its designee) is responsible for adherence to the O&M plan in a strict and complete manner. Storing of Materials & Waste Products Trash will be stored in covered bins. The owner is responsible for coordinating the disposal of waste products, through a pickup service or use of the local transfer station. Vehicle Washing Outdoor vehicle washing has the potential to result in high loads of nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons during dry weather conditions, as the detergent-rich water used to wash the grime off the vehicle enters the stormwater drainage system. The development does not include any designated vehicle washing areas, nor is it expected that any vehicle washing will take place on- site. Spill Prevention & Response Sources of potential spill hazards include vehicle fluids, liquid fuels, pesticides, paints, solvents, and liquid cleaning products. The majority of the spill hazards would likely occur within the buildings and would not enter the stormwater drainage system. However, there are spill hazards from vehicle fluids or liquid fuels located outside of the buildings. These exterior spill hazards have the potential to enter the stormwater drainage system and are to be addressed as follows: 1. Spill hazards of pesticides, paints, and solvents shall be remediated using the Manufacturers’ recommended spill cleanup protocol. 2. Vehicle fluids and liquid fuel spill shall be remediated according to the local and state regulations governing fuel spills. 3. The owner shall have the following equipment and materials on hand to address a spill clean-up: brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, absorptive material, sand, sawdust, plastic, and metal trash containers. 4. All spills shall be cleaned up immediately after discovery. 5. Spills of toxic or hazardous material shall be reported, regardless of size, to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection at (888) 304-1333. 6. Should a spill occur, the pollution prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent another spill of a similar nature. A description of the spill, along with the causes and cleanup measures will be included in the updated pollution prevention plan. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 14 Maintenance of Lawns, Gardens, and Other Landscaped Areas It should be recognized that this is a general guideline towards achieving high quality and well- groomed landscaped areas. The grounds staff/landscape contractor must recognize the shortcomings of a general maintenance plan such as this and modify and/or augment it based on weekly, monthly, and yearly observations. To ensure the highest quality conditions, the staff must also recognize and appreciate the need to be aware of the constantly changing conditions of the landscaping and be able to respond to them on a proactive basis. No trees shall be planted over the drain lines or recharge area, only shallow rooted plants and shrubs will be allowed in these areas. o Fertilizer Maintenance practices should be aimed at reducing environmental, mechanical and pest stresses to promote healthy and vigorous growth. When necessary, pest outbreaks should be treated with the most sensitive control measure available. Synthetic chemical controls should be used only as a last resort to organic and biological control methods. Fertilizer, synthetic chemical controls, and pest management applications (when necessary) shall be performed only by licensed applicators in accordance with the manufacturer’s label instructions when environmental conditions are conducive to controlled product application. Only slow-release organic fertilizers should be used in the planting and mulch areas to limit the amount of nutrients that could enter downstream resource areas. Fertilization of the planting and mulch areas will be performed within manufacturers labeling instructions and shall not exceed an NPK ration of 1:1:1 (i.e., Triple 10 fertilizer mix), considered a low nitrogen mixture. Fertilizers approved for use under this O&M Plan are as follows: Type: LESCO® 28-0-12 (Lawn Fertilizer) MERIT® 0.2 Plus Turf Fertilizer MOMENTUM™ Force Weed & Feed o Suggested Aeration Program In-season aeration of lawn areas is good cultural practice and is recommended whenever feasible. It should be accomplished with a solid thin tine aeration method to reduce disruption to the use of the area. The depth of solid tine aeration is similar to core type, but should be performed when the soil is somewhat drier for a greater overall effect. Depending on the intensity of use, it can be expected that all landscaped lawn areas will need aeration to reduce compaction at least once per year. The first operation should occur in late May following the spring season. Methods of reducing compaction vary based on the nature of the compaction. Compaction on newly established landscaped areas is generally limited to the top 2-3" and can be alleviated using hollow core or thin tine aeration methods. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 15 The spring aeration should consist of two passes in opposite directions with 1/4" hollow core tines penetrating 3-5" into the soil profile. Aeration should occur when the soil is moist but not saturated. The soil cores should be shattered in place and dragged or swept back into the turf to control thatch. If desired the cores may also be removed and the area top- dressed with sand or sandy loam. If the area drains on average too slowly, the topdressing should contain a higher percentage of sand. If it is draining on average too quickly, the top dressing should contain a higher percentage of soil and organic matter. o Landscape Maintenance Program Practices: Lawn 1. Mow a minimum of once a week in spring, to a height of 2” to 2 1/2” high. Mowing should be frequent enough so that no more than 1/3 of grass blade is removed at each mowing. The top growth supports the roots; the shorter the grass is cute, the less the roots will grow. Short cutting also dries out the soil and encourages weeds to germinate. 2. Mow approximately once every two weeks from July 1st to August 15th depending on lawn growth. 3. Mow on a ten-day cycle in fall, when growth is stimulated by cooler nights and increased moisture. 4. Do not remove grass clippings after mowing. 5. Keep mower blades sharp to prevent ragged cuts on grass leaves, which cause a brownish appearance and increase the chance for disease to enter a leaf. Shrubs 1. Mulch not more than 3” depth with shredded pine or fir bark. 2. Hand prune annually, immediately after blooming, to remove 1/3 of the above- ground biomass (older stems). Stem removals are to occur within 6” of the ground to open up shrub and maintain two-year wood (the blooming wood). 3. Hand-prune evergreen shrubs only as needed to remove dead and damaged wood and to maintain the naturalistic form of the shrub. Never mechanically shear evergreen shrubs. Trees 1. Provide aftercare of new tree plantings for the first three years. 2. Do not fertilize trees, it artificially stimulates them (unless tree health warrants). 3. Water once a week for the first year; twice a month for the second; once a month for the third year. 4. Prune trees on a four-year cycle. Invasive Species 1. Inform the Conservation Commission Agent prior to the removal of invasive species proposed either through hand work or through chemical removal. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 16 Storage and Use of Herbicides and Pesticides Integrated Pest Management is the combination of all methods (of pest control) which may prevent, reduce, suppress, eliminate, or repel an insect population. The main requirements necessary to support any pest population are food, shelter and water, and any upset of the balance of these will assist in controlling a pest population. Scientific pest management is the knowledgeable use of all pest control methods (sanitation, mechanical, chemical) to benefit mankind's health, welfare, comfort, property, and food. A Pest Management Professional (PMP) should be retained who is licensed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Agricultural Resources. The owner will be provided with an approved bulletin before entering into or renewing an agreement to apply pesticides for the control of indoor household or structural pests, refer to 333 CMR 13.08. Before beginning each application, the applicator must post a Department approved notice on all entrances to the treated room or area. The applicator must leave such notices posted after the application. The notice will be posted at conspicuous point(s) of access to the area treated. The location and number of signs will be determined by the configuration of the area to be treated based on the applicator’s best judgment. It is intended to give sufficient notice so that no one comes into an area being treated unaware that the applicator is working and pesticides are being applied. However, if the contracting entity does not want the signs posted, he/she may sign a Department approved waiver indicating this. The applicator or employer will provide to any person, upon their request, the following information on previously conducted applications: 1. Name and phone number of pest control company. 2. Date and time of the application. 3. Name and license number of the applicator. 4. Target pests; and 5. Name and EPA Registration Number of pesticide products applied. Pet Waste Management The owner (or designee) shall remove any obvious pet waste that has been left behind. The pet waste shall be disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations. Operations and Management of Septic Systems There is currently a holding tank on the property that is pumped on regular basis. This tank is to be removed and the property connected to municipal sewer within a years time when the municipal sewer system is completed. Management of Deicing Chemicals and Snow Snow will be stockpiled on site until the accumulated snow becomes a hazard to the daily operations. It will be the responsibility of the owner to engage a snow removal contractor to properly dispose of transported snow according to MassDEP, Bureau of Resource Protection – Snow Disposal Guideline #BRPG01-01, governing the proper disposal of snow. It will be the responsibility of the snow removal contractor to follow these guidelines and all applicable laws and regulations. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 17 The owner (or its designee) will be responsible for the clearing of the sidewalk and building entrances. The owner may be required to use a de-icing agent such as potassium chloride to maintain a safe walking surface. If used, the de-icing agent for the walkways and building entrances will be kept within the building. The owner will limit the application of sand. Sand shall not be applied to the permeable pavers. Long-Term Maintenance Plan – Facilities Description A maintenance log will be kept (i.e., report) summarizing inspections, maintenance, and any corrective actions taken. The log will include the date on which each inspection or maintenance task was performed, a description of the inspection findings or maintenance completed, and the name of the inspector or maintenance personnel performing the task. If a maintenance task requires the clean-out of any sediments or debris, the location where the sediment and debris was disposed after removal will be indicated. The log will be made accessible to department staff and a copy provided to the department upon request. The following is a description of the Stormwater Management System for the project site. Infiltration BMPs: Permeable Pavers o The permeable pavers are set on a base of coarse stone which provides storage and infiltration of the stormwater. The owner should inspect the pavers annually, in the spring, and use a shop vac, or similar device, to remove sediment from the joints between the paver stones. Other Maintenance Activity: Mosquito Control - Both above ground and underground stormwater BMPs have the potential to serve as mosquito breeding areas. Good design, proper operation and maintenance, and treatment with larvicides can minimize this potential. See the supplemental information for Mosquito Control in Stormwater Management Practices, and the Operation and Maintenance Plan Schedule for inspection schedule. Street Sweeping - Clear accumulations of winter sand in parking lots and along roadways at least once a year, preferably in the spring. Accumulations on pavement may be removed by pavement sweeping. Accumulations of sand along road shoulders may be removed by grading excess sand to the pavement edge and removing it manually. Inspection and Maintenance Frequency and Corrective Measures In accordance with MA DEP Stormwater Handbook: Volume 2, Chapter 2; the previously described BMPs will be inspected, and the identified deficiencies will be corrected. Clean-out must include the removal and legal disposal of any accumulated sediments, trash, and debris. In any and all cases, operations, inspections, and maintenance activities shall utilize best practical measures to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland resource areas outside the footprint of the SMS. Supplemental Information Operation & Maintenance Plan Schedule Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Resources Snow Disposal Guidance Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Chapter 5, Miscellaneous Stormwater Topics, Mosquito Control in Stormwater Management Practices. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN SCHEDULEDATE: BY:All information within table is derived from Massachussetts Stormwater Handbook: Volume 2, Chapter 2Project: Remmes ResidenceProject Address: 536 Shootflying Hill Road, Centerville, MAResponsible for O&M Plan: Robert J IV & Thomas P RemmesAddress: 115 Paula Street Somerset, MA 02726Phone: 603-716-5888BMP CATEGORYBMP OR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITYSCHEDULE/ FREQUENCY NOTESESTIMATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTUsing a shop vac, or similar device, remove sediment from the paver joints to promote infiltration.$200 INFILTRATION BMPsPERMEABLE PAVERSInspect annually, preferably in the spring. Date:Clear and remove snow to approved storage locations as necessary to ensure systems are working properly and are protected from meltwater pollutants.Carefully select snow disposal sites before winter. Avoid dumping removed snow over catch basins, or in detention ponds, sediment forebays, rivers, wetlands, and flood plains. It is also prohibited to dump snow in the bioretention basins or gravel swales. $500 $100 INSPECTION PERFORMEDOTHER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITYMISQUITO CONTROLInspect BMPs as needed to ensure the system's drainage time is less than the maximum 72 hour period.Massachusetts stormwater handbook requires all stormwater practices that are designed to drain do so within 72 hours to reduce the number of mosquitos that mature to adults since the aquatic stage of a mosquito is 7-10 days.SNOW STORAGESTREET SWEEPINGClear accumulations of winter sand in parking lots and along roadways at least once a year, preferably in the spring. Sweep, power broom or vacuum paved areas. Submit information that confirms that all street sweepings have been completed in accordance with state and local requirements$200 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen A. Theoharides Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Resources Snow Disposal Guidance Effective Date: December 23, 2019 Applicability: Applies to all federal, state, regional and local agencies, as well as to private businesses. Supersedes: Bureau of Resource Protection (BRP) Snow Disposal Guideline No. BRPG97-1 issued December 12, 1997 and BRPG01-01 issued March 8, 2001; Bureau of Water Resources (BWR) snow disposal guidance issued December 21, 2015 and December 12, 2018. Approved by: Kathleen Baskin, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Water Resources PURPOSE: To provide guidelines to all government agencies and private businesses regarding snow disposal site selection, site preparation and maintenance, and emergency snow disposal options that are protective of wetlands, drinking water, and water bodies, and are acceptable to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), Bureau of Water Resources. APPLICABILITY: These Guidelines are issued by MassDEP’s Bureau of Water Resources on behalf of all Bureau Programs (including Drinking Water Supply, Wetlands and Waterways, Wastewater Management, and Watershed Planning and Permitting). They apply to all federal agencies, state agencies, state authorities, municipal agencies and private businesses disposing of snow in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. INTRODUCTION Finding a place to dispose of collected snow poses a challenge to municipalities and businesses as they clear roads, parking lots, bridges, and sidewalks. While MassDEP is aware of the threats to public safety caused by snow, collected snow that is contaminated with road salt, sand, litter, and automotive pollutants such as oil also threatens public health and the environment. As snow melts, road salt, sand, litter, and other pollutants are transported into surface water or through the soil where they may eventually reach the groundwater. Road salt and other pollutants can contaminate water supplies and are toxic to aquatic life at certain levels. Sand washed into -2- waterbodies can create sand bars or fill in wetlands and ponds, impacting aquatic life, causing flooding, and affecting our use of these resources. There are several steps that communities can take to minimize the impacts of snow disposal on public health and the environment. These steps will help communities avoid the costs of a contaminated water supply, degraded waterbodies, and flooding. Everything that occurs on the land has the potential to impact the Commonwealth’s water resources. Given the authority of local government over the use of the land, municipal officials and staff have a critically important role to play in protecting our water resources. The purpose of these guidelines is to help federal agencies, state agencies, state authorities, municipalities and businesses select, prepare, and maintain appropriate snow disposal sites before the snow begins to accumulate through the winter. Following these guidelines and obtaining the necessary approvals may also help municipalities in cases when seeking reimbursement for snow disposal costs from the Federal Emergency Management Agency is possible. RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES These snow disposal guidelines address: (1) site selection; (2) site preparation and maintenance; and (3) emergency snow disposal. 1. SITE SELECTION The key to selecting effective snow disposal sites is to locate them adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in upland areas or upland locations on impervious surfaces away from water resources and drinking water wells. At these locations, the snow meltwater can filter into the soil, leaving behind sand and debris which can be removed in the spring. The following conditions should be followed: • Within water supply Zone A and Zone II, avoid storage or disposal of snow and ice containing deicing chemicals that has been collected from streets located outside these zones. Municipalities may have a water supply protection land use control that prohibits the disposal of snow and ice containing deicing chemicals from outside the Zone A and Zone II, subject to the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations at 310 CMR 22.20C and 310 CMR 22.21(2). • Avoid storage or disposal of snow or ice in Interim Wellhead Protection Areas (IWPA) of public water supply wells, and within 75 feet of a private well, where road salt may contaminate water supplies. • Avoid dumping snow into any waterbody, including rivers, the ocean, reservoirs, ponds, or wetlands. In addition to water quality impacts and flooding, snow disposed of in open water can cause navigational hazards when it freezes into ice blocks. • Avoid dumping snow on MassDEP-designated high and medium-yield aquifers where it may contaminate groundwater. • Avoid dumping snow in sanitary landfills and gravel pits. Snow meltwater will create more contaminated leachate in landfills posing a greater risk to groundwater, and in gravel pits, there is little opportunity for pollutants to be filtered out of the meltwater because groundwater is close to the land surface. -3- • Avoid disposing of snow on top of storm drain catch basins or in stormwater drainage systems including detention basins, swales or ditches. Snow combined with sand and debris may block a stormwater drainage system, causing localized flooding. A high volume of sand, sediment, and litter released from melting snow also may be quickly transported through the system into surface water. Recommended Site Selection Procedures It is important that the municipal Department of Public Works or Highway Department, Conservation Commission, and Board of Health work together to select appropriate snow disposal sites. The following steps should be taken: • Estimate how much snow disposal capacity may be needed for the season so that an adequate number of disposal sites can be selected and prepared. • Identify sites that could potentially be used for snow disposal, such as municipal open space (e.g., parking lots or parks). • Select sites located in upland locations that are not likely to impact sensitive environmental resources first. • If more storage space is still needed, prioritize the sites with the least environmental impact (using the site selection criteria, and local or MassGIS maps as a guide). Snow Disposal Mapping Assistance MassDEP has an online mapping tool to assist in identifying possible locations to potentially dispose of snow. MassDEP encourages municipalities to use this tool to identify possible snow disposal options. The tool identifies wetland resource areas, public drinking water supplies and other sensitive locations where snow should not be disposed. The tool may be accessed through the Internet at the following web address: https://maps.env.state.ma.us/dep/arcgis/js/templates/PSF/. 2. SITE PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE In addition to carefully selecting disposal sites before the winter begins, it is important to prepare and maintain these sites to maximize their effectiveness. The following maintenance measures should be undertaken for all snow disposal sites: • A silt fence or equivalent barrier should be placed securely on the downgradient side of the snow disposal site. • Wherever possible maintain a 50-foot vegetated buffer between the disposal site and adjacent waterbodies to filter pollutants from the meltwater. • Clear debris from the site prior to using the site for snow disposal. • Clear debris from the site and properly dispose of it at the end of the snow season, and no later than May 15. -4- 3. SNOW DISPOSAL APPROVALS Proper snow disposal may be undertaken through one of the following approval procedures: • Routine snow disposal – Minimal, if any, administrative review is required in these cases when upland and pervious snow disposal locations or upland locations on impervious surfaces that have functioning and maintained stormwater management systems have been identified, mapped, and used for snow disposal following ordinary snowfalls. Use of upland and pervious snow disposal sites avoids wetland resource areas and allows snow meltwater to recharge groundwater and will help filter pollutants, sand, and other debris. This process will address the majority of snow removal efforts until an entity exhausts all available upland snow disposal sites. The location and mapping of snow disposal sites will help facilitate each entity’s routine snow management efforts. • Emergency Certifications – If an entity demonstrates that there is no remaining capacity at upland snow disposal locations, local conservation commissions may issue an Emergency Certification under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection regulations to authorize snow disposal in buffer zones to wetlands, certain open water areas, and certain wetland resource areas (i.e. within flood plains). Emergency Certifications can only be issued at the request of a public agency or by order of a public agency for the protection of the health or safety of citizens, and are limited to those activities necessary to abate the emergency. See 310 CMR 10.06(1)-(4). Use the following guidelines in these emergency situations: • Dispose of snow in open water with adequate flow and mixing to prevent ice dams from forming. • Do not dispose of snow in salt marshes, vegetated wetlands, certified vernal pools, shellfish beds, mudflats, drinking water reservoirs and their tributaries, Zone IIs or IWPAs of public water supply wells, Outstanding Resource Waters, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. • Do not dispose of snow where trucks may cause shoreline damage or erosion. • Consult with the municipal Conservation Commission to ensure that snow disposal in open water complies with local ordinances and bylaws. • Severe Weather Emergency Declarations – In the event of a large-scale severe weather event, MassDEP may issue a broader Emergency Declaration under the Wetlands Protection Act which allows federal agencies, state agencies, state authorities, municipalities, and businesses greater flexibility in snow disposal practices. Emergency Declarations typically authorize greater snow disposal options while protecting especially sensitive resources such as public drinking water supplies, vernal pools, land containing shellfish, FEMA designated floodways, coastal dunes, and salt marsh. In the event of severe winter storm emergencies, the snow disposal site maps created by municipalities will enable MassDEP and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) in helping communities identify appropriate snow disposal locations. If upland disposal sites have been exhausted, the Emergency Declaration issued by MassDEP allows for snow disposal near water bodies. In these situations, a buffer of at -5- least 50 feet, preferably vegetated, should still be maintained between the site and the waterbody. Furthermore, it is essential that the other guidelines for preparing and maintaining snow disposal sites be followed to minimize the threat to adjacent waterbodies. Under extraordinary conditions, when all land-based snow disposal options are exhausted, the Emergency Declaration issued by MassDEP may allow disposal of snow in certain waterbodies under certain conditions. A federal agency, state agency, state authority, municipality or business seeking to dispose of snow in a waterbody should take the following steps: • Call the emergency contact phone number [(888) 304-1133)] and notify the MEMA of the municipality’s intent. • MEMA will ask for some information about where the requested disposal will take place. • MEMA will confirm that the disposal is consistent with MassDEP’s Severe Weather Emergency Declaration and these guidelines and is therefore approved. During declared statewide snow emergency events, MassDEP’s website will also highlight the emergency contact phone number [(888) 304-1133)] for authorizations and inquiries. For further non-emergency information about this Guidance you may contact your MassDEP Regional Office Service Center: Northeast Regional Office, Wilmington, 978-694-3246 Southeast Regional Office, Lakeville, 508-946-2714 Central Regional Office, Worcester, 508-792-7650 Western Regional Office, Springfield, 413-755-2114 Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 1 Chapter 5 Miscellaneous Stormwater Topics Mosquito Control in Stormwater Management Practices Both aboveground and underground stormwater BMPs have the potential to serve as mosquito breeding areas. Good design, proper operation and maintenance and treatment with larvicides can minimize this potential. EPA recommends that stormwater treatment practices dewater within 3 days (72 hours) to reduce the number of mosquitoes that mature to adults, since the aquatic stage of many mosquito species is 7 to 10 days. Massachusetts has had a 72-hour dewatering rule in its Stormwater Management Standards since 1996. The 2008 technical specifications for BMPs set forth in Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook also concur with this practice by requiring that all stormwater practices designed to drain do so within 72 hours. Some stormwater practices are designed to include permanent wet pools. These practices – if maintained properly – can limit mosquito breeding by providing habitat for mosquito predators. Additional measures that can be taken to reduce mosquito populations include increasing water circulation, attracting mosquito predators by adding suitable habitat, and applying larvicides. The Massachusetts State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB), through the Massachusetts Mosquito Control Districts, can undertake further mosquito control actions specifically for the purpose of mosquito control pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 252. The Mosquito Control Board, http://www.mass.gov/agr/mosquito/, describes mosquito control methods and is in the process of developing guidance documents that describe Best Management Practices for mosquito control projects. The SRMCB and Mosquito Control Districts are not responsible for operating and maintaining stormwater BMPs to reduce mosquito populations. The owners of property that construct the stormwater BMPs or municipalities that “accept” them through local subdivision approval are responsible for their maintenance.1 The SRMCB is composed of officials from MassDEP, Department of Agricultural Resources, and Department of Conservation and Recreation. The nine (9) Mosquito Control Districts overseen by the SRMCB are located throughout Massachusetts, covering 176 municipalities. Construction Period Best Management Practices for Mosquito Control To minimize mosquito breeding during construction, it is essential that the following actions be taken to minimize the creation of standing pools by taking the following actions: Minimize Land Disturbance: Minimizing land disturbance reduces the likelihood of mosquito breeding by reducing silt in runoff that will cause construction period controls to clog and retain standing pools of water for more than 72 hours. Catch Basin inlets: Inspect and refresh filter fabric, hay bales, filter socks or stone dams on a regular basis to ensure that any stormwater ponded at the inlet drains within 8 hours after precipitation stops. Shorter periods may be necessary to avoid hydroplaning in roads 1 MassDEP and MassHighway understand that the numerous stormwater BMPs along state highways pose a unique challenge. To address this challenge, the 2004 MassHighway Stormwater Handbook will provide additional information on appropriate operation and maintenance practices for mosquito control when the Handbook is revised to reflect the 2008 changes to the Stormwater Management Standards.. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 2 caused by water ponded at the catch basin inlet. Treat catch basin sumps with larvicides such as Bacillus sphaericus (Bs) using a licensed pesticide applicator. Check Dams: If temporary check dams are used during the construction period to lag peak rate of runoff or pond runoff for exfiltration, inspect and repair the check dams on a regular basis to ensure that any stormwater ponded behind the check dam drains within 72 hours. Design construction period sediment traps to dewater within 72 hours after precipitation. Because these traps are subject to high silt loads and tend to clog, treat them with the larvicide Bs after it rains from June through October, until the first frost occurs. Construction period open conveyances: When temporary manmade ditches are used for channelizing construction period runoff, inspect them on a regular basis to remove any accumulated sediment to restore flow capacity to the temporary ditch. Revegetating Disturbed Surfaces: Revegetating disturbed surfaces reduces sediment in runoff that will cause construction period controls to clog and retain standing pools of water for greater than 72 hours. Sediment fences/hay bale barriers: When inspections find standing pools of water beyond the 24-hour period after a storm, take action to restore barrier to its normal function. Post-Construction Stormwater Treatment Practices Mosquito control begins with the environmentally sensitive site design. Environmentally sensitive site design that minimizes impervious surfaces reduces the amount of stormwater runoff. Disconnecting runoff using the LID Site Design credits outlined in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook reduces the amount of stormwater that must be conveyed to a treatment practice. Utilizing green roofs minimizes runoff from smaller storms. Storage media must be designed to dewater within 72 hours after precipitation. Mosquito control continues with the selection of structural stormwater BMPs that are unlikely to become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, such as: o Bioretention Areas/Rain Gardens/Sand Filter: These practices tend not to result in mosquito breeding. If any level spreaders, weirs or sediment forebays are used as part of the design, inspect them and correct them as necessary to prevent standing pools of water for more than 72 hours. o Infiltration Trenches: This practice tends not to result in mosquito breeding. If any level spreaders, weirs, or sediment forebays are used as part of the design, inspect them and correct them as necessary to prevent standing pools of water for more than 72 hours. Another mosquito control strategy is to select BMPs that can become habitats for mosquito predators, such as: o Constructed Stormwater Wetlands: Habitat features can be incorporated in constructed stormwater wetlands to attract dragonflies, amphibians, turtles, birds, bats, and other natural predators of mosquitoes. o Wet Basins: Wet basins can be designed to incorporate fish habitat features, such as deep pools. Introduce fish in consultation with Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Vegetation within wet basins designed as fish habitat must be properly managed to ensure that vegetation does not overtake the habitat. Proper design to ensure that no low circulation or “dead” zones are created may reduce the potential for mosquito breeding. Introducing bubblers may increase water circulation in the wet basin. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 3 Effective mosquito controls require proponents to design structural BMPs to prevent ponding and facilitate maintenance and, if necessary, the application of larvicides. Examples of such design practices include the following: Basins: Provide perimeter access around wet basins, extended dry detention basins and dry detention basins for both larviciding and routine maintenance. Control vegetation to ensure that access pathways stay open. BMPs without a permanent pool of water: All structural BMPs that do not rely on a permanent pool of water must drain and completely dewater within 72 hours after precipitation. This includes dry detention basins, extended dry detention basins, infiltration basins, and dry water quality swales. Use underdrains at extended dry detention basins to drain the small pools that form due to accumulation of silts. Wallace indicates that extended dry extended detention basins may breed more mosquitoes than wet basins. It is, therefore, imperative to design outlets from extended dry detention basins to completely dewater within the 72-hour period. Energy Dissipators and Flow Spreaders: Currier and Moeller, 2000 indicate that shallow recesses in energy dissipators and flow spreaders trap water where mosquitoes breed. Set the riprap in grout to reduce the shallow recesses and minimize mosquito breeding. Outlet control structures: Debris trapped in small orifices or on trash racks of outlet control structures such as multiple stage outlet risers may clog the orifices or the trash rack, causing a standing pool of water. Optimize the orifice size or trash rack mesh size to provide required peak rate attenuation/water quality detention/retention time while minimizing clogging. Rain Barrels and Cisterns: Seal lids to reduce the likelihood of mosquitoes laying eggs in standing water. Install mosquito netting over inlets. The cistern system should be designed to ensure that all collected water is drained into it within 72 hours. Subsurface Structures, Deep Sump Catch Basins, Oil Grit Separators, and Leaching Catch Basins: Seal all manhole covers to reduce likelihood of mosquitoes laying eggs in standing water. Install mosquito netting over the outlet (CALTRANS 2004). The Operation and Maintenance Plan should provide for mosquito prevention and control. Check dams: Inspect permanent check dams on the schedule set forth in the O&M Plan. Inspect check dams 72 hours after storms for standing water ponding behind the dam. Take corrective action if standing water is found. Cisterns: Apply Bs larvicide in the cistern if any evidence of mosquitoes is found. The Operation and Maintenance Plan shall specify how often larvicides should be applied to waters in the cistern. Water quality swales: Remove and properly dispose of any accumulated sediment as scheduled in the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Larvicide Treatment: The Operation and Maintenance Plan must include measures to minimize mosquito breeding, including larviciding. The party identified in the Operation and Maintenance Plan as responsible for maintenance shall see that larvicides are applied as necessary to the following stormwater treatment practices: catch basins, oil/grit separators, wet basins, wet water quality swales, dry extended detention basins, infiltration basins, and constructed stormwater wetlands. The Operation and Maintenance Plan must ensure that all larvicides are applied by a licensed pesticide applicator and in compliance with all pesticide label requirements. The Operation and Maintenance Plan should identify the appropriate larvicide and the time and method of application. For example, Bacillus sphaericus (Bs), the preferred Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 4 larvicide for stormwater BMPs, should be hand-broadcast.2 Alternatively, Altosid, a Methopren product, may be used. Because some practices are designed to dewater between storms, such as dry extended detention and infiltration basins, the Operation and Maintenance Plan should provide that larviciding must be conducted during or immediately after wet weather, when the detention or infiltration basin has a standing pool of water, unless a product is used that can withstand extended dry periods. REFERENCES California Department of Transportation, 2004, BMP Retrofit Pilot Program, Final Report, Report ID CTSW – RT – 1 – 050, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/_pdfs/new_technology/CTSW-RT- 01-050.pdf#xml=http://dap1.dot.ca.gov/cgi- bin/texis/webinator/search/pdfhi.txt?query=mosquito&db=db&pr=www&prox=page&rorder=50 0&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=500&sufs=0&order=r&cq=&id=4673373b7 Appendix E: Vector Monitoring and Abatement, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/_pdfs/new_technology/ California Department of Transportation, 2001, Final Vector Report, Caltrans BMP Retrofit Project Sites, Districts 7 and 11, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/_pdfs/new_technology/CTSW-RT- 01-050/AppendixE/01_FinalVectorReport.pdf Currier, Brian, and Moeller, 2000, Glenn, Lessons Learned: The CALTRANS Storm Water Best Management Practice Retrofit Pilot Study, prepared by the California State University Sacramento and University of California Davis for the California Department of Transportation, http://www.owp.csus.edu/research/papers/papers/PP015.pdf Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, West Nile Virus, Application of Pesticides to Wetland Resource Areas and Buffer Zones and Public Water systems, Guideline No. BRPG01-02, http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wnvpolcy.doc O’Meara, G.F., 2003, Mosquitoes Associated With Stormwater Detention/Retention Areas, ENY627, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/mg338 Taylor, Scott M., and Currier, Brian, 1999, A Wet Pond as a Storm Water Runoff BMP – Case Study, presented at Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California http://www.owp.csus.edu/research/papers/papers/PP004.pdf U.S. EPA, 2005, Stormwater Structures and Mosquitoes, EPA 833-F-05-003, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_wnv.pdf U.S. EPA, 2003, Do Stormwater Retention Ponds Contribute to Mosquito Problems, Nonpoint source News-Notes, Issue No. 71, http://notes.tetratech- ffx.com/newsnotes.nsf/0/143f7fa99c3ea25485256d0100618bc9?OpenDocument Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2003, Vector Control, Mosquitoes and Stormwater Management, Stormwater Management Technical Bulletin No. 8, http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_&_water/documents/tecbltn8.pdf Wallace, John R., Stormwater Management and Mosquito Ecology, Stormwater Magazine, March/April 2007, http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/sw_0703_management.html 2 Bacillus thuringienis israelensis or Bti is usually applied by helicopter to wetlands and floodplains Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 5 Roads and Stormwater BMPs In general, the stormwater BMPs used for land development projects can also be used for new roadways and roadway improvement projects. However, for improvement of existing roads, there are often constraints that limit the choice of BMP. These constraints derive from the linear configuration of the road, the limited area within the existing right-of-way, the structural and safety requirements attendant to good roadway design, and the long-term maintainability of the roadway drainage systems. The MassHighway Handbook provides strategies for dealing with the constraints associated with providing stormwater BMPs for roadway redevelopment projects. Roadway design can minimize impacts caused by stormwater. Reducing roadway width reduces the total and peak volume of runoff. Designing a road with country drainage (no road shoulders or curbs) disconnects roadway runoff. Disconnection of roadway runoff is eligible for the Low Impact Site Design Credit provided the drainage is disconnected in accordance with specifications outlined in Volume 3. Like other parties, municipalities that work within wetlands jurisdictional areas and adjacent buffer zones must design and implement structural stormwater best management practices in accordance with the Stormwater Management Standards and the Stormwater Management Handbook. In addition, in municipalities and areas where state agencies operate stormwater systems, the DPWs (or other town or state agencies) must meet the “good housekeeping“ requirement of the municipality’s or agency's MS4 permit. MassHighway has taken stormwater management one step further by working with MassDEP to develop the MassHighway Storm Water Handbook for Highways and Bridges. The purpose of the MassHighway Handbook is to provide guidance for persons involved in the design, permitting, review and implementation of state highway projects, especially those involving existing roadways where physical constraints often limit the stormwater management options available. These constraints, like those common to redevelopment sites, may make it difficult to comply precisely with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.3 In response to these constraints, MassDEP and MHD developed specific design, permitting, review and implementation practices that meet the unique challenges of providing environmental protection for existing state roads. The information in the MassHighway Handbook may also aid in the planning and design of projects to build new highways and to add lanes to existing highways, since they may face similar difficulties in meeting the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards. Although it is very useful, the MassHighway Handbook does not allow MassHighway projects to proceed without individual review and approval by the issuing authority when subject to the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, 310 CMR 10.00, or the 401 Water Quality Certification Regulations, 314 CMR 9.00. For example, MassHighway must provide a Conservation Commission with a project-specific Operation and Maintenance Plan in accordance with Standard 9 that documents how the project’s post-construction BMPs will be operated and maintained.4 3 The 2004 MassHighway Handbook outlines standardized methods for dealing with these constraints as they apply to highway redevelopment projects. MassDEP and MassHighway intend to work together to provide guidance for add a lane projects when the 2004 Handbook is revised to reflect the 2008 changes to the Stormwater Management Standards. 4 The general permit for municipal separate storm sewer systems (the MS4 Permit) requires MassHighway to develop and implement procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of stormwater BMPs. To Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 2: Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards Chapter 5 Page 6 Some municipalities have asked if the MassHighway Handbook governs municipal road projects. The answer is no.5 The MassHighway Handbook was developed in response to the unique problems and challenges arising out of the management of the state highway system. Like other project proponents, cities and towns planning road or other projects in areas subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act must design and implement LID, non-structural and structural best management practices in accordance with the Stormwater Management Standards and the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. avoid duplication of effort, MassHighway may be able rely on the same procedures to fulfill the operation and maintenance requirements of Standard 9 and the MS 4 Permit. 5 Although the MassHighway Handbook does not govern municipal road projects, cities and towns may find some of the information presented in the Handbook useful. DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 18 SECTION 3.0 - EXHIBITS ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 3.0 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 19 USGS SITE LOCUS MAP SITE DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 20 AERIAL PHOTOS Image 1 - Before Image 2 - After DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 21 MASSDEP WETLANDS MAP SITE DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 22 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP SITE DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 23 NHESP PRIORITY HABITATS OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATER SITE SITE DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 24 SECTION 4.0 - EXISTING DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 4.0 E-1 Site SP-1 study point Routing Diagram for 3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc, Printed 10/14/2025 HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.40 2 2 10-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 4.95 2 3 25-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 5.92 2 4 100-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 7.42 2 3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (sq-ft) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 7,609 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (E-1) 174 98 Brick Pavers, HSG A (E-1) 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A (E-1) 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A (E-1) 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A (E-1) 17,424 43 TOTAL AREA 3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (sq-ft) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 17,424 HSG A E-1 0 HSG B 0 HSG C 0 HSG D 0 Other 17,424 TOTAL AREA 3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (sq-ft) HSG-B (sq-ft) HSG-C (sq-ft) HSG-D (sq-ft) Other (sq-ft) Total (sq-ft) Ground Cover Sub Num 7,609 00007,609 >75% Grass cover, Good 1740000174Brick Pavers 1,032 00001,032 Paved parking 1,000 00001,000 Roofs 7,609 00007,609 Woods, Good 17,424 000017,424 TOTAL AREA Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=17,424 sf 12.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.04"Subcatchment E-1: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=43 Runoff=0.00 cfs 58 cf Inflow=0.00 cfs 58 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.00 cfs 58 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 58 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.04" 87.34% Pervious = 15,218 sf 12.66% Impervious = 2,206 sf Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Site Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 15.52 hrs, Volume=58 cf, Depth= 0.04" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A * 174 98 Brick Pavers, HSG A 7,609 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 17,424 43 Weighted Average 15,218 87.34% Pervious Area 2,206 12.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 12.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.04" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 15.52 hrs, Volume= 58 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 15.52 hrs, Volume= 58 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=17,424 sf 12.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.34"Subcatchment E-1: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=43 Runoff=0.05 cfs 493 cf Inflow=0.05 cfs 493 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.05 cfs 493 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 493 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.34" 87.34% Pervious = 15,218 sf 12.66% Impervious = 2,206 sf Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Site Runoff = 0.05 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume=493 cf, Depth= 0.34" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A * 174 98 Brick Pavers, HSG A 7,609 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 17,424 43 Weighted Average 15,218 87.34% Pervious Area 2,206 12.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 12.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.34" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.05 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 493 cf Primary = 0.05 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 493 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=17,424 sf 12.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.65"Subcatchment E-1: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=43 Runoff=0.14 cfs 939 cf Inflow=0.14 cfs 939 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.14 cfs 939 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 939 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.65" 87.34% Pervious = 15,218 sf 12.66% Impervious = 2,206 sf Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Site Runoff = 0.14 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=939 cf, Depth= 0.65" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A * 174 98 Brick Pavers, HSG A 7,609 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 17,424 43 Weighted Average 15,218 87.34% Pervious Area 2,206 12.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 12.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.14 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 939 cf Primary = 0.14 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 939 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=17,424 sf 12.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.26"Subcatchment E-1: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=43 Runoff=0.43 cfs 1,832 cf Inflow=0.43 cfs 1,832 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.43 cfs 1,832 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 1,832 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.26" 87.34% Pervious = 15,218 sf 12.66% Impervious = 2,206 sf Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Existing HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1: Site Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,832 cf, Depth= 1.26" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A * 174 98 Brick Pavers, HSG A 7,609 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 17,424 43 Weighted Average 15,218 87.34% Pervious Area 2,206 12.66% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 12.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.26" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.43 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,832 cf Primary = 0.43 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,832 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 25 SECTION 5.0 - PROPOSED DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 5.0 P-1 Paver Area P-2 Site 1P permeable pavers SP-1 study point Routing Diagram for 3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc, Printed 10/14/2025 HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 3.40 2 2 10-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 4.95 2 3 25-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 5.92 2 4 100-year Type III 24-hr Default 24.00 1 7.42 2 3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (sq-ft) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 7,293 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (P-2) 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A (P-2) 490 98 Pavers, HSG A (P-1) 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A (P-2) 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A (P-2) 17,424 44 TOTAL AREA 3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (sq-ft) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 17,424 HSG A P-1, P-2 0 HSG B 0 HSG C 0 HSG D 0 Other 17,424 TOTAL AREA 3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (all nodes) HSG-A (sq-ft) HSG-B (sq-ft) HSG-C (sq-ft) HSG-D (sq-ft) Other (sq-ft) Total (sq-ft) Ground Cover Sub Num 7,293 00007,293 >75% Grass cover, Good 1,032 00001,032 Paved parking 4900000490Pavers 1,000 00001,000 Roofs 7,609 00007,609 Woods, Good 17,424 000017,424 TOTAL AREA Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=490 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.17"Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.04 cfs 129 cf Runoff Area=16,934 sf 12.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.03"Subcatchment P-2: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=42 Runoff=0.00 cfs 40 cf Peak Elev=0.02' Storage=5 cf Inflow=0.04 cfs 129 cfPond 1P: permeable pavers Discarded=0.03 cfs 129 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.03 cfs 129 cf Inflow=0.00 cfs 40 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.00 cfs 40 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 169 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.12" 85.53% Pervious = 14,902 sf 14.47% Impervious = 2,522 sf Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=129 cf, Depth= 3.17" Routed to Pond 1P : permeable pavers Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40" Area (sf) CN Description * 490 98 Pavers, HSG A 490 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Site Runoff = 0.00 cfs @ 16.90 hrs, Volume=40 cf, Depth= 0.03" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A 7,293 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 16,934 42 Weighted Average 14,902 88.00% Pervious Area 2,032 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Pond 1P: permeable pavers Exfiltration rate of 2.41 inches per hour based on Rawls Rate for Loamy Sand, based on NRCS Soil Report for site. Inflow Area =490 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.17" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.04 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=129 cf Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=129 cf, Atten= 25%, Lag= 0.8 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume=129 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2-year Rainfall=3.40"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 0.02' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 490 sf Storage= 5 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1.4 min calculated for 129 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1.4 min ( 756.5 - 755.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 0.00'65 cf paver stone storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 162 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 0.00 490 0 0 0.33 490 162 162 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00'2.410 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 0.33'55.0' long x 4.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.38 2.54 2.69 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.79 2.88 3.07 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=0.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=0.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 14.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.03" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 16.90 hrs, Volume= 40 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 16.90 hrs, Volume= 40 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=490 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.71"Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.05 cfs 192 cf Runoff Area=16,934 sf 12.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.30"Subcatchment P-2: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=42 Runoff=0.04 cfs 422 cf Peak Elev=0.07' Storage=15 cf Inflow=0.05 cfs 192 cfPond 1P: permeable pavers Discarded=0.03 cfs 192 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.03 cfs 192 cf Inflow=0.04 cfs 422 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.04 cfs 422 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 615 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.42" 85.53% Pervious = 14,902 sf 14.47% Impervious = 2,522 sf Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Runoff = 0.05 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=192 cf, Depth= 4.71" Routed to Pond 1P : permeable pavers Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95" Area (sf) CN Description * 490 98 Pavers, HSG A 490 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Site Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume=422 cf, Depth= 0.30" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A 7,293 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 16,934 42 Weighted Average 14,902 88.00% Pervious Area 2,032 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Pond 1P: permeable pavers Exfiltration rate of 2.41 inches per hour based on Rawls Rate for Loamy Sand, based on NRCS Soil Report for site. Inflow Area =490 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.71" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.05 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=192 cf Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume=192 cf, Atten= 49%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume=192 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10-year Rainfall=4.95"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 0.07' @ 12.23 hrs Surf.Area= 490 sf Storage= 15 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 2.6 min calculated for 192 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2.6 min ( 750.8 - 748.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 0.00'65 cf paver stone storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 162 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 0.00 490 0 0 0.33 490 162 162 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00'2.410 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 0.33'55.0' long x 4.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.38 2.54 2.69 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.79 2.88 3.07 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.05 hrs HW=0.03' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=0.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 14.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.29" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.04 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 422 cf Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 422 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=490 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.68"Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.06 cfs 232 cf Runoff Area=16,934 sf 12.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.59"Subcatchment P-2: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=42 Runoff=0.11 cfs 829 cf Peak Elev=0.12' Storage=23 cf Inflow=0.06 cfs 232 cfPond 1P: permeable pavers Discarded=0.03 cfs 232 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.03 cfs 232 cf Inflow=0.11 cfs 829 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.11 cfs 829 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 1,061 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.73" 85.53% Pervious = 14,902 sf 14.47% Impervious = 2,522 sf Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Runoff = 0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=232 cf, Depth= 5.68" Routed to Pond 1P : permeable pavers Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92" Area (sf) CN Description * 490 98 Pavers, HSG A 490 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Site Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume=829 cf, Depth= 0.59" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A 7,293 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 16,934 42 Weighted Average 14,902 88.00% Pervious Area 2,032 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Pond 1P: permeable pavers Exfiltration rate of 2.41 inches per hour based on Rawls Rate for Loamy Sand, based on NRCS Soil Report for site. Inflow Area =490 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.68" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=232 cf Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=232 cf, Atten= 57%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=232 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 25-year Rainfall=5.92"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 0.12' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 490 sf Storage= 23 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 3.8 min calculated for 232 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 3.8 min ( 749.1 - 745.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 0.00'65 cf paver stone storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 162 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 0.00 490 0 0 0.33 490 162 162 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00'2.410 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 0.33'55.0' long x 4.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.38 2.54 2.69 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.79 2.88 3.07 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.00 hrs HW=0.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=0.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 14.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.57" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.11 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 829 cf Primary = 0.11 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 829 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-36.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 721 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=490 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.18"Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Tc=6.0 min CN=98 Runoff=0.08 cfs 293 cf Runoff Area=16,934 sf 12.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.17"Subcatchment P-2: Site Tc=6.0 min CN=42 Runoff=0.37 cfs 1,658 cf Peak Elev=0.20' Storage=40 cf Inflow=0.08 cfs 293 cfPond 1P: permeable pavers Discarded=0.03 cfs 293 cf Primary=0.00 cfs 0 cf Outflow=0.03 cfs 293 cf Inflow=0.37 cfs 1,658 cfLink SP-1: study point Primary=0.37 cfs 1,658 cf Total Runoff Area = 17,424 sf Runoff Volume = 1,951 cf Average Runoff Depth = 1.34" 85.53% Pervious = 14,902 sf 14.47% Impervious = 2,522 sf Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Paver Area Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=293 cf, Depth= 7.18" Routed to Pond 1P : permeable pavers Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42" Area (sf) CN Description * 490 98 Pavers, HSG A 490 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Site Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,658 cf, Depth= 1.17" Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42" Area (sf) CN Description 1,000 98 Roofs, HSG A 1,032 98 Paved parking, HSG A 7,293 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,609 30 Woods, Good, HSG A 16,934 42 Weighted Average 14,902 88.00% Pervious Area 2,032 12.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, TR-55 Min. Summary for Pond 1P: permeable pavers Exfiltration rate of 2.41 inches per hour based on Rawls Rate for Loamy Sand, based on NRCS Soil Report for site. Inflow Area =490 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.18" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=293 cf Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 11.90 hrs, Volume=293 cf, Atten= 66%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 11.90 hrs, Volume=293 cf Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routed to Link SP-1 : study point Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 0.20' @ 12.36 hrs Surf.Area= 490 sf Storage= 40 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 6.4 min calculated for 293 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 6.4 min ( 748.5 - 742.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 0.00'65 cf paver stone storage (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) 162 cf Overall x 40.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 0.00 490 0 0 0.33 490 162 162 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 0.00'2.410 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Phase-In= 0.01' #2 Primary 0.33'55.0' long x 4.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.38 2.54 2.69 2.68 2.67 2.67 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.72 2.73 2.76 2.79 2.88 3.07 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 11.90 hrs HW=0.01' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=0.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link SP-1: study point Inflow Area = 17,424 sf, 14.47% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.14" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.37 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,658 cf Primary = 0.37 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1,658 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100-year Rainfall=7.42"3586-01_Proposed HydroCAD Printed 10/14/2025Prepared by Allen & Major Associates, Inc HydroCAD® 10.20-7a s/n 02881 © 2025 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: permeable pavers Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Outflow (cfs) Discarded (cfs) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.01 0 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 12.00 0.05 7 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 13.00 0.01 5 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.00 14.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 26 SECTION 6.0 - APPENDIX ALLEN & MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC. | SECTION 6.0 DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 27 Rainfall Data DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 28 Standard 6 Compliance Figure Standard 6 Compliance Figure Printed Oct 10, 2025 Zone A IWPAs Zone IIs Zone Is DFW Coldwater Fisheries Resources Property Tax Parcels Site DRAINAGE REPORT 536 Shootflying Hill Road 29 NRCS Soil Report United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Barnstable County, MassachusettsNatural Resources Conservation Service October 9, 2025 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 Soil Map..................................................................................................................5 Soil Map................................................................................................................6 Legend..................................................................................................................7 Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................8 Map Unit Descriptions..........................................................................................8 Barnstable County, Massachusetts.................................................................10 1—Water.....................................................................................................10 252C—Carver coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes...................................10 259B—Carver loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes...........................12 Soil Information for All Uses...............................................................................14 Soil Properties and Qualities..............................................................................14 Soil Qualities and Features.............................................................................14 Hydrologic Soil Group.................................................................................14 4 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 5 6 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 46148704614890461491046149304614950461497046149904614870461489046149104614930461495046149704614990387480 387500 387520 387540 387560 387580 387600 387620 387640 387660 387480 387500 387520 387540 387560 387580 387600 387620 387640 387660 41° 40' 43'' N 70° 21' 7'' W41° 40' 43'' N70° 20' 58'' W41° 40' 39'' N 70° 21' 7'' W41° 40' 39'' N 70° 20' 58'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240Feet 0 10 20 40 60Meters Map Scale: 1:913 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:25,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Barnstable County, Massachusetts Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 5, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 10, 2022—Jun 30, 2022 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Water 0.5 27.2% 252C Carver coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes 0.4 20.7% 259B Carver loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes 1.0 52.1% Totals for Area of Interest 2.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The Custom Soil Resource Report 8 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 9 Barnstable County, Massachusetts 1—Water Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 98s8 Frost-free period: 120 to 220 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Water:100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Water Typical profile - 0 to 0 inches: water 252C—Carver coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2y07z Elevation: 0 to 250 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 71 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Carver, coarse sand, and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Carver, Coarse Sand Setting Landform:Moraines, outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder, backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Sandy glaciofluvial deposits Typical profile Oi - 0 to 2 inches: slightly decomposed plant material Oe - 2 to 3 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 3 to 7 inches: coarse sand E - 7 to 10 inches: coarse sand Bw1 - 10 to 15 inches: coarse sand Bw2 - 15 to 28 inches: coarse sand Custom Soil Resource Report 10 BC - 28 to 32 inches: coarse sand C - 32 to 67 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to very high (1.42 to 14.17 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F149BY005MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Deerfield Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Kame terraces, outwash deltas, outwash terraces, outwash plains Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: No Merrimac Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Kame terraces, outwash deltas, outwash terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Riser, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Hinckley Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Eskers, kames, outwash deltas, outwash terraces, moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser, tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 11 259B—Carver loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2y07t Elevation: 0 to 240 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 71 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Carver, loamy coarse sand, and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Carver, Loamy Coarse Sand Setting Landform:Moraines, outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, tread Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Sandy glaciofluvial deposits Typical profile Oi - 0 to 2 inches: slightly decomposed plant material Oe - 2 to 3 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 3 to 7 inches: loamy coarse sand E - 7 to 10 inches: coarse sand Bw1 - 10 to 15 inches: coarse sand Bw2 - 15 to 28 inches: coarse sand BC - 28 to 32 inches: coarse sand C - 32 to 67 inches: coarse sand Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to very high (1.42 to 14.17 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.5 inches) Custom Soil Resource Report 12 Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F149BY005MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Deerfield Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Outwash terraces, outwash plains, kame terraces, outwash deltas Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: No Hinckley Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Moraines, eskers, kames, outwash deltas, outwash terraces, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser, tread Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Hydric soil rating: No Merrimac Percent of map unit:3 percent Landform:Kame terraces, outwash deltas, outwash terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Riser, tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Hydric soil rating: No Mashpee Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Depressions, drainageways, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Concave Across-slope shape:Concave Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 14 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 15 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group 46148704614890461491046149304614950461497046149904614870461489046149104614930461495046149704614990387480 387500 387520 387540 387560 387580 387600 387620 387640 387660 387480 387500 387520 387540 387560 387580 387600 387620 387640 387660 41° 40' 43'' N 70° 21' 7'' W41° 40' 43'' N70° 20' 58'' W41° 40' 39'' N 70° 21' 7'' W41° 40' 39'' N 70° 20' 58'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 19N WGS84 0 40 80 160 240Feet 0 10 20 40 60Meters Map Scale: 1:913 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:25,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Barnstable County, Massachusetts Survey Area Data: Version 24, Sep 5, 2025 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 10, 2022—Jun 30, 2022 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. Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 1 Water 0.5 27.2% 252C Carver coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes A 0.4 20.7% 259B Carver loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes A 1.0 52.1% Totals for Area of Interest 2.0 100.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Custom Soil Resource Report 18