PE APP-Tetra Tech

Engineers – Planners – Scientists – Surveyors – Landscape Architects

C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 2608-Brickstone-2.zip\2608-Brickstone-2\Stormwater\1.2608-Office Memo-SWM-scs-1-18-08.doc

Job Number: 1.2608.13 Printed 9/4/2012 11:26:00 AM

OFFICE MEMO To: Paul Keane

From: Scott Schluter

Cc:

Date: January 18, 2008

Re: Brickstone Stormwater Management Ideas

Paul, below is a list of thoughts for Stormwater Management for the Brickstone project. As I discussed with you, the new Stormwater Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) are in effect (thought in flux) and LID is a big push. Also, many of our familiar treatment trains will no longer meet TSS removal requirements without dramatic changes to our designs resulting in larger basins. Infiltration requirements will also be harder to meet with the new volumes (HSGA=.6" HSGB=.35" HSGC=.25" HSGD=.10"). As suggested in the new regulations and draft handbooks, the time to think about stormwater is now, in the design phase at the beginning. Below is an outline of ideas that I think we may want to consider for this project. Note: With the vernal pool onsite, we have to deal with new ORWs regulations. "Stormwater Management to a Certified Vernal Pool *Stormwater management systems should avoid impacts to vernal pool *Must be set back 100 feet and comply with 310 CMR 10.60 *Habitat evaluation required *Must demonstrate will meet performance standard of no adverse impact on habitat functions of a certified vernal pool"

Potential BMPs

Pretreatment BMPs • Vegetated Filter Strips

o 10% TSS 25' wide, 45% TSS 50' wide o Use where curbless pavement is possible? o Lined where vernal pool

• Deep Sump Catch Basins o 25% TSS

sschluter

Text Box

This is a memo I wrote to the Project Manager for this project providing an overview of my understanding of the then new Stormwater Management Regulations and their impact to the proposed project. I laid out some concepts and ideas of how to handle the stormwater and meet the new Regulations. Many of the concepts became part of the final design.




o Use where curbless pavement isn't possible • Proprietary Separators (Downstream Defender, Stormceptor, etc.)

o TSS removal per Umass study o Use where "soft" BMPs won't fit due to available space

• Sediment Forebays o No TSS removal where used as pretreatment where required (infiltration

basin, stormwater wetlands, etc.) o 25% TSS removal where used as a separate BMP o Use for our ponds if there is room

Treatment BMPs • Bioretention Areas & Rain Gardens

o 90% TSS removal with vegetated filter strip or equivalent o Can be infiltration cells or not o Use for roofs? Infiltrate! o Use for parking areas? Infiltrate if vegetated filter strip can be constructed!

(Need the 44% TSS removal first so 50' strip) o OK for vernal pool o

o • Constructed Stormwater Wetlands

o 80% TSS when forebay used o Will fit in with what Crowe has suggested for the ponds already but will

require design modifications to really be constructed wetlands o No recharge o OK for vernal pool

• Extended Dry Detention Basin o 50% TSS when forebay used o No recharge o BIG to really qualify as extended dry detention basins

24 hour detention of 2 year storm in low stage low flow channel to low stage

o No use at vernal pool

Parking

Forebay

Bioretention

Parking




• Sand & Organic Filters o Tree Box Filter

6' diameter 4' high manhole section Tree in center Rip rap splash pad Underdrain No recharge 80% TSS also can be used as a pretreatment device if lined Are there plans for trees down the entrance road???? Not for vernal pools area

• Wet basins

o 80% TSS when forebay used o No recharge o BIG to really qualify as wet basins o This is probably a better fit to the Crowe design o Not for vernal pool areas

Conveyance BMPs • Grassed Channel (Biofilter Swale)

o 50% TSS with sediment forebay o Not suitable for vernal pool o Use in place of pipe system where we can? o No recharge

• Water Quality Swale o 70% TSS removal with a forebay o No recharge o Use in place of pipe system where we can? o Ok for vernal pool areas need 44% TSS removal or lined

Infiltration BMPs • Drywells

Sand soil mix

Underdrain

Tree overflow Pavement

To drainage




o 80% TSS o Ok for vernal pool areas

• Infiltration Basins o 80% TSS removal with pretreatment o Needs 44% TSS removal prior to it o We could possibly convert or modify one or more of Crowe's ponds into

one o Ok for vernal pool areas

• Infiltration Trenches o 80% TSS removal with pretreatment o Needs 44% TSS removal prior to it o Use at parking areas? o Ok for vernal pool areas

• Subsurface Structures (Rainstore, Arches, Pipes, etc.) o 80% TSS for non-proprietary (proprietary #s to come out) o Needs 44% TSS removal prior to it o Ok for vernal pool areas

Other BMPs • Dry Detention Basins

o Closer to what we typically design o No TSS removal o No Recharge o Could use this after a TSS treatment train o Not for vernal pool areas

• Green Roofs o If retains the WQV can remove from impervious surface area o Will the area of the garage qualify as roof? If so, would the landscaped

areas qualify it as a green roof? • Porous Pavement

o 80% TSS removal if bed is ½" or 1" WQV and drains in 72 hours o Need permeability of 0.5 inches per hour o Use for the "jug handles"? o Porous asphalt or pavers o Not for vernal pool areas

• Rainbarrels and cisterns o Deduct roof from impervious if sized for ½" or 1" and stored water is used

within 72-hours or is discharged to an infiltration BMP o If we use cisterns for irrigation water we can remove the roof area from

our calculations

E1

E14E16

E17

E6

E7

E8

E9 P10

P11

P12 P13

P15

P18 P19

P2

P20 P21

P22

P23

P3

P30

P31 P32

P33

P4 P41 P42 P43

P44

P45

P5

ROOFHC

ROOFS

BRIGGS

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5 R6

R7

1

2

3

5 6 7 7-1CB

7-2CB

7-3CB

7-4CB

8

8PCB

CBCB

D1

Depression

D2

D3

DMHACB

DMHBCB

Re1

Re2

Re3

VP

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

Drainage Diagram for 2608-PROPOSED-SITE PLANSPrepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo, Printed 11/7/2008

HydroCAD® 8.50 s/n 005923 © 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Subcat Reach Pond Link

sschluter

Text Box

This is the HydroCAD diagram for the complex model I used to analyze the potential impacts to the hydrology of the site and surrounding points of interest due to the proposed development.

2608-PROPOSED-SITE PLANS Printed 11/7/2008Prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo

Page 2HydroCAD® 8.50 s/n 005923 © 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Area Listing (all nodes)

Area(acres)

CN Description(subcatchment-numbers)

20.980 30 Woods, Good, HSG A (E14,E16,E17,E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P13,P5)3.590 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P13,P30,P31,P32,P33,P5)

27.170 55 Woods, Good, HSG B (E7,E8,P12,P13,P15,P2,P3,P4,P5)3.170 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E7,E8,P12,P13,P15,P2,P4,P5)

71.770 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (E1,E6,E7,E8,P10,P11,P12,P13,P2,P3,P4,P42,P43,P5)7.280 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (E1,E7,P10,P13,P2,P20,P21,P30,P4,P42,P43,P44,P5)

37.710 77 Woods, Good, HSG D (E1,E14,E16,E17,E6,E7,E8,E9,P12,P13,P2,P3,P4,P41,P42,P44,P5)16.290 78 Wetlands, Dry (E17,P13,P3,P4)0.170 79 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG C (P3)

15.960 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (E6,E8,P12,P13,P18,P19,P20,P22,P23,P4,P42,P43,P44,P45)0.540 82 Dirt roads, HSG B (P13,P2,P4,P5)2.050 83 Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG A (E6,E7,E8,P10,P11,P5)0.270 84 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG D (P2,P3)0.150 87 Dirt roads, HSG C (P13,P4)0.800 89 Dirt roads, HSG D (P13,P2,P4)0.020 89 Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG B (E1)

13.540 90 Ledge (E7,E8,P12,P13,P18,P19,P2,P20,P3,P4,P41,P42,P43,P5)0.060 90 RIP-RAP (P13)0.360 91 Gravel roads, HSG D (P43,P45)0.170 92 Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG C (E1)1.020 93 Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG D (E1,E7,E8,P10)2.540 98 Basin (P19,P20,P21,P23,P41,P43,P45)0.160 98 Briggs Pond (E14,P11)4.210 98 Existing Paved parking & roofs (offsite) (E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P2,P5)0.060 98 Golf Hut roof (P43)8.400 98 Paved parking (P18,P19,P20,P21,P23,P43)2.890 98 Paved parking & roofs (E1,P11,P22,P30,P31,P32,P33)1.960 98 Roof (ROOFHC)5.220 98 Roofs (P23,ROOFS)0.170 98 Walk (P42)0.020 98 Walks (P44)

31.920 98 Wetlands, Wet (E14,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P12,P2,P33,P4,P5)280.620 TOTAL AREA

sschluter

Callout

Almost 300 acres!

Job:

Sha

ron

Hill

sS

heet

No.

1of

1C

alc

by:

SC

SD

ate

11/7

/200

8C

heck

by:

Dat

e

De

Min

imus

Cal

cula

tions

80%

TS

S re

mov

al m

ust b

e ac

hiev

ed o

n an

ave

rage

wei

ghte

d ba

sis

from

the

site

as

a w

hole

usi

ng th

e"W

eigh

ted

Ave

rage

Met

hod"

.(fr

om V

ol. 3

, Ch.

1, P

age

35, M

assa

chus

etts

Sto

rmw

ater

Han

dboo

k)

Are

aS

ize

(ac)

TSS

Rem

oval

(%)

(Are

aXTS

S)

Re2

0.34

97%

0.32

98R

e30.

0797

%0.

0679

P33

0.21

78%

0.16

38S

UM

=0.

62S

UM

=0.

5615

(Are

a 1)(

TSS

1%)+

(Are

a 2)(

TSS

2%)+

(Are

a 3)(

TSS

3%)+

(Are

a 4)(

TSS

4%)…

.

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

ge %

=(A

rea 1

)(TS

S1%

)+(A

rea 2

)(TS

S2%

)+(A

rea n

)(TS

Sn%

)(A

rea 1

+Are

a 2+A

rea n

)

Wei

ghte

d A

vera

ge %

=

Dra

inag

e A

reas

(1)

(1

)(

2)(

2)

(3)

(3

)(

4)(

4)

=0.

5615

0.62

=0.

9191

%M

eets

Dem

inim

us fo

r Tre

atm

ent

=0.

65cf

sM

eets

Dem

inim

us fo

r Dis

char

ge(<

1 cf

s)2

Yea

r Q (P

33)

gg

(Are

a 1+A

rea 2

+Are

a 3 +

Are

a 4+.

..)

sschluter

Text Box

One of the obstacles in this stormwater design was that we could not control or treat any stormwater flows beyond the proposed bridge due to high groundwater, lack of space, and the grates required in the bridge surface. To overcome this, I used the De Minimus approach to show that our TSS removal in the other areas of the site made up for the lack of TSS removal in this subcatchment.

Job: Sharon HillsSheet No. 1 of 1Calc by: SCS Date 11/5/2008Check by: Date

Groundwater Determination-Recharge Area 1

Well ID

GZAPVC TopElevation (ft)

PVC Height(aboveground)

(ft)

TtRPVC TopElevation (ft)

Depth to GW from PVC (ft)

GZAGroundwaterElevation(ft)

TtRGroundwaterElevation(ft)

Delta (TtR-GZA)

OW1-20 279.72 2.3 278.92 32.23 247.49 246.69 -0.80OW1 50 277 55 2 1 277 55 25 18 252 37 251 57 0 80OW1-50 277.55 2.1 277.55 25.18 252.37 251.57 -0.80OW1-100 275.79 2.3 274.99 25 250.79 249.99 -0.80OW1-150 268.55 2.9 267.75 20.86 247.69 246.89 -0.80

Groundwater at Recharge Area 1= 251.57 feet (OW1-50)

My Groundwater at Rechrge Area 1= 251.6 feet (OW1-50)delta= -0.03 feetdelta 0.03 feet

MW OW….Casing=PVC=GND=GW(4/14/03)GW(4/14/03)=

"THUMB AREA"CASING PVC GND GW

OW1-20 279.07 278.92 276.62 246.69OW1-50 276.93 276.75 274.65 251.57OW1-100 275.02 274.99 272.69 249.99OW1-150 267 8 267 75 264 85 246 89OW1-150 267.8 267.75 264.85 246.89

sschluter

Text Box

These are the calculations I used to estimate the seasonal high groundwater in one of the proposed recharge areas.


Level Spreader Calculations

Width

Use 6 foot Minimum width all level spreaders

LocationPipe D

(ft)

Outlet Apron Width

(ft)

Level Spreader

Width (ft)

FEO1-1 1.50 4.50 6.00FEO2-1 3.00 9.00 10.00FEO7-1 2.00 6.00 6.00FEO7-2 1.00 3.00 6.00FEO8 1 2 00 6 00 00FEO8-1 2.00 6.00 7.00

Depth

Q (Actual)

(ft³/s)

Pipe Diameter

(ft)Slope, s

(ft/ft)Manning's

n

Depth in pipe (ft) Ø (deg)

Area (ft²)

Wetted Perimeter

(ft)

HydraulicRadius

Rh (ft)

Q PIPE (ft³/s)

FEO1-1 3.17 1.50 0.012 0.013 0.5380 147.16 0.570 1.93 0.30 3.17FEO2-1 17.03 3.00 0.028 0.013 0.7950 123.93 1.500 3.24 0.46 17.03FEO2 1 17.03 3.00 0.028 0.013 0.7950 123.93 1.500 3.24 0.46 17.03FEO7-1 26.61 2.00 0.021 0.013 1.3652 137.16 2.285 3.89 0.59 26.61FEO7-2 4.07 1.00 0.026 0.013 0.6210 151.99 0.513 1.82 0.28 4.07FEO8-1 23.76 2.00 0.017 0.013 1.3483 139.23 2.253 3.85 0.58 23.76

Qpipe = 1.486/n*A*(Rh)^(2/3)*s^0.5

LocationQ (cfs)

100 YearPipe

Invert (ft)TW

Elevation (ft)FEO1-1 3.17 301.00 301.54FEO2-1 17.03 305.00 305.80FEO7-1 26.61 263.00 264.37 264.50

Level Spreader Lip Elevation

301.60306.00

FEO7-2 4.07 254.00 254.62FEO8-1 23.76 281.00 282.35

Length

0.5 cfs/ft

LocationQ (cfs)

100 Year Q/.5Min. Length

(ft)FEO1-1 3.17 6.34 6.5FEO2-1 17 03 34 06 35 0

282.50254.70

FEO2-1 17.03 34.06 35.0FEO7-1 26.61 53.22 54.0FEO7-2 4.07 8.14 9.0FEO8-1 23.76 47.52 48.0

```

sschluter

Text Box

These are calculations I used to size the level spreaders for the drainage outfall pipes to minimize erosion.


Recharge CalculationsRequired Recharge VolumeHydrologic Proposed Target Depth RequiredHydrologic Proposed Target Depth RequiredSoil Group Impervious Area X Factor = Recharge

(sf) (in) Volume(cf)

A 21,240 0.60 1,062B 0 0.35 0C 92,693 0.25 1,931D 653,050 0.10 5,442

Sum: 766,983 sf 8,435 cf17 61 ac 0 19 af17.61 ac 0.19 af

Capture Area AdjustmentPond 7 Discharges

Storm

Primary Discharge

(cfs)

Secondary Discahrge

(cfs)RECHARGED

TotalDischarge

(cfs) % Recharged1 9.54 4.26 13.8 30.9%2 15.99 5.88 21.87 26.9%

10 24.31 8.32 32.63 25.5%25 25.12 10.05 35.17 28.6%

100 26.62 10.76 37.38 28.8%Ave= 28%

Impervious Areas Contributing to Pond 7Sub. Area (ac)

P-18 0.46P-19 0.34P 19 0.34P-20 3.85P-21 0.27P-23 5.00

ROOFS 0.30TOTAL= 10.22

TOTAL X AVE % TO RECHARGE= 2.87Impervious to Re2= 0.34Impervious to Re3= 0.07

Total= 3 28Total= 3.28Total Impervious Area: 17.61 ac 65%= 11.45 ac

Area contributing to Recharge systems: 3.28 ac 33%Adjustment factor: 17.61 = 5.36

3.28Adjusted volume: 8,435 x 5.36 = 45,230 cf

1.04 af

1 and 100 Year Storm Infiltration Volume (TR 20 w/HydroCAD)

Volume Infiltrated from Rainfall1 year (af) 100 year (af)

Re1 4.62 5.36Re2 0.07 0.19Re3 0.02 0.04

Total 4.71 5.59In the 1 year storm, 4.5 times the recharge volume is infiltratedIn the 100 year storm, 5.4 times the recharge volume is infiltrated

sschluter

Text Box

These are the recharge calculations for the proposed project.


Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations: DD-P1For sizing "Flow-Through" treatment devices as the Downstream Defender, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has developed a relation between storm intensity and the depth of runoff (See "Development of a Rational Basis for Designing Recharging Stormwater Control Structures adn Flow And Volume

3.24 (P43)0 06Total Roof Area:

Design Criteria" MADEP 99-06/319). This allows the sizing of the treatment unit based on a flow rate instead of a volume. (See Table x from the report, below)

Based on the first 1.0 inches of rainfall on the mainland (off Cape-Massachusetts) with a 95% probability, use max. storm intensity of 1.67 in/hr (Table 4).

Total Runoff Required to Be Treated

Total Impervious area:0.063.18

Flow = 1.67 x 3.18 x 453 gpm/ac-in/hr = 2,406 gpm5.36 cfs

Q100 Year= 65.92 cfs x 448.8 gal-s/cf-min = 29,585 gpm

Total Roof Area:Total Runoff to Be Treated:

Downstream Defender Sizing

Use 6 ft. diameter Downstream Defender Unit with bypassFlowrate at 60% Removal Efficiency= 8 cfs (see chart)

LOCATION Q Size So n d Ø A WP Rh QFROM TO (Actual)

(ft³/s) (ft) ft/ft) ( - ) (ft) (deg) (ft²) (ft) (ft) (ft³/s)DMH1-9 DMH1-10 5.36 2.00 0.040 0.013 0.4650 115.31 0.554 2.01 0.28 5.36

Invert in Weir Manhole= 311.60Elevation Weir= 312.07

sschluter

Text Box

These are calculations I used to pick a Downstream Defender (Hydrodynamic separator), and set the weir elevation for bypass flows in larger storms.


Drawdown Calculations

Time= RvTime= Rv(K)(Bottom Area)

System 1Rv= 233,482 cf K= 2.41 in/hr

Bottom Area= 24,336 sf

Ti 47 8 hTime= 47.8 hours

47.8 < 72 OK


Bottom Area= 2,027 sf

Time= 20.3 hours

20.3 < 72 OK


Bottom Area= 590 sf

Time= 14 7 hoursTime= 14.7 hours

14.7 < 72 OK

sschluter

Text Box

These are the drawdown time estimate calculations for the infiltration areas.

VP elev. Start is 276 Q,V Q,V Q,V Q,V Q,V Q,V Q,V Q,VVP W3 W4 W5 Briggs D1 D2 D3

E 1 yr Q 22.3 13.1 5.0 21.6 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.01 yr VElev 276.7 238.2 274.0 253.7 281.2 263.0 242.0

P 1 yr Q 20.2 12.0 4.4 21.5 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 yr VElev 276.6 238.2 274.0 253.7 281.2 263.0 242.0

E 2 yr Q 40.4 28.8 8.0 39.6 28.9 0.1 0.0 0.02 yr VElev 277.0 238.3 274.1 254.1 281.4 263.0 242.0

P 2 yr Q 35.3 25.8 6.5 38.3 26.0 0.1 0.0 0.02 yr VElev 276.9 238.3 274.1 254.1 281.5 263.0 242.0

E 10 yr Q 85.4 77.5 14.9 84.7 81.1 0.5 0.0 0.010 yr VElev 277.7 238.6 274.1 254.4 281.9 263.0 242.4

P 10 yr Q 73.9 67.9 11.4 75.6 73.1 0.4 0.0 0.010 yr VElev 277.4 238.6 274.1 254.4 282.1 263.0 242.9

E 25 yr Q 111.3 108.9 18.7 110.9 121.9 0.8 0.0 0.025 yr VElev 278.0 238.8 274.1 254.6 282.2 263.1 243.0

P 25 yr Q 96.0 95.8 14.1 92.9 110.3 0.7 0.0 0.025 yr VElev 277.7 238.7 274.1 254.6 282.3 263.1 243.4

E 100 yr Q 154.6 166.0 25.1 155.1 201.0 1.4 0.0 0.1100 yr V 24.5 62.1 3.5 23.6 80.7 0.1 0.0 0.0Elev 278.5 239.0 274.1 255.0 282.6 263.4 243.7

P 100 yr Q 132.5 145.1 18.3 122.7 179.4 1.1 0.0 0.2100 yr V 26.1 65.1 1.3 22.2 82.2 0.1 0.0 0.0Elev 278.2 238.9 274.1 255.0 282.8 263.4 244.2

Volumes calculated with 0-850 hour time span

Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 5Berm 315 Berm 339 Berm 329 Berm 288.0Bottom 307 Qout Bottom 334.5 Qout Bottom 326 Qout Bottom 283.0 Qout

1 308.6 1.3 1 335.3 3.3 1 326.4 0.3 1 283.8 12.42 309.3 1.7 2 335.6 5.2 2 326.6 0.4 2 284.1 17.8

10 310.9 2.4 10 336.2 9.4 10 327.2 0.7 10 285.1 19.625 311.9 2.7 25 336.7 11.1 25 327.5 0.8 25 285.7 20.7

100 313.3 3.2 100 337.9 13.6 100 328.0 1.0 100 286.8 22.6Pond 6 Pond 7 Pond 8Berm 281.0 Berm 274.0 Berm 356.0Bottom 277.0 Qout Bottom 270.0 Qout Bottom 351.5 Qout

1 277.9 16.6 1 271.2 13.8 1 352.0 1.02 278.2 24.7 2 271.5 21.9 2 352.1 1.4

10 278.5 35.0 10 271.9 32.6 10 352.4 2.425 278.6 40.3 25 272.2 35.2 25 352.6 2.9

100 278.9 48.4 100 272.7 37.4 100 352.8 3.5

Re1 Re2 Re3Top 259.10 Rech. Top 253.00 Rech. Top 249.50 Rech.Bottom 255.60 Vol. Bottom 249.50 Vol. Bottom 246.00 Vol.

1 256.54 4.62 1 249.87 0.07 1 246.17 0.022 257.00 2 250.17 2 246.48

10 257.76 10 250.89 10 246.9625 258.06 25 251.40 25 247.28

100 258.99 5.36 100 252.67 0.19 100 247.90 0.04

sschluter

Text Box

This is a summary of my analysis of an existing Vernal Pool. I looked at water elevations, peak flow to, and stormwater volume for both Pre and Post conditions for various storm events to determine the impacts of the proposed development.

Des

igne

d B

yD

raw

n B

yA

ppro

ved

By

Che

cked

By

Rev

isio

ns

NO

TIC

E O

F I

NT

EN

TS

HA

RO

N H

ILLS

AC

CE

SS

DR

IVE

SH

AR

ON

, M

A

CO

NS

TRU

CTI

ON

AC

CE

SS

PLA

N &

PR

OFI

LE

1"=

40'

127-

1260

8

2608

NO

I

Oct

ober

1, 2

008

9

sschluter

Text Box

This is a portion of a Notice of Intent plans for the larger project. The project hinged on getting this portion approved. The stream we had to cross was deemed a mating path for endangered turtles so the Conservation Commission scrutinised these plans.

Des

igne

d B

yD

raw

n B

yA

ppro

ved

By

Che

cked

By

Rev

isio

ns

NO

TIC

E O

F I

NT

EN

TS

HA

RO

N H

ILLS

AC

CE

SS

DR

IVE

SH

AR

ON

, M

A

WE

TLA

ND

CR

OS

SIN

G &

CH

AN

NE

L D

ETA

ILS

AS

SH

OW

N

127-

1260

8

2608

NO

I

Oct

ober

1, 2

008

10

sschluter

Text Box

This sheet shows some of the intricacies of this design. We had to provide grates in the crossing to provide light to the channel and shoulders required to provide travel space for the turtles.

Des

igne

d B

yD

raw

n B

yA

ppro

ved

By

Che

cked

By

Rev

isio

ns

NO

TIC

E O

F I

NT

EN

TS

HA

RO

N H

ILLS

AC

CE

SS

DR

IVE

SH

AR

ON

, M

A

WE

TLA

ND

CR

OS

SIN

G,

ALT

ER

ATI

ON

&R

EP

LAC

EM

EN

T P

LAN

AS

SH

OW

N

127-

1260

8

2608

NO

I

Oct

ober

1, 2

008

11

sschluter

Text Box

This sheet shows how detailed the design had to be. We could not cross the stream where it was so we proposed to move it and had to provide mitigation for the resource areas disturbed.

sschluter

Text Box

This is a schematic plan we used to work with the DEP on the complex solution for 120,000 GPD of wastewater. This shows a conventional or drip dispersal system could be constructed in the Northeast Corner area, or the roof area could be utilized as a reservoir for water reuse and a reserve area in the proposed golf course.

Nantucket- Paradise Found In December 2006, Esther’s Island Partners LLC (“EIP”) had a vision to purchase an existing classic beach cottage on 10 waterfront acres on Esther’s Island (off the west end of Nantucket). It was EIP’s intention to rebuild the cottage as a LEED for Homes structure for use by a shared ownership group to be called Esther’s Island Resorts.

During the pre-purchase contingency period, the Environmental Services Group assisted EIP to acquire necessary Conservation Commission, Board of Health and Historic District Commission permits and approvals to allow the purchase and the renovation project to move forward. The approved project provides for a renovated dwelling that includes a fire-placed living room and kitchen, 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and deck areas served by a new well, advanced nitrogen removing septic system and a hybrid wind/solar system to provide for the off-grid power needs. We provided environmental evaluation services to address soils, groundwater, wetland resource area and shellfish and eelgrass issues, construction procedures and protocols. Survey Services provided for all the site survey and Engineering provided for the design and approval of an Innovative/Alternative Nitrogen-reducing septic system to protect groundwater and the waters of Madaket Outer Harbor. Construction commenced in October 2007.

sschluter

Text Box

This is a promotional piece written up about the project describing the challenges. I was involved with this project from initial site visit, then survey to final permitting and construction oversight.

sschluter

Text Box

This project involved extreme green design for a condo unit on an island off the island of Nantucket. No public water, sewer, or electricity was available. The lack of utilities combined with resource areas abound, made this project an exciting challenge.

sschluter

Text Box

This is the septic system I designed for the project. Rules and Regulations required advanced nitrogen removal. I chose an Advantex system along with Presby Environmental pipes. The pumps are highly efficient to reduce draw on the solar array and wind turbine that provides power to the site.

••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

•••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

•24

" G

aske

ted

Fibe

rgla

ssLi

d W

ith S

.S. B

olts

Sim

plex

Pum

ping

Sys

tem

••••

••••

••••

••••

•••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

•24

" G

aske

ted

Fibe

rgla

ssLi

d W

ith S

.S. B

olts

(typ

.)

Min

. 18"

Dia

.Ta

nk O

peni

ng

Inle

t

Reci

rcul

atin

g Sp

litte

rVa

lve

(RSV

QD

) with

Qui

ck D

isco

nnec

t

Inle

t

AX20

Adv

anTe

x Fi

lter

2" D

ia. V

ent

Biot

ube

Pum

p Va

ult

Mod

el P

VU68

-242

5-L

Side

Vie

wSc

ale:

1"

= 3

'-0"

Top

Vie

wSc

ale:

1"

= 3

'-0"

End

Vie

wSc

ale:

1"

= 3

'-0"

•••

••••

••••

•••••

••••••

••••

Line

Hig

h H

ead

Pum

pM

odel

P30

0511

1,50

0 G

allo

nTw

o-C

ompa

rtm

ent

Ore

nco

Syst

ems,

Inc.

Tank

Flow

-th

roug

hpo

rt

Tank

Sad

dle

11"

64.5

"

13"

24.5

"

28"

25"

90"

167.

9"

71.5

"

11"

•••

•••••

••••

••••

••••

••••••

••••••

••••••

••M

odel

HV1

00

Floa

t Ass

embl

yM

odel

MF3

A

Biot

ube

Filt

er (2

4")

Y G W

15"

99.2

5"

Expe

cted

Influ

ent Q

ualit

yG

reas

e &

Oil:

2

0 m

g/L

BO

D:

150

mg/

L

TSS:

4

0 m

g/L

TK

N:

65

mg/

L

Typi

cal E

fflu

ent Q

ualit

y

B

OD

: <

10 m

g/L

TSS

: <

10 m

g/L

TN

: <

25 m

g/L

Expe

cted

Flo

ws

Q

=

500

gpd

U

p To

4 B

edro

oms

Peak

Des

ign

Not

es

••

••

•••

••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

••••

•Sl

ope

(min

. 1/4

"/ft.

)

Y G W B R

Hig

h Le

vel A

larm

Ove

rrid

e Ti

mer

ON

/OFF

LLA/

ROPu

mp

On

Pum

p O

ff

Floa

t Fun

ctio

ns

Pum

p Ba

sin

Mod

el P

BAX2

472

FI

To D

rain

field

Floa

t Ass

embl

yM

odel

MF3

A

Dis

char

ge A

ssem

bly

Efflu

ent P

ump

Mod

el P

EF33

11

B RY

To C

ontr

ol P

anel

Splic

e bo

x M

odel

SBE

X4(O

ptio

nal M

odel

SB4

not

show

n)

To D

rain

field

sschluter

Text Box

This is the detail sheet for the septic design. One critical aspect of this project is that every component had to be able to be flown from the main island of Nantucket to this island via helicopter. the Presby system doesn't use gravel, and the Advantex system is all fiberglass. I even chose a fiberglass distribution box. The components were nested into each other where possible and several flgihts had them on site.

Sca

le in

Fee

t

0

Figu

re

2702

-GR

AD

ING

SK

ETC

H.D

WG

June

10,

200

8

10'

1O

ver S

eptic

Com

pone

nts

Pro

pose

d G

radi

ngE

sthe

r's Is

land

Nan

tuck

et, M

A 0

2554

12 O

ak S

treet

Est

her's

Isla

nd P

artn

ers,

LLC

sschluter

Text Box

The contractor installed some of the septic components high so i worked with the Landscape Architect to change the proposed grades. Note that Daylor was acting as TetraTech Rizzo by the time I did this work.

Documents

PE APP-Tetra Tech