Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

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.

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

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors Landscape Architects


C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 2608-Brickstone-2.zip\2608-Brickstone2\Stormwater\1.2608-Office Memo-SWM-scs-1-18-08.doc Job Number: 1.2608.13 Printed 9/4/2012 11:26:00 AM

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 Parking Parking

Bioretention Forebay 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

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors Landscape Architects


C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 2608-Brickstone-2.zip\2608-Brickstone2\Stormwater\1.2608-Office Memo-SWM-scs-1-18-08.doc Job Number: 1.2608.13 Printed 9/4/2012 11:26:00 AM

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

Tree

overflow

Pavement

Sand soil mix

Underdrain

To drainage 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

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors Landscape Architects


C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 2608-Brickstone-2.zip\2608-Brickstone2\Stormwater\1.2608-Office Memo-SWM-scs-1-18-08.doc Job Number: 1.2608.13 Printed 9/4/2012 11:26:00 AM

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 " 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 " 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

Engineers Planners Scientists Surveyors Landscape Architects


C:\DOCUME~1\SSCHLU~1.DPW\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 8 for 2608-Brickstone-2.zip\2608-Brickstone2\Stormwater\1.2608-Office Memo-SWM-scs-1-18-08.doc Job Number: 1.2608.13 Printed 9/4/2012 11:26:00 AM

E8

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.
W1

P33 W2 R5 R6 W3 E9 E6 R4 P31 E17 E16 D2


CB CB

P10

Re2 Re3

BRIGGS

P11

P32 R7 D3 E14

E7

R3 P23
ROOFS

7-3
CB

7-4 7-2
CB

P30
Re1

8P
CB

D1 P15
Depression

7-1

P18

P19

P20

P21

W5

VP P5
CB

ROOFHC

P22 R2
DMHB

1 3

W4

CB

DMHA

P3

P44 2 P4 P41 P42 P43

P45

P12 R1 P2

P13

CB

CB

E1

Subcat

Reach

Pond

Link

Drainage Diagram for 2608-PROPOSED-SITE PLANS Prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo, Printed 11/7/2008
HydroCAD 8.50 s/n 005923 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

2608-PROPOSED-SITE PLANS
Prepared by Tetra Tech Rizzo
HydroCAD 8.50 s/n 005923 2007 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Printed 11/7/2008 Page 2

Area Listing (all nodes)


Area (acres) 20.980 3.590 27.170 3.170 71.770 7.280 37.710 16.290 0.170 15.960 0.540 2.050 0.270 0.150 0.800 0.020 13.540 0.060 0.360 0.170 1.020 2.540 0.160 4.210 0.060 8.400 2.890 1.960 5.220 0.170 0.020 31.920 280.620 CN 30 39 55 61 70 74 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 87 89 89 90 90 91 92 93 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Description (subcatchment-numbers) Woods, Good, HSG A (E14,E16,E17,E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P13,P5) >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P13,P30,P31,P32,P33,P5) Woods, Good, HSG B (E7,E8,P12,P13,P15,P2,P3,P4,P5) >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E7,E8,P12,P13,P15,P2,P4,P5) Woods, Good, HSG C (E1,E6,E7,E8,P10,P11,P12,P13,P2,P3,P4,P42,P43,P5) >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (E1,E7,P10,P13,P2,P20,P21,P30,P4,P42,P43,P44,P5) Woods, Good, HSG D (E1,E14,E16,E17,E6,E7,E8,E9,P12,P13,P2,P3,P4,P41,P42,P44,P5) Wetlands, Dry (E17,P13,P3,P4) 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG C (P3) >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (E6,E8,P12,P13,P18,P19,P20,P22,P23,P4,P42,P43,P44,P45) Dirt roads, HSG B (P13,P2,P4,P5) Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG A (E6,E7,E8,P10,P11,P5) 50-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG D (P2,P3) Dirt roads, HSG C (P13,P4) Dirt roads, HSG D (P13,P2,P4) Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG B (E1) Ledge (E7,E8,P12,P13,P18,P19,P2,P20,P3,P4,P41,P42,P43,P5) RIP-RAP (P13) Gravel roads, HSG D (P43,P45) Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG C (E1) Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG D (E1,E7,E8,P10) Basin (P19,P20,P21,P23,P41,P43,P45) Briggs Pond (E14,P11) Existing Paved parking & roofs (offsite) (E6,E7,E8,E9,P10,P2,P5) Golf Hut roof (P43) Paved parking (P18,P19,P20,P21,P23,P43) Paved parking & roofs (E1,P11,P22,P30,P31,P32,P33) Roof (ROOFHC) Roofs (P23,ROOFS) Walk (P42) Walks (P44) Wetlands, Wet (E14,E7,E8,E9,P10,P11,P12,P2,P33,P4,P5) TOTAL AREA

Almost 300 acres!

Sharon Hills SCS 1 of Date Date 1 11/7/2008

Job: Sheet No. Calc by: Check by:

De Minimus Calculations

80% TSS removal must be achieved on an average weighted basis from the site as a whole using the "Weighted Average Method". (from Vol. 3, Ch. 1, Page 35, Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook) (Area1)(TSS1%)+(Area2)(TSS2%)+(Arean)(TSSn%) (Area1+Area2+Arean)

Weighted Average %=

Drainage Areas Area Size (ac) TSS Removal (%) (AreaXTSS) Re2 0.34 97% 0.3298 Re3 0.07 97% 0.0679 P33 0.21 78% 0.1638 SUM= 0.62 SUM= 0.5615

)(TSS1%)+(Area ) ( )(TSS2%)+(Area ) ( )(TSS3%)+(Area ) ( )(TSS4%). ) (Area1)( g g %= ( Weighted Average 2)( 3)( 4)( (Area1+Area2+Area3 +Area4+...) = 0.5615 0.62 0.91 cfs 91%

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.
Meets Deminimus for Treatment Meets Deminimus for Discharge (<1 cfs)

2 Year Q (P33)

= = 0.65

Job: Sharon Hills Sheet No. 1 of Calc by: SCS Date Check by: Date

1 11/5/2008

Groundwater Determination-Recharge Area 1

GZA PVC Top Elevation Well ID (ft) OW1-20 279.72 OW1 50 OW1-50 277 55 277.55 OW1-100 275.79 OW1-150 268.55

PVC Height (above ground) (ft) 2.3 21 2.1 2.3 2.9

TtR PVC Top Elevation (ft) 278.92 277 55 277.55 274.99 267.75

Depth to GW from PVC (ft) 32.23 25 18 25.18 25 20.86

GZA Groundwater Elevation (ft) 247.49 252 37 252.37 250.79 247.69

TtR Groundwater Elevation Delta (ft) (TtR-GZA) 246.69 -0.80 251 57 251.57 -0.80 0 80 249.99 -0.80 246.89 -0.80 (OW1-50) (OW1-50)

Groundwater at Recharge Area 1= My Groundwater at Rechrge Area 1= delta= delta

251.57 feet 251.6 feet -0.03 0.03 feet

MW OW. Casing= PVC= GND= GW(4/14/03)= GW(4/14/03) "THUMB AREA" CASING PVC GND GW OW1-20 279.07 278.92 276.62 246.69 OW1-50 276.93 276.75 274.65 251.57 OW1-100 275.02 274.99 272.69 249.99 OW1-150 267 8 267.8 267 75 267.75 264 85 264.85 246 89 246.89

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

Job: Sheet No. Calc by: Check by:

Sharon Hills 1 of SCS Date Date

1 11/7/2008

Level Spreader Calculations


Width
Use 6 foot Minimum width all level spreaders Level Spreader Outlet Width Pipe D Apron Width (ft) (ft) (ft) Location FEO1-1 1.50 4.50 6.00 FEO2-1 3.00 9.00 10.00 FEO7-1 2.00 6.00 6.00 FEO7-2 1.00 3.00 6.00 FEO8 1 FEO8-1 2 2.00 00 6.00 6 00 7.00 00

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

Depth
Q Pipe (Actual) Diameter (ft/s) (ft) FEO1-1 3.17 1.50 FEO2-1 3.00 FEO2 1 17.03 FEO7-1 26.61 2.00 FEO7-2 4.07 1.00 FEO8-1 23.76 2.00 Qpipe = 1.486/n*A*(Rh)^(2/3)*s^0.5 Q (cfs) 100 Year 3.17 17.03 26.61 4.07 23.76 Depth in pipe (ft) 0.5380 0.7950 1.3652 0.6210 1.3483 Wetted Perimeter (ft) 1.93 3.24 3.89 1.82 3.85 Hydraulic Radius Rh (ft) 0.30 0.46 0.59 0.28 0.58 Q PIPE (ft/s) 3.17 17.03 26.61 4.07 23.76

Slope, s Manning's (ft/ft) n 0.012 0.013 0.028 0.013 0.021 0.013 0.026 0.013 0.017 0.013

(deg) 147.16 123.93 137.16 151.99 139.23

Area (ft) 0.570 1.500 2.285 0.513 2.253

Location FEO1-1 FEO2-1 FEO7-1 FEO7-2 FEO8-1

Pipe TW Invert (ft) Elevation (ft) 301.00 301.54 305.00 305.80 263.00 264.37 254.00 254.62 281.00 282.35

Level Spreader Lip Elevation 301.60 306.00 264.50 254.70 282.50

Length
0.5 cfs/ft Location FEO1-1 FEO2-1 FEO7-1 FEO7-2 FEO8-1 Q (cfs) 100 Year 3.17 17 03 17.03 26.61 4.07 23.76 Q/.5 6.34 34.06 34 06 53.22 8.14 47.52 Min. Length (ft) 6.5 35 0 35.0 54.0 9.0 48.0

```

Job: Sheet No. Calc by: Check by:

Sharon Hills 1 of SCS Date Date

1 11/7/2008

Recharge Calculations
Required Recharge Volume
Hydrologic Soil Group Proposed Impervious Area (sf) 21,240 0 92,693 653,050 766,983 17 61 17.61 X Target Depth Factor (in) 0.60 0.35 0.25 0.10 sf ac = Required Recharge Volume (cf) 1,062 0 1,931 5,442 8,435 cf 0 19 0.19 af

A B C D Sum:

Capture Area Adjustment


Pond 7 Discharges Primary Discharge (cfs) 9.54 15.99 24.31 25.12 26.62 Secondary Discahrge (cfs) RECHARGED 4.26 5.88 8.32 10.05 10.76 Total Discharge (cfs) % Recharged 13.8 30.9% 21.87 26.9% 32.63 25.5% 35.17 28.6% 37.38 28.8% Ave= 28%

Storm 1 2 10 25 100

These are the recharge calculations for the proposed project.

Impervious Areas Contributing to Pond 7 Sub. Area (ac) P-18 0.46 P-19 P 19 0.34 P-20 3.85 P-21 0.27 P-23 5.00 ROOFS 0.30 TOTAL= 10.22 TOTAL X AVE % TO RECHARGE= Impervious to Re2= Impervious to Re3= Total= 3.28 3 28 Total Impervious Area: Area contributing to Recharge systems: Adjustment factor: 17.61 3.28 Adjusted volume: 8,435

2.87 0.34 0.07 17.61 ac 3.28 ac = x 5.36 5.36 = 45,230 cf 1.04 af 65%= 33% 11.45 ac

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


Volume Infiltrated from Rainfall 1 year (af) 100 year (af) Re1 4.62 5.36 Re2 0.07 0.19 Re3 0.02 0.04 Total 4.71 5.59 In the 1 year storm, 4.5 times the recharge volume is infiltrated In the 100 year storm, 5.4 times the recharge volume is infiltrated

Job: Sharon Hills Sheet No. 1 of Calc by: SCS Date Check by: Date

1 10/23/2008

Downstream Defender Sizing Calculations: DD-P1


For 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 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: Total Roof Area: Total Runoff to Be Treated: 3.24 (P43) 0 06 0.06 3.18

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

Downstream Defender Sizing Flow = 1.67 x 65.92 cfs 3.18 x x 453 gpm/ac-in/hr = 448.8 gal-s/cf-min = 2,406 gpm 5.36 cfs 29,585 gpm

Q100 Year=

Use 6 ft. diameter Downstream Defender Unit with bypass Flowrate at 60% Removal Efficiency= 8 cfs

(see chart)

LOCATION
FROM DMH1-9 TO DMH1-10

Q (Actual) (ft/s) 5.36

Size (ft) 2.00

So

d (ft) 0.4650

(deg) 115.31

A (ft) 0.554

WP (ft) 2.01

Rh (ft) 0.28

Q (ft/s) 5.36

ft/ft) (-) 0.040 0.013

Invert in Weir Manhole= Elevation Weir=

311.60 312.07

Job: Sheet No. Calc by: Check by:

Sharon Hills 2 of SCS Date Date

2 11/7/2008

Drawdown Calculations
Time= Rv (K)(Bottom Area)

System 1 Rv=

233,482 cf Bottom Area= Ti Time= 47.8 <

K= 24,336 sf 47.8 47 8 hours h 72 OK

2.41 in/hr

System 2 Rv=

8,276 cf Bottom Area= Time= 20.3 <

K= 2,027 sf 20.3 hours 72 OK

2.41 in/hr

System 3 Rv=

1,742 cf Bottom Area= Time= 14.7 <

K= 590 sf 14 7 hours 14.7 72 OK

2.41 in/hr

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

VP elev. Start is 276 E 1 yr Q 1 yr V Elev P 1 yr Q 1 yr V Elev E 2 yr Q 2 yr V Elev P 2 yr Q 2 yr V Elev E 10 yr Q 10 yr V Elev P 10 yr Q 10 yr V Elev E 25 yr Q 25 yr V Elev P 25 yr Q 25 yr V Elev E 100 yr Q 100 yr V Elev P 100 yr Q 100 yr V Elev

Q,V VP 22.3 276.7 20.2 276.6 40.4 277.0 35.3 276.9 85.4 277.7 73.9 277.4 111.3 278.0 96.0 277.7 154.6 24.5 278.5 132.5 26.1 278.2

Q,V W3 13.1 238.2 12.0 238.2 28.8 238.3 25.8 238.3 77.5 238.6 67.9 238.6 108.9 238.8 95.8 238.7 166.0 62.1 239.0 145.1 65.1 238.9

Q,V W4 5.0 274.0 4.4 274.0 8.0 274.1 6.5 274.1 14.9 274.1 11.4 274.1 18.7 274.1 14.1 274.1 25.1 3.5 274.1 18.3 1.3 274.1

Q,V W5

Q,V Q,V Briggs D1 21.6 13.1 253.7 21.5 253.7 39.6 254.1 38.3 254.1 84.7 254.4 75.6 254.4 110.9 254.6 92.9 254.6 155.1 23.6 255.0 122.7 22.2 255.0

Q,V D2 0.0 281.2 0.0 281.2 0.1 281.4 0.1 281.5 0.5 281.9 0.4 282.1 0.8 282.2 0.7 282.3 1.4 0.1 282.6 1.1 0.1 282.8 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.0 0.0 263.1 0.0 263.1 0.0 0.0 263.4 0.0 0.0 263.4

Q,V D3 0.0 242.0 0.0 242.0 0.0 242.0 0.0 242.0 0.0 242.4 0.0 242.9 0.0 243.0 0.0 243.4 0.1 0.0 243.7 0.2 0.0 244.2

12.0

28.9

26.0

81.1

73.1

121.9

110.3

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.

201.0 80.7 179.4 82.2

Volumes calculated with 0-850 hour time span

Pond 1 Berm Bottom 1 2 10 25 100 Pond 6 Berm Bottom 1 2 10 25 100 Re1 Top Bottom 1 2 10 25 100

315 307 Qout 308.6 309.3 310.9 311.9 313.3

Pond 2 Berm Bottom 1.3 1.7 2.4 2.7 3.2 1 2 10 25 100 Pond 7 Berm Bottom 1 2 10 25 100

281.0 277.0 Qout 277.9 16.6 278.2 24.7 278.5 35.0 278.6 40.3 278.9 48.4

Pond 3 339 Berm 334.5 Qout Bottom 335.3 3.3 1 335.6 5.2 2 336.2 9.4 10 336.7 11.1 25 337.9 13.6 100 Pond 8 274.0 Berm 270.0 Qout Bottom 271.2 13.8 1 271.5 21.9 2 271.9 32.6 10 272.2 35.2 25 272.7 37.4 100 Re3 253.00 Rech. Top 249.50 Vol. Bottom 249.87 0.07 1 250.17 2 250.89 10 251.40 25 252.67 0.19 100

329 326 Qout 326.4 326.6 327.2 327.5 328.0 356.0 351.5 Qout 352.0 352.1 352.4 352.6 352.8

Pond 5 Berm Bottom 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 1 2 10 25 100

288.0 283.0 Qout 283.8 12.4 284.1 17.8 285.1 19.6 285.7 20.7 286.8 22.6

1.0 1.4 2.4 2.9 3.5

Re2 259.10 Rech. Top 255.60 Vol. Bottom 256.54 4.62 1 257.00 2 257.76 10 258.06 25 258.99 5.36 100

249.50 Rech. 246.00 Vol. 246.17 0.02 246.48 246.96 247.28 247.90 0.04

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.

Revisions

Drawn By

Designed By

Checked By

Approved By

NOTICE OF INTENT SHARON HILLS ACCESS DRIVE SHARON, MA

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PLAN & PROFILE

1"=40' 127-12608 2608 NOI October 1, 2008

Revisions

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.

Drawn By

Designed By

Checked By

Approved By

NOTICE OF INTENT SHARON HILLS ACCESS DRIVE SHARON, MA

WETLAND CROSSING & CHANNEL DETAILS

AS SHOWN 127-12608 2608 NOI October 1, 2008

10

Revisions

Drawn By

Designed By

Checked By

Approved By

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.

NOTICE OF INTENT SHARON HILLS ACCESS DRIVE SHARON, MA

WETLAND CROSSING, ALTERATION & REPLACEMENT PLAN


AS SHOWN 127-12608 2608 NOI October 1, 2008

11

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, Esthers Island Partners LLC (EIP) had a vision to purchase an existing classic beach cottage on 10 waterfront acres on Esthers Island (off the west end of Nantucket). It was EIPs intention to rebuild the cottage as a LEED for Homes structure for use by a shared ownership group to be called Esthers Island Resorts.
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.

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.

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.

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.

Design Notes
Expected Flows Q Peak = 500 gpd Up To 4 Bedrooms

Slope (min. 1/4"/ft.)

Expected Influent Quality Grease & Oil: 20 mg/L BOD: 150 mg/L TSS: 40 mg/L TKN: 65 mg/L Typical Effluent Quality BOD: < 10 mg/L TSS: < 10 mg/L TN: < 25 mg/L

71.5"

Inlet

Min. 18" Dia. Tank Opening

90" 167.9"

Line

Top View
Scale: 1" = 3'-0"

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.
Recirculating Splitter Valve (RSVQD) with Quick Disconnect AX20 AdvanTex Filter 24" Gasketed Fiberglass Lid With S.S. Bolts Simplex Pumping System 2" Dia. Vent Splice box Model SBEX4 (Optional Model SB4 not shown)

24" Gasketed Fiberglass Lid With S.S. Bolts (typ.)

Discharge Assembly Model HV100 To Control Panel 11" Inlet 99.25" 15"
Y G

To Drainfield 11" 13" 24.5"


W

Tank Saddle
Y B

Float Assembly Model MF3A

Float Assembly Model MF3A 64.5" Flowthrough port 1,500 Gallon Two-Compartment Orenco Systems, Inc. Tank 25" Y G W B R 28" High Head Pump Model P300511 Biotube Filter (24") Float Functions High Level Alarm Override Timer ON/OFF LLA/RO Pump On Pump Off

Effluent Pump Model PEF3311 Pump Basin Model PBAX2472 FI Biotube Pump Vault Model PVU68-2425-L

Side View
Scale: 1" = 3'-0"

End View
Scale: 1" = 3'-0"

To Drainfield

2702-GRADING SKETCH.DWG

Esther's Island Partners, LLC 12 Oak Street Nantucket, MA 02554


0 Scale in Feet June 10, 2008 10'

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.

Esther's Island Proposed Grading Over Septic Components

Figure

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi