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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Job: Sharon HillsSheet No. 1 of 1Calc by: SCS Date 10/23/2008Check by: Date
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)
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.