Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20230912 35 Scudder Ave. - BETA responses (11 Sep 2023)
PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. 43 Porter Lane West Dennis, MA 02670 Cell: 508-333-7630 Ed@PesceEng.com September 11, 2023 Barnstable Conservation Commission 230 South Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter regarding the Emblem-Hyannis Notice of Intent 35 Scudder Avenue, Hyannis, MA MassDEP File No. SE3-6124 Dear Members of the Commission: On behalf of our client Quarterra, ILEX Environmental & Pesce Engineering are pleased to respond to the September 5, 2023, BETA Group, Inc. (BETA) letter regarding their review of the Emblem Hyannis Notice of Intent (NOI). As you know, BETA has been engaged by Save Twin Brooks, Inc. who are opposed to this Project. The following are our responses to these comments (the original comments are in small italics text below): REVIEW SUMMARY The current NOI does not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Project meets the Performance Standards and Stormwater Standards under the Wetlands Protection Act and MassDEP's Wetland Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) or the Barnstable Wetlands Protection By law (Chapter 237 - the "Bylaw"). RESPONSE: The NOI provides a thorough review of all applicable performance standards and stormwater standards as noted in our responses below. Based on the information we presented in the NOI, the Project complies with all applicable wetland regulations and stormwater requirements. REVIEW FINDINGS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN The Project is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (the Standards) as outlined by MassDEP. Stormwater management systems must be designed to incorporate "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) as prescribed by Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and Handbook. RESPONSE: The NOI provides an extensive assessment of how the Project’s stormwater design meets the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (Standards) including associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs). In addition, the Barnstable Department of Public Works (DPW) has been reviewing the stormwater analysis for over 6 months as part of the Town’s Informal Site Plan review process and multiple recommended revisions to the stormwater design have already been incorporated and included with this NOI. Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 2 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. The soils data is not sufficient to support a determination of Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater (ESHGW) for the design of the proposed infiltration SCMs. The Geotechnical Report prepared by Lahlaf Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. (LGCI), which is included in the Stormwater Report, is a geotechnical report prepared primarily for structural purposes and not for the purpose of stormwater design. There are no soil colors documented in the soil logs, nor are there any notations of redoximorphic conditions encountered. The report states: The groundwater information reported herein is based on observations made during or shortly after the completion of drilling and excavation, and may not represent the actual groundwater conditions, as additional time may be required for the groundwater levels to stabilize. The groundwater information presented in this report only represents the conditions encountered at the time and location of the explorations. Seasonal fluctuation should be anticipated. Thus, the geotechnical data does not provide the data necessary to determine if the infiltration SCMs have been designed in compliance with the requirements of the Standards for height of above ESHGW. The actual groundwater levels encountered in the explorations conducted by LGCI were only found in Boring B-1, which was conducted in the southeast corner of the development just west of one of the IVWs, and just in front of Building 10. The boring log indicated that groundwater was encountered at Elevation 18.0 (14' depth). No adjustment has been made or proposed for this to determine ESHGW. RESPONSE: All the above comments refer to the referenced geotechnical report and the manner in which groundwater was adjusted for the ESHGW elevation. The drainage report describes in great detail how the ESHGW elevation was determined, while referencing the required Cape Cod Commission (CCC) method for this. Mr. Pesce witnessed multiple test pits during the geotechnical investigation in August 2020, and along with understanding the soil conditions observed, used the local water table maps to more accurately locate the groundwater elevation, to determine a GW adjustment of 3.3 ft. (following the CCC method). No construction detail or elevation information has been provided for the proposed roof drywells. The data associated with the chamber infiltration systems is required to determine compliance with the Standards. RESPONSE: While not a critical issue at this stage of design, some new construction details have been added to the plans (new Sheet 21 of 21) showing the roof drain drywell/yard drain infiltration systems proposed (see attached). In accordance with the Handbook, test pits are required at all infiltration SCMs . There are no test pits documented within any of the areas proposed for Infiltration Basins. The design engineer has indicated that they will be conducted prior to construction, however, at this point there has been no efforts to ensure that the design elevations for the infiltration measures conform to the requirements of the Standards for height above ESHG W. RESPONSE: Again, multiple test pits were witnessed, and the soils conditions were found to be consistent throughout the site. Additional test pits will be performed in the exact locations of the infiltration basins to confirm the design assumptions (and ESHGW adjustments) before construction start. The results from these test pit observations will be provided to the Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 3 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. Commission (the applicant agrees to have this as a Special Condition). Design changes, if any, will also be provided to the Commission staff for review. The Drainage Report indicated that the site is not located within a critical area. Stewart's Creek is a tidal estuary that is tributary to a Shellfish Growing Area. In accordance with the Standards, this is a Critical Area and Standard 6 is applicable to the development. RESPONSE: Vol. 1, Ch. 1 (pg. 16) of the Standards explains that Standard 6 applies if stormwater discharges “near or to …(a) critical area.” A critical area may include a shellfish growing area. It further defines the term “near” as: “A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area …” In our case, the Stewart’s Creek estuary (and shellfish growing area) is 1,500-2,600 ft. to the south of this Project, and we believe that the water quality of the Creek will be improved from the resulting reduction in nitrogen and pesticide use from this project. Therefore, since our Project is located so far upstream, and will not result in a significant impact to the shellfish growing area, we do not believe that Standard 6 applies. The existing conditions analysis at the entrance driveway into the development analyzes the flows into this wetland as a single point. The flow off the existing pavement area consists of sheet flow into two depressions adjacent to the edge of the pavement, which act as stormwater control structures for this flow. The analysis should analyze each of these depressions separately. The depression closest to Scudder Avenue has been flagged as an IVW (a Water of the Commonwealth), thus maintaining flow rates and volumes into this resource is critical to ensuring that the stormwater design will not impact the resource. To maintain compliance with Standard 2, Peak Flow Rate Attenuation, the existing flow into the IVW specific to each of the depressions should be analyzed separately in the existing conditions analysis to ensure that the proposed outfall at the edge of the resource complies with the Standard. RESPONSE: It is unclear what wetland is being discussed here. Wetlands near to the entrance driveway consist of bordering vegetated wetlands. There is an existing stormwater basin that takes flow from the existing parking lot which is not considered an IVW (even though it was initially flagged as such). This area was constructed as a stormwater basin. This area flows to the designated Design Point 1 (DP-1) as shown on the Proposed Drainage Areas Plans. Table 1 and Table 2 show that the peak rates of runoff and peak volumes for the proposed conditions do not exceed the existing rate and volume of runoff at this location, and therefore complies with the Standards. There are proposed stormwater improvements indicated in the proposed conditions in the parking lot adjacent to the existing building, outside the limits of the proposed development Site. These measures result in a new point source discharge that is required to comply with the Standards . There is no information or data presented in conjunction with this design to make that determination. RESPONSE: The new stormwater management system for the hotel parcel parking lot in this area is shown on the Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheet 9 of 21) as a proposed drainage design, with the “Final Design TBD.” When the final design for this location is completed, we will provide that to the Commission Staff for review, and request that this be added as a Special Condition. This proposed design now includes water quality units to comply with the stormwater standards, for TSS removal, and is an large improvement as compared to the existing conditions. There is no new point source discharge, since the drainage from the parking lot is presently discharged to this area. Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 4 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. The drainage analysis for Ponds A, B, and C indicate that the water surfaces of these ponds are controlled by a sharp crested weir, however, there is no data or details presented on the existing structure which documents this assumption. The design engineer should document the existing outlet configuration. RESPONSE: These ponds each exhibited a shallow “v” shaped swale on their downslope side, and it was determined to simulate this existing condition with a “v”- shaped sharp crested weir as a worst case (more conservative - creating overflow conditions immediately when reaching the “v” notch elevation for each), which simulates the existing conditions. There is no formal outlet pipe for these ponds. In accordance with Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Handbook, the infiltration basins will need emergency dewatering capability and monitoring wells, which are not depicted. In addition, the proposed roof systems should be provided with observation risers. RESPONSE: We did not add “emergency dewatering” capabilities because they are not necessary due to the well-draining soils on site, and are not required in Vol. 2, Ch. 2. However, we did add new monitoring wells which are shown in the access roads around the basins (1 for each basin). Inspection ports are now shown for the roof drain systems on Sheet 21 of the site plans for the roof and lawn drywells. Each of the infiltration basins have a proposed wick that will be directly connected to groundwater. The design engineer has indicated that these are proposed to aid in the infiltrative capability of the basins. However, they will be directly connected to the groundwater regime and will bypass the treatment capability of the soils separating the bottom of the basin and ESHGW. This is in direct violation of the Handbook. RESPONSE: We reviewed this comment and agreed that the design could be improved. We revised the “wick drain” design to use a shallower LC-6 chamber with crushed stone, and relocated these drains up-slope on the sides of each basin. The inlet grate rim elevation has been raised to ensure the WQV gets treated in the basin first. This also allows the chambers to be raised to provide sufficient groundwater separation for treatment to occur in the chambers. The revised detail of this is shown on the Grading & Drainage Sheet 10. Around the proposed clubhouse, there are several area drains that will discharge to a subsurface chamber system. The Drainage Report should address the issue of whether the proposed improvements provide the 44% TSS Removal required for pretreatment for the runoff from the impervious surfaces around the clubhouse that are collected by these drains and directed to the chamber field. RESPONSE: The clubhouse and associated drainage areas are located outside of wetlands jurisdiction. The clubhouse and pool are not located in, nor discharge to, a critical area. The impervious surfaces in this area are also not a significant source of TSS. For both of these reasons, the 44% TSS removal rule does not apply, and the design is reasonable and appropriate for this use. The Time of Concentration for the existing conditions analysis EX DA-9 is 15.0 minutes. The corresponding proposed watershed area, PR-DA-3, is 26.1 minutes. The slope of the shallow concentrated flow in the proposed conditions is incorrect. It is indicated as 0.0021 and should be 0.021. In addition, the CN value for the proposed gravel road should be 96, not 76 as noted in the Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 5 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. hydro-CAD analysis. These adjustments may result in an increase in peak flow rates and volumes into Pond D. RESPONSE: The values for PR-DA 3 have been adjusted in the HydroCAD model (see the attached HydroCAD report). The slope of 0.0021 was incorrect, and has been changed to the correct 0.021. We feel the gravel CN number (76) is correct for this site, but we also changed that to a CN of 96 to re-run the HydroCAD model. The results contained in our attached HydroCAD report for this area show these changes, but does not result in adverse impacts or significant increases in post-development conditions (peak rates or volumes). For DP-3 (Stewart’s Creek), these changes resulted in no increase in peak flowrate at DP-3 for all storm events, and only a negligible increase in volume for only the 100-yr. storm event (an increase from 0.293 ac-ft to 0.324 ac-ft, which does exceed the existing condition of 0.476 ac-ft) There are several double-grated catch basins included in the design. In accordance with Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Handbook, the overall impervious area tributary to this SCM should not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. Calculations that document that this design requirement has been met should be submitted. RESPONSE: We have analyzed each double catch basin, and revised the plans accordingly by reducing the subcatchment areas to the applicable catch basins, and adding new catch basins in select areas. The attached revised Grading & Drainage Plans (Sheets 9-11) reflect these changes. As shown on page 12 of the Drainage Report, the sediment forebay storage volume includes the storage volume for the bioretention areas. The bioretention areas are separate from the sediment forebay and should not be included in the calculations. Due to the lack of pretreatment, these bioretention areas will meet the Standards for a sediment forebay only. Thus, the volume provided should be calculated separately to determine that they provide the storage volume required by the Handbook. RESPONSE: We reviewed the sediment forebay calculations shown on page 12 of the report, and have deleted the bioretention volumes from these calculations. The required sediment forebay volume for Infiltration Basin 1 was already sufficient without the bioretention area volume: 1,132.6 cu. ft. required, and 1,165 cu. ft. provided. For Infiltration Basin 2, we enlarged this basin by making it slightly deeper (from elevation 16.50’ to 16.25’). The required sediment forebay volume = 914.8 cu. ft. and the available volume at the wick drain rim inlet elevation of 17.80’ = >1,023 cu. ft. (see the attached stage-storage table for elevation 17.75’): There is an area drain in the courtyard formed by building numbers 1, 6, 7, and 9. The runoff from the sidewalk must be treated like any other impervious surface. The Design engineer has not provided any data documenting that the system will provide the pretreatment needed to meet the requirements of the Handbook for the proposed infiltration SCM. In addition, the infiltration should be limited to the area of the proposed subsurface system, and not the upper storage area above the rim of the area drain. RESPONSE: We affirm that the area drain/yard drain in the courtyard described above is properly designed. As with the clubhouse location, this courtyard area is located outside of wetlands jurisdiction. Further, the courtyard is not located in, nor discharges to, a critical area. Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 6 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. The impervious surfaces in this area are also not a significant source of TSS. For both of these reasons, the 44% TSS removal rule does not apply, and the design is reasonable and appropriate for this use. The mounding analysis included in the Drainage Report pages 13 and 14 is inaccurate. The duration used is only 0.041 days {1 Hr.). Based upon this duration, the recharge volume applied is not sufficient to represent the entire infiltration volume. The design should document that the duration multiplied by the recharge rate equals the total recharge volume from the Hydro -CAD analysis. RESPONSE: We have analyzed the previous mounding analysis, and made several changes based on more accurate information found in USGS references and on-line sources. These changes included the specific yield, horizontal hydraulic conductivity, duration period, and thickness of the saturated zone. The duration selected for this calculation was the drawdown time for each basin; 1.918 days (46.04 hrs.) for Infiltration Basin 1, and 1.461 days (35.07 hrs.) for Infiltration Basin 2. These numbers are also ultra conservative, since we are using a more conservative Rawls Rate of 2.41 inches/hour, rather than the more common 8.27 inches/hr. for sandy A soils. Attached are the updated mounding calculation sheets, which show only a max. 1.53 ft. or 1.49 ft. of mounding for each infiltration basin (as compared to 1.73 ft. and 1.75 ft. previously). This will not cause any significant problems with the performance of the stormwater management system. RESOURCE AREA/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Given the extent of the onsite resource areas and complexity of the Project, BETA suggests that the boundaries of onsite wetlands be reviewed and confirmed, as well as compliance with the Performance Standards, through an independent peer review conducted on behalf of the BCC. RESPONSE: We believe that, while there are numerous wetland resource areas on the Site, the complexity of the work proposed within jurisdiction is straightforward. We feel that the Barnstable Conservation Commission has well-experienced professional staff that can manage a comprehensive review of a Project such as this. In Section 4.8 of the NOI Narrative, the Applicant describes the areas previously flagged as IVWs as "Non-Jurisdictional Vegetated Areas". This area is described as being approximately 4,900 sf. This area is vegetated with greater than 50% wetland vegetation. The NOI narrative argues that because the wetlands are supported hydrologically by stormwater and irrigation, they should not be considered jurisdictional. According to the definition of Surface Water under 310 CMR 10.00, surface waters are "all water other than groundwater". There is no exclusion of jurisdiction for stormwater-fed wetlands. RESPONSE: In order to be subject to jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), an area must meet the definition of a wetland resource area. These two areas do not meet any definition found under the WPA. In order to be subject to jurisdiction under the local bylaw, an area must meet the definition of a “Vegetated Wetland” which requires ground or surface water to be present. To our knowledge, irrigation and stormwater runoff has never been considered a surface water in any local, state or federal regulation. Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 7 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. In accordance with the definitions of "Freshwater Wetlands" under the Wetlands Protection Act and "Waters of the Commonwealth" under 310 CMR 10.00, IVWs are subject to MassDEP jurisdiction under Section 401. Per 314 CMR 9.06(5), fill of Waters of the Commonwealth is not permitted for "the impoundment or detention of stormwater". The Project is proposing to fill lVWs, and convert portions of the IVWs into Bioretention Area 3 . Impacts to IVWs were not quantified or mitigated for because the Applicant is asserting the IVWs are not Subject to Jurisdiction. RESPONSE: Again, these IVWs are not subject to jurisdiction, and have never been subject to jurisdiction under the WPA. Two IVWs are shown on the existing conditions plans within the limit of the development . RESPONSE: Based on our review of the definition of Vegetated Wetlands pursuant to the local Bylaw, the two isolated areas are not subject to Bylaw jurisdiction. In addition, as provided in the NOI, the larger of the two areas does not meet the definition of isolated land subject to flooding. Therefore, these two areas are not subject to jurisdiction by the Barnstable Conservation Commission. o Of the two IVWs identified on the plans, the larger is Subject to Protection under Section 237- 12 of the local Bylaw2, as it is approximately 4,350 sf as delineated (exceeding 500 sf). RESPONSE: This area does not meet the definition of a “Vegetated Wetland” under the local bylaw. o As delineated, the second is approximately 450 sf. This IVW is close to being protected under Section 237-12 of the Bylaw. Accordingly, confirmation of the boundary of this IVW in the field is important. RESPONSE: This area does not meet the definition of a “Vegetated Wetland” under the local bylaw. o Both IVWs may also be Subject to Jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE is required to determine whether these IVWs are Subject to Jurisdiction under these laws. RESPONSE: Stormwater and irrigation flows are not generally considered a “water” for jurisdictional purposes (see., e.g., Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. (2023), finding that the term “waters” as used in the Clean Water Act encompasses “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographical features.’”) The two areas do not meet the definition of Waters of the United States. A recent decision by the Supreme Court (Sackett v. EPA) has further clarified the definition of Waters of the United States which, when applied to these areas, confirms they are not subject to federal jurisdiction. The total IVW fill appears to be approximately 4,900 sf for both concepts, which is close to exceeding 5,000 sf (the threshold for requiring a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under 314 CMR 9.00). Accordingly, the accuracy of the delineation of these resources is important. Accordingly, a peer review of these resources is appropriate. RESPONSE: Not applicable as these wetlands are not subject to local, state, or federal wetland Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 8 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. regulations. Under the Barnstable Wetlands Protection Bylaw, only 2,500 sf of wetlands may be filled, and the Project appears to fill approximately 4,350 sf of IVW. No replication mitigation is proposed for this wetland fill. RESPONSE: Not applicable as these areas do not meet the local definition of a “Vegetated Wetland.” The Buffer Zones to the IVWs are not shown on the plans and it does not appear that the calculations provided to document compliance with the local regulations for Buffer Zone Mitigation Requirements include work within the Buffer Zones to the IVWs (Chapter 704-2 through -5). RESPONSE: Not applicable as these areas do not meet the local definition of a “Vegetated Wetland.” RIVERFRONT AREA The majority of the Project does not qualify as Redevelopment under the Riverfront Area Performance Standards (310 CMR 10.58(5)3). The areas that qualify as Redevelopment under the Riverfront Area Performance Standards are areas that are currently paved or otherwise degraded by definition. The fairway areas and landscaped woodlands present onsite do not meet the definition of degraded under 310 CMR 10.58(5), as these areas have sufficient topsoil to support vegetative growth. The Applicant has not delineated or quantified the boundaries of degraded Riverfront Area. RESPONSE: The Project is sometimes referred to as the Redevelopment as that is the phrasing and definition used under the Cape Cod Commission Act and documentation submitted to the CCC. We continue to use this term for consistency as noted in the first sentence of Section 1 of the NOI. The term of redevelopment under the WPA is a very limited definition as noted in the BETA text above. Section 5.5 of the NOI outlines specifically what is allowed under the redevelopment provisions of the Riverfront Area regulations. As noted in the NOI “At the Site, previously degraded areas consist of the existing pavement at the access driveway, emergency access, and features of the golf course such as sand traps and paved and gravel interior paths where topsoil has been deliberately removed.” For the access driveway, there is presently 1.2 acres of existing pavement, and the Project will result in a 50% reduction of pavement to 0.6 acres in the RFA. It appears that the Site's property boundary was not recorded prior to October 6, 1997. Accordingly, the Project may only alter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area onsite under 310 CMR 10.58(4), or up to the area of the total degraded RA (paved or areas lacking topsoil) under 310 CMR 10.58(5), whichever is greater. RESPONSE: A new lot has not been created, therefore, the lot that presently exists (which existed prior to October 6, 1997) is the lot that must be reviewed pursuant to the Riverfront Area regulations. Review of just the Emblem Hyannis portion of the lot would be segmentation and would not meet the Riverfront Area regulations. The 10% alteration provision is calculated Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 9 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. notwithstanding the limited project regulations and allowable work provisions in the Riverfront Area as described in Section 5.0. The NOI indicates the Project will result in 163,742 sf (3.76 acres) of RFA alteration. According to Section 5.4 of the NOI narrative, there is 21.68 acres of Riverfront Area onsite. The Applicant, however, should indicate whether this 21.68 acres includes already -developed RFA associated with the Conference Center property. Based on the Applicant's calculations, the Project may alter up to 2.17 acres of RFA. The proposed RFA alteration exceeds the allowable alteration. RESPONSE: See above response. The 21.68 acres of Riverfront Area includes parking, pavement, golf course and vegetated uplands and wetlands. Stormwater BMPs can be located within RFA if there is no alternative. The Alternatives Analysis provided in Section 5.3 of the NOI does not provide sufficient details regarding whether a less dense multifamily development that avoids impacts to RFA could be economically viable . RESPONSE: As described in the NOI, in order for the appropriate function of the stormwater management system, it must be located lower on the landscape. The Project will result in avoidable clearing within the 0 to 100 foot Inner Riparian Area (in conflict with the Massachusetts Riverfront Area Performance Standards at 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.a.). Specifically, clearing is proposed associated with Infiltration Basin 2. RESPONSE: See above response. PONDS/SURFACE WATERBODIES The Applicant proposes 3,089 sf of alteration within the 50-100 foot buffer to Ponds, with 9,267 sf of mitigation. Documentation of compliance with these regulations is required. RESPONSE: See Figure 12 included in the NOI Narrative. LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE (LSCSF) The boundary to LSCSF does not follow the corresponding FEMA contour elevations, and is therefore not depicted correctly. The project will result in impacts to LSCSF at the emergency access road. RESPONSE: The flood plain shown on the plans follows the elevations in accordance with mapping by FEMA. Zone AE is identified by FEMA as elevations 11’ & 12’ on the site. This is generally accepted engineering practice for analysis of impacts in the FEMA flood plain. This approach is more conservative, since in virtually all cases on the site, this mapped flood plain boundary is shown at locations ≥ Elevations 11’ & 12’. The proposed design will not impact the wetland interests of the flood plain. Elevation 11 is actually located below the edge of the emergency access road. Again, the proposed design will not impact the wetland interests of the flood plain. As presented in The Coastal Manual4, if LSCSF is determined to be significant to the interests of Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 10 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. the Act, it can be protected. Based on the Site's locus, it appears the onsite LSCSF if significant to the flood storage, storm damage prevention, and pollution prevention interests of the Wetlands Protection Act, as well as significant to the recreation and aesthetics values protected under the Bylaw5 Construction of the proposed emergency access road in the floodplain will affect the ability of LSCSF to provide the pollution prevention and storm damage prevention interests of the Act. RESPONSE: We disagree that construction of the emergency access road will affect the ability of LSCSF to provide storm damage prevention. The edge of the emergency access road shown within the mapped boundary of the flood plain is actually located above elevation 11 ft., and follows the existing ground contours here, mimicking the existing conditions. It will absolutely not impact the flood plain’s ability to provide storm damage protection (nor reduce the available coastal flood plain volume of storage). COASTAL BANK The Applicant notes that the Project will permanently alter 8,227 sf through construction of the proposed access driveway. The proposed mitigation, 24,226 sf, does not meet the local performance standards, which require 25,381 sf of mitigation. RESPONSE: As directed by Chairman Tom Lee during the September 5, 2023 public hearing, the local bylaw is only applicable to local-delineated coastal banks. As noted in the NOI, there are no local Coastal Banks at this Site. Construction of Infiltration Basins 1 and 2 will result in alteration of 22,180 sf of the 0 -50' buffer to Coastal Bank, without mitigation. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 704-3.A, indicating it is unable to meet the required setbacks or provide sufficient mitigation. RESPONSE: See above response. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS- 50-FOOT No DISTURBANCE ZONE The NOI documents that the Project does not comply with Chapter 704 of the Local Regulations. The Project design(s) does not propose a 50-foot No Disturbance Zone from the jurisdictional IVW(s) or the Coastal Banks onsite. While Section 4.9 indicates that the Applicant is providing 4:1 mitigation for work within the 0-50' Buffer Zone, plans and calculations documenting compliance with Section 704-4.B have not been provided. RESPONSE: Not applicable. See above responses relative to the IVW and local Coastal Bank. MITIGATION The Applicant indicates that it will plant native plantings onsite to provide screening and improve habitat. The Landscaping plan included in the NOI Application does not include only true native species. Many cultivars are included and large areas of the golf course are shown as only being planted, without plantings specified. A detailed planting plan for the restoration areas should be provided in accordance with the local Performance Standards under Chapter 704 . RESPONSE: The Landscape Plans (included with the NOI) have proposed landscaping associated with the development that has a different planting palette or schedule than the Restoration Plan. All schedules (including the bioretention areas and meadow seed mix) are Barnstable Conservation Commission Responses to BETA Group Inc. Letter September 11, 2023 Page 11 PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. ILEX Environmental, Inc. provided on the plans. No cultivars are proposed as part of the Restoration Plan. As noted in the Restoration plan “Please refer to the Landscape Plans and the “bioretention area palette” proposed for a list of shrubs that are acceptable for shrub plantings”. The Applicant has presented protection of an approximately 19-acre Conservation Restriction (CR) as mitigation for the Project. Of the 19 acres, at least 8.25 acres is within streams, ponds, and wetlands. Additionally, at least an additional 3 acres is bel ow the 100-Year Flood Elevation and the Limit of Moderate Wave Action. No portion of the proposed CR is outside the Jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act or the Jurisdiction of the Bylaw. Therefore, development of these areas would be prohibited or extremely limited. RESPONSE: The Applicant has never indicated that the CR was proposed to limit development. CRs are proposed for other reasons other than to limit development. The CR was proposed as part of the CCC permitting process as a way to ensure that the open space portion of the Site was managed by a third party for the community, to protect natural resources, and to provide other community benefits. Thank you for your review of this project. As always, please call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, PESCE ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES, INC. & ILEX ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Edward L. Pesce., P.E., LEED ® AP Kathryn S. Barnicle, PWS Attachments: Selected revised site plans (4 sheets) Revised PR-DA-3 – DP-3 HydroCAD report Revised groundwater mounding calculations Stage-storage table for sediment forebay at Infiltration Basin 2 cc: Dan Lee, Quarterra Brian Dugdale, Goulston & Storrs Steve Mack, ARRO Building Services use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 16.5400 R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.260 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 300.00 K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 70.000 x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 25.000 y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 1.918 t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 130.000 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 131.494 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 1.494 Δh(max)maximum groundwater mounding (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) Ground- water Mounding, in feet Distance from center of basin in x direction, in feet 1.494 0 1.489 10 1.464 25 1.370 50 1.217 75 1.063 100 0.944 125 0.853 150 0.777 175 0.714 200 Disclaimer This spreadsheet solving the Hantush (1967) equation for ground-water mounding beneath an infiltration basin is made available to the general public as a convenience for those wishing to replicate values documented in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins" or to calculate values based on user-specified site conditions. Any changes made to the spreadsheet (other than values identified as user-specified) after transmission from the USGS could have unintended, undesirable consequences. These consequences could include, but may not be limited to: erroneous output, numerical instabilities, and violations of underlying assumptions that are inherent in results presented in the accompanying USGS published report. The USGS assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any changes made to the spreadsheet. If changes are made to the spreadsheet, the user is responsible for documenting the changes and justifying the results and conclusions. This spreadsheet will calculate the height of a groundwater mound beneath a stormwater infiltration basin. More information can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Simulation of groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins". The user must specify infiltration rate (R), specific yield (Sy), horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh), basin dimensions (x, y), duration of infiltration period (t), and the initial thickness of the saturated zone (hi(0), height of the water table if the bottom of the aquifer is the datum). For a square basin the half width equals the half length (x = y). For a rectangular basin, if the user wants the water-table changes perpendicular to the long side, specify x as the short dimension and y as the long dimension. Conversely, if the user wants the values perpendicular to the short side, specify y as the short dimension, x as the long dimension. All distances are from the center of the basin. Users can change the distances from the center of the basin at which water-table aquifer thickness are calculated. Cells highlighted in yellow are values that can be changed by the user. Cells highlighted in red are output values based on user-specified inputs. The user MUST click the blue "Re-Calculate Now" button each time ANY of the user-specified inputs are changed otherwise necessary iterations to converge on the correct solution will not be done and values shown will be incorrect. Use consistent units for all input values (for example, feet and days) In the report accompanying this spreadsheet (USGS SIR 2010-5102), vertical soil permeability (ft/d) is assumed to be one-tenth horizontal hydraulic conductivity (ft/d). Re-Calculate Now 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 0 50 100 150 200 250 Groundwater Mounding, in feet 35 Scudder Ave., Hyannis - Groundwater Mounding Analysis - Infiltration Basin 2 September 10, 2023 1.494' use consistent units (e.g. feet & days or inches & hours)Conversion Table Input Values inch/hour feet/day 16.5400 R Recharge (infiltration) rate (feet/day)0.67 1.33 0.260 Sy Specific yield, Sy (dimensionless, between 0 and 1) 300.00 K Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh (feet/day)*2.00 4.00 80.000 x 1/2 length of basin (x direction, in feet) 25.000 y 1/2 width of basin (y direction, in feet)hours days 1.461 t duration of infiltration period (days)36 1.50 135.000 hi(0)initial thickness of saturated zone (feet) 136.531 h(max)maximum thickness of saturated zone (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) 1.531 Δh(max)maximum groundwater mounding (beneath center of basin at end of infiltration period) Ground- water Mounding, in feet Distance from center of basin in x direction, in feet 1.531 0 1.527 10 1.507 25 1.427 50 1.284 75 1.113 100 0.976 125 0.872 150 0.788 175 0.717 200 Disclaimer This spreadsheet solving the Hantush (1967) equation for ground-water mounding beneath an infiltration basin is made available to the general public as a convenience for those wishing to replicate values documented in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins" or to calculate values based on user-specified site conditions. Any changes made to the spreadsheet (other than values identified as user-specified) after transmission from the USGS could have unintended, undesirable consequences. These consequences could include, but may not be limited to: erroneous output, numerical instabilities, and violations of underlying assumptions that are inherent in results presented in the accompanying USGS published report. The USGS assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any changes made to the spreadsheet. If changes are made to the spreadsheet, the user is responsible for documenting the changes and justifying the results and conclusions. This spreadsheet will calculate the height of a groundwater mound beneath a stormwater infiltration basin. More information can be found in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5102 "Simulation of groundwater mounding beneath hypothetical stormwater infiltration basins". The user must specify infiltration rate (R), specific yield (Sy), horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh), basin dimensions (x, y), duration of infiltration period (t), and the initial thickness of the saturated zone (hi(0), height of the water table if the bottom of the aquifer is the datum). For a square basin the half width equals the half length (x = y). For a rectangular basin, if the user wants the water-table changes perpendicular to the long side, specify x as the short dimension and y as the long dimension. Conversely, if the user wants the values perpendicular to the short side, specify y as the short dimension, x as the long dimension. All distances are from the center of the basin. Users can change the distances from the center of the basin at which water-table aquifer thickness are calculated. Cells highlighted in yellow are values that can be changed by the user. Cells highlighted in red are output values based on user-specified inputs. The user MUST click the blue "Re-Calculate Now" button each time ANY of the user-specified inputs are changed otherwise necessary iterations to converge on the correct solution will not be done and values shown will be incorrect. Use consistent units for all input values (for example, feet and days) In the report accompanying this spreadsheet (USGS SIR 2010-5102), vertical soil permeability (ft/d) is assumed to be one-tenth horizontal hydraulic conductivity (ft/d). Re-Calculate Now 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 0 50 100 150 200 250 Groundwater Mounding, in feet 35 Scudder Ave., Hyannis - Groundwater Mounding Analysis - Infiltration Basin 2 September 10, 2023 1.531' Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions Printed 9/9/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 24P: Basin 2 SF Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 16.25 510 0 16.27 514 10 16.29 518 21 16.31 522 31 16.33 526 41 16.35 530 52 16.37 534 63 16.39 538 73 16.41 542 84 16.43 546 95 16.45 549 106 16.47 553 117 16.49 557 128 16.51 561 139 16.53 565 151 16.55 569 162 16.57 573 173 16.59 577 185 16.61 581 196 16.63 585 208 16.65 589 220 16.67 593 232 16.69 597 244 16.71 601 255 16.73 605 268 16.75 609 280 16.77 613 292 16.79 617 304 16.81 621 317 16.83 624 329 16.85 628 342 16.87 632 354 16.89 636 367 16.91 640 380 16.93 644 392 16.95 648 405 16.97 652 418 16.99 656 431 17.01 661 445 17.03 668 458 17.05 674 471 17.07 681 485 17.09 687 499 17.11 694 512 17.13 700 526 17.15 707 540 17.17 714 555 17.19 720 569 17.21 727 583 17.23 733 598 17.25 740 613 17.27 746 628 17.29 753 643 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 17.31 759 658 17.33 766 673 17.35 772 688 17.37 779 704 17.39 785 719 17.41 792 735 17.43 798 751 17.45 805 767 17.47 812 783 17.49 818 800 17.51 825 816 17.53 831 833 17.55 838 849 17.57 844 866 17.59 851 883 17.61 857 900 17.63 864 917 17.65 870 935 17.67 877 952 17.69 883 970 17.71 890 988 17.73 896 1,005 17.75 903 1,023 Infiltration Basin -2 Sediment Forebay Volume Calculations Proposed Forebay Berm Elevation = 17.80' Therefore the available volume is slightly greater than 1,023 cu. ft. (914.8 cu. ft. required, so OK) LOCUS ZONE 2 18 192 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 242526 27 28 292932 282730 3231323130292831 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 2728 28 272829 30 31 28293031272625242 7 27 29 25 26 27 27 2625 30 312627 272829 302929 28 30 28 24 26 2022 2425 24 23 22 19 17 25 179 12 13 14 15 13 11 12 13 15 15 14 16 16 16 15 111213 1112 16 1 7 1 7 15 141615148 17 1015 20 2530 30303030308 9 111213 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 262727272828 282929 29 31313131 30302627282929313110208121416 18 22 24 111 2 1 3 141 4 1 4 1 4 141414 29 2 9 29 23 22 21 2027 26 25 2 8 24 23 22 262527111213 15 17 18 19 202 1 2 2 2 3 SCUDD E R A V E N U E BUILDI N G 2 (TYPE 5) CLUB H O U S EL=54;S=0.5%L=32;S=0.5% L= 3 8 ; S = 3 . 4 %L=127;S=0.5%L=95;S=0.5%L=9 8 ; S = 1 . 0 % L=111;S = 0. 5 % TOP OF COASTAL B A N K ( S T A T E ) JOSHU A' S B R O O K 100' RIVERFRONT AREA SETBACK200' RIVERF R O N T A R E A S E T B A C K COASTAL B A N K 1 0 0' B U F F E R Z O N E ( S T A T E ) TOP OF COASTAL BANK (STATE) COASTAL BANK 100' BUFFER ZONE (STATE) EDGE OF BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND 100' BUFFER ZONE MEAN ANNUAL HIGH WATER LINE OF JOSHUA'S BROOK MEAN ANNUAL HIGH WATER LINE OF JOSHUA'S BROOK ZONE AE ( E L . 1 1 ) ZONE X ZONE AE (EL.11) ZONE X ~2027' ± ~ B Y T H E EXISTI N G S T R E A M JOSH U A ' S B R O O K ~2027 ' ± ~ B Y T H E EXIST I N G S T R E A M TE E E EE T N5 8 ° 4 2 ' 4 9 "E 3 9 3 . 6 1 ' S14° 45' 03 " E 36.26'S34° 13' 10"W 30.22'S44° 05' 30"E81.79'S84° 14' 40"E38.30'S00° 37' 10"W 208.39' S32° 57' 40" E109.36'N31° 43' 54" W 88.76'25 24 262 6 26 26 25 25 26272829 2525 26 262725 2726 26 2 7 2 7 272 7 27272 7 2 6 2627 27272 7 2727 27 2 7 2 9 2 8 3 0 2 8 2 9 2224272725 25 2625S 4 8 ° 5 9 ' 0 0 "W 2 0 7 . 6 9 'N54° 33' 38"W81.54'PR-CB-2 RIM=24.50 INV OUT=21.50 PR-CB-3 RIM=25.30 INV OUT=22.30 PR-CB-4 RIM=25.70 INV OUT=22.70 PR-DCB-5 RIM=25.80 INV OUT=22.80 PR-CB-6B RIM=24.30 INV OUT=21.30 PR-CB-7 RIM=24.80' INV OUT=21.80' EX-CB RIM=13.83 EX-CB RIM=13.83' EX-CB RIM=13.65 PR-CB-25 RIM=13.50 INV OUT=11.00 PR-CB-22 RIM=14.25 INV OUT=11.75 PR-DMH-1 RIM=24.75 INV IN (CB-1)=21.36 INV IN (CB-2)=21.36 INV OUT=21.26 PR-DMH-2 RIM=25.15 INV IN (DMH-1)=20.99 INV IN (CB-3)=20.99 INV OUT=20.89PR-DMH-3 RIM=25.65 INV IN=20.73 INV OUT=20.63 PR-DMH-4 RIM=25.90 INV IN (DMH-3)=19.99 INV IN (CB-4)=22.60 INV OUT=19.89 PR-DMH-5 RIM=26.15 INV IN (DMH-4)=19.41 INV IN (DCB-5)=21.82 INV OUT=19.31 PR-DMH-6B RIM=24.35 INV IN (DMH-6A)=18.42 INV IN (CB-6B)=21.15 INV IN (CB-7)=21.60 INV OUT=18.32 PR-CB-24 RIM=13.50 INV OUT=11.00 FES INV OUT=10.45' PR-CB-1 RIM=24.50 INV OUT=21.50 YARD DRAIN (TYP) RIM=26.00 YARD DRAIN (TYP) RIM=26.50 YARD DRAIN (TYP) RIM=26.50 SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION SYSTEM (TYP) TWELVE (12) SC-740 CHAMBERS IN FIELD CONFIGURATION WITH STONE (TYP FOR ALL ROOF DRYWELLS) PROPOSED LIMIT OF WORK/ EROSION CONTROL BARRIER ZONE II PR-CB-23 RIM=14.25 INV OUT=11.75 PR-DMH-18 RIM=14.35 INV IN (CB-22)=11.65 INV IN (CB-23)=11.65 INV OUT=11.55 26 x 5 26 x 8 26x 8 26x5 26x5 26x5 25x3 24x524x526x025x7 25x7 2 5 x 9 25x 7 26x626x5 26x2 26x6 27 x 3 27 x 2 26 x 2 26 x 7 26 x 4 2 6 x 5 27x324x8 4-FT METAL SAFETY FENCE 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24232221201918171616 1 5 14 141 4 EX-CMP INV=9.23' TO BE REMOVED PROPOSED DRAINAGE DESIGN FOR PARKING LOT CHANGES (FINAL DESIGN TBD) PR-CB RIM=14.50' INV OUT=11.50' EX. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA-N EX. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA-S FES INV=11.00' PR-CB-A TO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING STREET DRAINAGE SYSTEM RIM=13.80' INV OUT=TBD PR-WATER QUALITY UNIT RIM=14.05 INV IN (CB-24) =10.70 INV IN (CB-25) =10.70 INV IN (DMH-19) =10.70 INV OUT=10.60 L=38;S=0.5% L=110;S=0.5% PR-DMH-19 RIM=14.70 INV IN (DMH-18)=11.00 INV OUT=10.90 11 12 13 14S C U D D E R A V E N U E (P U B L I C ~ 6 0 ' C O U N T Y L A Y O U T ) PR-CB-6A RIM=25.60 INV OUT=22.60 L=48;S= 0. 5 % 26 PR-DMH-6A RIM=25.80 INV IN (DMH-5)=19.07 INV IN (CB-6A)=22.40 INV OUT=18.97 PROPOSED WATER QUALITY UNIT FOR REQUIRED TREATMENT PROPOSED WATER QUALITY UNIT FOR REQUIRED TREATMENT PROPOSED FES INV=13.0' 11 13 15 14111 2 1 3 141 4 1 4 1 4 141414 11 1213 S C U D D E R A V E N U E TOP OF COASTAL E N31° 43' 54" W 88.76'S 4 8 ° 5 9 ' 0 0 "W 2 0 7 . 6 9 ' 15 15 EX-CB RIM=13.83' INV=10.54' EX-CB RIM=13.83' INV IN=10.71' INV OUT=10.53' EX-CB RIM=13.65 (TO BE REMOVED) EX 24" RCP EX 12" CMP EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ARE A 1 3 x 9 0 END OF EX VGC 1 3 . 9 7 1 3 . 9 0 1 4 . 0 6 SAWCUT LINE 1 3 x 9 5 1 3 x 9 5 1 3 x 9 5141 4 EX 12" CMP INV=9.23' S C U D D E R A V E N U E (P U B L I C ~ 6 0 ' C O U N T Y L A Y O U T ) END TV BOX TO BE RELOCATED EX 18" RCP 11 12 13 14PR-CB-25 RIM=13.50 INV OUT=11.00 PR-CB-24 RIM=13.50 INV OUT=11.00 FES INV OUT=10.45' FES INV=11.00' PR-CB TO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING STREET DRAINAGE SYSTEM RIM=13.80' INV OUT=TBD PR-WATER QUALITY UNIT RIM=14.05 INV IN (CB-24) =10.70 INV IN (CB-25) =10.70 INV IN (DMH-19) =10.70 INV OUT=10.60 PR-DMH-19 RIM=14.70 INV IN (DMH-18)=11.00 INV OUT=10.90 13x6513x651 3 . 8 5 1 3 . 8 7 1 3 . 8 4 1 3 . 8 0 PR-CB RIM=14.50' INV OUT=11.50' PROPOSED WATER QUALITY UNIT LOCUS MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' 1 MA STATE PLANE EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. DATE JOB NO: 5061 FIELD: CB/RB DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 DRAWN: BJW CHECK: ELP CALC./DESIGN: ELP GRADING & DRAINAGE (1) PREPARED FOR: QUARTERRA 99 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 701 BOSTON, MA 02110 LAND SURVEYING BY: ENGINEERING BY: BAXTER NYE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 78 NORTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR HYANNIS, MA 02601 CCC Submittal4-1-211 Raingarden; Detail Sheets Added4-23-212 Utility Easement Sheet Added5-21-213 4 5 6 CCC Comments; CR Area Added10-22-21 11-1-21 Site Layout Modified9-23-22 CCC Comments; CR Area Mod SHEET 9 OF 21 THE PROPOSED EMBLEM AT HYANNIS RESIDENCES AT 35 SCUDDER AVENUE IN HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS (BARNSTABLE COUNTY) DESC.DATENo. REVISIONS: 7 Site Plan Review Submittal2-7-23 SCALE: 1" = 20' SITE ENTRANCE DETAIL 8 DPW Comments8-1-23 9 Conservation Review9-10-23 LOCUS ZONE 22 8 27 26 25 24 25 24 24 25 26 27 27 2625 282726 252 4 23 22 21 19 19 202 51921222324 262728262728202122 22222 3 241015208 91112 1 3 1 4 16161617171718 192 1 2121221 0 1 5 2 0 7891 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 718 1 9 1015 2 0 6 7 89 11 12 13 14 1414 16 17 1 8 19 1015 20 2 0 20 11121314 1 61 7 18 19 21 2121 20 25 25 18 181 9 21 22 23 24 24 20 25 21 22 23 24 26 25 23 24 26 27 272829252122232426272829202627202525 19 212223 23 24 24 2 1 22 23 2121232117 20 21 16 171 4 1 3 1 2 151 6 1 4 14151 2 1 3 1 4 1617182288 6 4 8 8 46 8 4 6 8 1 0 12 14 15131416171822 242020 1824 24 22 2626 2424 55 5 5 55555 5555 5 5 5 533 34 4 4 444 4 4 44 446 6 6 6666 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 77 7 7 777 8 8 88 8 8999999 5 10 15 3 4 6 789 11121314 1616 161717171 8 181 9 19 455 3 3 34 4 6677355 46 6 5 3 4 667777888853467899 10 101515 15 1520 7 7 89 9 99 11 11121212 12 12 1213 13 13 131414 14 1416 1617 1718 1819 192 120202020 2525 25212 1 21 212 2 2223 23 2 3 2 4 24 2 4 2018181919192121222220 25 2122232422 23242 5 2626 2 5 2 4 24 2526JOSH U A' S B R O O K BUILDING 3(TYPE 6)BUILDI N G 4 (TYPE 6) BUI L D I N G 5 (TY P E 5 ) BUI L D I N G 8 (TY P E 5 ) BUILDI N G 2 (TYPE 5)BUILDING 6(TYPE 2)BUI L D I N G 7 (TY P E 5 ) L=111;S = 0. 5 %L=145;S=0.5%L=100;S=0.5% L= 6 5 ; S = 0 . 5 % L = 7 5 ; S = 0 . 5% L=25;S = 0. 5 % L=138; S = 1. 0 % L=87;S=1.0% PROPOSED LIMIT OF WORK/ EROSION CONTROL BARRIER PROP. TREELINE (TYP) TOP OF COASTAL BANK (STATE) COASTAL BANK 100' BUFFER ZONE (STATE) ZONE A E ( E L. 1 1) ZONE X ZONE AE (EL.12)ZONE XZON E A E ( E L . 1 2 ) ZON E X ~POND~ ~POND~ TOP OF COASTAL BANK (STATE) COASTAL BANK 100' BUFFER ZONE (STATE) MEAN ANNUAL HIGH WATER LINE OF JOSHUA'S BROOK EDGE OF BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND 100' BUFFER ZONE EDGE OF BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND 100' BUFFER ZONE 100' RIVERFRONT AREA SETBACK 200' RIVERFRONT AREA SETBACK TT T T E EEE 23 24 25 2626 26 22 22 22 222 2 22 22 25 24 23 25 24 23 22 23 23 24 25 2 5 2 62222 2525 25 2422 232 3 24 2425 2625252423 25 2425251920 20 20 1 9 2 0 21 21211514131 211 1213141519202 019 20 212121 11 12 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 18 19 1112131515161718192026262625PR-CB-6B RIM=24.30 INV OUT=21.30 PR-DCB-9 RIM=21.80 INV OUT=18.80 PR-CB-7 RIM=24.80' INV OUT=21.80'PR-CB-8 RIM=22.80 INV OUT=19.80 PR-DCB-11 RIM=21.80' INV OUT=18.80' PR-CB-10A RIM=23.90' INV OUT=20.90' PR-CB-12 (BEEHIVE) RIM=19.50' INV OUT=17.00' PR-CB-13 (BEEHIVE) RIM=19.50' INV OUT=17.00' PR-DMH-10 INV IN (DMH-8)=16.90 INV IN (CB-12)=16.70 INV OUT=16.60' PR-DMH-6B RIM=24.35 INV IN (DMH-6A)=18.42 INV IN (CB-6B)=21.15 INV IN (CB-7)=21.60 INV OUT=18.32 PR-DMH-7 RIM=22.95 INV IN (DMH-6B)=17.60 INV IN (CB-8)=19.70 INV OUT=17.50 PR-DMH-8 RIM=22.95 INV IN (DMH-7)=17.00 INV IN (DMH-9A)=17.85 INV IN (DCB-9)=18.70 INV OUT=17.00 PR-DMH-9A RIM=21.85 INV IN (DMH-9B)=18.83 INV IN (DCB-11)=18.70 INV OUT=18.60 PR-DMH-11 INV IN (DMH-10)=15.22 INV IN (CB-13)=16.75 INV OUT=15.12' FES INV OUT=14.25' SEDIMENT FOREBAY BOT. ELEVATION=12.00 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CREST EL.=15.25 BIORETENTION AREA-1 SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION SYSTEM (TYP) YARD DRAIN (TYP) RIM=24.50' TWELVE (12) SC-740 CHAMBERS IN FIELD CONFIGURATION WITH STONE (TYP FOR ALL ROOF DRYWELLS) TWELVE (12) SC-740 CHAMBERS IN FIELD CONFIGURATION WITH STONE (TYP FOR ALL ROOF DRYWELLS)JOSHU A' S B R O O K ~2027'±~ BY TH E EXISTI N G ST R E A M INFILTRATION BASIN #1 BOT. EL=10.00 PROPOSED LIMIT OF WORK/ EROSION CONTROL BARRIER15x7515 x 7 5 16 15x75 15x75 16 12121314 1 5 14 1515 15 x 7 5 1 5 x 7 5 10-FT WIDE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 10-FT WIDE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 4-FT METAL SAFETY FENCE GATE GATE CURB INLET WITH RIP-RAP (TYP) (SEE DETAIL) 25x7 25x9 25x5 21x0 21x0 20x421x0 21x020x121x0 21x0 22x0 21x5 21x5 21x5 22x0 2 2 x 6 2 2 x 4 2 2 x 4 2 2 x 4 2 2 x 3 2 2 x 2 24x1 24x6 26x5 2 5 x 7 20x5 20x5 20x4 20x7 20x7 BASIN BERM LINER (SEE DETAIL) MONITORING WELLUNDERDRAIN (EIGHT LC-6 CHAMBERS WITH SURROUNDING STONE) RIM INLET=11.40' TOP CHAMBER=9.33' BOT CHAMBER=7.50' BOT STONE=7.25' E.S.H.G.W=6.80' 12x8 FOREBAY BERM ELEVATION=12.80 PR-CB-6A RIM=25.60 INV OUT=22.60 L=48;S= 0. 5 % PR-DMH-6A RIM=25.80 INV IN (DMH-5)=19.07 INV IN (CB-6A)=22.40 INV OUT=18.97 PR-CB-10B RIM=22.55' INV OUT=19.55'PR-DMH-9B RIM=21.85 INV IN (CB-10A)=19.26 INV IN (CB-10B)=19.45 INV OUT=19.16 L= 1 3 7 ; S = 1 . 2 % LOCUS MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' 1 MA STATE PLANE EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. DATE JOB NO: 5061 FIELD: CB/RB DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 DRAWN: BJW CHECK: ELP CALC./DESIGN: ELP PREPARED FOR: QUARTERRA 99 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 701 BOSTON, MA 02110 LAND SURVEYING BY: ENGINEERING BY: BAXTER NYE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 78 NORTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR HYANNIS, MA 02601 CCC Submittal4-1-211 Raingarden; Detail Sheets Added4-23-212 Utility Easement Sheet Added5-21-213 4 5 6 CCC Comments; CR Area Added10-22-21 11-1-21 Site Layout Modified9-23-22 CCC Comments; CR Area Mod SHEET 10 OF 21 GRADING & DRAINAGE (2) OR "BEE-HIVE" TYPE COVER FOR PITS IN INFILTRATION BASIN CAST IRON FRAME & COVER THE PROPOSED EMBLEM AT HYANNIS RESIDENCES AT 35 SCUDDER AVENUE IN HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS (BARNSTABLE COUNTY) DESC.DATENo. REVISIONS: 7 Site Plan Review Submittal2-7-23 8 DPW Review Comments8-1-23 PRECAST CONCRETE LC-6 CHAMBER NOT TO SCALE 3/4" TO 1 1/2" WASHED CRUSHED STONE ALL AROUND SUB-GRADE UNDISTURBED 2'6' TOTAL 2'-0" DIA. 3" OF CRUSHED STONE BENEATH PIT FILTER FABRIC, MIRAFI 140N OR EQUAL ON TOP AND SIDES 1'-10"2' -1"2' 3" MIN. 3 1 BASIN SIDE SLOPE BRICKS MAY BE MORTARED IN PLACE FOR GRADE ADJUSTMENTS. 1 COURSE OF BRICK (MIN.) 1.4' (BASIN 1) BASIN BOTTOM1.2' (BASIN 2)6" MIN.6" MIN. (TWO ROWS OF FOUR CHAMBERS (8 TOTAL) WITH 2-FT SURROUNDING STONE) TYP IN BASIN 1 & 2 ONLY 9 Conservation Review9-10-22 LOCUS ZONE 228293031 28272 727 282726 252 4 23 22 21 19 19 202 0 202 5 2 5 303019212 1 21222 2 222 323 23242424262 627 27 2828292 9 31 31313132 32 32 3230272829302627282931 32 33 34 25 23 24 26 27 30 303030272829313132323 333253021222324262728293120 25 212122222324 26 27 28 29 2020 25302121 2222 23 23242627282931 32 33 23 23 232420 2 5 252 5 212223242 4 242 6 262627 28 2 9 3030 28282929252627282930 3030 313131 323233333434313233 26 25 26 24 23 222120 1718 19 22232526 27 2930 1015 20 1112131416171819 21 22 222323 20171819212223232 3 23242420 25 30 191919 212223 24 26 27 28 29 31 12 13 1415161718192021222324 1718192021222322 21 16 15 14 2625 26 28 24 23 32342424 10 15 911 12 13 14 16 2021 151515 15 11 1111111212 12 131313 13 14 14 1414161616201921 22 232 0 1 9 2 1 2 2 2 3 242425 2 5 2626252625271516171819202115 BUILDING 13 (TYPE 6) BUILDING 10 (TYPE 6)BUILDING 9(TYPE 6)B U I L D I N G 1 (T Y P E 5 ) BUI L D I N G 8 (TY P E 5 ) BUI L D I N G 7 (TY P E 5 ) BUILDING 12 (TYPE 5) BUILDING 11 (TYPE 5) L= 4 6 ; S = 0 . 5 % L=43;S=1. 0 %L=40;S=0.5%L=82;S=0.5%L=105;S=0 .5% L=136;S=0.5%L=55;S=0.5%L=147;S=0 .6% L=62;S=0.5% ~POND~ PROPOSED LIMIT OF WORK/ EROSION CONTROL BARRIER ZONE AE (EL.11)ZONE X100' RIVERFRONT AREA SETBACK 200' RIVERFRONT AREA SETBACK TOP OF COASTAL BANK (STATE) COASTAL BANK 100' BUFFER ZONE (STATE) BORDERING VEGETATED WETLAND 100' BUFFER ZONE PROP. TREELINE (TYP)TTTEEEE T S14° 45' 03 " E 36.26'S34° 13' 10"W 30.22'S83° 52' 17"W90.93'N41° 29' 36"W 53.21'S64° 42 ' 31 "W241.54 ' S17° 52' 23"W 22.99' S46° 36' 24"W 15.83' 24 25 2626 26 26 26 32 31 2 5 2 6 26 2525272 7 27 2727 27 27 22232426 27S88° 43' 22"W217.76'26 1323 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 1422212019181716 1 3 1 4 1 5 2 3 2 3 27 25 25252525 2725 25 252524 23 23 24 23 242424232222222 2 23 24 1 7 16 17 18 19 1 8 1 9 242322212 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 31 32 33 29 27 26 25 25 26 27 28 2827262521 22 23 242626262525 23 22 21 25 25242316 17 18 19 S 4 6 ° 3 6 ' 2 4 " W 7 6 . 9 2 ' N79° 52' 42"W 13.77' 25 262 6 262626 26262626 26252423222124NON-JURISDICTIONAL VEGETATED AREA PR-CB-7 RIM=24.80' INV OUT=21.80' PR-CB-14 RIM=24.90 INV OUT=21.90 PR-DCB-15A RIM=25.20 INV OUT=22.20 PR-CB-16 RIM=22.75 INV OUT=20.25 PR-CB-17 RIM=22.75 INV OUT=20.25 PR-CB-18 RIM=23.50 INV OUT=21.00 PR-CB-21A RIM=24.30 INV OUT=21.30 PR-CB-20 RIM=25.00 INV OUT=22.00 FES INV OUT=18.00' PR-DMH-12A RIM=25.75 INV IN (CB-14)=21.65 INV IN (DMH-12B)=21.65 INV OUT=21.55 PR-DMH-13 RIM=24.65 INV IN (DMH-12A)=21.35 INV IN (CB-16)=20.05 INV OUT=19.95 PR-DMH-14 RIM=24.90 INV IN (DMH-13)=19.54 INV IN (CB-17)=20.00 INV OUT=19.44 PR-DMH-16 RIM=24.90 INV IN (DMH-14)=18.91 INV IN (DMH-15)=19.94 INV IN (DMH-17B)=19.32 INV OUT=18.81 PR-DMH-15 RIM=24.55 INV IN (CB-18)=20.32 INV IN (CB-19)=20.90 INV OUT=20.22 PR-DMH-17A RIM=24.75 INV IN (CB-20)=21.14 INV IN (CB-21A)=21.00 INV IN (CB-21B)=20.00 INV OUT=19.90 SEDIMENT FOREBAY BOT. ELEVATION=16.25 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CREST EL.=19.75 BIORETENTION AREA-3 BIORETENTION AREA-2 SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION SYSTEM (TYP) YARD DRAIN (TYP) RIM=24.50' TWELVE (12) SC-740 CHAMBERS IN FIELD CONFIGURATION WITH STONE (TYP FOR ALL ROOF DRYWELLS) TWELVE (12) SC-740 CHAMBERS IN FIELD CONFIGURATION WITH STONE (TYP FOR ALL ROOF DRYWELLS) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL INFILTRATION BASIN #2 BOT. EL=15.00 INFILTRATION BASIN #3 BOT. EL=22.00 ONE (1) 1000 GAL. LEACHING PIT WITH 4-FT OF SURROUNDING STONE PR-CB-19 RIM=23.50 INV OUT=21.00 NON-JURISDICTIONAL VEGETATED AREA 2929 20x25 20x2520x251314151617181919 18 17 16 15 10-FT WIDE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 10-FT WIDE GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD 4-FT METAL SAFETY FENCE GATE GATE CURB INLET WITH RIP-RAP (TYP) (SEE DETAIL) CURB INLET WITH RIP-RAP (TYP) (SEE DETAIL) BASIN BERM LINER (SEE DETAIL) UNDERDRAIN (EIGHT LC-6 CHAMBERS WITH SURROUNDING STONE) RIM INLET=16.20' TOP CHAMBER=14.50' BOT CHAMBER=12.65' BOT STONE=12.40' E.S.H.G.W=12.30' MONITORING WELL FOREBAY BERM ELEVATION=17.80 PR-DMH-6A RIM=25.80 INV IN (DMH-5)=19.07 INV IN (CB-6A)=22.40 INV OUT=18.97 PR-CB-15B RIM=25.90 INV OUT=22.65 PR-DMH-12B RIM=25.75 INV IN (DCB-15A)=21.96 INV IN (CB-15B)=21.96 INV OUT=21.86 L=69;S=1. 0 %2525 25 25 2525PR-CB-21B RIM=24.50 INV OUT=21.50 PR-DCB-21C RIM=24.60 INV OUT=21.60 L=86;S = 1. 0 % L=34;S=0.5% PR-DMH-17B RIM=24.65 INV IN (DCB-21C)=21.50 INV IN (DMH-17A)=19.59 INV OUT=19.49 LOCUS MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' 1 EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. DATE JOB NO: 5061 FIELD: CB/RB DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 DRAWN: BJW CHECK: ELP CALC./DESIGN: ELP PREPARED FOR: QUARTERRA 99 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 701 BOSTON, MA 02110 LAND SURVEYING BY: ENGINEERING BY: BAXTER NYE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 78 NORTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR HYANNIS, MA 02601 CCC Submittal4-1-211 Raingarden; Detail Sheets Added4-23-212 Utility Easement Sheet Added5-21-213 4 5 6 CCC Comments; CR Area Added10-22-21 11-1-21 Site Layout Modified9-23-22 CCC Comments; CR Area Mod SHEET 11 OF 21 MA STATE PLANE GRADING & DRAINAGE (3) THE PROPOSED EMBLEM AT HYANNIS RESIDENCES AT 35 SCUDDER AVENUE IN HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS (BARNSTABLE COUNTY) DESC.DATENo. REVISIONS: 7 Site Plan Review Submittal2-7-23 8 DPW Review Comments8-1-23 9 Conservation Review9-10-22 LOCUS ZONE 2 LOCUS MAP SCALE 1" = 2000' 1 THE PROPOSED EMBLEM AT HYANNIS RESIDENCES AT 35 SCUDDER AVENUE IN HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS (BARNSTABLE COUNTY) DESC.DATENo. REVISIONS: 7 Site Plan Review Submittal2-7-23 EDWARD L. PESCE, P.E. DATE JOB NO: 5061 FIELD: CB/RB DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 DRAWN: BJW CHECK: ELP CALC./DESIGN: ELP DETAIL SHEET PREPARED FOR: QUARTERRA 99 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 701 BOSTON, MA 02110 LAND SURVEYING BY: ENGINEERING BY: BAXTER NYE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 78 NORTH STREET, 3RD FLOOR HYANNIS, MA 02601 CCC Submittal4-1-211 Raingarden; Detail Sheets Added4-23-212 Utility Easement Sheet Added5-21-213 4 5 6 CCC Comments; CR Area Added10-22-21 11-1-21 Site Layout Modified9-23-22 CCC Comments; CR Area Mod SHEET 21 OF 21 8 DPW Review Comments8-1-23 NOT TO SCALE ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH SC-740 CHAMBER SYSTEMS PLEASE NOTE: 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FOR 'A' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 6" (150 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. NOTES: 1. SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS", OR ASTM F2922 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYETHYLENE (PE) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 2. SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 3. "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. 4. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 5. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 6. ONCE LAYER 'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER 'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER 'C' OR 'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION AASHTO MATERIAL CLASSIFICATIONS COMPACTION / DENSITY REQUIREMENT D FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. N/A PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. C INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER 'C' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 18" (450 mm) ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE 'C' LAYER. GRANULAR WELL-GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU OF THIS LAYER. AASHTO M145¹ A-1, A-2-4, A-3 OR AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, 9, 10 BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 12" (300 mm) OF MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 6" (150 mm) MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE MATERIALS. ROLLER GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 12,000 lbs (53 kN). DYNAMIC FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 20,000 lbs (89 kN). B EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE ('A' LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE. CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. A FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) OF THE CHAMBER. CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE AASHTO M43¹ 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57 PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT SURFACE.2,3 18" (450 mm) MIN* 8' (2.4 m) MAX6" (150 mm) MIN D C B A 12" (300 mm) MIN ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS 12" (300 mm) MIN51" (1295 mm)6" (150 mm) MIN *TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 24" (600 mm). EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 5) SC-740 END CAP SUBGRADE SOILS (SEE NOTE 4) PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) 30" (762 mm) 6" STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH SC-740 OR SC-310. 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE RESINS. 3. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 4. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG-DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT-DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 5. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET ASTM F2922 (POLYETHYLENE) OR ASTM F2418-16 (POLYPROPYLENE), "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 7. ONLY CHAMBERS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: a. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787 AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. b. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 OR ASTM F2922 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. c. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. 8. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. NOTES FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SC-740 SYSTEM 1. STORMTECH SC-310 & SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2. STORMTECH SC-310 & SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR AN EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: ·STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. ·BACKFILL AS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. ·BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. 5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 6" (150 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. 7. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2" (20-50 mm). 8. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES WITH CHAMBER FOUNDATION MATERIALS BEARING CAPACITIES TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER. 9. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. EL = VARIES - REFER TO PLAN EL. = VARIES - REFER TO PLAN E.S.H.G.W. EL. = VARIES 2' MIN. CONCRETE SLAB 8" (200 mm) MIN THICKNESS * THE PART# 2712AG6IPKIT CAN BE USED TO ORDER ALL NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR A SOLID LID INSPECTION PORT INSTALLATION 6" (150 mm) INSERTA TEE PART# 6P26FBSTIP* INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTERED ON CORRUGATION CREST FLEXSTORM CATCH IT PART# 6212NYFX WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE PAVEMENT CONCRETE COLLAR CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS 12" (300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG6IP* SOLID COVER: 1299CGC* GRATE: 1299CGS 6" (150 mm) SDR35 PIPE SC-740 CHAMBER 18" (450 mm) MIN WIDTH NOT TO SCALE SC-740 CHAMBERS CROSS SECTION DETAIL INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 1. STORMTECH SC-310 & SC-740 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 2. THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OVER SC-310 & SC-740 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: ·NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. ·NO RUBBER TIRED LOADERS, DUMP TRUCKS, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". ·WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH SC-310/SC-740/DC-780 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. INSPECTION PORT (SEE DETAIL) TO BE PROVIDED ON EACH ROW 11'59' NOT TO SCALE YARD DRAIN DRYWELL (SC-740 CHAMBERS) LOCATED BEHIND CLUBHOUSE IN LAWN AREA 1' (TYP)1' TYP 6" TYPSC-740 CHAMBER (TYP) NOT TO SCALE ROOF DRAIN DRYWELL (SC-740 CHAMBERS) TYPICAL FOR EACH ROOF DYRWELL SYSTEM - SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS SC-740 CHAMBER (TYP) 1' TYP 6" TYPINSPECTION PORT (SEE DETAIL) TO BE PROVIDED ON EACH ROW 44.7'11'3/4-1-1/2" DOUBLE WASHED CRUSHED STONE 3/4-1-1/2" DOUBLE WASHED CRUSHED STONE NOT TO SCALE YARD DRAIN DRYWELL (SC-740 CHAMBERS) LOCATED IN CENTRAL COURTYARD AREA6" TYP1' TYP 3/4-1-1/2" DOUBLE WASHED CRUSHED STONE15.8'16.2' INSPECTION PORT (SEE DETAIL) 9 Roof & Lawn Drywell Details9-10-23 P3 PR-DA-3 DP-3 DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK)P-D POND D Routing Diagram for 35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc., Printed 9/12/2023 HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.663 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A (P3) 0.165 96 Gravel surface, HSG A (P3) 0.206 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A (P3) 2.034 50 TOTAL AREA 35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 2.034 HSG A P3 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 2.034 TOTAL AREA 35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 1.663 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.663 >75% Grass cover, Good P3 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.165 Gravel surface P3 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.206 Water Surface, 0% imp P3 2.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.034 TOTAL AREA 35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (selected nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 P-D 9.08 8.16 18.5 0.0497 0.013 12.0 0.0 0.0 Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=88,593 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>0.17"Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 Runoff=0.08 cfs 0.029 af Inflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 afReach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Peak Elev=8.16' Storage=1,243 cf Inflow=0.08 cfs 0.029 afPond P-D: POND D Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Total Runoff Area = 2.034 ac Runoff Volume = 0.029 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.17" 100.00% Pervious = 2.034 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Depth> 0.17" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39" Area (sf) CN Description 72,419 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,200 96 Gravel surface, HSG A 8,974 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 88,593 50 Weighted Average 88,593 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0380 0.20 Sheet Flow, A-B Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 6.6 400 0.0210 1.01 Shallow Concentrated Flow, B-C Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.5 74 0.0270 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, C-D Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.6 50 0.0400 1.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, D-E Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 11.9 574 Total Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39" Runoff Area=88,593 sf Runoff Volume=0.029 af Runoff Depth>0.17" Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 0.08 cfs Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 13.242 ac, 19.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.00" for 2 YR event Inflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=13.242 ac 0.00 cfs0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Area = 2.034 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.17" for 2 YR event Inflow = 0.08 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.16' @ 24.00 hrs Surf.Area= 7,810 sf Storage= 1,243 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 8.00' 18,853 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 8.00 7,585 0 0 9.00 8,975 8,280 8,280 10.00 12,170 10,573 18,853 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.80'45.0 deg x 15.0' long x 0.50' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.56 (C= 3.20) #2 Primary 9.08'12.0" Round Culvert L= 18.5' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.08' / 8.16' S= 0.0497 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Clay tile, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type III 24-hr 2 YR Rainfall=3.39"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=2.034 ac Peak Elev=8.16' Storage=1,243 cf 0.08 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=88,593 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>0.66"Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 Runoff=0.80 cfs 0.113 af Inflow=0.06 cfs 0.036 afReach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Outflow=0.06 cfs 0.036 af Peak Elev=8.61' Storage=4,908 cf Inflow=0.80 cfs 0.113 afPond P-D: POND D Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Total Runoff Area = 2.034 ac Runoff Volume = 0.113 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.66" 100.00% Pervious = 2.034 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff = 0.80 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.113 af, Depth> 0.66" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94" Area (sf) CN Description 72,419 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,200 96 Gravel surface, HSG A 8,974 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 88,593 50 Weighted Average 88,593 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0380 0.20 Sheet Flow, A-B Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 6.6 400 0.0210 1.01 Shallow Concentrated Flow, B-C Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.5 74 0.0270 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, C-D Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.6 50 0.0400 1.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, D-E Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 11.9 574 Total Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94" Runoff Area=88,593 sf Runoff Volume=0.113 af Runoff Depth>0.66" Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 0.80 cfs Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 13.242 ac, 19.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.03" for 10 YR event Inflow = 0.06 cfs @ 14.93 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 14.93 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=13.242 ac 0.06 cfs0.06 cfs Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Area = 2.034 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.66" for 10 YR event Inflow = 0.80 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.113 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.61' @ 24.00 hrs Surf.Area= 8,437 sf Storage= 4,908 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 8.00' 18,853 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 8.00 7,585 0 0 9.00 8,975 8,280 8,280 10.00 12,170 10,573 18,853 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.80'45.0 deg x 15.0' long x 0.50' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.56 (C= 3.20) #2 Primary 9.08'12.0" Round Culvert L= 18.5' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.08' / 8.16' S= 0.0497 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Clay tile, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type III 24-hr 10 YR Rainfall=4.94"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=2.034 ac Peak Elev=8.61' Storage=4,908 cf 0.80 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=88,593 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.09"Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 Runoff=1.65 cfs 0.186 af Inflow=0.29 cfs 0.098 afReach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Outflow=0.29 cfs 0.098 af Peak Elev=8.98' Storage=8,081 cf Inflow=1.65 cfs 0.186 afPond P-D: POND D Outflow=0.00 cfs 0.000 af Total Runoff Area = 2.034 ac Runoff Volume = 0.186 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.09" 100.00% Pervious = 2.034 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff = 1.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af, Depth> 1.09" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91" Area (sf) CN Description 72,419 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,200 96 Gravel surface, HSG A 8,974 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 88,593 50 Weighted Average 88,593 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0380 0.20 Sheet Flow, A-B Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 6.6 400 0.0210 1.01 Shallow Concentrated Flow, B-C Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.5 74 0.0270 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, C-D Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.6 50 0.0400 1.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, D-E Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 11.9 574 Total Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91" Runoff Area=88,593 sf Runoff Volume=0.186 af Runoff Depth>1.09" Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 1.65 cfs Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 13.242 ac, 19.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.09" for 25 YR event Inflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af Outflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=13.242 ac 0.29 cfs0.29 cfs Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Area = 2.034 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.09" for 25 YR event Inflow = 1.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af Outflow = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af, Atten= 100%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 8.98' @ 24.00 hrs Surf.Area= 8,944 sf Storage= 8,081 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= (not calculated: no outflow) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 8.00' 18,853 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 8.00 7,585 0 0 9.00 8,975 8,280 8,280 10.00 12,170 10,573 18,853 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.80'45.0 deg x 15.0' long x 0.50' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.56 (C= 3.20) #2 Primary 9.08'12.0" Round Culvert L= 18.5' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.08' / 8.16' S= 0.0497 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Clay tile, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=8.00' (Free Discharge) 1=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type III 24-hr 25 YR Rainfall=5.91"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=2.034 ac Peak Elev=8.98' Storage=8,081 cf 1.65 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=88,593 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.89"Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 Runoff=3.30 cfs 0.321 af Inflow=1.36 cfs 0.324 afReach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Outflow=1.36 cfs 0.324 af Peak Elev=9.27' Storage=10,859 cf Inflow=3.30 cfs 0.321 afPond P-D: POND D Outflow=0.13 cfs 0.077 af Total Runoff Area = 2.034 ac Runoff Volume = 0.321 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.89" 100.00% Pervious = 2.034 ac 0.00% Impervious = 0.000 ac Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff = 3.30 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.321 af, Depth> 1.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41" Area (sf) CN Description 72,419 39 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG A 7,200 96 Gravel surface, HSG A 8,974 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG A 88,593 50 Weighted Average 88,593 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4.2 50 0.0380 0.20 Sheet Flow, A-B Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.40" 6.6 400 0.0210 1.01 Shallow Concentrated Flow, B-C Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.5 74 0.0270 2.65 Shallow Concentrated Flow, C-D Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.6 50 0.0400 1.40 Shallow Concentrated Flow, D-E Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 11.9 574 Total Subcatchment P3: PR-DA-3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41" Runoff Area=88,593 sf Runoff Volume=0.321 af Runoff Depth>1.89" Flow Length=574' Tc=11.9 min CN=50 3.30 cfs Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 13.242 ac, 19.01% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.29" for 100 YR event Inflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.324 af Outflow = 1.36 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.324 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach DP-3: DP-3 (STEWART'S CREEK) Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)1 0 Inflow Area=13.242 ac 1.36 cfs1.36 cfs Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Area = 2.034 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.89" for 100 YR event Inflow = 3.30 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.321 af Outflow = 0.13 cfs @ 18.75 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 394.1 min Primary = 0.13 cfs @ 18.75 hrs, Volume= 0.077 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 9.27' @ 18.75 hrs Surf.Area= 9,850 sf Storage= 10,859 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 462.5 min calculated for 0.077 af (24% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 310.4 min ( 1,190.2 - 879.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 8.00' 18,853 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 8.00 7,585 0 0 9.00 8,975 8,280 8,280 10.00 12,170 10,573 18,853 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 9.80'45.0 deg x 15.0' long x 0.50' rise Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir Cv= 2.56 (C= 3.20) #2 Primary 9.08'12.0" Round Culvert L= 18.5' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 9.08' / 8.16' S= 0.0497 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Clay tile, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 18.75 hrs HW=9.27' (Free Discharge) 1=Sharp-Crested Vee/Trap Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.13 cfs @ 1.18 fps) Type III 24-hr 100 YR Rainfall=7.41"35 Scudder Avenue - Proposed Conditions - REV Printed 9/12/2023Prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc. Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-22 s/n 02717 © 2018 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond P-D: POND D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 2423222120191817161514131211109876543210Flow (cfs)3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=2.034 ac Peak Elev=9.27' Storage=10,859 cf 3.30 cfs 0.13 cfs