Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
23.003 Stormwater Report REV1
115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 2 of 8 Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Existing Conditions 4 III. Proposed Conditions 4 IV. Calculations and Design 5 V. MASSDEP Stormwater Standards Compliance 7 Drainage Areas Fig-1 Existing Drainage Areas Fig-2 Proposed Drainage Areas Appendix Appendix A NRCS Soil Report Appendix B Test Pit Soil Log Appendix C Stormwater Hydrology Calculations Appendix D Groundwater Recharge Calculations Appendix E Water Quality Calculations Appendix F Stormwater Management System – Operation & Maintenance Plan Appendix G Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Checklist Referenced Documents Plans: Site Plan for 115 Conz Street, Northampton Massachusetts, Permit Set 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 3 of 8 I. Introduction Rankin Holdings LLC is proposing to construct a 4-story hotel and a 3-story apartment building at 115 Conz Street in Northampton, MA (the “project”). The proposed hotel will be located at the rear of the site, where the previous Daily Hampshire Gazette building was located, and the apartment building will be centered at the front of the site. Each building will have a drop-off/pick-up area at its entrance, and there will be parking and sidewalks located between the buildings. Berkshire Design Group has prepared a Stormwater Management Plan for the site in compliance with the City of Northampton Stormwater Management Regulations (December 2022) as well as the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MASSDEP) Stormwater Standards. This report summarizes the design of the system and documents how the design complies with those standards. Soil Data NRCS Soil Survey The NRCS Soil Survey reports that the on-site soils consist of Winooski silt loam hydrologic soil group (HSG) B, and Hinckley loamy sand HSG A. Most of the site consists of HSG B soil, while the undeveloped wooded slope to the rear of the site is HSG A soil. The NRCS Soil Report for the site is attached in Appendix A. Subsurface Exploration Soil test pits were performed at three locations on June 20, 2023. The report for these test pits is attached in Appendix B. The test pits confirmed the loamy sand at the central and rear portion of the site. The front of the site had a thin layer of silt loam 3.5-4 feet deep, with a deep layer of coarser sand below. Groundwater was found 2.5 feet to 4 feet below existing grade at the three sites. Infiltration basins have been designed at each test pit location, and have been sized accordingly to the soil and groundwater conditions at each location. The bottom of each basin will be set on granular native sand, or a sand/gravel backfill. All disturbed or silty/clayey soils will be removed as needed below the basins to meet these conditions. Site Limits Site limits were based on the areas contributing runoff onto the project property, as well as a portion of the neighboring property, influenced by the project. The boundary of the site at the north and east limits are the property line of the project. The west site boundary is the ridge line of a slope that contributes runoff onto the property. The south site boundary is the area of influence the project will have on the neighboring Fairfield Inn property, which has an existing, permitted stormwater management system. Both existing and proposed site conditions consist of drainage areas that flow to three control points. One of the control points is the city-owned storm drain in Conz Street. Two of the control points are located within the Fairfield Inn property. Each of these control points is a separate subsurface infiltration basin of the Fairfield Inn’s stormwater management system. As will be shown in the remainder of this report, the project will reduce the runoff contributing to these control points within the limits of the site. 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 4 of 8 II. Existing Conditions The existing site encompasses a total of 5.2 acres. Approximately 63% of the site is covered in impervious surfaces. The existing hydrology was analyzed as five drainage areas which flow to the three control points. The Existing Drainage Areas are shown on Fig-1. For purposes of consistency with the Fairfield Inn’s Stormwater Permit, the existing conditions of any drainage area contributing to the Fairfield Inn site have been adopted from that system’s permitted proposed conditions from 2012. These drainage areas are E-1A, E-1B, and E-2. Drainage Area E-1A has been adopted from the Fairfield Inn drainage area P-1A, within the limits of this site. The total area is 45,659 square-feet and is 40% impervious. This area covers a parking lot close to the front of the site, the paved drive running between the project property and the Fairfield Inn, as well as a portion of pavement and slope at the rear of the property. This area flows into the Fairfield Inn Infiltration Basin 1A, E-CP1. Drainage Area E-1B covers 27,742 square-feet and is 62% impervious. This area lies at the rear of the site and includes a portion of the slope at the rear of the site, the pavement at the rear of the site, and a small portion of roof from an addition to the Gazette building in 1999. Runoff from this area flows into one of eleven leaching chambers attached to four catch basins. For purposes of this project, it has been assumed that all runoff from this area is exfiltrated via the leaching chambers, up to and including the 100-yr storm. Theoretically, in a large enough storm the leaching chambers would overflow and release runoff into the Fairfield Inn Infiltration Basin 1A, E-CP1. For routing purposes in the hydrologic analysis, this area has been routed to E-CP1, however it does not contribute runoff in any of the modeled storms. Drainage Area E-2 has been adopted from the Fairfield Inn drainage area P-1C, within the limits of this site. The total area is 14,259 and is 67% impervious. This area covers a parking lot at the front of the site and a portion of the driveway running between the project property and the Fairfield Inn. This area flows into the Fairfield Inn Infiltration Basin 1C, E-CP2. Drainage Area E-3A covers 3,111 square-feet and is 24% impervious. This area lies at the front of the site; runoff from this area sheet flows directly onto Conz Street, and subsequently into the city- owned drain line, E-CP3. Drainage Area E-3B covers 136,793 square-feet, and is 71% impervious. This area contains most of the building roofs, most paved parking areas, as well as a portion of the slope at the rear of the site. Runoff from this area flows into a central manhole within the site, which then discharges to the drain line in Conz Street, E-CP3. III. Proposed Conditions The proposed site conditions mirror the existing site conditions, encompassing a total of 5.2 acres. However, in the proposed condition 65% of the site is covered in impervious surfaces (an increase of 4,624 square-feet). The proposed hydrology was analyzed as seven drainage areas which flow to the same three control points as the existing hydrology. The Proposed Drainage Areas are shown on Fig- 2. Drainage Area P-1 covers a similar area as Area E-1A. This area is 43,935 square-feet and is 32% impervious. This area covers the driveway between the project property and the Fairfield Inn, as well as a portion of slope at the rear of the site. Runoff from this area continues to flow into the 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 5 of 8 Fairfield Inn Infiltration Basin 1A, P-CP1. It should be noted, both the total and impervious area contributing to Infiltration Basin 1A is reduced in the proposed condition. Drainage Area P-2 covers a similar area as Area E-2. This area is 12,795 square-feet and is 74% impervious. This area covers the parking lot and a portion of the driveway running between the project property and the Fairfield Inn. This area continues to flow into the Fairfield Inn Infiltration Basin 1C, P-CP2. It should be noted, both the total and impervious area contributing to Infiltration Basin 1C is reduced in the proposed condition. Drainage Area P-3A covers a similar area as Area E-3A. This area is 3,108 square-feet and is 16% impervious. This area encompasses the frontage of the project property. This area continues to sheet flow directly onto Conz Street and into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3. Drainage Area P-3B covers the center of the project property. This area is 55,690 square-feet and is 75% impervious. This area encompasses the central parking and drives for the project site. Runoff from this area is collected via multiple catch basins and is routed through a proprietary treatment chamber, prior to discharging into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3. Drainage Area P-3C covers the northern section of the project property. This area is 47,677 square- feet and is 60%. This area encompasses the property’s access drive off of Conz Street, a portion of parking and drive, as well as a portion of the slope at the rear of the site. Runoff from this area is collected via multiple catch basins and is routed through a proprietary treatment chamber, prior to discharging into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3. Drainage Area P-3D covers the apartment building roof at the front of the property. This area is 13,798 square-feet and is 100% impervious. Runoff from this area is routed into the first Subsurface Infiltration System (SIS-1). Any overflow from SIS-1 will be discharged into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3. Drainage Area P-3E covers the hotel building roof at the rear of the property. This area is 17,748 square-feet and is 100% impervious. Runoff from this area is routed into the second Subsurface Infiltration System (SIS-2). Any overflow from SIS-2 will be discharged into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3. Drainage Area P-3F covers a similar area as Area E-1B. This area is 32,812 square-feet and is 65% impervious. This area lies at the rear of the site and encompasses some paved parking and drives, as well as a portion of the slope at the rear of the site. Runoff from this area will be routed through a proprietary treatment chamber, and then into the third Subsurface Infiltration System (SIS-3). Any overflow from SIS-3 will be discharged into the city-owned drain line, P-CP3.Calculations and Design IV. Calculations and Design Water Quantity Drainage calculations were performed in HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling System version 10.20 using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) TR-20 methodology. The SCS method is based on rainfall observations, which were used to develop the Intensity-Duration-Frequency relationship, or IDF curve. The mass curve is a dimensionless distribution of rainfall over time, which indicates the fraction of the rainfall event that occurs at a given time within a 24-hour precipitation event. This synthetic distribution develops peak rates for storms of varying duration and intensities. The SCS distribution provides a cumulative rainfall at any point in time and allows volume-dependent routing runoff calculations to occur. These calculations are included in Appendix C. Storm hydrographs are 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 6 of 8 taken from the latest Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC), while rainfall depth is taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 Plus Methodology and are listed in Table 1. The curve numbers (CNs) for the existing and proposed sub-catchment areas are based on the soil type and the existing and proposed cover conditions at the site. Calculations were performed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. The results of the calculations are presented in Table 1 below. Appendix C presents the HydroCAD output reports. Table 1. Runoff Summary Table 2-Year Storm 3.43” 10-Year Storm 5.56” 100-Year Storm 10.26”Point of Analysis Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) Peak Flow (cfs) Total Volume (ac-ft) E-CP1 1.15 0.080 3.16 0.207 8.32 0.553 P-CP1 0.81 0.060 2.58 0.171 7.39 0.487 E-CP2 0.81 0.053 1.57 0.106 3.24 0.229 P-CP2 0.75 0.050 1.44 0.098 2.93 0.209 E-CP3 8.14 0.539 15.57 1.060 31.89 2.720 P-CP3 6.00 0.400 11.58 0.803 26.37 1.961 Runoff from the site shows a decrease in peak flow for all storms between pre and post conditions. Water Quality The project is proposed as a redevelopment project, as such water quality performance has been designed to those standards. The Northampton Stormwater Management regulations stipulate that the system “shall be designed to meet an average annual pollutant removal equivalent to 80% of the average annual post- construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) related to the total post-construction impervious area on the site AND 50% of the average annual load of Total Phosphorus (TP) related to the total post-construction impervious surface area on the site.” (Section 7.3.7(a)). Following the City’s regulations, this performance standard is met by retaining and infiltrating 0.8 inch of rainfall over the total post-construction impervious area, treating the water quality flow rate, or a combination of the two. The proposed conditions include a total of 147,948 square-feet of impervious area. The project proposes to treat runoff from this total area by three separate methods. 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 7 of 8 The first method is by routing 23,784 square-feet of impervious area to the existing Fairfield Inn Stormwater System. This system has been designed and permitted to infiltrate far greater than the first 0.8” of runoff from contributing areas. The second method is by routing 52,972 square-feet of impervious area to one of the three new infiltration basins. These basins have been designed to infiltrate more than the first 0.8” of runoff from contributing areas. The third method is by routing 70,681 square-feet of impervious area through one of two proprietary treatment chambers (Contech Jellyfish). There are 511 square-feet of impervious sidewalk and driveway apron at the front of the site which is impracticable to capture and treat. Water Quality Calculations can be found in Appendix E. Erosion & Sedimentation Control The project plans include provisions for erosion control during construction. Erosion control barrier is included around the project site limits to prevent migration of sediment offsite during construction. A construction entrance will be used to prevent sediment from accumulating onto Conz Street. Inlet protection will be installed on all catch basins prior to commencing construction, and will remain in place until site work has been completed. A phasing plan is included to mitigate disturbed areas throughout the construction process. This plan includes stockpile areas that will be protected from sediment migration, as well as sediment traps to allow construction period runoff to be treated prior to leaving the site. V. MASSDEP Stormwater Standards Compliance The following section details how the project will meet the DEP Stormwater Management Policy’s ten stormwater management standards. Standard 1 - Untreated Stormwater Discharge All new discharges have been designed to protect downstream surfaces and structures and will only discharge treated stormwater. Standard 2 - Post-Development Peak Discharge Rates The proposed infiltration basins will provide attenuation of peak discharge rates such that post development peak discharge rates are less than pre-development peak discharge rates leaving the site. These results are discussed in detail under “Peak Runoff Rate” in Section IV, above. Standard 3 - Recharge to Groundwater The three infiltration basins will provide more than the volume required for groundwater recharge. Groundwater Recharge Calculations are provided in Appendix D. Standard 4 – Water Quality Stormwater runoff is treated for TSS and TP removal by a combination of infiltration and proprietary treatment chambers. 115 Conz Street Revised August 3, 2023 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Page 8 of 8 Further discussion of this standard is included under “Water Quality” in Section III and calculations for the water quality volume are included in Appendix E. Standard 5 - Higher Potential Pollutant Loads The project will generate more than 1,000 trips a day, constituting a Higher Potential Pollutant Load. Pavement runoff at the rear of the site passes through a Contech Stormceptor 450i (proprietary treatment chamber) which will provide 83% TSS Removal (greater than the 44% Pre-Treatment requirement), prior to flowing into the rear infiltration basin. Pavement runoff from the rest of the site will flow through one of the two Contech Jellyfish (other proprietary treatment chamber) which includes a proprietary media filter. Roof Runoff is not applicable to this Higher Potential Pollutant Load. Standard 6 - Protection of Critical Areas This is not applicable to this project. Standard 7 - Redevelopment Projects This is a redevelopment project and meets or exceeds the requisite performance standards as previously described. Standard 8 - Erosion/Sediment Control Proposed erosion and sediment controls are shown on the attached site plan. Standard 9 - Operation/Maintenance Plan An Operation and Maintenance Plan for the proposed project is included in Appendix F. It includes general controls for construction and long-term maintenance of the stormwater structures. Standard 10 – Prohibition of Illicit Discharges An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement will be provided prior to the discharge of any stormwater to the system. 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group DRAINAGE AREAS VAND D D D D D D D D DDDDD D D D D DDDDDD DE-3A E-3B E-CP1 E-CP3 E-1A (Fairfield Inn P-1A) E-1B E-CP2 E-2 (Fairfield Inn P-1C) Checked By: Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contact The Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. © Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied or used in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc.F:\NORTHAMPTON - 115 CONZ STREET HOTEL\04-DESIGN PROCESS\00-ENGINEERING\STORMWATER\23.003 C-SITE.DWG PLOT DATE: 8/4/2023115 CONZ ST. NORTHAMPTON, MA Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Land Surveying RANKIN HOLDINGS LLC 36 KING STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 June 26, 2023 LM CC REV 1 - August 1, 2023 FIG-11"=30' DRAINAGE AREAS - EXISTING CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=30'-0" (if printed full size @ 24" x 36") 0 60'30'15'90' Conz Street Fairfield Inn Quality Inn & Suites 116 11 7 117 115114116 116 115 11 6116115 115115 116115 116117116116 FFE 118.05 2. 3 %117115FFE 115.951.75%0.7%1.5%8.0%115 116 118116 116 116 117 D D D D D D D D D DDDDD D D D D DDDDD116 115 1 1 6 1 1 5 11411711 4 115116 D D TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 P-3A P-3E P-3B P-2 P-CP2 P-CP3 P-3F P-3C P-3D P-CP1P-1 Checked By: Drawn By: Revisions Scale: Date:Sheet Number This drawing is not intended nor shall it be used for construction purposes unless the signed professional seal of a registered landscape architect, civil engineer or land surveyor employed by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. is affixed above. Do not scale drawing for quantity take-offs or construction. Use written dimensions only. If dimensions are incomplete, contact The Berkshire Design Group Inc. for clarification. © Copyright The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. This drawing and all of its contents are the express property of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc., and shall not be copied or used in any way without the written consent of The Berkshire Design Group, Inc.F:\NORTHAMPTON - 115 CONZ STREET HOTEL\04-DESIGN PROCESS\00-ENGINEERING\STORMWATER\23.003 C-SITE.DWG PLOT DATE: 8/3/2023115 CONZ ST. NORTHAMPTON, MA Web: http://www.berkshiredesign.com Email: bdg@berkshiredesign.com (413) 582-7000 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 FAX (413) 582-7005 Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Planning Berkshire Group Design Land Surveying RANKIN HOLDINGS LLC 36 KING STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060 June 26, 2023 LM CC REV 1 - August 1, 2023 FIG-21"=30' DRAINAGE AREAS - PROPOSED CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=30'-0" (if printed full size @ 24" x 36") 0 60'30'15'90' 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix A– NRCS Soils Report United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Natural Resources Conservation Service January 18, 2023 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part...........................................14 98A—Winooski silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded........14 253B—Hinckley loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes....................................15 253C—Hinckley loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes..................................16 744A—Hadley-Winooski-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded..............................................................................18 References............................................................................................................21 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 46869904687030468707046871104687150468719046872304687270468731046873504686990468703046870704687110468715046871904687230468727046873104687350695420 695460 695500 695540 695580 695620 695660 695700 695460 695500 695540 695580 695620 695660 695700 42° 18' 50'' N 72° 37' 43'' W42° 18' 50'' N72° 37' 30'' W42° 18' 37'' N 72° 37' 43'' W42° 18' 37'' N 72° 37' 30'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,870 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 9, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 15, 2020—Oct 31, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 98A Winooski silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 2.7 33.0% 253B Hinckley loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes 1.2 14.7% 253C Hinckley loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1.4 18.0% 744A Hadley-Winooski-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded 2.8 34.3% Totals for Area of Interest 8.0 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part 98A—Winooski silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2zvdv Elevation: 100 to 390 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Winooski and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Winooski Setting Landform:Flood plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Concave Parent material:Silty alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam H2 - 17 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 22 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F145XY002MA - Silty Low Floodplain Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Hadley Percent of map unit:10 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Limerick Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial flats Hydric soil rating: Yes 253B—Hinckley loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2svm8 Elevation: 0 to 1,430 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 53 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 250 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Hinckley and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hinckley Setting Landform:Outwash deltas, outwash terraces, kames, kame terraces, moraines, eskers, outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Nose slope, side slope, base slope, crest, riser, tread Down-slope shape:Concave, convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear, concave Parent material:Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from gneiss and/or granite and/or schist Typical profile Oe - 0 to 1 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 1 to 8 inches: loamy sand Bw1 - 8 to 11 inches: gravelly loamy sand Bw2 - 11 to 16 inches: gravelly loamy sand BC - 16 to 19 inches: very gravelly loamy sand C - 19 to 65 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 8 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to very high (1.42 to 99.90 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 3.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY022MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Windsor Percent of map unit:8 percent Landform:Outwash deltas, outwash terraces, moraines, eskers, kames, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Nose slope, side slope, base slope, crest, riser, tread Down-slope shape:Concave, convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear, concave Hydric soil rating: No Sudbury Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Outwash deltas, outwash terraces, moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, side slope, base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Concave, linear Across-slope shape:Concave, linear Hydric soil rating: No Agawam Percent of map unit:2 percent Landform:Outwash deltas, outwash terraces, moraines, eskers, kames, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Summit, shoulder, backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Nose slope, side slope, base slope, crest, riser, tread Down-slope shape:Concave, convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear, concave Hydric soil rating: No 253C—Hinckley loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2svm9 Elevation: 0 to 1,480 feet Mean annual precipitation: 36 to 71 inches Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 55 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 240 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Hinckley and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hinckley Setting Landform:Outwash deltas, outwash terraces, moraines, eskers, kames, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser Down-slope shape:Concave, convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear, concave Parent material:Sandy and gravelly glaciofluvial deposits derived from gneiss and/or granite and/or schist Typical profile Oe - 0 to 1 inches: moderately decomposed plant material A - 1 to 8 inches: loamy sand Bw1 - 8 to 11 inches: gravelly loamy sand Bw2 - 11 to 16 inches: gravelly loamy sand BC - 16 to 19 inches: very gravelly loamy sand C - 19 to 65 inches: very gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope:8 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to very high (1.42 to 99.90 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Maximum salinity:Nonsaline (0.0 to 1.9 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: F144AY022MA - Dry Outwash Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Merrimac Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Kames, outwash plains, outwash terraces, moraines, eskers Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Custom Soil Resource Report 17 Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Hydric soil rating: No Sudbury Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Outwash deltas, moraines, outwash plains, kame terraces, outwash terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Backslope, footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Base slope, tread Down-slope shape:Concave, linear Across-slope shape:Concave, linear Hydric soil rating: No Windsor Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Moraines, eskers, kames, outwash deltas, outwash terraces, outwash plains, kame terraces Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder, backslope, footslope, toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Head slope, nose slope, side slope, crest, riser Down-slope shape:Concave, convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear, concave Hydric soil rating: No 744A—Hadley-Winooski-Urban land complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2zvdn Elevation: 100 to 160 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 240 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Hadley and similar soils:45 percent Winooski and similar soils:20 percent Urban land:20 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hadley Setting Landform:Flood plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Custom Soil Resource Report 18 Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Friable coarse-silty alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: silt loam H2 - 11 to 68 inches: silt loam H3 - 68 to 72 inches: loamy fine sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 48 to 72 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 1 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F145XY002MA - Silty Low Floodplain Hydric soil rating: No Description of Winooski Setting Landform:Flood plains Landform position (two-dimensional):Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear Across-slope shape:Linear Parent material:Silty alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 17 inches: silt loam H2 - 17 to 60 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 22 to 24 inches Frequency of flooding:Occasional Frequency of ponding:None Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w Custom Soil Resource Report 19 Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: F145XY002MA - Silty Low Floodplain Hydric soil rating: No Description of Urban Land Setting Parent material:Paved/filled Minor Components Limerick Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Alluvial flats Hydric soil rating: Yes Saco Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Alluvial flats Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 20 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 21 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 22 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix B – Test Pit Soil Logs Note: This soil evaluation has been performed for the purpose of stormwater management design, and shall not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com BerkshireDesignGroup Soil Evaluation Location Address or Lot No.115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Performed By Chris Chamberland, PE Deep Hole Number TP-1 Date 6/20/2023 Time 11:45 am Weather P. Cloudy, 75°F Location Description (See Plan)Former loading dock at south end of site Land Use Vacant Slope (%)0-2 Surface Elevation at Hole 112 Vegetation None Surface Stones ---Soil Parent Material Outwash Landform Floodplain Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, TS)TS Distances from: Open Water Body --Feet Drainage way 15 Feet Wetlands --Feet Property Line 60 Feet Drinking Water Well ----Feet Other --- Unsuitable Materials Present:☒ Yes ☐ No If Yes:☒ Disturbed Soil/Fill ☐ Weathered/Fractured Rock ☐Bedrock Soil Log Soil Mottling Coarse Fragments % by VolumeDepth (in) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell)Depth Color %Gravel Cobbles & Stones Soil Structure Soil Consistence Other 0-12 F Fill -------------------------- 12-24 C1 Very Fine Sand 10 YR 3/3 ---------------Single Grain Loose --- 24-84 C2 Fine Sand 2.5 Y 4/1 30 5 YR 4/6 5 ------Single Grain Loose * Additional Notes: *Soils become coarser with depth, closer to medium sand at 72-84”. Gravel layer below termination point at 84; groundwater quickly seeped in through gravel. Depth to Groundwater Weeping from Pit Face 72 Standing Water 84 Mottling 30 ESHGW Depth 30 ESHGW Elev.109.5 Note: This soil evaluation has been performed for the purpose of stormwater management design, and shall not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com BerkshireDesignGroup Soil Evaluation Location Address or Lot No.115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Performed By Chris Chamberland, PE Deep Hole Number TP-2 Date 6/20/2023 Time 12:15 am Weather P. Cloudy, 75°F Location Description (See Plan)Adjacent to loading dock ramp near northwest property line Land Use Vacant Slope (%)2-5 Surface Elevation at Hole 114.5 Vegetation None Surface Stones ---Soil Parent Material Outwash Landform Floodplain Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, TS)TS Distances from: Open Water Body --Feet Drainage way 45 Feet Wetlands --Feet Property Line 50 Feet Drinking Water Well ----Feet Other --- Unsuitable Materials Present:☒ Yes ☐ No If Yes:☒ Disturbed Soil/Fill ☐ Weathered/Fractured Rock ☐Bedrock Soil Log Soil Mottling Coarse Fragments % by VolumeDepth (in) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell)Depth Color %Gravel Cobbles & Stones Soil Structure Soil Consistence Other 0-12 F Fill -------------------------- 12-48 C1 Very Fine Sand 10 YR 3/3 ---------------Single Grain Loose --- 48-96 C2 Very Fine Sand 2.5 Y 4/1 48 5 YR 4/6 5 ------Single Grain Loose * Additional Notes: *Sand becomes coarser below 72” Depth to Groundwater Weeping from Pit Face ---Standing Water ---Mottling 48 ESHGW Depth 48 ESHGW Elev.110.5 Note: This soil evaluation has been performed for the purpose of stormwater management design, and shall not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com Berkshire Design Group Soil Evaluation Location Address or Lot No. 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Performed By Chris Chamberland, PE Deep Hole Number TP-3 Date 6/20/2023 Time 12:45 am Weather P. Cloudy, 75°F Location Description (See Plan) Grass strip between former building and parking lot Land Use Vacant Slope (%) 0-2 Surface Elevation at Hole 115 Vegetation Grass Surface Stones --- Soil Parent Material Outwash Landform Floodplain Position on Landscape (SU, SH, BS, FS, TS) TS Distances from: Open Water Body -- Feet Drainage way 90 Feet Wetlands -- Feet Property Line 90 Feet Drinking Water Well ---- Feet Other --- Unsuitable Materials Present: ☒ Yes ☐ No If Yes: ☒ Disturbed Soil/Fill ☐ Weathered/Fractured Rock ☐Bedrock Soil Log Depth (in) Soil Horizon Soil Texture (USDA) Soil Color (Munsell) Soil Mottling Coarse Fragments % by Volume Soil Structure Soil Consistence Other Depth Color % Gravel Cobbles & Stones 0-24 F Fill -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- * 24-40 C1 Medium Sand 10 YR 3/3 --- --- --- --- --- Single Grain Loose --- 40-46 C2 Silt Loam 2.5 Y 3/1 42 5 YR 4/6 5 --- --- Massive Friable ^ 46-96 C3 Fine Sand 2.5 Y 4/1 --- --- Single Grain Loose # Additional Notes: *Broken pavement layer at 12” ^Possible buried topsoil layer – recommend this layer be removed if occurring below proposed stormwater basin #Sand layer becomes coarser with depth Depth to Groundwater Weeping from Pit Face 84 Standing Water --- Mottling 42 ESHGW Depth 42 ESHGW Elev. 111.5 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix C – Stormwater Hydrology Calculations E-1A South 115 Conz toward Fairfield E-1B Rear of Site E-2 Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield E-3A Site Frontage E-3B Main Site CB Leaching CBs E-CP1 Fairfield IB-1A E-CP2 Fairfield IB-1C E-CP3 City Drain in Conz Street Routing Diagram for 23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 8/1/2023 HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 3.43 2 2 10-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 5.56 2 3 100-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 10.26 2 23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.783 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (E-1A, E-1B, E-2, E-3A, E-3B) 1.128 48 Brush, Good, HSG B (E-1A, E-1B, E-2, E-3B) 0.023 96 Gravel surface, HSG B (E-3B) 2.229 98 Paved parking, HSG B (E-1A, E-1B, E-2, E-3A, E-3B) 1.061 98 Roofs, HSG B (E-1B, E-3B) 5.224 82 TOTAL AREA NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1A: South 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Depth= 0.91" Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 18,054 98 Paved parking, HSG B 24,094 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,511 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 45,659 69 Weighted Average 27,605 60.46% Pervious Area 18,054 39.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-1B: Rear of Site Runoff = 1.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Depth= 1.58" Routed to Pond CB : Leaching CBs Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 10,849 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,948 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 8,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 6,395 98 Roofs, HSG B 27,742 80 Weighted Average 10,498 37.84% Pervious Area 17,244 62.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af, Depth= 1.96" Routed to Link E-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 9,532 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,187 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,540 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 14,259 85 Weighted Average 4,727 33.15% Pervious Area 9,532 66.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 0.97" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 757 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,354 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,111 70 Weighted Average 2,354 75.67% Pervious Area 757 24.33% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3B: Main Site Runoff = 8.06 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.533 af, Depth= 2.04" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 22,750 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 57,904 98 Paved parking, HSG B 39,833 98 Roofs, HSG B 989 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 15,317 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 136,793 86 Weighted Average 39,056 28.55% Pervious Area 97,737 71.45% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CB: Leaching CBs Inflow Area = 0.637 ac, 62.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.58" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.28 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 15.7 min Discarded = 0.31 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 111.16' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 880 sf Storage= 954 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 34.3 min calculated for 0.084 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 34.3 min ( 884.4 - 850.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 106.90' 258 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 4 1,014 cf Overall - 369 cf Embedded = 645 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 107.40' 321 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 4 Inside #1 369 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 321 cf #3 109.80' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #4 110.30' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #3 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #5 110.00' 194 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 3 761 cf Overall - 277 cf Embedded = 484 cf x 40.0% Voids #6 110.50' 240 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 3 Inside #5 277 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 240 cf #7 110.25' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #8 110.75' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #7 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #9 112.05' 8,570 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) -Impervious 10,162 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 112.05 9 0 0 113.70 2,500 2,070 2,070 115.00 7,500 6,500 8,570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 106.90'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area below 112.05' #2 Primary 114.80'30.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.31 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=111.16' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.31 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=106.90' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link E-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.685 ac, 48.09% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.57" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af Primary = 1.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.327 ac, 66.85% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.96" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af Primary = 0.81 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.212 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.01" for 2-Year event Inflow = 8.14 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.539 af Primary = 8.14 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.539 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1A: South 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 3.16 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.207 af, Depth= 2.37" Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 18,054 98 Paved parking, HSG B 24,094 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,511 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 45,659 69 Weighted Average 27,605 60.46% Pervious Area 18,054 39.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-1B: Rear of Site Runoff = 2.71 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af, Depth= 3.39" Routed to Pond CB : Leaching CBs Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 10,849 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,948 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 8,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 6,395 98 Roofs, HSG B 27,742 80 Weighted Average 10,498 37.84% Pervious Area 17,244 62.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 1.57 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.106 af, Depth= 3.89" Routed to Link E-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 9,532 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,187 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,540 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 14,259 85 Weighted Average 4,727 33.15% Pervious Area 9,532 66.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Depth= 2.46" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 757 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,354 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,111 70 Weighted Average 2,354 75.67% Pervious Area 757 24.33% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3B: Main Site Runoff = 15.35 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.045 af, Depth= 3.99" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 22,750 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 57,904 98 Paved parking, HSG B 39,833 98 Roofs, HSG B 989 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 15,317 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 136,793 86 Weighted Average 39,056 28.55% Pervious Area 97,737 71.45% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CB: Leaching CBs Inflow Area = 0.637 ac, 62.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.39" for 10-Year event Inflow = 2.71 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.180 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 113.27' @ 12.74 hrs Surf.Area= 880 sf Storage= 2,726 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 67.5 min calculated for 0.180 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 67.5 min ( 893.4 - 825.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 106.90' 258 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 4 1,014 cf Overall - 369 cf Embedded = 645 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 107.40' 321 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 4 Inside #1 369 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 321 cf #3 109.80' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #4 110.30' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #3 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #5 110.00' 194 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 3 761 cf Overall - 277 cf Embedded = 484 cf x 40.0% Voids #6 110.50' 240 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 3 Inside #5 277 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 240 cf #7 110.25' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #8 110.75' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #7 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #9 112.05' 8,570 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) -Impervious 10,162 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 112.05 9 0 0 113.70 2,500 2,070 2,070 115.00 7,500 6,500 8,570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 106.90'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area below 112.05' #2 Primary 114.80'30.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=112.11' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=106.90' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link E-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.685 ac, 48.09% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.48" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.16 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.207 af Primary = 3.16 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.207 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.327 ac, 66.85% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.89" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.57 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.106 af Primary = 1.57 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.106 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.212 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.96" for 10-Year event Inflow = 15.57 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.060 af Primary = 15.57 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.060 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E-1A: South 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 8.32 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.553 af, Depth= 6.33" Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 18,054 98 Paved parking, HSG B 24,094 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,511 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 45,659 69 Weighted Average 27,605 60.46% Pervious Area 18,054 39.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-1B: Rear of Site Runoff = 5.97 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af, Depth= 7.77" Routed to Pond CB : Leaching CBs Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 10,849 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,948 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 8,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 6,395 98 Roofs, HSG B 27,742 80 Weighted Average 10,498 37.84% Pervious Area 17,244 62.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 3.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.229 af, Depth= 8.41" Routed to Link E-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 9,532 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,187 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,540 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 14,259 85 Weighted Average 4,727 33.15% Pervious Area 9,532 66.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Depth= 6.46" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 757 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,354 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,111 70 Weighted Average 2,354 75.67% Pervious Area 757 24.33% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment E-3B: Main Site Runoff = 31.31 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.234 af, Depth= 8.54" Routed to Link E-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 22,750 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 57,904 98 Paved parking, HSG B 39,833 98 Roofs, HSG B 989 96 Gravel surface, HSG B 15,317 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 136,793 86 Weighted Average 39,056 28.55% Pervious Area 97,737 71.45% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond CB: Leaching CBs Inflow Area = 0.637 ac, 62.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 7.77" for 100-Year event Inflow = 5.97 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 11.70 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 11.70 hrs, Volume= 0.412 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link E-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 114.73' @ 13.57 hrs Surf.Area= 880 sf Storage= 8,247 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 210.8 min calculated for 0.412 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 210.8 min ( 1,010.7 - 799.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 106.90' 258 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 4 1,014 cf Overall - 369 cf Embedded = 645 cf x 40.0% Voids #2 107.40' 321 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 4 Inside #1 369 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 321 cf #3 109.80' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #4 110.30' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #3 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #5 110.00' 194 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 3 761 cf Overall - 277 cf Embedded = 484 cf x 40.0% Voids #6 110.50' 240 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 3 Inside #5 277 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 240 cf #7 110.25' 129 cf 8.00'W x 10.00'L x 3.17'H Prismatoid x 2 507 cf Overall - 185 cf Embedded = 323 cf x 40.0% Voids #8 110.75' 160 cf 6.00'W x 8.00'L x 1.67'H Prismatoid x 2 Inside #7 185 cf Overall - 3.0" Wall Thickness = 160 cf #9 112.05' 8,570 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) -Impervious 10,162 cf Total Available Storage Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 112.05 9 0 0 113.70 2,500 2,070 2,070 115.00 7,500 6,500 8,570 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 106.90'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Wetted area below 112.05' #2 Primary 114.80'30.0' long x 8.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 Coef. (English) 2.43 2.54 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.66 2.64 2.64 NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Ex Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/1/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 2.64 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.74 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 11.70 hrs HW=112.09' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=106.90' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link E-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.685 ac, 48.09% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.93" for 100-Year event Inflow = 8.32 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.553 af Primary = 8.32 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.553 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.327 ac, 66.85% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 8.41" for 100-Year event Inflow = 3.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.229 af Primary = 3.24 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.229 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link E-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.212 ac, 70.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 8.49" for 100-Year event Inflow = 31.89 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.272 af Primary = 31.89 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 2.272 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs P-1 Southern 115 Conz toward Fairfield P-2 Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield P-3A Site Frontage P-3B Central Site P-3C Western Site P-3D Condo Roof P-3E Hotel Roof P-3F Southern Site SIS-1 Front SIS SIS-2 Side SIS SIS-3 Rear SIS P-CP1 Fairfield IB-1A P-CP2 Fairfield IB-1C P-CP3 City Drain in Conz Street Routing Diagram for 23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1Prepared by Berkshire Design Group, Printed 8/3/2023 HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 3.43 2 2 10-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 5.56 2 3 100-Year NRCC 24-hr C Default 24.00 1 10.26 2 23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.705 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (P-1, P-2, P-3A, P-3B, P-3C, P-3F) 1.123 48 Brush, Good, HSG B (P-1, P-2, P-3C, P-3F) 0.658 98 Paved parking, HSG A (P-3C) 2.014 98 Paved parking, HSG B (P-1, P-2, P-3A, P-3B, P-3F) 0.724 98 Roofs, HSG B (P-3D, P-3E) 5.224 82 TOTAL AREA NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Southern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Depth= 0.72" Routed to Link P-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 14,260 98 Paved parking, HSG B 28,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 1,125 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 43,935 65 Weighted Average 29,675 67.54% Pervious Area 14,260 32.46% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 0.75 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 2.04" Routed to Link P-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 9,524 98 Paved parking, HSG B 500 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,771 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 12,795 86 Weighted Average 3,271 25.56% Pervious Area 9,524 74.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.07 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af, Depth= 0.81" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 511 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,597 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,108 67 Weighted Average 2,597 83.56% Pervious Area 511 16.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3B: Central Site Runoff = 3.64 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.244 af, Depth= 2.29" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 42,019 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,671 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 55,690 89 Weighted Average 13,671 24.55% Pervious Area 42,019 75.45% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3C: Western Site Runoff = 2.30 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.151 af, Depth= 1.65" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 28,662 98 Paved parking, HSG A 9,599 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 9,416 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 47,677 81 Weighted Average 19,015 39.88% Pervious Area 28,662 60.12% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3D: Condo Roof Runoff = 1.11 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Depth= 3.20" Routed to Pond SIS-1 : Front SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 13,798 98 Roofs, HSG B 13,798 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3E: Hotel Roof Runoff = 1.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Depth= 3.20" Routed to Pond SIS-2 : Side SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" Area (sf) CN Description 17,748 98 Roofs, HSG B 17,748 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3F: Southern Site Runoff = 1.65 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af, Depth= 1.72" Routed to Pond SIS-3 : Rear SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43" NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 21,426 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8,005 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,381 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 32,812 82 Weighted Average 11,386 34.70% Pervious Area 21,426 65.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond SIS-1: Front SIS Inflow Area = 0.317 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.20" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.11 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Outflow = 0.35 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Atten= 68%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 11.94 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 113.81' @ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 1,846 sf Storage= 485 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 5.9 min calculated for 0.084 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 5.9 min ( 762.8 - 756.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 113.50' 895 cf 49.28'W x 37.46'L x 2.18'H Field A 4,027 cf Overall - 1,790 cf Embedded = 2,237 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 113.50' 1,700 cf ACF R-Tank UD 1 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.21 sf x 1.97'L = 4.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.33 sf x 1.97'L = 4.6 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 2,595 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 113.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 114.10'6.0" Round Culvert L= 39.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 114.10' / 112.15' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Cast iron, coated, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 11.94 hrs HW=113.52' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=113.50' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond SIS-2: Side SIS Inflow Area = 0.407 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.20" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.43 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af Outflow = 0.29 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Atten= 80%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.29 cfs @ 11.81 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 113.23' @ 12.41 hrs Surf.Area= 1,500 sf Storage= 921 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 16.1 min calculated for 0.109 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 16.0 min ( 772.9 - 756.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 112.50' 857 cf 34.18'W x 43.88'L x 3.17'H Field A 4,748 cf Overall - 2,606 cf Embedded = 2,141 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 112.50' 2,476 cf ACF R-Tank HD 1.5 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.70 sf x 2.35'L = 6.3 cf Outside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.84 sf x 2.35'L = 6.7 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 3,333 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 112.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 113.65'8.0" Round Culvert L= 27.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 113.65' / 112.08' S= 0.0581 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 11.81 hrs HW=112.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=112.50' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond SIS-3: Rear SIS Inflow Area = 0.753 ac, 65.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.72" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.65 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af, Atten= 67%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.55 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 111.79' @ 12.30 hrs Surf.Area= 2,864 sf Storage= 672 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 6.5 min calculated for 0.108 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 6.5 min ( 849.7 - 843.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 111.50' 1,845 cf 15.81'W x 181.17'L x 3.26'H Field A 9,349 cf Overall - 4,737 cf Embedded = 4,612 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 111.50' 4,500 cf ACF R-Tank UD 2 x 540 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.23 sf x 1.97'L = 8.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.46 sf x 1.97'L = 8.8 cf 540 Chambers in 6 Rows 6,345 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 111.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 112.42'8.0" Round Culvert L= 158.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 111.50' / 112.42' S= -0.0058 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.55 cfs @ 11.99 hrs HW=111.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.55 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=111.50' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Link P-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.009 ac, 32.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.72" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af Primary = 0.81 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link P-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.294 ac, 74.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.04" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.75 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af Primary = 0.75 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 2-Year Rainfall=3.43"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link P-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.922 ac, 72.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 2-Year event Inflow = 6.00 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.400 af Primary = 6.00 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.400 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Southern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 2.58 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.171 af, Depth= 2.04" Routed to Link P-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 14,260 98 Paved parking, HSG B 28,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 1,125 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 43,935 65 Weighted Average 29,675 67.54% Pervious Area 14,260 32.46% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 1.44 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Depth= 3.99" Routed to Link P-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 9,524 98 Paved parking, HSG B 500 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,771 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 12,795 86 Weighted Average 3,271 25.56% Pervious Area 9,524 74.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.20 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 2.20" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 12HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 511 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,597 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,108 67 Weighted Average 2,597 83.56% Pervious Area 511 16.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3B: Central Site Runoff = 6.61 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.459 af, Depth= 4.31" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 42,019 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,671 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 55,690 89 Weighted Average 13,671 24.55% Pervious Area 42,019 75.45% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3C: Western Site Runoff = 4.78 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.318 af, Depth= 3.49" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 28,662 98 Paved parking, HSG A 9,599 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 9,416 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 47,677 81 Weighted Average 19,015 39.88% Pervious Area 28,662 60.12% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 13HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3D: Condo Roof Runoff = 1.81 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af, Depth= 5.32" Routed to Pond SIS-1 : Front SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 13,798 98 Roofs, HSG B 13,798 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3E: Hotel Roof Runoff = 2.33 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.181 af, Depth= 5.32" Routed to Pond SIS-2 : Side SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" Area (sf) CN Description 17,748 98 Roofs, HSG B 17,748 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3F: Southern Site Runoff = 3.37 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.225 af, Depth= 3.58" Routed to Pond SIS-3 : Rear SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56" NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 14HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 21,426 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8,005 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,381 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 32,812 82 Weighted Average 11,386 34.70% Pervious Area 21,426 65.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond SIS-1: Front SIS Inflow Area = 0.317 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.32" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.81 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af Outflow = 0.40 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.140 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 15.5 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 11.79 hrs, Volume= 0.139 af Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 114.24' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 1,846 sf Storage= 1,159 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 15.2 min calculated for 0.140 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 15.2 min ( 762.7 - 747.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 113.50' 895 cf 49.28'W x 37.46'L x 2.18'H Field A 4,027 cf Overall - 1,790 cf Embedded = 2,237 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 113.50' 1,700 cf ACF R-Tank UD 1 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.21 sf x 1.97'L = 4.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.33 sf x 1.97'L = 4.6 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 2,595 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 113.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 114.10'6.0" Round Culvert L= 39.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 114.10' / 112.15' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Cast iron, coated, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 11.79 hrs HW=113.52' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=114.24' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.04 cfs @ 1.00 fps) NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 15HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond SIS-2: Side SIS Inflow Area = 0.407 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.32" for 10-Year event Inflow = 2.33 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.181 af Outflow = 0.52 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.181 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 15.2 min Discarded = 0.29 cfs @ 11.55 hrs, Volume= 0.171 af Primary = 0.24 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 113.96' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 1,500 sf Storage= 1,842 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 30.5 min calculated for 0.181 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 30.5 min ( 778.0 - 747.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 112.50' 857 cf 34.18'W x 43.88'L x 3.17'H Field A 4,748 cf Overall - 2,606 cf Embedded = 2,141 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 112.50' 2,476 cf ACF R-Tank HD 1.5 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.70 sf x 2.35'L = 6.3 cf Outside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.84 sf x 2.35'L = 6.7 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 3,333 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 112.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 113.65'8.0" Round Culvert L= 27.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 113.65' / 112.08' S= 0.0581 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 11.55 hrs HW=112.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.24 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=113.96' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.24 cfs @ 1.49 fps) Summary for Pond SIS-3: Rear SIS Inflow Area = 0.753 ac, 65.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.58" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.37 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.225 af Outflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.225 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 25.7 min Discarded = 0.55 cfs @ 11.80 hrs, Volume= 0.224 af Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.001 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 16HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 112.54' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 2,864 sf Storage= 2,384 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 26.1 min calculated for 0.225 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 26.1 min ( 846.1 - 820.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 111.50' 1,845 cf 15.81'W x 181.17'L x 3.26'H Field A 9,349 cf Overall - 4,737 cf Embedded = 4,612 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 111.50' 4,500 cf ACF R-Tank UD 2 x 540 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.23 sf x 1.97'L = 8.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.46 sf x 1.97'L = 8.8 cf 540 Chambers in 6 Rows 6,345 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 111.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 112.42'8.0" Round Culvert L= 158.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 111.50' / 112.42' S= -0.0058 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.55 cfs @ 11.80 hrs HW=111.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.55 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=112.54' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.04 cfs @ 0.92 fps) Summary for Link P-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.009 ac, 32.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.04" for 10-Year event Inflow = 2.58 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.171 af Primary = 2.58 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.171 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link P-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.294 ac, 74.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.44 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af Primary = 1.44 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.098 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 10-Year Rainfall=5.56"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 17HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link P-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.922 ac, 72.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.46" for 10-Year event Inflow = 11.58 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.803 af Primary = 11.58 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.803 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 18HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P-1: Southern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 7.39 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.487 af, Depth= 5.79" Routed to Link P-CP1 : Fairfield IB-1A Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 14,260 98 Paved parking, HSG B 28,550 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 1,125 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 43,935 65 Weighted Average 29,675 67.54% Pervious Area 14,260 32.46% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-2: Eastern 115 Conz toward Fairfield Runoff = 2.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.209 af, Depth= 8.54" Routed to Link P-CP2 : Fairfield IB-1C Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 9,524 98 Paved parking, HSG B 500 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 2,771 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 12,795 86 Weighted Average 3,271 25.56% Pervious Area 9,524 74.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3A: Site Frontage Runoff = 0.55 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af, Depth= 6.06" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 19HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 511 98 Paved parking, HSG B 2,597 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 3,108 67 Weighted Average 2,597 83.56% Pervious Area 511 16.44% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3B: Central Site Runoff = 13.04 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.950 af, Depth= 8.91" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 42,019 98 Paved parking, HSG B 13,671 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 55,690 89 Weighted Average 13,671 24.55% Pervious Area 42,019 75.45% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3C: Western Site Runoff = 10.39 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.720 af, Depth= 7.90" Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 28,662 98 Paved parking, HSG A 9,599 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 9,416 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 47,677 81 Weighted Average 19,015 39.88% Pervious Area 28,662 60.12% Impervious Area NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 20HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3D: Condo Roof Runoff = 3.35 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Depth=10.02" Routed to Pond SIS-1 : Front SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 13,798 98 Roofs, HSG B 13,798 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3E: Hotel Roof Runoff = 4.32 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.340 af, Depth=10.02" Routed to Pond SIS-2 : Side SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" Area (sf) CN Description 17,748 98 Roofs, HSG B 17,748 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P-3F: Southern Site Runoff = 7.23 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.504 af, Depth= 8.03" Routed to Pond SIS-3 : Rear SIS Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26" NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 21HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sf) CN Description 21,426 98 Paved parking, HSG B 8,005 48 Brush, Good, HSG B 3,381 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 32,812 82 Weighted Average 11,386 34.70% Pervious Area 21,426 65.30% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Pond SIS-1: Front SIS Inflow Area = 0.317 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 10.02" for 100-Year event Inflow = 3.35 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af Outflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.264 af, Atten= 67%, Lag= 9.4 min Discarded = 0.35 cfs @ 11.35 hrs, Volume= 0.220 af Primary = 0.76 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 115.39' @ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 1,846 sf Storage= 2,382 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 19.2 min calculated for 0.264 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 19.2 min ( 758.2 - 739.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 113.50' 895 cf 49.28'W x 37.46'L x 2.18'H Field A 4,027 cf Overall - 1,790 cf Embedded = 2,237 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 113.50' 1,700 cf ACF R-Tank UD 1 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.21 sf x 1.97'L = 4.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 14.2"H => 2.33 sf x 1.97'L = 4.6 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 2,595 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 113.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 114.10'6.0" Round Culvert L= 39.0' CMP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 114.10' / 112.15' S= 0.0500 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Cast iron, coated, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 11.35 hrs HW=113.52' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.35 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.76 cfs @ 12.29 hrs HW=115.39' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.76 cfs @ 3.88 fps) NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 22HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond SIS-2: Side SIS Inflow Area = 0.407 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 10.02" for 100-Year event Inflow = 4.32 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.340 af Outflow = 1.94 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.340 af, Atten= 55%, Lag= 6.5 min Discarded = 0.29 cfs @ 10.86 hrs, Volume= 0.254 af Primary = 1.65 cfs @ 12.24 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 115.54' @ 12.24 hrs Surf.Area= 1,500 sf Storage= 3,255 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 28.7 min calculated for 0.340 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.7 min ( 767.8 - 739.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 112.50' 857 cf 34.18'W x 43.88'L x 3.17'H Field A 4,748 cf Overall - 2,606 cf Embedded = 2,141 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 112.50' 2,476 cf ACF R-Tank HD 1.5 x 391 Inside #1 Inside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.70 sf x 2.35'L = 6.3 cf Outside= 15.7"W x 26.0"H => 2.84 sf x 2.35'L = 6.7 cf 391 Chambers in 23 Rows 3,333 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 112.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 113.65'8.0" Round Culvert L= 27.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 113.65' / 112.08' S= 0.0581 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.29 cfs @ 10.86 hrs HW=112.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.29 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.65 cfs @ 12.24 hrs HW=115.53' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 1.65 cfs @ 4.74 fps) Summary for Pond SIS-3: Rear SIS Inflow Area = 0.753 ac, 65.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 8.03" for 100-Year event Inflow = 7.23 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.504 af Outflow = 1.82 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.504 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 13.9 min Discarded = 0.55 cfs @ 11.20 hrs, Volume= 0.380 af Primary = 1.27 cfs @ 12.36 hrs, Volume= 0.124 af Routed to Link P-CP3 : City Drain in Conz Street Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 23HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev= 114.31' @ 12.36 hrs Surf.Area= 2,864 sf Storage= 5,822 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 32.5 min calculated for 0.504 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 32.5 min ( 827.5 - 794.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 111.50' 1,845 cf 15.81'W x 181.17'L x 3.26'H Field A 9,349 cf Overall - 4,737 cf Embedded = 4,612 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A 111.50' 4,500 cf ACF R-Tank UD 2 x 540 Inside #1 Inside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.23 sf x 1.97'L = 8.3 cf Outside= 23.6"W x 27.2"H => 4.46 sf x 1.97'L = 8.8 cf 540 Chambers in 6 Rows 6,345 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 111.50'8.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 112.42'8.0" Round Culvert L= 158.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 111.50' / 112.42' S= -0.0058 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Corrugated PP, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.35 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.55 cfs @ 11.20 hrs HW=111.53' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.55 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.27 cfs @ 12.36 hrs HW=114.31' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Outlet Controls 1.27 cfs @ 3.64 fps) Summary for Link P-CP1: Fairfield IB-1A Inflow Area = 1.009 ac, 32.46% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.79" for 100-Year event Inflow = 7.39 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.487 af Primary = 7.39 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.487 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link P-CP2: Fairfield IB-1C Inflow Area = 0.294 ac, 74.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 8.54" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.209 af Primary = 2.93 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.209 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs NRCC 24-hr C 100-Year Rainfall=10.26"23.003 Prop Hydrology - REV1 Printed 8/3/2023Prepared by Berkshire Design Group Page 24HydroCAD® 10.20-2d s/n 00752 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link P-CP3: City Drain in Conz Street Inflow Area = 3.922 ac, 72.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.00" for 100-Year event Inflow = 26.37 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.961 af Primary = 26.37 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.961 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to nonexistent node 1L Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-32.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix D – Groundwater Recharge Calculations 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com BerkshireDesignGroup June 26, 2023 REV 1 – August 3, 2023 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Stormwater Standard 3 – Recharge Calculations Existing Impervious Area Table 1 shows the existing and proposed impervious areas on the site. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Impervious Area Existing Area (sf)Proposed Area (sf)Increase in Area (sf) 143,324 147,948 4,624 Proposed Impervious Area & Required Recharge Volume Table 2 shows the required recharge volume. Required Recharge Volume is calculated by applying the following equation: Required Recharge Volume, 𝑅𝑣=𝐹× 𝐼 Where, 𝐹= Target Depth Factor, 0.6” (for HSG A) 𝐼= Impervious Area Table 2. Required and Provided Recharge Volume Increase in Impervious area (sf) Recharge Volume Required (cf) Recharge Volume Provided (cf) 4,624 231 4,507 The recharge volume provided exceeds the recharge volume required on the increased impervious area. Recharge Volume is provided via the three subsurface infiltration basins. Roof runoff from each proposed building is routed to its own respective basin, while a portion of pavement runoff at the rear of site is routed to a third basin. The first roof basin infiltrates 943 cf, the second roof basin infiltrates 1,451 cf, and the third basin for the pavement runoff infiltrates 2,113 cf of water. This analysis utilizes the “Static Method” for determining required storage volume for infiltration features. Therefore, the minimum required storage volume is equal to the required recharge volume, tabulated above. The provided infiltration storage volume of 4,507 cf exceeds the required recharge volume of 231 cf. Capture Area Adjustment The Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook requires an increase in storage capacity of infiltration features if only a portion of the site’s impervious area is tributary to the stormwater practices. The proposed site increases June 26, 2023 115 Conz Street, Northampton MA Page 2 of 2 REV 1 – August 3, 2023 Stormwater Standard 3 – Recharge Calculations 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com impervious area by 4,457 sf; the proposed infiltration features capture runoff from 52,972 sf of impervious area, therefore there is no requirement to increase the storage areas. Drawdown Time The NRCS Soils Report showed Hadley-Winooski-Urban land complex (HSG B) under all infiltration basins. Test pits at each infiltration basin showed fine to very fine sand. Therefore, an infiltration rate of 8.27 inch per hour is used to calculate drawdown time (taken from Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook). 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 8.27 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟 =𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑤𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 Table 3. Drawdown Time for Infiltration Basin The storage areas are estimated to draw down in 1.7 hours or less, which is below the 72-hour requirement. Infiltration Structure Elevation at Bottom of Structure Elevation of Structure Outlet Depth to infiltrate (in) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Time to infiltrate (hr) SIS-1 113.50 114.10 7.2 8.27 0.9 SIS-2 112.50 113.65 13.8 8.27 1.7 SIS-3 111.50 112.42 0.92 8.27 0.1 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix E – Water Quality Calculations 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com BerkshireDesignGroup June 26, 2023 REV 1 – August 3, 2023 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Water Quality Volume & TSS Removal – Stormwater Standard 4 & Northampton Stormwater Regulations MassDEP Stormwater Standard 4 Table 1 shows the existing and proposed impervious area on the site. Table 1. Existing and Proposed Impervious Areas Existing Impervious Area (sf) Proposed Impervious Area (sf) Increase in Impervious Area (sf) 143,324 147,948 4,624 Required Water Quality Volume under Stormwater Standard 4 is calculated by applying the following equation: Required Water Quality Volume, 𝑊𝑄𝑉=𝐷× 𝐼 Where, 𝐷= Depth Factor, 1.0” (infiltration rate >2.4 inch/hour) 𝐼= Impervious Area Table 2 summarizes the water quality volume required and provided for the site, under Stormwater Standard 4. Table 2. Required and Provided WQV – MassDEP Standard 4 Increase in Impervious Area (sf) Water Quality Volume Required (cf) Water Quality Volume Provided (cf) 4,624 385 4,507 The water quality volume provided exceeds the water quality volume required on the increased impervious area. Water quality volume is provided via the three subsurface infiltration basins. Two of the basins receive roof runoff directly from one of the two proposed buildings. The third basin receives pavement runoff, after it has passed through a proprietary treatment chamber for removing TSS. MassDEP TSS Removal Calculation Worksheets are attached for each treatment train of the proposed system. Northampton Stormwater Regulations The required WQV under the Northampton Stormwater Regulations is based on the total proposed impervious area, not on the increase in impervious area as in MassDEP’s Standard 4. The Northampton Regulations also require phosphorus removal in addition to TSS Removal. These regulations are satisfied when 0.8” of runoff from impervious area is infiltrated, or impervious runoff has been adequately treated to remove TSS and June 26, 2023 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Page 2 of 2 REV 1 – August 3, 2023 Water Quality Volume & TSS Removal 4 Allen Place, Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 582-7000 bdg@berkshiredesign.com phosphorus. The project proposes a combination of infiltration and filtration to meet the requirements of the regulations. Proposed Treatment via Infiltration The three proposed subsurface infiltration basins will infiltrate runoff from the two proposed building roofs, as well as a portion of pavement at the rear of the site. Runoff from pavement will be pre-treated by a proprietary treatment chamber (sizing calculations attached). The WQV that will be infiltrated is calculated using the same equation as Standard 4. Required Water Quality Volume, 𝑊𝑄𝑉=𝐷× 𝐼 Where, 𝐷= Depth Factor, 0.8” (Redevelopment Project) 𝐼= Impervious Area Table 3 summarizes the water quality volume required and provided for the portions of the site to be treated via infiltration, under Northampton Stormwater Regulations. Table 3. Required and Provided WQV – Northampton Stormwater Regulations Impervious Area to Infiltration (sf) Water Quality Volume Required (cf) Water Quality Volume Provided (cf) 52,972 3,531 4,507 The water quality volume provided exceeds the water quality volume required for the impervious area routed to infiltration basins. Existing Treatment via Infiltration There are two existing subsurface infiltration basins within the neighboring Fairfield Inn Stormwater Management System. That system includes pre-treatment proprietary treatment chambers. That system has been designed to infiltrate far greater than 0.8” of runoff from impervious areas. In the existing condition, the Fairfield Inn system receives runoff from 27,586 square-feet of impervious area. The project proposes to route 23,784 square-feet of impervious area to these infiltration basins, a reduction of 3,802 square-feet. Therefore, the water quality volume provided exceeds the water quality volume required for the impervious area routed to the Fairfield Inn’s infiltration basins. Treatment via Filtration There are two proprietary filtration treatment chambers proposed in the design. The treatment chambers are the Contech Jellyfish. Attached are sizing reports for each of the chambers, as well as a field monitoring report from the University of Florida in 2012, detailing how these units provided a median of 59% TP removal. These units will treat runoff from 70,681 sf of impervious area. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc. Engineer:DRA Date Prepared:8/3/2023 Site Information Project Name 115 Conz Street Project State MA Project City Northampton Site Designation JF-1 Total Drainage Area, Ad 1.09 ac Post Development Impervious Area, Ai 0.66 ac Pervious Area, Ap 0.44 ac % Impervious 60% Runoff Coefficient, Rc 0.59 Mass Loading Calculations Mean Annual Rainfall, P 47.0 in Agency Required % Removal 80% Percent Runoff Capture 90% Mean Annual Runoff, Vt 99,333 ft3 Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant, EMC 75 mg/l Annual Mass Load, M total 465 lbs Filter System Filtration Brand Jelly Fish Cartridge Length 54 in Jelly Fish Sizing Mass to be Captured by System 372 lbs Water Quality Flow 0.65 cfs Method to Use FLOW BASED Treatment Flow Rate 0.80 cfs Required Size JFPD0806-4-1 Summary Flow Jellyfish Design Calculation ELEVATION VIEWINLET PIPEOUTLET PIPEA CONTECH TO PROVIDEGRADE RING/RISERCONTRACTOR TO GROUTTO FINISHED GRADE2'-0"SUMPTYPTRANSFER OPENINGTRANSFEROPENINGPLAN VIEW(TOP SLAB NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)8'-0"DRAINDOWNCARTRIDGEDECKWEIRINLETBAYHI FLOCARTRIDGESTEPS(LOCATIONMAY VARY)OUTLETBAYBYPASSWEIRFLOATABLESBAFFLEOUTLETTRANSFEROPENINGINLETTRANSFEROPENINGCARTRIDGEDECKCARTRIDGEB FRAME AND COVER SHOWN(TRENCH COVER OPTION ISFLUSH WITH TOP OF STRUCTURE)6'-0"BOTTOM OFFLOATABLESBAFFLETOP OFBYPASS WEIRFRAME AND COVER(DIAMETER VARIES)N.T.S.24"TRENCH COVER(LENGTH VARIES)N.T.S.www.ContechES .com®USAEJIW800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069JELLYFISH JFPD0806STANDARD DETAILPEAK DIVERSION CONFIGURATIONI:\COMMON\CAD\TREATMENT\13 JELLYFISH FILTER\40 STANDARD DRAWINGS\JFPD\DWG\JFPD0806-DTL NEW.DWG 1/29/2018 10:38 AM www.ContechES.comTHIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THEFOLLOWING: U.S. PATENT NO. 8,287,726; 8,221,618; US 8,123,935;OTHER INTERNATIONAL PATENTS PENDINGJELLYFISH DESIGN NOTESCARTRIDGE LENGTHFLOW RATE HI-FLO / DRAINDOWN (CFS) (PER CART)JELLYFISH TREATMENT CAPACITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE CARTRIDGE LENGTH AND THE NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. THE STANDARD PEAK DIVERSIONSTYLE WITH PRECAST TOP SLAB IS SHOWN. ALTERNATE OFFLINE VAULT AND/OR SHALLOW ORIENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE. PEAK CONVEYANCECAPACITY TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER OF RECORDCARTRIDGE SELECTIONOUTLET INVERT TO STRUCTURE INVERT (A)MAX. TREATMENT (CFS)1.961.470.980.5415"27"40"54"0.049 / 0.0250.089 / 0.0450.133 / 0.0670.178 / 0.0893'-3"4'-3"5'-4"6'-6"DECK TO INSIDE TOP (MIN) (B)5.004.004.004.00GENERAL NOTES:1.CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.2.FOR SITE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEEREDSOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContechES.com3.JELLYFISH WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT.4.STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS-20 OR PER APPROVING JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT, ASSUMING EARTHCOVER OF 0' - 10', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRMACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 LOAD RATING AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO.5.STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-857, ASTM C-918, AND AASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD.6. OUTLET PIPE INVERT IS EQUAL TO THE CARTRIDGE DECK ELEVATION.7. THE OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS IS RECOMMENDED TO BE ONE PIPE SIZE LARGER THAN THE INLET PIPE AT EQUAL ORGREATER SLOPE.8. NO PRODUCT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SUBMITTED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO PROJECT BID DATE, OR AS DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER OF RECORD.INSTALLATION NOTESA. ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIEDBY ENGINEER OF RECORD.B. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE STRUCTURE.C. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL AND LEVEL THE STRUCTURE, SEALING THE JOINTS, LINE ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS (NON-SHRINK GROUT WITHAPPROVED WATERSTOP OR FLEXIBLE BOOT).D. CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION, BY CONTECH, SHALL OCCUR ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND THE JELLYFISH UNIT IS CLEAN AND FREE OFDEBRIS. CONTACT CONTECH TO COORDINATE CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION WITH SITE STABILIZATION.STRUCTURE IDWATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfs)PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (yrs)# OF CARTRIDGES REQUIRED (HF / DD)PIPE DATA:I.E.MAT'LDIAINLET #1INLET #2OUTLETSITE SPECIFICDATA REQUIREMENTSWIDTHHEIGHTANTI-FLOTATION BALLASTNOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:RIM ELEVATIONCARTRIDGE LENGTH* PER ENGINEER OF RECORDSLOPE %HGLSEE GENERAL NOTES 6-7 FOR INLET AND OUTLETHYDRAULIC AND SIZING REQUIREMENTS.************************ 26" 5" 47511031reserve the right to modify specifications withoutejco.com®Revised By:DJHDJH-Copyright © 2017 EJ Group, Inc.- Designates Machined SurfaceUndippedprior notice. 10/05/201711/28/2017All rights reserved.-Materials-Design LoadGray Iron (CL35B)Heavy Dutyn/a-Open Area-Coating-ASTM A48registered marks, patents, trade secret information,and/or know how that is the property of EJ Group, Inc.--Country of Origin: USACONFIDENTIAL: This drawing is the property of EJ Group, Inc. and embodies confidential information, Weights (lbs/kg), dimensions (inches/mm)and drawings provided for your guidance. We800 626 4653Designer:DisclaimerDrawing RevisionContactProduct NumberDesign FeaturesCertificationV7511 Trench Cover(2) TYPE 4ASTEEL PICKBARSBBAABOTTOM VIEWSECTION A-AC 36" 2 1/2" 3 1/2" SECTION B-B 23 7/8" SCALE 1 : 5DETAIL C5/8" DIASTEEL BAR 3 3/4" 1/2" 1 5/8" CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc. Engineer:DRA Date Prepared:8/3/2023 Site Information Project Name 115 Conz Street Project State MA Project City Northampton Site Designation JF-2 Total Drainage Area, Ad 1.28 ac Post Development Impervious Area, Ai 0.96 ac Pervious Area, Ap 0.31 ac % Impervious 75% Runoff Coefficient, Rc 0.73 Mass Loading Calculations Mean Annual Rainfall, P 47.0 in Agency Required % Removal 80% Percent Runoff Capture 90% Mean Annual Runoff, Vt 143,121 ft3 Event Mean Concentration of Pollutant, EMC 75 mg/l Annual Mass Load, M total 670 lbs Filter System Filtration Brand Jelly Fish Cartridge Length 54 in Jelly Fish Sizing Mass to be Captured by System 536 lbs Water Quality Flow 0.96 cfs Method to Use FLOW BASED Treatment Flow Rate 0.98 cfs Required Size JFPD0806-5-1 Summary Flow Jellyfish Design Calculation ELEVATION VIEWINLET PIPEOUTLET PIPEA CONTECH TO PROVIDEGRADE RING/RISERCONTRACTOR TO GROUTTO FINISHED GRADE2'-0"SUMPTYPTRANSFER OPENINGTRANSFEROPENINGPLAN VIEW(TOP SLAB NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)8'-0"DRAINDOWNCARTRIDGEDECKWEIRINLETBAYHI FLOCARTRIDGESTEPS(LOCATIONMAY VARY)OUTLETBAYBYPASSWEIRFLOATABLESBAFFLEOUTLETTRANSFEROPENINGINLETTRANSFEROPENINGCARTRIDGEDECKCARTRIDGEB FRAME AND COVER SHOWN(TRENCH COVER OPTION ISFLUSH WITH TOP OF STRUCTURE)6'-0"BOTTOM OFFLOATABLESBAFFLETOP OFBYPASS WEIRFRAME AND COVER(DIAMETER VARIES)N.T.S.24"TRENCH COVER(LENGTH VARIES)N.T.S.www.ContechES .com®USAEJIW800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069JELLYFISH JFPD0806STANDARD DETAILPEAK DIVERSION CONFIGURATIONI:\COMMON\CAD\TREATMENT\13 JELLYFISH FILTER\40 STANDARD DRAWINGS\JFPD\DWG\JFPD0806-DTL NEW.DWG 1/29/2018 10:38 AM www.ContechES.comTHIS PRODUCT MAY BE PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THEFOLLOWING: U.S. PATENT NO. 8,287,726; 8,221,618; US 8,123,935;OTHER INTERNATIONAL PATENTS PENDINGJELLYFISH DESIGN NOTESCARTRIDGE LENGTHFLOW RATE HI-FLO / DRAINDOWN (CFS) (PER CART)JELLYFISH TREATMENT CAPACITY IS A FUNCTION OF THE CARTRIDGE LENGTH AND THE NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. THE STANDARD PEAK DIVERSIONSTYLE WITH PRECAST TOP SLAB IS SHOWN. ALTERNATE OFFLINE VAULT AND/OR SHALLOW ORIENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE. PEAK CONVEYANCECAPACITY TO BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER OF RECORDCARTRIDGE SELECTIONOUTLET INVERT TO STRUCTURE INVERT (A)MAX. TREATMENT (CFS)1.961.470.980.5415"27"40"54"0.049 / 0.0250.089 / 0.0450.133 / 0.0670.178 / 0.0893'-3"4'-3"5'-4"6'-6"DECK TO INSIDE TOP (MIN) (B)5.004.004.004.00GENERAL NOTES:1.CONTECH TO PROVIDE ALL MATERIALS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.2.FOR SITE SPECIFIC DRAWINGS WITH DETAILED STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONTECH ENGINEEREDSOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE. www.ContechES.com3.JELLYFISH WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL DESIGN DATA AND INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING.CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM STRUCTURE MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF PROJECT.4.STRUCTURE SHALL MEET AASHTO HS-20 OR PER APPROVING JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT, ASSUMING EARTHCOVER OF 0' - 10', AND GROUNDWATER ELEVATION AT, OR BELOW, THE OUTLET PIPE INVERT ELEVATION. ENGINEER OF RECORD TO CONFIRMACTUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. CASTINGS SHALL MEET AASHTO M306 LOAD RATING AND BE CAST WITH THE CONTECH LOGO.5.STRUCTURE SHALL BE PRECAST CONCRETE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-857, ASTM C-918, AND AASHTO LOAD FACTOR DESIGN METHOD.6. OUTLET PIPE INVERT IS EQUAL TO THE CARTRIDGE DECK ELEVATION.7. THE OUTLET PIPE DIAMETER FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS IS RECOMMENDED TO BE ONE PIPE SIZE LARGER THAN THE INLET PIPE AT EQUAL ORGREATER SLOPE.8. NO PRODUCT SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS SUBMITTED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO PROJECT BID DATE, OR AS DIRECTED BY THEENGINEER OF RECORD.INSTALLATION NOTESA. ANY SUB-BASE, BACKFILL DEPTH, AND/OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS ARE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND SHALL BE SPECIFIEDBY ENGINEER OF RECORD.B. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT WITH SUFFICIENT LIFTING AND REACH CAPACITY TO LIFT AND SET THE STRUCTURE.C. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL AND LEVEL THE STRUCTURE, SEALING THE JOINTS, LINE ENTRY AND EXIT POINTS (NON-SHRINK GROUT WITHAPPROVED WATERSTOP OR FLEXIBLE BOOT).D. CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION, BY CONTECH, SHALL OCCUR ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND THE JELLYFISH UNIT IS CLEAN AND FREE OFDEBRIS. CONTACT CONTECH TO COORDINATE CARTRIDGE INSTALLATION WITH SITE STABILIZATION.STRUCTURE IDWATER QUALITY FLOW RATE (cfs)PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)RETURN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW (yrs)# OF CARTRIDGES REQUIRED (HF / DD)PIPE DATA:I.E.MAT'LDIAINLET #1INLET #2OUTLETSITE SPECIFICDATA REQUIREMENTSWIDTHHEIGHTANTI-FLOTATION BALLASTNOTES/SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:RIM ELEVATIONCARTRIDGE LENGTH* PER ENGINEER OF RECORDSLOPE %HGLSEE GENERAL NOTES 6-7 FOR INLET AND OUTLETHYDRAULIC AND SIZING REQUIREMENTS.************************ 26" 5" 47511031reserve the right to modify specifications withoutejco.com®Revised By:DJHDJH-Copyright © 2017 EJ Group, Inc.- Designates Machined SurfaceUndippedprior notice. 10/05/201711/28/2017All rights reserved.-Materials-Design LoadGray Iron (CL35B)Heavy Dutyn/a-Open Area-Coating-ASTM A48registered marks, patents, trade secret information,and/or know how that is the property of EJ Group, Inc.--Country of Origin: USACONFIDENTIAL: This drawing is the property of EJ Group, Inc. and embodies confidential information, Weights (lbs/kg), dimensions (inches/mm)and drawings provided for your guidance. We800 626 4653Designer:DisclaimerDrawing RevisionContactProduct NumberDesign FeaturesCertificationV7511 Trench Cover(2) TYPE 4ASTEEL PICKBARSBBAABOTTOM VIEWSECTION A-AC 36" 2 1/2" 3 1/2" SECTION B-B 23 7/8" SCALE 1 : 5DETAIL C5/8" DIASTEEL BAR 3 3/4" 1/2" 1 5/8" 1 TARP FIELD TEST PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF A JELLYFISH® FILTER JF4-2-1 Performance Monitoring Report for JF4-2-1 Prepared By: University of Florida Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment (ESSIE) University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 USA Final Version: 01 November 2011 2 Table of Contents Part I: Imbrium-Supplied Information for Report ...................................................................................... 4 1. Company Overview and Key Contacts ................................................................................................. 4 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 5 4. Technology Description – Jellyfish® Filter........................................................................................... 6 5. Performance Claim ............................................................................................................................. 16 Part II: University of Florida Supplied Report: Performance Monitoring of Jellyfish® Filter JF4-2-1 ...... 17 6. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 17 7. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ............................................................................................. 20 8. Test Site Description and BMP Installation ........................................................................................ 20 9. Test Methods, Procedures, and Equipment ......................................................................................... 24 10. Data and Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 26 11. Data Quality Assessment .................................................................................................................. 40 12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX A: New Jersey Environmental Laboratory Certification .................................................... 41 APPENDIX B: Individual Storm Event Summaries with Hydrographs and Hyetographs ..................... 44 APPENDIX C: Hydraulic Testing of the Jellyfish® Filter JF4-2-1 ......................................................... 70 APPENDIX D: Methodology for Determining Particulate Matter Removal Efficiency ........................ 77 APPENDIX E: Nutrient accounting in the monitoring campaign PR%, based on PM mass balance .... 81 List of Figures Figure 1 Jellyfish Filter and Components ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Jellyfish Filtration Cartridge..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 Jellyfish Filter Treatment Functions ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 Aerial photo of Field Test Site ................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5 Profile view schematic of the field set-up for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. .............................. 22 Figure 6 Photo of field test set-up for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1.. ........................................................ 23 Figure 7 Top view photos of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 deck. .............................................................. 23 Figure 8 Top view photo of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 during operation.. ........................................... 24 Figure 9 Parshall flume calibration curve ............................................................................................... 25 3 List of Tables Table 1 Design Flow Capacities of the Jellyfish Filter ........................................................................... 15 Table 2 Design Pollutant Capacities of the Jellyfish Filter ..................................................................... 16 Table 3 Summary of Analytical Tests .................................................................................................... 26 Table 4 Monitored rainfall-runoff event hydrologic data ....................................................................... 30 Table 5 Rainfall-runoff data collection requirements ............................................................................. 31 Table 6 Event-based particle size distributions (PSD) ........................................................................... 32 Table 7 Removal efficiencies for particulate matter (PM) fractions ...................................................... 33 Table 8 Event-based values for alkalinity, COD, and turbidity .............................................................. 34 Table 9 Event-based values for total phosphorus and total nitrogen ...................................................... 35 Table 10 Event-based values for total metals ......................................................................................... 36 Table 11 Event-based values for total oil and grease ............................................................................. 37 Table 12 Event-based water chemistry values ........................................................................................ 38 Table 13 Event-based driving head over deck level ............................................................................... 39 4 Part I: Imbrium-Supplied Information for Report 1. Company Overview and Key Contacts Imbrium Systems has been actively engaged in the stormwater treatment industry since the introduction of its Stormceptor® product in 1992. Originally established as the Stormceptor Group of Companies, in 2006 the company changed its name to Imbrium Systems. This name change was implemented as the company expanded research and development to deliver new technologies to the stormwater treatment industry. Imbrium Systems is a global company with U.S. headquarters (Imbrium Systems Corporation) located in Rockville, Maryland and Canadian and International headquarters (Imbrium Systems Incorporated and Imbrium International Limited) located in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, with satellite offices located across North America. Imbrium Systems is a wholly-owned business of Monteco Ltd. Monteco is a privately-held company headquartered in Toronto, Ontario which focuses on developing innovative clean-tech solutions for application in the air, water and energy industry sectors. Monteco supports its businesses with centralized corporate services including research & development, public relations, government affairs, marketing and communication, human resources and finance. Organization Name: Imbrium Systems Corporation Mailing Address: 7564 Standish Place Suite 112 Rockville, Maryland 20855 1-888-279-8826 1-800-565-4801 Key Contacts: Scott Perry Joel Garbon Managing Director Product Manager 7564 Standish Place, Suite 112 3811 S.W. Corbett Ave. Rockville, Maryland 20855 Portland, Oregon 97239 Mobile: 301-461-3515 Mobile: 503-706-6193 2. Introduction Stormwater pollution, especially in developed urban areas is a leading cause of water quality degradation in U.S. rivers, lakes, streams, and other surface waters. Water quality problems associated with nonpoint sources of pollution, particularly stormwater, are being addressed by federal mandates that affect all states. Expansion of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II, Storm Water Regulations, requires stormwater plans from thousands of municipalities nationwide, and a renewed focus on the total maximum daily load provisions (TMDL) in the Clean Water Act brings unprecedented attention and increased resources to stormwater control issues. These programs also are predicted to have a significant influence on the rate at which new technologies enter the marketplace. 5 To support responsible use of stormwater treatment technologies, the Demonstration Protocol has been designed to be flexible and inclusive of both structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs). Additionally the Protocol has been administered following the Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership (TARP) field test protocol for stormwater best management practices (BMP) for demonstrations, per the guidelines of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The TARP Protocol primarily deals with the demonstration of BMPs that are designed for one or more of the following: 1) directing and distributing flows; 2) reducing erosive velocities; and 3) removing contaminants such as suspended or dissolved pollutants from collected stormwater through physical and chemical processes such as settling, media-filtering, ion-exchange, sorption, and precipitation. Current BMPs used in industrial, municipal, commercial, residential, and construction stormwater pollution control applications include vegetated swales, detention basins, infiltration basins, wet ponds, constructed wetlands, media filtration, bioretention, and sedimentation units (e.g. hydrodynamic structures, oil/sediment separators, and screen separators). The TARP field test of Imbrium Systems’ Jellyfish® Filter that is the subject of this report was conducted by the University of Florida Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment in Gainesville, Florida. 3. Purpose The purpose of the TARP Protocol is to provide a uniform method for demonstrating stormwater technologies and developing test quality assurance (QA) plans for certification or verification of performance claims. The advantages of using the TARP Demonstration Protocol are numerous. Technology proponents will reduce duplicative or overlapping demonstration and performance testing of technologies; maximize return on research and development dollars; certify or verify the technology in accordance with performance claims and state regulatory standards; demonstrate effectiveness, cost, and marketability; and achieve maximum market penetration. Since current NPDES Phase I and II regulations require industrial and municipal permittees to provide stormwater discharge control through use of BMPs, specific BMP usage is not subject to regulation. Stormwater BMPs with demonstrated capability, i.e., BMPs with reliable removal rates based on field testing, are more likely to be used in NPDES required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) to control stormwater discharges. Obtaining certification or verification of a stormwater BMP technology from participating states can assist the technology in gaining regulatory acceptance in this application. Imbrium Systems’ Jellyfish® Filter is a BMP designed to meet federal, state, and local requirements for treating stormwater runoff in compliance with the 1972 Clean Water Act and NPDES Stormwater Amendments, and phosphorus TMDLs in critical or impaired watersheds. The Jellyfish Filter is typically comprised of a manhole or vault configuration that houses a cartridge deck and multiple high surface area membrane filtration cartridges. Stormwater from storm drains flows by gravity into the unit, where it is first pretreated by hydrodynamic separation processes then filtered through the cartridges. The combination of pretreatment and filtration treatment mechanisms is effective 6 for the capture of floatable pollutants, coarse and fine sediments, and particulate-bound pollutants such as nutrients, toxic metals, hydrocarbons, and bacteria. The purpose of this TARP field test of the Jellyfish Filter is to characterize the BMP’s pollutant removal performance, hydraulic performance, and maintenance requirements over a long-duration monitoring period. 4. Technology Description – Jellyfish® Filter The University of Florida Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment has conducted extensive hydraulic testing and field monitoring of the Jellyfish® Filter JF4-2-1 utilizing second generation Jellyfish membrane filtration cartridges. The second generation cartridge has five times the surface area of the first generation cartridge of equal length, and therefore much higher flow rate and sediment holding capacity, as well as other improved features. For example, a 54-inch long first generation cartridge (on which the original New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Interim Certification letter for Jellyfish Filter is based) has 76 ft2 of filtration membrane surface area, while a second generation cartridge of equal length has 381 ft2 of filtration membrane surface area. The following technology description information is excerpted from the Jellyfish® Filter Technical Manual published by Imbrium Systems: The Jellyfish Filter is an engineered stormwater quality treatment technology featuring unique membrane filtration in a compact stand-alone treatment system that removes a high level and wide variety of stormwater pollutants. The Jellyfish Filter integrates pre-treatment and filtration with passive self-cleaning mechanisms. The system utilizes membrane filtration cartridges with very high filtration surface area and flow capacity, which provide the advantages of high sediment capacity and low filtration flux rate (flow per unit surface area) at relatively low driving head compared to conventional filter systems. Each lightweight Jellyfish Filter cartridge consists of multiple detachable membrane-encased filter elements (“filtration tentacles”) attached to a cartridge head plate. The filtration tentacles provide an extraordinarily large amount of surface area, resulting in superior flow capacity and suspended sediment removal capacity. Jellyfish efficiently captures a high level of stormwater pollutants, including: Greater than 85% of the total suspended solids (TSS) load, including particles less than 5 microns Particulate-bound pollutants such as nutrients, toxic metals, hydrocarbons, and bacteria Free oil Floatable trash and debris Jellyfish cartridges are passively backwashed automatically after each storm event, which removes accumulated sediment from the membranes and significantly extends the service life of the 7 cartridges and the maintenance interval. If required, the cartridges can be easily manually backwashed without removing the cartridges. Additionally, the lightweight cartridges can be removed by hand and externally rinsed, and rinsed cartridges then re-installed. These simple maintenance options allow for cartridge regeneration, thereby minimizing cartridge replacement costs and life-cycle treatment costs while ensuring long-term treatment performance. The Jellyfish Filter is comprised of several structural and functional components: A cylindrical (manhole) or rectangular structure constructed of either precast concrete or fiberglass, and available in a wide variety of sizes and configurations, serves as a vessel that provides long-lasting structural support for the system; provides hydraulic connections to the inlet and outlet pipes; provides surfaces for structural attachment of the cartridge deck and maintenance access wall; provides influent water storage and flow-through volume for pollutant separation and membrane filtration treatment; and provides a high-volume sump for storage of accumulated sediment. A rigid high-strength fiberglass cartridge deck separates the vessel into a lower chamber and upper chamber; houses the filter cartridges; provides a surface and flow path for treated water to the effluent pipe; provides double-wall containment of oil and other hydrocarbons below deck; and provides a platform for maintenance personnel to safely service the filter cartridges. The lower chamber provides influent water storage and flow-through volume for pollutant separation and membrane filtration treatment, and storage of accumulated sediment. The upper chamber provides above-deck clearance for inspection and maintenance service. The cartridge deck is securely attached to the vessel wall. A rigid high-strength fiberglass maintenance access wall attenuates influent water velocity; channels influent water into the lower chamber via a large opening in the cartridge deck; provides storage volume for floatable pollutants; and serves as a convenient inspection and maintenance access point for pollutant removal. Cartridge receptacles are secured to the cartridge deck and together with the cartridge lids, serve to securely anchor the filter cartridges into the cartridge deck. Jellyfish membrane filtration cartridges are inserted into the cartridge receptacles and secured with the cartridge lids. The filter cartridges treat the influent stormwater by filtering out fine suspended particulates (TSS) and particulate-bound pollutants on the membrane of each filtration tentacle. Filtered water passes through the membranes, flows up the center tube of each filtration tentacle and exits the top opening of each tentacle. Cartridges are available in various lengths and flow ratings. Filter cartridges are designated as either hi-flo cartridges or draindown cartridges, depending on their placement position within the cartridge deck. Cartridges placed within the backwash pool weir are automatically passively backwashed after each storm event, and are designated the hi-flo cartridges. Cartridges placed outside the backwash pool weir are not passively backwashed but facilitate the draindown of the backwash pool and these are designated the draindown cartridges. The design flow rate of a draindown cartridge is controlled by a cartridge lid orifice to one-half the design flow rate of a hi-flo cartridge of similar length. The lower design flow rate of the draindown cartridge reduces the likelihood of occlusion prior to scheduled maintenance. 8 Cartridge lids are fastened onto the cartridge receptacles to securely anchor the filter cartridges into the cartridge deck. The lids are removable to allow manual backflushing or removal of the filter cartridges when required during maintenance service. Cartridge lids contain a flow control orifice that is specifically sized for use with hi-flo and draindown cartridges. Blank lids have no orifice and are used to cover unoccupied cartridge receptacles in systems that do not use the full rated flow capacity of the system. A separator skirt serves as a baffle that encloses the filtration tentacles and defines the filtration zone inside the separator skirt perimeter. The separator skirt extends the full length of the filtration tentacles and prevents contamination of the membranes with oil and floatable debris. The separator skirt has a large opening at the bottom that allows pre-treated water to enter the filtration zone under low velocity. The separator skirt is securely attached to the underside of the cartridge deck. A rigid fiberglass backwash pool weir extends 6 inches (150 mm) above the cartridge deck and encloses the hi-flo cartridges. During inflow, filtered water exiting the hi-flo cartridges forms a pool inside the weir. If sufficient driving head is available the pool overtops the weir and spills to the cartridge deck where it subsequently flows to the outlet pipe. As the inflow event subsides and forward driving head decreases, water in the backwash pool reverses flow direction and automatically passively backwashes the hi-flo cartridges, cleaning the membrane surfaces. Water in the lower chamber (below deck) is displaced through the draindown cartridges. This self-cleaning mechanism may occur multiple times during a single storm event as rainfall/runoff intensities rise and fall, thereby significantly extending the service life of the cartridges and the maintenance interval. Optional internal bypass pressure relief pipe(s) can be placed in one or multiple cartridge receptacles. The pressure relief pipe height and diameter can be varied to accommodate the design peak flow rate and system driving head requirements. When the internal bypass option is utilized, peak flow rates receive membrane filtration treatment up to the filtration design flow rate, with the balance of the peak flow receiving pre-treatment. A deflector plate (below-deck inlet pipe manhole configuration only) is installed across the below-deck inlet pipe opening to induce tangential water flow through the pre-treatment channel between the vessel wall and separator skirt. Standard covers, rectangular hatches, or inlet grates are installed at the surface and are removed to allow maintenance access to the system. Built-in steps or ladder(s) allow maintenance personnel to access the cartridge deck and filter cartridges. The Jellyfish Filter and components are depicted in Figure 1. 9 Figure 1 Jellyfish Filter and Components The Jellyfish Filter utilizes multiple lightweight membrane filtration cartridges. Each cartridge consists of multiple removable filter elements (“filtration tentacles”) attached to a cartridge head plate. Each filtration tentacle consists of a central perforated tube surrounded by a specialized membrane. The cylindrical filtration tentacle has a threaded pipe nipple at the top and is sealed at the bottom with an end cap. A cluster of tentacles is attached to a stainless steel head plate by inserting the top pipe nipples through the head plate holes and securing with removable nuts. A removable oil-resistant polymeric rim gasket is attached to the head plate to impart a watertight seal when the cartridge is secured into the cartridge receptacle with the cartridge lid. A Jellyfish membrane filtration cartridge is depicted in Figure 2. The cartridge length is typically either 27 inches (686 mm) or 54 inches (1372 mm), with options for custom lengths if required. The dry weight of a new cartridge is less than 20 pounds (9 kg), and the wet weight of a used cartridge is less than 50 pounds (23 kg), making a cartridge easy to install and remove by hand. No heavy lifting equipment is required. 10 Figure 2 Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridge The filtration tentacle membranes provide an extraordinarily large amount of surface area, resulting in superior flow capacity and suspended sediment removal capacity. A typical Jellyfish cartridge with eleven 54-inch (1372 mm) long filtration tentacles has 381 ft2 (35.4 m2) of membrane surface area. Hydraulic testing on a clean 54-inch (1372 mm) filter cartridge has demonstrated a flow rate of 180 gpm (11.3 L/s) at 18 inches (457 mm) of driving head. In addition, the filtration tentacle membrane has anti-microbial characteristics that inhibit the growth of bio-film that might otherwise prematurely occlude the pores of the membrane and restrict hydraulic conductivity. Field testing of the Jellyfish Filter was conducted at the University of Florida over a 13-month period, and encompassed 25 monitored storm events with 15 inches of cumulative rainfall, including multiple high intensity events. Throughout the course of this study, the Jellyfish Filter demonstrated consistently high pollutant removal performance (median TSS removal efficiency 89%) as designed with a conservative Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR) of 80 gpm (5.0 L/s) for the 54-inch (1372 mm) long hi-flo cartridge and 40 gpm (2.5 L/s) for the 54-inch (1372 mm) long draindown cartridge. These values translate to a conservative design membrane filtration flux rate (flow per unit surface area) of 0.21 gpm/ft2 (0.14 Lps/m2) for the hi-flo cartridge and 0.11 gpm/ft2 (0.07 Lps/m2) for the draindown cartridge. Laboratory hydraulic and sediment loading testing has demonstrated scalability of the membrane filtration surface area such that increases in the number and/or length of filtration tentacles contribute a 11 uniform increase in total filter surface area and therefore flow capacity and sediment removal capacity. The flow rating of a particular Jellyfish Filter cartridge is based on the membrane filtration surface area of the cartridge and data collected from both laboratory testing and field testing. The cartridge deck contains a receptacle for each filter cartridge. The cartridge is lowered down into the receptacle such that the cartridge head plate and rim gasket rest on the lip of the receptacle. A cartridge lid is fastened onto the receptacle to anchor the cartridge. Each cartridge lid contains a flow control orifice. The orifice in the hi-flo cartridge lid is larger than the orifice in the draindown cartridge lid. Jellyfish Filter cartridges are designated as either hi-flo cartridges or draindown cartridges, depending on their placement position within the cartridge deck. Cartridges placed within the 6-inch (150 mm) high backwash pool weir that extends above the deck are automatically passively backwashed after each storm event and are designated as the hi-flo cartridges. Cartridges placed outside the backwash pool weir are not passively backwashed but facilitate the draindown of the backwash pool, and these are designated as the draindown cartridges. The design flow rate of a draindown cartridge is controlled by a cartridge lid orifice to one-half the design flow rate of a hi-flo cartridge of similar length. The lower design flow rate of the draindown cartridge reduces the likelihood of occlusion prior to scheduled maintenance. Inflow events with driving head ranging from less than 1 inch (25 mm) up to the maximum design driving head will cause continuous forward flow and filtration treatment through the draindown cartridges. Inflow events with driving head that exceeds the 6-inch (150 mm) height of the backwash pool weir will cause continuous forward flow and filtration treatment through the hi-flo cartridges. A differential in upstream and downstream water elevation during an inflow event provides the minimal driving head required to overcome the minor cumulative friction loss through the system, at which point flow-through operation of the Jellyfish Filter commences. For systems using an external bypass with upstream diversion structure, the driving head is calculated as the difference in elevation between the top of the diversion structure weir and the invert of the Jellyfish Filter outlet pipe. For systems using an internal bypass, the driving head is calculated as the difference in elevation between the top of the pressure relief pipe(s) and the invert of the outlet pipe. A minimum design driving head is selected to achieve design flow rates, while accounting for gradual increase in system head loss at the design flow rate due to long-term accumulation of sediment on the filtration membranes. A clean Jellyfish Filter cartridge has flow capacity far in excess of the cartridge design flow rate at the design driving head. This ensures that design flow capacity is maintained during the period between maintenance service operations. Typically, a minimum 18 inches (457 mm) of driving head is designed into the system but may vary from 12 to 24 inches (305 to 610 mm) depending on specific site requirements. For systems that may experience submerged or backwater conditions due to dry weather base flow or tidal effects, driving head calculations must account for water elevation during the backwater condition. The Jellyfish Filter treatment functions will continue to operate during forward flow despite backwater conditions. An increase in the maintenance access wall height may be required to ensure 12 floatables capture an increase in the height of the backwash pool weir may be required to ensure function of the automatic passive backwash feature. The Jellyfish Filter provides both pre-treatment and membrane filtration treatment to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. These functions are depicted in Figure 3 below. Figure 3 Jellyfish Filter Treatment Functions Pre-treatment removes coarse sediment (particles generally > 50 microns), particulate-bound pollutants attached to coarse sediment (nutrients, toxic metals, hydrocarbons), free oil and floatable trash and debris. These pollutants are removed by gravity separation. Large, heavy particles fall to the sump (sedimentation) and low density pollutants rise to the surface (floatation) within the pre-treatment channel. Pre-treatment begins when influent flow enters the system either through an above-deck inlet pipe (standard) or below-deck inlet pipe (optional). In the above-deck inlet pipe configuration, influent enters the maintenance access wall zone and is channeled through a large-diameter opening in the cartridge deck to the lower chamber. The large surface area of the deck opening and change in flow direction attenuate the influent flow velocity. Due to equalization of hydrostatic pressure and downstream pathway through the opening at the bottom of the separator skirt, influent flow spreads in 13 lateral and downward directions throughout the pre-treatment channel between the vessel wall and the outer perimeter of the separator skirt. In the below-deck inlet pipe configuration, a deflector plate angled across the inlet pipe opening induces directional tangential flow in the pre-treatment channel. In either configuration, flow spreading throughout the pre-treatment channel serves to reduce the average flow velocity and enhance the separation of pollutants. Pre-treatment for floatables occurs as buoyant pollutants rise toward the surface, with some of the floatables mass trapped beneath the cartridge deck in the pre-treatment channel. Most of the floatables mass accumulates in the maintenance access wall zone at the air-water interface. This feature allows convenient and easy inspection and maintenance for floatable contaminants. The separator skirt protects the filtration tentacles from contamination by oil and floatable debris. Coarse sediment settles out of the pre-treatment channel to the sump. As water from the pre- treatment channel slowly flows downward and then laterally beneath the separator skirt, the combination of the large opening in the bottom of the separator skirt and a change in direction to an upward downstream flow path serves to further reduce average flow velocity and enhance particle separation. Sediment is stored in the sump until removed by vacuum during a maintenance service. Membrane filtration treatment removes suspended particulates (generally < 50 microns) and particulate-bound pollutants (nutrients, toxic metals, hydrocarbons, and bacteria). Laboratory and field performance testing of the Jellyfish Filter have demonstrated capture of particulates as small as 2 microns. Filtration treatment begins when pre-treated influent flows under the separator skirt and into the filtration zone through the large opening defined by the bottom edge of the separator skirt. Uniform hydraulic pressure gradient across the entire membrane surface area causes pre-treated water to penetrate the entire membrane surface area of each filtration tentacle. Water enters the membrane pores radically and deposits fine particulates on the exterior membrane surface. Filtered water flows into the perforated center drain tube of each filtration tentacle and then upward and out the top of each tentacle. Water exiting each of the tentacles of a single cartridge combines at the top of the cartridge under the cartridge lid. The combined flow then vertically exits the cartridge lid orifice with a pulsating fountain effect. As a layer of sediment builds up on the external membrane surface, membrane pores are partially occluded which serves to reduce the effective pore size. This process, referred to as “filter ripening”, significantly improves the removal efficiency of pollutants relative to a brand new or clean membrane of some nominal pore size. Filter ripening accounts for the ability of the Jellyfish Filter to remove particles finer than the nominal pore size rating of the membranes. The Jellyfish Filter utilizes several self-cleaning processes to remove accumulated sediment from the external surfaces of the filtration membranes, including automatic passive backwash of the hi-flo cartridges, vibrational pulses, and gravity. Combined, these processes significantly extend the cartridge service life, maintenance interval and reduce life-cycle costs. Automatic passive backwash is performed on the hi-flo cartridge at the end of each runoff event and can also occur multiple times during a single storm event as intensity and driving head varies. 14 During inflow, filtered water exiting the hi-flo cartridges forms a pool above the cartridge deck inside the backwash pool weir. The depth and volume of the back wash pool will vary with the available driving head, ranging from some minimal quantity up to a quantity sufficient to fill and overflow the backwash pool (typical weir height is 6 inches / 150 mm). As the inflow event subsides and forward driving head decreases, water in the backwash pool reverses flow direction and automatically passively backwashes the hi-flo cartridges, removing sediment from the membrane surfaces. Water in the lower chamber (below deck) is displaced through the draindown cartridges. Vibrational pulses occur as a result of complex and variable pressure and flow direction conditions that arise in the space between the top surface of the cartridge head plate and the underside of the cartridge lid. During forward flow a stream of filtered water exits the top of each filtration tentacle into this space and encounters resistance from the cartridge lid and turbulent pool of water within the space. Water is forced through the cartridge lid flow control orifice with a pulsating fountain effect. The variable localized pressure causes pulses that transmit vibrations to the membranes, thereby dislodging accumulated sediment. The effect appears more pronounced at higher flow rates, and applies to both hi- flo and draindown cartridges. Gravity continuously applies a force to accumulated sediment on the membranes, both during inflow events and inter-event dry periods. As fine particles agglomerate into larger masses on the membrane surface, adhesion to the membrane surface can lessen, and a peeling effect ensues which ultimately results in agglomerates falling away from the membrane. Complex chemical and biological effects may also play a role in this process. The Jellyfish Filter standard model numbers provide information about the manhole inside diameter (expressed in U.S. customary units) and cartridge counts for hi-flo and draindown cartridges. For example, Jellyfish Filter model number JF6-4-1 is a 6-ft diameter manhole with four hi-flo cartridges and one draindown cartridge. Standard model numbers assume the use of 54-inch (1372 mm) long cartridges. Specific designations for non-standard structures or cartridge lengths are noted in the Jellyfish Filter Owner’s Manual published by Imbrium Systems and provided to system owners. For the field test that is the subject of this report a Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 was used, which is a 4-ft diameter manhole with two 54-inch long hi-flo cartridges and one 54-inch long draindown cartridge. Design flow capacities and pollutant capacities for standard Jellyfish Filter manhole configurations are shown in Tables 1 and 2. 15 Table 1 Design Flow Capacities of the Jellyfish Filter 16 Table 2 Design Pollutant Capacities of the Jellyfish Filter 5. Performance Claim “The Jellyfish Filter with second-generation membrane filtration cartridges, when designed for a maximum treatment flow rate consistent with a filtration flux rate (flow per unit surface area) of 0.21 gpm/ft2 (0.14 Lps/m2) for the hi-flo cartridge and 0.11 gpm/ft2 (0.07 Lps/m2) for the draindown cartridge, demonstrated removal of 89% of TSS, 99% of SSC, 59% of Total Phosphorus, 51% of Total Nitrogen, and greater than 50% of Total Copper and Total Zinc from urban rainfall-runoff, based on median pollutant removal efficiencies developed from the field monitoring study with a duration from 28 May 2010 through 27 June 2011. “ 17 Part II: University of Florida Supplied Report: Performance Monitoring of Jellyfish® Filter JF4-2-1 6. Executive Summary This report details a field test performance study of Imbrium Systems’ Jellyfish® Filter model JF4-2-1 with second-generation filtration cartridges, conducted in accordance with the TARP and VTAP field test protocols. The physical model monitoring campaign was carried out on the University of Florida campus by the University of Florida with the full-scale unit loaded by rainfall-runoff from an existing surface parking watershed. A total of 25 monitored storm events, with 15 inches of cumulative rainfall depth, were treated by the JF4 over the course of this study, each with varying rainfall intensity and runoff volume. Of the 25 storms treated, 2 storms generated flow rates exceeding the maximum design flow rate of 200 gpm, as designated by Imbrium Systems. No maintenance was required or conducted during the 13-month monitoring period spanning May 28, 2010 to June 27, 2011. During each event, samples were taken pre- and post-treatment in order to assess constituent removal performance. All samples were analyzed for particle size indices, particulate matter (PM) load, total suspended solids (TSS), suspended solids concentration (SSC), volatile suspended solids (VSS), turbidity, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total metals (including copper, zinc, lead, and chromium), and oil and grease. In addition, water chemistry parameters were measured, including pH, alkalinity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total dissolved solids (TDS), temperature, conductivity, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (DO). Median SSC and TSS removal efficiency results were 99% and 89%, respectively. Median removal efficiency was 59% for Total Phosphorus and 51% for Total Nitrogen. For Total Copper and Total Zinc, median removal efficiencies were 90% and 70%, respectively. The d50 for influent and effluent particle sizes were 82 and 3 m, respectively. While both median and mean statistics are presented, results are primarily log-normally distributed and therefore the median values are utilized (Berretta and Sansalone 2011, Kim and Sansalone 2010, Van Buren et al., 2009) Median head over deck level never exceeded 8.4 inches (21.4 cm) for any event and across the entire monitoring campaign the median head loss was 3.3 inches (8.3 cm). These values are below the typical design driving head value of 18 inches (45.7 cm) for the Jellyfish Filter as recommended by Imbrium Systems. Hydraulic testing was conducted on the clean system with fresh filter cartridges prior to commencement of the monitoring campaign, and was repeated at the conclusion of the field study on the system with dirty cartridges. Curves of head loss versus flow rate were nearly identical for the system with fresh cartridges and dirty cartridges, indicating no loss of hydraulic capacity despite the capture of approximately 166 pounds of dry basis particulate matter (PM) mass by the JF4 equipped with 3 cartridges. The system had a volumetric capacity to retain a significantly larger mass of PM. Median and peak head losses were driven predominately by flow rate and to a much lesser degree by filter cartridge ripening which was muted. At the completion of the monitoring campaign, a mass balance was obtained by collecting all of the retained particulate matter separated by the unit, weighing the total dry mass of PM recovered and 18 adding this separated mass to the mass of PM in the effluent in order to compare this summed PM mass to the influent PM mass. A 90% PM mass recovery is required for a defensible monitoring campaign for any unit operation or process. By measurement the mass balance error is 5% (95% mass recovery) which validates the testing methods used throughout this study. The results obtained in this field study (Part II of the TARP report) as developed and as exclusively-written by the University of Florida demonstrates that the Jellyfish Filter’s particulate removal performance is reasonably insensitive to incoming particle size distribution (PSD) and runoff event duration. Results are summarized in the following manufacturer’s performance claim: “The Jellyfish Filter with second-generation filtration cartridges, when designed for a maximum treatment flow rate consistent with a filtration flux rate (flow per unit surface area) of 0.21 gpm/ft2 (0.14 Lps/m2) for the hi-flo cartridge and 0.11 gpm/ft2 (0.07 Lps/m2) for the draindown cartridge, demonstrated removal of 89% of TSS, 99% of SSC, 59% of Total Phosphorus, 51% of Total Nitrogen, and greater than 50% of Total Copper and Total Zinc from rainfall-runoff, based on median constituent removal efficiencies developed from the field monitoring study with a duration from 28 May 2010 through 27 June 2011. ” The results provided by the manufacturer’s performance claim represent the results obtained in this physical modeling field study (Part II of the TARP report dated 01 November 2011) as developed and as written by the University of Florida. 19 List of Nomenclature BDL: Below Detection Limit CRD: Cumulative rainfall depth DCOD: Dissolved Chemical Oxygen Demand DO: Dissolved Oxygen drain: Rainfall depth EMC: Event Mean Concentration EMV: Event mean values IPRT: Initial pavement residence time irain-max: Maximum rainfall intensity MPN: Most Probable Number neff: Number of effluent samples ninf: Number of influent samples NJCAT: New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology NJDEP: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection PDH: Previous dry hours PM: Particulate Matter PR: Percent Removal PSD: particle size distribution Qmed: Median flow rate Qp: Maximum flow rate SSC: Suspended Sediment Concentration TARP: Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership TCOD: Total Chemical Oxygen Demand TDN: Total Dissolved Nitrogen TDP: Total Dissolved Phosphorus TDS: Total Dissolved Solids TN: Total Nitrogen TP: Total Phosphorus train: Event duration TSS: Total Suspended Solids VA DCR: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Vrunoff: Runoff volume VSS: Volatile Suspended Solids VTAP: Virginia Technology Assessment Protocol ΔM: Treatment efficiency 20 7. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Prior to initiating the field test at the University of Florida, the source area rainfall and pollutant characteristics and University analytical processes were reviewed with NJCAT and NJDEP and confirmed as acceptable for performing a TARP field study. UF-ESSIE prepared a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the proposed field study. The QAPP was submitted to NJCAT for review and was subsequently approved. The QAPP adheres to guidelines established in EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5), the TARP Protocol for Stormwater Best Management Practice Demonstrations, and the VTAP Guidance for Evaluating Stormwater Manufactured Treatment Devices. 8. Test Site Description and BMP Installation The Reitz Union parking lot at the University of Florida – Gainesville was the field study site. It is an asphalt-paved source area that functions as a primary parking facility for the University of Florida. The parking lot was built in the 1990s and is designed to provide adequate conveyance of runoff during wet weather events with storm runoff considered with respect to adequate surface drainage. Raised vegetated islands separate parking aisles and drain to the impervious asphalt-paved surface which drains by gravitationally-driven sheet flow to curb and gutter leading to regularly-spaced catch-basins. The total area of island is 24.39 % of the entire parking lot and the percentage of pavement is 75.61 %. The islands are mainly planted with magnolia trees, an occasional sycamore tree and grass. These catch- basins concentrate and collect gutter flow and provide entry of runoff into a storm sewer pipe system on the University of Florida campus. All the collected runoff discharges to Lake Alice about 2000 ft away from the parking lot. The combination of impervious asphalt pavement and raised vegetated islands, a very common design for surface parking across North America (Berretta and Sansalone 2011), provides substantial loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, and particulate matter (PM) to runoff from the site. Figure 4(a) illustrates the drainage for the contributing area and (b) provides an aerial view of the watershed. 21 4(b) Aerial photo of the Reitz Union surface parking facility at the University of Florida in Gainesville, illustrating the contributing drainage area and influent appurtenance (Inlet A) serving as the feed to the JF4-2-1. North is towards the top of the page. The NW intersection is Museum Road at Center Drive. Depending on the storm event intensity and wind direction the drainage area can vary from 5,400 to 8,600 ft2 (0.12 to 0.20 acres) of pavement. The catchment drains to inlet A as shown in Figure 4(b) and 4(a). Runoff captured by inlet A is the source of influent to the downstream Jellyfish Filter. Data from a 2009 monitoring study (Berretta and Sansalone, 2011) at this identical test site was useful in the selection of a properly sized Jellyfish Filter for the site. The study included runoff flow rate data from 15 storm events. Two of those storms generated peak runoff flow rates that exceeded 200 gpm. Based on this actual historical data, the Jellyfish Filter model JF4-2-1 with 54-inch long filtration cartridges was installed for field testing. The JF4-2-1 is a 4-ft diameter manhole configuration with two hi-flo cartridges, each rated at 80 gpm, and a single draindown cartridge rated at 40 gpm, for a total Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR) of 200 gpm at 18 inches of driving head. The historical runoff data suggested that over the course of a minimum 20-storm monitoring campaign, several storms would Inlet A Contributing drainage area 22 generate peak flow rates that meet or exceed the treatment unit’s MTFR. This was indeed the case, as two storms generated peak flow rates exceeding 200 gpm during the Jellyfish Filter monitoring period. Since the University required a temporary installation of the treatment unit, a fiberglass JF4-2-1 was provided and installed above-ground on a hillside just below the catchment area. The above-ground installation facilitated much easier site construction and minimal site disturbance, and provided advantages for the monitoring personnel in terms of access to sampling points and instrumentation, and direct observation of flow dynamics within the treatment unit. A profile view schematic of the site set- up is shown in Figure 5 and a corresponding photo in Figure 6. The unit was equipped with a side manway to facilitate manual removal of accumulated PM as well as system inspection at the conclusion of the study. The JF4-2-1 was configured with a below-deck inlet pipe and deflector plate, which are standard options for the Jellyfish Filter. The test unit contained a circular maintenance access pipe, a feature that has been replaced in later designs by a horseshoe-shaped maintenance access wall. The test unit also contained a pressure relief pipe that could potentially function as an internal bypass, however this feature was rendered nonfunctional by the installation of an external bypass. External bypass piping was configured around the unit such that influent flows attaining a water elevation exceeding 18 inches above deck elevation would be externally bypassed to the downstream drop box where effluent samples were taken. The invert of the horizontal run of bypass piping was set at 18 inches above deck elevation to insure that the design driving head of 18 inches was provided to the Jellyfish Filter. Top view photos of the JF4-2-1 cartridge deck are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 5 Profile view schematic of the field set-up for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. 23 Figure 6 Photo of field test set-up for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. Below-deck inlet pipe enters the right side of the vessel and outlet pipe (invert at deck level) exits the left side of the vessel. External bypass piping has invert of horizontal section 18 inches above deck level. Figure 7 Top view photos of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 deck with two hi-flo cartridges and one draindown cartridge installed with cartridge lids off (upper left image) and cartridge lids on (upper right image). The backwash pool weir encloses the hi-flo cartridge. Also shown are the maintenance access pipe (large), pressure relief pipe (small), and the outlet opening (lower right in each image). 24 Figure 8 Top view photo of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 during operation. Filtered water exits the cartridge lid orifice as a pulsating fountain. 9. Test Methods, Procedures, and Equipment Field monitoring system design for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 included the following: Monitoring and collection of rainfall-runoff were performed for 25 storm events. Runoff samples were collected manually on a time basis with physical, hydrologic and radar observations. Manual sampling with flow weighting was used. Samples of the whole influent and effluent flows were collected manually at 2-10 minute intervals, depending on storm duration. Manual sampling of the whole flow has a distinct advantage over auto-sampling of a small portion of the cross-section of flow, since sampling of the whole flow provides a more accurate representation of the actual pollutant load transported in the runoff. The flow rate at the time of sampling, and throughout the storm duration, was recorded automatically by the flowmeter, and therefore the flow volume is known for each time interval during the storm. Once the storm event ended, the samples taken at timed intervals across the hydrograph were transported to the laboratory and composited. Compositing was flow volume- weighted based on the volume of runoff corresponding to each respective time interval on the hydrograph. After compositing, analysis was performed. During events, runoff was conveyed from the catchment to the treatment system after collection by catch basin inlet A. The distance from inlet A to the treatment system was 34 feet. Influent samples were collected at the influent drop box upstream of the treatment unit and effluent samples were collected at the effluent drop box downstream of the unit. The influent sample location was 4 feet upstream, and the effluent sample location was 2 feet downstream, of the unit. Flow rate measurement utilized a 1 inch (25.4 mm) Parshall flume equipped with an ultrasonic sensor (model Shuttle Level Transmitter) connected to a data logger (model EasyLog EL-USB). Flow 25 from the flume discharged into the influent drop box, creating a free well-defined discharge for representative manual sampling. The Parshall flume calibration curve is shown in Figure 9. Flow depth, D (inches) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 10 Flow depth, D (mm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Flow rate, Q (gpm)0 50 100 150Theoretical Curve Calibration Points Calibration Curve Theoretical: Q = 0.0604 (D)1.55 Q = 0.1210 (D)1.83 R2 = 0.99 By measurements: Figure 9 Parshall flume calibration curve Rainfall measurement utilized a tipping bucket rain gauge manufactured by ISCO Inc. (0.01- inch bucket capacity) equipped with data logger installed on the roof of the Unit Operations building located 150 meters south of the monitored site. Rainfall data was recorded every five minutes by the data logger. Head loss measurements utilized monitoring of water pressure/elevation in the inlet and outlet pipes of the treatment unit with two 1-psi pressure transducers (model PDCR 1830 1 psig, manufactured by DRUCK Inc.) connected to a data logger (model CR1000, manufactured by Campbell Scientific Inc.). pH, conductivity, and temperature measurement utilized a YSI 600XLM-M Multi-Parameter Water Quality Logger installed in the treatment unit’s inlet for continuous automatic monitoring. Sample analyses were performed in the University of Florida analytical labs, which is a NJDEP certified environmental laboratory, and the certification is included in Appendix A. Samples were transported to the labs immediately after each storm and all time-sensitive analyses were performed within sample holding times. All samples were handled in accordance with chain-of-custody procedures and analyzed in accordance with Standard Method protocols. A summary of lab analyses is given in Table 3. 26 Table 3 Summary of Analytical Tests Analysis Test Methods Water Chemistry Analysis pH S.M1.4500-H+ B Conductivity/TDS/Salinity S.M.2510 Oxidation-Reduction Potential S.M.2580 Temperature S.M.2550 Alkalinity S.M.2320 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis Sediment PM Sansalone and Kim., (2008)2 Settleable PM S.M.2540-F Suspended PM (as TSS) S.M.2540-D Volatile Suspended PM (VSS) S.M.2540-E Total PM (as SSC) ASTM D-3977-97 Turbidity S.M.2130 PSD S.M.2560-D Phosphorus Analysis Total Phosphorus (TP) S.M.4500-P-B Acid Hydrolysis Nitrogen Analysis Total Nitrogen (TN) Persulfate Digestion Method Metals Analysis Total Metals (Cu, Cr, Pb, Zn) S.M.3030 B Oil and Grease Total O&G S.M. 5520 COD Total COD Reactor Digestion Method 1S.M. : Standard Method 2J. Sansalone and J-Y Kim, “Transport of Particulate Matter Fractions in Urban Source Area Pavement Surface Runoff”, J. Environmental Quality, 37:1883–1893 2008. 2.J-Y Kim and J. Sansalone, “Event-Based Size Distributions of Particulate Matter Transported During Urban Rainfall-Runoff Events”, Water Research, 42(10-11), 2756-2768, May 2008. 10. Data and Analysis Hydrology Event-based hydrologic indices including previous dry hours (PDH), event duration, peak flow rate, median flow rate, mean flow rate, total runoff volume, rainfall depth, initial pavement residence time (IPRT), and runoff coefficient were monitored for a total of 25 TARP and VTAP qualifying storm events occurring over the 13-month period spanning May 28, 2010 to June 27, 2011. Cumulative rainfall depth was 15 inches. Data are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Individual storm event summaries with hydrographs and hyetographs are detailed in Appendix B. Monitored storm events across the field test program varied in duration from 26 to 691 minutes. Previous dry hours range from 10 to 910 hours. Rainfall ranged from 0.3 to 5.0 cm (0.10 to 1.98 inches). IPRT ranged from 1 to 34 minutes. Runoff volume ranged from 206 to 13,229 liters (54 to 3495 gpm). Peak rainfall intensity ranged from 5 to 137 mm/hr (0.2 to 5.4 in/hr). Peak runoff flow rate ranged from 0.5 to 14.3 L/s (7 to 226 gpm), median flow rate ranged from 0.01 to 5.5 L/s (0.1 to 86.7 gpm). Two storms (July 15 and August 1) generated peak flow rates that exceeded the Maximum Treatment Flow Rate of 200 gpm for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. 27 Particle Size Distributions Particle size distribution was analyzed for all 25 storm events using laser diffraction and M1e scattering theory (Dickenson and Sansalone 2009, Garofalo and Sansalone 2011). The % finer by mass, d10, d50, and d90, are shown in Table 6. The d50 represents the particle diameter for which 50 percent of the particles by mass are smaller than or the same size as that diameter. Similarly, the d10 and the d90 represent the particle diameters for which 10 and 90 percent of the particles by mass are smaller than or the same size as those diameters. For the 25 events monitored in this study, influent runoff d10 ranges from 2 to 54 µm with a median of 9 µm. Effluent runoff d10 ranges from <1 to 2 µm with a median of 1 µm. Influent runoff d50 ranges from 22 to 263 µm with a median of 82 µm. Effluent runoff d50 ranges from 1 to 11 µm with a median of 3 µm. Influent runoff d90 ranges from 173 to 1016 µm with a median of 401 µm. Effluent runoff d90 ranges from 2 to 52 µm with a median of 12 µm. Recognizing that intensity is only one parameter (others are deposition, volume, previous dry hours …) impacting the complexity of transport, it was generally observed that larger particles were mobilized during the more intense rain events of 14 May 2011, 21 June and 1 August 2010, with peak rainfall intensities of 137.2, 121.9, and 127.0 mm/hr (5.4, 4.8 and 5.0 in/hr) and median flows of 0.02, 5.4 and 4.7 L/s (0.4, 87 and 75 gpm), respectively. The 21 June event had the largest influent d10 and d50 values of 54 and 263 µm, respectively. The least intense events were 23 August, 26 September, 2010, 9 March and 20 April, 2011 with peak rain intensities of 15.0, 5.1, 15.0 and 15.0 mm/hr (0.6, 0.2, 0.6 and 0.6 in/hr) and median flow rates of 0.01, 0.26, 0.1 and 0.006 L/s (0.2, 4.1, 1.6 and 0.1 gpm), respectively. The 20 April 2011 event had the smallest influent d10 and d50 values of 2 and 22 µm, respectively. Particulate Matter Fractions and Removal Efficiency Removal efficiencies for event-based particulate matter (PM) fractions including turbidity, PM < 25μm, TSS, PM < 500 μm, PM < 1000 μm, PM < 2000 μm, and SSC were measured for all 25 storm events as shown in Table 7 and Table 8. Detailed methods of granulometric separation and mass balance are in Sansalone and Kim (2008), Kim and Sansalone (2008) and Sansalone et. al. (2009). For the 25 qualifying storms, TSS removal efficiency ranged 71-98% with a median of 89%, and SSC removal efficiency ranged 89-100% with a median of 99%. Turbidity removal efficiency ranged 34-98% with a median of 85%. Influent runoff turbidity ranged from 5 to 171 NTU with a median of 33 NTU. Effluent runoff turbidity ranged from 1 to 14 NTU with a median of 5 NTU. Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen The event-based concentrations of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) for the 25 events are presented in Table 9. For the 25 qualifying storms, TP removal efficiency ranged 11-92% with a median of 59%. TN removal efficiency ranged from (-11) to 88% with a median of 51%. Total Metals The event-based influent and effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies of Total Chromium, Total Copper, Total Lead, and Total Zinc for the 25 events are presented in Table 10. For the 25 qualifying storms, Total Chromium removal efficiency ranged from (-24) to 98% with a median of 36%. Total Copper removal efficiency ranged from 55 to 100% with a median of 90%. Total Lead removal efficiency ranged from (-27) to100% with a median of 81%. Total Zinc removal efficiency ranged from 4 to 99% with a median of 70%. 28 Oil and Grease The event-based influent and effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies of Total Oil and Grease for the 25 events are presented in Table 11. For the 25 qualifying storms, Total Oil and Grease removal efficiency ranged from 0 to 100% with a median of 62%. Runoff water chemistry Event-based water chemistry indices including pH, redox potential, conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO), alkalinity, and total chemical oxygen demand (COD) were measured for a total of 25 storm events as shown in Tables 8 and 12. Raw influent and treated effluent samples were analyzed. Additionally, pH, redox potential, conductivity, salinity, and TDS inside the treatment unit were also continuously monitored during each storm event. Influent runoff pH ranges from 6.5 to 7.5 with a median of 7.1, and the effluent pH ranges from 6.2 to 7.2 with a median of 6.8. Redox potential is a measure of a chemical species’ tendency to acquire electrons and be reduced. Water with a high potential tends to gain electrons from new species introduced to the system and water with a low potential can lose electrons to new species; both paths are important for speciation. For the 25 events monitored in this study, influent runoff redox ranges from 285 to 443 mV with a median of 366 mV. Effluent runoff redox ranges from 291 to 488 mV with a median of 364 mV. Electrical conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to transmit an electric current. Influent runoff conductivity ranges from 18.9 to 186.7 µS/cm with a median of 56.6 µS/cm. Conductivity is nearly doubled during treatment due to contact with stored runoff in the JF4-2-1, which has high conductivity. Effluent runoff conductivity ranges from 41.2 to 422.6 µS/cm with a median of 97.8 µS/cm. Given that TDS is highly correlated to conductivity, TDS follows the same pattern. Influent runoff TDS ranges from 9.3 to 91.3 mg/L with a median of 29.8 mg/L. Effluent runoff TDS ranges from 20.1 to 206.9 mg/L with a median of 48.5 mg/L. Influent runoff alkalinity ranges from 3.1 to 47.3 mg/L as CaCO3 with a median of 21.5 mg/L as CaCO3. An increase in alkalinity is observed during treatment again due to contact with stored runoff in the JF4-2-1, which has high alkalinity. Effluent runoff alkalinity ranges from 6.7 to 125.1 mg/L as CaCO3 with a median of 41.1 mg/L as CaCO3. Influent runoff total COD ranges from 14.3 to 486.1 mg/L with a median of 80.9 mg/L. Effluent runoff total COD ranges from 12.4 to 96.1 mg/L with a median of 51.6 mg/L. Influent runoff DO ranges from 3.3 to 8.4 mg/L with a median of 6.7 mg/L. Effluent runoff DO ranges from 2.8 to 8.4 mg/L with a median of 4.7 mg/L. Head Loss and Hydraulic Testing The peak and median driving head over the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 deck level for each event is tabulated in Table 13. As shown, the driving head increases as the flow rate increases. For the 25 qualifying events, the median value of event-based median driving head over deck level is 83 mm (3.25 inches), and the median value of event-based peak driving head over deck level is 204 mm (8.05 inches). No water was bypassed around the treatment unit during the entire monitoring period, including during the two storms events which generated peak flow rates slightly in excess of the Maximum Treatment Flow Rate of 200 gpm. 29 Hydraulic testing was conducted on the clean system with fresh filter cartridges prior to commencement of the monitoring campaign, and was repeated at the conclusion of the field study on the system with dirty cartridges. Curves of head loss versus flow rate were nearly identical for the system with fresh cartridges and dirty cartridges, indicating no loss of hydraulic capacity despite the capture of 166 pounds of dry basis PM mass by the JF4 equipped with 3 cartridges. These results suggest the combination of very high cartridge surface area, vertical configuration and self-cleaning mechanisms are effective in maintaining hydraulic capacity. The system had a volumetric capacity for PM that was large and not exceeded during the period of this study. Results of hydraulic testing of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 prior to commissioning (new filter cartridges) and at the conclusion of the monitoring period (dirty filter cartridges) are detailed in Appendix C. Maintenance No maintenance was required or carried out during the 13-month monitoring period spanning May 28, 2010 to June 27, 2011. PM Recovery and Mass Balance Mass balance result showed a 95% mass recovery rate for the 25 qualifying events. The theoretical mass is calculated by the difference of influent and effluent mass, which is 79.9 kg for the 25 qualifying events. The actual mass is calculated by summing the mass recovered from the sump and the filter cartridges, which are 72.0 kg (158 lbs) and 3.6 kg (8 lbs), respectively, in this project. 30 Table 4 Monitored rainfall-runoff event hydrologic data Event Date train (min) drain (in) irain-max (inch/hr) IPRT (min) Vinf (gal) Veff (gal) Runoff Reduction % Qp (gpm) Qmed (gpm) ninf neff TARP& VTAP Qualified 28 May 2010 112 0.81 3.0 10 1972 974 51% 68 15.5 19 8 Yes 16 June 61 0.63 2.4 18 1323 1234 7% 85 10.3 11 10 Yes 21 June 43 0.92 4.8 6 2297 2238 3% 118 86.7 10 10 Yes 30 June 50 0.52 3.0 8 1442 1410 2% 145 52.3 11 11 Yes 15 July 28 0.38 3.6 8 953 872 8% 210 22.9 10 10 Yes 1 August 36 1.18 5.0 5 3163 3089 3% 226 75.1 10 10 Yes 6 August 104 0.14 2.0 5 368 271 27% 108 0.2 10 8 Yes 7 August 48 0.34 2.4 7 693 672 3% 131 6.8 10 10 Yes 23 August 42 0.11 0.6 20 82 51 38% 20 0.2 10 10 Yes 12 September 52 0.27 2.0 18 434 399 8% 61 1.6 10 10 Yes 26 September 78 0.14 0.2 1 298 221 26% 7 4.1 10 10 Yes 27 September 388 0.60 3.6 20 1015 996 2% 173 0.7 10 10 Yes 4 November 43 0.19 1.8 5 263 135 49% 56 1.8 11 11 Yes 16 November 34 0.13 1.0 8 81 44 46% 28 0.3 11 11 Yes 5 January 2011 125 0.84 4.2 3 1532 1309 15% 117 2.6 10 10 Yes 10 January 26 0.20 3.6 4 298 277 7% 53 0.2 8 8 Yes 25 January 389 1.74 0.7 5 3273 3268 0% 65 6.2 10 10 Yes 7 February 306 1.29 1.2 8 3495 3420 2% 35 12.1 11 11 Yes 9 March 691 1.15 0.6 10 2656 2594 2% 50 1.6 12 12 Yes 28 March 66 0.10 1.3 7 138 112 19% 16 0.9 12 10 Yes 30 March 179 0.60 3.0 34 979 973 2% 89 1.6 12 12 Yes 20 April 61 0.14 0.6 9 54 30 44% 52 0.1 12 12 Yes 14 May 295 1.98 5.4 5 2974 2830 2% 119 0.4 19 19 Yes 6 June 69 0.16 0.9 4 254 194 24% 25 0.1 10 10 Yes 27 June 50 0.45 1.7 2 894 840 6% 53 2.0 10 10 Yes Sum 15.01 30931 28453 *Differences between influent and effluent volume :2478 gal. PDH: Previous dry hours Qp: Maximum flow rate train: Event duration Qmed: Median flow rate drain: Rainfall depth ninf: Number of influent samples irain-max: Maximum rainfall intensity neff: Number of effluent samples IPRT: Initial pavement residence time CRD: Cumulative rainfall depth Vrunoff: Runoff volume 31 Table 5 Rainfall-runoff data collection requirements Event Date Sampling Coverage (nearest 10%) Number of Composited samples drain (in) PDH (hr) Vrunoff (gal) Qp (gpm) % of Treatment Design at Qp TARP& VTAP Qualified 28 May 2010 100 27(19i) (8e) 0.81 96 1972 68 34 Yes 16 June 100 21(11i) (10e) 0.63 288 1323 85 43 Yes 21 June 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.92 96 2297 118 59 Yes 30 June 100 22(11i) (11e) 0.52 288 1442 145 72 Yes 15 July 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.38 96 953 210 105 Yes 1 August 100 20(10i) (10e) 1.18 24 3163 226 113 Yes 6 August 100 18(10i) (8e) 0.14 120 368 108 54 Yes 7 August 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.34 24 693 131 65 Yes 23 August 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.11 48 82 20 10 Yes 12 September 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.27 172 434 61 30 Yes 26 September 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.14 40 298 7 4 Yes 27 September 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.60 10 1015 173 87 Yes 4 November 100 22(11i) (11e) 0.19 910 263 56 28 Yes 16 November 100 22(11i) (11e) 0.13 286 81 28 14 Yes 5 January 2011 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.84 72 1532 117 58 Yes 10 January 100 16(8i) (8e) 0.20 106 298 53 26 Yes 25 January 100 20(10i) (10e) 1.74 365 3273 65 32 Yes 7 February 100 22(11i) (11e) 1.29 12 3495 35 18 Yes 9 March 100 24(12i) (12e) 1.15 79 2656 50 25 Yes 28 March 100 22(12i) (10e) 0.10 438 138 16 8 Yes 30 March 100 24(12i) (12e) 0.60 48 979 89 44 Yes 20 April 100 24(12i) (12e) 0.14 196 54 52 26 Yes 14 May 100 38(19i) (19e) 1.98 188 2974 119 60 Yes 6 June 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.16 541 254 25 12 Yes 27 June 100 20(10i) (10e) 0.45 88 894 53 27 Yes Sum 15.01 30931 (“i” stands for influent, “e” stands for effluent) 32 Table 6 Event-based particle size distributions (PSD) Event Date Influent PSD (µm) Effluent PSD (µm) d10 d50 d90 d10 d50 d90 28 May 2010 7 69 915 2 11 34 16 June 28 242 1016 1 6 16 21 June 54 263 769 1 6 34 30 June 8 75 271 1 5 17 15 July 40 225 628 2 6 17 1 August 26 213 693 2 6 17 6 August 16 231 984 1 3 18 7 August 19 186 737 1 4 12 23 August 14 190 714 2 4 40 12 September 9 89 328 1 2 8 26 September 4 35 173 1 3 52 27 September 15 136 723 1 3 11 4 November 3 68 401 1 2 9 16 November 5 51 610 1 2 12 5 January 2011 15 110 794 1 3 12 10 January 8 117 227 1 2 6 25 January 7 63 308 0 1 2 7 February 7 68 369 1 3 18 9 March 6 57 278 1 3 7 28 March 4 32 200 1 3 8 30 March 6 44 176 1 3 7 20 April 2 22 310 0 1 8 14 May 10 80 705 1 3 8 6 June 10 99 345 1 2 7 27 June 10 82 310 1 6 14 Mean 13 114 519 1 4 16 Median 9 82 401 1 3 12 Std. dev. 12 74 270 0 2 12 33 Table 7 Removal efficiencies for particulate matter (PM) fractions Event Date PM < 25 μm TSS %Volatile Particulate Matter, PM Fractions SSC < 500 μm < 1000 µm < 2000 μm EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] PR (%) EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] PR (%) EMVi (%) EMVe (%) EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] PR (%) EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] PR (%) 28 May 2010 43.7 11.9 87 89.3 18.7 90 49.0 59.8 261.0 11.3 96 383.4 13.3 525.0 15.4 532.3 15.4 99 16 June 40.2 19.7 53 79.3 21.7 74 34.9 73.6 240.4 13.9 94 534.9 16.0 868.2 18.1 1401.7 18.1 99 21 June 18.4 9.9 48 105.5 15.2 86 21.3 72.6 209.2 5.5 97 374.6 6.5 556.2 7.4 1162.9 7.4 99 30 June 12.2 5.8 53 25.2 7.4 71 15.9 66.9 233.8 4.0 98 289.5 4.7 345.8 5.4 444.5 5.4 99 15 July 23.7 6.9 73 91.8 8.3 92 25.3 34.1 276.6 6.4 98 451.2 7.4 640.7 8.4 812.2 8.4 99 1 August 18.5 6.9 64 130.2 15.4 89 70.5 52.7 83.9 5.5 93 120.6 6.6 161.0 7.7 245.1 7.7 97 6 August 48.0 12.1 82 77.5 15.0 86 51.3 0.3 95.3 5.4 94 145.1 6.4 203.3 7.3 308.4 7.3 98 7 August 13.1 7.0 49 45.3 12.2 74 42.3 30.8 25.0 10.8 57 37.2 12.4 50.6 13.9 117.1 13.9 89 23 August 38.3 5.0 92 74.2 8.2 93 69.1 46.9 265.1 3.5 99 392.6 4.1 532.8 4.7 555.8 4.7 100 12 September 45.2 11.6 76 91.2 15.7 84 56.3 40.7 106.0 4.6 96 143.2 5.2 183.4 5.8 261.5 5.8 98 26 September 11.2 2.2 85 16.3 4.7 79 58.5 80.0 61.3 3.8 94 84.1 4.4 107.0 5.0 117.9 5.0 97 27 September 44.5 5.0 89 51.1 3.2 94 55.1 37.9 312.2 4.7 98 484.7 5.3 669.8 6.0 765.1 6.0 99 4 November 93.6 6.7 96 39.9 4.2 95 46.2 53.0 226.5 8.3 96 294.1 9.3 367.5 10.4 477.1 10.4 99 16 November 119.6 9.2 96 261.0 11.8 98 42.6 11.4 303.5 11.9 96 409.8 12.0 524.8 12.2 543.6 12.2 99 5 January 2011 68.6 13.0 84 152.2 15.9 91 69.4 52.2 170.6 6.7 96 234.6 7.7 307.3 8.7 693.2 8.7 99 10 January 20.7 3.1 86 80.7 6.6 92 68.0 24.8 86.1 2.4 97 131.5 2.7 179.4 3.0 211.1 3.0 99 25 January 32.3 3.5 89 69.8 7.1 90 68.1 30.1 48.1 3.7 92 64.8 3.9 82.4 4.1 105.8 4.1 96 7 February 20.4 4.4 79 34.8 5.3 85 75.8 54.5 128.7 6.3 95 202.7 6.9 285.9 7.6 438.3 7.6 98 9 March 22.0 4.3 81 30.5 8.3 73 57.8 31.2 29.4 2.3 92 38.8 2.6 48.7 2.8 78.2 2.8 97 28 March 56.5 11.6 84 68.4 12.7 86 54.5 24.8 64.8 3.5 95 83.3 4.5 102.8 5.6 102.8 5.6 96 30 March 44.9 5.1 89 104.5 7.3 93 60.2 5.6 206.7 5.7 97 278.6 6.5 361.6 7.3 443.7 7.3 98 20 April 65.7 7.9 93 143.7 11.4 96 44.7 22.8 343.0 4.6 99 466.5 5.3 606.7 6.1 921.7 6.1 100 14 May 33.9 11.3 67 77.1 12.5 84 65.7 10.2 255.9 5.3 98 357.9 5.3 470.6 5.3 487.3 5.3 99 6 June 54.2 10.6 85 85.6 13.2 88 54.9 25.4 93.5 5.4 94 125.1 5.9 158.9 6.4 237.5 9.0 97 27 June 54.3 10.1 82 131.4 12.8 91 62.5 29.6 297.8 7.4 98 391.5 8.6 487.5 9.8 591.7 9.8 98 Mean 41.7 8.2 78 86.3 11.0 87 52.8 38.9 177.0 6.1 94 260.8 6.9 353.1 7.8 482.3 7.9 98 Median 40.2 7.0 84 79.3 11.8 89 55.1 34.1 206.7 5.4 96 278.6 6.4 345.8 7.3 444.5 7.3 99 Std. dev. 25.9 4.0 15 51.4 4.8 8 15.8 21.8 100.9 3.0 8 156.3 3.4 225.5 3.8 338.3 3.8 2 34 Table 8 Event-based values for alkalinity, COD, and turbidity Event Date Alkalinity [mg/L as CaCO3] Total COD [mg/L] Turbidity (NTU) EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe PR% 28 May 2010 29.2 22.7 80.9 68.2 35.6 14.1 60% 16 June 21.5 34.5 93.3 63.7 32.7 10.7 67% 21 June 12.6 19.1 27.5 21.8 4.7 3.0 36% 30 June 9.1 24.8 14.3 20.6 9.8 6.5 34% 15 July 17.0 42.8 56.3 34.0 31.2 7.1 77% 1 August 5.9 17.0 37.8 30.1 14.8 3.9 74% 6 August 26.0 42.2 94.1 14.4 51.9 1.4 97% 7 August 14.6 29.8 20.8 41.9 15.6 3.8 76% 23 August 28.5 83.5 95.8 38.7 46.6 5.3 89% 12 September 23.3 79.6 99.3 51.8 27.9 3.6 87% 26 September 39.6 84.1 132.2 48.0 21.4 3.3 85% 27 September 27.1 42.2 51.4 53.1 14.1 5.1 64% 4 November 36.5 125.1 135.7 55.3 82.5 5.5 93% 16 November 45.2 102.9 486.1 51.6 171.0 10.8 94% 5 January 2011 18.2 41.1 40.7 51.9 65.7 10.1 85% 10 January 15.9 38.9 66.6 26.7 38.0 3.3 91% 25 January 21.3 20.2 21.5 12.4 28.2 6.8 76% 7 February 13.5 18.1 39.3 23.9 30.0 5.9 80% 9 March 23.1 36.4 34.9 24.8 19.4 2.4 88% 28 March 47.3 114.4 459.4 51.6 61.1 3.5 94% 30 March 22.3 50.2 118.1 53.6 70.7 4.6 93% 20 April 6.5 30.4 364.3 58.9 112.2 2.4 98% 14 May 3.1 6.7 58.7 57.6 19.9 5.6 72% 6 June 9.7 89.3 219.3 96.1 38.4 3.7 90% 27 June 32.0 119.2 344.6 74.2 63.8 3.4 95% Mean 22.0 52.6 127.7 45.0 44.3 5.4 80% Median 21.5 41.1 80.9 51.6 32.7 4.6 85% Std. dev. 11.9 35.8 137.5 20.3 36.7 3.1 17% 35 Table 9 Event-based values for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen Event Date TN TP EMVi EMVe PR EMVi EMVe PR [μg/L] [μg/L] (%) [μg/L] [μg/L] (%) 28 May 2010 4906 3378 66 2405 762 84 16 June 3110 1610 51 3256 876 74 21 June 4818 1885 62 5883 472 92 30 June 1885 1751 9 1216 619 50 15 July 2716 2202 26 3548 731 81 1 August 2033 1234 41 2342 920 62 6 August 5503 1566 79 2040 920 67 7 August 1170 763 37 1407 955 35 23 August 3424 2112 62 1570 883 65 12 September 2520 2628 4 2135 1537 34 26 September 2716 1647 55 3035 1485 64 27 September 2265 760 67 3063 1730 45 4 November 3401 1122 83 5011 2409 76 16 November 5695 1252 88 8793 2574 84 5 January 2011 1879 553 75 3947 2104 54 10 January 1238 1118 16 3853 2496 39 25 January 1399 733 48 4497 1146 75 7 February 1182 816 32 2952 1177 60 9 March 1300 1195 10 887 806 11 28 March 6511 2955 64 7056 3751 58 30 March 4024 1345 67 4364 2474 44 20 April 10479 6500 66 6504 4769 59 14 May 3940 2202 45 2994 1480 51 6 June 4305 4388 23 2769 2368 35 27 June 5564 6579 -11 3228 2758 20 Mean 3519 2092 47 3550 1688 57 Median 3110 1610 51 3063 1480 59 Std. dev. 2161 1614 27 1914 1060 21 36 Table 10 Event-based values for Total Metals Event Date Total Zinc Total Copper Total Lead Total Chromium EMCi [µg/L] EMCe [µg/L] PR (%) EMCi [µg/L] EMCe [µg/L] PR (%) EMCi [µg/L] EMCe [µg/L] PR (%) EMCi [µg/L] EMCe [µg/L] PR (%) 28 May 2010 BDL BDL ---- BDL BDL ---- 24.0 37.6 22 BDL BDL ---- 16 June BDL BDL ---- 20.9 BDL ---- 26.8 35.9 -27 BDL BDL ---- 21 June 1100 11 99 646.6 24.8 96 118.0 23.5 81 BDL BDL ---- 30 June 100 68 32 75.0 BDL ---- 23.0 BDL ---- 2.6 1.9 30 15 July 1500 BDL ---- 880.4 BDL ---- 114.1 BDL ---- 8.2 BDL ---- 1 August 100 2 98 7.2 0.3 96 8.6 3.5 60 7.1 1.8 75 6 August 1500 345 77 361.0 0.1 100 98.4 5.0 96 5.7 0.2 98 7 August 700 217 69 149.6 0.1 100 38.9 2.0 95 1.6 0.2 89 23 August 1500 375 75 5.5 0.1 99 19.1 4.4 86 42.3 44.1 35 12 September 2000 880 56 3.1 0.1 96 9.4 1.5 86 55.5 55.3 8 26 September 6400 640 90 14.6 BDL ---- 3.9 4.6 12 33.9 30.7 33 27 September 1200 1116 7 56.6 4.7 92 46.9 6.1 87 104.9 99.4 8 4 November 1600 400 75 79.5 0.4 100 71.7 4.5 97 49.7 41.4 58 16 November 1500 420 72 77.8 18.2 87 13.1 4.1 83 28.7 11.8 78 5 January 2011 2600 702 73 112.1 48.5 63 75.1 91.1 -6 122.5 108.5 23 10 January 3000 2760 8 46.5 14.1 72 34.9 9.3 75 42.9 29.6 36 25 January 4400 528 88 619.0 6.9 99 150.1 93.1 38 105.9 94.6 11 7 February 1300 793 39 113.7 51.3 55 104.5 62.8 40 78.0 97.3 -24 9 March 1500 450 70 366.5 44.7 88 20.1 0.1 100 82.8 65.8 23 28 March 1100 715 35 133.2 35.4 79 24.6 4.8 85 88.6 59.7 46 30 March 7600 760 90 85.2 13.3 85 120.2 9.4 92 117.7 66.3 44 20 April 1600 1536 4 197.3 20.4 94 249.1 127.8 72 157.9 105.2 63 14 May 600 270 55 57.5 17.7 70 27.8 6.5 77 96.2 56.9 42 6 June 1300 507 61 100.6 39.8 70 71.3 76.1 19 95.0 103.1 18 27 June 600 546 9 72.7 18.1 77 120.4 3.8 97 70.3 33.6 55 Mean 1948 638 58 178.4 17.9 86 64.6 26.8 64 63.5 52.7 40 Median 1500 518 70 82.4 15.9 90 38.9 6.1 81 62.9 55.3 36 Std. dev. 1852 594 31 231.4 17.5 14 58.4 37.0 37 45.0 37.9 30 37 Table 11 Event-based values for Total Oil and Grease Event Date Total Oil and Grease EMCi [mg/L] EMCe [mg/L] PR (%) 28 May 2010 0.20 0.08 62 16 June 0.93 0.43 54 21 June 0.35 0.35 0 30 June 0.64 0.62 2 15 July 1.10 0.35 68 1 August 0.96 0.55 43 6 August 1.04 0.47 55 7 August 0.73 0.55 25 23 August 0.20 0.00 100 12 September 0.61 0.00 100 26 September 0.44 0.00 100 27 September 0.99 0.08 92 4 November 0.46 0.00 100 16 November 0.93 0.00 100 5 January 2011 0.61 0.00 100 10 January 0.55 0.16 72 25 January 0.64 0.00 100 7 February 1.04 0.00 100 9 March 1.56 1.45 7 28 March 4.06 1.17 71 30 March 2.34 2.32 1 20 April 1.74 0.78 55 14 May 1.74 1.56 10 6 June 1.74 0.78 55 27 June 1.16 0.78 33 Mean 1.07 0.50 60 Median 0.93 0.35 62 Std. dev. 0.82 0.60 37 38 Table 12 Event-based water chemistry values (all results are not concentrations, but are values) Event Date pH Redox DO Temperature Conductivity TDS (mV) (mg/L) (ºC) (µS/cm) (mg/L) EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe EMVi EMVe 28 May 2010 7.0 7.0 391 386 6.1 6.3 23.9 24.1 60.5 69.1 29.8 33.9 16 June 7.1 6.7 368 366 4.5 3.6 25.0 25.0 49.5 81.9 24.2 40.2 21 June 7.1 6.6 383 438 6.7 4.7 23.4 24.6 24.2 43.1 11.9 21.1 30 June 6.9 6.5 376 376 5.7 4.4 25.7 25.3 23.9 57.3 11.9 28.0 15 July 7.3 6.8 355 355 7.2 5.8 27.7 26.2 32.6 96.3 15.8 43.6 1 August 6.5 6.5 366 364 7.5 7.1 25.7 25.6 18.9 42.4 9.3 20.6 6 August 7.3 6.5 386 393 6.3 4.2 27.6 26.7 69.2 87.9 33.9 43.3 7 August 7.0 6.5 386 360 7.1 4.3 25.7 26.0 34.6 71.7 16.9 35.1 23 August 7.0 6.8 340 329 6.4 4.2 26.7 25.7 74.1 177.7 36.3 88.0 12 September 7.4 6.8 407 431 6.8 5.0 27.0 26.2 62.1 174.2 30.3 85.3 26 September 6.6 6.7 422 488 3.3 2.8 24.5 24.5 107.6 182.9 52.6 89.6 27 September 7.1 6.7 443 465 6.6 5.4 23.6 23.8 54.0 98.9 26.2 48.5 4 November 7.2 7.0 366 412 6.6 4.5 22.0 21.9 103.5 298.7 50.6 127.7 16 November 7.2 6.8 352 376 7.1 4.4 22.1 22.6 174.0 225.0 85.5 110.3 5 January 2011 7.5 6.7 399 364 8.3 7.4 21.4 22.1 38.6 107.1 18.9 52.5 10 January 7.2 6.8 331 350 8.3 5.0 19.8 20.2 47.0 97.8 32.9 68.0 25 January 7.1 7.0 336 323 8.1 7.6 18.8 19.9 48.4 65.7 26.7 25.5 7 February 7.2 7.2 353 356 8.3 8.4 22.2 23.1 30.6 41.2 15.2 20.1 9 March 7.4 7.1 357 366 8.4 8.3 17.8 17.8 40.6 86.7 20.1 42.6 28 March 7.1 7.1 321 315 7.2 5.3 22.8 22.3 186.7 257.3 91.3 126.0 30 March 7.2 7.0 379 321 7.5 6.1 21.8 21.7 62.1 121.5 30.3 60.1 20 April 6.9 6.5 375 384 5.5 4.4 24.3 23.0 159.8 422.6 78.3 206.9 14 May 7.4 7.2 352 363 4.6 4.3 24.8 23.9 56.6 88.9 27.8 43.4 6 June 7.2 7.0 303 300 6.7 4.7 26.7 26.2 109.2 391.5 53.5 191.7 27 June 7.0 6.2 285 291 6.3 4.3 26.4 25.6 95.0 322.9 46.6 158.2 Mean 7.1 6.8 365 371 6.7 5.3 23.9 23.8 70.5 148.4 35.1 72.4 Median 7.1 6.8 366 364 6.7 4.7 24.3 24.1 56.6 97.8 29.8 48.5 Std. dev. 0.2 0.3 35 48 1.3 1.5 2.7 2.3 46.6 110.8 22.7 53.4 39 Table 13 Event-based driving head over deck level Event Date Median head over deck level (inch) Median head over deck level (mm) Peak head over deck level (inch) Peak head over deck level (mm) 28 May 2010 1.56 40 6.22 158 16 June 4.23 108 7.79 198 21 June 6.67 170 9.89 251 30 June 2.01 51 15.55 395 15 July 5.78 147 16.89 429 1 August 8.41 214 20.92 531 6 August 5.75 146 12.04 306 7 August 4.58 116 12.23 311 23 August 1.47 37 4.58 116 12 September 2.07 53 6.17 157 26 September 1.45 37 2.48 63 27 September 1.16 30 15.70 399 4 November 3.08 78 6.72 171 16 November 1.77 45 6.82 173 5 January 2011 2.40 61 11.72 298 10 January 1.49 38 8.05 204 25 January 3.25 83 6.88 175 7 February 5.43 138 12.18 309 9 March 2.73 69 7.23 184 28 March 3.36 85 6.02 153 30 March 6.96 177 15.69 398 20 April 4.59 117 6.42 163 14 May 4.25 108 19.65 499 6 June 0.65 16 6.56 167 27 June 5.61 143 16.76 426 Mean 3.63 92 10.45 265 Median 3.25 83 8.05 204 Std. dev. 2.11 54 5.06 129 40 11. Data Quality Assessment Data was analyzed using statistical methods in accordance with guidelines in the TARP Protocol for Stormwater Best Management Practice Demonstrations, and the VTAP Guidance for Evaluating Stormwater Manufactured Treatment Devices. Data was examined by statistical and regression analysis, ANOVA statistics, non-parametric analysis, correlations, probability distributions of data, normality testing, standards, and physical data replication. Data integrity in the laboratory was addressed in a multi-level review process for all analyses conducted. The initial step in this review process was conducted by each lab analyst as tests were conducted. Calibration values and procedures were checked against previous tests to alert the analyst to in case of malfunction in equipment or test errors. The second level of review was conducted by the lab director who collected results and entered these values into the tabular spreadsheets for each test. Each of the results was checked for accuracy of input as well as to appropriateness for the samples which were analyzed. All results were overseen or conducted personally by the lab manager. All preliminary calculations were reviewed. The final level of review was conducted by the project manager who reviewed all results generated within the laboratory. 12. Conclusions Field testing of an Imbrium Systems’ Jellyfish® Filter model JF4-2-1 with second-generation filtration cartridges was conducted in accordance with the TARP and VTAP field test protocols. The physical modeling campaign was carried out on the University of Florida campus with the full-scale unit loaded by rainfall-runoff from a surface parking watershed. A total of 25 monitored storm events, with 15 inches of cumulative rainfall depth, were treated by the JF4 during this study. Of the 25 storms treated, two storms generated flows exceeding the maximum design flow of 200 gpm. No maintenance was required or conducted during the 13-month monitoring period from May 28, 2010 to June 27, 2011. Treatment results generated median SSC and TSS removal efficiency results of 99% and 89%, respectively. Median removal efficiency was 59% for Total Phosphorus and 51% for Total Nitrogen. For Total Copper, Zinc, Lead and Chromium median removal efficiencies were 90, 70, 81, and 36%, respectively. The d50 for influent and effluent particle sizes were 82 and 3 m, respectively. Median head loss never exceeded 8.4 inches (21.4 cm) for any event and across the entire monitoring campaign the median head loss was 3.3 inches (8.3 cm). Dry basis particulate matter (PM) recovered from the treatment unit totaled 166 pounds, and the JF4-2-1 had a volumetric capacity to retain a significantly larger mass of PM. Median and peak head losses were driven predominately by flow rate and to a much lesser degree by filter cartridge ripening which was muted. At the completion of the monitoring campaign, a 95% mass balance was obtained on particulate matter (PM) which validates the testing methods used throughout this study. This mass balance on PM is an independent requirement to validate the influent and effluent monitoring and validates the most rigorous unit operation and process physical modeling available. The results obtained in this field study demonstrate that the Jellyfish Filter’s particulate removal performance is reasonably insensitive to incoming particle size distribution (PSD) and runoff event duration. 41 APPENDIX A New Jersey Environmental Laboratory Certification 42 43 44 APPENDIX B Individual Storm Event Summaries with Hydrographs and Hyetographs 45 Table B1: JF4 Summary: 28 May 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 28 May 2010 Influent Volume: 7465 L (1972 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 96 Event Duration: 112 min Maximum Flow Rate: 4.30 L/s (68.2 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 19 Median Flow Rate: 0.98 L/s (15.5 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 8 Mean Flow Rate: 1.12 L/s (17.8 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 76 mm/hr (3.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 21 mm (0.81 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 50 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 5 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 79 Rainfall Runoff 28 May 2010 IPRT = 9.9 min Vin = 7465 L Q50 = 0.98 L/s Qmax = 4.30 L/s Rainfall = 0.81 in Figure B1: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 28 May 2010 event On May 28, 2010, the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 at the University of Florida parking lot site treated its first rainfall-runoff event, starting with a clean empty unit. The event occurred after 96 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3.0 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.81 inches. The storm lasted approximately 112 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 68 gpm, 16 gpm, and 18 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 1,972 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 19 and 8, respectively. Fewer effluent than influent samples are collected since the JF4 unit is filling up for a substantial part of the storm. The influent and effluent TSS is 89.3 mg/L and 18.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 90%. The influent and effluent SSC is 532.3 mg/L and 15.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 46 Table B2: JF4 Summary: 16 June 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 16 June 2010 Influent Volume: 5008 L (1323 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 288 Event Duration: 61 min Maximum Flow Rate: 5.36 L/s (85.0 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 11 Median Flow Rate: 0.65 L/s (10.3 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 2.21 L/s (35.1 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 61 mm/hr (2.4 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 16 mm (0.63 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 70 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 32 64 95 127 Rainfall Runoff Vin = 5008 L Q50 = 0.65 L/s Qmax = 5.36 L/s Rainfall = 0.63 in 16 June 2010 IPRT = 17.5 min Figure B2: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 16 June 2010 event On June 16, 2010, the JF4 unit treated its second rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 288 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 2.4 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.63 inches. The storm lasted approximately 61 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 85 gpm, 10 gpm, and 35 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 1,323 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 11 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 79.3 mg/L and 21.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 74%. The influent and effluent SSC is 1401.7 mg/L and 18.1 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 47 Table B3: JF4 Summary: 21 June 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 21 June 2010 Influent Volume: 8695 L (2297 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 96 Runoff Duration: 43 min Maximum Flow Rate: 7.46 L/s (118.3 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 5.47 L/s (86.7 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 5.09 L/s (80.7 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 122 mm/hr (4.8 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 23 mm (0.92 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 130 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 3 6 9 12 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 48 95 143 190 Rainfall Runoff Vin = 8695 L Q50 = 5.47 L/s Qmax = 7.46 L/s Rainfall = 0.92 in 21 June 2010 IPRT = 5.75 min Figure B3: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 21 June 2010 event On June 21, 2010, the JF4 unit treated its third rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 96 previous dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 4.8 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.92 inches. The storm lasted approximately 43 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 118 gpm, 87 gpm, and 81 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 2297 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 105.5 mg/L and 15.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 86%. The influent and effluent SSC is 1162.9 mg/L and 7.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 48 Table B4: JF4 Summary: 30 June 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 30 June 2010 Influent Volume: 5459 L (1442 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 288 Runoff Duration: 50 min Maximum Flow Rate: 9.13 L/s (144.8 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 11 Median Flow Rate: 3.30 L/s (52.3 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 11 Mean Flow Rate: 3.95 L/s (62.6 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 76 mm/hr (3.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 13 mm (0.52 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 90 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 32 63 95 127 158 190 Rainfall Runoff 30 June 2010 IPRT = 7.8 min Vin = 5459 L Q50 = 3.30 L/s Qmax = 9.13 L/s Rainfall = 0.52 in Figure B4: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 30 June 2010 event On June 30, 2010, the JF4 unit treated its fourth rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 288 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.52 inches. The storm lasted approximately 50 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 145 gpm, 52 gpm, and 63 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 1442 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 11 and 11, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 25.2 mg/L and 7.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 71%. The influent and effluent SSC is 444.5 mg/L and 5.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 49 Table B5: JF4 Summary: 15 July 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 15 July 2010 Influent Volume: 3608 L (953 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 96 Runoff Duration: 28 min Maximum Flow Rate: 13.26 L/s (210.2 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 1.44 L/s (22.9 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 3.12 L/s (49.4 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 91 mm/hr (3.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 10 mm (0.38 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 48 95 143 190 238 285 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 8.25 min Vin = 3608 L Q50 = 1.44 L/s Qmax = 13.26 L/s Rainfall = 0.38 in 15 July 2010 Figure B5: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 15 July 2010 event On July 15, 2010, the JF4 unit treated its fifth rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 96 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.38 inches. The storm lasted approximately 28 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 210 gpm, 23 gpm, and 49 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 953 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 91.8 mg/L and 8.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 92%. The influent and effluent SSC is 812.2 mg/L and 8.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 50 Table B6: JF4 Summary: 1 August 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 01 August 2010 Influent Volume: 11973 L (3163 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 24 Event Duration: 36 min Maximum Flow Rate: 14.25 L/s (225.9 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 4.74 L/s (75.1 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 5.47 L/s (86.7 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 127 mm/hr (5.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 30 mm (1.18 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 160 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 3 6 9 12 15 18 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 48 95 143 190 238 285 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 4.88 min Vin = 11973 L Q50 = 4.74 L/s Qmax = 14.25 L/s Rainfall = 1.18 in 1 August 2010 Figure B6: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 1 August 2010 event On August 1, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 24 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 5.0 in/hr and rainfall depth is 1.18 inches. The storm lasted approximately 36 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 226 gpm, 75 gpm, and 87 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 3163 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 130.2 mg/L and 15.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 89%. The influent and effluent SSC is 245.1 mg/L and 7.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 97%. 51 Table B7: JF4 Summary: 6 August 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 6 August 2010 Influent Volume: 1393 L (368 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 120 Event Duration: 104 min Maximum Flow Rate: 6.80 L/s (107.8 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.01 L/s (0.2 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 8 Mean Flow Rate: 0.27 L/s (4.3 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 51 mm/hr (2.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 4 mm (0.14 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 5 10 15 80 100 0 5 10 15 80 100 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 120 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 32 64 95 127 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 4.62 min Vin = 1393 L Q50 = 0.01 L/s Qmax = 6.80 L/s Rainfall = 0.14 in 6 August 2010 Figure B7: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 6 August 2010 event On August 6, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 120 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 2.0 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.14 inch. The storm lasted approximately 104 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 108 gpm, 0.2 gpm, and 4.3 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 368 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 8 , respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 77.5 mg/L and 15.0 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 86%. The influent and effluent SSC is 308.4 mg/L and 7.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. 52 Table B8: JF4 Summary: 7 August 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 7 August 2010 Influent Volume: 2622 L (693 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 24 Runoff Duration: 48 min Maximum Flow Rate: 8.24 L/s (130.6 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.43 L/s (6.8 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.90 L/s (14.3 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 61 mm/hr (2.4 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 9 mm (0.34 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 40 80 119 159 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 6.98 min Vin = 2622 L Q50 = 0.43 L/s Qmax = 8.24 L/s Rainfall = 0.34 in 7 August 2010 Figure B8: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 7 August 2010 event On August 7, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 24 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 2.4 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.34 inch. The storm lasted approximately 48 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 131 gpm, 7 gpm, and 14 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 693 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 45.3 mg/L and 12.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 74%. The influent and effluent SSC is 117.1 mg/L and 13.9 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 89%. 53 Table B9: JF4 Summary: 23 August 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 23 August 2010 Influent Volume: 312 L (82 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 48 Runoff Duration: 42 min Maximum Flow Rate: 1.25 L/s (19.8 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.01 L/s (0.2 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.12 L/s (2.0 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 15 mm/hr (0.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 3 mm (0.11 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 40 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 8 16 24 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 20.10 min Vin = 312 L Q50 = 0.01 L/s Qmax = 1.25 L/s Rainfall = 0.11 in 23 August 2010 Figure B9: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 23 August 2010 event On August 23, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 48 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.11 inch. The storm lasted approximately 42 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 20 gpm, 0.2 gpm, and 2 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 82 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 74.2 mg/L and 8.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 93%. The influent and effluent SSC is 555.8 mg/L and 4.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 100%. 54 Table B10: JF4 Summary: 12 September 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 12 September 2010 Influent Volume: 1643 L (434 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 172 Runoff Duration: 52 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.85 L/s (61.0 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.10 L/s (1.6 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.53 L/s (8.4 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 51 mm/hr (2.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 7 mm (0.27 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 1.3 2.5 3.8 5.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 20 40 59 79 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 18.38 min Vin = 1643 L Q50 = 0.10 L/s Qmax = 3.85 L/s Rainfall = 0.27 in 12 September 2010 Figure B10: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 12 September 2010 event On September 12, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 172 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 2.0 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.27 inch. The storm lasted approximately 52 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 61 gpm, 2 gpm, and 8 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 434 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 91.2 mg/L and 15.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 84%. The influent and effluent SSC is 261.5 mg/L and 5.8 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. 55 Table B11: JF4 Summary: 26 September 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 26 September 2010 Influent Volume: 1129 L (298 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 40 Runoff Duration: 78 min Maximum Flow Rate: 0.45 L/s (7.1 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.26 L/s (4.1 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.24 L/s (3.8 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 5 mm/hr (0.2 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 4 mm (0.14 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 15 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 2 3 5 6 8 10 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 1 min Vin = 1129 L Q50 = 0.26 L/s Qmax = 0.45 L/s Rainfall = 0.14 in 26 September 2010 Figure B11: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 26 September 2010 event On September 26, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 40 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.2 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.14 inch. The storm lasted approximately 78 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 7 gpm, 4 gpm, and 4 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 298 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 16.3 mg/L and 4.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 79%. The influent and effluent SSC is 117.9 mg/L and 5.0 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 97%. 56 Table B12: JF4 Summary: 27 September 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 27 September 2010 Influent Volume: 3841 L (1015 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 10 Runoff Duration: 388 min Maximum Flow Rate: 10.94 L/s (173.4 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.04 L/s (0.7 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.16 L/s (2.6 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 91 mm/hr (3.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 15 mm (0.6 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 200 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 5 10 15 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 79 159 238 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 19.5 min Vin = 3841 L Q50 = 0.04 L/s Qmax = 10.94 L/s Rainfall = 0.6 in 27 September 2010 Figure B12: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 27 September 2010 event On September 27, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 10 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.60 inch. The storm lasted approximately 388 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 173 gpm, 0.7 gpm, and 2.6 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 1015 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 51.1 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 94%. The influent and effluent SSC is 765.1 mg/L and 6.0 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 57 Table B13: JF4 Summary: 4 November 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 4 November 2010 Influent Volume: 994 L (263 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 910 Runoff Duration: 43 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.53 L/s (56.0 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 11 Median Flow Rate: 0.12 L/s (1.8 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 11 Mean Flow Rate: 0.38 L/s (6.0 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 46 mm/hr (1.8 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 5 mm (0.19 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 5.0 min Vin = 994 L Q50 = 0.12 L/s Qmax = 3.53 L/s Rainfall = 0.19 in 04 November 2010 Figure B13: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 4 November 2010 event On November 4, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 910 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 1.8 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.19 inch. The storm lasted approximately 43 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 56 gpm, 2 gpm, and 6 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 263 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 11 and 11, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 39.9 mg/L and 4.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 95%. The influent and effluent SSC is 477.1 mg/L and 10.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 58 Table B14: JF4 Summary: 16 November 2010 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 16 November 2010 Influent Volume: 305 L (81 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 286 Runoff Duration: 34 min Maximum Flow Rate: 1.75 L/s (27.7 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 11 Median Flow Rate: 0.02 L/s (0.3 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 11 Mean Flow Rate: 0.13 L/s (2.1 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 25 mm/hr (1.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 3 mm (0.13 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 75 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 8 16 24 32 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 8.1 min Vin = 305 L Q50 = 0.02 L/s Qmax = 1.75 L/s Rainfall = 0.13 in 16 November 2010 Figure B14: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 16 November 2010 event On November 16, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 286 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 1.0 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.13 inch. The storm lasted approximately 34 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 28 gpm, 0.3 gpm, and 2 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 81 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 11 and 11, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 261.0 mg/L and 11.8 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. The influent and effluent SSC is 543.6 mg/L and 12.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. Table B15: JF4 Summary: 5 January 2011 Hydrology 59 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 05 January 2011 Influent Volume: 5800 L (1532 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 72 hr Event Duration: 125 min Maximum Flow Rate: 7.36 L/s (116.7 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.16 L/s (2.6 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 1.14 L/s (18.1 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 107 mm/hr (4.2 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 21 mm (0.84 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 120 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 10 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 32 64 95 127 159 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 3 min Vin = 5800 L Q50 = 0.16 L/s Qmax = 7.36 L/s Rainfall = 0.84 in 05 January 2011 Figure B15: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 5 January 2011 event On January 5, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 72 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 4.2 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.84 inches. The storm duration is 125 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 117 gpm, 3 gpm, and 18 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 1532 gallons. Sampling occurred during the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. This is a The influent and effluent TSS is 152.2 mg/L and 15.9 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 91%. The influent and effluent SSC is 693.2 mg/L and 8.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. Table B16: JF4 Summary: 10 January 2011 Hydrology 60 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 10 January 2011 Influent Volume: 1129 L (298 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 106 hr Event Duration: 26 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.32 L/s (52.6 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 8 Median Flow Rate: 0.1 L/s (1.6 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 8 Mean Flow Rate: 0.41 L/s (6.5 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 91 mm/hr (3.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 5 mm (0.20 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 100 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 Rainfall Runoff 10 January 2011 Vin = 1129 L Q50 = 0.01 L/s Qmax = 3.32 L/s Rainfall = 0.20 inIPRT = 4 min Figure B16: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 10 January 2011 event On January 10, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 106 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.20 inch. The storm lasted approximately 26 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 53 gpm, 0.2 gpm, and 7 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 298 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 8 and 8, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 80.7 mg/L and 6.6 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 92%. The influent and effluent SSC is 211.1 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. 61 Table B17: JF4 Summary: 25 January 2011 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 25 January 2011 Influent Volume: 12387 L (3273 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 365 hr Runoff Duration: 389 min Maximum Flow Rate: 4.09 L/s (64.8 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.39 L/s (6.2 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.53 L/s (8.4 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 18 mm/hr (0.7 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 44 mm (1.74 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 40 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 5 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 79 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 5.2 min Vin = 12387 L Q50 = 0.39 L/s Qmax = 4.09 L/s Rainfall = 1.74 in 25 January 2011 Figure B17: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 25 January 2011 event On January 25, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 365 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.7 in/hr and rainfall depth is 1.74 inch. The storm lasted approximately 389 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 65 gpm, 6 gpm, and 8 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 3273 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 69.8 mg/L and 7.1 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 90%. The influent and effluent SSC is 105.8 mg/L and 4.1 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 96%. 62 Table B18: JF4 Summary: 7 February 2011 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 07 February 2011 Influent Volume: 13229 L (3495 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 12 hr Runoff Duration: 306 min Maximum Flow Rate: 2.22 L/s (35.2 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 11 Median Flow Rate: 0.77 L/s (12.1 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 11 Mean Flow Rate: 0.71 L/s (11.2 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 30 mm/hr (1.2 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 32.8 mm (1.29 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 80 160 240 320 0 80 160 240 320 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 60 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 8 16 24 32 40 48 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 7.75 min Vin = 13229 L Q50 = 0.77 L/s Qmax = 2.22 L/s Rainfall = 1.29 in 7 February 2011 Figure B18: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 7 February 2011 event On February 7, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 12 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 1.2 in/hr and rainfall depth is 1.29 inch. The storm lasted approximately 306 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 35 gpm, 12 gpm, and 11 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 3495 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 11 and 11, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 34.8 mg/L and 5.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 85%. The influent and effluent SSC is 438.3 mg/L and 7.6 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. 63 Table B19: JF4 Summary: 9 March 2011 Hydrology Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 09 March 2011 Influent Volume: 10051 L (2656 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 79 hr Runoff Duration: 691 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.13 L/s (49.7 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 12 Median Flow Rate: 0.10 L/s (1.6 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 12 Mean Flow Rate: 0.24 L/s (3.8 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 15 mm/hr (0.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 29.2 mm (1.15 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 20 101 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 10.0 min Vin = 10051 L Q50 = 0.10 L/s Qmax = 3.13 L/s Rainfall = 1.15 in 09 March 2011 Figure B19: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 9 March 2011 event On March 9, 2010, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 79 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 1.15 inch. The storm lasted approximately 691 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 50 gpm, 2 gpm, and 4 gpm, respectively. Influent volume is 2656 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 12 and 12, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 30.5 mg/L and 8.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 73%. The influent and effluent SSC is 78.2 mg/L and 2.8 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 97%. Table B20: JF4 Summary: 28 March 2011 Hydrology 64 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 28 March 2011 Influent Volume: 522 L (138 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 438 hr Event Duration: 66 min Maximum Flow Rate: 1.03 L/s (16.4 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 12 Median Flow Rate: 0.06 L/s (0.9 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.13 L/s (2.1 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 33 mm/hr (1.3 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 2.5 mm (0.10 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 50 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 6 13 19 25 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 6.8 min Vin = 522 L Q50 = 0.06 L/s Qmax = 1.03 L/s Rainfall = 0.10 in 28 March 2011 Figure B20: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 28 March 2011 event On March 28, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 438 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 1.3 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.10 inch. The storm lasted approximately 66 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 16 gpm, 1 gpm, and 2 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 138 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 12 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 68.4 mg/L and 12.7 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 86%. The influent and effluent SSC is 102.8 mg/L and 5.6 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 96%. Table B21: JF4 Summary: 30 March 2011 Hydrology 65 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 30 March 2011 Influent Volume: 3707L (979 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 48 hr Event Duration: 179 min Maximum Flow Rate: 5.61 L/s (89.0 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 12 Median Flow Rate: 0.10 L/s (1.6 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 12 Mean Flow Rate: 0.29 L/s (4.5 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 76 mm/hr (3.0 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 15 mm (0.60 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 80 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 47 63 79 95 111 Rainfall Runoff Vin = 3707 L Q50 = 0.10 L/s Qmax = 5.61 L/s Rainfall = 0.60 in 30 March 2011 IPRT = 33.6 min Figure B21: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 30 March 2011 event On March 30, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 48 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 3 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.60 inch. The storm lasted approximately 179 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 89 gpm, 2 gpm, and 5 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 979 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 12 and 12, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 104.5 mg/L and 7.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 93%. The influent and effluent SSC is 443.7 mg/L and 7.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. Table B22: JF4 Summary: 20 April 2011 Hydrology 66 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 20 April 2011 Influent Volume: 206 L (54 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 196 hr Event Duration: 61 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.28 L/s (52.0 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 12 Median Flow Rate: 0.01 L/s (0.1 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 12 Mean Flow Rate: 0.06 L/s (0.9 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 15 mm/hr (0.6 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 4 mm (0.14 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 40 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 1 2 3 4 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 16 32 48 63 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 9.3 min 20 April 2011 Vin = 206 L Q50 = 0.01 L/s Qmax = 3.28 L/s Rainfall = 0.14 in Figure B22: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 20 April 2011 event On April 20, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 196 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.6 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.14 inch. The storm lasted approximately 61 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 52 gpm, 0.1 gpm, and 0.9 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 54 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 12 and 12, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 143.7 mg/L and 11.4 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 96%. The influent and effluent SSC is 921.7 mg/L and 6.1 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 100%. Table B23: JF4 Summary:14 May 2011 Hydrology 67 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 14 May 2011 Influent Volume: 11256 L (2974 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 188 hr Event Duration: 295 min Maximum Flow Rate: 7.53 L/s (119.3 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 19 Median Flow Rate: 0.02 L/s (0.36 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 19 Mean Flow Rate: 0.63 L/s (9.98 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 137 mm/hr (5.4 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 50 mm (1.98 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 200 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0 2 4 6 8 10 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 32 64 95 127 159 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 4.8 min 14 May 2011 Vin = 11256 L Q50 = 0.02 L/s Qmax = 7.53 L/s Rainfall = 1.98 in Figure B23: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 14 May 2011 event On May 14, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 188 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 5.4 in/hr and rainfall depth is 1.98 inch. The storm lasted approximately 295 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 119.3 gpm, 0.4 gpm, and 10.0 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 2,974 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 19 and 19, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 77.1 mg/L and 12.5 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 84%. The influent and effluent SSC is 487.3 mg/L and 5.3 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 99%. Table B24: JF4 Summary:6 June 2011 Hydrology 68 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 6 June 2011 Influent Volume: 960 L (254 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 541 hr Event Duration: 69 min Maximum Flow Rate: 1.55 L/s (24.5 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.01 L/s (0.1 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.23 L/s (3.7 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 23 mm/hr (0.9 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 4 mm (0.16 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 60 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 8 16 24 32 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 4.0 min 6 June 2011 Vin = 960 L Q50 = 0.01 L/s Qmax = 1.55 L/s Rainfall = 0.16 in Figure B24: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 6 June 2011 event On June 6, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 541 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 0.9 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.16 inch. The storm lasted approximately 69 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 24.5 gpm, 0.1 gpm, and 3.7 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 254 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 85.6 mg/L and 13.2 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 88%. The influent and effluent SSC is 237.5 mg/L and 9.0 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 97%. Table B25: JF4 Summary: 27 June 2011 Hydrology 69 Event Information JF4 Unit Treatment Run information Event Date: 27 June 2011 Influent Volume: 3383 L (894 gal) Previous Dry Hours: 88 hr Event Duration: 50 min Maximum Flow Rate: 3.35 L/s (53.2 gpm) Number of Influent Samples: 10 Median Flow Rate: 0.12 L/s (2.0 gpm) Number of Effluent Samples: 10 Mean Flow Rate: 0.64 L/s (10.1 gpm) Peak Rainfall Intensity: 43 mm/hr (1.7 inch/hr) Experimental Site: UF Engineering Surface Parking Rainfall Depth: 11 mm (0.45 inch) TARP Qualifying: YES Site Location: Gainesville, FL Elapsed time, t (min) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Rainfall intensity, i (mm/hr)0 60 Runoff flow rate, Q (L/s)0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Runoff flow rate, Q (gpm)0 8 16 24 32 40 48 55 63 Rainfall Runoff IPRT = 2.0 min 27 June 2011 Vin = 3383 L Q50 = 0.12 L/s Qmax = 3.35 L/s Rainfall = 0.45 in Figure B25: Hydrograph and hyetograph for 27 June 2011 event On June 27, 2011, the JF4 unit treated a rainfall-runoff event. The event occurred after 88 dry hours. The peak rainfall intensity is 1.7 in/hr and rainfall depth is 0.45 inch. The storm lasted approximately 50 minutes. The maximum, median, and mean runoff flow rates are 53 gpm, 2 gpm, and 10 gpm, respectively. The influent runoff volume is 894 gallons. Sampling occurred throughout the entire duration of the storm and the number of influent and effluent samples taken is 10 and 10, respectively. The influent and effluent TSS is 131.4 mg/L and 12.8 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 91%. The influent and effluent SSC is 591.7 mg/L and 9.8 mg/L, respectively, and the removal efficiency is 98%. APPENDIX C 70 Hydraulic Testing of the Jellyfish® Filter JF4-2-1 71 Extensive hydraulic testing was conducted at the University of Florida on a new clean 54-inch long Jellyfish® filtration cartridge with various orifice sizes in the cartridge lid. Hydraulic testing was also been conducted on the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 with the standard 70 mm lid orifice on each of the two hi-flo cartridges and the standard 35 mm lid orifice on the single draindown cartridge, and was performed on the system with clean cartridges prior to commissioning as well as with dirty cartridges at the conclusion of the monitoring period (25 monitored storm events and 15 inches of cumulative rainfall). Figure C1 depicts the hydraulic response curve for a new clean 54-inch Jellyfish filtration cartridge with a very large orifice in the cartridge lid, in this case an 11-inch diameter orifice. The very large opening in the cartridge lid allowed determination of the hydraulic response of the cartridge itself with essentially no flow restriction from the lid orifice. Test results demonstrate a clean-cartridge flow capacity of 180 gpm at 18 inches of driving head, which is much higher than the design treatment flow rate of a hi-flo cartridge (80 gpm with 70 mm lid orifice) or a draindown cartridge (40 gpm with 35 mm orifice) at 18 inches of driving head. The cartridge has capacity to tolerate a significant degree of particulate matter (PM) loading and occlusion while maintaining design flow rate at design driving head. Figure C1: Hydraulic response of a clean 54-inch long Jellyfish filtration cartridge with an 11- inch diameter lid orifice. Assuming no flow restriction from the very large lid orifice, this is essentially the hydraulic response of the clean cartridge itself. Figure C2 depicts the hydraulic response curve for a new clean 54-inch Jellyfish filtration cartridge with a 35 mm orifice in the cartridge lid, which is the standard lid orifice for the draindown 72 cartridge. Test results demonstrate a flow capacity of 44 gpm at 18 inches of driving head. Imbrium Systems assigns a design treatment flow rate of 40 gpm to the draindown cartridge used in the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. Figure C2: Hydraulic response of a clean 54-inch long Jellyfish filtration cartridge with a 35 mm lid orifice, used as the draindown cartridge in the JF4-2-1. Figure C3 depicts the hydraulic response curve for a new clean 54-inch Jellyfish filtration cartridge with a 70 mm orifice in the cartridge lid, which is the standard lid orifice for each of the hi-flo cartridges. Test results demonstrate a flow capacity of 116 gpm at 18 inches of driving head and 88 gpm at 12 inches of driving head. Since each hi-flo cartridge is located within the 6-inch high backwash pool weir, the net available driving head for the hi-flo cartridge is 12 inches. Imbrium Systems assigns a design treatment flow rate of 80 gpm to each hi-flo cartridge used in the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1. 73 Figure C3: Hydraulic response of a clean 54-inch long Jellyfish filtration cartridge with a 70 mm lid orifice, used for each hi-flo cartridge in the JF4-2-1. Figure C4 depicts the hydraulic response curves for the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1, which uses three 54-inch long Jellyfish filtration cartridges, one deployed as the draindown cartridge and two deployed as hi-flo cartridges. Hydraulic testing was performed with clean new cartridges prior to commissioning the system for field testing, and with dirty cartridges at the conclusion of monitoring after 25 storm events and 15 inches of cumulative rainfall. Test results demonstrate a flow capacity of 200 gpm at 18 inches of driving head for the JF4-2-1 with clean cartridges, which is the design treatment flow rate of the system. The hydraulic response curves are virtually identical for the system with clean cartridges and with dirty cartridges up to 18 inches of driving head, despite the capture of 166 pounds (dry basis) of PM mass during the monitoring period. These results indicate that the system has volumetric capacity to capture a much greater PM load. The divergence of the curves beyond 18 inches of driving head is attributed to a difference in the height of the pressure relief pipe during the hydraulic tests. During hydraulic testing with clean cartridges prior to commissioning the system, the pressure relief pipe height was 18 inches. At driving head greater than 18 inches, the pressure relief pipe began to overflow, resulting in a relatively flat response curve from that point forward as flow rate increased. The pressure relief pipe height was subsequently increased to 24 inches prior to commissioning the system in order to eliminate any possibility of internal bypassing of water during the monitoring period, An external bypass was installed around the treatment unit and configured to begin bypassing influent if driving head exceeded 18 inches during a storm event. Hydraulic testing was performed on the JF4-2-1 with the dirty cartridges after the external bypass was disassembled and with the 24-inch high pressure relief pipe intact, resulting in a response curve with gradually increasing slope as flow rate increased with driving head between 18 and 24 inches. 74 After completing hydraulic testing on the JF4-2-1 with dirty cartridges, the draindown time of water within the 6-inch high backwash pool weir was measured, ranging 101-120 seconds. The backwash pool is designed as a passive self-cleaning mechanism, and provides a reverse flow of water through the hi-flo cartridges when influent flow ceases. Water below the cartridge deck is displaced through the draindown cartridge and discharged to the top of the cartridge deck and subsequently to the outlet pipe. The backwash pool draindown time of approximately 2 minutes indicates that the degree of PM occlusion on the dirty hi-flo and draindown cartridges did not appear to significantly impede water flow through the cartridges during passive backwash. Flow Rate (gpm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300Head (inches)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 New cartridges Dirty cartridges Figure C4: Hydraulic response of the Jellyfish Filter JF4-2-1 with clean cartridges prior to commissioning and with dirty cartridges after the monitoring period (25 storm events, 15 inches of cumulative rainfall, 28,453 gallons of treated runoff, and 166 pounds of captured PM mass) After completing hydraulic testing of the JF4-2-1 with the dirty cartridges, a manual backflush of the dirty cartridges was performed using a Jellyfish® Cartridge Backflush Pipe to simulate a typical annual maintenance activity. The backflush pipe is a 40-inch tall, 12-inch diameter hollow tube fitted with a flush valve and flapper on the inside bottom, and a compressible gasket on the lower end. In order to manually backflush a cartridge, the cartridge lid is removed and the backflush pipe is placed over the cartridge receptacle with the compressible gasket resting squarely on the receptacle. The pipe is filled with clean water using a hose, and the weight of the water causes the compressible gasket to form a water-tight seal on the receptacle. A wire connected to the internal flapper valve is then pulled, which raises the flapper and allows the contents of the pipe to drain out and backflush the cartridge. Since the 75 pipe is 40 inches tall, the head of backflush water is significantly higher than the typical 18 inches of driving head that a cartridge might experience during peak treatment forward flow. The pipe is designed to provide a significant backflush volume and relatively high backflush flow rate in order to effectively remove accumulated sediment from the filter surfaces. The backflush pipe holds approximately 18 gallons of water when full, with 14 gallons of that total in the uppermost 30 inches of pipe, which is the distance from the top of the pipe to the top of the flapper valve when in the open position. The time to drain the uppermost 30 inches of backflush pipe volume (14 gallons) was measured for all three cartridges and determined to be approximately 8 seconds in each case, which equates to an average backflush flow rate of approximately 105 gpm for each cartridge. Hydraulic testing was subsequently performed on the JF4-2-1 with the manually backflushed cartridges. As expected, the hydraulic response curve was virtually identical to the system with clean new cartridges and with dirty cartridges as determined earlier. This indicates that the degree of sediment occlusion on the dirty cartridges was not significant enough to result in an increase in hydraulic capacity after manual backflushing. Prior to manual backflushing of the cartridges, 158 pounds of dry basis pollutant mass was recovered from the sump. After manual backflushing of the cartridges, a very small amount of additional pollutant mass (0.1 pounds dry basis) was recovered from the sump. This indicates that each dirty cartridge contained sufficient porosity to allow passage of a relatively high backflush flow rate such that minimal PM was dislodged from the cartridges, despite the presence of 2.6 pounds of PM mass on each cartridge (established by later manual rinsing of each cartridge as described below). After completing hydraulic testing of the JF4-2-1 with manually backwashed cartridges, the cartridges were removed from the system and rinsed with a garden hose sprayer as part of the PM mass recovery and to simulate a typical maintenance activity. Accumulated PM was easily removed from the cartridges with rinsing, and a pollutant mass of 2.6 pounds (dry basis) was recovered from each cartridge, for a total of approximately 8 pounds. PM mass recovered from the sump was 158 pounds, for a total dry basis PM mass recovery of 166 pounds. The uniform and relatively low quantity of pollutant mass found on the cartridges indicates that self-cleaning mechanisms are effective in removing accumulated PM from both the hi-flo cartridges and the draindown cartridge. Hydraulic testing was subsequently performed on the JF4-2-1 with the manually rinsed cartridges. As expected, the hydraulic response curve was virtually identical to the system with clean new cartridges, with dirty cartridges, and with manually backwashed cartridges as determined earlier. This indicates that the degree of sediment occlusion on the dirty cartridges was not significant enough to result in an increase in hydraulic capacity after manual backflushing. Figure C5 depicts the hydraulic response curves of the JF4-2-1 with manually backflushed cartridges and with manually rinsed cartridges. 76 Flow Rate (gpm) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300Head (inches)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Rinsed cartridges Backflushed cartridges Figure C5: Hydraulic response of the JF4-2-1 with manually backflushed cartridges and with manually rinsed cartridges 77 APPENDIX D Methodology for Determining Particulate Matter Removal Efficiency 78 EMC Calculations (Event basis): (1) (2) (3) % Removal Calculations Based on Event Summation of Loads (as a % removal, PR): (4) Note that Δ Mass represents the change in mass on an event basis, therefore the % removal based on change in mass Equation (4) can be further expanded into the following form when using EMC and event flow volumes: ` (100) Removal efficiencies (Percent Removal, PR) summarized in the tables in this report are calculated using Equation 4, assuming that PR is the assessment metric utilized to evaluate a BMP. The influent and effluent mass values used in this equation are based on calculations of concentration, flow and time. Note that concentration is mass normalized to flow volume; for example [mg/L] and that flow volume is determined by integrating increments of flow with time. The only way to check the results of a monitoring campaign is to carry out a separate accounting of mass with a complete mass balance at the end of the campaign, which entails recovery and measurement of the total captured mass from the BMP. This recovery and measurement process is a part of the University of Florida monitoring and analytical and performance verification methodology. If the EMCs are used directly to calculate percent removal, an assumption has to be made that influent volume is equal to effluent volume, and therefore cancels out of the equation. Note that the expanded equation below Equation 4 is equivalent to Equation 4 but explicitly accounts for a difference in influent and effluent volume for an event. For the University of Florida JF4-2-1 monitoring campaign the effluent volume is usually not equal to the influent volume. Evaporation between events is common, and this phenomenon generates a change in volume stored. Whatever volume is required to fill the unit at the start of an event is subtracted from the influent volume to yield the effluent volume. This “fill volume” is more significant in small events where it represents a larger percentage of the influent volume, and in events following a longer dry period where evaporation from the JF4-2-1 between events 79 is greater. Seasonality (temperature) also plays a role in this evaporation. It is frequently observed in the field that a finite volume of runoff has to be generated, and influent samples taken, before any effluent is generated. For the 25 events, the cumulative evaporated volume is 2478 gallons, which accounts for 8% of total influent runoff volume (30931 gallons). Calculations of percent removal using EMCs alone in instances where influent volume is not equal to effluent volume can misrepresent the actual mass removal, and therefore are inappropriate for reporting removal efficiency in the JF4-2-1 monitoring campaign. It should also be noted that the distribution of constituent concentration during an event is not a normal distribution. As expected, the constituent distribution is log-normal and therefore the representative statistic is the median and not the mean (Van Buren et al. 1997; Berretta and Sansalone 2011; Liu and Sansalone 2010; Strecker et al. 2001; Kim and Sansalone 2010). However, because of reporting requirements the University of Florida is reporting a mean (EMC). Reference Berretta, C. and Sansalone, J.J. (2011). “Hydrologic transport and partitioning of phosphorus fractions.” J. Hydro., 403 (1-2), 25-36. Dickenson, J., and Sansalone, J. J. (2009). “Discrete phase model representation of particulate matter PM for simulating PM separation by hydrodynamic unit operations.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 43(21), 8220-8226. Garofalo, G. and Sansalone, J. J.(2011). “Transient elution of particulate matter from hydrodynamic unit operations as a function of computational parameters and runoff hydrograph unsteadiness.” Chem. Eng. J.. 175, 150-159. Kim, J. Y., and Sansalone, J. J. (2008). “Event-based size distribution of particulate matter transported during urban rainfall-runoff events.” Water Res., 42 (10-11), 2756-2768. Kim, J. Y., and Sansalone, J. J. (2010). “Representation 447 of particulate matter COD in rainfall COD runoff from paved urban watersheds.” Water Air Soil Pollut., 205, 113-132. Liu, B., Ying, G., and Sansalone, J. J. (2010). “Volumetric filtration of rainfall runoff. I:event-based separation of particulate matter.” J. Environ. Eng., 136 (12), 1321-1330. Sansalone J., Lin H. and Ying G., “Experimental and Field Studies of Type I Settling for Particulate Matter Transported by Urban Runoff”, ASCEJ. of Environ. Eng, 135(10), 953-963, 2009. Sansalone, J. J., and Kim, J. M. (2008). “Transport of Particulate Matter Fractions in Urban Source Area Pavement Surface Runoff.” J. Environ. Qual. 37, 1883–1893. Strecker, E. W., Quigley, M. M., Urbonas, B. R., Jones, J. E., and Clary, J. K. (2001).“Determining urban storm water BMP effectiveness.” J. Water Resour. PlannManage., 127(3), 144–149. Van Buren, M.A., Watt, W. E., and Marsalek, J. (1997). “Application of the log-normal and normal distributions to stormwater quality parameters.” Water Res., 31(1), 95-104 80 Sample Calculation of SSC percent removal (PR) for 16 June 2010 event Step 1: Calculate Influent Mass Step 2: Calculate Effluent Mass Step 3: Calculate Percent Removal PR = 99% Sample Calculation of TSS percent removal (PR) for 6 August 2010 event Step 1: Calculate Influent Mass Step 2: Calculate Effluent Mass Step 3: Calculate Percent Removal PR = 86% 81 APPENDIX E Nutrient accounting in the monitoring campaign PR%, based on PM mass balance Based on the PM mass recovery there is 5% of PM that remained physically unaccounted for in the mass balance analysis that required representative monitoring of the influent, the effluent and a full cleaning and recovery of all material from the unit. The gradation of that PM loading the unit ranges from sediment-size to suspended-size PM. However, since we do not know the PSD of the 5 % of PM mass since this PM was not recovered, this appendix assumes that this PM is similar to the influent PM and that only the finer fraction of suspended PM of this PSD is not present since this finer suspended PM is eluted from the unit. By adding this amount of PM mass to the recovered material, the cumulative PR% of TN and TP can be adjusted once the PM-phase concentration of TN and TP were determined by acid-digestion and spectrophotometer. Since TN concentration ranges from 1.32 to 9.61 mg/g across the suspended, settleable and sediment PM fractions and using the weighted influent PSD the adjusted PR% could be 53% for TN if the 5% of PM were considered. Similarly, Since TP concentration ranges from 2.71 to 13.89 mg/g, and using the weighted influent PSD the adjusted PR% could be 61% for TP. For treatment devices that are not designed to remove the dissolved fraction of constituents such as nutrients and metals, it is not unusual to observe a negative percent removal for such pollutants for some of the treated storms during a monitoring campaign. The JF4 is designed to remove PM and the associated particulate-bound fraction of such constituents. Within a storm flow, and within a treatment unit such as the JF4, there is a complex and dynamic combination of chemical, biological, and physical (advection and dispersion) as well as kinetics phenomena that affect the partitioning of constituents between the particulate-bound and dissolved phases. In most urban areas the source materials for nutrients are anthropogenic or biogenic PM that partition into solution as a function of time. There is a hetero-disperse distribution of PM sizes in the influent. Each of these PM size fractions has an initial concentration [mg/g] of particulate-bound nitrogen, phosphorus, or metal associated with it. This concentration varies by PM size fraction due to the varying surface area per unit mass of different PM size fractions. The kinetics of partitioning are such that there is a mass transfer of nitrogen, phosphorus, or metal from the particulate-bound phase to the dissolved phase when the flow enters a treatment unit. The process of partitioning occurs in the opposite direction as well, back to the particulate-bound phase that favors a higher concentration of constituent on the smaller PM fractions that have higher surface area per unit mass. In this way the finer suspended and colloidal PM fractions become preferentially enriched. These enriched fine PM size fractions are more readily flushed from any treatment unit by subsequent intra-event flows and subsequent storms (inter-event re-distribution keeps occurring). Additionally, all treatment units sustain varying microbial populations, and microbial cells are both enriched with nitrogen, and of small size; by comparison in the fine suspended-size range and of a specific gravity not much greater than 1.0. High microbe concentration eluted in the effluent, relative to the influent, would therefore tend to decrease the percent removal of nitrogen and in part depend on the hydrology, inter-event microbial competition and water chemistry within the treatment unit. In comparison, phosphorus has much more rapid kinetics than TN and partitions back to PM, typically of a larger size range and of much more inorganic nature and therefore with a specific gravity in the range of 2 to 2.7. As a consequence the JF4 demonstrates a significantly higher removal for TP across the entire 82 monitoring campaign and does not exhibit any event-based negatives. While there is phosphorus uptake by the microbial population, once phosphorus re-partitions back to the PM size distribution, TP is far more stable, less leachable, less reactive through microbial mediation, and less mobile as compared to TN in such a complex and temporally-varying environment of a treatment unit. Table E-1 Mass balance results g lb Mass difference between influent and effluent 79956 176 Mass recovered from the JF4 75559 166 Mass not recovered 4397 10 Table E-2 TN, TP concentration based on influent PSD Suspended Settleable Sediment total mass fraction based on influent PSD 12% 13% 75% 100% N fraction concentration (mg/g) 9.16 5.01 1.32 N concentration weighed by PSD (mg/g) 1.10 0.65 0.99 2.74 P fraction concentration (mg/g) 13.89 5.04 2.71 P concentration weighed by PSD (mg/g) 1.67 0.66 2.03 4.35 Table E-3 Adjusted PR% for TN and TP TN TP N/P-mass-influent (mg) 315882 364461 N/P-mass-effluent (mg) 154650 149457 PM mass not recovered (g) 4397 4397 N/P concentration weighed by PSD (mg/g) 2.74 4.35 N/P-mass-not recovered (g) 12 19 Original PR% based on flow monitoring 51% 59% Adjusted PR% 53% 61% 83 Table E-4 Mass balance results utilizing measured functional and granulometric fractions of sediment, settleable and suspended PM EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass EMC Mass L mg/L g mg/L g mg/L g mg/L g L mg/L g mg/L g mg/L g mg/L g 28-May-10 7454 435.9 3249.6 45.4 338.6 43.7 325.9 525.1 3914.2 3682 6.2 22.9 6.9 25.2 11.9 43.8 25.0 91.9 16-Jun 4997 1333.5 6663.5 66.9 334.5 67.9 339.3 1468.3 7337.3 4665 7.1 33.2 2.0 9.4 20.1 93.6 29.2 136.2 21-Jun 8683 1781.6 15469.0 22.2 192.5 13.7 119.2 1817.5 15780.7 8460 5.6 47.6 1.8 15.1 9.9 83.7 17.3 146.4 30-Jun 5451 504.0 2747.3 20.6 112.5 19.2 104.9 543.9 2964.7 5330 8.0 42.5 1.5 8.2 5.7 30.5 15.2 81.2 15-Jul 3602 938.6 3381.1 68.2 245.6 23.7 85.3 1030.5 3712.0 3296 5.2 17.0 1.4 4.6 6.9 22.9 13.5 44.5 1-Aug 11990 243.2 2916.0 22.8 272.8 18.5 222.2 284.5 3411.0 11676 4.8 55.9 8.4 98.4 6.9 80.9 20.1 235.2 6-Aug 1395 390.3 544.4 29.5 41.2 48.0 66.9 467.8 652.5 1024 13.1 13.5 2.9 3.0 12.0 12.3 28.1 28.7 7-Aug 2620 222.5 582.9 32.3 84.5 13.1 34.3 267.9 701.8 2540 1.6 4.0 5.1 13.1 6.9 17.5 13.6 34.5 23-Aug 310 533.9 165.5 41.9 13.0 44.6 13.8 620.4 192.3 193 2.6 0.5 3.1 0.6 4.7 0.9 10.4 2.0 12-Sep 1641 165.0 270.7 68.7 112.7 67.4 110.6 301.2 494.1 1508 2.7 4.1 4.1 6.2 11.5 17.4 18.4 27.7 26-Sep 1126 224.5 252.9 0.9 1.0 2.0 2.2 227.4 256.1 835 7.9 6.6 2.2 1.8 2.0 1.7 12.1 10.1 27-Sep 3837 875.1 3357.4 50.0 192.0 44.5 170.8 969.6 3720.2 3765 3.2 11.9 2.1 7.8 5.0 18.7 10.2 38.4 4-Nov 994 486.4 483.5 38.6 38.4 92.8 92.3 617.8 614.2 510 3.7 1.9 2.9 1.5 6.5 3.3 13.1 6.7 16-Nov 306 318.4 97.5 131.9 40.4 118.2 36.2 568.6 174.1 166 18.0 3.0 2.4 0.4 8.4 1.4 28.9 4.8 5-Jan-11 5791 841.4 4872.3 49.8 288.4 40.9 236.8 932.1 5397.5 4948 3.2 15.7 2.8 14.1 12.9 63.9 18.9 93.7 10-Jan 1126 454.0 511.4 60.1 67.7 20.8 23.4 534.9 602.5 1047 1.4 1.5 3.6 3.8 3.1 3.2 8.1 8.5 25-Jan 12387 410.6 5085.8 37.7 467.3 32.4 401.8 480.7 5954.9 12353 1.1 14.0 2.1 25.4 2.0 24.6 5.2 64.0 7-Feb 13211 738.5 9756.9 16.7 221.2 23.0 304.4 778.3 10282.5 12928 2.4 31.1 0.8 10.8 4.2 54.7 7.5 96.6 9-Mar 10036 69.6 699.0 8.5 85.6 13.3 133.5 91.5 918.1 9805 0.5 5.3 0.6 5.8 0.9 9.1 2.1 20.2 28-Mar 522 65.4 34.1 13.0 6.8 36.4 19.0 114.8 59.9 423 1.9 0.8 2.1 0.9 8.0 3.4 12.0 5.1 30-Mar 3761 386.9 1455.3 54.3 204.3 34.0 127.7 475.2 1787.3 3678 0.8 3.0 1.8 6.6 4.6 16.7 7.2 26.4 20-Apr 204 1010.4 206.2 30.9 6.3 24.8 5.1 1066.1 217.6 113 1.8 0.2 2.6 0.3 7.1 0.8 11.5 1.3 14-May 10864 790.9 8591.9 59.6 647.5 44.5 483.6 895.0 9723.0 10697 2.0 21.2 1.3 14.0 11.2 119.5 14.5 154.7 6-Jun 964 307.6 296.5 30.8 29.7 53.3 51.4 391.7 377.6 733 1.1 0.8 2.5 1.8 10.4 7.6 13.9 10.2 27-Jun 3379 514.8 1739.7 67.6 228.6 47.6 161.0 630.1 2129.3 3175 4.6 14.6 2.3 7.3 8.9 28.2 15.8 50.1 Settleable PM Suspended PM Total PMRainfall- runoff Event Influent Effluent Vol.Sediment PM Settleable PM Suspended PM Total PM Vol.Sediment PM Total influent PM = 81.4 kg (179 lb) Total effluent PM = 1.4 kg (3 lb) Mass difference between influent and effluent = 79.9 kg (176 lb) Independent PM Recovery based on cleaning out and backwashing unit and recovering PM = 75.5 kg (166 lb) % mass recovery = 94.5% (above the standard 90% recovery) Notes : Sediment PM includes all biogenic material including leaves, sticks, detritus. Settleable PM based on SM 2540F. Suspended PM based on 60 min. quiescent settling in Imhoff cone (this is the formal and correct definition of suspended and is not TSS!). References for details: Sansalone and Kim (2008), Kim and Sansalone (2008) and Sansalone et. al. (2009) 84 Project Information & Location Project Name 115 Conz Street Project Number 49966 City Northampton State/ Province Massachusetts Country United States of America Date 5/17/2023 Designer Information EOR Information (optional) Name Liam McCann Name Company Berkshire Design Group Company Phone #978-877-8808 Phone # Email liam@berkshiredesign.com Email Brief Stormceptor Sizing Report - 115 Conz Street Site Name Target TSS Removal (%)80 TSS Removal (%) Provided 83 Recommended Stormceptor Model STC 450i Stormceptor Sizing Summary Stormceptor Model % TSS Removal Provided STC 450i 83 STC 900 89 STC 1200 89 STC 1800 89 STC 2400 92 STC 3600 92 STC 4800 94 STC 6000 94 STC 7200 95 STC 11000 97 STC 13000 97 STC 16000 98 The recommended Stormceptor Model achieves the water quality objectives based on the selected inputs, historical rainfall records and selected particle size distribution. Stormwater Treatment Recommendation The recommended Stormceptor Model(s) which achieve or exceed the user defined water quality objective for each site within the project are listed in the below Sizing Summary table. Stormceptor Brief Sizing Report ±Page 1 of 2 Notes Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, which uses the EPA Rainfall and Runoff modules. Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended solids (TSS) removal defined by the selected PSD, and based on stable site conditions only, after construction is completed. For submerged applications or sites specific to spill control, please contact your local Stormceptor representative for further design assistance. Drainage Area Total Area (acres)0.75 Imperviousness %65.0 Water Quality Objective TSS Removal (%)80.0 Runoff Volume Capture (%) Oil Spill Capture Volume (Gal) Peak Conveyed Flow Rate (CFS) Water Quality Flow Rate (CFS) Rainfall Station Name KNIGHTVILLE DAM State/Province Massachusetts Station ID #3985 Years of Records 14 Latitude 42°10'12"N Longitude 72°31'12"W Up Stream Storage Storage (ac-ft)Discharge (cfs) 0.000 0.000 Particle Size Distribution (PSD) The selected PSD defines TSS removal Fine Distribution Particle Diameter (microns) Distribution % Specific Gravity 20.0 20.0 1.30 60.0 20.0 1.80 150.0 20.0 2.20 400.0 20.0 2.65 2000.0 20.0 2.65 Up Stream Flow Diversion Max. Flow to Stormceptor (cfs) Sizing Details For Stormceptor Specifications and Drawings Please Visit: https://www.conteches.com/technical-guides/search?filter=1WBC0O5EYX Stormceptor Brief Sizing Report ±Page 2 of 2 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix F – Stormwater Management System – Operation & Maintenance Plan 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 1 Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing, stakes and straw bales/wattles, sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long, shall be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may be damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all rainstorms until the completion of construction. In case of any noted breach or failure, the Contractor shall immediately make appropriate repairs to any erosion control system and notify the engineer of any problems involving stormwater management systems. A rainstorm shall be defined as any of the following: A storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. A storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. A single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one-half inch. A storm not meeting the previous three thresholds, but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is elevated. In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. The Department of Public Works shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems or erosion and sediment control measures and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body (stream, brook, pond, etc.). The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one-half of the original installed height of the barrier. 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 2 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: Rankin Holdings, LLC Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: Rankin Holdings, LLC Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: 1) Catch Basins Structures shall be inspected at least four times per year and cleaned annually, or more frequently if required. Oil and sediments shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. In the case of an oil or bulk pollutant release, the system must be cleaned immediately following the spill and the proper authorities notified. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain: $1,925 2) Stormceptor 450i The StormCeptor (Model # 450i) water quality structure, of which there is one (1), shall be inspected and maintained according to the attached manufacturer’s specifications. Contech, the manufacturer of StormCeptor, recommends that maintenance be completed on the structures at least once per year, but advises that the units be checked once every three months during the first year to determine the rate of sediment and oil accumulation and to establish an appropriate maintenance schedule. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend on site activities. Maintenance or cleaning shall be performed when the stored volume reaches 15% (8 inch sediment depth) of the StormCeptor capacity. When oil (hydrocarbon) has accumulated to 1 inch or greater depth, or immediately in the event of a fuel or oil spill according the manufacturer’s specifications. All material removed from the StormCeptor shall be disposed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations. For more detail of how the StormCeptor should be maintained see the StormCeptor's Owner Manual. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain: $175 3) CDS Hydrodynamic Separator The CDS Hydroynamic Separator water quality structure, of which there are two (2), shall be inspected and maintained according to the attached manufacturer’s specifications. Contech, the manufacturer of CDS, recommends that the structures be inspected at least twice per year, in the spring and the fall, for sediment, oil, trash, as well as ensuring there are no blockages in the system. Maintenance or cleaning should be performed when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump. The level of sediment is determined 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 3 by subtracting the distance from finished grade to the top of the sediment pile, from the overall system height. For more detail of how the CDS Hydrodynamic Separator should be maintained, see the CDS Inspection and Maintenance Guide. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain: $350 4) Jellyfish Filter The Jellyfish Filter water quality structure, of which there are two (2), shall be inspected and maintained according to the attached manufacturer’s specifications. Contech, the manufacturer of the Jellyfish, recommends the units be inspected at least once a quarter during the first year of operation to assess the sediment and floatable pollutant accumulation, and to ensure proper functioning of the system. Inspection in subsequent years can be adjusted based on the findings of the first year of operation. At a minimum the filters should still be inspected once a year, as well as after each major storm event. Inspection is required immediately after an upstream oil, fuel, or other chemical spill. Maintenance of these units include sediment removal and filter cleaning or replacement. Sediment removal should occur either when sediment depths reach 12 inches, or within 3 years of the previous sediment cleaning, whichever occurs sooner. Filter Cartridges should be rinsed and re-installed as required by the most recent inspection results, or within 12 months of the most recent filter rinsing, whichever occurs sooner. Tentacles should be replaced if rinsing does not restore adequate hydraulic capacity, remove accumulated sediment, or if damaged or missing. It is recommended that the tentacles be replaced every 5 years, regardless of cleaning frequency. For more detail of how the Jellyfish Filters should be maintained, see the Jellyfish Owner’s Manual. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain: $500 5) R-Tank Subsurface Infiltration System A routine maintenance effort is required to ensure proper performance of the R-Tank system. The Maintenance program should be focused on pretreatment systems. Ensuring these structures are clean and functioning properly will reduce the risk of contamination of the R- Tank system and stormwater released from the site. Pre-treatment systems at this site include: catch basins, Stormceptor treatment chamber, and recommended street sweeping. Maintain pre-treatment systems as described under those sections of this O&M plan. Inspection and/or Maintenance Ports in the R-Tank system will need to be inspected for accumulation of sediments at least quarterly through the first year of operation and at least yearly thereafter. This is done by removing the cap of the port and using a measuring device long enough to reach the bottom of the R-Tank system and stiff enough to push through the loose sediments, allowing a depth measurement. Because site pre-treatment devices are designed to eliminate more than 80% of sediment, the system shall be investigated by an engineer or other competent professional anytime sediment buildup had noticeably increased between inspections to verify proper functioning of the system. At a minimum, the system be flushed if sediment has accumulated to a depth of 2 inches. 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management System 4 A flushing event consists of pumping water into the Maintenance Port and/or adjacent structure, allowing the turbulent flows through the R-Tank system to re-suspend the fine sediments. Water should be pumped into each maintenance port to maximize flushing efficiency. Sediment-laden water can be filtered through a filtering dewatering bag to prevent discharge of sediment-laden water. Water containing sediment shall not be discharged to any municipal storm inlet. Estimated Annual Cost to Maintain: $600 Total Estimated Annual Inspection & Maintenance Cost $3,550 INSPECTION AND MAINTANENCE REPORT FORM 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Page 1/2 IIINNNSSSPPPEEECCCTTTIIIOOO NNN AAANNNDDD MMMAAAIIINNNTTTEEENNN AAA NNN CCCEEE RRREEEPPPOOO RRR TTT FFFOOORRRMMM For 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA – Stormwater Infrastructure Inspection Schedule: FORM TO BE COMPLETED PER SCHEDULE PRESENTED IN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN Inspector: Date:Time: Inspector’s Qualifications: Days Since Last Rainfall: Amount of Last Rainfall (inches): Catch Basins CB Is Surface Runoff Being Directed to Catch Basins Properly Are Sediment Traps Installed at Catch Basin Inlets Are Catch Basin Outlet Hoods Installed and Working Properly Depth of Sediment in Basin Sump Are Any Correction Measures Required CB#7 CB#10 CB#11 CB#12 CB#13 CB#14 CB#15 CB#16 CB#17 CB#18 CB#19 Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By:On or Before: INSPECTION AND MAINTANENCE REPORT FORM 115 Conz Street, Northampton, MA Page 2/2 Stormwater Treatment Chambers SWTC Is Surface Runoff Being Directed Through SWTS Properly Water Depth to Sediment Floatable Layer Thickness Depth of Sediment in Basin Sump Are Any Correction Measures Required STC 450i CDS CDS Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By:On or Before: Jellyfish Filters JF Visible Oil Present (Y/N) Floatable Debris Present (Y/N) Water Depth in Backwash Pool Sediment Depth Are Any Correction Measures Required JF-1 JF-2 Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By:On or Before: R-Tank Subsurface Infiltration Systems SIS Sediment Depth Are Any Correction Measures Required SIS-1 SIS-2 SIS-3 Maintenance Required: To Be Performed By:On or Before: Stormceptor® STC Operation and Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 2 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide Stormceptor Design Notes • Only the STC 450i is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes. • Only the Stormceptor models STC 450i to STC 7200 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes. Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows: Maximum inlet and outlet pipe diameters: • The inlet and in-line Stormceptor units can accommodate turns to a maximum of 90 degrees. • Minimum distance from top of grade to crown is 2 feet (0.6 m) • Submerged conditions. A unit is submerged when the standing water elevation at the proposed location of the Stormceptor unit is greater than the outlet invert elevation during zero flow conditions. In these cases, please contact your local Stormceptor representative and provide the following information: • Top of grade elevation • Stormceptor inlet and outlet pipe diameters and invert elevations • Standing water elevation • Stormceptor head loss, K = 1.3 (for submerged condition, K = 4) Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 450i STC 900 to STC 7200 STC 11000 to STC 16000 Single inlet pipe 3 in. (75 mm)1 in. (25 mm)3 in. (75 mm) Multiple inlet pipes 3 in. (75 mm)3 in. (75 mm)Only one inlet pipe. Inlet/Outlet Configuration Inlet Unit STC 450i In-Line Unit STC 900 to STC 7200 Series* STC 11000 to STC 16000 Straight Through 24 inch (600 mm)42 inch (1050 mm)60 inch (1500 mm) Bend (90 degrees)18 inch (450 mm)33 inch (825 mm)33 inch (825 mm) Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE Table of Content 1. About Stormceptor ......................................................................................................................................................................4 2. Stormceptor Design Overview ......................................................................................................................................................4 3. Key Operation Features ................................................................................................................................................................6 4. Stormceptor Product Line .............................................................................................................................................................7 5. Sizing the Stormceptor System...................................................................................................................................................10 6. Spill Controls ..............................................................................................................................................................................12 7. Stormceptor Options ..................................................................................................................................................................14 8. Comparing Technologies ............................................................................................................................................................17 9. Testing ........................................................................................................................................................................................18 10. Installation .................................................................................................................................................................................18 11. Stormceptor Construction Sequence ..........................................................................................................................................18 12. Maintenance ..............................................................................................................................................................................19 4 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 1. About Stormceptor The Stormceptor® STC (Standard Treatment Cell) was developed by Imbrium™ Systems to address the growing need to remove and isolate pollution from the storm drain system before it enters the environment. The Stormceptor STC targets hydrocarbons and total suspended solids (TSS) in stormwater runoff. It improves water quality by removing contaminants through the gravitational settling of fine sediments and floatation of hydrocarbons while preventing the re-suspension or scour of previously captured pollutants. The development of the Stormceptor STC revolutionized stormwater treatment, and created an entirely new category of environmental technology. Protecting thousands of waterways around the world, the Stormceptor System has set the standard for effective stormwater treatment. 1.1. Patent Information The Stormceptor technology is protected by the following patents: • Australia Patent No. 693,164 • 693,164 • 707,133 • 729,096 • 779401 • Austrian Patent No. 289647 • Canadian Patent No 2,009,208 •2,137,942 • 2,175,277 • 2,180,305 • 2,180,383 • 2,206,338 • 2,327,768 (Pending) • China Patent No 1168439 • Denmark DK 711879 • German DE 69534021 • Indonesian Patent No 16688 • Japan Patent No 9-11476 (Pending) • Korea 10-2000-0026101 (Pending) • Malaysia Patent No PI9701737 (Pending) • New Zealand Patent No 314646 • United States Patent No 4,985,148 • 5,498,331 • 5,725,760 • 5,753,115 • 5,849,181 • 6,068,765 • 6,371,690 • Stormceptor OSR Patent Pending • Stormceptor LCS Patent Pending 2. Stormceptor Design Overview 2.1. Design Philosophy The patented Stormceptor System has been designed to focus on the environmental objective of providing long-term pollution control. The unique and innovative Stormceptor design allows for continuous positive treatment of runoff during all rainfall events, while ensuring that all captured pollutants are retained within the system, even during intense storm events. An integral part of the Stormceptor design is PCSWMM for Stormceptor - sizing software developed in conjunction with Computational Hydraulics Inc. (CHI) and internationally acclaimed expert, Dr. Bill James. Using local historical rainfall data and continuous simulation modeling, this software allows a Stormceptor unit to be designed for each individual site and the corresponding water quality objectives. By using PCSWMM for Stormceptor, the Stormceptor System can be designed to remove a wide range of particles (typically from 20 to 2,000 microns), and can also be customized to remove a specific particle size distribution (PSD). The specified PSD should accurately reflect what is in the stormwater runoff to ensure the device is achieving the desired water quality objective. Since stormwater runoff contains small particles (less than 75 microns), it is important to design a treatment system to remove smaller particles in addition to coarse particles. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 5 2.2. Benefits The Stormceptor System removes free oil and suspended solids from stormwater, preventing spills and non-point source pollution from entering downstream lakes and rivers. The key benefits, capabilities and applications of the Stormceptor System are as follows: • Provides continuous positive treatment during all rainfall events • Can be designed to remove over 80% of the annual sediment load • Removes a wide range of particles • Can be designed to remove a specific particle size distribution (PSD) • Captures free oil from stormwater • Prevents scouring or re-suspension of trapped pollutants • Pre-treatment to reduce maintenance costs for downstream treatment measures (ponds, swales, detention basins, filters) • Groundwater recharge protection • Spills capture and mitigation • Simple to design and specify • Designed to your local watershed conditions • Small footprint to allow for easy retrofit installations • Easy to maintain (vacuum truck) • Multiple inlets can connect to a single unit • Suitable as a bend structure • Pre-engineered for traffic loading (minimum AASHTO HS-20) • Minimal elevation drop between inlet and outlet pipes • Small head loss • Additional protection provided by an 18” (457 mm) fiberglass skirt below the top of the insert, for the containment of hydrocarbons in the event of a spill. 2.3. Environmental Benefit Freshwater resources are vital to the health and welfare of their surrounding communities. There is increasing public awareness, government regulations and corporate commitment to reducing the pollution entering our waterways. A major source of this pollution originates from stormwater runoff from urban areas. Rainfall runoff carries oils, sediment and other contaminants from roads and parking lots discharging directly into our streams, lakes and coastal waterways. The Stormceptor System is designed to isolate contaminants from getting into the natural environment. The Stormceptor technology provides protection for the environment from spills that occur at service stations and vehicle accident sites, while also removing contaminated sediment in runoff that washes from roads and parking lots. 6 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 3. Key Operation Features 3.1. Scour Prevention A key feature of the Stormceptor System is its patented scour prevention technology. This innovation ensures pollutants are captured and retained during all rainfall events, even extreme storms. The Stormceptor System provides continuous positive treatment for all rainfall events, including intense storms. Stormceptor slows incoming runoff, controlling and reducing velocities in the lower chamber to create a non-turbulent environment that promotes free oils and floatable debris to rise and sediment to settle. The patented scour prevention technology, the fiberglass insert, regulates flows into the lower chamber through a combination of a weir and orifice while diverting high energy flows away through the upper chamber to prevent scouring. Laboratory testing demonstrated no scouring when tested up to 125% of the unit’s operating rate, with the unit loaded to 100% sediment capacity (NJDEP, 2005). Second, the depth of the lower chamber ensures the sediment storage zone is adequately separated from the path of flow in the lower chamber to prevent scouring. 3.2. Operational Hydraulic Loading Rate Designers and regulators need to evaluate the treatment capacity and performance of manufactured stormwater treatment systems. A commonly used parameter is the “operational hydraulic loading rate” which originated as a design methodology for wastewater treatment devices. Operational hydraulic loading rate may be calculated by dividing the flow rate into a device by its settling area. This represents the critical settling velocity that is the prime determinant to quantify the influent particle size and density captured by the device. PCSWMM for Stormceptor uses a similar parameter that is calculated by dividing the hydraulic detention time in the device by the fall distance of the sediment. Where: vSC = critical settling velocity, ft/s (m/s) H = tank depth, ft (m) ØH = hydraulic detention time, ft/s (m/s) Q = volumetric flow rate, ft3/s (m3/s) AS = surface area, ft2 (m2) (Tchobanoglous, G. and Schroeder, E.D. 1987. Water Quality. Addison Wesley.) Unlike designing typical wastewater devices, stormwater systems are designed for highly variable flow rates including intense peak flows. PCSWMM for Stormceptor incorporates all of the flows into its calculations, ensuring that the operational hydraulic loading rate is considered not only for one flow rate, but for all flows including extreme events. 3.3. Double Wall Containment The Stormceptor System was conceived as a pollution identifier to assist with identifying illicit discharges. The fiberglass insert has a continuous skirt that lines the concrete barrel wall for a depth of 18 inches (457 mm) that provides double wall containment for hydrocarbons storage. This protective barrier ensures that toxic floatables do not migrate through the concrete wall into the surrounding soils. vSC = H = Q 6H AS Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 7 4. Stormceptor Product Line 4.1. Stormceptor Models A summary of Stormceptor models and capacities are listed in Table 1. NOTE: Storage volumes may vary slightly from region to region. For detailed information, contact your local Stormceptor representative. 4.2. Inline Stormceptor The Inline Stormceptor, Figure 1, is the standard design for most stormwater treatment applications. The patented Stormceptor design allows the Inline unit to maintain continuous positive treatment of total suspended solids (TSS) year-round, regardless of flow rate. The Inline Stormceptor is composed of a precast concrete tank with a fiberglass insert situated at the invert of the storm sewer pipe, creating an upper chamber above the insert and a lower chamber below the insert. Table 1. Stormceptor Models Stormceptor Model Total Storage Volume U.S. Gal (L)Hydrocarbon Storage Capacity U.S. Gal (L)Maximum Sediment Capacity ft3 (L) STC 450i 470 (1,780)86 (330)46 (1,302) STC 900 952 (3,600)251 (950)89 (2,520) STC 1200 1,234 (4,670)251 (950)127 (3,596) STC 1800 1,833 (6,940)251 (950)207 (5,861) STC 2400 2,462 (9,320)840 (3,180)205 (5,805) STC 3600 3,715 (1,406)840 (3,180)373 (10,562) STC 4800 5,059 (1,950)909 (3,440)543 (15,376) STC 6000 6,136 (23,230)909 (3,440)687 (19,453) STC 7200 7,420 (28,090)1,059 (4,010)839 (23,757) STC 11000 11,194 (42,370)2,797 (10, 590)1,086 (30,752) STC 13000 13,348 (50,530)2,797 (10, 590)1,374 (38,907) STC 16000 15,918 (60,260)3,055 (11, 560)1,677 (47,487) 8 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide Operation As water flows into the Stormceptor unit, it is slowed and directed to the lower chamber by a weir and drop tee. The stormwater enters the lower chamber, a non-turbulent environment, allowing free oils to rise and sediment to settle. The oil is captured underneath the fiberglass insert and shielded from exposure to the concrete walls by a fiberglass skirt. After the pollutants separate, treated water continues up a riser pipe, and exits the lower chamber on the downstream side of the weir before leaving the unit. During high flow events, the Stormceptor System’s patented scour prevention technology ensures continuous pollutant removal and prevents re-suspension of previously captured pollutants. Technical Manual 6 Figure 1. Inline Stormceptor Operation As water flows into the Stormceptor unit, it is slowed and directed to the lower chamber by a weir and drop tee. The stormwater enters the lower chamber, a non-turbulent environment, allowing free oils to rise and sediment to settle. The oil is captured underneath the fiberglass insert and shielded from exposure to the concrete walls by a fiberglass skirt. After the pollutants separate, treated water continues up a riser pipe, and exits the lower chamber on the downstream side of the weir before leaving the unit. During high flow events, the Stormceptor System’s patented scour prevention technology ensures continuous pollutant removal and prevents re-suspension of previously captured pollutants. 4.3. Inlet Stormceptor The Inlet Stormceptor System, Figure 2, was designed to provide protection for parking lots, loading bays, gas stations and other spill-prone areas. The Inlet Stormceptor is designed to remove sediment from stormwater introduced through a grated inlet, a storm sewer pipe, or both. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 9 4.3. Inlet Stormceptor The Inlet Stormceptor System, Figure 2, was designed to provide protection for parking lots, loading bays, gas stations and other spill-prone areas. The Inlet Stormceptor is designed to remove sediment from stormwater introduced through a grated inlet, a storm sewer pipe, or both. The Inlet Stormceptor design operates in the same manner as the Inline unit, providing continuous positive treatment, and ensuring that captured material is not re-suspended. 4.4. Series Stormceptor Designed to treat larger drainage areas, the Series Stormceptor System, Figure 3, consists of two adjacent Stormceptor models that function in parallel. This design eliminates the need for additional structures and piping to reduce installation costs. Technical Manual 7 Figure 2. Inlet Stormceptor The Inlet Stormceptor design operates in the same manner as the Inline unit, providing continuous positive treatment, and ensuring that captured material is not re-suspended. 4.4. Series Stormceptor Designed to treat larger drainage areas, the Series Stormceptor System, Figure 3, consists of two adjacent Stormceptor models that function in parallel. This design eliminates the need for additional structures and piping to reduce installation costs. 10 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide The Series Stormceptor design operates in the same manner as the Inline unit, providing continuous positive treatment, and ensuring that captured material is not re-suspended. 5. Sizing the Stormceptor System The Stormceptor System is a versatile product that can be used for many different aspects of water quality improvement. While addressing these needs, there are conditions that the designer needs to be aware of in order to size the Stormceptor model to meet the demands of each individual site in an efficient and cost-effective manner. PCSWMM for Stormceptor is the support tool used for identifying the appropriate Stormceptor model. In order to size a unit, it is recommended the user follow the seven design steps in the program. The steps are as follows: STEP 1 – Project Details The first step prior to sizing the Stormceptor System is to clearly identify the water quality objective for the development. It is recommended that a level of annual sediment (TSS) removal be identified and defined by a particle size distribution. STEP 2 – Site Details Identify the site development by the drainage area and the level of imperviousness. It is recommended that imperviousness be calculated based on the actual area of imperviousness based on paved surfaces, sidewalks and rooftops. STEP 3 – Upstream Attenuation The Stormceptor System is designed as a water quality device and is sometimes used in conjunction with onsite water quantity control devices such as ponds or underground detention systems. When possible, a greater benefit is typically achieved when installing a Stormceptor unit upstream of a detention facility. By placing the Stormceptor unit upstream of a detention structure, a benefit of less maintenance of the detention facility is realized. Technical Manual 8 Figure 3. Series System The Series Stormceptor design operates in the same manner as the Inline unit, providing continuous positive treatment, and ensuring that captured material is not re-suspended. 5. Sizing the Stormceptor System The Stormceptor System is a versatile product that can be used for many different aspects of water quality improvement. While addressing these needs, there are conditions that the designer needs to be aware of in order to size the Stormceptor model to meet the demands of each individual site in an efficient and cost-effective manner. PCSWMM for Stormceptor is the support tool used for identifying the appropriate Stormceptor model. In order to size a unit, it is recommended the user follow the seven design steps in the program. The steps are as follows: STEP 1 – Project Details The first step prior to sizing the Stormceptor System is to clearly identify the water quality objective for the development. It is recommended that a level of annual sediment (TSS) removal be identified and defined by a particle size distribution. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 11 STEP 4 – Particle Size Distribution It is critical that the PSD be defined as part of the water quality objective. PSD is critical for the design of treatment system for a unit process of gravity settling and governs the size of a treatment system. A range of particle sizes has been provided and it is recommended that clays and silt-sized particles be considered in addition to sand and gravel-sized particles. Options and sample PSDs are provided in PCSWMM for Stormceptor. The default particle size distribution is the Fine Distribution, Table 2, option. If the objective is the long-term removal of 80% of the total suspended solids on a given site, the PSD should be representative of the expected sediment on the site. For example, a system designed to remove 80% of coarse particles (greater than 75 microns) would provide relatively poor removal efficiency of finer particles that may be naturally prevalent in runoff from the site. Since the small particle fraction contributes a disproportionately large amount of the total available particle surface area for pollutant adsorption, a system designed primarily for coarse particle capture will compromise water quality objectives. STEP 5 – Rainfall Records Local historical rainfall has been acquired from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environment Canada and regulatory agencies across North America. The rainfall data provided with PCSMM for Stormceptor provides an accurate estimation of small storm hydrology by modeling actual historical storm events including duration, intensities and peaks. STEP 6 – Summary At this point, the program may be executed to predict the level of TSS removal from the site. Once the simulation has completed, a table shall be generated identifying the TSS removal of each Stormceptor unit. STEP 7 – Sizing Summary Performance estimates of all Stormceptor units for the given site parameters will be displayed in a tabular format. The unit that meets the water quality objective, identified in Step 1, will be highlighted. Table 2. Fine Distribution Particle Size Distribution Specific Gravity 20 20%1.3 60 20%1.8 150 20%2.2 400 20%2.65 2000 20%2.65 12 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 5.1. PCSWMM for Stormceptor The Stormceptor System has been developed in conjunction with PCSWMM for Stormceptor as a technological solution to achieve water quality goals. Together, these two innovations model, simulate, predict and calculate the water quality objectives desired by a design engineer for TSS removal. PCSWMM for Stormceptor is a proprietary sizing program which uses site specific inputs to a computer model to simulate sediment accumulation, hydrology and long-term total suspended solids removal. The model has been calibrated to field monitoring results from Stormceptor units that have been monitored in North America. The sizing methodology can be described by three processes: 1. Determination of real time hydrology 2. Buildup and wash off of TSS from impervious land areas 3. TSS transport through the Stormceptor (settling and discharge). The use of a calibrated model is the preferred method for sizing stormwater quality structures for the following reasons: x The hydrology of the local area is properly and accurately incorporated in the sizing (distribution of flows, flow rate ranges and peaks, back-to-back storms, inter-event times) x The distribution of TSS with the hydrology is properly and accurately considered in the sizing x Particle size distribution is properly considered in the sizing x The sizing can be optimized for TSS removal x The cost benefit of alternate TSS removal criteria can be easily assessed x The program assesses the performance of all Stormceptor models. Sizing may be selected based on a specific water quality outcome or based on the Maximum Extent Practicable For more information regarding PCSWMM for Stormceptor, contact your local Stormceptor representative, or visit www.imbriumsystems.com to download a free copy of the program. 5.2. Sediment Loading Characteristics The way in which sediment is transferred to stormwater can have a considerable effect on which type of system is implemented. On typical impervious surfaces (e.g. parking lots) sediment will build over time and wash off with the next rainfall. When rainfall patterns are examined, a short intense storm will have a higher concentration of sediment than a long slow drizzle. Together with rainfall data representing the site’s typical rainfall patterns, sediment loading characteristics play a part in the correct sizing of a stormwater quality device. Typical Sites For standard site design of the Stormceptor System, PCSWMM for Stormceptor is utilized to accurately assess the unit’s performance. As an integral part of the product’s design, the program can be used to meet local requirements for total suspended solid removal. Typical installations of manufactured stormwater treatment devices would occur on areas such as paved parking lots or paved roads. These are considered “stable” surfaces which have non – erodible surfaces. Unstable Sites While standard sites consist of stable concrete or asphalt surfaces, sites such as gravel parking lots, or maintenance yards with stockpiles of sediment would be classified as “unstable”. These types of sites do not exhibit first flush characteristics, are highly erodible and exhibit atypical sediment loading characteristics and must therefore be sized more carefully. Contact your local Stormceptor representative for assistance in selecting a proper unit sized for such unstable sites. 6. Spill Controls When considering the removal of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) from a storm sewer system there are two functions of the system: oil removal, and spill capture. ‘Oil Removal’ describes the capture of the minute volumes of free oil mobilized from impervious surfaces. In this instance relatively low concentrations, volumes and flow rates are considered. While the Stormceptor unit will still provide an appreciable oil removal function during higher flow events and/or with higher TPH concentrations, desired effluent limits may be exceeded under these conditions. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 13 Technical Manual level alarm is designed to trigger at approximately 85% of the unit’s available depth level for oil capture. The feature acts as a safeguard against spills caused by exceeding the oil storage capacity of the separator and eliminates the need for manual oil level inspection. The oil level alarm installed on the Stormceptor insert is illustrated in Figure 4. Figure 4. Oil level alarm 6.2. Increased Volume Storage Capacity The Stormceptor unit may be modified to store a greater spill volume than is typically available. Under such a scenario, instead of installing a larger than required unit, modifications can be made to the recommended Stormceptor model to accommodate larger volumes. Contact your local Stormceptor representative for additional information and assistance for modifications. 7. Stormceptor Options The Stormceptor System allows flexibility to incorporate to existing and new storm drainage infrastructure. The following section identifies considerations that should be reviewed when installing the system into a drainage network. For conditions that fall outside of the recommendations in this section, please contact your local Stormceptor representative for further guidance. 7.1. Installation Depth Minimum Cover The minimum distance from the top of grade to the crown of the inlet pipe is 24 inches (600 mm). For situations that have a lower minimum distance, contact your local Stormceptor representative. 7.2. Maximum Inlet and Outlet Pipe Diameters Maximum inlet and outlet pipe diameters are illustrated in Figure 5. Contact your local ‘Spill Capture’ describes a manner of TPH removal more appropriate to recovery of a relatively high volume of a single phase deleterious liquid that is introduced to the storm sewer system over a relatively short duration. The two design criteria involved when considering this manner of introduction are overall volume and the specific gravity of the material. A standard Stormceptor unit will be able to capture and retain a maximum spill volume and a minimum specific gravity. For spill characteristics that fall outside these limits, unit modifications are required. Contact your local Stormceptor Representative for more information. One of the key features of the Stormceptor technology is its ability to capture and retain spills. While the standard Stormceptor System provides excellent protection for spill control, there are additional options to enhance spill protection if desired. 6.1. Oil Level Alarm The oil level alarm is an electronic monitoring system designed to trigger a visual and audible alarm when a pre-set level of oil is reached within the lower chamber. As a standard, the oil level alarm is designed to trigger at approximately 85% of the unit’s available depth level for oil capture. The feature acts as a safeguard against spills caused by exceeding the oil storage capacity of the separator and eliminates the need for manual oil level inspection. The oil level alarm installed on the Stormceptor insert is illustrated in Figure 4. 6.2. Increased Volume Storage Capacity The Stormceptor unit may be modified to store a greater spill volume than is typically available. Under such a scenario, instead of installing a larger than required unit, modifications can be made to the recommended Stormceptor model to accommodate larger volumes. Contact your local Stormceptor representative for additional information and assistance for modifications. 14 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 7. Stormceptor Options The Stormceptor System allows flexibility to incorporate to existing and new storm drainage infrastructure. The following section identifies considerations that should be reviewed when installing the system into a drainage network. For conditions that fall outside of the recommendations in this section, please contact your local Stormceptor representative for further guidance. 7.1. Installation Depth Minimum Cover The minimum distance from the top of grade to the crown of the inlet pipe is 24 inches (600 mm). For situations that have a lower minimum distance, contact your local Stormceptor representative. 7.2. Maximum Inlet and Outlet Pipe Diameters Maximum inlet and outlet pipe diameters are illustrated in Figure 5. Contact your local Stormceptor representative for larger pipe diameters Technical Manual Figure 5. Maximum pipe diameters for straight through and bend applications *The bend should only be incorporated into the second structure (downstream structure) of the Series Stormceptor System 7.3. Bends The Stormceptor System can be used to change horizontal alignment in the storm drain network up to a maximum of 90 degrees. Figure 6 illustrates the typical bend situations of the Stormceptor System. Bends should only be applied to the second structure (downstream structure) of the Series Stormceptor System. 7.3. Bends The Stormceptor System can be used to change horizontal alignment in the storm drain network up to a maximum of 90 degrees. Figure 6 illustrates the typical bend situations of the Stormceptor System. Bends should only be applied to the second structure (downstream structure) of the Series Stormceptor System. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 15 Technical Manual 14 Figure 6. Maximum bend angles 7.4. Multiple Inlet Pipes The Inlet and Inline Stormceptor System can accommodate two or more inlet pipes. The maximum number of inlet pipes that can be accommodated into a Stormceptor unit is a function of the number, alignment and diameter of the pipes and its effects on the structural integrity of the precast concrete. When multiple inlet pipes are used for new developments, each inlet pipe shall have an invert elevation 3 inches (75 mm) higher than the outlet pipe invert elevation. 7.4. Multiple Inlet Pipes The Inlet and Inline Stormceptor System can accommodate two or more inlet pipes. The maximum number of inlet pipes that can be accommodated into a Stormceptor unit is a function of the number, alignment and diameter of the pipes and its effects on the structural integrity of the precast concrete. When multiple inlet pipes are used for new developments, each inlet pipe shall have an invert elevation 3 inches (75 mm) higher than the outlet pipe invert elevation. 7.5. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Recommended inlet and outlet pipe invert differences are listed in Table 3. 7.6. Shallow Stormceptor In cases where there may be restrictions to the depth of burial of storm sewer systems. In this situation, for selected Stormceptor models, the lower chamber components may be increased in diameter to reduce the overall depth of excavation required. 7.7. Customized Live Load The Stormceptor system is typically designed for local highway truck loading (AASHTO HS- 20). When the project requires live loads greater than HS-20, the Stormceptor System may be customized structurally for a pre-specified live load. Contact your local Stormceptor representative for customized loading conditions. Table 3. Recommended Drops Between Inlet and Outlet Pipe Inverts Number of Inlet Pipes Inlet System In-Line System Series System 1 3 inches (75 mm)1 inch (25 mm)3 inches (75 mm) >1 3 inches (75 mm)3 inches (75 mm)Not Applicable 16 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 7.8. Pre-treatment The Stormceptor System may be sized to remove sediment and for spills control in conjunction with other stormwater BMPs to meet the water quality objective. For pretreatment applications, the Stormceptor System should be the first unit in a treatment train. The benefits of pre-treatment include the extension of the operational life (extension of maintenance frequency) of large stormwater management facilities, prevention of spills and lower total life- cycle maintenance cost. 7.9. Head loss The head loss through the Stormceptor System is similar to a 60 degree bend at a manhole. The K value for calculating minor losses is approximately 1.3 (minor loss = k*1.3v2/2g). However, when a Submerged modification is applied to a Stormceptor unit, the corresponding K value is 4. 7.10. Submerged The Submerged modification, Figure 7, allows the Stormceptor System to operate in submerged or partially submerged storm sewers. This configuration can be installed on all models of the Stormceptor System by modifying the fiberglass insert. A customized weir height and a secondary drop tee are added. Submerged instances are defined as standing water in the storm drain system during zero flow conditions. In these instances, the following information is necessary for the proper design and application of submerged modifications: • Stormceptor top of grade elevation • Stormceptor outlet pipe invert elevation • Standing water elevation Technical Manual Submerged instances are defined as standing water in the storm drain system during zero flow conditions. In these instances, the following information is necessary for the proper design and application of submerged modifications: • Stormceptor top of grade elevation • Stormceptor outlet pipe invert elevation • Standing water elevation Figure 7. Submerged Stormceptor Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 17 8. Comparing Technologies Designers have many choices available to achieve water quality goals in the treatment of stormwater runoff. Since many alternatives are available for use in stormwater quality treatment it is important to consider how to make an appropriate comparison between “approved alternatives”. The following is a guide to assist with the accurate comparison of differing technologies and performance claims. 8.1. Particle Size Distribution (PSD) The most sensitive parameter to the design of a stormwater quality device is the selection of the design particle size. While it is recommended that the actual particle size distribution (PSD) for sites be measured prior to sizing, alternative values for particle size should be selected to represent what is likely to occur naturally on the site. A reasonable estimate of a particle size distribution likely to be found on parking lots or other impervious surfaces should consist of a wide range of particles such as 20 microns to 2,000 microns (Ontario MOE, 1994). There is no absolute right particle size distribution or specific gravity and the user is cautioned to review the site location, characteristics, material handling practices and regulatory requirements when selecting a particle size distribution. When comparing technologies, designs using different PSDs will result in incomparable TSS removal efficiencies. The PSD of the TSS removed needs to be standard between two products to allow for an accurate comparison. 8.2. Scour Prevention In order to accurately predict the performance of a manufactured treatment device, there must be confidence that it will perform under all conditions. Since rainfall patterns cannot be predicted, stormwater quality devices placed in storm sewer systems must be able to withstand extreme events, and ensure that all pollutants previously captured are retained in the system. In order to have confidence in a system’s performance under extreme conditions, independent validation of scour prevention is essential when examining different technologies. Lack of independent verification of scour prevention should make a designer wary of accepting any product’s performance claims. 8.3. Hydraulics Full scale laboratory testing has been used to confirm the hydraulics of the Stormceptor System. Results of lab testing have been used to physically design the Stormceptor System and the sewer pipes entering and leaving the unit. Key benefits of Stormceptor are: • Low head loss (typical k value of 1.3) • Minimal inlet/outlet invert elevation drop across the structure • Use as a bend structure • Accommodates multiple inlets The adaptability of the treatment device to the storm sewer design infrastructure can affect the overall performance and cost of the site. 8.4. Hydrology Stormwater quality treatment technologies need to perform under varying climatic conditions. These can vary from long low intensity rainfall to short duration, high intensity storms. Since a treatment device is expected to perform under all these conditions, it makes sense that any system’s design should accommodate those conditions as well. Long-term continuous simulation evaluates the performance of a technology under the varying conditions expected in the climate of the subject site. Single, peak event design does not provide this information and is not equivalent to long-term simulation. Designers should request long-term simulation performance to ensure the technology can meet the long-term water quality objective. 18 Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 9. Testing The Stormceptor System has been the most widely monitored stormwater treatment technology in the world. Performance verification and monitoring programs are completed to the strictest standards and integrity. Since its introduction in 1990, numerous independent field tests and studies detailing the effectiveness of the Stormceptor System have been completed. • Coventry University, UK – 97% removal of oil, 83% removal of sand and 73% removal of peat • National Water Research Institute, Canada, - scaled testing for the development of the Stormceptor System identifying both TSS removal and scour prevention. • New Jersey TARP Program – full scale testing of an STC 900 demonstrating 75% TSS removal of particles from 1 to 1000 microns. Scour testing completed demonstrated that the system does not scour. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection was followed. • City of Indianapolis – full scale testing of an STC 900 demonstrating over 80% TSS removal of particles from 50 microns to 300 microns at 130% of the unit’s operating rate. Scour testing completed demonstrated that the system does not scour. • Westwood Massachusetts (1997), demonstrated >80% TSS removal • Como Park (1997), demonstrated 76% TSS removal • Ontario MOE SWAMP Program – 57% removal of 1 to 25 micron particles • Laval Quebec – 50% removal of 1 to 25 micron particles 10. Installation The installation of the concrete Stormceptor should conform in general to state highway, or local specifications for the installation of manholes. Selected sections of a general specification that are applicable are summarized in the following sections. 10.1. Excavation Excavation for the installation of the Stormceptor should conform to state highway, or local specifications. Topsoil removed during the excavation for the Stormceptor should be stockpiled in designated areas and should not be mixed with subsoil or other materials. Topsoil stockpiles and the general site preparation for the installation of the Stormceptor should conform to state highway or local specifications. The Stormceptor should not be installed on frozen ground. Excavation should extend a minimum of 12 inches (300 mm) from the precast concrete surfaces plus an allowance for shoring and bracing where required. If the bottom of the excavation provides an unsuitable foundation additional excavation may be required. In areas with a high water table, continuous dewatering may be required to ensure that the excavation is stable and free of water. 10.2. Backfilling Backfill material should conform to state highway or local specifications. Backfill material should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 12 inches (300mm) in depth and compacted to state highway or local specifications. 11. Stormceptor Construction Sequence The concrete Stormceptor is installed in sections in the following sequence: 1. Aggregate base 2. Base slab 3. Lower chamber sections 4. Upper chamber section with fiberglass insert 5. Connect inlet and outlet pipes 6. Assembly of fiberglass insert components (drop tee, riser pipe, oil cleanout port and orifice plate 7. Remainder of upper chamber 8. Frame and access cover The precast base should be placed level at the specified grade. The entire base should be in contact with the underlying compacted granular material. Subsequent sections, complete with joint seals, should be installed in accordance with the precast concrete manufacturer’s recommendations. Stormceptor® Operation and Maintenance Guide 19 Adjustment of the Stormceptor can be performed by lifting the upper sections free of the excavated area, re-leveling the base and re- installing the sections. Damaged sections and gaskets should be repaired or replaced as necessary. Once the Stormceptor has been constructed, any lift holes must be plugged with mortar. 12. Maintenance 12.1. Health and Safety The Stormceptor System has been designed considering safety first. It is recommended that confined space entry protocols be followed if entry to the unit is required. In addition, the fiberglass insert has the following health and safety features: • Designed to withstand the weight of personnel • A safety grate is located over the 24 inch (600 mm) riser pipe opening • Ladder rungs can be provided for entry into the unit, if required 12.2. Maintenance Procedures Maintenance of the Stormceptor system is performed using vacuum trucks. No entry into the unit is required for maintenance (in most cases). The vacuum service industry is a well- established sector of the service industry that cleans underground tanks, sewers and catch basins. Costs to clean a Stormceptor will vary based on the size of unit and transportation distances. The need for maintenance can be determined easily by inspecting the unit from the surface. The depth of oil in the unit can be determined by inserting a dipstick in the oil inspection/cleanout port. Similarly, the depth of sediment can be measured from the surface without entry into the Stormceptor via a dipstick tube equipped with a ball valve. This tube would be inserted through the riser pipe. Maintenance should be performed once the sediment depth exceeds the guideline values provided in the Table 4. Table 4. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Servicing* Particle Size Specific Gravity Model Sediment Depth inches (mm) 450i 8 (200) 900 8 (200) 1200 10 (250) 1800 15 (381) 2400 12 (300) 3600 17 (430) 4800 15 (380) 6000 18 (460) 7200 15 (381) 11000 17 (380) 13000 20 (500) 16000 17 (380) * based on 15% of the Stormceptor unit’s total storage Although annual servicing is recommended, the frequency of maintenance may need to be increased or reduced based on local conditions (i.e. if the unit is filling up with sediment more quickly than projected, maintenance may be required semi-annually; conversely once the site has stabilized maintenance may only be required every two or three years). Oil is removed through the oil inspection/cleanout port and sediment is removed through the riser pipe. Alternatively oil could be removed from the 24 inches (600 mm) opening if water is removed from the lower chamber to lower the oil level below the drop pipes. The following procedures should be taken when cleaning out Stormceptor: 1. Check for oil through the oil cleanout port 2. Remove any oil separately using a small portable pump 3. Decant the water from the unit to the sanitary sewer, if permitted by the local regulating authority, or into a separate containment tank 4. Remove the sludge from the bottom of the unit using the vacuum truck 5. Re-fill Stormceptor with water where required by the local jurisdiction 12.3. Submerged Stormceptor Careful attention should be paid to maintenance of the Submerged Stormceptor System. In cases where the storm drain system is submerged, there is a requirement to plug both the inlet and outlet pipes to economically clean out the unit. 12.4. Hydrocarbon Spills The Stormceptor is often installed in areas where the potential for spills is great. The Stormceptor System should be cleaned immediately after a spill occurs by a licensed liquid waste hauler. 12.5. Disposal Requirements for the disposal of material from the Stormceptor System are similar to that of any other stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) where permitted. Disposal options for the sediment may range from disposal in a sanitary trunk sewer upstream of a sewage treatment plant, to disposal in a sanitary landfill site. Petroleum waste products collected in the Stormceptor (free oil/chemical/fuel spills) should be removed by a licensed waste management company. 12.6. Oil Sheens With a steady influx of water with high concentrations of oil, a sheen may be noticeable at the Stormceptor outlet. This may occur because a rainbow or sheen can be seen at very small oil concentrations (<10 mg/L). Stormceptor will remove over 98% of all free oil spills from storm sewer systems for dry weather or frequently occurring runoff events. The appearance of a sheen at the outlet with high influent oil concentrations does not mean the unit is not working to this level of removal. In addition, if the influent oil is emulsified the Stormceptor will not be able to remove it. The Stormceptor is designed for free oil removal and not emulsified conditions. 800-925-5240www.ContechES.com SUPPORT Drawings and specifications are available at www.ContechES.com. Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2020 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and earth stabilization products. For information, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A WARRANTY. APPLICATIONS SUGGESTED HEREIN ARE DESCRIBED ONLY TO HELP READERS MAKE THEIR OWN EVALUATIONS AND DECISIONS, AND ARE NEITHER GUARANTEES NOR WARRANTIES OF SUITABILITY FOR ANY APPLICATION. CONTECH MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, RELATED TO THE APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, COATINGS, OR PRODUCTS DISCUSSED HEREIN. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED BY CONTECH. SEE CONTECH’S CONDITIONS OF SALE (AVAILABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. Stormceptor Technical Manual 05/20 ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS® Inspection and Maintenance Guide ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS Maintenance The CDS system should be inspected at regular intervals and maintained when necessary to ensure optimum performance. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit. For example, unstable soils or heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly but regular sweeping of paved surfaces will slow accumulation. Inspection Inspection is the key to effective maintenance and is easily performed. Pollutant transport and deposition may vary from year to year and regular inspections will help ensure that the system is cleaned out at the appropriate time. At a minimum, inspections should be performed twice per year (e.g. spring and fall) however more frequent inspections may be necessary in climates where winter sanding operations may lead to rapid accumulations, or in equipment washdown areas. Installations should also be inspected more frequently where excessive amounts of trash are expected. The visual inspection should ascertain that the system components are in working order and that there are no blockages or obstructions in the inlet and separation screen. The inspection should also quantify the accumulation of hydrocarbons, trash, and sediment in the system. Measuring pollutant accumulation can be done with a calibrated dipstick, tape measure or other measuring instrument. If absorbent material is used for enhanced removal of hydrocarbons, the level of discoloration of the sorbent material should also be identified during inspection. It is useful and often required as part of an operating permit to keep a record of each inspection. A simple form for doing so is provided. Access to the CDS unit is typically achieved through two manhole access covers. One opening allows for inspection and cleanout of the separation chamber (cylinder and screen) and isolated sump. The other allows for inspection and cleanout of sediment captured and retained outside the screen. For deep units, a single manhole access point would allows both sump cleanout and access outside the screen. The CDS system should be cleaned when the level of sediment has reached 75% of capacity in the isolated sump or when an appreciable level of hydrocarbons and trash has accumulated. If absorbent material is used, it should be replaced when significant discoloration has occurred. Performance will not be impacted until 100% of the sump capacity is exceeded however it is recommended that the system be cleaned prior to that for easier removal of sediment. The level of sediment is easily determined by measuring from finished grade down to the top of the sediment pile. To avoid underestimating the level of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be lowered to the top of the sediment pile carefully. Particles at the top of the pile typically offer less resistance to the end of the rod than consolidated particles toward the bottom of the pile. Once this measurement is recorded, it should be compared to the as-built drawing for the unit to determine weather the height of the sediment pile off the bottom of the sump floor exceeds 75% of the total height of isolated sump. Cleaning Cleaning of a CDS systems should be done during dry weather conditions when no flow is entering the system. The use of a vacuum truck is generally the most effective and convenient method of removing pollutants from the system. Simply remove the manhole covers and insert the vacuum hose into the sump. The system should be completely drained down and the sump fully evacuated of sediment. The area outside the screen should also be cleaned out if pollutant build-up exists in this area. In installations where the risk of petroleum spills is small, liquid contaminants may not accumulate as quickly as sediment. However, the system should be cleaned out immediately in the event of an oil or gasoline spill should be cleaned out immediately. Motor oil and other hydrocarbons that accumulate on a more routine basis should be removed when an appreciable layer has been captured. To remove these pollutants, it may be preferable to use absorbent pads since they are usually less expensive to dispose than the oil/water emulsion that may be created by vacuuming the oily layer. Trash and debris can be netted out to separate it from the other pollutants. The screen should be power washed to ensure it is free of trash and debris. Manhole covers should be securely seated following cleaning activities to prevent leakage of runoff into the system from above and also to ensure that proper safety precautions have been followed. Confined space entry procedures need to be followed if physical access is required. Disposal of all material removed from the CDS system should be done in accordance with local regulations. In many jurisdictions, disposal of the sediments may be handled in the same manner as the disposal of sediments removed from catch basins or deep sump manholes. Table 1: CDS Maintenance Indicators and Sediment Storage Capacities 800.925.5240www.ContechES.com Support• Drawings and specifications are available at www.contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2017 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC, a QUIKRETE Company Contech Engineered Solutions LLC provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. Contech’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater, earth stabilization and wastewater treament products. For information, visit www.ContechES.com or call 800.338.1122 NOTHING IN THIS CATALOG SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSED WARRANTY OR AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. SEE THE CONTECH STANDARD CONDITION OF SALES (VIEWABLE AT WWW.CONTECHES.COM/COS) FOR MORE INFORMATION. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; 7,296,692; 7,297,266; 7,517,450 related foreign patents or other patents pending. ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS CDS Model Diameter Distance from Water Surface to Top of Sediment Pile Sediment Storage Capacity ft m ft m y3 m3 CDS1515 3 0.9 3.0 0.9 0.5 0.4 CDS2015 4 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 CDS2015 5 1.3 3.0 0.9 1.3 1.0 CDS2020 5 1.3 3.5 1.1 1.3 1.0 CDS2025 5 1.3 4.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 CDS3020 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3025 6 1.8 4.0 1.2 2.1 1.6 CDS3030 6 1.8 4.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 CDS3035 6 1.8 5.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 CDS4030 8 2.4 4.6 1.4 5.6 4.3 CDS4040 8 2.4 5.7 1.7 5.6 4.3 CDS4045 8 2.4 6.2 1.9 5.6 4.3 CDS5640 10 3.0 6.3 1.9 8.7 6.7 CDS5653 10 3.0 7.7 2.3 8.7 6.7 CDS5668 10 3.0 9.3 2.8 8.7 6.7 CDS5678 10 3.0 10.3 3.1 8.7 6.7 CDS Inspection & Maintenance Log CDS Model: Location: Water Floatable Describe Maintenance Date depth to Layer Maintenance Personnel Comments sediment1 Thickness2 Performed —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 1. The water depth to sediment is determined by taking two measurements with a stadia rod: one measurement from the manhole opening to the top of the sediment pile and the other from the manhole opening to the water surface. If the difference between these measurements is less than the values listed in table 1 the system should be cleaned out. Note: to avoid underestimating the volume of sediment in the chamber, the measuring device must be carefully lowered to the top of the sediment pile. 2. For optimum performance, the system should be cleaned out when the floating hydrocarbon layer accumulates to an appreciable thickness. In the event of an oil spill, the system should be cleaned immediately.CDS Maintenance Guide - 7/18 (PDF) Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Filter ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 2 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Table of Contents Chapter 1 1.0 Owner Specific Jellyfish Product Information ...............................................................................4 Chapter 2 2.0 Jellyfish Filter System Operations & Functions .............................................................................5 2.1 Components & Cartridges ..........................................................................................................6 2.2 Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridges Assembly ......................................................................7 2.3 Installation of Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridges ................................................................7 Chapter 3 3.0 Inspection and Maintenance Overview .......................................................................................8 Chapter 4 4.0 Inspection Timing ......................................................................................................................8 Chapter 5 5.0 Inspection Procedure ..................................................................................................................8 5.1 Dry Weather Inspections ............................................................................................................8 5.1 Wet Weather Inspections ...........................................................................................................9 Chapter 6 6.0 Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................................................9 Chapter 7 7.0 Maintenance Procedure .............................................................................................................9 7.1 Filter Cartridge Removal .............................................................................................................9 7.2 Filter Cartridge Rinsing ...............................................................................................................9 7.3 Sediment and Flotables Extraction ............................................................................................10 7.4 Filter Cartridge Reinstallation and Replacement.........................................................................10 7.5 Chemical Spills .........................................................................................................................10 5.6 Material Disposal .....................................................................................................................10 Jellyfish Filter Inspection and Maintenance Log .........................................................................................................12 THANK YOU FOR PURCHASING THE JELLYFISH® FILTER! Contech Engineered Solutions would like to thank you for selecting the Jellyfish Filter to meet your project’s stormwater treatment needs. With proper inspection and maintenance, the Jellyfish Filter is designed to deliver ongoing, high levels of stormwater pollutant removal. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us or e-mail us: Contech Engineered Solutions 9025 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 400 | West Chester, OH 45069 513-645-7000 | 800-338-1122 www.ContechES.com info@conteches.com Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 3 GASKET (AT EACH JOINT) OUTLET PIPE (GROUTED IN OR BOOTED) ACCESS STEPS – BACKWASH POOL WEIR CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLES CONTROL SECTION (WITH JELLYFISH DECK) SEPARATOR SKIRT (MANHOLE ONLY) HI-FLO CARTRIDGE(S) (LARGE ORIFICE) TOP SLAB DRAINDOWN CARTRIDGE(S) (SMALLER ORIFICE) MAINTENANCE ACCESS WALL (MAW) (MANHOLE ONLY) ADDITIONAL RISER SECTION (IF NEEDED) INLET PIPE (GROUTED IN OR BOOTED) BASE SECTION FRAME AND COVER DECK ASSEMBLY 4 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Chapter 1 1.0 – Owner Specific Jellyfish Filter Product Information Below you will find a reference page that can be filled out according to your Jellyfish Filter specification to help you easily inspect, maintain and order parts for your system. Owner Name: Phone Number: Site Address: Site GPS Coordinates/unit location: Unit Location Description: Jellyfish Filter Model No.: Contech Project & Sequence Number No. of Hi-Flo Cartridges No. of Cartridges: Length of Draindown Cartridges: No. of Blank Cartridge Lids: Bypass Configuration (Online/Offline): Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________ WARNINGS / CAUTION 1. FALL PROTECTION may be required. 2. WATCH YOUR STEP if standing on the Jellyfish Filter Deck at any time; Great care and safety must be taken while walking or maneuvering on the Jellyfish Filter Deck. Attentive care must be taken while standing on the Jellyfish Filter Deck at all times to prevent stepping onto a lid, into or through a cartridge hole or slipping on the deck. 3. The Jellyfish Filter Deck can be SLIPPERY WHEN WET. 4. If the Top Slab, Covers or Hatches have not yet been installed, or are removed for any reason, great care must be taken to NOT DROP ANYTHING ONTO THE JELLYFISH FILTER DECK. The Jellyfish Filter Deck and Cartridge Receptacle Rings can be damaged under high impact loads. This type of activity voids all warranties. All damaged items to be replaced at owner's expense. 5. Maximum deck load 2 persons, total weight 450 lbs. Safety Notice Jobsite safety is a topic and practice addressed comprehensively by others. The inclusions here are intended to be reminders to whole areas of Safety Practice that are the responsibility of the Owner(s), Manager(s) and Contractor(s). OSHA and Canadian OSH, and Federal, State/Provincial, and Local Jurisdiction Safety Standards apply on any given site or project. The knowledge and applicability of those responsibilities is the Contractor’s responsibility and outside the scope of Contech Engineered Solutions. Confined Space Entry Secure all equipment and perform all training to meet applicable local and OSHA regulations regarding confined space entry. It is the Contractor’s or entry personnel’s responsibility to proceed safely at all times. Personal Safety Equipment Contractor is responsible to provide and wear appropriate personal protection equipment as needed including, but not limited to safety boots, hard hat, reflective vest, protective eyewear, gloves and fall protection equipment as necessary. Make sure all equipment is staffed with trained and/or certified personnel, and all equipment is checked for proper operation and safety features prior to use. • Fall protection equipment • Eye protection • Safety boots • Ear protection • Gloves • Ventilation and respiratory protection • Hard hat • Maintenance and protection of traffic plan Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 5 Chapter 2 2.0 – Jellyfish Filter System Operations and FunctionsThe Jellyfish Filter is an engineered stormwater quality treatment technology that removes a high level and wide variety of stormwater pollutants. Each Jellyfish Filter cartridge consists of eleven membrane - encased filter elements (“filtration tentacles”) attached to a cartridge head plate. The filtration tentacles provide a large filtration surface area, resulting in high flow and high pollutant removal capacity. The Jellyfish Filter functions are depicted in Figure 1 below. Jellyfish Filter cartridges are backwashed after each peak storm event, which removes accumulated sediment from the membranes. This backwash process extends the service life of the cartridges and increases the time between maintenance events. For additional details on the operation and pollutant capabilities of the Jellyfish Filter please refer to additional details on our website at www.ContechES.com. Jellyfish Filter Treatment Functions Membrane Filtration Section View with Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) Cutaway Effluent Pipe Filtered Water Particles Filtered Floatables Collection Particles Settling Influent Pipe FIGURE 1 6 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 2.1 – Components and Cartridges The Jellyfish Filter and components are depicted in Figure 2 below. Tentacles are available in various lengths as depicted in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Cartridge Lengths / Weights and Cartridge Lid Orifice Diameters Cartridge Lengths Dry Weight Hi-Flo Orifice Diameter Draindown Orifice Diameter 15 inches (381 mm)10 lbs (4.5 kg)35 mm 20 mm 27 inches (686 mm)14.5 lbs (6.6 kg)45 mm 25 mm 40 inches (1,016 mm)19.5 lbs (8.9 kg)55 mm 30 mm 54 inches (1,372 mm) 25 lbs (11.4 kg)70 mm 35 mm Jellyfish Filter Components Personnel Access Outlet Pipe Hi-Flo Cartridges with Lid (inside backwash pool) Manhole Structure Inlet Pipe Equipment Access FIGURE 2 Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) Draindown Cartridge with Lid (outside of backwash pool) Cartridge Deck Sediment Backwash Pool Weir Membrane Filtration Tentacles Note: Separator Skirt not shown Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 7 2.2 – Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridge AssemblyThe Jellyfish Filter utilizes multiple membrane filtration cartridges. Each cartridge consists of removable cylindrical filtration “tentacles” attached to a cartridge head plate. Each filtration tentacle has a threaded pipe nipple and o-ring. To attach, insert the top pipe nipples with the o-ring through the head plate holes and secure with locking nuts. Hex nuts to be hand tightened and checked with a wrench as shown below. 2.3 – Jellyfish Membrane Filtration Cartridge Installation• Cartridge installation will be performed by trained individuals and coordinated with the installing site Contractor. Flow diversion devices are required to be in place until the site is stabilized (final paving and landscaping in place). Failure to address this step completely will reduce the time between required maintenance. • Descend to the cartridge deck (see Safety Notice and page 3). • Refer to Contech's submittal drawings to determine proper quantity and placement of Hi-Flo, Draindown and Blank cartridges with appropriate lids. Lower the Jellyfish membrane filtration cartridges into the cartridge receptacles within the cartridge deck. It is possible that not all cartridge receptacles will be filled with a filter cartridge. In that case, a blank headplate and blank cartridge lid (no orifice) would be installed. Do not force the tentacles down into the cartridge receptacle, as this may damage the membranes. Apply downward pressure on the cartridge head plate to seat the lubricated rim gasket (thick circular gasket surrounding the circumference of the head plate) into the cartridge receptacle. (See Figure 3 for details on approved lubricants for use with rim gasket.) • Examine the cartridge lids to differentiate lids with a small orifice, a large orifice, and no orifice. • Lids with a small orifice are to be inserted into the Draindown cartridge receptacles, outside of the backwash pool weir. • Lids with a large orifice are to be inserted into the Hi-Flo cartridge receptacles within the backwash pool weir. • Lids with no orifice (blank cartridge lids) and a blank headplate are to be inserted into unoccupied cartridge receptacles. • To install a cartridge lid, align both cartridge lid male threads with the cartridge receptacle female threads before rotating approximately 1/3 of a full rotation until firmly seated. Use of an approved rim gasket lubricant may facilitate installation. Cartridge Assembly 8 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 3.0 Inspection and Maintenance Overview The primary purpose of the Jellyfish® Filter is to capture and remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. As with any filtration system, these pollutants must be removed to maintain the filter’s maximum treatment performance. Regular inspection and maintenance are required to insure proper functioning of the system. Maintenance frequencies and requirements are site specific and vary depending on pollutant loading. Additional maintenance activities may be required in the event of non-storm event runoff, such as base-flow or seasonal flow, an upstream chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme runoff events. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Inspection activities are typically conducted from surface observations and include: y Observe if standing water is present y Observe if there is any physical damage to the deck or cartridge lids y Observe the amount of debris in the Maintenance Access Wall (MAW) or inlet bay for vault systems Maintenance activities include: y Removal of oil, floatable trash and debris y Removal of collected sediments y Rinsing and re-installing the filter cartridges y Replace filter cartridge tentacles, as needed 4.0 Inspection Timing Inspection of the Jellyfish Filter is key in determining the maintenance requirements for, and to develop a history of, the site’s pollutant loading characteristics. In general, inspections should be performed at the times indicated below; or per the approved project stormwater quality documents (if applicable), whichever is more frequent. 1. A minimum of quarterly inspections during the first year of operation to assess the sediment and floatable pollutant accumulation, and to ensure proper functioning of the system. 2. Inspection frequency in subsequent years is based on the inspection and maintenance plan developed in the first year of operation. Minimum frequency should be once per year. 3. Inspection is recommended after each major storm event. 4. Inspection is required immediately after an upstream oil, fuel or other chemical spill. 5.0 Inspection Procedure The following procedure is recommended when performing inspections: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Inspect the MAW or inlet bay for floatable pollutants such as trash, debris, and oil sheen. 3. Measure oil and sediment depth in several locations, by lowering a sediment probe until contact is made with the floor of the structure. Record sediment depth, and presences of any oil layers. 4. Inspect cartridge lids. Missing or damaged cartridge lids to be replaced. 5. Inspect the MAW (where appropriate), cartridge deck and receptacles, and backwash pool weir, for damaged or broken components. 5.1 Dry weather inspections y Inspect the cartridge deck for standing water, and/or sediment on the deck. y No standing water under normal operating conditions. y Standing water inside the backwash pool, but not outside the backwash pool indicates, that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. Personnel Access Outlet Pipe Hi-Flo Cartridges with Lid (inside backwash pool) Manhole Structure Inlet Pipe Equipment Access Maintenance Access Wall Downdrain Cartridge with Lid (outside of backwash pool) Cartridge Deck Sediment Backwash Pool Weir Membrane Filtration Tentacles Note: Separator Skirt not shown Inspection Utilizing Sediment Probe Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 9 y Standing water outside the backwash pool is not anticipated and may indicate a backwater condition caused by high water elevation in the receiving water body, or possibly a blockage in downstream infrastructure. y Any appreciable sediment (≥1/16”) accumulated on the deck surface should be removed. 5.2 Wet weather inspections y Observe the rate and movement of water in the unit. Note the depth of water above deck elevation within the MAW or inlet bay. y Less than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges (i.e. cartridges located outside the backwash pool). y Greater than 6 inches, flow should be exiting the cartridge lids of each of the draindown cartridges and each of the hi-flo cartridges (i.e. cartridges located inside the backwash pool), and water should be overflowing the backwash pool weir. y 18 inches or greater and relatively little flow is exiting the cartridge lids and outlet pipe, this condition indicates that the filter cartridges need to be rinsed. 6.0 Maintenance Requirements Required maintenance for the Jellyfish Filter is based upon results of the most recent inspection, historical maintenance records, or the site specific water quality management plan; whichever is more frequent. In general, maintenance requires some combination of the following: 1. Sediment removal for depths reaching 12 inches or greater, or within 3 years of the most recent sediment cleaning, whichever occurs sooner. 2. Floatable trash, debris, and oil removal. 3. Deck cleaned and free from sediment. 4. Filter cartridges rinsed and re-installed as required by the most recent inspection results, or within 12 months of the most recent filter rinsing, whichever occurs sooner. 5. Replace tentacles if rinsing does not restore adequate hydraulic capacity, remove accumulated sediment, or if damaged or missing. It is recommended that tentacles should remain in service no longer than 5 years before replacement. 6. Damaged or missing cartridge deck components must be repaired or replaced as indicated by results of the most recent inspection. 7. The unit must be cleaned out and filter cartridges inspected immediately after an upstream oil, fuel, or chemical spill. Filter cartridge tentacles should be replaced if damaged or compromised by the spill. 7.0 Maintenance Procedure The following procedures are recommended when maintaining the Jellyfish Filter: 1. Provide traffic control measures as necessary. 2. Open all covers and hatches. Use ventilation equipment as required, according to confined space entry procedures. Caution: Dropping objects onto the cartridge deck may cause damage. 3. Perform Inspection Procedure prior to maintenance activity. 4. To access the cartridge deck for filter cartridge service, descend into the structure and step directly onto the deck. Caution: Do not step onto the maintenance access wall (MAW) or backwash pool weir, as damage may result. Note that the cartridge deck may be slippery. 5. Maximum weight of maintenance crew and equipment on the cartridge deck not to exceed 450 lbs. 7.1 Filter Cartridge Removal 1. Remove a cartridge lid. 2. Remove cartridges from the deck using the lifting loops in the cartridge head plate. Rope or a lifting device (available from Contech) should be used. Caution: Should a snag occur, do not force the cartridge upward as damage to the tentacles may result. Wet cartridges typically weigh between 100 and 125 lbs. 3. Replace and secure the cartridge lid on the exposed empty receptacle as a safety precaution. Contech does not recommend exposing more than one empty cartridge receptacle at a time. 7.2 Filter Cartridge Rinsing 1. Remove all 11 tentacles from the cartridge head plate. Take care not to lose or damage the O-ring seal as well as the plastic threaded nut and connector. 2. Position tentacles in a container (or over the MAW), with the threaded connector (open end) facing down, so rinse water is flushed through the membrane and captured in the container. 3. Using the Jellyfish rinse tool (available from Contech) or a low-pressure garden hose sprayer, direct water spray onto the tentacle membrane, sweeping from top to bottom along the length of the tentacle. Rinse until all sediment is removed from the membrane. Caution: Do not use a high pressure sprayer or focused stream of water on the membrane. Excessive water pressure may damage the membrane. 4. Collected rinse water is typically removed by vacuum hose. Cartridge Removal & Lifting Device 10 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 5. Reassemble cartridges as detailed later in this document. Reuse O-rings and nuts, ensuring proper placement on each tentacle. 7.3 Sediment and Flotables Extraction 1. Perform vacuum cleaning of the Jellyfish Filter only after filter cartridges have been removed from the system. Access the lower chamber for vacuum cleaning only through the maintenance access wall (MAW) opening. Be careful not to damage the flexible plastic separator skirt that is attached to the underside of the deck on manhole systems. Do not lower the vacuum wand through a cartridge receptacle, as damage to the receptacle will result. 2. Vacuum floatable trash, debris, and oil, from the MAW opening or inlet bay. Alternatively, floatable solids may be removed by a net or skimmer. 3. Pressure wash cartridge deck and receptacles to remove all sediment and debris. Sediment should be rinsed into the sump area. Take care not to flush rinse water into the outlet pipe. 4. Remove water from the sump area. Vacuum or pump equipment should only be introduced through the MAW or inlet bay. 5. Remove the sediment from the bottom of the unit through the MAW or inlet bay opening. 6. For larger diameter Jellyfish Filter manholes (≥8-ft) and some vaults complete sediment removal may be facilitated by removing a cartridge lid from an empty receptacle and inserting a jetting wand (not a vacuum wand) through the receptacle. Use the sprayer to rinse loosened sediment toward the vacuum hose in the MAW opening, being careful not to damage the receptacle. 7.4 Filter Cartridge Reinstallation and Replacement 1. Cartridges should be installed after the deck has been cleaned. It is important that the receptacle surfaces be free from grit and debris. 2. Remove cartridge lid from deck and carefully lower the filter cartridge into the receptacle until head plate gasket is seated squarely in receptacle. Caution: Do not force the cartridge downward; damage may occur. 3. Replace the cartridge lid and check to see that both male threads are properly seated before rotating approximately 1/3 of a full rotation until firmly seated. Use of an approved rim gasket lubricant may facilitate installation. See next page for additional details. 4. If rinsing is ineffective in removing sediment from the tentacles, or if tentacles are damaged, provisions must be made to replace the spent or damaged tentacles with new tentacles. Contact Contech to order replacement tentacles. 7.5 Chemical Spills Caution: If a chemical spill has been captured, do not attempt maintenance. Immediately contact the local hazard response agency and contact Contech. 7.6 Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. Rinsing Cartridge with Contech Rinse Tool Vacuuming Sump Through MAW Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual 11 Jellyfish Filter Components & Filter Cartridge Assembly and Installation NOTES: Head Pl Install Hand libeLubrican (Item 7) manufac Lid AssRotate Cdrop dow clock-wi Cartridg PART NO. 78713 40501 30600 PSLUBXL1Q ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 TABLE 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS NE E NOTES: Head Plate Gasket Installation:Install Head Plate Gasket (Item 4) onto the Head Plate (Item 1) and liberally apply a lubricant from Table 2: Approved GasketLubricants onto the gasket where it contacts the Receptacle(Item 7) and Cartridge Lid (Item 6). Follow Lubricant manufacturer’s instructions. Lid Assembly:Rotate Cartridge Lid counter-clockwise until both male threadsdrop down and properly seat. Then rotate Cartridge Lidclock-wise approximately one-third of a full rotation untilCartridge Lid is firmly secured, creating a watertight seal. PART NO. MFR DESCRIPTION 78713 LA-CO LUBRI-JOINT 40501 HERCULES DUCK BUTTER 30600 OATEY PIPE LUBRICANT PSLUBXL1Q PROSELECT PIPE JOINT LUBRICANT ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 JF HEAD PLATE 2 JF TENTACLE 3 JF O-RING 4 JF HEAD PLATE GASKET 5 JF CARTRIDGE EYELET 6 JF 14IN COVER 7 JF RECEPTACLE 8 BUTTON HEAD CAP SCREW M6X14MM SS 9 JF CARTRIDGE NUT TABLE 1: BOM 6 TABLE 2: APPROVED GASKET LUBRICANTS 1 2 9 3 7 8 5 4 CARTRIDGE LID: ORIFICE DIAMETER PER PROJECT DRAWING O-RING: INSTALLED WITH EACH MEMBRANE FILTRATION TENTACLE CARTRIDGE RECEPTACLE: SECURED TO CARTRIDGE DECK SEE NOTE FOR LUBRICATION DETAILS SCREW, BUTTON HEAD CAP REQUIRES 5MM HEX WRENCH ENSURE EYE BOLTS ARE ALIGNED TO FACILITATE LIFTING DEVICE 12 Jellyfish® Filter Owner’s Manual Jellyfish Filter Inspection and Maintenance Log Owner: _______________________________________ Jellyfish Model No.:_____________________________ Location: _____________________________________ GPS Coordinates: ______________________________ Land Use: Commercial:______ Industrial: ______ Service Station:______ Road/Highway:____ Airport: ________ Residential: _________ Parking Lot:______ Date/Time: Inspector: Maintenance Contractor: Visible Oil Present: (Y/N) Oil Quantity Removed Floatable Debris Present: (Y/N) Floatable Debris removed: (Y/N) Water Depth in Backwash Pool Cartridges externally rinsed/re-commissioned: (Y/N) New tentacles put on Cartridges: (Y/N) Sediment Depth Measured: (Y/N) Sediment Depth (inches or mm): Sediment Removed: (Y/N) Cartridge Lids intact: (Y/N) Observed Damage: Comments: CES_JF_OM 01/21 R-TANKfi OPERATION, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Rev: 11/02/2022 Operation Your R-Tank System has been designed to function in conjunction with the engineered drainage system on your site, the existing municipal infrastructure, and/or the existing soils and geography of the receiving watershed. Unless your site included certain unique and rare features, the operation of your R-Tank System will be driven by naturally occurring systems and will function autonomously. However, upholding a proper schedule of Inspection & Maintenance is critical to ensuring continued functionality and optimum performance of the system. Inspection Both the R-Tank and all stormwater pre-treatment features incorporated into your site must be inspected regularly. Inspections should be done every six months for the first year of operation, and at least yearly thereafter. Inspections may be required more frequently for pre-treatment systems. You should refer to the manufacturer requirements for the proper inspection schedule. With the right equipment most inspections and measurements can be accomplished from the surface without physically entering any confined spaces. If your inspection does require confined space entry, you must follow all local, regional, and OSHA requirements. All maintenance features of your system can be accessed through a covering at the surface. With the lid removed, you can visually inspect each component to identify sediment, trash, and other contaminants within the structure. Check you construction plans to identify the maintenance features engineered into your R-Tank system, which may include: Upstream Pipes, Inlets, and Manholes Working from the structures adjacent the R-Tank toward those farther away, check for debris and sediment in both the structures and the pipes. Be sure to Include all structures that contain pre- treatment systems. Some structures may include a sump. Maintenance Ports Located near the inlet and outlet connections and throughout the system, check sediment depth at each port. Rev: 11/02/2022 Inspection Ports Less common, inspection ports are primarily located within the Treatment Row of an R-Tank System. These should be used to check for sediment deposits but are typically too small to access for backflushing. Treatment Row On installations in 2018 or later, inlet pipes may connect to a row of modules with 12 diameter access holes running horizontally through the module that can be jet vacuumed. Check these rows for accumulation of sediment and debris. All observations and measurements should be recorded on an Inspection Log kept on file. Weve included a form you can use at the end of this guide. Maintenance For modules taller than 40 the R-Tank System shou ld be back-flushed once sediment accumulation has reached 6. For modules less than 40 tall, perform maintenance when sediment depths are greater than 15% of the total system height. If your system includes a Treatment Row with linear access through the modules from the inlet pipe, backflush this area when sediment depths reach 6. BEFORE ANY MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED ON YOUR SYSTEM - PLUG THE OUTLET PIPE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEMS. Begin by cleaning all upstream structures, pipes, and pre-treatment systems containing sediment and/ or debris. If your system includes a Treatment Row, this portion of the system should be cleaned with traditional jet-vac equipment. Add a centralizer to the jet for easiest access through the modules. To back-flush the R-Tank, water is pumped into the system through the Maintenance Ports as rapidly as possible. The turbulent action of the water moving through the R-Tank will suspend sediments which may then be pumped out. If your system includes an Outlet Structure, this will be the ideal location to pump contaminated water out of the system. However, removal of back-flush water may be accomplished through the Maintenance Ports, as well. For systems with large footprints that would require extensive volumes of water to properly flush the system, you should consider performing your maintenance within 24 hours of a rain event. Stormwater entering the system will aid in the suspension of sediments and reduce the volume of water required to properly flush the system. STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CAN BE FOUND ON THE NEXT PAGE, WITH A MAINTENANCE LOG ON THE LAST PAGE. Rev: 11/02/2022 INSPECTION 1.Upstream Structures a.Remove cover b.Use flashlight to detect sediment deposits If present, measure sediment depth c.Inspect pipes connecting to R-Tank i.If inlet pipes connect to Treatment Row, check sediment depth within these modules ii.If access for measurement inside the Treatment Row is difficult, sediment depth can be estimated based on the coverage of the round, 12 opening of the module d.Inspect pre-treatment systems (if present) e.Record results on Maintenance Log f.Replace cover g.Repeat for ALL Manholes upstream of R-Tank until no sedimentation is observed and all pre- treatment systems have been checked 2.Maintenance Ports a.Remove cap b.Use flashlight to detect sediment deposits c.If present, measure sediment depth with stadia rod d.Record results on maintenance log e.Replace cap f.Repeat for ALL Maintenance Ports 3.Inspection Port a.Remove cap b.Use flashlight to detect sediment deposits c.If present, measure sediment depth with stadia rod d.Record results on Maintenance Log e.Replace cap MAINTENANCE 1.Plug system outlet to prevent discharge of back-flush water 2.Vacuum all upstream structures, inlet pipes, and stormwater pre-treatment systems 3.If a Treatment Row is present, vacuum this row of modules 4.Determine best location to pump out back-flush water. Typically, the outlet structure will work best, but sometimes the Maintenance Ports must be used. 5.Remove cap from Maintenance Port and pump water as rapidly as possible into system through port to suspend sediments, pumping dirty water out of the system from the outlet or nearby Maintenance Port 6.Repeat at all Maintenance Ports until sediment levels are reduced to a satisfactory level 7.Sediment-laden water shall be disposed of per local regulations 8.Replace any remaining caps or covers and remove outlet plug 9.Record the back-flushing event in your Maintenance Log with any relevant specifics Rev: 11/02/2022 R-Tankfi Maintenance Log Site Name: Company: Location: Contact: City and State: Phone: System Owner: Email: Date Location Sediment Depth Observations / Notes Initials 115 Conz Street Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwater Management Report Berkshire Design Group Appendix G – Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Checklist swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report A. Introduction Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key. A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. The Stormwater Report must include: The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer (see page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.1 This Checklist is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. Applicant/Project Name Project Address Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required by Standard 82 Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. 1 The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. 2 For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of the project: No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs LID Site Design Credit Requested: Credit 1 Credit 2 Credit 3 Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) Treebox Filter Water Quality Swale Grass Channel Green Roof Other (describe): Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges No new untreated discharges Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge Soil Analysis provided. Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field1 Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to generate the required recharge volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. 1 80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge (continued) The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: Good housekeeping practices; Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; Vehicle washing controls; Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; Spill prevention and response plans; Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; Pet waste management provisions; Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; Provisions for solid waste management; Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; Street sweeping schedules; Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan; List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area is near or to other critical areas is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour) involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: The ½” or 1” Water Quality Volume or The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. All exposure has been eliminated. All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum extent practicable The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: Limited Project Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff Bike Path and/or Foot Path Redevelopment Project Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) improves existing conditions. Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the following information: Narrative; Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations; Vegetation Planning; Site Development Plan; Construction Sequencing Plan; Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; Inspection Schedule; Maintenance Schedule; Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report. swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report Checklist (continued) Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control (continued) The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and includes the following information: Name of the stormwater management system owners; Party responsible for operation and maintenance; Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; Description and delineation of public safety features; Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and Operation and Maintenance Log Form. The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater Report includes the following submissions: A copy of the legal instrument (deed, homeowner’s association, utility trust or other legal entity) that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project site stormwater BMPs; A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of any stormwater to post-construction BMPs.