05-0058 Stormwater Report 020120051
t. :
~ `' ,~ - _ _
. ~ .~
F~e 2 ~ ZOQ5
Green Village Subdivision
Preliminary Drainage Report
February 2005 ~~~,~~ :~.~;~~,~~~
,
D~~~: _ _ _ ~
DESIGN/BUILD •CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING• PLANNING • SURVEYING
i ;
~
~~ ~i
Consulting Group
'
' Preliminary Drainage Report
'
~
Green Village Subdivision
Yelm, Washington
February 2005
Project Information
' Project:
Prepared for:
Contact:
~
~J
i
'
'
'
J
'
Green Village Subdivision
Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc.
George Hom, Ph.D.
2218 Blossomwood Court, NW
Olympia, WA 98502
(360) 943-7437
Reviewing Agency
Jurisdiction: City of Yelm, Washington
Project Number:
Project Contact:
Project Engineer
Prepared by: SCA Consulting Group
4200 6th. Ave. SE,
Lacey, WA 98509
(360) 493-6002 FAX (360) 493-2476
Contact Robert E. Holcomb, P.E.
SCA Project: 04166
File Number: g:\text\pf\04116\Reports\04116_pdr.doc
PROJECT ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this Preliminary Drainage Report for Green Village
Subdivision in Yelm Washington has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the intent of the City of
Yelm Development Guidelines and Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual
for the Puget Sound Basin unless noted otherwise, and normal standards of engineering practice. I understand that the
jurisdiction does not and will not assume liability for the sufficiency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities
designed for this development.
I 0~
.
. 3
ZZ ~-~~. .
, ~~`\,~~~'.~:J• -:
L'~
~l`~''~
` ~~
, ~
^
~
~ ~~I .lfi .
~
i
~
..~ .r~'~'r~ ~ ,.
~"'~ _ ~''-...:.,._._-,"' d _ ,r;: ~ ;.
~~._: Sr., _ :. ,
~.~. n~.. ~ .. '. ~ `'J..:
~' ::"~:. _ 6:~.1~~ob .
i
'
~
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES
'
PART 1 STORM DRAINAGE REPORT .........................
...............................................................
SECTION 1- PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPT[ON ............................................................ t
. 1 APPendix I - Preliminary
prdinage Calculations
' SECTION 2- EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................
SECTION 3- INF[I,TRATION RATES ....................................................................................... 3
4 APP~dix II - Preliminary
Drainage and TESC Plan
SECT(ON 4-WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 4 Appendix [[I - FEMA FIRM
SECT[ON 5- FUEL TANKS .....................................................................................................
4 Map
' SEC'I'ION 6- SUB-BASfN DESCRIPT[ON .............................................................................. 4 p+PPendix IV - Pervious
SECTION 7- ANALYSIS OF ]00-YEAR FLOOD ...................................................................
4 Pavers Literature
SECTION 8- AESTHETIC CONSIDERAT[ONS FOR FACIL[TIES ..................................... . 5 Appendix V-Facility
' SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING ................................. . 5 Summary Fortns
SECTION 10 - COVENANTS, DED[CATIONS, EASEMENTS ............................................... . 5 Appendix VI - Maintenance
~ PART II - EROSIOIY CONTROL REPORT ................................................................................. 6 Agreement
SECTION 1- CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE ...................................... . 6
Appendix VII - Vicinity Map
SECTION 2- TRAPP[NG SEDIMENT ..................................................................................... 6
SECTION 3- PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL & S[TE RESTORATION ..................... . 7
SECTION 4- GEOTECHNICAL ANALYS[S AND REPORT ................................................ . 7
SECTION 5- INSPECTION SEQUENCE ................................................................................. 7
' SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS ........................ . 7
PART III - MA[NTENANCE PLAN .............................................................................................. 8
SECTION 1- REQU(RED MAINTENANCE ......................................................................... 10
' SECT[ON 2- RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION .................................................................. 18
SECT[ON 3- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................... 18
SECTION 4- SOURCE CONTROL ........................................................................................ . 18
'
'
i
1
1
1
1
1
ii
1
,
~
'
'
'
,
,
~
1
1
1
1
'
,
Part I
Sto~m D~ainage Report
~
n
~
'
'
~
' Parcel Numbers:
, Total Site Area:
Zoned:
' Site Address:
' Required Permits:
'
CII
,
'
'
,
'
~
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT
SECTION 1- PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Proponent:
Section, Township, Range:
Site Location:
The site is located in Yelm, Washington and is bordered on the west by Burnett Road on the
. east by Mountain View Road and situated about 500' northerly from Yelm Ave.
Project Overview:
The proposal is to subdivided the existing parcels into senior citizen oriented developed with
52 single family lots a community center with parking for 20 automobiles for use by the home
owners in the subdivision. In addition a 6-foot wide walking trail will be constructed around
the perimeter of the development.
The development of the proposed subdivision will be constructed in one phase and will include
appropriate erosion control measures as needed, grading, storm drainage improvements,
frontage improvements and extension of underground utilities including water and sanitary
sewer.
Storm Drainage Improvements:
The completed project will create in approximately 4.86 acres of new impervious area (roadway, driveways, paths
and sidewalks), 0.16 acres of pervious parking lot and 0.25 acres of new disturbed pervious areas.
Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc.
2218 Blossomwood Court, NW
Olympia, WA 98502
(360) 943-7437
21713340000 and 21713340200
10. Acres
R-6
Burnett Road, Yelm, WA 98597
Grading, Utility, Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical etc.
Section 13, Township 17 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
Thurston County, WA
~J
'
'
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 1
~
,
'
,
'
,
,
'
'
'
,
,
~
'
'
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
Pre-Development Coverage Summary (Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Un-Disturbed
Pervious Roadway Total
A 2.45 0.04 2.49
B 2.32 0.06 2.38
C 2.46 0.04 2.50
D 2.74 0.03 2.77
Total 9.97 0.17 10.14
Post-Development Coverage Summary (Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Disturbed
Pervious Pervious
Parking
Lot Roofs Sidewalks Path Roadways Driveways Total
A 119 0.11 0.43 012 0.09 0.43 0.12 2.49
B 1.31 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.38 0.15 2.38
C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.49 0.17 2.77
D 1.17 0.05 0.51 009 0.12 0.39 0.15 2.49
Total 5.12 0.16 1.89 0.28 0.41 1.69 0.59 10.14
Stormwater Treatment:
Stormwater treatment design requirements are based on the 1992 edition of the WSDOE
Stormwater Management Manual. Preliminary treatment calculations are provided in
Appendi.x I.
Sub-basin `A':
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Mountain View
Road and the proposed new roadways within Basin A of the proposed subdivision as
shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected
via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment excepts o for the
parking lot for the community within Basin A. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to
treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of
the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From the
Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will
provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. will be constructed
from structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff will be
achieved on site through native soils layers below pavers See Appendix 1 for
calculations and AppendiY 2 for details.
Sub-basin `B':
'
'
'
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Mountain View
Road and the proposed new roadways within Basin B of the proposed subdivision as
shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected
via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment. The Aqua-Swirl has
been design to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to
remove as much of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a
SCA Consulting Group Page 2
' February 2005
` Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
, infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an
inline infiltration trench that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the
groundwater. See Appendis 1 for calculations and Appendix 2 for details.
~ Sub-basin `C':
' Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and
the proposed new roadways within Basin C of the proposed subdivision as shown on
the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected via catch
' - basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment. The Aqua-Swirl has been design
to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much
of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From
, the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that
will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix 1
for calculations and Appendix 2 for details.
~ Sub-basin `D':
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and
' the proposed new roadways within Basin D of the proposed subdivision as shown on
the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 wi11 be collected via catch
' basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment excepts o for the parking lot for
the community within Basin A. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to treat the 100 yr
storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of the sediment as
possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the
, storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will provide for
storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. will be constructed from
_ structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff will be achieved
' on site through native soils layers below pavers See Appendix 1 for calculations and
Appendix 2 for details.
, Roof Runoff
Roof runoff are considered clean imprevious surfaces and is not required to be
' treated.. from new construction shail be routed to individual onsite drywells. The roof
runoff from the houses on the individual lots will be drywells shall be sized per the
DOE Stormwater Manual based on an average roof size of 1,500 sf. As all lots shall
, have drywells based on Class B soils. The roof runoff from the community center will
be tightlined to the structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Ballast will
provide storage before infiltration to ground..
~ SECTION 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
'
1
'
The site is 10 acres rectangular in shape with 330 feet fronting Burnett Road and 330 fronting
on Mountain View Road.. The site is fairly flat with gentle slopes to the northwest and
northwest.. The site is currently vacant land. The site is covered with a light density of Scotch
Broom growth with indigenous field grasses.. On site soils are well drained and formed in
glacial outwash.
SCA Consulting Group Page 3
~ February 2005
~ Green Vitlage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
' There are no creeks, lakes, ponds, springs, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes or other
environmentally sensitive areas identified onsite or down gradient of the subject property.
' The site is located in an aquifer sensitive area, according to the 1986 Thurston County
Comprehensive Plan M-8. The site is not located in a wellhead protection area.
, SECTION 3 - INFILTRATION RATES
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Thurston County classifies onsite soils as
, Spanaway (110) series.
The design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr was assumed for the purposes of this study. It is
, reasonable infiltration rate for this soil group in Yelm Area.
SECTION 4-WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS
, No onsite wells were found during our site investigation of the proposed site. No onsite well
logs were found at the Department of Ecology.
' No abandoned or existing septic systems were identified during SCA's site investigation or at
the Thurston County Development Services office. Any septic system found will be removed
' in accordance with Thurston County Department of Health standards.
' SECTION 5 - FUEL TANKS
' No fuel tanks were located during SCA's site inspection or during soils work. Additionally, a
review of the DOE's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list did not indicate any
existing or abandoned fuel tanks on the project site.
' SECTiON 6 - SUB-BASfN DESCRIPTION
' The project site is located in the Thompson Creek Drainage Sub-Basin, Nisqually River
Drainage Basin per Thurston County Comprehensive Map M-4.
1 During SCA's site investigation and soils analysis, it appeared that all onsite stormwater
runoff is contained onsite and infiltrated back into the groundwater, which is typical of the
site's soil classification. All onsite stormwater runoff will be contained and infiltrated onsite.
~ There does not appear to be any significant existing offsite drainage to the property.
As discussed previously, the proposed development has been divided into three drainage sub-
~ basins.
No hazardous materials handling is anticipated in the area tributary to the storm drainage
' facilities.
SECTION 7- ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD
' This project does not lie adjacent to or contain a stream onsite and has not been identified as
a 100-year flood hazard area. A FEMA FIRM Map is included in Appendix III.
' Pa e 4
SCA Consuiting Group 9
February 2005
,
r Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
, SECTION 8- AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES
The storm drainage facilities are located underground. All disturbed pervious areas will be
~ vegetated and landscaped.
SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSiS AND FACILITY SIZING
' Sizing calculations for the project's stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration facilities
are provided in Appendix I of this report. All calculations correspond to the Preliminary
, Grading, Drainage and TESC Plan, which can be found in Appendix II of this report.
Since all stormwater will be infiltrated onsite, a downstream analysis was deemed
~ unnecessary.
SECTION 10 - COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS
' Onsite drainage facilities including pipes, wet vaults, and infiltration galleries will require
routine maintenance. The maintenance manual prepared for the project will list the
' maintenance requirements. A copy of the completed Maintenance Manual can be supplied to
the City upon completion of the project.
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
SCA Consulting Group Page 5
' February 2005
~
,
'
,
'
~
'
'
~
,
,
L
1
1
i
1
, PaYt II
Erosion Control RepoYt
~
~
~ Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
' PART II - EROSION CONTROL REPORT
~ SECTION 1- CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE
The proposed commercial development will include site grading and erosion control measures
' designed to contain silt and soil within the project boundaries during construction until
permanent vegetation and site improvements are in place. Erosion/sedimentation control
shall be achieved by a combination of structuraUvegetative cover measures and construction
~ practices tailored to fit the site.
Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and
~ to schedule construction activities. Before any construction begins onsite, erosion control
facilities shall first be installed. The planned construction sequence is as follows:
1. Schedule preconstruction conference with the city, contractor, project engineer, and
' construction-staking surveyor.
2. Install rock construction entrance. Use 4" to 8" diameter spalls with 12" minimum
depth.
' 3. Install filter fabric fencing in the locations shown on the plans.
4. Clear site (grubbing and rough grading).
, 5.
6. Maintain equipment and water supply for dust control.
Designate an area for washing concrete trucks to control the runoff and eliminate
entry into the storm drainage system.
7. Install underground utilities (water, sewer, storm).
' 8. Provide inlet protection around all new catch basins.
9. Construct roadway and parking and install landscaping, sod and/or seed, and mulch
. all disturbed areas.
~ 10. Maintain all erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and silt runoff
ceases.
,
~
'
'
~
~
~
~
SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SEDIMENT
Filter fabric fencing will be installed to trap sediment before runoff exits the site. In addition,
inlet protection will be installed around all existing and new catch basins to filter out
sediment before runoff enters the storm system.
A stabilized construction entrance will be installed to prevent construction vehicles from
tracking soil onto roadways. If sediment is tracked offsite, it shall be swept or shoveled from
paved surfaces on a daily basis, so that it is not washed into existing catch basins or other
storm drainage facilities.
During the rainy season from November 1 through March 31, the contractor must cover any
disturbed areas greater that 5,000 SF in size if they will be unworked for more than 12 hours.
Mulch, sodding, or plastic covering shall be used to prevent erosion in these areas.
SCA Consulting Group Page 6
February 2005
t Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
~ SECTION 3- PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL 8 SITE RESTORATION
All disturbed areas will be paved with asphalt, covered by buildings, or landscaped with
, grass, shrubbery, or trees per the landscaping plans.
SECTION 4- GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT
' None of the storm drainage facilities are located near the top of a steep slope. Therefore, a
geotechmcal analysis for slope or soil stability was deemed unnecessary. See Appendix V for
' a complete soils description.
SECTION 5 - INSPECTION SEQUENCE
' In addition to required City inspections, the Project Engineer will inspect facilities related to
stormwater treatment, erosion control, storage, and conveyance during construction. At a
' minimum, the following items shall be inspected at the time specified:
1. The erosion control facilities shall be inspected before the start of clearing and grading
' to ensure the following structures are in place:
a. Construction Entrance
b. Filter Fabric Fences
c. Inlet protection of new catch basins
' 2. The conveyance systems will be inspected after construction of the facilities, but before
project completion to ensure the following items are in working order:
, a. Pavement Drainage
b. Catch Basins
~ c. Conveyance Piping
d. Roof Drain Piping
3. The infiltration galleries shall be inspected during construction to ensure that the
~ facility is constructed to design specifications.
' 4. The permanent site restoration measures shall be inspected after landscaping is
completed.
' A final inspection shall be performed to verify final grades, settings of structures and all
necessary information to complete the Engineer's Construction Inspection Report Form. .This
form must be completed prior to final public works construction approval.
' SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS
The contractor will be required to designate a washdown area for concrete trucks as well as a
~ temporary stockpile area for construction debris. Catch basin inlet protection and filter fabric
fencing shall remain in place until construction on the site is complete.
,
'
L
SCA Consulting Group Page 7
February 2005 ~
u
'
'
~
,
~J
'
~
'
~
Part ~II
~
,
1V~aintenance Plan
~
' Green Viliage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
S
' PART N{ - MAINTENANCE PLAN
' INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAINTENANCE OF STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The following pages contain maintenance needs for most components that are part of the
, drainage system. A checklist should be completed for all system components according to the
following schedule:
' 1. Monthly from November through April
2. Once in late summer (preferably September)
3. After any major storm (use 1" in 24-hours as a guideline) items marked "S" only.
' Using photocopies of these pages, check off the problems identified with each inspection. Add
comments on problems found and actions taken. Keep these "checked" sheete in a file, as they
' will be used to write the annual report (due in May of each year). Some items do not need to
be checked with every inspection. Use the suggested frequency at the left of each item as a
guideline for the inspections.
1 The City of Yelm is available for technical assistance. Do not hesitate to call, especially if it
appears that a problem may exist.
'
~
~
'
'
LJ
,
,
LJ
'
SCA Consulting Group Page 8
February 2005 .
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
~
'
'
~
,
,
~
'
'
,
,
'
'
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
ATTACHMENT "A": MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
COVER SHEET
Inspection Period:
Number of Sheets Attached:
Date Inspected:
Name of Inspector:
Inspector's Signature:
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 9
~
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
'
'
,
~
,
~
,
,
'
'
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report .. .~
SECTION 1 - REQUIRED MAINTENANCE
The drainage, facilities will require occasional maintenance. The checklists below are the
minimum maintenance requirements and inspection frequencies.
Maintenance Checklist for Conveyance Systems (Pipes and Swales)
Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should
System Req'd Exist
Feature
M.S. Pipes Sediment & Accumulated sediment that Pipe cleaned of all
debris exceeds 20% of the diameter of sediment and debris.
the pipe.
M Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free All vegetation removed
movement of water through pipes. so water flows freely.
A Damaged Protective coating is damaged, Pipe repaired or replaced.
(rusted, rust is causing more than 50%
bent or deterioration to any part of pipe.
crushed)
M Any dent that significantly Pipe repaired or replaced.
impedes flow (i.e., decreases the
cross section area of pipe by more
then 20%).
M Pipe has major cracks or tears Pipe repaired or replaced.
allowing groundwater leakage.
M.S. Swales Trash & Dumping of yard wastes such as Remove trash and debris
debris grass clippings and branches into and dispose as prescribed
swale. Accumulation of non- by City Waste
degradable materials such as Management Section.
glass, plastic, metal, foam and
coated paper.
M Sediment Accumulated sediment that Swale cleaned of all
buildup exceeds 20% of the design depth. sediment and debris so
that it matches design.
M Vegetation Grass cover is sparse and weedy Aerate soils and reseed
not or areas are overgrown with and mulch bare areas.
growing or woody vegetation. Maintain grass height at a
overgrown minimum of 6" for best
stormwater treatment.
Remove woody growth,
recontour and reseed as
necessary,
M Conversion Swale has been filled in or If possible, speak with
by owner to blocked by shed, woodpile, owner and request that
incompatibl shrubbery, etc. swale area be restored.
e use Contact City to report
problem if not rectified
voluntarily.
A Swale does Water stands in swale or flow A survey may be needed
not drain velocity is very slow. Stagnation to check grades. Grades
occurs. need to be in 1% range if
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 10
~
'
'
'
,
'
~
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
,
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should
System Req'd Exist
Feature
possible. If grade is less
than 1%, underdrains may
need to be installed.
[f you aze unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance.
Comments:
Key: A= Annuat (Mazch or April preferred)
M = Monthly (see schedule)
S = After major stortns
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 11
~ Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
,
'
'
'
l J
'
'
'
~
C1
~~
~
~
~
'
'
~
~
ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Catch Basins and Inlets
Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That
System , Should Exist
Feature
M.S. General Trash, debris and Trash or debris in front of No trash or debris
sediment in or on the catch basin opening is located
basin blocking capacity by more immediately in
than 10%. front of catch basin
opening. Grate is
kept clean and
allows water to
enter.
M Sediment or debris (in the No sediment or
basin) that exceeds 1/3 the debris in the catch
depth from the bottom of basin. Catch basin
basin to invert of the is dug out and
towest pipe into or out of clean.
the basin.
M.S. Trash or debris in any inlet Iniet and outlet
or pipe blocking more than pipes free of trash
1/3 of its height. or debris.
M Structural Corner of frame extends Frame is even with
damage to frame more than 3/4" past curb curb.
and/or top slab face into the street (if
appficable):
M Top slab has holes larger Top slab is free of
than 2 square inches or holes and cracks.
cracks widerthan 1/4"
(intent is to make sure all
material is running into the
basin).
M Frame not sitting flush on Frame is sitting
top slab, i.e., separation of flush on top slab.
more than 3/4" of the
frame from the top slab.
A Cracks in basin Cracks wider than 1/2" and Basin replaced or
walls/bottom longer than 3', any repaired to design
evidence of soil particles standards. Contact
entering catch basin a professional
through cracks or engineer for
maintenance person judges evaluation.
that structure is unsound.
q Cracks wider than 1/2" and No cracks more
longer than 1' at the joint than 1/4" wide at
, of any inlet/outlet pipe or the joint of
any evidence of soil inlet/outlet pipe.
particles entering catch
basin through cracks.
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 12
~ Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
~
u
1 1
,
r
'
1
Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That
System Should Exist
Feature
p Settlemendmis- Basin has settled more than Basin replaced or
alignment 1" or has rotated more than repaired to design
2" out of alignment. standards. Contact
a professional
engineer for
evaluation.
M.S. Fire hazard or Presence of chemicals such No color, odor or
other pollution as natural gas, oil and sludge. Basin is
gasoline. Obnoxious dug out and clean.
color, odor or sludge
noted.
M.S. Outlet pipe is Vegetation or roots No vegetation or
clogged with growing in inleUoutlet pipe root growth
vegetation joints that is more than 6" present.
tall and less than 6" apart.
' If you aze unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance.
Comments:
Key: A= Annual (Mazch or April preferred)
, M = Monthly (see schedule)
S = After major storms
,
,
~
'
'
'
~
~
~
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 13
~ Green Viliage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
1 ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED)
'
,
'
~
'
'
~
,
~
'
r
~
r
~
,
Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems
Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should
System Exist
Feature
M,S General Trash & See Maintenance See Maintenance
debris Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
buildup in
pond
M Poisonous See Maintenance See Maintenance
vegetation Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
M,S Fire hazard See Maintenance See Maintenance
or pollution Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
M Vegetation See Maintenance See Maintenance
not growing Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
or is
overgrown
M ftodent See Maintenance See Maintenance
holes Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
M Insects See Maintenance See Maintenance
Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
A Storage ~ Sediment A soil texture test Sediment is removed
area buildup in indicates facility is not and/or facility is cleaned
system working at its designed so that infiltration
capabilities or was system works according
incorrectly designed. to design. A sediment
trapping area is installed
to reduce sediment
transport into
infiltration area.
A ~ Storage A soil texture test Additional volume is
area drains indicates facility is not added through
slowly working at its designed excavation to provide
(more than capabilities or was needed st~rage. Soil is
48 hours) incorrectly designed. aerated and rototilled to
or improve drainage.
overflows Contact the City for
information on its
requirements regarding
excavation.
' SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
'
Page 14
~
~
i.
'
'
1
~
~
,
i
~
'
~
'
~
'
'
~
~
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
M Sediment Any sediment and debris Clean out sump to design
trapping filling area to 10% of depth.
area depth from sump
bottom-to-bottom of
outlet pipe or
obstructing flow into the
connector pipe.
One Time Sediment Stormwater enters Add a trapping area by
trapping infiltration area directly constructing a sump for
area not without treatment. settling of solids.
present Segregate settling area
from rest of facility.
Contact City for
guidance.
M Rock ~ Sediment By visual inspection Replace gravel in rock
filters and debris little or no water flows filter.
through filter during
heavy rainstorms.
S Infiltratio Infiltration Standing Water in Excavate bottom of
n Failure Inspection Well After trench as necessary but
Trenches 48 hours after storm or at least 3 feet. Replace
Overflow during Storms with crushed rock.
Check pretreatment
systems for
effectiveness. Check
tributary area for
sediment sources.
If you are unsure whether a problem exiats, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance.
Comments:
Kev
A= Annual (March or April preferred)
M = Monthly (see schedule}
S = After major storms
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 15
~
'
'
~
'
~
,
'
t
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
Green Viilage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Repo~t
ATTACHMENT "A° (CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Grounds (Landscaping)
Frequen Drainage `~ Problem Conditions to Check Conditions That Should
cy System For Exist
Feature
M General ~ Weeds Weeds growing in Weeds present in less
(nonpoisono more than 20% of the than 5% of the landscaped
us) landscaped area (trees area.
and shrubs only).
M ~ Safety Any presence of poison No poisonous vegetation
hazard ivy or other poisonous or insect nests present in
vegetation or insect landscaped area.
nests.
M,S `~ Trash or See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist.
litter
M,S ~ Erosion of Noticeable rills are Causes of erosion are
Ground seen in landscaped identified and steps taken
Surface areas. to slow down/spread out
the water. Eroded areas
are filled, contoured, and
seeded.
A Trees and `~ Damage Limbs or parts of trees Trim trees/shrubs to
shrubs or shrubs that are split restore shape. Replace
or broken which affect trees/shrubs with severe
more than 25% of the damage.
total foliage of the tree
or shrub.
M ~ Trees or shrubs that Replant tree, inspecting
have been blown down for injury to stem or roots.
or knocked over. Replace if severely
damaged.
A '~ Trees or shrubs, which Place stakes and rubber-
are not adequately coated ties around young
supported or are trees/shrubs for support.
leaning over, causing
exposure of the roots.
If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance.
Comments:
Kev
A= Annual (lblarch or April preferred)
M = Monthly (see schedule)
S = After major storms
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 16
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
Green Viilage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Pervious Pavers
Frequency Drainage System Req'd Problem Conditions to Check For and Action to Conditions That Should
Featuie Take Exist
M, S Pervious pavers ~ Sediment buildup Ensure that the pervious pavets surface Sediment is removed and/or
on surface is free of sediment pavement is cleaned so that
infiltration works according
to design
M, S Pervious pavers ~ Sediment buildup Ensure that the contributing and Sediment is removed and/or
on surface adjacent landscape areas are stabilized pavement is cleaned so that
and mowed, with clippings removed infiltrauon works according
to design
4 Times/Yeaz Pervious pavers ~ Sediment buildup Vacuum sweep or vactor porous pavers Sediment is removed.
Min. on surface interstices. Replace with clean gavel
at correct gradation.
Upon Failure Pervious pavers ~ Spot clogging Prolonged spot puddling on pavement Remove pavers and replace
surface. ballast and sand as needed.
[f you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance.
Comments:
Key: A= Annual (March or April preferted)
M = Monthly (see schedule)
S = After major stortns
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 17
'
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
~
'
'
'
,
1
'
~
'
,
'
Green Viilage Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION
The project owner shall be responsible for the operations and maintenance of all onsite storm
drainage facilities.
SECTION 3- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
All disturbed pervious areas on the site will be landscaped to provide an aesthetically
pleasing environment.
SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL
Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste - Drains to Groundwater") will be embossed or painted
on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets and will be repainted periodically as necessary.
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Page 18
~~
1
1
1
1
1
1
~
~
~
PreliminaYy Drainage
Appendix 1
Calculations
~
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
,
,
'
'
~
'
'
'
t
~
,
PRELIMINAR,Y DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ,
The following calculations are based on the requirements contained in the 1992
Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual for
the Puget Sound Basin.
DESIGN AND BASIN INFORMATION SUMMARY:
Soil Classification (Soil Survey of Thurston County, WA):
SCS Soil Classification: Spanaway, Nisqually
Hydrologic Group: B
Design Infiltration Rate: 20 inches/hour
SCS ftunoff Curve Number: (Table III-1:3 WSDOE Storm Manual)
Post-developed (Lawns, 75% + grass cover): CN = 80
Post-development (impervious) CN = 98
Pre-development CN = 64
Rainfall Design Storms: (WSDOE Isopluvial Maps - App. AIII-1.1 of WSDOE Storm
Manual)
6 month storm (64% of 2 yr. storm) = 1.28"
2 yr./24 hour storm = 2.0"
10 yr./24 hour storm = 3.0"
100 yr./24 hour storm = 4.0"
Pre-Development Coverage Summary(Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Un-Disturbed
Pervious Roadway Total
A 2.45 0.04 2.49
B 2.32 0.06 2.38
C 2.46 0.04 2.50
D 2.74 0.03 2.77
Total 9.97 0.17 10.14
Post-Development~Coverage Summary(Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Disturbed
Pervious Pervious
Parking
Lot Roofs Sidewalks Path Roadways Driveways Total
A 1.19 0.11 0.43 0.12 0.09 0.43 0.12 2.49
B 1.31 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.38 . 0.15 2.38
C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.49 017 2.77
D 1.17 0.05 0.51 009 0.12 0.39 0.15 2.49
Total 5.12 016 1.89 0.28 0.41 1.69 0.59 1014
BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS Event Summary:
BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
BASIN A W/0 ROOFS 1.65 8.00 0.6940 3.71 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
100y
BASIN A W/O ROOFS 0.23 8.00 0.1047 3.71 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
6 mo
Drainage Area: BASIN A WITHOUT ROO FS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number
Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min
Area CN TC
Pervious 2.8600 ac 77.00 0.38 hrs
Impervious 0.8500 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs
Total 3.7100 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPING 77.00 2.8600 ac
Impervious CN Data:
PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND DW 98.00 0.8500 ac
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet OVERLAND 97.00 ft 0.50% 0.1500 21.06 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 197.00 ft 3.00% 42.0000 0.45 min
Channef PIPE FLOW 176.00 ft 1.00% 42.0000 0.70 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 128.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.72 min
Impervious TC Data:
, Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet ALONG GUTTER 170.00 ft 3.00% 0.0110 1.99 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 197.00 ft 3.00% 42.0000 0.45 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 176.00 ft 1.00°/a 42.0000 0.70 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 128.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.72 min
MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.2288 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 4561.88 cf - 0.1047 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS -100y] AS (100y]
Peak Flow: 1.6549 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 30231.01 cf - 0.6940 acft
Controi Structure ID: BASIN A- Infiltration control structure
Descrip: . Multipie Orifice '
Start EI Max EI Increment
303.0000 ft 304.0000 ft 0.10
Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00
Node ID: BASIN A
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ratio
300.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00
'
'
'
'
'
'
LJ
,
,
,
,
'
1
~
'
LJ
~
~
Node ID: BASIN A RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: BASIN A Discharge Id: BASIN A
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN A RLP] SUMMARY
100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.6549 cfs Peak Out Q: 1.1171 cfs - Peak Stg: 304.99 ft- Active Vol:
1532.05 cf
BASIN B W/O ROOFS Event Summary:
BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
BASIN B W/O ROOFS, 1.02 8.00 0.3932 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPE1A
100y
BASIN B W/O ROOFS 0.17 8.00 0.0691 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
6 mo
Drainage Area: BASIN B W/O ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number
Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min
Area CN TC
Pervious 1.3100 ac 77.00 0.32 hrs
Impervious 0.6300 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs
Total 1.9400 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.3100 ac
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.6300 ac
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet ACCROSS LOT 105.00 ft 1.00% 0.1500 17.00 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 282.00 ft 3.10% 42.0000 0.64 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 116.00 ft 0.94% 42.0000 0.47 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 189.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.06 min
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet ALONG GUTTER 16.00 ft 3.10% 0.0110 0.30 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 282.00 ft 3.10% 42.0000 0.64 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 116.00 ft 0.94% 42.0000 0.47 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 189.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.06 min
MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.1698 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3007.93 cf - 0.0691 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B W/O ROOFS -100yj AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 1.0198 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17129.17 cf - 0.3932 acft
Control Structure ID: BASIN B- Infiltration control structure
Descrip: Multiple Orifice
Start EI Max EI Increment
,
303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10
Infil: 20.00 in/hr Muitipiier: 1.00
Node ID: BASIN B
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ratio
15a.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00
Node ID: BASIN B RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: BASIN B Discharge Id: BASIN B .
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN B RLP] SUMMARY
100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.0198 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.6318 cfs - Peak Stg: 30 5.48 ft- Active Vol:
953.49 cf
BASIN C W/O ROOFS Event Summary:
BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
BASIN C W/O ROOFS 1.10 8.00 0.4487 2.12 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
100y ,
BASIN C W/O ROOFS 0.22 8.00 0.0850 2.12 SCSlSCS TYPEIA
6 mo
Drainage Area: BASIN C W/O ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number
Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min
Area CN TC
Pervious 1.3100 ac 77.00 0.44 hrs
Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00 0.12 hrs
Total 2.1200 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.3100 ac
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.8100 ac
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet , ~ ACCROSS LOT 120.00 ft 1.00°l0 0.1500 18.92 min
Sheet ALONG GUTTER LINE 456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 153.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 0.40 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 102.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.57 min
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description: Length: Siope: Coeff: Travel Time
Sheet ALONG GUTTER 456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 153.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 0.40 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 102.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.57 min
,
' MOVEHYD (BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.2170 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3702.11 cf - 0.0850 acft
, MOVEHYD [BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS -100y] AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 1.0996 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 19545.65 cf - 0.4487 acft
' Node ID: BASIN C RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib 8asin: Contrib Hyd: .
' Storage Id: BASIN C Discharge Id; BASIN C
/ Node ID: BASIN C
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
, Length Width Void Ratio
150.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN C RLP] SUMMARY
, 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.0996 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.7081 cfs - Peak Stg: 306.02 ft- Active Vol:
1158.98 cf
~
'
'
'
'
,
'
,
~
'
BASIN D W/O ROOFS Event Summary:
BasinlD Peak Q Peak T
------- (cfs) (hrs)
BASIN D W/O ROOFS i.09
100y
BASIN D W/O ROOFS 0.20
. 6 mo
Drainage Area: BASIN D W/O ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Pervious 1.1800 ac 77.00
Impervious 0.7500 ac 98.00
Total 1.9300 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPE 77.00
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00
Pervious 7C Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ACCROSS LOT
Sheet ALONG GUTTER LINE
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ALONG GUTTER
Channel PIPE FLOW
Peak Vol Area
(ac-ft) ac
8.00 0.4109
8.00 0.0783
Method Raintype Event
/Loss
1.93 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
1.93 SCS/SCS TYPEIA
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Intv: 10.00 min
TC
0.45 hrs
0.07 hrs
1.1800 ac
0.7500 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
120.00 ft 1.00% 0.1500 18.92 min
456.00 ft 1.14°/a 0.0110 6.46 min
434.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 1.15 min
52.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.29 min
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
174.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 2.99 min
434.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 1.15 min
'
Channel PIPE FLOW 50.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.28 min
MOVEHYD [BASIN D W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.2017 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3411.54 cf - 0.0783 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN D W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS -100y) AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 1.0051 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17898.86 cf - 0.4109 acft
Control Structure ID: BASIN D- Infiltration control structure
Descrip: Multiple Orifice
Start EI Max EI Increment
303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10
Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 '
Node ID: BASIN D
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ratio
150.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00
Node ID: BASIN D RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: BASIN D Discharge Id: BASIN D
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN D RLP) SUMMARY
100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.0051 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.6437 cfs - Peak Stg: 305.57 ft- Active Vol:
~ 985.33 cf
PARKING LOT Event Summary:
BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
PARKING LOT 0.36 8.00 0.1217 0.39 SCSlSCS TYPEIA 100y
PARKING LOT 0.11 8.00 0.0342 0.39 SCS/SCS TYPE1A 6 mo
Drainage Area: PARKING LOT
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Pervious 0.0000 ac 77.00
Impervious 0.3900 ac 98.00
Total 0.3900 ac
Supporting Data:
Impervious CN Data:
PARKING LOT 98.00
ROO F 98.00
SIDEWALK 98.00
ROOF 98.00
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Intv: 10.00 min
TC
0.00 hrs
0.02 hrs
0.1500 ac
0.1100 ac
0.0200 ac
0.1100 ac
Length: Slope:
Coeff: Travel Time
r
~ Channel PIPE FLOW 201.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.13 min
Channel PIPE FLOW 30.00 ft 2.00% 42.0000 0.08 min
, MOVEHYD [PARKING LOT] TO jPARKiNG LOT - 6 mo] AS [6 moj
Peak Flow: 0.1051 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 1491.34 cf - 0.0342 acft
' MOVEHYD [PARKING L07] TO [PARKING LOT -100y] AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 0.3551 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 5299.95 cf - 0.1217 acft
'
,
~
,
'
,
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
,
,
Control Structure ID: PARKING LOT - Infiltration control structure
Descrip: Multiple Orifice
Start EI Max EI Increment
303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.14
Infl: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00
Node ID: PARKING LOT
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ratio
64.7100 ft 100.0000 ft 30.00
Node ID: PARKING LOT RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: PARKING LOT Discharge Id: PARKING LOT
RLPCOMPUTE [PARKING LOT RLPJ SUMMARY
100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 0.3551 cfs Peak Out Q: 3.0020 cfs - Peak Stg: 303.46 ft- Active Vol
890.54 cf
~
,
~
~
tJ
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
,
~
i Appendix II
Preliminary Drainage and TESC Plan
~
~
_ _ - _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ "~ ~~' ~w ,~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~
_ ~- .-.--
.~
, .
~ ...... ~ ......
_.. _. :..:::s;.; .:,. '
,.
j?i.; :
r
... .,,.. . ;.':~
::.~, ...y._::
. ., .,:.,~ ., _<3..
4 _, .,:,::.
~ . ~
00 0 0 00 0 0
~D Tr Tr N ~ ~ZO-/ ~'~
>
F SF N
~~~ V!
$~~ ~
$~ F ~~~F oF
;
8 pm~
C yn
~ on
O
~ c7
~ o~ ma-~ ~
r zw
P il.p
t
D~ OZ
~~a Z
~~~ Z
=
~ b
P ~71A
~z~ V1D
/x~m
N 7
pcp ~~ijr ~~
r ~ N D
cf ~o
N _
p
~~I ~~ j
<n ~5 G n
~N~ A
;
°~
oA
oA
g
g
;
~~ O
N
N
n
n
m
N y
m~ Z y
C'
~ p ~
Z
~m ~
~ m ~ ~ ~~ D Z
0 J
C
~ o ~. g; > ~~~ Z
o ~ u7 m '7i o ~ ~'~F ~
? ~ ~~ ~~ A ~~m ~
o
Z Z uz
om wZ
° y pOZm
g a
~
$
;p om
A
;~ 1
D ~
m8 N
0
m
1
~ m~
A=
~ Z r y
m A m
~
~ o p D ~ m
= = ~
~ ~ $ m ~
m n
Z ~
~
O Q
~ i ' ~
i ~
~ #~ } ~ I ~
8 g " ~
~ O ~ ~ y
~ •
~ ~ I ~ m
' v
i ~ ~ N Z m m o D o O O D m A o
N = ~ O -i -1 ~ x m ~ ~ z ~ m m
m
Z p z m m r ~ y X m f) ~ ~ ~ A
m < ~ D D ~
Z O ~ ~ y ~ ~ Z f+l Z Z ~
o~ r.~~ ro cZi i c m
~ y A
Z m o m
• '~ ~ - ~ ~- ~ ~ --
m
A
~ m ~ N
~
D2 ~D
Z m N p r p
OSAnn~a
-~E~c~SiZi ~ ^~ a
oAOOn_ A
vpZOON ~ N
,~',~
<
~oo
yy ~ rn- ~
N '~-~~-
•
~
m~j p o
om~ n N
o
O y ~
?
mDO~~ ~
om z ~
m
~~C~m
IINmaZ
Z g
U f.~ ..
.~ U~ 2
A' W ;
A~-ImA
~ ~
~
0
~O > g~~
g ~ 5 0\ o[acn[o er: D68
m' ~~- ~ oR~rm er: OGB
a
I^' S i g~ ~
'
~'~ ~
~~ fy~ ~~, CMEpfin eY: REH
$ a~ a,~ a
i
~
a ~~6 ~~
I ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
`_' ~ ~
DA~: 12I17/04
scut: 1'=sa
GREEN VALLEY
SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY
GRADING &
DRAINAGE PLAN
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_
- ;;..
.~___~.t..~..
_ .. ~.._.Ya_.:
~, ' ' :...
` p Q
i ~
, ~
I ~
~#o~~.~l~ ~
~ ~ ~
a~ o
~ ~ I ~ m
~ o ~ ~ o
z° A m~ i~ m° D o 0 0>`" A o
cn x ~ = m m ~ '~ A A ~ ~ m v
p r, xo z o~~~ x m s; z~ ~
a
~° m m m c~i ci ~ x ~ ~ v n a ~
Z O ti ti y ~ ~ Z ~^ Z Z C
o~ ro cZi Z ~ m
~ ~ D ~
~ Z ~ D
Z m ~ m
m=_ ,.~::_. ? ~ .-- -
~m~w~
D
~ D
Z
cr
Z~NA
O
O
D
D O
m
y
Z
m
C
f~~Z
N N
n
~
~p
O
~ N
~`1
ZO
N
y ~ ..
D
~
~~~ny~
r O ~
~-~
C
N CJ O
~~ U
O
y y
2Z
om z
~r'n~n~ ~ ~
m
<~Cym
II yma z
2 g
Wf~lym
A• W ~
-'~-1~.~
~ ~
~
> ~ 4N ~ ~
= •~ ~ ~ o - oESCNEn er: DGB
DGB
y~ ~ O
i~, v
g= ~
a
.. g
~
~~ ? ~
~~ ~..
Q RANN BY:
a+Eaceo Br
REH
~ ~ ~
~F ~
~~
O1~ ~
~
~ ~~
,Q
~
A~6 .
I° I m ~F 'n
~ > a ~ ~~•_
DATE: 1?J17!04
~ ~ ~ ~
sc,~: 1•=sa
GREEN VALLEY
SUBDIVISION
PRELIMINARY
COMPOSITE
UTILITY PLAN
~ ~r r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ~s ~^r ~w ~ ~ _ ~ +Nr~
ci ~
~ N
~ ~
v ~`~
m 6' ^
'_ '
Z A
'~ r
O °~
Z ~g
1 ~
m ~~
~ ~
rZOn~ ~ ~
~-~m m
=O~A Z Z
~^
~Arm O
2~O
~
+1 D
f
Ll~~~ Z r
~ ~ ~~ Z
yZ~O V1 O 1NIOd H~1Y~
~ 2.
' <
A
~Z~m
N
m C r m '~
tt
Z N p ~ ~
"1
p T D
v
~^ A i z > 1N3W3SY3 0
unun
~
~;m~ p
_ _ _ _
- _ _
_ _
..~,
.~
-
C O N N X
CJ A ~t n Z NlVM3~1S ~: .
,
~
~ D O~, ~~
Z L CIL15 M31NVld y
fA~IDqZ m ~ u
mmo~ ~ zmm , ~ ~ ~,
0
C~ -~
;iV1~~ ~
~
oz'~
Ay
~
- ~
3NVlJ!l1V111 m
~
1
Z~ o
c
y~m y
z - - -
A
-_ _ _ _ ~n
.
,~, ,~ ,
-~ Y~~', ~',,,,ynn
M
~ p
~
o ~ ~?1 3Ntll ~IiJV2LL m
~ z
o
0
m m
-°
C7 -
~ ~ dieus a~r+ria ~
~ O~ O~ ~_ _- _ ~-NlVM3015 ~: ~ '_._ ~ ~ _.~_..~~_
r ~ ~ ° 1N3Y135V3 0 ~
m O ~
0
m ~, unun
<
~
" (~ ~ ~.
~'~ ~'4~
t =
~
~ = c~ ~ ,
~ LNIOd H~1V~ ~
~ O
0
~ ~
N
~ o
~ I ~ ~ ~
~
~ CJl o
~ ~p ,
/
n s9
fD' ~1 ~:
~%
~ / ~
s ~ ~
~ ~
Z i
4~ `~ ay ~
F~, %,; ~ °
'PQ y m
N $
~ ~
o~
V .
' ~ A ~
O ~ ~
`
Z
~
i ±
~
A
>
e ~
j
~ a
~ V
~
~ ~ ~
~~
m
~S ~ ~ ~
I I
I I
~~^~ ,
aoo
, ~
,
Z ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~
i
~ ~
~ ::, i ~ o°
~\
, ~
$
~ ~
, :
~ .,
o
/ ` ~
~ P{
]! ~., ~ ~,
A C
E ~
.
~~
~~
D ~ N
v
~ ~~
Qy~
~ >~
~ ~
~
~
~ Q
(/I !
A }~' ~ w
n ~ 8 R
!~ Z V7 Y n
Q
~ 5
~
~ ~
~
~~v~ m,~~~ ~mo~ amv~ ~xa~~q~~~~~~~oo~~ ~ .~~Q o
.~m°$~ ~n',~o~~ $~^»~ ~'~go °-s~ ~D`~'g3'a3°2m°~.°.~, m~~g°v° w
34, ° o=fq Q$ :_o ~3°R Q°,. „m~m~~~~o~s•s ag~~°oo
°-y~,~ ~$y v o~e ~0 3• .o ~03 T~ n$0~~ m o n o`~- P
g~s~ ;~°.~°~~ og~R Ro~° ;a~ mg~sSP~',°.X'~o N~~os~~
g$~O av~m~ °a5° ~ga~ i°~. oa°~rs~coo~~'s •$m. ~ °-a.a"oo $
0 a m . ~~~ m u ~ o a ~ o~`~ 7 G~~ a o-w m ~ m~ G o N 7 ~ a.vi ~• ~ o 0
v~,. woo u3 s ¢ u o A m__
~v~m s~~~~ o3'um $~3g ~~D 3~m3iPOO~n°c_om~ oNO4~,c~ p
nu$~ pO-v Q oc ~O °~^ mo °mv3ri~~On$SCa~ t''~ p~~n$ $
-~°a ~.i~~m 3 °o' $una ~° ~~~nv°•°•~~oi~-$ ~mn m~.°c.
c ao o$o ~ ~~ 4i ~ a~.D ai ~ n »n P~ .°.g' n~ n ~ I g q ~
0 o m~ u ~G m p f~ C o Io . o p ;~ m
2 yo> > ~ ~~ on o vTA~~~o~;go ^o ?~ u7~ ~ Qcc ~
~~~c .$~~~. upa rn vo ~ M vomm f3:° ioo u
n~~c ~° o o•oo Zao`< jO .°.= o~ 3n' ~'ri ~ on~n'°~-- °,
n~ 4 4 S N O K~~ .~. I O a ~ f0 -~i~ q U 9• ~~~ -1 v~~~G Z~
0 v n m ~ m 4 w Q a p~ p p N u 3 Q F p O~. m'¢W .n. q Q (4/7 ~~ N-~w D~ ~~ T
a ~~ .G.OO O S ~ JC ; A u~ .p f~ m T~ ~ O P-. G 7 0 0 p 0
Q$Om ~~'oo~ ~va m'~~~ on n~~~p~3 ~~'o~ ° q ov e'° o
°m`'$ °^~~° m3.3 ao~-o R~ °°go°i~ mo~m ~,a°» a
~ ~ uo m °u :: m.« o~ 'vmmnn..,. T~
w
0 3 n S ~ ~ m ~* m~ ° f~` ~ r~i ~ m a v~~.. ° n° a o ~~"'
~m$~ T~m'°° ~~S ~o~ ~° ,D (°o°.ma~ ~vnm p?~x
$~v_
° ~ S .a+ 'onD v3 '~Tn~„ ~ gnc ~ a n
ovQ~. ~'4.~° ~n ^o~ m~ $~°~.~o ~0 3m 4^ n~
e`~ 5 A~ v ~ ~ u~
~~ ~ ~ a
O~ S~ O~ i~ ~ O [_ b ~ ~`^ ti p o ,(/1 n
Q~~~ a? Rn v_$.~ ~1a3 m~ , Q~vo,° aOn~ iiNC~
~m~ o~i~ m$~t <~c oo m 7. m~~ ~ ~3 °.~
u$O. °-;~°., °'° a°m~ ~~. 3 `-'~ $§r" ~' am ''e n
~g ~ a
3°~ ::`o_°tm cu~ ° ~~° .°.v v Q ~~ ' pO ~ ' "
~ ,°m, 3 ° o ~ ~ ° ~ O ~ ~ S ~ ~ m ° ~ N m ~ =^
- O O; G O b - u m O S n v O p~ n
,~ ~oo~ o. ~ mYC 3 m g~o u u_ o
c~m ~ypp ~ n n o °n~ °o ~° r ~ ;:
~ ~ o ~ j (~ ~ p / ~
S n
o '~ ~c
r Z ~ n~ -- ~
c> ~ ^'' ' r~
=O~lA Z
~A~'m i z
Z~~m
D
ny~~ tn r
?.
vom~ ~ Z ~
4
azzo m o
~ N
~~
LZCI
i
I
m Cr ~
~o
n .
~
y
m
~
imN cz
~
i
~
r°o~ ??.
~zAO i N
~
mDy2 ~
'~
o v ~~~
` ~
~
y ~g~
~ z ~
m~m
ti
' ' _ _ ' - ' _ ' -. _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ ' - __ _ ' _
1N3Y135V3 '
unun ~7
_ - .__ S _`_'- _ _ __
_ _ _ r. T _
~_ ~ . .d1Y1S..tl3:NYl3. .a ~
3NIlNOIi u
3NYl `JNINLVd ~
~ 3NVl J11fYlLL =
~-, _ _ _- ~`~
~ 3NV~ ~LLiVlll ~
3NYl ~NINtlVd N
3NIlMOI~ .
~
eiais a~NVia
~: ~
- - ~ - NivMaais
---_ U z7 r
`_'--_--- ^' _•-
-
1N3Y135Y3
unun 0 ~
iNwd ~iv~
in °>
w~,y ~ m
~~
A
,~~
o y
~
~
~ Z
, ~.~y
N
Zy ~
< ~
~ ~ ~~ ~y-
h~
-`~ ~ = a
x r
y
~ ? F g~~ A~ ~
~ Q": I
~
~
>
m
^H F
1~w ~~'~ ~ k ~
~. F~ 3~
9 ~25
$ ~
D
w Ly~
~ ~~~~
~ ~~
N~ ~
~~
~ 0
; ~
L ~
~ <~ ~a
~
~
~ ~
~
` / ~ + ~ oo-ooo°ooo°
~ Ir ~~
-T1 ~ ~
o ~ ^-'~ ~`F~ ~
£ ~ ~ ~
z ~ *
~ ~
(7 ia• z'o' a' $, ~
~
fTl
~s r"
~ ~~ ~7
~ ~
~
D
= ~
r tv
O
~~'y
~D
~ JC .Z)
~~
~ m
p z
~ ~
~~
1L
ft
O ~~
I yl
H
~
1~
r~
Z ~ . ~ _ Cs
m
~ A~~~ m
~, ~~os ~ ~
a
~ m
v~
r
~
~ ~ ro
~ ~ b ~
f~rl ~ o ~°g~y ~
~ E O n~~? ~ d
~
p
~
o 'zam ~
m ~~
~
~
f~l N ~ ~~~ ~
~ yi~ ~"
~
Z
--i ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
-D ~ N 4~~
~J >
U A>o ~ Z
0 0~; ~
T Z s !'~ 1
(
) ~o
~
~ o~
o~
O o W
z . -~W
~g
~~
~ Z~
Cp
i~^.~
<
~,°~
~ y
'L1
~
~ i ~ m .
'+
q
^
A ~ ~
S , ~ -
r-
-
_
~ ~
C
•
.f
o ~
Z ~-1 ~
-1 i n° u'*rn~ ~ ~
m
f ~ 1 ~ ~
~
i r ~ D ~y
~ z
~
~ -
i
m
~ ~ ' > ~
D n ~i
r m N t~
~ m ~
~
D
C ~
~ ~ ~
~
~ m
o ~
~
m
1.{ I y
~
~ N z
z =
~'
' a
m c ~ ~
~ m Z
~ ~
Z -~ a
~ ~ r
-i ~~
, ?1
~ ~
~
(~l ` ~
~1 ~
'
~
'
'
'
1
~
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
1
'
1
Appendix III
FEMA FIRMMap
1
~ ~
~ z
w o
m o
~ o
~ ~
z ~,
J
Q
~
~ ~ ~ O Z
O O C~ ~
Q
W 0~0 0~0 W O
0 ~
~ oo w a
o ~ ~ p ~
~ N Q
~
F- I
~ U
~
W W
V Z
W O
N
~
L.L.I
~
~ ~
U W
~~ ~
~ ~~ a ~ o
. vboa ~ nn~rn ~v~t~.t~vnow
:
^
~
a <: • j :~
~ r
.._,_------- '.~ ril
~ ~ 1, ~ ~ ~.
°*~ 31 ~ a lS ~~.l..1.3 {U ~! f1 ~ _ ~ ~ ° ~ ' ~
~ E
~ 1 ~
a
'..~ ~
w ;~
Q~
~
~I
rn~+.
, ~ jE
' ;~'Q k ~ ~
I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~
o ~ ,~ ~ ! t----------
~e ~
~ g ~~
F ' ~ ~ .R'~~'x~W,hte'~~
~ u ~ ~ ~;. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ,ux'~'~'"'_ - "~~~ .,~
. . . r, d E.} . .~.e' ~t~"~e.~.:~~-i ,.
W ~
~
a r ~
~ ~
Z
O
~
a >
am
~
~ ~
Q w
~ J
~
Q
W >
LL z
w
w
~
c~
a ''
~
_.~.~ ~ °
~ C
~ ~~ c ~,
~U
C~
1
1
1
1
~;
~
1
1
~
~
1
1
1
1
1
1
, Appendix IV
Pervious Pavers Literature
~
'
~
'
'
,
'
1
,
'
,
'
~
'
,
'
1
'
'
~
'
~
~
: ,~', ;.,.; - ' ... . - , i~
-
>
'~'
; ~~
= - : ,
~
--.~.
; , .
:
.
;~~~~ 0µ =.:s~=_ ry~~T:, ,:-, 6 ~ ; ,'i=: . , .
~ y}x~ :.y~,
~'=:">.»a:~ ~,;;;::»-.-r';;'°y':"" - ~~i,'tr ~, w
~D
,~r
'`"`~x
~
~
"° . .
.
°".;-~~
` . .
~. .
6
~
f
4.
',.Y".. y,
,
:
;
~
~ ,,.+'`
'+
" -'
~
"=°„~,,`~ «":. 'x"~'..' ' . e ~;`~ .' r : <..S
"Y, i • . s ..ti'`; •' ^
• - ' -
--•-Y,~'= - - _ s' ' «, p^ ~ r~'t ~ . ~ •.
"'y'~:" z ~ -
~ ~-fm ~S ~".Y~b"~ ° Y._ ~ -
~~
..
T' ~ ~'i~i•: ` _
v
'W
`:r =rt
:~ -
~
~
~
'~
~
i
~
x
~ p
~"
+~; 'rJ .,
s~°"m
.
"
,' ,
'
. ,~p
,~M~r!
~ ~~
:
»3
,
..
.F
<
.r
,
.F
-: .
~', ~:
`,
,.
e~ ' -'
_ E
!
~ i _
rt , -
x,,~,. ' ' ° "-s.- = _ - _x
^^~;..
~:~ : ~.:~,
: ~+.. ". ±
~'it. .
s-
...~Fa' :` - ~ $
~'~`
,p
~ ._ _
''
'- L
T~="
: L
~
»
~''
;•'
4 !w~ ,
.~. .
, „K
. .~.,
.
'~'
a
-
.
.
~ :.
.
a
i
.~-:
-
._.:_C,.' Y,
L ~
:ar .EU
~4. .
~°~Z.".~lu ~ '_~ 5. T;,, ~
" .~.,T"-i~~ ~ ....r' ~ '-`:,tT -:t,~~ i_L ~~..~'L~~'
u ~~:.~
.o:~
~
:
'
'
~ _,,
\
.
~
~s
i
. ,
.
.._
;,,
' ' ~ ' ' .~. ^'
_ ~y -~R"' ~ e _ ' ~
t
L
~
`~4"
T +
,_' ,M^ .P~i
f~
' . .
, hK,
F
-`s
~ ~ _ ~
~ '
`
..
:
~~
~ r
~
+ iv
~ 01
~»q
~
..
._
..
.
..
~ ~ ~
~~ .`ti ~ ~ .`_.. ~""~ .-.~,,.- : ~
m~v~~w..~w ~r.r~s,~. ~~•.+~.... ~.r....~.. ~ s.~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~,r..
'°~','_^~.r.~>«•,.t -.n„.~.W,^~.+ew...:.l.~iw.w ~~i.-.+~~.~~ ~...w r.-.r y^ '
._z. _ . . . ..r~.r~..~..r.....Ya~.~......e . . . . wr..~.~.~+-.J~.-.,+....+~w.....iw.... a. .. .~..`.--..i.~....a.~~.«~a.. v.. ~
.i, •
.,,
~~~~~~,"',.d .
}~~
~
;K~4' ;
^
J
~~
F~~t
,,.~.~b~+TS~r~Y.'. ,»„ .:•~ ~ ~~e~','~~~'~~ ~ _
. ~N `., .~..!^'x.' ,
:`~.-'•, ; ..,.^.:.-y"~;«~,. . ... .,, Y,„ .; Y " .
"ti: ,::~," ~o n, Ya,: - ' ~ `'-1~..., ~ '
- ~^~ ~ ~ ti:r
_.Pi, - ,_ ~,u-,~ . ..¢, ...;+..
, ~. : ,,.,;%' °s-..~+i
, ~~_ :_~ . °:.--a.
~~ 'j ~Y'}~ ~~ ~
.. , m :;~~:' <, rr , `" ~ , ' : ~ :, rv~ :.. "~ . ..+ c:>> -
, . , i~ x,- •,._.. '= . ~:' , ~,~
- i . . . . , ' ~ s~" ~ " . " *e„at ",;
~ - ^`h, . . . .~.L`',n:. ~u~~' , ~•,,~ ...~'~.
.. , '',J~•:..
` , . . • - ' . . , ...~z.'
V4 . .... . . ' ~.SC'. . . }~ ~~.'v. . ~~ . , .. , , ~'a
Permedble Pavement
for Stormwater Management
~~~R~
,:.:.,
UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES
'
~ ,
ur~~
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. I
4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 •(561) 626-4666 • Fax (561) 627-6403 •(800) 872-1864
This paper is a summary of the Eco-Stone research and studies that have been done to date and includes a general design overview '
and ocher information that may be helpful to the designer. For a copy of any of these reports, theses, or articles call UNI-GROUP
U.S.A. at 1-800-872-1864 or contact us via e-mail at info@uni-groupusa.org.
The information included in this report is intended to provide guidance and recommendations for the design and construction of '
UNI Eco-Stone~ interlocking concrete permeable pavements. Recommendations are guidelines only and will vary with local
regulacions, specifications, environmental conditions, materials, and established construction methods for an area. It is not intended
co replace the judgement or expertise of professional engineers or landscape architects, who should be consulted in the design and '
construction of permeable pavements.
OO 2002 UNI-GROUP U.S.A. '
This report may not be reproduced whole or in part without the express written consent of UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
ACKER STONE MUTUAL MATERIAIS, INC.
1329G i'emescal Canyon Rd., Corona, CA 9 Ul9 605 119ch Ave. N. E., Bellewe, WA 98005
(909) 674-0047 / PAX (909) 674-0477 (425) 452-2300 / FAX (425) 637-0794
(800)477-3008
ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS MUTUAL MATERIALS
INC.
CORPORATEHEADQUARTERS
1913 Adancic Ave., Manasquan, NJ 08736 ,
672] E. Trent, Spokane, WA9921'_
(732) 292-2500 I FA?C p3?) 292-2650 (509) 922-4100 / FAX (509) 922-7~07
(800)755-0413
ANCHORCONCRETEPRODUCTS
975 Bumc Tavem Rd., Brick, NJ 08724
(732) 458-6888 / FAX (732) 840-4283
ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS
100 Foulrik Rd., Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
(908) 475-1225 / FAX (908) 475-l787
MUTUAL MATERGILS, INC.
18230 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd.
Portland, OR 97224
(503) G24-8860/ FAX (503) 620-4i09
(800)477-7137
PAVESTONE COMPANY UNILOCK NEW YORK, INC. '
1900 Clovis Barker Rd., San Marws, T?C 78666 51 [nrernacional Blvd., Brewsrer, NY 10509
(512) 558-7283 / FAX (512) 558-7289 (914) 278-6700 / FAX (914) 278-G788
PAVESTONE COMPANY
169 Peggy Iane, Tyrone, GA 30290
(770) 306-9G91 / FAX (770) 306-8741
PAVESTONE COMPANY
G4033 Highway 434, Lacombe, LA 70445
(S04) 882-9111 ! FAX (504) 882-5225
UNILOCK CHICAGO, INC.
301 E. Suflivan Rd., Aurorz, IL 60504
(G30) 892-9191 I FAX (G30) 892-9215
'
IJNILOCK MICHIGAN, INC.
12591 Emerson Dr., Brighcon, MI 4811G
(248) 437-7037 I FAX (248) 437-4619
PAVESTONE COMPANY UPTIIACK OHIO, INC.
8479 Broadwell Rd., Cincinnaci, OH 45244 I?5G0 Sheets Rd., Rittman, OH 44270
(513) 474-3783 / FAX (513) 474•6G83 (330) 927-4000 I FAX (330) 927-4100
ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS PAVER SYSTEMS PAVESTONE COMPANY
I 10 Bergen Turnpike, Little Ferry, NJ 07643 7167 Inrerpace Rd., West Palm Beach, FL 33407 ~015 S. 43rd Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85009
(201) 641-2161 / FAX (201) 641-2779 (5G1) 844-5202 ! FAX (561) 844-5454 (G02) 257-4588 / FAX (602) 257-1224
(800) 22G-0004 ppyESTONE COMPANY
BALCONIBETCO
2630 Conway Rd., Crof~on, MD 21114
(410) 721-1900I FAX (4f0) 793-0657
Balcimore (410) 793-0G38
Mecro Washingron, DC (30t) 261-0200
BORCERT PRODUCTS, INC.
8646 Ridgewood Rd.,Sc Joseph, MN 56374
(320) 363-4G71 I FAX (320) 363-8516
IDEAL CONCRETE BLOCK CO.
45 Power Rd., WestFord, MA 0188G
(781) 894-3200 I FAX (978) 692-0817
(800)444-7287
IDEAL CONCRETE BLOCK C0.
232 Iexington Sc, W.ilcham, MA 02454
(731) 894-3200/ FAX (781) 894-852G
(800)444-7287
[NTERLOCK PAVING SYSTEMS, INC.
802 Wesc Pembroke Ave., Hampron, VA ?3669
(757) 7?3-0774 I FAX (757) 723-8895
(800) 572-3189 (In NC & VA)
[QRCHNER BLOCK & BRICK, INC.
12901 St. Charles Rock Rd.,
Bndgeron, MO G30G4
(314)'91-3200 I FAX (3l4) 29L0265
PAVER SYSTEMS
39 West Landscreec Rd., Odando, FL 32824
(407) 859-91171 FAX (407) 851-9316
(800) 22G-9117
PAVER SYSTEMS
5907 N. l2ch Sc. & Busch Blvd.,
Tampa, FL 33604
(813) 932-2212 / FAX (813) 933-4914
(800)356-PAVE
PAVER SYSTEMS
343 Interstate Blvd., Sararota, FL 34240
(941) 377-9594 / FAX (941) 377-9780
PAVESTONE COMPANY
CORPORATEHEADQUARTERS
700 Heritage Square I
4835 LBJ C~ Dallas Parkway, DalJas. TX 75244
(972) 404-0400 / FAX (972) 404-9200
(800) 580-PAVE (Texas On(y)
(800) ?45-PAVE (Nacional)
PAVESTONE COMPANY
3215 Stare Highway 360, Grapevine, TX 76099
(Sl7) 481-5802 / FAX (S V) 488-3?16
PAVESTONE COMPANY
3001 Kacv-Brookshire Rd., Katv, TX 77494
(231) 391-7283 / FAY (?81) 391-7337
601 N. E. Pavescone Dr.,
Lee's Summic, MO 64064
(81G) 524-99001 FAX (StG) 524-9901
PAVESTONE COMPANY
9401 E. 9Gch Ave., Henderson, CO 80640
(303) 287-3700 / FAX (303) 287-9759
PAVFSTONE COMPANY
4675 Wynn Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89103
(702) 22L2700 / FAX (702) 221-2727
PAVESTONE COMPANY
4751 Power Inn Rd., Sacramento, C.4 95826
(916) 45z-5233 / FAX (916) 452-9242
PAVESTONE COMPANY
27600 Counry Rd. 90, Wincers CA 95694
(91G) 452-5?33l FAX (91G) 452-9242
UNILOCK, LTD.
287 Armstrong Ave.
Gmrgecown, Ontario, Canada UG-4X6
(905) 4>3-1438 / FAX (905) 874-3034
UNILOCK, INC.
510 Smith Sc, Buffalo, NY 14210
(716) 82?-6074 I FAX (7I6) 822-607G
WILLAMETTE GRAYSTONE, INC.
2405 N. E. 244th Ave.,
Wood Village, OR 97060
(503) 669-7612 / FAX (503) 669-7619
LICENS[NG OFFICE:
E VON LANGSDORFF L(CENSING LTD.
14145 Kennedy Road, RRrl,inglewood,
Ontario, Canada LON-1K0
(9051 838-1980 / FA?C (905) 838-1981
Visic our websire ac www.uni-groupusa.org for
updaced informacion on our manuEacrurer
liscings, research, daign guides and more.
L~
~
'
,
'
'
,
'
~
,
,'
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
,
, UNI ECO-STONE~ PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION ..................:.......................................................................................................................................5
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN .............................................................. ........6
' UNI ECO-STONE~ PERMEABLE INTERLOCHING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS ............................................
Features and Benefits of the Uni Eco-Stone° Pavement System ....................................................................... ........7
........7
Municipal Regulations, Infiltration Practices, and Objectives ......................................................................... ........7
' General Construction Guidelines ..................:.......................................................................................................8
Design Options - Full, Partial, or No Exfiltration ......................................................................................8
Site Selection Guidelines ................................................................................................................... .......9
' Infiltration Rate Design and Considerations .............................................................................................9
Construction Materials and Installation Guidelines ................................................................................10
Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................... ..... l l
~ Cold Climate Considerations .................................................................................................................1 l
RESEARCH AND TESTING - UNI ECO-STONE~ PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEM .......................................12
Design Consideracions for the UNI Eco-Stone° Concrete Paver ...................................................................... .....12
' Drainage Design and Performance Guidelines for UNI Eco-Stone~ Permeable Pavement ................................
Infiltration and Structural Tests of Permeable Eco-Paving ................................................................................ .....13
.....14
ONGOING R.ESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY ........................................................................................... .....15
The Leaching of Pollutants From Four Pavemencs Using Laboratory Apparatus .............................................. .....15
' Stormwater Investigation ofThermal Enrichment of Stormwater Runoff From Two Paving Surfaces ............... .....19
Design and Installation ofTest Sections of Porous Pavements for Improved Qualiry of Parking Lot Runoff...... .....21
Long-Term Stormwater Infiltration Through Concrete Pavers ........................................................................ .....24
, Feasibiliry of a Permeable Pavement Option in the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) for
Long-Term Continuous Modeling .................................................................................................................. .....27
Restoration of Infiltration Capaciry of Permeable Pavers ................................................................................. .....29
GUELPH SYNOPSES OF RESEARCH .................................................................................................................... .....32
, ADDITIONAL L1NI ECO-STONE~ RESEARCH AND TESTING ........................................................................ .....34
The Universiry of Washington Permeable Pavement Demonstration Project .................................................... .....34
Expert Opinion on UNI Eco-Stone`~ - Pedestrian Use ..................................................................................... .....34
' Expert Opinion - In-Situ Test of Water Permeabiliry of Two UNI Eco-Stone° Pavements ................................ .....34
Drainage with Interlocking Pavers .................................................................................................................. .....34
' Development of Design Criteria for Flood Control and Groundwater Recharge Utilizing
UNI Eco-Stone° and ECOLOC~ Paving Units ....................................................................................................34
,
'
'
~
~
~
STRUCTURAL DESIGN SOFTWARE .........................................................................................................................35
POWERPOINT° PRESENTATION .............................................................................................................................35
CASE STUDIES .............................................................................................................................................................36
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................37
INSPECTION FORMS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS .............................................................38
1
!
UNI ECO-STONE° PROJECTS t
• Rio Vista Water Treatmenc Plant Castaic Lake Water Agenry, Santa Clarita, CA 27>000 sq ft
• Mickel Field & Highlands Park Wilton Manors, FL 37>165 sq ft '
• Wilcox Lake Park, Ciry of Richmond Hill Oakridges, ON 8>000 sq ft
• Annsville Creek (ECOLOC°) Peekskill, NY 20,000 sq ft
• Private Residence Winter Park, FL 1,200 sq ft
• Atlanta Zoo
Aclanta, GA
400
sq fc '
• Private Residence South Shore, MA 1,000 sq Ft
• English Park Adanta, GA 2,700 sq ft
• Homestead Village, VI Dallas, TX 3,000 sq ft '
• Private Residence Jupiter Island, FL 3,SQQ sq ft
• Humberwood Development Center Etobicoke, ON 9,000 sq ft
• Commercial Parking Lot North Hampton, NH 15,000 sq ft ,
• Kean Design Winter Park, FL 3,000 sq ft
• Crary Crab Restaurant Hilton Head, SC 900 sq ft
• Cumberland Island National Seashore Museum St. Mary's, GA 4,000 sq ft
• Booth's Cobblestone Parlcing Lot
Orlando, FL
1,800
sq ft ~
• Private Residence Dallas, TX 4>000 sq ft
• Howard Hook, Port of New YorWNew Jersey (ECOLOC~) Staten Island, NY 15,000 sq ft
• Residential Housing Development
Hilton Head Island, SC
~ 1,SQ0
sq ft '
• Queenquay Communiry Cenrer Toronto, ON 3,000 sq ft
• Wynnsong Cinemas Savannah, GA 10,000 sq ft
• Private Residence Winter Park> FL 14,000 sq k ~
• Jordan Cove - Glen Brook Green Waterford, CT 15>000 sq ft
• Regenc Court Apartments Vero Beach, FL 5,500 sq ft
• St. Andrews Church • Sonoma, CA 3,500 sq ft '
• Narbourfront Fire Stacion No. 9 Toronto, ON 7,400 sq ft
• Parkland Homes Winrer Park, FL 2,000 sq fc
• Sherwood Island State Park Westport, CT 32,000 sq ft
• Corkscrew Swamp State Park
Naples> FL
2,500
sq fc ,
• Triniry United Church Grimsby, ON 10,000 sq ft
• Commercial Parking Lot Nantucket, MA 23,000 sq ft
• Newark Aicport Newark, NJ 262,00 0 sq & '
• Ford Canada Corporation Oakville, ON 2,500 sq fr
• Private Residence Long Island, NY 1,500 sq k
• Privace Residence Sanibel Island, FL 395 sq fc ~
• Multnomah Arts Center Portland, OR 10,500 sq ft
,
i
1
Please use chis guide to review the extensive research that has been conducted by UNI-GROUP U.S.A. and UNI
International. The references and guideLines will he[p ensure that your UNI Eco-Stone~ system will perform as intended '
over ics design life. For additional informacion, contact UNI-GROUP U.S.A. or your local UNI~ Manufacturer.
~ i
4 ~
~
1
,
u
'
'
~
'
INTRODUCTION
As open land is developed and covered with impervious surfaces such as asphalt roadways, concrete parking
decks, and buildings, there is an increase in stormwater runoff that may result in downstream flooding, streambank
erosion, and excessive strain on existing drainage facilities. Numerous studies indicate that stormwater runoff is also the
primary source of pollutants found in surface waters and often contains a coxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals,
nutrients, and sediments. Approximately 40% of America's surveyed watenvays are still too polluted for fishing or
swimming and 90% of our population lives wirhin 10 miles of these bodies oFwater.
-. ~
Mickel Field/Higfilanc% Park, Wilton Manors, FL
With the implementation of the United S~ates Environmental
Protection Agency's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater regulations in the early 1990s, state agencies,
municipalities, and regional authorities began searching for new options in
stormwater management. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers.
a number of benefits, including improved qualiry of surface waters,
pro~ection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation of water
resources, and flood mitigation. Traditional flood control measures that rely
on detention of peak flow are typical of many stormwater management
approaches, but generally do not target pollutant reduction, and often cause
u~wanted changes in hydrology and hydraulics. The EPA recommends an
approach that integrates control of stormwater flows and the protection of
narural systems to sustain aquatic habitars.
' Effeccive stormwater management is ofren achieved through a comprehensive management systems approach
instead of individual practices. Some individual practices may not be effective alone, but may be highly effective when
used in combination with other systems. The EPA's Phase II rule encourages system building to allow for the use of
' appropriace situation-specific practices that will achieve the minimum measures. Ordinances or other regulations are used
to address post-construction runoff from new development or redevelopment projects. In addition, it is important to
. ensure adequate long-term operacion and maintenance of BMPs. Governing authorities must develop and implemen~
, strategies that include a combination of structural and/or non-struccural best management practices (BMPs) appropriate
fot their communities. Non-structural BMPs are preventative actions that involve management and source controls.
Structural BMPs include storage practices, filtration practices, and infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely on
infiltration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction.
'
,
~
'
'
'
~
Permeable pavemenCS are considered strucrural BMPs under infiltration practices. From an engineering
viewpoint, permeable pavernents are iafiltrarion trenches with paving over them to support pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. Much of the design and construction is derived from experience with
inFiltracion trench design, which has been used for years as a way to reduce
stormwater runoff and recharge groundwatec Permeable pavements should be
designed by civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects familiar with
stormwater management concepts, especially the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
method, (now know as the National Resources Conservation Service or NRCS
method). For years, porous pavements consisced of cast-in-place asphalt or concrete
comprised of coarse aggregate, whTch had earned a poor reputation, as they tended
to quickly clog and there was no way to renew porosiry. Today, permeable
interlocking permeable pavements offer a better solution.
UNI Eco-Stone`~ is a permeable interlocking concrete pavement system
designed to mitigate stormwater runoff through infiltration, thereby reducing
voltime flo~vs, improving water qualiry, and recharging.groundwater. UNI Eco-
Stone`~ is a true interlocking paver that offers the structural support and stabiliry of
traditional concrete pavers, combined with the environmental benefit of stormwater
management. Eco-Stone`~ has a minimum compressive strength of 8000 psi, maximum 5% absorption, and meets or
exceeds ASTM G936 and freeze-thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM G67. ECOLOC`~ features the same infiltration
benefits as Eco-Scone`~, but offers increased structural strength and stabiliry for indusrrial pavement applications.
~
[t'/ilcox Lake Park, Oakridges, ON
~
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
In addition to the EPA, other agencies and organizations are addressing the issue of development and the impact '
of stormwater runoff on the environment and sociery. According to the National Resources Defense Council, Low
Impact Development (LID) has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling stormwacer pollution and protecting
watersheds. LID attempts to replicate pre-development hydrology to reduce the impacts of development. By addressing '
runoff close to the source, LID can enhance the environment and protect the public, while saving developers and local
municipalities money. One of the primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrating rainwater into
groundwater and finding beneficial uses for water as opposed to pouring it down storm sewers. Some of LID runoff
control objectives include reducing impervious cover, preserving and recreating natural landscape features> and facilitating ~
infiltration opportunities. LID principles are based on the premise that stormwater management should not be seen as
stormwater disposal, but instead that numerous opportunities exist within a developed landscape to control stormwater
close to the source. This allows development to occur with low environmental impact. LID is much more than the '
managemenc of stormwater - it is about innova[ion in the planning, designing, implementing, and maintaining of
projects. Permeable pavers, such as Eco-Stone°, are listed as one of the ten common LID practices.
~
Increasing numbers of municipal green building programs are offering incentives for sustainable landscape
architecture and development. Programs that require LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a national
green building assessment system developed by che U.S. Green Building Council) certificacion co achieve benefits, come ~
the closest co a comprehensive approach to sustainable projeas. While privace sector participation is voluntary, many
municipalities are requiring thac ciry-owned or funded projects achieve LEED objectives. Many municipalicies
nationwide already have local programs in place and are forming departments dedicaced to sustainable building. LEED is
a self-assessing, voluntary building system for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential ,
buildings. It evaluates environmental performance from a"whole building" perspective over a building's life rycle,
providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a"green building". It is a feature-oriented system where credits are
earned for satisfying each criteria. UNI Eco-Stone° pecmeable pavers may qualify under two areas. Credic 6- Stormwater '
Management and Credit 7- Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands. The intent of Credic 6 is to limit
the disruption of natural water flows by minimizing stormwater runof~; increasing on-site infiltration, and reducing
contaminancs - pervious pavements are recommended. Credit 7's intent is to reduce heat islands (thermal gradient ~
differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife
habitac - light-colored, high-albedo materials and open grid paving are recommended. Concrete pavers albedo values can
range from 0.14 to 0.27 for standard colors, with higher values possible when pavers are manufactured using lighter color '
aggregates or white cement.
Many local municipalities, regional authorities, and state agencies such as Departments of Environmental '
Protection are now recommending or requiring best management practices for the mitigation of stormwater and are
providing information to residencs and the business communiry about BMP practices and stormwater solutions. The
Ciry of Toronto, for example, promotes stormwater pollution educacion to residents and industry through advertising
and their website. Among other suggestions, they recommend replacing impermeable surfaces with materials that allow '
for infiltration. The ciry.has approved Eco-Stone~ for parking pads in residential applications.
Websites of Inrerest: '
Natural Resources Defense Council - www.nrdc.orglwater(pollutionlstorm/chapl2.asp
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials - www.nemo.uconn.edu
EPA - www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/post_12.hcm '
www.epa.gov/nps/lid.pdf
EPA - www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter4/ch4-2a.html ,
Stormwater Magazine - www.Eorester.net/sw_0203_green.html
U.S. Green Building Council - www.usgbc.org '
Center for Watershed Protection - www.cwp.org
Heat Island Group - www.eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/Albedo
City of Toronco - www.ciry.toronto.on.ca ~
6 ~
'
1
1
~
'
CJ
~_J
'
,
,
,
'
,
J
'
'
'
~J
,
UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE
INTERLOCHING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO-STONE~ PAVEMENT SYSTEM
• The unique, patented design features funnel-like openings in the pavement surface, which facilitate the infiltration of
rainwater to reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff and maximize groundwater recharge and/or storage
• Mitigates pollution impact on surrounding surface waters and may lessen or eliminate downstream flooding and stream
bed and bank erosion
• Improves water qualiry by infiltrating water through the base and soil, and also reduces runoff temperatures
• Decreases project costs by reducing or eliminating drainage and retention systems required by impervious pavements
and reduces the cost of compliance with many stormwater regulatory requirements
• Permits better land-use planning, allowing more efficient use of available land for greater economic value
• Provides a highly durable, yet permeable pavement capable of supporting vehicular loads
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements~do require greater initial site evaluation and design effort. They
require a greater level of construction skill, inspection during construction and after installation, and attention to detail.
In addition, maintenance is a critical aspect to help ensure long-term performance. It is recommended that a qualified
professional engineer with experience in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for permeable interlocking concrete
pavement applications. This guide is intended as an overview of construction guidelines and research conducted to date.
Please see the research and reference sections for detailed guidance and additional information.
Eco-Stone~ provides an attractive pavement surface that can be used for residential, commercial, and municipal
pedestrian and vehicular pavement applications. It can be used for parking locs, driveways, overflow parking and ~
emergenry lanes, boat ramps, revecments, bike paths, sidewalks and pedescrian areas, and low-speed roadways.
MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, INFILTRATION PRACTICFS, AND OBJECTIVES
Municipal policy, design criteria, and local experience usually govern the use of infilcration systems such as
permeable pavements. Design criteria and regulations vary nationwide, as rainfall amounts, geography, climate, and land-
use development patterns can vary widely. Most BMPs are designed for a specific design storm, for example a 2-year, 24-
hour storm of 1.5 in./hr. (33 mm/hr) or volume from the first'/~ to 1 in. (13
to 25 mm). Though initial infiltration rates can be quite high with UNI Eco-
Stone~ permeable pavements, a few studies have shown thac long-term
infiltration rates for permeable interlocking pavements in general range
between 1.0 and 2.5 in./hr (25 and 65 mm/hr). Though higher rates may be
possible with optimal construction and regular maintenance, designers may
wish to use this conservative range as a guideline. This range would be able to
infiltrate frequent, short duration rainstorms, of which 70-80% of North
America storms are comprised.
Some municipalities regulate both water qualiry and quantiry.
They may require a criteria for reducing specific rypes of pollutants, such as
phosphorous, metals, nitrogen, nitrates, and sediment, and water qualiry .
regulations are ofren written to protea lakes, streams, and rivers from problems
associated with runoff. An increasing number of municipalities are limiting the
use of impervious surfaces and many have created stormwater utilities to help
cover the increasing coscs of constructing, managing and maintaining
stormwater drainage systems.
Selection of base, bedding, and joint/drainage opening fill materials will be guided by local stormwater management
objeaives. Generally, for runoff conrrol, regulacions rry to meet one or more of four management objectives.
7
Newark International Airport. NJ
(Specialty aggregate rurface texture)
LJ
• Capture and infiltrate the entire stormwater volume. so there is zero discharge from the drainage area. Costs for
infiltrating or capcuring all the runoff through the use of permeable pavements may be offset by reducing or eliminating
pipes and other drainage appurtenances.
• Infiltrate the increased runoff generated by development and impervious surfaces. The goal is to attain runoff
volumes equal to or near those prior to development. Volumes are estimated prior to and after development, and the
difference is to be infiltrated or stored, and then slowly released. Permeable pavements, vegetaCed swales, or rain gardens,
among other BMPs, can accomplish this.
• Infiltrate a fixed volume of runoff from every storm. This fixed amount of infiltrated water often is indicative of a
large percentage of the region's storms. The volume is usually expressed as depth in inches (or mm) of runoff over the
catchment area. Permeable incerlocking concrete pavements are usually capable of infiltrating the first inch (25 mm) or
more of runoff, which helps reduce the "first 41ush" of pollutants in this initial runoff volume. Grass swales and sand
filters provide additional filtering and removal of some pollutants in rainwater, and designers may want to consider using
them in conjunccion with permeable pavements for added benefits.
• Infiltrate sufficient water to control the peak rate of discharge. Many municipalities establish a maacimum rate of peak
discharge (in cubic feet/second or literslsecond) for specific storm sewers or bodies of water. This approach favors
detention ponds rather than infiltration as a means to control downstream flooding. Permeable interlocking concrete
pavements can be used as a means of detention, especially in densel'y-developed areas where ponds are not feasible, by
combining the benefits of a parking area with detention.
Depending upon the amount of exfiltraCion (the downward movement of water through the crushed scone base
into che subgrade soil), UNI Eco-Stone° can meet most of these stormwater management objectives.
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINFS
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. provides design professionals with a variery of tools for designing Eco-Stone° permeable
incerlocking concrete pavements. Please refer to the research section of this guide for information on designing the Eco-
Stone° pavement system. In addition, we offer PCSWMM"" Permeable Pavement sofrware for the hydraulic design of
Eco-Stone° permeable pavements. The compucational engine is the Runoff module of the USEPAs Stormwater
Management ModeL. It allows the user to develop a simple model of a permeable pavement design, run the model with a
specified design storm, and analyze the results. A successful design is assumed in the program to be one in which the
entire volume of runof~ is captured by the pavement (i.e. no surface runoff occurs). Though this model is based on this
zero runoff scenario, design paramecers can be adjusted co meet other stormwater management objectives. PCSWMM""
for Permeable Pavements software is a tool to aid design professionals and provides general guidance. It is intended for
use by professional civil engineers and is not a substitute for engineering skill and judgement and in no way is intended
to replace the services of experienced, qualified engineers.
DESIGN OPTIONS - FULL, PARTIAL OR NO EXFILTRAT'ION
Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are rypically built over an open-graded or rapid-draining crushed stone base,
though a variery of aggregate materials, including free-draining and dense-
graded, may be used depending on design parameters. In any case, fines passing
the No. 200 sieve should be less than 3%. In addition to runoff reduction,
permeable pavements may be designed to filter pollutants, treat the "first flush",
lower runoff temperature, and remove total suspended solids (TSS). Because it
provides for infiltration and partial treatment of stormwater, it is considered a
structural BMP (Besc Management Practice). The most optimal installation is
infiltration through the base and complete exfiltration into a permeable
subgrade. However, the design of the pavement can be very flexible. Perforated
drainage pipes can provide drainage in heary, overflow conditions or provide
secondary drainage if the base loses some of its capaciry over time. For
installations where slow-draining subgrade soils are present and only partial Cross-recrion oftypicalEco-Srone~ pavemenr
exfiltration will occur, perforated pipes can drain excess runoff. Often, these pipes are sized smaller than rypical drainage
pipes in craditional pavement applications. If no exfiltration will occur due to site limitations, all the stored water would
need to be directed to drains, though the flow rates would be reduced by the infiltration through the system.
8
'
'
~1
'
~
L~
S
~
'
'
'
'
'
LJ
,
C
~
'
i
In addition, if high levels of pollutants are present, the pavement can be designed to filter and partially treat the
~ scormwater. In some cases an impervious liner may need to be placed between the base and the subgrade. According to
the EPA, there are four cases where permeable inferlocking concrete pavements should not exfiltrate and where an
impervious liner might be used.
~ • When che depth from the bottom of che base to the high level of the water table is less than 2 ft(0.6 m), or when there
is not sufficienc depth oF che soil to offer adequate filtering and treatment of pollutants.
~ • Directly over solid rock, or over solid rock wirh no loose rock layer above it.
• Over aquifers where there isn't sufficient dep~h of soil to filter the pollucants before entering the groundwater. These
can include karst, fissured, or cleft aquifers.
, • Over fill soils, natural oc fi11, whose behavior may cause unacceptable performance when exposed to inPiltrating water.
This might include expansive soils such as loess, poorly compacted soils, gypsiferous soils, ecc.
' Even if these situations are not present, some soils may have a low permeabilicy. As a result, water is usually
stored in the base to slowly infiltrate into the soils. In some cases, there may be a more permeable soil layer below a low
or non-permeable layer, where it may be cost effective to drain the water with a french drain or pipes through this layer
1 into rhe soil with grearer permeabiliry.
SITE SELECTION GUIDELINFS
, Eco-Scone° permeable interlocking concrete pavers can be used for a wide variety of residential, commercial,
municipal and industrial applications (ECOLOCm). In addirion to some of the guidelines previously described,
permeable pavements should be at least 100 ft (30 m) from water supply wells, wetlands, and streams, though local
' regulations may supercede this requirement.
There are however; cercain circumstances when permeable pavements should not be used. Any site classified as a
stormwater hotspot (anywhere there is risk that stormwater could infiltrate and contaminate groundwater} is not a
' candidate for permeable pavemencs. This might'include salvage and reryding yards, fueling, maintenance, and cleaning
stations, industrial facilities that store or generate hazardous materials, storage areas with contents that could damage
groundwater and soil, and land uses that drain pesticides and/or fertilizers into permeable pavements. In addition,
, permeable pavements may not be feasible when the land surrounding and draining into the pavement exceeds a 20%
slope, the total catchment area draining into the permeable pavement is greater than 5 acres, or the pavement is
downslope from building foundations where the foundacions have piped drainage at che footers.
, INFILTRATION RATE DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS
L~
'
'
'
'
~
One of the most common misconceptions in designing permeable pavements is. the assumption that the amount
or percentage of open surface area is equal to the percentage of perviousness. For
example, a designer might incorrectly assume that a 20% open area is only 20%
pervious. The permeability and amount of inFiltration are dependent on the
infiltratioa rates of the joint and drainage opening material, bedding layer, and
base materials. Compared to soils, Eco-Scone° pecmeable interlocking concrete
pavemencs have a very high degree of infiltration. The crushed aggregate used for
the joints, drainage openings, and bedding has an initial infiltration rate of over
500 inJhr (over 10' m/sec), much greater than native soils. Rapid-draining and
opea-graded base materials offer even htgher infiltration rates of 500 ro over 2000
in./hr. (over 10-' to 10- m/sec).
Though the initial infiltration rates for these aggregate materials are very high, it is importanc to consider the
lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross-section, including the soil subgrade. As this may be difficult to
predict, designers may wanc to use a conservative approach when calculacing the design in6ltracion rate. Limited research
has shown that permeabiliry decreases wi~h the age of the pavement, rainfall intensities, and the conditions under which
it is used and maincained. This holds true for infiltration trenches as well. In studies, newly installed permeable
pavemencs demonstrated infiltration races of about 9 in./hr (6 x 10 5 m/sec), while pavements ranging from 2 to 5 years
old had inFiltracion rates from 3 to 6 inJhr (2 x 10-5 to 4 x 10-5 m/sec).
,
Drainage openingt in Eco-Stone° surface
n
~~
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAIS AND INSTALLATION GUIDELINES
The objective of permeable pavements is to infiltrate and store the runoff and drain it into the subgrade, or if the
subgrade is impermeable, into a drainage system. Proper construction of permeable interlocking concrete pavements is
crucial to the long-term performance.and success of the system: It is important tha~ sediment be prevented from entering
-•~ r~~~ ,;- ~~~-m . the base and pavement surface during construction, as this will greatly reduce
permeabiliry of the system. It is highly recommended that the designing engineer
inspect the site during the construction of permeable pavements (as is the case
~' '::~ with infiltration trenches). This will help ensure the specified materials and design
` parameters selected by the engineer are followed. Though a range of materials
~~
may be used for the joint and drainage opening, bedding, and base layers, some
,~ .-~ ~ general guidelines have been included here. Consult the UNI Eco-Stone° design
: manuals and the PCSWMM'~ program for more information on designing Eco-
~;.~ _~ ° Stone° permeable pavements.
Jordan Cove Deuelopmenr, Ware~f'ord, CT A professional engineer with soils experience should assess the site's subgrade
soils for design strength, permeabiliry, and compaction requirements. The Unified Soils Classification System provides
general guidance on the suitabiliry of soils for the infiltration of stormwater and bearing capaciry. To help maximize
infiltration, the subgrade should have less than 5% passing che No. 200 sieve, though ocher soils may drain adequately
depending on site conditions and specific characreristics. A minimum tested infiltration for full exfiltration subject to
vehicular traffic is 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x 10-6 m/sec), though some areas may require higher or lower rates. With virtually all
interlocking concrece pavements, including permeable pavements, compaction of the subgrade soil is required to ensure
adequate structural stabiliry and to minimize rutting. However, compaction does reduce the infiltration rate of soils.
Therefore, this should be considered in the drainage design calculations for the project. Typically, the soil subgrade
should be compacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density for pedestrian pavements, and to a minimum 95%
modified Proctor densiry for vehicular applications. Some native soils, rypically silty sands and sands, have enough
strength (a soaked CBR of ac least 5%) that compaction may not be required.
For many years, engineers attempted to design pavements that kept water out of the base and subgrade layers, as
water in a rypical "impervious" pavement structure was recognized as a primary cause of distress. However, over the last
~ 5 years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Transportation and Highway
Officials (AASHTO)> and the Corps of Engineers (COE) have given the subsurface drainage of pavements much
consideration. They have found that the use of rapid-draining or open-graded permeable bases in many pavement designs
can result in longer pavement life (see Additional Reference section for more information).
For the base layer, a crushed stone, open-graded or rapid-draining aggregate is generally recommended, though
as discussed earlier, other aggregate materials may be used depending on design parameters and objectives. The base must
be designed and constructed to prevent the pavement from becoming saturated and losing its load-bearing capaciry in the
presence of water, and stabiliry will be enhanced if nonplastic materials are used. The thickness of the base depends on
the amount of water storage required, the permeabiliry and strength of the soil subgrade, and susceptibiliry to frost, as
well as anticipated traffic loads. The water storage capaciry of the base will vary with ~:;;~-.;~ ;~~,,~~---~
its depth and the percentage of void spaces in it (void space of a certain material can `k ~" _ ~~~ ~~~,.`^~~~
be supplied by the quarry or determined by testing). Please see the UNI-GROUP " ~ "`'~~
0 ~ ~.~fv^~: ~s~,o
U.S.A. Eco-S~one design manuals for additional information on base macerial ~~~ i"~-~ „ 4~
. n~~. r;a ..~ ~~ .~
selection and contact your local UNI° manufacturer for guidance on recommended ~~, ~t ~:~{ F t,~~ ~;~'~~~~
materials for your region. The base is installed in 4 to 6 in. (100-150 mm) lifrs and is ~,~~~ ~,.: ~~~, ~'~- ~~~ ~. ~~
b ' k~~s..~`3a'y "/ 4 ..D`.,~`
compacted. If open-graded materials are used, the larger size aggregaces may create an ~, ~;~,~-.,~~,f,,; ~,, ~s L"~«~~
~% r x,~ ~,w ~€t.~
uneven surface when com acted. A 2 in. (50 mm) layer of ASTM No. 8 or No. 9 ~~~ s;`~ °~ '~ ~ '~`
P ~,~~~ -~~~, ~ ~~„. r ~ .sv ~` ~ ~
crushed aggregate may be "choked" into the top of the open-graded material to ~~.~- ~~,~t~°'~,~ n4 Y.,~, ~ f~, ~, ~ 4
~ „~.~ ,~~ ,~~ g .~ ~ ~ r~~.~~~.~
s t a b i l i z e t h e s u r f a c e a n d h e l p m e e t f i l c e r c r i t e r i a. I n s o m e c a s e s, o p e n- g r a d e d b a s e s `~ L~` ~'"'' ~'~" °"" °~' '°'F~~ `"~'~°''Y
ECOLOC°' industria! permeable pavers
may be stabilized with asphalt or cement if necessary to increase structural capacity.
However, it should be noted that this may reduce storage capaciry of the base and musc be carefully monitored during
construction. The Asphalt Institute and Portland Cement Association provide guidelines on constructing these bases.
For che bedding layer, cescing has shown that 2-~ mm clean, crushed aggregate containing no fines provided the
best performance in satisfying both structural and infiltration requirements. It should be screeded to a 1 to 1.5 in.
10
,
'
~
~
'
,
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
~
,
,
~
~
~
,
'
'
~
'
'
,
IJ
'
~
C~
'
'
~
~~
'
L~
~
(25-45 mm) depth. This material is also recommended for the joint and drainage openings for the Eco-Stone° pavement.
ASTM C-33 sand, which is used in traditional interlocking concrete pavement bedding layer construction, is not
recommended for permeable pavement installations as it reduces infilccation races. In addition, we do not recommend
sweeping a fine sand into the joints after the pavers are installed.
If filter criteria between the layecs of the pavement (subgrade, base, and
bedding) cannot be maintained with the aggregate materials selected for the project,
or if traffic loads or soils require additional structural support, geotextiles or geogrids
are often used. They are almost always used between the subgrade and the base.
Consult the FHWA and AASHTO for information on geotextile filter criceria.
Edge restraints are required for all permeable interlocking concrete
pavements. Casc-in-place and precast concrete curbs are generally recommended.
They should be a minimum of 6 in. (150 mm) wide and 12 in. (300 mm) deep.
The UNI Eco-Stonem pavers are installed on the screeded bedding layer and are compacted with a plate
compactor. After initial compaction, the joints and voids are filled with che 2-5 mm aggregate material and, the pavers are
compacted again. For vehicular areas, proof rolling may be preferable. UNI Eco-Stone° pavers can be installed manually
or mechanically. Mechanized installation can offer substantial cost savings on larger-scale installations.
MAINTENANCE
One of the most important aspects of permeable interlocking concrece pavements is proper maintenance. Any
type of permeable pavement can become clogged with sediment overtime, reducing infiltration and storage capaciry.
When properly constructed and maintained, permeable interlocking concrete pavements should provide 20 to 25 years of
service life. TrafFic levels and rype of usage, as well as sources that may wash sediment onto the paver surface ofren dictate
how quickly the pavement might experience reduced infiltration levels. The properry owner plays an important role in
the maintenance of permeable pavements. Many local municipalities and regional governing authorities require a
maintenance agreement to help ensure long-term performance of all types of BMPs.
' Recent testing at Guelph Universiry in Onfario, Canada on Eco-Stone° parking lot pavements installed in 1994
indicated that trafficked areas with high clogging potential had lower permeabiliry values than areas with low clogging
pocential such as parking stalls and areas near vegetated medians. Tests demonstrated that it was possible to regenerate
infiltration rates by removing some of the drainage void material and refilling the openings with fresh material. It should
be noted that these pavements had NEVER been cleaned or maintained over the years, yet much of the pavement still
infiltrated sufticient amounts of stormwater. Numerous research studies done over the years at this site have found that
the Eco-Stone° pavements were capable of substantially reducing contaminants in stormwater and exhibited reduced
thermal impact loads. Please see the research section of this guide for addirional information.
It is highly recommended that permeable pavers be inspected and cleaned at regular intervals to ensure optimum
performance. Depending on the amount and rype of traE~ic on the pavement and its potential for clogging, cleaning may
be needed from twice a year to every 3 or 4 years. An indication that the pavement needs to be cleaned is when surface
ponding occurs afrer rain storms. Vacuum sweepers can be used to remove any encrusced sediment on the surface of the
drainage openings. As street sweeping is a BMP, this also satisfies other criteria in a comprehensive scormwater
management program. Moce aggregate material may be added to refill the drainage voids if necessary after cleaning.
~/egetated areas around permeable pavements should be encouraged to help flter runoff.
COLD CLIMATE DFSIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In norchern climates the pavement must be designed for freeze-thaw conditions. For cold climates in the
norchern U.S. and Canada, the lowest recommended infiltration rate for the subgrade is 0.5 in./hr. (3.5 x 10 ° misec).
The designer may wish to incorporate a 1-2% slope as a safery factor for over-Elow should the system not be able to
infiltrate all runoff under winter conditions. Snow can be plowed from Eco-Stone° pavements using standard equipment.
Deicing salts are not recommended, as salt will infiltrate into che base and subgrade> and sand should be avoided as ir will
reduce infiltration of the system. However, the Eco-Stone~'surface, made up oEjoints, openings, and the units themselves
(as opposed to a continuous area of slick pavement) may help provide traction under snowy conditions.
11
Mechanica! irutallation at Howard Hook
Port of Neur York/New Jerrey
~
RESEARCH AND TESTING '
UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEM
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE UNI ECO-STONE~ ~
CONCRETE PAVER
Raymond and Marion Rollings - 1993 ,
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 32-page manual reviewed testing information from the U.S. and Germany and extrapolated from existing design ~
practice to provide basic design guidance on the development of designs for tlie UNI Eco-Stone~ pavemen~ system.
Numerous references are included as well as tables on infiltration test and rates, permeability values, filter criteria,
potential drainage void gradations, and more. Sample design cross sections are also included. A 4-page addendum of '
updated research was added in 1999.
OUTLINE ,
• INTRODUCTION
• Purpose
• Description '
Subgrade and Base Course
Surfacing Materials
• DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• Structural Considerations ~
• Water Impact on Design
Wearing Course and Bedding Layer
Base and Subbase Courses ,
Subgrade ~
, • Hydraulic Design
• Filter Requirements ~
• Special Considerations
• SPECIFICATIONS
• APPLICATIONS '
• CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES
• SAMPLE DFSIGN DRAWINGS '
LJ
~
~
'
'
12 '
~
DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PERFOR;IVIANCE GUIDELINES FOR
, UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE PAVEMENT
Dan G. Zollinger, Su Ling Cao, and Daryl Poduska - 1998
! GENERAL SUMMARY
The information provided in this report, based on testing begun in 1994 at the Department of Civil Engineering at
' Texas A& M University under the direction of professor Dan Zollinger, serves as a guideline for The design of concrete
paver block pavement systems using UNI Eco-Stone°. The guidelines are organized to give the reader a brief review of
basic hydrological concepts as they pertain to the design of pavements and the benefits of using UNI Eco-Stone~ in .
pavement construction projects. Information is provided on how runoff infiltration can be controlled in the pavement
' subsurface and its interaction with the performance of the pavement syscem. A method is provided to determine the
amount of infiltration and the storage capaciry of a permeable base relative to the time of retention and degree of
saturation associated with the characteristics of the base. The guidelines contain a simple step-by-step process for the
' engineer to select the best pavement alternative in terms of base materials and gradations for the given drainage, subgrade
strength conditions, and the criteria for maximum allowable rutting.
'
'
-- I
LI
~
,
'
'
i
'
'
'
~
~
OUTLINE
• INTRODUCTION
• Advantages of Using UNI Eco-Stone° Pavement
• The Considerations for Water
• The Purpose of This Report
• GENERAL HYDROLOGY CONCEPTS
• Rainfall
• Intensiry-Frequency Duration Curve
• The Depth of Rainfall
• Storm Water Runoff Volume
• Unit Hydrograph
• SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
• • Computation of Runoff
• SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN
• Introduction
• General Considerations
Properties of Material
Design Alternatives
• Design Criteria
Inflow Considerations
Outflow Considerations
Removal by Subgrade Percolation
Removal by Subsurface Drainage
The Selection of Base Material
Filter Criceria
Collection System
Maintenance
• PERFORMANCE OF PERMEABLE BLOCK PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
• REFERENCES
• APPENDIX A
• Design Procedure for Drainage and Base Thickness for UNI Eco-Stone~
• Paver B(ock Pavement Systems
• APPENDIX B
• UNI Eco-Stone° Pavement Design and Drainage Worksheet
• APPENDIX C
• Scorm Frequency Data
• APPENDIX D
• Permeabiliry and Gradation Data
13
~
INFILTRATION AND STRUCTURAL TESTS OF PERMEABLE '
ECO-PAVING
B. Shackel, J.O. Kaligis, Y. Muktiarto, and Pamudji
GENERAL SUMMARY '
In laboratory tests conducted on UNI Eco-Stone° and UNI Eco-Loc° in 1996 by Dr. Brian Shackel at the Universiry of
New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, measurements of water penetration under heavy simulated rainfall were studied, '
and the structural capacities of the paver surfaces were evaluated. A range of bedding, jointing, and drainage void
materials was tested, ranging from 2mm to lOmm aggregates. The bes~ performance was achieved with a clean 2mm-
5mm aggregate concaining no fines. The use of ASTM C-33 grading was found to be inappropriate where water ~
infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. The experimental data showed that it was possible to reconcile the ~
requirements of obtaining good water infiltration (capable of infiltrating rainfall intensities similar to those in tropical
conditions) with adequate structural capaciry that is comparable to that of conventional concrete pavers. ,
OUTLINE
• CONCEPTS, BENEFITS, AND BACKGROUND OF ECO-PAVING
• BEDDING, JOINTING, AND DRAINAGE MAT'ERIALS ,
• Infiltration Tests
• Structural Tests
• SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ,
l. Pavements laid using 4mm to lOmm gravels as the bedding, jointing, and drainage medium could accept rainfall
intensities of up co about 6001/ha/sec, with the best performance being given by a clean 2mm-Smm basalt
aggregate containing no fines. ~
2. Increase in the fines present in the jointing and drainage material led to a reduction in the abiliry of the
pavements to accept rainfall. ,
3. Blinding the pavements with a conventional laying sand reduced the amount of water penetrating the pavement
by nearly 50% at moderate rainfall intensities. '
4. There was little significant difference in water infiltration in pavement blinded by sand from that observed for
' pavements using a sand complying with ASTM grading C33> as the bedding, jointing, and drainage medium.
5. The use of ASTM grading C33 appears inappropriate where water infiltration is the prime function of the '
pavement.
6. At crossfalls below 2%, the rype of Eco-paver and the laying pattern did noc significantly affect the infiltration of
water into the pavement. '
7. At a cross fall of 10%, the Eco-Locm pavers accepted water more readily than Eco-Scone°.
8. It was not possible to obtain any significant structural capacity in pavements where the joints were left unfilled,
and where the mechanism of load transmission between the pavers was solely via the spacer nibs'.
9. In pavements using a lOmm basalt aggregate as the bedding, jointing, and drainage material, the joints were only ,
partially filled when normal construction practices were followed. This did, however, impart some load-bearing
structural capaciry to the pavements.
10. Good load-bearing capabiliry was achieved using gravels with a maximum particle size of about 4mm-5mm. The t
values of mat modulus measured were then comparable to those reported for conventional pavers tested in the
same way using normal sand jointing materials.
11. Sand b(inding.a pavement, using basalt as the laying medium, gave little improvement in structural capaciry. This '
can be explained in terms of the difiiculry of getting sand into joints that were already partially fitled with
aggregate.
12. There was no structural problem associated with closely spaced continuous joints running through the Eco-Loc° ~
cluster pavements. Such joints are a severe simulation of the situation encountered when machine laying paving
clusters. In other words, in the tests described here, there was no intrinsic problem associated with cluster laying. ~
Overall, the cest results indicated that permeable eco-paving may be able to fulfill many of the roles now served by '
conventional pavers, even undec significant traffic loads. This opens up new marketing opportunities for permeable eco-
paving once suitable design and specification procedures are established and verified.
~
14 ~
~
J
' ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY
Professor William james
In 1994, laboratory and site testing of the UNI Eco-Stone~ Paving System was begun at Guelph University in Ontario,
~ Canada, under the direction of William James, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Water Resources
Engineering. The research has generated several graduate theses with a focus on environmental engineering and
stormwater management: Summaries of the theses are to follow
~
THE LEACHING OF POLLUTANTS FROM FOUR PAVEMENTS USING
~ LA.BORATORY APPARATUS
Reem Shahin - 1994
~ GENERAL SUMMARY
This 180-page thesis describes a laboratory investigation of pavement leachate. Four rypes of pavements were installed in
the engineering laboratory: asphalt, conventional interlocking pavers, and two UNI Eco-Stone~ pavements, to determine
~ the effect of free-draining porous pavement as an alternative to conventional impervious surfaces. Runoff volume,
pollutant load, and the quantiry and qualiry oFpollutants in actual rainwater percolating through or running of~these
pavements under various simulated rainfall durations and intensities were studied. UNI Eco-Stone° was found to
' substantially reduce both runoff and contaminants. The report includes tables and charts documenting volumes of runoff
collected on various slopes, wacer penetration testing, water quality characteriscics of the surface runoff - including trace
metals, pH, phenols, sodium, nitrates, and concentrations of pollucants at all levels wi~hin the pavements. Numerous
' references are also included.
OUTLINE
~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives of the study
1.2 Scope of the study
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .
' 2.1 Nature of Water
2.1.1 Properties of water
2.1.2 Acid;ry
' 2.1.3 Rainwater
2.1.4 Behaviour of rainwater in the environment
2.1.5 Water pollution .
~ 2.2 Urbanization Effects
2.2.1 Effects of urban storm water on aquatic ecosystems
2.3 Nature of Pollucancs
' 2.3.1 Atmospheric sources of water pollution
2.3.2 Man-made sources of water pollution
2.4 Porous pavement
2.4.1 Types of porous pavements
, 2.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages
2.4.3 Porous pavement as an infiltration system
2.4.4 Previous research
' 2.5 Asphalt pavement
2.6 Temperacure effects
3.0 PROCESSES AT THE PAVEMENT
~ 3.1 Impact energy of raindrops
3.2 Splash distribution
3.3 Chemical reactions with the water
3.4 Erosion of loose particles
~ 3.5 Particulate wash-off throughouc the pavement
~ 15
~
4.0
5.0
G.0
7.0
3.6 Surface infiltration '
3.6.1 Infiltration equations ~
3.6.2 Infiltration process
3.6.3 Infiltration zones
3.7 Water percolation ~
3.8 Solution of chemicals in the pavement
3.9 Clogging of pores ~
THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS - ,
4.1 Water collection
4.1.1 Labocatory rainwater
4.1.2 Fresh rainwater
4.2
The rainfall simulator ~
4.2.1 Rainfall intensiry calibration
4.2.2 Areal uniformiry calibration
4.3
Test pavements ~
4.4 Instrumentation for sampling
4.5 Sampling in the field
4.6 Laboratory analyses '
4.6.1 Laboratory apparatus
4.7 Mass balance
RESULTS '
5.1 Simulated rainwater calibration
5.2 Rainwater qualiry
5.3 Volume
5.3.1 Rate of removal ,
5.4 Water qualiry
5.4.1 Pollutant concentrations
5.4.2 Comparison between LAB rain leachate and tap water leachate '
5.4.3 Mass of pollutants
DIS CUSSION
6.1 Difference between LAB and WDS rain '
6.2 Dynamics of water movement
6.2.1 Water movement within the soil
6.2.2 Surface percolation
6.2.3 Water movement in the subgrade '
6.2.4 Runoff collection
6.2.5 Ponding
6.3 Water qualiry '
6.3.1 pH
6.3.2 Oxygen demand parameter
6.3.3 Solids '
6.3.4 Conductiviry and transmittance
6.3.5 Oils and grease
6.3.6 Nutrients
6.3.7 Total phenols '
6.3.8 Sodium and chloride
6.3.9 Sulphates
6.3. l OMetals ,
6.3.11 Bacteria counts .
6.4
6.5 Rain-pavement interaction
Mass balance
~
CONCLUSIONS
1. Rainwater is very acidic in the ciry of Guelph, having a pH of approximately 3.4 when it first makes contact
with the ground. It takes almost 2 hours afrer collection to release CO, into the atmosphere and reach a pH ~
of 5.5. At this pH, it cakes ac leasc 72 hours before it neutralizes to a pH of 7.
16 ~
~
' 2. Impervious asphalt pavements produce large amounts of surface runoff, compared to porous pavements, for
similar rainfall intensities and durations. Porous pavement is evidently a very effective way of reducing the
quantiry of stormwater runofF from areas such as parking lots that are normally paved with asphalt.
3. For all gradients, EC3 (UNI Eco-Stone~ with 3" base and joints filled with washed stone) performed the best
, at reducing surface runoff from all the pavements studied.
4. The total void size on the porous pavement surfaces is one of the main factors chat affects permeability, and
noc the pore size in the joints. EC3 reduced the most surface runoff volume due co the large voids available at
' the surface and at the subsurface layers. Hence more water infiltrated through the pavement.
5. In these experiments, EC3, EC4 (Eco-Stone~ with 4" base and joints filled with a mixture of washed stone
and sand), and PC (regular concrete pavers) pavements did not clog, due to the short duration of all the
' experiments. In addition, the pavements were placed in the laboratory, and hence, no dusc or any other
particulate accumulated on the surface and in the joints.
6. PC, EC3, and EC4 performed well in reducing volume of surface runoff at 1%, 5%, and 10% gradients with
' rainfall intensities lower than 55.6mm•hr. At higher rainfall intensities, ponding occurred at the joints and at
the outlets, which slowed down the infilcration process to the subsurface layers.
7. Since the EC3 had washed stone as its bedding material, the water drained faster. through its subgrade than it
did for the EC4 and PC subgrades, which had a mixture of stone and sand in one, and sand alone in the
' other, respectively.
8. The runoff collected from porous pavement in the laboratory showed very low concentrations in all water
qualiry parameters, especially in oils and grease, phenols, heavy metals, and bacteria councs. Eco-Stone~
~ pavements showed the lowest concentrations in these parameters of the three pavements.
9. Percolation through the porous pavements surface and underlying media slowed che water flow. The process
allowed more time for oxidation; the water had more time to react with other chemicals, such as chlorides,
' nitrates, and nicrites. Also, the pavement apparently filtered suspended solids and some contaminants, such
as sodium and sulphates.
10. Heary metal removal through percolation appeared to be good, even though the concentrations were very
low. The biggesc reduction was observed with zinc and iron in the surface runoff from the porous pavements,
t which had lower concencracions than the surface runoff from the asphalt surface (AS).
11. The porous pavemenc surface runoff had pH values more alkaline than the asphalc surface gave pH values
that were almost neutral.
' 12. The surface runoff from asphalc concained a higher mass of all the parameters investigated compared co the
mass measured in the surface runoff of EC3.
13. Surface runoff from the AS surface contained a concentration of phenols higher than the concentrations
' found in the porous pavement surface and subgrades.
14. The leachate from the pavements concained contaminants mainly from rainwacer ~n the atmosphere. Hence,
the processes that take place at the surface of the pavements are mainly due to the process of rainfall as it
, falls on the ground (i.e., raindrop distribution, rainfall energy, and acidiry of the rainwater).
15. The laboratory experiments on porous pavement generally proved that the water ~s not being contaminated
from the surface of chese pavements or their bedding materials, but rather from the external environment, as
proven by the parking lot runoff analyses. With AS, the surface is made from the combustion of petroleum
' products, and hence, some of the pollutants will originate from the surface, as in oil, grease, and phenols.
16. Porous pavement appears to have significant long-term benefits compared to conventional asphalt pavements
in terms of its abiliry to reduce the quantiry of stormwater pollutants. EC3 reduced the amount of
' stormwater polfutants more than the other porous pavemenc.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the data gachered and conclusions reached in this study, recommendations that may be made include:
' 1. In addition to the abiliry to reduce runoff, the porous pavements will have lower surface runoff temperature,
as rhe water penetrates through the pavement. Hence, an experiment to examine cemperature of runoff under
laboratory conditions will be valuable. The water qualiry analyses were performed at a constant temperarure
(25°C). T'emperature changes will have a great impact on water quality, since many paramecers were found to
' be related to pH, and pH changes with temperature.
2. Tests should be performed to determine long-term effects of maintenance and pocential for clogging.
3. When performing tests on water qualiry of stormwarer runoff, some parameters remained almost constant.
' The contaminants that need not be examined in detail include TICN, NHs, BOD, COD, and some metals
such as cadmium and chromium.
' 17
'
4. On the other hand, some parameters eachibited very interesting behaviour, parcicularly pH, phenols, oils and
grease, sulphate, sodium and chloride, nitrates and nitrites, zinc, lead, nickel, and copper. '
5. From the data obtained in this study, although the pH of runoff from asphalt seemed to be more neutral than
the porous pavement pH, more investigation of the pH is needed in order to reach a more definite
conclusion on the performance of AS vs porous pavement in terms of pH. '
6. Since hydraulic conductivity is mainly dependenc on tempera~ure, when examining temperature, hydraulic
conductivity will be an important parameter.
7. The rising cosc of petroleum-based asphalt is diminishing the price difference between asphalc pavement and '
porous pavement. Relative long-term predictions for the future cost of using asphalt and porous pavement
would be an interescing scudy.
8. Porous pavements should be used in many applications of low tr~c volume to effect significant reductions
in stormwater runoff. Qualitative and quantitative experiments should be carried out on porous pavement on '
lighdy used roads.
9. Future experiments can be conducted using different conditions to give a more complece and detailed
characterization of the performance of porous pavements. '
~
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
~8 ~
u
I~
t
'
~
'
'
~
~
'
'
'
~
~
~!
'
,
'
'
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF
STOR:MWATER RUNOFF FROM TWO PAVING SURFACES
Brian Verspagen - .1995
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 173-page study examines the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from an impervious asphalt surface and a UNI
Eco-Stone° permeable paver surface. The pavement samples were heated and a rainfall simulator was used to generate
rainfall and cool the pave-menc samples. Thermocouples monitored the temperature in the subgrade and at the surface
and inlet and outlet water temperatures were monicored. The primary objective of the research was to measure the
thermal enrichment of surface runoff from the two rypes of pavement. The study revealed that the UNI Eco-Stone~
pavemenc produced very little surface runoff and exhibited less thermal impact than the asphalt surface. The
environmental advantage with the Eco-Stone° permeable pavement is its abiliry to allow rainfall to infiltrate the surface
and thereby reduce total thermal loading on surrounding surface waters. Tables include surface runoff observations,
sample and instrumented pavement comparison and cemperature differences, and surface temperature data. Figures
include the impact of urbanization on stream temperature, surface runoff temperature comparisons for asphalt and Eco-
Stone° pavements, surface energy budgets under various conditions, and surface runof~ impact on receiving rivers. Many
references are sired.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 .Study Objective
1.2 Study Scope
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Impacts of Thermally Enriched Urban Stormwater Runoff
2.2 Surface Energy Budgets
2.3 Heat Transfer
2.4 Application of Energy Budget and Heat Transfer Equations
2.5 Rainfall Simulation
3.0 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Sensitiviry Analysis of Surface and Heat Transfer Equations
3.2 Thermal Enrichment of Surface Runoff
4.0 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
4.1 The Test Pavements
4.2 The Rainfall Simulator
4.3 Rainfall Calibration and Intensiry Seleccion
4.4 Data Collection and Sources
4.5 Heating the TesC Samples
4.6 Comparison to Outdoor Conditions
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Surface Temperature Observations
5.2 Low and Medium Intensiry Rainfall (25mm•hr' & 115mm~hr')
5.3 High Intensiry Rainfall (190mm•hr')
5.4 Regression Analysis
6.0 DISCUSSION
6.1 Accuracy of the Proposed Equations
6.2 Sensitiviry Analysis of the Thermal Enrichment Relationship
6.3 Comparison of Asphalt and Paving Stone Surfaces
6.4 Applicabiliry
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several conclusions may be inferred from the information presented in this study:
1. Both the asphalt surface and the porous paving stone surface used for the experiments conducted in this
study caused increases in the temperature of rhe surface runoff, the paving stone surface less so rhan the
asphalt surface.
19
'
2. \1ery little surface runoff was observed from the porous paving stone sample.
3.
The rainfall intensity, thermal conductivity of the pavement, initial surface runoff temperature, and initial '
rainfall temperature are the dominant parameters in a surface runoff thermal enrichment relationship.
4. The expression ~Tsr = Aln(t) + B may be used co determine the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from
either impervious asphalt or porous paving stone (known as Eco-Stone° and produced by UNI-GROUP ' '
U.S.A, producers where:
A=0.0047xi-5.18xks-0.13X TZS+O.1~x Ttr-1.55
B=-0.0294 x i-,2.'26 x ks + 0.52 x Tis + 0.07 x Ttr - 14.62 '
where i is the rainfall intensiry [mm•hr']; ks is the thermal conductiviry of the surface [kW m'•°C]; TI
is the
S
initial surface runoff temperature[°C]; Ttr is the initial rainfall temperature[°C]; and t is the time after the
starc of the rainfall [min].
5.
The accurary of the relacionship is ~- 4.0 °C in the first 10 minutes afrer rainfall begins and i- 1.5 °C when '
averaged over the entire duration of the rainfall event.
6. Research should continue to improve the accuracy o~ the relationship and further validate the relationship
over a range of rainfall intensities. '
Consideration of these conclusions and the information presented in this study leads to the following
recommendations:
1. That thermal enrichment of urban stormwater runoff be considered when new developments are proposed. '
2. That thermally-sensitive pavement materials be used more extensively than in current applications.
3. That the relationship presented in this study be used to estimate che magnitude of the thermal enrichment of
a new developmenc on receiving waters. '
4. That the relationship proposed in this study be used in a stormwater model to provide an estimate of the
thermal enrichment resulting from specific catchments.
5. That further research be conducted using different surface materials (e.g. roofing materials or concrete).
6.
That further research be conducted into the cooling of stormwacer in underground pipe networks leading to ,
receiving waters.
7. That monitoring of subgrade temperatures continue in the instrumented parking lot to obtain a database
with respect to initial surface runoff temperatures. '
8. That infrared thermometers be installed to monitor the surface temperature of the instrumented parking lot.
'
1
~
~
~
,
~
~~
20 ,
'
1
~
~
,
i
'
'
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF TEST SECTIONS OF POROUS
PAVEMENTS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF PARHING LOT RUNOFF
Michael Kaestner Thompson, P.Eng. - 1995
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 162-page thesis examines the design, construction, and instrumentation of four test sections of parking lot
pavement (one conventional interlocking paver, two UNI Eco-Stone° using two different filter materials, and one
conventional asphalt) to assess alternatives to the impervious pavemen~s commonly used in parking areas and low speed
roadways. Appropriately designed Eco-Stone~ pavements could reduce impacts from runoff and reduce pollutanr load on
surrounding surface wacers by infiltrating storm-water. Preliminary results showed reductions in surface contaminants
and cemperatures when compared to impervious pavements. Figures include cross sections of pavement design and
instrumentation, subsurface drainage system grading, laboratory test pavement apparatus, longicudinal and lateral flow
paths, collection system orientacion, thermocouple details, and drainage patterri. Photographs include che subbase
drainage system, base drainage system, surface inlet drains, connecting pipes, thermocouple, and wet/dry precipitation
sampler. The tables include a pollutant summary for highway runoH, pavement thickness and materials used, collected
event summary, temperature results, rainfall volume summary, surface and sub-surface load summary, contaminant
analysis and investigation, and concentrations and total loads. Results are presenced under two categories - temperature
and contaminants. Once again, numerous pollutants were analyzed including heavy metals such as lead, zinc, iron,
cadmium, and nickel, phenols, nitrates and nicrires, chromium, chloride, phosphates, ammonium and E.coli. References
are included.
OUTLINE
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Goals and Objectives
'
,
,
~
'
LJ
r~
'
,
LJ
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Literature Review
2.1.1 Porous and Asphalt Runoff Qualiry
2.1.2 Temperature
' 2.1.3 Uehicular Particulate and Emissions Discharge
2.2 Porous Pavements
2.3 Instrumentation and Daca Collection
3.0 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MATERIALS BUDGET
3.1 Materials Budget
3.1.1 Pollutant Build-up, PBU
3.1.2 Pollutant Wash-off, PWO
3.1.3 Net Accumulation, NAC
4.0 INSTRUMENTED PAVEMENTS
4.1 Tesc Pavements
4.2 Laboratory Test Pavements
4.3 Instrumentation
4.4 Flow Paths
5.0 INSTRUMENTATION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING
5.1 Water Samplers
5.2 Tipping Bucket Runoff Gauge (TBRG)
5.3 Thermocouples
5.4 Datalogger and Accessories
5.4.1 Datalogger
5.4.2 Mulciplexer
5.4.3 Programming
5S Weather Scation
5.6 Wec/Dry Precipitation Collector
21
'
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Introduction ,
6.2 Temperatures
6.3 Contaminant Load Results
6.3.1 Flow Results '
6.3.2 Contaminant Results
6.3.3 Contaminant Load Analysis
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions ~
The purpose of this study was to construct instrumented pavements for a study of porous pavement as an
alternative to impermeable pavement for use in parking lots where traffic speed is less than 50km/hr. Four
instrumented test pavements were built in parking lot P10 at the Universiry of Guelph. A materials budget was '
developed for the contributing variables at the scale of a parking lot. This study is only a preliminary step for
continuous work necessary to delineate the processes involved in a parking lot system. In this chapcer, conclusions
are drawn related to the design, construction, and instrumencation of the faciliry. Recommendations are then made ~
for improvements to the work.
The following conclusions can be made:
1. No previous experimental work has examined the effectiveness of porous pavements as an alternative to '
impervious pavements. This study prepared a Eaciliry for fu[ure porous pavement research for application in
North America.
2. The materials budget that was developed provides a preliminary background on the build-up and wash-off
processes that are involved. The constructed and instrumented test pavemencs provided the information ,
necessary in understanding the materials budget.
3. Pavemenc temperatures were recorded between the monchs of June to September, 1994. Surface temperatures
are directly related to the meteorological conditions; the greatest cemperature ranges were generated in the '
asphalt surface. In fact, for most of the time, the asphalt surface generally had the highest maximum daily
temperatures and lowest minimum daily temperatures. Asphalt pavements show more adverse results than the
other pavements. '
4. In the summer, average daily temperatures were generally similar for all the pavement surfaces. Average
temperatures for one pavemenc can be applied to alf pavements.
5. Base temperatures measured approximately 15 cm below the surface, showed a lower diurnal range than the
surface temperatures. Maximum base temperatures were less than che surface temperatures, ac least in early '
summer.
6. Sub-base temperatures, measured up to 600 mm below the surface, showed little diurnal temperature
fluctuation. In early summer, sub-base temperatures were lower than surface temperatures. '
7. Contaminanc loads from asphalt surface were always greater than the other pavements and surfaces. This is
mostly due to the asphalt being 100% impervious, which increases the amount of runoff and pollutants
reaching the sewers and ultimately the receiving waters. '
8. UNI Eco-Stone° effectively reduces the amount of surface runoff: Runoff was only generaced Erom the surface
when the rainfall intensiry exceeded the inFiltration rates of the pavement. UNI Eco-Stone° proved to be an
adequate porous pavement for reducing surface contaminant runoff loads. '
7.2 Recommendations
1. Improvements are necessary in the flow measurement. The use of a datalogger is recommended to adequately
record flows. However, che TBRGs require further improvement or replacement. A proposed simple
alternacive to the TBRG could be large barrels located in the instrumentation chamber under each of the '
catchments. This system would be inspected frequently to determine the best size barrel For eaeh of the
catchmencs.
2. The present system is designed to measure ground temperatures and not runoff temperatures. Additional '
work is necessary for reliable measurement of runoff and precipitation temperatures. A system is necessary to .
accurately measure the runoff water temperacure as ic passes through the layers. This would allow a better
understanding of the role of temperatures; runoff, and pavements. '
3. The asphalt surface thermocouple requires conscanc observation due to the damage originally sustained.
Continuous monitoring of the temperature from the asphalt is necessary to ensure accurate measurement of
temperature. This is also true for all the pavements and layers.
4. Particular work is necessary in che heat transfer process becween the pavement and water. Appropriate '
instrumentation is necessary to accurately assess these water temperatures.
22 '
,
' 5. With the long-~erm continuation of this work, care must be taken to ensure minimal settling of the
pavements. Additional work is necessary in impcoving surface drainage. Improvements are necessa
to ensure
ry
adequate drainage of the surfaces. Adequate drainage of the system can be effectively accomplished by
removing two of the pavements, i.e., the CP and the E3 pavements could be removed. CP would then be
~ replaced with E4, this doubling the size of the E4 surface. E3 would be replaced with the AS, thereby
doubling the size of the AS pavement. These changes would effectively reduce the drainage problems, as well
as provide the appropriate grading necessary for fu~ure use.
' 6. It is recommended that additional locations and other materials be investigated for porous pavement research.
7. More detailed observation of the effect of vehicles parking on the test pavements must be made to monitor
vehicle pollutant contribution.
8. Consideration must be given to the removal and cestoration of the pavement in the long term when the study
, is completed.
,
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
1
~ 23
'
LONG-TERM STO~ATER INFILTRATION THROUGH ,
CONCRETE PAVERS
Christopher Kresin - 1996
GENERAL SUMMARY ,
This 188-page study invescigates the infiltration capaciry of porous concrete paver installations of various ages. Using a
rainfall simulating infiltrometer, several test plots at four UNI Eco-Stone~ installations were subjected co a total of 60 '
tests comprising n,vo simulated rainfalls of known incensiry and duration. The first rainfall provides initial moisture losses
to wecting the drainage cell material, while data collected during the secorid rainfall is used to calculate effeccive
infiltration capaciry. Long-term stormwater management modeling was reviewed and suggestions made to enhance the
modeling capabilities of the United States Environmental Protection Agenry's Storm Water Management Model. These ,
changes will permit simulation of long-term responses of surfaces paved with permeable concrete pavers.
The study showed thac although the infiltration capaciry of the UNI Eco-Stonem pavemencs decreased with age and '
degree of compaction (traveled versus untraveled), ic could be improved with removal of the top layer of the drainage cell
aggregate material. The report also noted that all but two of the sites studied were constructed with improper drainage
cell material, which restricted the potential infiltration. The thesis strongly recommends that Eco-Stone~ installations be
constructed and maintained as per the manufacturers' specifications to ensure adequate performance. The tables include '
simulated rainfall intensities, effective infiltration rates and capacities, grain-size analysis results, drainage cell material
analysis, and SWMM run times. Figures show typical permeable pavement structure, soil moisture zones, SWMM
program organization, uniformiry coe~cients and intensities at various pressures, grain-size distribution curves for ,
previous research and test sites, and porous pavement water balance. Photographic documentation includes various trash,
oil deposits, and vegetation in drainage cells, the test plot delineator, test plot under rainfall conditions, rainfall simulator,
drainage cell material extraction and crust removal, stormwater runoff, and test site locations. ,
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION '
1.1 Study Objective
1.2 Study Scope
~ 1.3 Need ~
2.0 REVIEW OF URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES '
2.1 Urban Stormwater Management
2.1.1 Traditional Scormwater Management Practices
2.1.2 Stormwater Best Management Praccices ~
2.1.3 Environmentally Responsible (Better) Management Techniques
2.2 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Types of Porous Pavements
'
2.2.2 Permeable Pavement Structure
2.2.3 Application
2.2.4 Performance '
2.2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
2.2.6 Previous Research
2.3 Summary of Survey Results
3.0 APPLICABLE THEORY '
3.1 The Rainfall-Runoff Process
3.2 Infiltration Hydrology
3.2.1 Decermination of Infiltration Capaciry
'
3.3 Rainfall Simulacors ,
3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation
3.4 Spatial Variabiliry and Sca(e Effects '
3.4.1 Spatial Variabiliry
3.4.2 Scale Effects
'
24 _
'
~
~
'
'
'
,
,
,
1
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
3.5 Event Uersus Long-Term Hydrologic Modelling
3.6 Urban Stormwater Modelling
3.6.1 Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
3.6.2 SWMM and Pervious Surfaces
4.0 FIELD EXPERIMENTS
4.1 Test Plot Specifications
4.2 The Rainfall Simulator
4.2.1 Rainfall Intensiry Calibration and Spatial Uniformiry
4.3 Experimental Procedure
4.4 Experimental Design
4.5 Description of Test Installations
4.6 Computational Methods
4.6.1 Computational Process - Example Calculations
5.0 RFSULTS
5.1 Darry Infiltration Capaciries
5.2 EDC (External Drainage Cell) and Crust Materials
6.0 DISCUSSION
6.1 Regeneration of Infiltration Capaciry
6.2 Reliabiliry of Results
6.2.1 Data Collection Phase
. 6.2.2 Calculation Phase
6.3 Permeable Pavement Design and Installation
6.3.1 UNI Eco-Stone~ Installation and Specifications
6.4 Cost Comparison - MICBEC (Modular Interlocking Concrete Block with External Drainage Cells) and PAP
(Porous Asphalt Pavement)
6.4.1 Capital
6.4.2 Maintenance and Repair
6.4.3 Environmental
6.5 SWMM and Permeable Pavement
6.5.1 LF90 Performance Enhancement
6.5.2 Accommodation of More Complex Models
6.5.3 Code Modifications
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions Based on Experimental Results
1. Infiltration capaciry of UNI Eco-Stone° MICBEC pavers decreases as the installation ages.
2. Infiltration capacicies at UNI Eco-Stone`~ installations decreases with increased compaction.
3. Infiltration capaciry of the EDC crusts, found to be significantly affected by age, limits fEo.
4. fEo may be regenerated, mosc probably to some fraction of initial fEo, by street sweeping/vacuuming the
Eco-Stone° surface.
5. f Eo is affected to a grearer extent by EDC 6nes content than organic matter content.
6. Most fines are trapped near the surface of the EDC material.
7. Except for Sites lA and 1 B, UNI Eco-Stone° installations are constructed with improper EDC material,
which rescricts potential f Eo.
8. fEo values of the magnitudes presented in this study would not provide infiltration of the smallest storms
common to the Toronto area.
9. SWMM currently can noc simulate the response of permeable pavement.
10. SWMM can be modified to model systems that include permeable pavements, over a long-term, e~ciently
and effectively.
7.2 Conclusions Based on Literature Review and Observations
1. Infiltrating stormwater is environmentally beneficial.
2. Permeable pavement is an effective infiltration BMP.
3. Eco-Stone° offers limited benefits when used for small surface areas as stormwacer does not have adequare
time to infiltrate the porous pavement.
4. Porous and conventional asphalt pavement has a grea~er potential to contaminate stormwater and the
adjacenc environment than concrete pavers.
25
~
5. MICBEC pavements will always reduce stormwater runoff volumes through depressions storage. ~
7.3 Recommendations
From the conclusions, the following is recommended:
1. UNI Eco-Stone~ installations must be constructed and maintained to manufacturer's specificacions to ensure
adequate performance. '
2. Permeable pavement installacions should be constructed with minimal slope and to provide surface detention
so that greater volumes of stormwater may be captured and infiltraced.
3. Eco-Stone~ should be installed in parking lots to detain stormwater on the surface and should be '
swept/vacuumed every spring, which provides the required site maincenance.
4. Every effort should be made to maximize runon to pervious areas.
5. SWMM coding must be updated to FORTRAN 90 synta~c and the RUNOFF block modified to allow better '
catchment discrecization.
Future research should be conducted to determine:
1. How deep into the permeable pavement do fines propagace and whether there is an optimal gradation of
EDC material thac will capture fines as the surface, as well as provide adequate fEo. ~
2. How well UNI Eco-Stone~ performs under freezing conditions. _
3. An appropriate Eco-Stone~ maintenance frequenry.
1
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
1
,
1
'
26 ~
~
'
'
,
'
i
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
,
,
1
,
~
FEASIBILITY OF A PEP;MEABLE PAVEMENT OPTION IN THE STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) FOR LONG-TERM
CONTINUOS MODELING
Craig Kipkie - 1998
GENERAL SUMMARY
The purpose of this 134-page projecc was to examine che feasibiliry of, and attempr to develop computer code for the
United States Environmental Protection Agenry's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The code would allow
planners and designers to simulate the response of permeable pavements in long-term modeling applications. The
infiltration capacity of the permeable pave-ment was determined from past studies of UNI Eco-Stone° and accounts for
degradation over time and regeneration by mechanical means. Various simulations run with the proposed new code
indicated that using permeable pavements could greatly reduce flows when compared to impervious surfaces. Figures
include types of permeable pavers, rypical permeable pavement srructure, SWMM program strucrure, SWMM RUNOFF
subcatchment schematization, porous pavement water balance, and hydrographs for various dates from 1971 to 1981.
The tables include Kresin's experimental results, subcatchment surface classification, RUNOFF block input data, sample
calculations, and description of permeable pavement parameters for various tests. Also included is a potential source
code for a su6routine PERMPAV.FOR containing the calculations for the permeable pavement option for SWMM.
Numerous references also are included.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Projecc Objective
1.2 Project Scope
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Urban Stormwater
2.2 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Porous Pavemencs
2.2.2 Permeable Pavement Structure
2.3 Permeable Pavement Applications
2.4 Water Quantiry
2.5 Water Qualiry
2.6 Subsurface Qualiry
2.7 Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
3.0 STORMWA,TER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM)
3.1 Stormwater Modelling
3.2 U.S. EPA's Stormwater Management Model
3.3 SWMM: Overview of Program Structure
3.4 SWMM RUNOFF Block
3.5 Subcatchment Schematization
3.6 Infiltration in the SWMM RUNOFF Block
3.6.1 Horton Method
3.6.2 Horton Method in SWMM
3.6.3 Green-Ampt Method
3.7 Entering Data in SWMM
4.0 COMPILING WITH LF90 VER 4.0
4.1 FORTRAN
4.2 Compiling
4.2.1 Lahey FORTRAN Compiler
4.3 Compiling SWMM 4.4
.0 NEW CODE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
5.1 Changes made to the SWMM 4.4 Program
5.2 Changes to RHYDRO.FOR
5.3 5
Changes ro CATCH.FOR
27
lJ
5.4 Changes to WSHED.FOR
5.5
Addition of PERMEA.INC ,
5.6 Addition of PERMPAV.FOR
5.7 Qualiry Assurance
6.0 RFSULTS AND DISCUSSION ~
6.1 Test File
6.1.1 Data File
6.1.2 Rain Data File '
6.2 Test 1- Comparison of Non-Degradable versus Degradable Permeable Pavement
6.3 Test 2- Comparison of Impervious and Degradable Permeable Pavement
6.4 Test 3- Comparison of Different Saturated Hydraulic Conductivities
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS '
7.1 Conclusions
1. It is possible co inserc new source code into SWMM to simulate the long-term hydrologic response of
permeable pavement. ~
2. Various simulations, with the proposed new source code, indicated that the model produces reasonable results
under a generalized set of input conditions.
3. As expected, simulations showed that using permeable pavement can greatly reduce flows when compared to '
impervious surfaces.
4. Difficulties can arise in receiving programming support with SWMM because of the size and complexiry of
the code and numerous authors over the past 30 years. '
7.2 Recommendations
1. The validiry of the new source code must be tested using observed data from permeable pavemen~
installations.
2.
Test should be conducted using shorter time steps (1 minute). '
3. 1~Iodifications should be made to connecc the permeable pavement subroutine to che groundwater routine.
4. Clarification of the water depch in the reservoir of the permeable pavement structure should be made.
5.
Possible modifications to the new source code should be made after further alpha and beta testing. ~
6. Further research must be conducted on the degradation of the infiltration capaciry.
7. Appropriate guidelines for maintenance frequency must be established co ensure that the flow reducing
qualities of permeable pavement remain effective. ,
8. Modificacions to the SWMM code should be made to incorporate the water quality aspeccs of permeable
pavement for long-term, continuous simulations.
9. Proper documentation musc be prepared to supporc the proposed new code.
10.
Instructional material should be developed and distributed for instruction in the use of the proposed new '
code.
~
'
'
~
,
II
~
28 ~
,
'
'
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
,
'
'
,
,
il
~
~
RESTORATION OF INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF PERMEABLE PAVERS
Christopher Gerrits - 2001
GENERAL SUMMARY
This study investigated the infiltration capaciry of UNI Eco-Stone~ permeable pavers at a research test section located at
the Universiry of Guelph chat was installed in 1994. The objectives were co determine how infiltration capaciry, volatile
organic matter, heavy metal concentration, and particle size analysis of the drainage void material vary with average daily
traf3~ic use and surface ponding. Using a rainfall infiltrometer, 110 test plots were subjected to 420 tests comprising two
simulated rainfall events of known intensity and duration. Data collected during the second rainfall was used to calculate
effective infiltration capaciry. Preliminary results yielded different results for infiltration capaciry and particle size analysis
of the drainage void material for the different average daily traffic uses. The purpose of the research was to test the
hypothesis that UNI Eco-Stone° infiltration capacities decrease with age and traffic use, and that the infiltration
capacities could be improved by street sweeping/vacuuming. The tests plots with a coarser gradation of aggregate
materials had higher infiltration ra~es ~han the section with a greater percentage of fines in the base and bedding
materials. The greatest infiltration rates were found in areas with low average daily traffic and regeneration could be easily
accomplished. In areas of inedium to heary average daily traffic usage, infiltration rates were lower and regeneratio~ was
limited, indicating a need to establish a periodic cleaning program to ensure optimum infiltration levels.
OUTLINE . '
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objectives
1.2 S~udy Scope
2.0 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES - LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Urban Stormwater Management
2.1.1 Stormwater Management Practices
2.1.2 Urban Best Management Practices (BMPs)
2.1.3 Agricultural BMPs
' 2.1.4 Infiltracion BMPs
2.1.5 Green/Open Space
" 2.2 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Types of Porous Pavements
2.2.2 Permeable Pavement Structure
2.2.3 Applications of Permeable Pavements
2.3 UNI Eco-Stonem Paving System
2.4 Surface Sealing
2.5 Possible Maincenance Activities
2.5.1. High Pressure Washing with Water
2.5.2 Street Sweeping
2.6 Previous Research
2.6.1 Permeable Pavement Installation Maintenance
3.0 APPLICABLE THEORY
3.1 The Rainfall-Runoff Process
3.2 Infilcration
32.1 Determination of Infiltration Capaciry
3.3 Rainfall Simulators
3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
4.1 Test Plot Specifications
4.2 The Rainfall Simulator
4.2.1 Rainfall Incensiry Calibrations and Spatial Uniformiry
4.3 Experimental Procedure
4.4 Experimental Design
4.5 Description of Test Inscallations
4.6 Computarional Mechods
4.6.1 Example Calculations
29
~
5.0 RESULTS
5.1
Summary of Infiltration Rates ,
5.2 Heavy Metal Analysis
6.0 DIS
6.1 CUSSION
Infiltration Rates ,
6.2 Partic(e Size Analysis
6.2.1. Bedding Material
6.3 Heavy Metal Analysis '
6.4 Volatile Organic Matter (VOC Content)
6.5 Effect of Ponded Water
6.5.1 Frequently Flooded vs. Well-Drained Plots '
6.6 Uegetated Plots
6.6.1 Vegetated vs. Unvegetated Plots
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1
Conclusions '
1. Since no previous experimental work has examined the regeneration of the infiltration capaciry of permeable
pavement ins~allations, this study will serve as a guideline for fucure permeable pavement research in
North America. '
2. The infiltration capaciry tesced between May and September, 2001, was determined to be spatially variable
and dependent on the average daily traffic use, percentage of fine matter in the EDC, and the test
inscallacion subbase specifications. The infiltration capaciry was also found to be dependent, to a lesser ,
degree, on the percentage of volatile organic matter within the EDC.
3. The infiltration rates were found to be greatest in the low ADT area and regeneration to the maximum
infilcration capaciry could be accomplished by removing as little as 15mm of EDC material.
4.
The infiltration rates in the medium ADT area were found to be less than the low ADT area. Although '
regeneration to the critical infiltration capaciry could not be reached by removal of 25mm of EDC material,
but results suggest that this could be possible with removal of more EDC material. Some degree of
regeneration was noted at all excavation depths. '
5. The infiltration rates in che high ADT areas were found ~o be the lowest, and only a minimal amoun~ of
regeneration could be obtained.
6. The infiltration rates were higher, and regeneration could be reached by removing less EDC matter, in the ~
Eco-Stone° 3" installation. The infiltracion rates within the Eco-Stone° 4" installations were much lower
inicially and regeneration to the critical infiltration capaciry was not obtained for any test plot.
7. The infiltration rates are very spatially variable, as illustraced by the large coefficients of variation obcained.
8.
The percentage of fine matter within che EDCs, measured up to 25mm from che top of the paver, was much '
higher in the Eco-Stone~ 4" installation. The percentage of fine matter was also found co be inversely
proportional to the infiltration rate.
9.
The infiltration rate was found to be lower for the plots that have water ponded on them for a period of ,
greater than one hour after a storm event, than plots where the water does not pond. The percent of fine
matter in the EDCs was found to be slightly greater within the first Smm and approximately equal for all
other depths. The percent of VOC was found to be significantly higher in the frequently flooded plots, for ,
all depths, not just the upper Smm.
10. The percencage of volatile organic matter within the EDCs was found to be similar for both installations and
all traffic uses. The percent VOC was found to be much greacer for the vegecaced plocs, underneath the large '
coniferous tree along the grass verge. The infiltracion rate was noc found to be greatly affected by the percent
VOC, with the exception of plots where the percent VOC was significandy greater than the average VOC
percent. In this case, the infilcration rate was found to be an order of magnitude greater than the
unvegetated area. '
11. The concentrations of heavy metals within che EDCs were found to be (ess than the Ontario Ministry of the ,
Environment's Guideline Concentrations for Selected Mecals in Soils. All of che mecals tested were below the
MOE guideline level, and, with the excepcion of zinc, below ~he expecced value for On[ario soils.
,
'
30 ,
~
7.2 Recommendations
1 1. It is necessary to minimize the amount of fine matter accumulating within the EDC. This can best be done
by periodically cleaning the permeable pavement insrallation ro keep the EDCs clear of fine matter. The
frequenry of cleaning will be dependent on the ADT, as well as land use practices on and adjacent to the
' tesc installation
2. The percent VOC within the cells helped to keep fine matter from accumulating within the EDCs.
Whenever possible, coniferous rrees should be encouraged to grow along permeable pavement installations
' and on any islands or verges within the parking lot. Coniferous trees were found to be useful because the
needles falling off of the trees, into the EDCs, helped to maintain high infiltration capacities. Vegetation of
any kind should not be discouraged from growing within the EDCs.
, 3. Future permeable pavement inscallations should be constructed so that drainage is in the direction of the
highly vegetated areas near the curb.
4. Fine matter should not be used when installing the subbase material, as it decreases the infiltration capaciry
and che ability to regenerate the infiltration capaciry.
~ 5. It is recommended that additional testing be done on other permeable pavement installations in order to
better identify the frequenry of cleaning required to maintain and opcimal infiltration rate.
6. Further studies should be aimed at testing permeable pavement inscallations on a larger scale. This would
~ allow for better estimation of the installation as a whole and lessen the spatial variabiliry of testing at such
a small scale.
8.0 REFERENCES
,
'
r
~
~~
~
~~
~
~
~
~--~
~~
~ 3I
~
The following synopses are all edited by William James of Guelph University and are Proceedings of the ~
Stormwater and Water Quality Management Modeling Conferences, Toronto, Ontario 1994-2000. They
are based on the research conducted at Guelph University described on the previous pages.
PROVISION OF PARHING-LOT PAVEMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER POLLUTION I
CONTROL STUDIES
William James and Michael K. Thompson - 1994 ,
This study prepared a faciliry for future research on porous pavement for application in North America with comparative
test sections of UNI Eco-Stone° concrete pavers, traditional concrete pavers and asphalt in the laboratory and in a
parking application. The purpose was to investigate porous pavement as an alternative to impervious pavement for '
parking lots. A large number of contaminants were investigated, including, heavy metals, chlorides, nutrients, phenolics,
solids, and solvents. Preliminary results showed that contaminant loads from the asphalt surface were always greater than
the other pavement surfaces. The Eco-Stone~ pavement was shown to effectively reduce the amount of surface runoff, ~
with runoff generated only when rainfall intensiry exceeded infiltration rates. However, this is likely to be a rare
occurrence due to high infiltration rates of the pavement.
,
CONTAMINANTS FROM FOUR NEW PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENTS
IN A PARKING LOT
William James and Michael K. , Thompson- 1996 '
While the previous study described the design, construction, and instrumentation of four pavements in the laboracory
and parking lot, chis study reports on the interim conclusions obtained from the parking-lot pavements for the first year
afrer installation. In addition to investigation of contaminants, temperature studies also were conducted. The Eco-Stone~ '
pavement continued to show significant reductions in surface runoff contaminant loads.
THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF STORMWATER BY URBAN PAVEMENT ~
William James and Brian Uerspagen - 1996
This study covers the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from impermeable asphalc and the Eco-Stone° porous
concrete paver. Though more research was required, it was found that thermal enrichment of urban stormwater runoff ~
should be considered when new development is proposed, and thermally-sensitive pavement materials should be used
more extensively. The asphalt paving surface was found to increase the temperature of the runoff more fhan the Eco-
Stone° pavement. ~
OBSERVATIONS OF INFILTRATION THROUGH CLOGGED POROUS CONCRETE ~
BLOCK PAVERS
William James, Christopher Kresin and David Elrick - 1997
The purpose of this research was to test the hypothesis that, for a particular permeable paver (Eco-Stone°), infiltration '
capacities may be improved by simply street sweeping and/or vacuuming the surface. The research used data collected at
several Eco-Stone° installations in the area. While studies showed infiltracion capaciry was reduced as the pavement aged,
it was found chat infiltration could be improved with removal of the top layer of drainage cell material. It was found that ,
very little surface water runs off new installations of UNI Eco-Stone°, and that maintenance was recommended to renew
infilcration capaciry. Research also found that fines in the drainage cell material affected infiltration to a greater extent
than organic material, which reinforces proper material specification guidelines be followed during installation. '
A LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF POLLUTANTS LEACHED FROM FOUR ~
DIFFERENT PAVEMENTS BY ACID RAIN '
Williarn fames, Reem Shahin - 1998
In this study, the contaminants investigated were phenols, pH, zinc, iron, oils and grease. It was found that pH of rain is
a significant factor, with asphalt having the least buffering, and thac Eco-Stone reduced both runoff and contaminants '
32 ~
~
the most. Percolation through the permeable pavement surface and underlying media slowed the water flow, allowing
, more time for oxidation. It also was shown to filter suspended solids and some contaminants such as sodium and sulfaces.
Heavy metal removal through percolation appeared co be good. Surface runoff from asphalc contained a higher mass of
all the parameters investigated compared to the Eco-Stone runoff. It was found that generally, while water is not
' contaminaced by che surface of rhe porous pavement, asphalt surfaces are made from petroleum products and some
Pollutants such as oils> grease, and phenoLs would be generaced from the surface. It was found the Eco-Stone pavement
appears to have significant long-term benefits compared to convencional asphalt pavements in cerms of its abiliry co
' reduce the quantiry of stormwater pollutants.
FEASIBILITY OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT OPTION IN THE STORMWATER
, MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) FOR LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS
MODELLING
William James, Craig William Kipkie - 1998-9
~ This project focused on examining the feasibiliry of inserting new FORTRAN computec code into the USEPAs SWMM,
such that it would allow designers to simulate the hydrological response of permeable pavements in long-term modelling
applications. It was found that it was possible to insert new code, and the model produced reasonable results under a
, generalized set of input conditions. Simulations showed that using permeable pavemencs can greacly reduce flows
compared to impervious surfaces.
, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OF
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS
William James, W. Robert C. fames, and Harald von Langsdorff - 2000
' This monograph details the underlying method and function of a free-ware program that uses the USEPA Stormwater
Managemenc Model (SWMM) for the design of permeable pavement instaliations - PCSWMM. The program allows
quick implementacion of a BMP in SWMM and is very user-friendly. The SWMM code for groundwater and infiltration
, has not been comprehensively tested against a specific permeable pavement field program due to lack of field testing to
date. PCSWMM is a tool to aid designers and is intended for use by civil engineers chat are competent in evaLuation oF
the significance and limitations of che computations and results. It is not a substirution for engineering judgement, nor is
, it meant co replace the services of professional qualified engineers.
'
~
,
,
'
~
'
33
i
r
ADDITIONAL UNI ECO-STONE° RESEARCH AND TESTING '
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PERMEABLE PAVEMENT
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ,
Professor Derek B. Booth, Jennifer Leavitt and Kim Peterson - Research Assistants - 1996
This project was initiated to review the rypes and characteristics of permeable pavements in che Pacific Northwest to '
provide pocencial users of these systems with information. They constructed a well-instrumented full-scale test site in a
section of a new employee parking lot at the King Counry Public Works faciliry in Renton, WA, to evaluate the
durabiliry, infiltratabiliry, and water-qualiry benefits of four rypes of permeable pavements - UNI Eco-Stone~,
Grasspave2°, Gravelpave2° and Turfstone'". An additional section of impervious asphalt was constructed as a control. The '
intenc of the project is to evaluate the long-term performance of the systems over a number of years. The study is being
conducted in conjunction with King Counry, the Ciry of Olympia, Washington State Department of Ecology, and the
Ciry of Renton. Initial results of this study showed the use of permeable pavemencs dramatically reduced surface runoff '
volumes and attenuated peak discharge and though there were significant structural differences in the syscems, the
hydrologic benefits were consistent. In addicion, it was found that a significant contribution of permeable pavements is
the abiliry to reduce effective impervious area, which has a direct connection to downstream drainage systems. As a result, '
it can be used to control runoff timing, reduce volume, and provide wa~er qualiry benefits.
EXPERT OPINION ON i.JNI ECO-STONE~ - PEDESTRIAN USE '
Professor Burkhard Bretschneider - 1994
This report cested UNI Eco-Stone° for safery and walking ease under a pedestrian traffic application in che parking lot of
the Lenze Company in Aerzen, Germany. Bicycles, wheel chairs, baby carriages, and foot traffic were tested. Ladies high '
heel shoes were tested for penetration depth in the drainage cell aggregate materials. The findings showed that proper
filling and compaction of the drainage ce(1 materials was important for good overall performance.
I
EXPERT OPIIVION - IN-SITU TEST OF WATER PERMEABILITY OF TWO UNI
ECO-STONE° PAVEMENTS
Dr. Soenke Borgwardt - Institute for Planning Green Spaces and for Landscape Architecture - University of Hannover - 1994 ,
Tests were performed on two UNI Eco-Stone° pavements of various ages at two different locations in Germany. A
parking lot at the train station in Eldagsen was installed in 1992, while the Lenze Company parking lot in Gross Berkel
was installed in 1989. The results showed that the Eldagsen site was capable of infiltrating 350 1/sec/ha, and even after 60 ,
minutes, absorbed more than 200 1/sec/ha. Ac the Lenze site, che Eco-Scone~ pavement was capable of infiltrating 430
1/sec/ha, and even after 60 minutes, a rainfall amount of 400 i/sec/ha was absorbed. Alchough the comparison shows that
the older test area had a higher permeabiliry than the newer installation, laboratory tests showed the lesser permeabiliry ~
values of the Eldagsen site were the result of the existence of fines. This reconfirms the recommendation for selecting
proper gradation of drainage cell and bedding macerials in the 2mm to Smm range and that ASTM C-33 grading.should
not be used if infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. '
DRAINAGE WITH INTERLOCHING PAVERS
Professor W. Mz~th - Research Institute for Water Resources - Karlsruhe University - 1994 '
The institute tested UNI Eco-Stone`~ pavers in comparison to traditional pavers for water permeabiliry. Surface runoff
and the associated drainage were measured under a variery of rainfall amounts and intensities.
I
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE UTILIZING UNI ECO-STONE° AND ECOLOC°
PAVING UNITS ,
Professor Thom~s Phalen, Jr. - Northeastern University - 1992
The purpose of this research was to develop the technical data rela~ed to the paving system's permeabiliry characteristics.
This early research was expanded on in the Rollings and Texas A&M design manuals. '
34 ~
1'
~
STRUCTURAL DESIGN SOFTWARE
1 ~
LOCKPAVE PRO
' Dr. Brian Shackel
The LOCKPAVE° PRO compucer program has been developed to assist design professionals in the structural design of
interlocking concrete blocic pavements for a variety of applications, including streets, airport, and industrial projects. It
' provides a choice of inechaniscic or empirical design methodology and offers che abiliry to select, analyze, and compare
alternative pavement rypes. It also includes UNI Eco-Stonem permeable pavemenc hydraulic modeling based on che
USEPA's SWMM model.
' FEATURES OF PGSWMM'" FOR PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS
• Allows user to develop a simple model of permeable pavement design, run che model with a specified design storm,
~ and analyze the results of the model
• An Input Wizard interface guides the user through the required parameters
• Model results include graphs of the input fiunction (design storm), surface runoff (if any), depth of water in the base
' material, and drainage of the base macerial for the duration of che model run
• A summary report includes user-defined input and rabulation of numerical results
~ • Features supporc for Run-On - flow concribucions from adjacent impervious_and pervious surfaces
• Incorporates new regeneration daca from research studies
' • The model accepts an arbitrary rainfall hyetograph and provides a step-by-step accounting (conservatio^ of mass) of
water movement chrough the permeable pavement installation, including surface deCention, overland flow, infiltration,
subsurface s~orage, and subsurface drainage
~
~--~,.
When designing Eco-Stone~ pavements, please use LOCKPAVE° PRO firsC to
establish the minimum requirements for the structural performance of the
pavement. The program defaulcs to the most conservative parameters - very
poor drainage conditions and saturation of the base more chan 25°10 of the time
- for its structural analysis: Then run PC-SWMM'" to see if your drainage
design parameters are met. If the minimum base thickness established by
LOCKPAVE~ PRO is inadequate for your storage/drainage requiremen~s,
increase the base layer thickness step-by-step until your hydraulic parameters are
mec. .
~
'
,
'
'
'
~
~~
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
ECO-STONE° POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
This comprehensive slide/computer PowerPoint presentation is oriented to the design professional. It includes basic
design guidance, hydraulic information, research information, and projea references and is based on the Design
Considerations for the UNI Eco-Stone° Concrete Paver by Rollings and Rollings.
35
~
Private Residence, Long Irland, NY
~
CASE STUDIES '
RIO VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Case Study - 2 page '
Case study on the Castaic Lake Water Agenry of Santa Clarita, CA project - Water Conservatory Garden and Learning
Center Parking Lot. Features 27,000 sq ft parking lot installation of UNI Eco-Stone° permeable pavers. ~
MICKEL FIELD AND HIGHLANDS PARK
Case Study - 2 page ~
Case study on Mickel Field/Highlands Park of Wilton Manors, FL project - Renovation of communiry parks' walkways
and parking lots. Features over 37,000 sq ft of UNI Eco-Stone~ permeable pavers.
ORDAN COVE URBAN WATERSHED STUDY ~
J
Case Study - 4 page ,
Case study is on an innovative research project funded in part by the Connecticut Deparcment of Environmental
Protection through the USEPA's National Monitoring Program Section 319. Other participants in the project include the
Universiry of Connecticut Natural Resources Managemenc and Engineering Dept., the town of Waterford, CT, and the ,
developer John Lombardi. Over 15,000 sq ft of UNI Eco-Stone° pavers were used for the streec cul-de-sac and driveways
of some homes in the "paired watershed" development. A variery of BMPs have been incorporated into the site for long-
term monitoring and comparison with traditional subdivision construction. ~
~
,
,
'
~
'
,
~
i
36 ~
'
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
~ American Association of State Hi hway and Transportation Of~cials (AASHTO)> 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavernent
g
Structures, Washington, DC.
' American Sociery for Testing and Materials (ASTM)> 1999. Annual Book ofASTM Standurds, West Conshohocken, PA
American Sociecy of C'svii Engineers, 1992. Design and Construction of Urban Stormwater Management Systems, ASCE, New York, NY.
' Booth, D., J. Leavitt, and K. Peterson, 1995. The University of Washin,~tan Permeable Pavement Demanstration Project - Background
and First-Year Field Results, Universiry oF Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA.
Cedegren, H., 1987. Drainage of Highway and Airfield Pavements, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL.
' Corps of Engineers, 1991. Subsurface Drainage of Pavement Srructures, Research and Development Service: Current Corps of Engineers
and Industry Practice, Hanover, NH.
~ Corps oF Engineers, 1992. Engineering and Design Drainage Layers for Pavements, Engineer Technical Letter 1110-3-435,
Department of the Army> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
, Cote Jr., M., J. Clausen, B. Morton, P. Stacey, and S. Zaremba, 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed National Monitoring Project,
USEPA, Universiry of Connecticut, Aqua Solucions, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec~ion, WaterEord, CT.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1990. FHW9 Technical Guide, Paper 90-O1: Subsurface Pavement Drainage, FHWA,
, Office of Engineering, Pavemenc Division, Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1992. Demonstratian Project 87.• Drainable Pavement Systems Participant Notebook, PHWA>
Publicacion No. FHWA-SA-92-008, Washington, DC.
' Ferguson, B., 1991. "The Failure of Stormwater Detention and the Future of Stormwater Design", Landscape Design, Vol. 4, No. 12,
Gold Trade Publications> Van Nuys, CA.
' Ferguson, B.> 1994. Stormwater Infiltration, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ferguson, B. and T. Debo, 1990. On-site Stormwater Management> Second Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Goforth, G.; E. Diniz, and J. Rauhut, 1983. Stormwater Hydrological Characteristics of Parous and Conventional Paving Systems, United
' Staces Environmencal Protection Agenry, Grant No. R8Q6338-01-2, Austin, TX.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHKI'), 1982, 1997. Synthesis ofHighway Practice 9~i.• Pavement Subsurface
~ Drainage Systems, Sequim, WA.
National Resources Defense Council, 1999. Stormwater Strategies, Community Responses to Runoff Pollution, New York, NY.
Portland Cemen~ Association, 1992. Properties and Uses of Cement-Modified Soil, Skokie, IL.
' Rollings, R. and M. Rollings, 1992. Applications for Concrete Paving Block in the United States Market, Uni-Group U.S.A., Palm
Beach Gardens, FL.
~ Shackel, B., 1990. Design and Construction oflnterlocking Concrete Block Pavements, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Smich, D., 2001. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements, Interlocking Concrete Pavemenc Instituce, Washingron> DC.
' The Asphalt Institute, 1989. The Asphalt Handbook, MS-4, Lexington, ICY.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US~PA), Office of Warer and Low Impact Development Centec, 2000. Low Impact
~ Development (LID). A Literature Review, EPA-841-B-00-005, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 04~ice of Water, 2000. National Menu of Best Management Practices for
Storm Water Phase II, Washington, DC.
' United Scaces Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office oE Water, 2000. Non-Point Source Pollution, II. Urban Runoff,
Washington, DC.
~
37
~
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA
INFILTRATION PAVING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT
DATE: INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED:
PROJECT: _
LOCATION:
SITE STATUS: ACTIVE INACTIVE COMPLETED
Satisfactory
1. Pre-construction
Runoff diverted
Area stabilized
2. Faccavation
Size and location conforms to plans
Side slopes stable
Soil permeabiliry
Groundwaterlbedrock
3. Geotextile/Filter Fabric Placement
Fabric specification
Placement conforms to specifications
Sides of excavation covered
4. Aggregate Base Course
Size as specified, sieve analysis conforms to spec
Clean/washed material
Thickness, placement, and compaction meets spec
v
5. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Meets ASTM or CSA standards as applicable
Elevations, slope, pactern, placement and compaction
as per specificacions
Aggregate joint macerials conform to specification
Drainage or bio swales, vegetated areas for emergenry runoff
overflow and pre-treatment for filtering runoff
G. FinalInspection
Elevation and slope conform to drawings
Transitions to impervious pavement separated with
edge restraints
Stabilization of soil in areas draining onto pavement
(vegetative strips recommended)
Action to be taken:
No aaion necessary. Continue routine inspections
Correct n,oted site deficiencies by
lst notice 2nd notice
Submit plan modifications as ^oted in written comments by
Notice to Comply issued Final inspection, project completed
38
Unsatisfactory
1
'
~
'
~
~
~
'
'
'
,
~
~
~
'
~
'
'
'
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM
WATERSHED MA,NAGEMENT INSTITUTE .AND USEPA
INFILTRATION PAVING MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT
DATE: TIME:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
Individual Conducting Inspection:
Inspection freguency shown in parentheses
"As built" plans available Y/N
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
1. Debris on infiltration paving area (Monthly)
2. Uegetation areas (Monthly)
Mowing done when needed
Fertilized per specifications
No evidence of erosion
3. Dewatering (Monthly)
Infiltration paving dewaters between storms
4. Sediments (Monthly)
Area clean of sediments
Area vacuum swept on a periodic basis as needed
5. Structural condition (Annual)
No evidence of surface deterioration
No evidence of rutting or spalling
Inspection Frequency Key: Annual Monthly Afrer major storm
Action to be taken:
If any of rhe answers ro the above irems is checked unsatisfactory, a time frame shall be established for rheir corrective
action or repair.
No action necessary. Continue routine inspections
Correct noted faciliry deficiencies by
Faciliry repairs were indicaced and completed. Site reinspection is necessary to verify corrections or improvements.
Site reinspection accomplished on
Sire reinspecrion was satisfactory. Next routine inspection is scheduled for appcoximately:
Signature of Inspector
39
'
'
~
L~ 1
'
~
'
~
,
~
'
'
i
1
I
~
ur~~ ,~
UNI-GROUP U.S.A. ,
MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES
4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 •(561) 626-4666 • Fa7c (561} 627-6403 •(800} 872-1864 '
www.uni-~roupusa.org • infoC~uni-groupusa.org
,
'
,
~
'
~
~
'
~
~
'
'
'
,
,
LL;
~
,
,
Appendix V
Facility Summary Forms
'
'
~
THURSTON REGION
~ FACILITY SUMMARY FORM
Complete one (1) for each facility (detention/retention, coalescing plate filter, etc.) on the
, project site. Attach 8 1/2 x 11 sketch showing location of facility.
Proponent's Facilitv Name or ldentifzer (e.g., Pond A): See Part 6
~ Name of Road or Street to Access Facility: Burnett Rd./Moutain View Road
Hearings Examiner Case Number.•
~ Development Rev. Project No./Bldg Permit No.:
Parcel Number: 21713340000. 21713340200
,
~ To be completed by Utility Staff:
Utility Facility Number
~ Project Number (num)
, Parcel Number Status: (num, lch)
0, Known; 1, Public; 2 Unknown; 3, Unassigned
' Basin and Subbasin: (num, 6ch)
(2ch for basin, 2ch for subbasin, 2ch future
, Responsible jurisdiction: (alpha, lch)
, Part 1- Project Name and Proponent
~ Project Narne: Green Villa~e Subdivision
Project Owner: Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc
~ , Project Contact.• George Hom. Ph.D
Address: 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW, Olvmpia, WA 98502
~ Phone: L~60) 943-7437
Project Proponent: (if differ-ent) Same
, Address: Same
Phone: Same
Project Engineer: ~b?r-t F. Knlcnmh. P_ F.
~ Fir»z: _~CA Cnn.culting Grnun Phone: ~ (~) 493-6002
,
Part 2 - Project Location
Section
Township
Range
13
17N
IE
Part 3- Tvoe of Petmit Annlication
Type ofpermit (e.g., Commercial Bld~: Residential Subdivision
Other Permits (circle)
QDOF/WHPA ~COE 404
~COE Wetlands QDOE Dam Safety
QFEMA QFloodplain
~Shoreline Mgmt QRockery/Retaining Wall
QEncroachment ~Grading
~NPDES
~Other Plumbing, Electrical, Utility
Other Agencies (Federal, State, Local, etc.) that have had or will review this Drainage Erosion
Control Plan:
- N/A
Part 4 -Proposed Project Description
What stream basin is this project in (e.g., Percival, Woodland)
Project Size, acres
Zoning:
Onsite:
Residential Subdivision:
Number of Lots:
Lot size (average), acres:
Building Permit/Commercial Plat :
Building(s) Footprint, acres :
Concrete Paving, acres:
Gravel Surface, acres:
Lattice Block Paving, acres:
Public Roads (including gravel shoulde~), acres:
Nisqually River
10
R-6
52
0.13
0
0
' 0
~
~
,
~
'
'
,
'
'
'
~
,
,
,
~
r
,
'
1
Private Roads (including sidewalks), acres :
Onsite Impervious Surface Total, acres: 1.69
Part 5- Pre-Developed Project Site Characteristics
Stream through site, y/n: No
Name:
DNR Type:
Type of feature this facility discharges to (i.e., lake, stream, intermittent stream, pothole,
roadside ditch, sheetflow to adjacent private property, etc.):
Infiltration into ground
Swales, Ravines, y/n:
Steep slopes, (steeper than I S%) y/n:
Erosion haza~-d, y/n:
100 yr. Floodplain, y/n:
Lakes or Wetlands, y/n: .
Seeps/Springs, y/n:
High Groundwater Table, y/n:
Wellhead Protection or Aquifer
Sensitive Area, y/n:
No
No
No
No
No
No
No `
Yes
Part 6- Facility Description - Basin A
Total Area Tributary to Facilitv Including Offsite (acres): 2.4g
Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.30
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.19
Design Total Tributary Area to Faciliry (acres): 2.49
Enter a one (1) for the type offacilitv:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground detention
Infiltration pond
Dry well infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centr~ge separator
Other.• (Aqua Swirl) 1
, Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present)
Filter
Oil water separator
Single orifice
Multiple orifces
Weir
Spillway
Pump(s)
Other (infiltration to groundwater) 1
Part 7- Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 in/hr
,
,
'
~
'
,
~
,
'
~
~
,
,
~
'
'
~
'
'
Part 6- Facility Description - Basin B
Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): Z•38
Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2•38
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): j•~~
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.31
Design Tota! Tributary Area to Faciliry (acres): 2.38
Enter a one (1) for the type offacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Drv pond detention
Underground detention
Infiltration pond
Dry well infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centrifuge separator
Other: (Aqua Swirl) 1
Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present)
Filter
Oil water separator•
Single orifice
Multipte orifices
Weir
Spillway
Pump(s)
Other (inftltration to groundwater) 1
Part 7- Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 inches/hour
Part 6- Facility Description - Bain C
Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 2.77
Total Onsite Area Tributary to Faciliry (acres): 2.77
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.32
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.45
Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.77
Enter a one (1) for the type offacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground retention
, Infiltration pond
D~y well infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
- Centrifuge separator
Other.• (Aqua Swirl) 1
Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each rype present)
Filter
Oil water separ•atof•
Single orifice
Multiple orifices
Weir
Spillway
Pump(s)
Other (infiltration) 1
Part 7- Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater ('f applicable) 20 in/hr
~
'
'
~
'
~
~
,
'
1
~
,
'
1
1
,
~
'
,
Part 6- Facilitv Descrintion - Bain D
Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 2.49
Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.32
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.17
Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.49
Enter a one (1) for the tvpe offacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground retention
Infiltration pond
Dry well lnftltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centrifuge separator
Other.• (Aqua Swirl) 1
Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each tvpe present)
Filter
Oil water separator
Single orifice
Multiple orifices
Weir
Spillway
Pump(s)
Other (infiltration) 1
Part 7- Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rate to Groundtivater ('cf applicable) 20 in/hr
Part 6- Facilitv Description - Pervious Parkine Lot
Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): 0.26
Total Onsite Area Tributary to'Faciliry (acres): 0.26
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.26
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0
Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 0.26
Enter a one (1) for the type offacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground retention
Infiltration pond
Dry well infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centrifuge separator
Other: (Pervious pavers w/storage in base layersl) 1
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
,
~
,
~
~
Appendix T~I
Maintenance Agreement
C~
~
'
AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN
, STORMWATER FACILITIES
BY AND BETWEEN
GREEN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
~ HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
ITS HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS
(HEREINAFTER "OWNER")
, AND
THE CITY OF YELM
, (HEREINAFTER "JURISDICTION")
The upkeep and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential to the protection of
~ water resources. All property owners are expected to conduct business in a manner that
promotes environmental protection. This Agreement contains specific provisions with
respect to maintenance of on site stormwater facilities.
~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plat of green Village, Thurston County, Yelm, WA
, Whereas, OWNER has constructed improvements, including but not limited to, homes,
pavement, and stormwater facilities on the prope~ty described above. In order to further the
goals of the JURISDICTION to ensure the protection and enhancement of JURISDICTION's
~ water resources, the JURISDICTION and OWNER hereby enter into this Agreement. The
responsibilities of each party to this Agreement are identified below.
~ OWNER SHALL:
(1) Implement the stormwater facility maintenance program included herein as Attachment
I „A.,
THE JURISDICTION SHALL:
, (1) Provide technical assistance to OWNER in support of its operation and maintenance
activities conducted pursuant to its maintenance program. Said assistance shall be
' provided upon request, and as City time and resources permit, at no charge to
OWNER.
, (2) Conduct a minimum of one (1) site visit per year to discuss performance and problems
with OWNER.
' (3) Review this agreement with OWNER and modify it as necessary at least once every
three (3) years.
~ REMEDIES:
(1) If the JURISDICTION determines that maintenance or repair work is required to be
' done to the stormwater facility existing on the OWNER property, the JURISDICTION
1
shall give the owner of the property within which the drainage facility is located, and the
person or agent in control of said property, notice of the specific maintenance and/or
repair required. The JURISDICTION shall set a reasonable time in which such work is
to be completed by the persons who were given notice. If the above required
maintenance and/or repair is not completed within the time set by the JURISDICTION,
written notice will be sent to the persons who were given notice stating the
JURISDICTION's intention to perform such maintenance and bill the owner for all
incurred expenses. The JURISDICTION may also revoke stormwater utility rate credits
for the quality component or invoke surcharges to the quantity component ~f the
OWNER bill if required maintenance is not performed.
(2) If at any time the JURISDICTION determines that the existing system creates any
imminent threat to public health or welfare, the JURISDICTION may take immediate
measures to remedy said threat. No notice to the persons listed in (1), above, shall be
required under such circumstances. All other OWNER responsibilities remain in effect.
(3) The owner grants unrestricted authority to the JURISDICTION for access to any and all
stormwater system features for the purpose of performing maintenance or repair as
may become necessary under Remedies (1) and/or (2).
(4) The persons listed in (1), above, shall assume all responsibility for the cost of any
maintenance and for repairs to the stormwater facility. Such responsibility shall include
reimbursement to the JURISDICTION within 90 days of the receipt of the invoice for
any such work performed. Overdue payments will require payment of interest at the
current legal rate for liquidated judgments. If legal action ensues, any costs or fees
incurred by the JURISDICTION will be borne by the parties responsible for said
reimbursements.
This Agreement is intended to protect the value and desirability of the real property
described above and to benefit all the citizens of the JURISDICTION. It shall run with
the land and be binding on all parties having or acquiring from OWNER or their
successors any right, title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their
title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their heirs, successors,
and assigns. They shall inure to the benefit of each present or future successor in
interest of said property or any part thereof, or interest therein, and to the benefit of all
citizens of the JURISDICTION.
Owner
r
~
'
'
,
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF THURSTON )
On the day of , 200_, personally appeared before me,
known to be the individual(s) described, and who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge that he/she signed the same as his/her free and
voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200
'
,
'
'
~
'
,
~
,
1
~
'
'
,
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
My commission expires
City of Yelm
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF THURSTON )
On the day of , 200_, personally appeared before me,
, who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act
and deed of said Municipal Corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned and on
oath states he is authorized to execute the said instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
My commission expires
r
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r ~
r
~
~
~
~
~
,
Appendix VII
Vicinity Map
1
~
~
'
1
~
'
~
,
'
CJ
~I
~
~
1
,
'
,
~
Bog Garden Plants
A bog garden presents a unique design option for managing stormwater on site. A lined depression filled
with an organic soil mix and wedand vegetation can be an attractive method for promoting evaporation and
transpiration of collected runof£ A functioning bog garden generally displays no standing water, but soils are
saturated much of the time, necessitating facultative wedand plant selections.
To select plant species appropriate for a bog garden refer to those listed in this appendix, Zone 1, as
well as those found in the following table. The list below includes additional native and non-native plant
species (not listed in the bioretention plant list) that have been successfully applied in Pacific Northwest bog
gardens. It may be necessary to provide additional water to the bog system during seasonal dry periods due
to a lack of stormwater runoff.
As with any system, plant species in a bog garden setting have various preferences for moisture and sun.
Check listed comments below and research plant needs to optimize growth in the conditions specific to
individual bog garden systems.
Bog Garden
SPECIESI
COMMON NAME ~ EXPOSURE MATURE SIZE TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS
Adiantum a(euticum* ShadelpartiaV shade 1-2 feet Moist to wet soils; graceful. delicate fern;
Western maidenhair fern vivid bright green with black stems; spreads
through creeping rhizomes: often called A.
pedatum, but this refers to the related East
Coast maidenhair fern; also try A. capillis-
veneris (Venus-hair tern)
Andromeda pofi(olia* Sun/partial shade I-1.5 feet Spring Moist to wet soils: low-growing evergreen
Bog rosemary shrub: white to pink flower clustcrs;
omamental varie[ies indude 'Blue Ice'.
'Grandiflora' and'Nana'
B(echnum spicant* Shadelpartial shade I-3 feet Moist to wet soils: has both evergreen
Deer fern and deciduous leaves; prefers soils high in
organic material: is sensitive to frost
Carex spp. Sunlshade varies A number sedge choices are great options
Sedges for a oog garden setting: two are listed in
Zone I of this appendix, but there are many
alternative species to investigate. including
Corex mertersii' (Mertens' sedge) and C.
(yngbyei* (Lyngbys sedge)
Eleocharis pofustris` Sun To 3.5 (eet Wet soils to shallow water: perennial
Creeping spike-rush forming small clumps
Empetrum nigrum* Sun To 8 inches Early spring Dry [o we[Iboggy soils: low-growing
Crowberry evergreen shrub: smafl purplish flowers and
purplish-black berries
Equisetuin hyemale* Sunlpartial shade 2-5 feet Mois[ to we[ soils: hollow-stemmed.
Scouring-rush evergreen perennial: spreads through
creeping rhizomes: vigorous and persistent:
with high silica content; also E. scirpoides
(Dwarf horsetail); use both with caution -
Equisetum can be very invasive and difficult
to remove once established
~,au(theria ouoti~olia* Partial shade To I foot Late spring - Moist to wet soils: low-growing evergreen
Oregon wintergreen/ summer shrub: pink or whitish flowers and
Westem teaberry red berries; also G. humi~usa* (Alpine
wintergreen)
~,(yceria elata' Sunlpartial shade 3-4.5 (ee[ Moist to wet soils, loosely tufted perennial,
Tall mannagrass spreads through creeping rhizomes; also try
the taller ~,. grandis` (Reed mannagrass)
Appendix 3: Bioretention Plant List • 195
~
~
Bog Garden !
SPECIESI
COMMON NAME
Gunnera manicata EXPOSURE MATURE SIZE
Sunlpartial shade 4-6 feed TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS
Moist to wet organic soils: prefers humid ,
Gunnera 4-8 ft. spread setting; non-native from Brazil and Columbia
needing mulching protection in the winter;
also referred to as 'giant rhubarb'; huge
~ rounded leaves: needs plenry of space: also '
~. tinctoria from Chile
Hakonechloa macra Shade/partial shade I-3 feet Prefers moist, rich soil; slowly spreading
Japanese fores[ grass perennial grass: green leaves turn coppery
orange in the fall ~
Hosta Shade/partial sun To 2.5 fee[ Summer Prefer moist, rich soil; many varieties and
Plantain lily hybrids available in a various sizes, foliage
textures and colors; thin spikes of blue or '
white flowers; some are tolerant of sun, but
most prefer shade
Juncus spp. Sunlshade varies As with the Carex species. there are a number
Rushes of native rushes that would work well in a ~
bog garden. Three options are listed in Zone I
of this appendix. Others to investigate include
Juncus mertensianus* (Mertens' rush) and /.
~
acuminatus* (Tapered rush) '
Kalmia occidentalis' Sun 5-2 feet Spring - Also known as K. po(i(olia, prefers moist soils:
Swamp-laurel early summer low shrub with aromatic leaves; rose-purple
flowers: also [ry K. microphyf(a' (Western
bog-laurel) a mat-forming, evergreen shrublet: ~
generally found in wet subalpine conditions
Ledum groen[andicum* Shadelpartial sun 1.5-4.5 feet Summer Moist to boggy soils; evergreen shrub with
Labrador tea small white flower clusters; foliage aromatic
when crushed '
Ligufaria dentata Shadelpartial shade 3-5 feet Summer Moist to we[ soils: large-leaved, clumping
Bigleaf ligularia perennial; yellow-orange blooms: not tolerant
~ of high heat or low humidity; try L. dentata
cultivars 'Othello' and 'Desdemona': also '
L. przewalskii (Shavalski's ligularia) and L.
stenocephala (Narrow-spiked ligularia)
Linnaea borealis' Shadelpartial shade 4-6 inches June - Moist or dry soils; evergreen perennial; pink. ~
Twinflower September fragrant. trumpe[-like flowers: traiiing ground
cover: try 1. boreafis on the less saturated
margins of a bog garden: may be difficult to
es[ablish ~
Lobelia cardinalis Sun/partial shade 2-4 feet Summer Wet to moist, rich soils: clumping perennial;
Cardinal flower tubular, bright red, inch-long ftowers; also try
L. siphilitica (Blue lobelia). another perennial
with blue flowers '
Lysichiton americanum' Shadelpartial shade Z-3 feet March Prefers wet soils; deciduous perennial; has
Skunk cabbage odor that some consider to be skunky
especially when blooming: yellow hooded
fleshy (lower spike; great leaves dominate ,
Matteuccia struthiopteris Sunlshade To 6 feet Moist. rich soils: hardy northern fern;
Ostrich fern clumping narrowly at base with foliage
spreading to 3 feet in width
Mimulus spp.
Sun/par[ial shade I-3 feet
Spring- Wet soils: perennial or annual that reseeds '
Monkey-flower summer nicely and keeps spreading; many species ,
available induding natives, M. guttatus'
(Yellow monkey-flower) and M. tifingii*
(Mountain monkey-flower); also M. (ewisii* '
with rose-red to pale-pink flowers.
. '
196 • LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound ~
~
~
~
' Bog Garden
SPECIESI
COMMON NAME EXPOSURE MATURE SIZE TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS
, Myrica gofe* Sunlpar[iaf shade To 4 feet Moist to wet soils: aromatic, deciduous
Sweet gale perennial shrub; glossy green leaves: a
nitrogen fixing species
Oplopancix horridum Shadelpartial sun 3-10 feet Moist to wet soils: forms extensive clumps:
~ Devil's club aggressive grower, but huge palmate leaves
highly decorative: cfusters of small whitish
flowers; wand-like stems have sharp spines
Osmundo cinnamomea Sun/par[ial shade 2-5 feet Moist to wet soils: large deciduous fern;
~ Cinnamon fern unfolding'fiddlehead' fronds are edible
Oxycoccus oxycoccos* Sun 4-16 inches Moist to we[ soils, prefers Sphagnum moss ,
Bog cranberry mats, peat and acidic conditions; evergreen,
low-creeping vine-like shrub; pink to red
' flowers; red berries: shade intolerant
Polystichum munitum' Shadelpartial shade 2-5 feet Moist soils: large evergreen (ern; dark green
Sword fern fronds with dagger shaped leaflets: hardy and
easy to grow
, Potentilfa palustris* To 3 feet Moist to wet soils: perennial with reddish-
Marsh cinquefoil purple flowers; s[ems both prostrate and
ascending
' Ribes diuaricatum' Partial shadelshade I.5-6.5 feet Prefers we[ or moist soils: green or purple
berries
a
k
r
l
th
d
fl
d
Wild gooseberry pu
p
;
smoo
,
ar
e
owers an
hedge or screen provides good habitat for
' birds and wildlife: beware prickly spines: also
try R. (acustre` (Bfack gooseberry)
Sa(ix arctica' Sun/shade To 2 feec Spring Mast soils; deciduous, prostcate or trailing
Arctic willow shrub; leaves are dark green on the bottom
and lighter on top: brownish to pink flowers;
' see Zone I oi this appendix for details on S.
purpurea 'Nana'
Trienta(is arctica* Shadelpartial shade To 8 inches Wet, boggy soils: small perennial; star-shaped
' Northern starflower white flowers, or with a pink tinge
Sources: Bioretention Plant List
'
Azous, A.L., and Horner, R.R. (Eds.). (2001). Weclands ¢nd Urbanization.' Impli cations for tke Future. Boca Raton, FL:
Lewis Publishers.
, Brenzel, K.N. (Ed.). (2001). Sunset Western G'¢rden Book. Menlo Pazk, CA: 5unset Publishing Corporation.
Well Home Program Director. Persona] communication, May
Michael
Broili 2004.
~ ,
, C
WA
K
Crawford, C. (1982). Wetland P!¢nts of King County ¢nd Puget Sound Lowlands. ing
ounty
King County,
:
Resource Planning Secdon.
, DeWald, S. City of Seattle S.E.A. Streets tree schedule and planting schedule.
http://www.cityofseatde. net~util/naturalsys tems/plans.htm#SEA
~ Greenlee,J. and Fell, D. (1992). The Encyclo/iedia of Ornament¢l Cr¢sses. Emm aus, PA: Rodale Press.
Guthnan, Erica Washington State University~I'hurston County Extension Office. Native Plant Salvage Project
' Coordinator. Personal communication, May 2004.
Hogan, E.L. (Ed.). (1~0). Sunset Western G¢rden Book. Menlo Park, CA: Lane Publishing Co.
,
Appendix 3: Bioretention Plant List • 197
~
Johnson, Jim, and DeWald, Shane. Appropriate Plants for Swales and Rain Gardens (Broadview Green Grid). Sealtle,
WA: City of Seattle.
Kruckeberg, A.R. (1996). Gardening with Nacive Plants (2"`' ed.). Seattle, WA: University Press.
Leigh, M. Qune 1999). Grow Your Own Native Landscape: A Guide to Identifying, Propagating f~ Landscaping with Western
Washington Plants. Native Plant Salvage Project, WSU Cooperative Extension - Thurston, County.
Metro. Qune 2002). Green Streets: Innov¢tiae Solutions for Stormwater and Stre¢m Crossings. Pordand, OR: Author.
Pojar, J. and MacKinnon, A. (1994). Plancs of the Pacifu Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and
Alaska. Renton, WA: Lone Pine Publishing.
Puget Sound Action Team. (2003, Mazch). Natural A~proaches To Stormwater Management: Low Impact Deaelopment in
Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Author.
U.S. Forest Service, FEIS Informa6on webpage. http:~~www.fs.fed.us/database/feis~plants/
University of Florida, Environmental Horticulture. htxp:~~hor~ifas.ufl.edu~h~ees/
Washington Depaztment of Ecology. (2001 June). An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater
Plants. Olympia, WA, Author.
Weinmann, F., Boule, M., Brunner, K, Malek, J., & Yoshino, V. (1984). Wetland Plants of lhe Patific Northwest. Seattle,
WA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Dish~ict
198 • LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound
1
1
t
/
/
1
1 ~
1 ~
/
1
1
1
1
~
~ `fl
o ~ a
0
..
~
Q~ NnBHld~
gERRY
~REEK