The URL can be used to link to this page

05-0058 Stormwater Report 06012005~ ' ' ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ .' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' .1 ~ 1 ~~~'~~i' r~, /~,~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~~~as Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report ;. June 2005 DESIGN/BUILD .CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING• PLANNING • SURVEYING 1 ; ~_ ~~~~ Consufting Graup , , Preliminary Drainage Report ' Green Village Subdivision Yelm, Washington ' June 2005 ' Project fnformation Project~ Green Village Subdivision , Prepared for~ Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc. ' Contact~ George Hom, Ph.D. 221$ Blossomwood Court, NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 943-7437 ' Reviewin A ency 9 9 ~ Jurisdiction~ Project Number~ City of Yelm, Washington Project Contact~ , Project Engineer Prepared by~ SCA Consulting Group , 4200 6th Ave. SE, Lacey, WA 98509 (360) 493-6002 FAX (360) 493-2476 , Contact V SCA Project~ Robert E. Holcomb, P.E. 04166 File Number~ g~\text\pf\04116\Reports\04116_pdr_053105.doc , PROJECT ENGINEERS CEATIFICATION= I hereby certify that this Preliminary Drainage Report for Green Village Subdivision in Yelm VYashington has been prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the intent of the City of Yelm Development Guiclelines and Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Stormwater Management Manual , for the Puget 5ound Basin unless note d otherwise, and normal standards of engineering practice. I understand that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume liability for the su iciency, suitability, or performance of drainage facilities designed for this development. , ~ ~ ~,,,,~ .t~..~t .~j . ' k- ~`` 'f~ h'f~ ~~ , ~f ( ~I ~, ,. i~ ~ :;~i „~.....,, r~ ~ a;;/ -`~?,' s''~ ~VA O~ L ti S r~ , ^ry~.l ~ ~,_ ~ ' e~ ~ ',yg : ,'~;' ~ .~~ Z ~ ~ u~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ '~"~ "'` ~ ~~ 1J.S T'l ~ ,a ' ~ ~ , ' v~ ~ ~ `3f~;'~Tr'!w. ~y~-~~ ,`i,...~,~:cni~Z~$_.~lyr ~~~~ , F F ' I ~ ~ , ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDICES ' PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT ............................................................................. ...........1 APP~dix I- Preliminary Drainage Calculations SECT[ON 1- PROPOSED PROlECT DESCR(PTION .................................................. ...........1 ' SECTION 2- EX[STING CONDITIONS .......................................................................... SECTION 3 - INF[LTRATION RATES ............................................................................. ...........3 ...........4 Appendix II - Preliminary Drainage and TESC Plan SECTION 4-WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ............................................................... ...........4 Appendix III - FEMA FIRM ' SECTION 5 - FUEL TANKS ........................................................................................... ...........4 Map SECTION 6- SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION ......:............................................................ ...........4 APPendix N- Pervious SECTION 7- ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD ........................................................ ...........4 Pavers Literature ' SECTION 8- AESTHETIC COI~iSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES ............................. ...........4 Appendix V-Facility SECTION 9- DOWNS7'REAM ANALYSiS AND FACILITY S1ZING ......................... ...........5 Summary Forms ~ SECTION 10 - COVENANTS, DEDICATiONS, EASEMENTS ..................................... PART II - EROSION CONTROL REPORT ...................................................................... ...........5 ...........6 Appendix VI - Maintenance Agreement SECTION 1- CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE ............................. ...........6 Appendix VII - Vicinity Map SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SED[MENT ........................................................................... ...........6 ' SECTION 3- PERMANENT EROS(ON CONTROL & SITE RESTORATIOi~t ............ ...........7 SECT(ON 4- GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT ....................................... ...........7 SECTION 5 - INSPECT[ON SEQUENCE ...................................................................... ...........7 ~ SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUT'ANTS OTHEft THAN SED[MENTS ............... ...........7 PART III - MAINTENANCE PLAN ................................................................................... ...........8 SECTION 1 - REQU[RED MAINTENANCE ................................................................. .........10 , SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION .......................................................... .........18 ' SECTION 3- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................. .........18 . SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL ............................................................................... .........18 ~ , , ' ~ , ,~ ' li ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ , ' ~ , , , , , ~ ' ~ Part I Storm Drainage RepoYt t Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report ~~~ ~` _ , PART I STORM DRAINAGE P RT RE O ` SECTION 1- PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Proponent~ Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc. ' 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 943-743 i ' Parcel Numbers~ 21713340000 and 21713340200 ' Total Site Area~ 10. Acres Zoned~ R-6 ' WA 98597 d l Y Site Address~ , Burnett Roa e m, ' Required Permits~ Grading, Utility, Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical etc. Section, Township, Range~ Section 13, Township 17 North, Range 1 East, W.M., ' Thurston County, WA ~ 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= 1 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 5.03 acres of new impervious area (roadway, driveways, paths, roofs and sidewalks), 0.16 acres of pervious parking lot and 4.95 acres of new ' disturbed pervious areas. , ~ SCA Consulting Group Page 1 , February 2005 , ' ' , ' ' ~ , ' ' , ~ ' r ' ' ~ ' Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Draina e 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 1.17 0.11 0.43 0.12 0.09 0.45 0.12 2.49 B 1.20 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.49 0.15 2.38 C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.48 0.17 2.78 D 1.12 0.05 0.51 009 0.12 0.45 0.15 2.49 Total 4.95 0.16 1.89 0.28 0.42 1.87 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 Appendix 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 an underground wet pipe for treatment e$cepts for the parking lot for the community within Basin A. The wet pipe has been designed to treat the 6 month 24 hr storm. From the wet pipe stormwater will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. The parking lot for the community center will be constructed from structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoffwill be achieved on site through native soils layers below pavers See Appendix 1 for calculations and Appendix 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 Appendig 2 will be collected via catch basins and conveyed to an underground wet pipe for treatment. From the wet pipe storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix 1 for SCA Consulting Group Pa e 2 , February 2005 9 , Green Villa e Subdivision Prelimina Draina e Re ort,,,,.,._.. ~ ' 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 an underground wet pipe for treatment. From the wet pipe ' storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendig 1 for calculations and Appendix 2 for detail. ' Sub-basin `D': Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and ~ the proposed new roadways within Basin D 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 an underground wet pipe for treatment excepts for the parking lot for the community within Basin A. The wet pipe has been designed to treat the 6 month 24 hr storm. From the wet pipe storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the ' groundwater. The parking lot for the community center 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 , Appendig 2 for details. , Roof Runoff: Roof runoff are considered clean impervious surfaces and is not required to be ' treated. from new construction shall 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 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. There are no creeks, lakes, ponds, springs, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes or other i 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. , SCA Consulting Group Page 3 February 2005 , Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report ~ , 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-BAS1N DESCR1PT10N The project site is located in the Thompson Creek Drainage Sub-Basin, Nisqually River Drainage Basin per Thurston County Comprehensive Map M-4. ~ 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. A1I 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. SECTION 8- AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES 1 The storm dxainage facilities are located underground. All disturbed pervious areas will be vegetated and landscaped. ' SCA Consulting Group ' Page 4 ~ February 2005 , ~ ' ~ , ' , ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ , ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Green Vil{aqe Subdivision Preliminary Dreinaqe Report ., SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSlS AND FACILITY SIZING Sizing calculations for the project's stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration facilities are provided in Appendu~ 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 facil' ' including pipes, wet vaults, and infiltration galleries will require routine maintenance ~~The maintenance manual prepared for the project wi~l list the maintenance requirements. A copy of the completed Maintenance Manual can be supplied to the City upon completion of the project. SCA Gonsu(ting Group Page 5 February 2005 ' ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' , ~ ~ , i ~ 1 1 Part II , Erosion Control Report ~ ~ ~ Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report ' PART ii - EROStON 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 bound ries during construction until permanent vegetation and site improvements are in place.~rosion/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 sche dule 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. Maintain equipment and water supply for dust control. , 6. Designate an area for washing concrete trucks to control the runoff and e~iminate entry into the storm drainage system. 7. Install underground utilities (water, sewer, storm). 1 8. Provide inlet protection around all new catch basins. 9. Construct roadway and parking and install landscaping, ~sod and/or seed, and mulch , 10. all disturbed areas. Maintain all erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and silt runoff ceases. ' SECTION Z - TRAPPING SEDIMENT Filter fabric fencing will be installed to trap sediment before runoff exits the site. In addition, 1 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 1 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 i~e used to prevent erosion in these areas. ~ ' SCA Consulting Group Page 6 ~ February 2005 ~ Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report. I SECTION 3- PERMANENT EROSfON 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 geotechnical analysis for slope or soil stability was deemed unnecessary. See Appendix V for ~ a complete soils description. SECTION 5 - INSPECTION SEQUENCE 1 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 shatl 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. , ~ SCA Consu{ting Group Page 7 ~ February 2005 ~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Part III r Maintenance Plan i ~ 1 ~ Green Villa e Subdivision Prelimina Draina e Re ort , ~ ' PART III - 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" sheets 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. The City of Yelm is available for technical assistance. Do not hesitate to call, especially if it appears that a problem may exist. ~ ' LJ ~ , , , ~ , ~ E~ ~~ - _- -- ~ SCA Consulting Group Page 8 February 2005 ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ' ' ' ~ , i 1 1 t i ! ! ~ Green Vil4aqe Subd'sv+sion Preliminary Drainaqe 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 ~ , ' ' ' , t ' , , , i ~ ~ ' ' t ~ ~ Green Vil{aqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report " SECTION 1 - REQUIRED MAlNTENANCE 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 A11 vegetation removed so movement of water through pipes. 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 c{ippings and branches into and dispose as prescribed swafe. 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 tlow A survey may be needed not drain velocity is very slow. Stagnation to check grades. Grades occurs. need to be in 1% range if ossible. If ade is less SCA Consulting G~oup February 2005 Page 10 ~ ' Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report ~ ~ , Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Req'd Exist Feature than 1%, underdrains may need to be installed. ' [f you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technicai assistance. Comments: Key: A= Mnual (March or April preferred) , M = Monthly (see schedule) S = After major storms ' ~ ' ~ , ' , ~ ' , ' ' r SCA Consulting Group Page 11 ~ February 2005 ' ~ ' 1 ' ' ' t t t ' , , i t , , ' ' Green Viilaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report :. 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 1i3 the debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin. Catch basin basin to invert of the is dug out and lowest pipe into or out of clean. the basin. M.S. ~ Trash or debris in any inlet Inlet and outlet or pipe blocking more than pipes free of trash 113 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 applicable). M ,~ Top slab has holes larger Top slab is free of than 2 square inches or holes and cracks. cracks wider than 1/4" (intent is to make sure all material is running into the basin). M ,~ Frame not sitting flush on Frame is sitiing top slab, i.e., separation of flush on top slab. more than 3/4" of the frame from the top slab. p ~ 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. p ,~ 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 soi] inledoutlet pipe. particles entering catch basin through cracks. SCA Gansulfing Group February 2005 Page 12 ' ' ' , ~ ~ ' , ' , ' ' , ~ ' ' ~ , r Green Viliac]e Subciivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report ,,., .: Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That System Should Exist Feature ti A ~ SettlemenUmis- $asin 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 poliution 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 in1eC/outlet pipe root growth vegetation joints that is more than 6" present. tall and less than 6" apart. [f you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments: Key: A= Annuai (March or April preferred) M = Monthly (see schedule) S = After major storms SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Page 13 ~ , 1 ~ ' ' , ' , , ~ ~ r ~ r ' , ~ ~ Green Viilaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe Report . ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Spstems Frequency Drainage ~l 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 1V1 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 ~ 1VI Rodent See Maintenance See Maintenance holes Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. ~ii 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 andior 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 ~l 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 storage_ 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 ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ' r Green ViNaqe Subdivision Preliminary Drainaqe 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 Weli 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 exists, please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments~ Kev A= Annual (March or April preferred) M = Monthly (see schedule) S = tlfter major storms SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Page 15 ~ ' ~ , , ' , ~ ' ~ , ~ ~ ~ , , ' , , Green Villa~e Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report. ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Grounds (Landscaping) Frequen Drainage ~1 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 ~l 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 Ghecklist. See Ponds Checklist. litter M,S ~l 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 ~l 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 JurisdicCion and ask for technical assistance. Comments~ F~ev A= Annual ~March or April preferred) M = Monthly ~see schedule) S = A.fter major storms SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Page 16 ~ , , , ~ ' ' ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ~ Green Villaqe Subd'+vision Preliminary Drainaqe 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 Feature Take Ezist M, S Pervious pavers ~ Sediment buildup Enswe that the pervious pavers 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 EnsuR that the contributing and Sediment is removed ancUor on surface adjacent tandscape areas are stabilized pavement is cleaned so that and mowed with clippings removed infiltration works according to design 4 Times/Year Pecvious pave~ ~ Sediment buildup Vacuum sweep or vactor porous pavers Sediment is removed: N(i~, on surface interstices. Replace with clean gravel at correct gradatioa Upon Failure Pervious pavers ~ Spot clog~ng Prolonged spot puddling on pavement Remove pavers and replace surface. ballast and sand as needed. If you ace unsure whether a problem exists_ please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comrnents: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M = Montfi{y (see schedule) S = After major stocros SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Page 17 i , ' ' , ' ~ ~ ' , , , ' , , , ~ ' ~ Green Villaqe Subdivision Preliminar~Drainaqe Report,, ,. SECTION 2 - RESPONS{BLE 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 Page 18 February 2005 ~ ' , ' ' ~ ~ ~ , ~ , C~ ~ ~ ~ I u , ' ~ Appendix I Preliminary Drainage Calculations ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ' ' , ' ~ ~_J ' ~~ LJ ~ , ' ~ u ' PRELIMINARY 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 INFORMA_TION SUMMARY~ Soil Classification (Soil Survey of Thurston County, WA)~ SCS Soil Classification~ Spanaway, Nisqually Hydrologic Group~ B Design Infiltration Rate~ 20 inches/hour SCS Runoff 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 starm = 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 Q.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 ~ ~ ~ BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak TPeak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss ~ BASIN A 1.07 8.0~ 0.4188 1.95 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASfN A 0.21 , 8.00 0.0809 1.95 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo , BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS i A D rea: nage ra 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 1.1700 ac 77.00 0.38 hrs , Impervious 0.7800 ac 98.00 0.~6 hrs Total 1.9500 ac Supporting Data: ~ Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPING 77.00 1.1700 ac impervious CN Data: , PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND DW 98.00 0.7800 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 Channel 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°10 42.0000 0.70 min Channel PIPE FLOW 128.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.72 min MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOU7 ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] , Peak Flow: 0.2100 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3522.20 cf - 0.0809 acft MOVEHYO [BAStN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS -100y] AS [100y) ~ Peak Flow: 1.0705 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 18242.50 cf - 0.4188 acft Control Structure ID: BASIN A- Infiltration control structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice ~ Start Ei Max EI Increment 303.0000 ft 304.0000 ft 0.10 Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 , Node 1D: BASIN A Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max Ef: 307.0000 ft ~ Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio , 300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00 Node ID: 8AS1N 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 jBASiN A RLP] SUMMARY 100y Match Q: 1.0705 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.9573 cfs - Peak Sig: 303.44 ft- Active Voi: 393.9~ cf ~ ' , ~ ' ' ~J , ~ L~ ' ~ i i 1 1 1 1 ~ , BASIN B W/O ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ~ (cfs) (hrs) BASIN B 1.08 8.00 BASIN B 0.20 8.00 (ac-ft) ac /Loss 0.4111 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y 0.0776 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPE1A 6 mo , Drainage Area: BASIN B W/O ROOFS Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Peak Factor: 484.00 Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.Q0 hrs Intv: 10.00 min ~ Area CN Pervious 1.2000 ac 77.00 TC 0.32 hrs Impervious 0.7400 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs ' Total 1.9400 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.2000 ac ~ Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.7400 ac ~ Pervious SC Data: Flow type: Description: Sheet ACCROSS LOT Length: Slope: Coeff: Travef Time 105.00 ft 1.00°10 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: Sheet ALONG GU7TER Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time 16.00 ft 3.10% 0.0110 0.30 min Channel PIPE FLOW 282.00 ft 3.10% 4,2.0000 0.64 mi~ 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: 0.1994 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3378.28 cf - 0.0776 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B W/O ROOFS - 100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.0825 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17905.64 cf - 0.4111 acft , Control Structure fD: BASiM B- Infiltration control structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice ~ Start EI Max EI Increment 303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10 Infii: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 , Node ID: BASIN B Desc: Manhole structure ~ Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft ' Contrib Basin: Length Width Contrib Hyd: Void Ratio 300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00 , 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 Match Q: 1.0825 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.9342 cfs - Feak Stg: 303.36 ft- Active Vol: 326.93 cf i 1 1 i i 1 1 r , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ C , ' ~ ~J ~ ~ , ~ i ' , ~ 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 G 1.14 8.00 4.4697 2.26 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASIN C 0.22 8.00 0.0865 2.26 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo Drainage Area: BASIN C W10 ROOFS Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.~0 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.OQ hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 1.4500 ac 77.00 0.44 hrs Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00 0.12 hrs Totai 2.2600 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.4500 ac Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.8100 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: S1ope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ACROSS LOT' 120.00 ft 1.00% 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: S1ope: Coeff: Travei Time Sheet ALONG GUTTER 456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min Channel PIPE FLOW 153.00 ft 226% 42.0000 0.40 min Channel PIPE FLOW 102.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.57 min MOVEHYD [BASIN C WIO ROOFS] TO [BASIN C WIO ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.2170 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3765.95 cf - 0.0865 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS - 100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.1384 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 20458.98 cf - 0.4697 acft Control Structure iD: BASIN C- infiltration controi 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 C Desc: Manhole structure Start Ei: 303.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Length Width 300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft Node ID: BASIN C RLP Desc: Manhole structure Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Hyd: Void Ratio 51.00 Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN C Discharge 1d: BASiN C ~_J ~ ~ RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN C RLPj SUMMARY ' 100y Match Q: 1.1384 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.9004 cfs - Peak Stg: 303.27 ft- Active Vol: 243.99 cf ' 1 t ~ ~ , ' ~ ' ' 1 t ' i ! ; 1 BASIN D W/O ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ff) ac /Loss BASIN D 1.Q4 8.00 0.4206 1.93 SCSISCS l"YPE1A 100y BASIN D 0.22 8.00 0.0830 1.93 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo Drainage Area: BASIN D 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 1.1200 ac 77.00 0.45 hrs Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 1.9300 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: landscaping 77.00 1.1200 ac Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.8100 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ACROSS LOT 120.00 ft 1.00% 0.1500 18.92 min Sheet ALONG GUTTER LINE 456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min Channel PIPE FLOW 434.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 1.15 min Channel PiPE FLOW 52.00 ft 0.50% 42,0000 0.29 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travei Time Sheet ALONG GUTTER 174.00 ft 1.14% 0.01.10 2.99 min Channel PIPE FLOW 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 WIO ROOFS] TO [BASIN D WIO ROOFS - 6 mo) AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.2179 cfs Peak Time: 8.~0 hrs Hyd Vo4: 3613.87 cf - 0.0830 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN D W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS - 100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.0433~cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 18322.24 cf - 0.4206 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 - tnfil: 20.00 in/hr Mu(tipfier: Node ID: BASI N D Desc: Manhale structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00 Node !D: BASlN D RLP Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN D Discharge Id: BASIN D 1.00 307.0000 ft 307.0000 ft ' RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN D RLP] SUMMARY ' 100y Match Q: 1.0433 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.9186 cfs - Peak Stg: 303.30 ft- Active Vol: 276.49 cf , , ~ ~_~ ' ~1 , ~ , I~ ~ IL J , ' L~ u ' ~ 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 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y PARKING LOT 0.11 8.00 0.0342 0.39 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo ~ Drainage Area: PARKING LOT Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 ' Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Area CN Intv: 10.00 min TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 77.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.3900 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.3900 ac ~ Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: PARKING LOT 98.00 0.1500 ac ' ROOF 98.00 0.1100 ac SIDEWALK 98.00 0.0200 ac ROOF 98.00 0.1100 ac ~ Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Channel PIPE FLOW 201.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.13 min , Channel PIPE FCOW 30.00 ft 2.00% 42.0000 0.08 min MOVEHYD [PARKING LOT] TO [PARKING LOT - 6 mo) AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.1051 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 1491.34 cf - 0.0342 acft , MOVEHYD [PARKING LOT] TO [PARKING LOT -100y] AS [100y] ' Peak Flow: 0.3551 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 5299.95 cf = 0.1217 acft ~ 1 ' Control Structure ID: PARKING LOT - Infiitration control structure Descrip: Multipie Orifice Start EI Max EI Increment , 303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10 Infil: 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 El: 303.0000 ft Max E!: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: ' Storage Id: PARKING LOT Discharge Id: PARKING LOT RLPCOMPUTE [PARKING LOT RLP] SUMMARY 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 0.3551 cfs Peak Out Q: 3.0020 cfs - Peak Stg: 303.46 ft- Active Vol: ' 890.54 cf ~ ~ Appendix II Preliminary Drainage and ~'ESC Plan ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ A + ~ ~ A + .n ~ .P + ~ 0 .n + ~ O m + 0 0 m t U1 0 + J + + + t + I_ ( c,~ w N N c,~ (.a w c.+ c., c,~ c,~ Cri ~ ~P ~ ~ O CP O U~ O CJ~ O~~ CJ~ ~ . ...____... _. ._ _ _ . _ ._ .. _ ._ _ I . _. __ .. _ _.I_. _. NE .'I_ . Y I * O ~ ~ ----- - - --- ------- - ----- .1 - --- - -- - _ .. .. - - - - ~p - -- - - - -- - -- - - --- - - - - ~ F _'-----~ -~-- ---...--- - 331.20 ~ - _.- _ --- ---~ ~- - --- -- -- l R . _ 1 7 -- A A y ---- - - -- +5 --- . ~ ( ~ 332_56 - -------- -- - ~ I ` --. - - - ~ : - - - - I- - y \ - -- - - - -~ . - - --- ~ -- --- - - - ~3= - -- - _ I . _ ~_ __ _ _... - -- -- t 330J9 ~ I ~ ~ .~ .. _ . ...- ~~-I_~ I_ ... ...... i _ _._. _ .. ... ' .._... _ ~ ( 333.g9 _ _~_ _ -- - --~ ~--I -- -- ------ -~' -~ v- - ~ `- -- __ ~. _ -i -- I ---- -- V I'T ~- 1 5~ _.. I ~ ~ _ --- v ~ i L ~ o + ~ 3 31.17 ~ I -~ i -- ~ -- --j-- - i - -- - ~ ~ (338:26 _.._ . ~ - ' _ Iq - - - -- - -- --- - ---- -~ - - - ~ I-~ --- I I --- - - - ~ ~ I -I I i -- I - -I ~._. - - - - - - - - - i I- ~-- ~-t-~ I-'- - ---- ( - - l - + ~ i 332.33 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ I I V ~' ~ r 2+:0 ~( ~ 338.17) 1! i I I ---- ~ _ I ' ' ~ ~_~. ~ ~_ ~ I! ~ ~ I- I -~ ~ 1_'_ _ V ~ ~-~- i-i~ ' I IT E V_~ f~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 33 ~ i ._._. --- u _ ~I-i -`G - ~ ~-~ - ~ ` ~ ~- ~ ~ -- _ r~ ~-- I - - -- + 333.89 I i~ i I ~. 1 !' I I n~ ~ 33~ ss I __- ~ ~ -1 ~ . - _~ - I _~-} i ` ~ - I --I -I' _ ~ _ __ t1--- i~_~~ I ~a p~ a-- I --~ -- _ _ ~ ` ,._._ - - ) .. _ ~ -~ i 1 -~ -~ -~- - ` - - -- ~- I- ~ ~~ ~ - - ~ I ~ + f 335.44 I I I I - 4~ V S +1 0 ~ (336 05 i j I ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 : ~ _, ._ I __ ._-- -- I~ I . I . _. ~ _. _ ~ I` 337 00 I ~ ..~ ~ ~ I ... -~ 1-~ -~ ! ~--- c~ (. __ ~a V _ I I STI- ~ I~ {! 13 ~ __ . i . ~ 341.66 ~-~ I ~ ~-~-~-~~ . -~-~--~ ~ ~~-~- -~- ~- H ~ 9T~A` =1- 6~~ 6 2B ~ ~_ o (3401~~ ~ I i i , ~ ~-~ - o i ~ ~ - I- ~ I - - - o (341 69) -~~ -j-.I.-~ I- - ~ -~~ ~ - - - 3 ~ ~ 340.53 "; i ( I ~.--- -1 ~ I ~- ~/~-(-----~------- --- o(340 97 ~ I_i I ( I I II_I I I i ~ 339.17 '~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ I I i I I i' I I i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ Ul ( 3g0 02 I i i .;_ ._1_ ~ . ~... ~ ~ '- - t I ~ I ~ ~ I I ' , _II ~ .I , ~ I ~! ~ ~ I ~ ~ I';._ ~ _ I" ~ . .~ . _ ~ ' ~ , 1 i ~ o(336 14) _.I _I_ i I ( I- -~-}- - o 4 I (--~• ~ ( ~ I--- ---- ------- ~ 335.48 ~_`_..I._-t---..~, --~-~ --~-C--( l ~--- -r I" ~ j I_j.. o (334 75 ', -~ i ~ ~--- ~ -I - - ~' ~ I - V ~ ~I~ ~ 3 : o _:__ ~_~ ~ ~ ~-=I= i_ _I-~ -f r-_ 1-~-~-k--~ i~ I - - o(333 71 I._ I r ~ ', ~ ~ i - - - ~ - - - o ~ ~ ~ . ° 332.66 ' ~ i i I~~~ T(-,-~-- -~----- ~ ~ CJl (332.59 .'-.~.~..i -'-- -~ i~, ~ ------- --- - - ~ ° ~~~~ '~- f -~--- -- --- 00 (332.24 -i-I_i_~------I--~- I --- --- - -- - -- -- -~ ~ + 331.93 (~ I~ I~~ , I I~ I r ~-' L iE V j.~3?: ~91 ~ Ul (332_68 _:_..,_~_... _ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ --~- ---------- ----- ~ N 332.35 ~ i ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I-~r~~ __I I rI i ~ --I- -j o~333 09 ' ~ 1_. - - ~ o ~-, ~ , , ~ , i ; , - v ,_4v fi ~ _ ~-. ~(332 54 ' I ~ I '!~~ I ' I ~ i {336.,46 i_, I_I I ~ i-- - ~ I V - - I " _. I_ LV ~ 7 ~ _ 0 _ ~ _-- ! j f ~ i ~ I---~ I ~ '-- ~ -l -~-' ~ --~ _ - -- ~ - - I -_ ^ ~-~- - ---~ I -.._ -- - - _ ' _ -- _ : II . 1- ~~- _ _ _ _ - 337J5 ~ ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ + b (336.23 i ~ ~ l I I , ~ ~ ~ ( ~ I I ~ V _ ~ _ ~~ I ~ ..I ~ i3 ~ I . _ _ I _ _ -- - I-~- 338.50 f ~ I i ~ -- i -~ _ I. ~ l-I ~ I I ~ I ~ _ i I i` f - I --. . _ -i - i I 1 I - _ i ~ ~ ~ i , ~ _ = _ ~ (336 96 I__ _ 1_ -- i~l _ j _ I ~ ~ I I I_ I__~_ f i I_~ ._ 1 _, ~ - - _ ~ _ ~ ~ - _ - -I- -~- _ ~_~ - ~ -~- - = ~ -I ~ ~ ~~ - - ~ - ~- - ~-,- I 339.25 1 r ` I I i ~ ( ' . (338-15)--i-I- ~.. ".__ I i ~- I. ~-- ~-- I ~--' ~- ~ ~ ~-~ ~--~-i ~~-~-~ ~ - --- r-! -- I ~- - ~~~ i - 1-_ ~- -- - _i_.--- , - - -- - I ~- I ~_ 340.00 ; _ I. ~ i I ~ I ~ I ~- i ~ ~( ~ - I --1 -~ ~ I ~, cn - I ~ o i- I I -~- -~ - -I - - _ _~_. (338 57 I i_~ -_ _., ' ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~-~~ I il -'--I ! i _ 1 I ~_i i t I~. (_' .1 ~-I ,--II- _ _ I ~_ ~ I~- ~ ~} ~-~ I t~~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~i ' r-f_ {-~- ~ 3do.~s -~- i_i_" --- I ~--- ~ l__I_i ~ ~ - ~- -- - -~--~- -rl~- l - I -- I 1 1~ (339:05 ._! _I._I., ___ I i I ; _ i ._ ~ ._ _. ~. I i I i _I . I ~ ~ ` , 1-; ~ . ~ - -~ I_ 1 I -1 ( i I, -- < < -r- V __{- ~ E- ~- T Q _I.. ~ ` 8 3 +t 4 - 2 .D6 2 ~-, ~ ~ I - 347.43 (339 57 I ~__i I I , I I ' I _I I _ ~' - - ~ f ~ ~ ~._I __ -I - I_ ... I_ - I .. I l I . - I ~ I i --- - ~ I_I ..--- ~ I I - - i 1 ..LI- - ~ - _~ ~ I ~ ~ y { ~_ _.I. _1 ~ _~ ._ ~ ~ ~ I... ~ I 1. l I ~ _.. _. I-I- i i -- ~ I - ~ ! ~ ~ ~ j ~ j ( I- I ~ ~ ~-~ I h- ~ i i j -i f I ~ - ~ ~ ~ 4 ~+~~- - ~ ~ I- . " ~- _ 341.36 ~ i ~ v il r o ' ~ ~ ~ --- ~ -- . i _ i._ ___ _ ~ _._. .,_-----~-- -~- - -- _ _ -- ~ --- -- _ - - - - - I I- ~ ~ ~ I_.I-~ I--I- ~ ~~-~ - -_ ' ~- -- . --- I - ----- -- - - -- . " I~ .~ ~~ _ ' I ." . I ~_I I ~ ~ ~ I ,;~ ~ ~ ~~ I.~ ,~ ~ , I I ~ ~ I I ~ ~. ~~ I ,-~ ~ I~- ~, ~~ 1 I I ~- + ~1~-~ ~ I ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~- ~ ~ 1-~_ , ~ I I ~ i i I ~ V T 6T I6 + 7 p tl `~ ~~ ~ _ ~_ ~. i ~ ,_ l , i ~ , ~ _ v Eyv fi ~3 I s. ~ _ 337.36 ~ i ~ ! i 1 I ~ I ~ I I j ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 I ~ ~ i - - -- - -~- -~-'-- - _-' . , __ - _ I I I 1 - r ~- -~- - { -(- __--,- - I_ I ~ ~ -- _ I - _ _ ' ~ ' _~-I I -' I ~_ I~ T E i - - 4-fi - - - - ~ - ,~ ; I : 1 I I ~ ~ ~-~- ~ ~ _I_~ _ _ - _ _ _ :. 333.81 I i ~ . t ~ ~ -. ~ ~ ~ _ _l~ i_ _. ~ I !~ -- - I ~ _. _ ii -- ! i ~ ~ , f ~ , i ~ ~ i ii ~ ._I ~-- - ~ , ,~__ I- j I ~ -- c _. . ~- - -- - -- - - -, - r r ~ ~~ i i - I I ~ I V I T 1 8 . ~ ~ ~ - -i ' ~ I_' ~1 - I _l_I ~ _.- -~- ~~-~-- ~ ~ -- ~ +'- 9, w 332 03 ; ~ I ~ I i ! I I ~ I -- I-~ 1~ 1~ 1-1 1 ~ _ ~ - I~ T i + - 3 I ~ - ( I , , ; i ~i ~_ - ~_, ,- 7 -I -r,= --. - --- a.- ~ ~R s -- , ~ s~ a I ' ' - - - ~ l.-I i i- - ~ 1 ' -- - -i- ~ - - -~ ~ ~ ~ - ;;-~~ ~ ~: ~ i_ r~- ~ 4 ~ ._ I ~ ~~ ~ - I_ ~~- - ~ -- ~ ` ( _ ' ; ' ! ~ - ' E-1; ~- ~ ~1_~ I- I- i (_ ~ ~_ {-' { ~_ ~- - -i } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~~ ~ i 333.08 I I ~ IA ~ ~ I I I~ ~ ~~ ~~ I ~ I I i' j ~ ~ .: i ~. ~ I._.i ~ I I I_i -- I~ ~ --- ,~ ~ f ~ ~~j ~ i I 1 I-i ~~~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 I_t ( f i~I i I_~ I 1_~ I i ~ ~ 1'~, ~ i~I ~ I -~ ~ I I ~~ I . W 333.81 i., ~ ~ I ~'! I I ~ I~ _~ I i I ~ ( ~ I i~ ~ ~ ~ I i + o~334,12) i I i ~ , i ~ I i I I ~ I ~ i I ~ ~ ri I; I ,~ " I I - l _I i - - i . -1 I -- ~-- I I -. .. _ + ~. _ I _. _I ._- _ ( . I_._ . .~... , I - -- -~- I f I - - - ~ { ~ F 334.54 ~ ~ ~ , ~ i n(335,03 _I__ ~ _ ; _i_! ~ ~ I i ~ , ~ , I ~_ - I_I_ ___ ~-~ M , ~ E U^Tql u p , ~ 7 l W 0~ __ _ ~ __ - , i -,- i I- - _ _ _~ -~- -i - I _ I I - I- ---~ --E ~~M s~ _.~_ .. -- - - ° ~ o --~ - O Cn O I(WJ~ Q I C~l~ O U~ OO O ~ Nn Z OC10z O~ n~ y vi~~ D! o~ F m~~~ $! NZ 8 ~~_°~ _ ~ i ~ m mF o 0~.,~ yi ~m ¢i ano~m s.~ A.TI X AZA O ? ~~~ C B 2~~ z m ~ r~~Z F ~ ~°zc~ m ~muDi v p D a mo~ A ~ c» F v ~ ~rD--m ~ oZ~ 71 ~ ~mc ~ ~~o v mpm z ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ z ~ H O ~ -i = V Z ~ ~ ~ r m~ O~ ~~ ~y ~~ oz ~< v_n ~A m a(' ~~ 0 ~o ~ ~ D O z ~ ~ D O z O o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti 2 W N o m m ~ A _ ~ m ~ ~ A Z y "~-=2 D ?Z Cr n Zm~ ~o Dy D ~ OS1 /1 Z ~ z~ f ~ ~ < m y ~ p A p O n_ O ~ ~~ZO A n ti C ~00()ZZ ~n ~ C .. T D ~ c<~ ~ ~~Np Ommm Z~ ~ O ~ D~ ~~ ~~~ C ~ D om Z ~ m <mc-.m II N ma n Wmyonx ' ~ A D ~ D -~~-1~ A ~ x ~-~--~~ 8 ~ - - - - --- ` _ ` ~ \ ` _ ~ / 0 ~ N ~ -~ ~ o „~ ~f~i.~- 0 r m m ti °o ~ r,~r;u~rczu~ ~~ i~+:r izo ~f:: NO. DAiE REVISION ~ ~~~~ s ~ DESIGNEDBY: ~GB PRELIMINARY ~ ~ ~ ~ - . ' °R""" aY: ~ ~ °> ;~ ~ o m ~ _ ~ y: REH Y Y~ c~i g `- ~ GREEN VILLAGE I x y ~, ,_ ctiEacco er: ~ GRADING & DRAINAGE ~ ~> °'; ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ SUBDIVISION ~" m A ~° ~~6 ='"~- °~~° '~"'°" PLAN & PROFILE ~ ~ ~ ~ a p~=50' scn~: - _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ' A ~~ .a~~~, ~~~~ i ~ '• ' ~ ~ A i ~1 { 1 yp :7 ~. 'I Ag ,~ ~~ ~~ _ -- ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ i , ___---~~ _ _ q n ~ ~ ~ ~ in . o, jz ~3. no ~ c ~ Q >. ~y 7~ ~' ~ n ~ j ~ ~ ~p ^ °. ~ -. {~ O Y fl O W y 3 N n p O 9~ N' a~ p ~ ?.7'..p^n0~6~~Zpn~m~ a~=AS ~~J ~ a ~ ~ ~ ? O~~ N 'O ~~ < ~ 3° `~a~~ °- ~~ ~" '~ ° s w Y ... N ~ O C. O 9 6 0 ~cv~n sc~ ..o W.. t;t cn 3 ~~3m~'p o ~ ~ ~ ao .-~ -c u , _ ., , , ~p c ri"m°-s:s ~ a~ mz o_., w ~ 3~ f~Y A O 3 ~ T a~ t- O P p p o v inWC ~ ? ~an ~ 7'~ -~o 0 oc m n ~o~~ -~^ O 4" Q ~ i ~ tn0 d A" O ~ G C 3 O O „w ~ i i 6~ ~ 3 j~ n~ 6~ 0 9 p.~ 'V 3 a O 9 W 3 p i c y 7 C 7 P ~p O 7~ a l' Qj ~+ ~ GI +c f~f (~1 Q X a~ K G n A a + 4 04 ~ G N a ~. ~~ O~ O n {~ f ~ p ~' n W ~g O~° ,~ ? N `~i Y°~ N r~.. O ~ 7 O p 1 G d N i a 7 C~ a O 9 p? O N N N ~ 14 ~~=• 4~ m O D L O 'fl ~ 3 n p ~ ~ i 7 = ! t$ ~ 3~ p 0 7, w H O w~° n o K~ ~ o ~p ~ 3 a U~~ . 4 y~ ~` O~? j Q ~ ~' A~Y T Q'~ .e. 3_ C O `" , 6 6 ~ O 0 O p ~ m n. i m ~/1 G ~ cs p ts~ p~^ ~$ O Q O~~ N N a u'O O ~ n 9~ K`QG y ~ s-^ °.i`om m ao A7 on ao ~oc P+ N ~° ~. n P p n V~ Q ~ n$ ? m o G n ms3 ~ff `~~O m ~~o~` `~ p y ~~p ^ Q` ~~ d ~ i° 9~ A ~'• a~ O(~ ~ . a , p W~ 7~~ ~ O N~, 3 g~, ~!1 ?~^ O O' W. 7 f~f 6b Cf ~~ 0 ~ V~ Y 4., O Q p~ ~ p ~ p~ ~' ,n 7 O .(i p m~, m ~ a A 7 N a a w~m ~r'pO3~3 03 aj n a a c o n~ + 4 m No m, tf~ ~O j ~, D~ 'A S a n O o .~ yo N~~ ° o,.^~f~A"' ac 7 s ° o y s m , ~ . p o o n~ o 7 O ~S' N, ~ p' ~ 7 d ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ _ ~ ~a .Y, s o o~ ~ m a ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ q' ~ ~ < N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" O ~ ~ ~ , ry P F ~, O ~ ~' Q O N yp ~, i~ j W O Q~ ~ 1 j R ~~ O ¢ O P m ~'7 O~ 1T ip ~c tt Q V C ~ S tD a N W p 40 6Q i O J3 K ~ 0 ~ A Q ~ O d m ~ f u R~'. m Q- ~ 7 S J' `~ ~ O O C~ j O a t~i ~ R N~ 2 a ti U~~ ~ ~~ t1 O ~ Q~ 6 O~T ~P [~ A 0 O O p K n~ ~ tO~p 6F ~~p 3~-O O ~G ' 3 ~ ~~ o ,< ~o cn m ~`= w ~ o m ~74 o~~c ~ tP'w n N P O A r a. ~41 a ~ ~ ~n ° m' a c Q9. a m c'A o ~..t'~ ~' ~ 3~ R ~ p ; . ~ A a S~ Q. ry'~V ~~ O n V N 4 ~ a O T a ~' ~ S 6 N n \ g£, a A ~!~l n O n6 P, 0 O O ~i N Q-.. ~ ~ ° 9 ~~ <; 9 p P ~ w~ G O p~ p~'A, to T' L+`G ~ '~ 7 V U .po. p. '7 x ~''~. ~ O U~" ~ S.~ Y .~ m N 7] " 0 p p R O ~~ P i ] a ~• ~ ` °m '" P ] S n P '9 tD N n A G 6 ~ ~ ~O a ~ X n o mm~ a m~ nw~ ~ n ~~ K v a o a W ?~ N ~ i~ ~l s°nat n n 3 ° s :'c~ ` n a ~. ~ Q 4 w t. 3~., Q a, n w n O. n a~vW ~o W p° 9~~0 ~°7" 'o,~"i E. §°~ ~T e~ m-.; Zi ~ G a a ~ D ~~ ~ ~ W O b ~ e p. ' ~ R 7 .L ~ ~ O ~ ~ a N t T~ ~ O~O J 0~9KS~ p'tp~~ VDW Q~3 O O i~ ~ d ~ p O a p ~ AO S^ IC~N. ~~~ H6 ~ ~ n ~ 9 ~~ m Q p aR ~ n O~ A 9 a n. f~ N'G 9 S ~, O~ 3~ ~ ~ G ~ ~~' ~i a^.mj ". 6 a m ~~ ~m Q) $~ 7$~ a~ N~ ~n N a O n O N m7 O ~ p O~O o o ~ 3 W ~(0 ~ O t~i Q 9 P S A -~.. ~ T. 4~ R~ N n' ~ . ., 'Oc ~ Q Q u N ~ p ~ t~ n O ? p ~ . N P t 9 O Q p S O N C O A K'~ » ~.. 0~ O ~~ 3 N V 7 O n . ~ I p ~~ 9 ~y ~ ~ m a Q , 3 p a o ~ ,"~ . ? x. ~ g+ 0 .U- 'a` .pc 3. 'm T a ~ ~ R L , w . ~ ~ U £ O ~ m c =`" 7'° n t/N'~ Y ~p T ~ tio G ~ I ~4 ~ m N ', ~ LL~ 1 4 m ..~^. S +4 nZwQ ~ C t ~o N 0 C '~ ~( S m F0. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~I` y 's r GI i•` ~ ~ ~ 0 Z ~~ ~? ~ ~ ~~ F ~$ {: ~: ~~~ ~a ~ ~• , ~ ~: ~ q ~~ ~~~3~ ~ pst ~ 2K ~ ~-~.« o>~~~~0 ~s' u fi 1 i ~' _.~'_'~- iY~ ~~' g g - ~.. ~ ~~ - ~ - ~' ~ A ~~ ,_ p ~~ ~T1 ~ ~ m m ; ~ a m i S~f ~ N "~. [n ~~ i ~~ € ~~ ~9 ~~ Zy C' > o ~so Sx r~mr ~' om~~ ~ f~~ ~ _~~ o~ m~s ~ ~~~ ~>O Z~~ m ~i 0 ig~ C p Y _ ~n n ~ £G ~ G =0 3 .^ f~ y A rA'.~ ~~ iN" ~` m A ~ ~ ~ ;a p ~ ~ ~ A a m ~ " ~ ~ n J,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ l T} m Z ~ ~i I ~ ~ -rt ~, ~ .~3 O ~ ~ 1° H.~y 4 4 µ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~{~ F~ Ch ~~"$ ~ ~ ~ A~~ ~ 9 ~A^~ G $" r ~A H ~ ~ a9 t ~ P Z -pp ~ f ~ / n~ __--_~- P'~ VI~LAGE ~ GREEN SUgpN1S10N ~- --- R~ I DESIGNEO BY: ty~ ~,.~' ~ ~ ~ Q C). DRAWN 8Y; R N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~E~Ep BY: -~"~J z- ~~ NC 4 ~~ 0 -o t ~ ~ ~~ ~z, .-. 12117i0 ~ 7 ~~Q~ '~' I~IM.. ~~tE: NT S. _- ` ~. Z p ~ ~ ~ g, ~ '^ ' ~ . ~q s~3 ~ G'~ ~~ _~~Jf-~~ 3 ~xE „ r Z a' ? '~ ~YC ~ ~43~ i,~ ~ ~ b +~` n$ < p~~ ~ A ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~4 ~ ~~ ~~ v~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ ~ F >~ ~'""~ ~,~~ ' , ' ' ~ , ' ~ i 1 ~ 1- 1 1 ~ Appendix III FEMA FIRM Map ' 1 ~ i i ~ ~ Z ( m o ~ ° Z ---~ ~~~ ~, ( ~ Q Q ~~ ~ Z ~ oo ~ ~ I Q W ~~ w o ~ ° - ~~ w ~ Q ~ ~~ o ~ ~ L~ N Q ~ ~ I ( ~ U w U w X Z W O N U w Z i U ~ ~ ~ , ~ o ~, • ~ . ~ ovaa ~ n~3fn ~v~~r1Nnow . ^ 3 ~ U Q ~ ~~.. r ' ~ r I . ~ r ..~.. ^ °+~"'~l 3 3 a 1 S :s~3c~an~ ~ ~a ~ ~r _ p ~ ~ °-~ ° ' '"'' ~ u.i ' ~ Q ~ . ,. ~ ~ ~ ~I c~ rn~l D , Q S7 `~ a n ^ ~ °' ! ~ ~ m m~~ , I ~ ; . r:`: ~ ~~ u , ~~ ~.~~ ~~ ~ v ° s ~s.t. ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o . ~ ~ ;~:° -.~:. ;~~,~~ ~ W ~ ~ a r ~. ~ ~ a a ~ a~ ~ W LL z 0 ~ > 0 m ~ ~ ~ w J J Q > z w w ~ ~ a ~ _.~~ ~ o ~ °' ~ ~~~ ~ N ~ ~U ~ CJ ~ 1 1 i 1 ~~~ 1 1 1 t 1 t ~ r ~ ~ Appendix IV Pervious Pavers Literature ~ ~ ' , 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 ' ' ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ GUIDE : ~:~ .:_. : _ ~ t xA ~ ~#~_~~ ~~ a ~¢:: ~~f ;:, .~ . .~ ,. Permeable Pavement for Stormwater Management UNI-GROUP U.S.A. MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES AND RESF;ARCH SUM Y ~ , ~ ' ' i ' ~ u~~ UNI-GROUP U.S.A. 4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 •(561) 626-4666 • Fa~c (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 other 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 inFoC>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~ intetlocking concrete permeable pavements. Recommendations are guidelines only and will vary wich local regulations, specifications, environmencal conditions, materials, and established construction methods for an area. It is not intended to replace the judgement or expenise of professional engineers or landscape architects, who should be consulted in the design and construction of permeable pavemencs. O 2002 UNI-GROUP U.S.A. This report may noc be reproduced whole or in part without the express written consent of UNI-GROUP U.S.A. ACKER STONE MUNAL MATERIAIS, INC. 13296 Temesal Canyon Ad., Corona, CA 917 19 605 119ch Ave. N. E.. Bellevue, WA 98005 (909) 674-0047 / FAX (909) 674-0477 (425) 45?-?300 / FAX (425) 637-0794 (800)477-3008 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS MUTUAL MATERIALS, INC. , CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 6721 E. Trent, Spokane, WA99212 1913 Adancic Ave., Manasquan, ,I) 08736 (509) 922-4100 / FAX (509) 922-7207 (7321 292•2500 / FAX (732) 292-2G50 (800) 755-0413 ANCHORCONCRETEPRODUCTS ' 975 Burnt7'avem Rd., Brick, NJ 08724 (73Z) 458-6888 / FAX (732) 840-4283 ANCHOR CONCREfE PRODUCTS 100 Foulrift Rd., Phillipsburg, N) 08865 1 (9~8) 475-~z25 l FAX (908) 475-1787 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCfS 1 IO Bergen Turnpike, Liale Ferry, NJ 07643 (201) G41-2161 I FAX (201) G41•2779 BALCON/BETCO ' 2630 Conway Rd„ Crokon, MD 2I l14 (4l0) 721-1900I FAX (410) 793-OGS7 Baltimore (410) 793-0638 Mecro Washingcon, DC (301) 26I-0200 , BORGERT PRODUCTS, INC. 8646 Ridgewood Rd., Sc. Joseph, MN 56374 (3201363•4G71 1 FAX (320) 363-8516 ' IDEAL CONCRETE BLOCK CO. 45 Power Rd., Westford, MA 01886 (781) 894-3200 / FAX (978) G92-0817 (800) 444-7287 ' IDEAL CONCRETE BLOCK C0. 232 Lezington Sc., Waltham, MA 02454 (781) 894-32001 FAX (7S1) 894-852G (S00) 444-7287 ' IM'ERLOCK PAVING SYSTEMS, INC. 802 Wesc Pembroke Ave., Hampcon, VA 23669 (757) 723-0774 / FAX (757) 723-8895 (800) 57Z-3189 ([n NC & VA) , KIRCHNER BLOCK & BR1CK, INC. 12901 St. Chades Rock Rd., Bridgeron, MO 63044 (314) 291-32001 FAX{3f4} 29L026i ~ MU7UAL MATERIALS, INC. , 18230 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd. Pordand, OR 97224 (5~3) 624-8860 ! FAX (503) G20-4709 (8001 477-7137 PAVESTONE COMPANY IJNILOCK N~W YORK, ING 1900 Clovis Barker Rd., San Marcos, TX 78666 51 Incernational Blvd., Brewster, NY 10509 (512) 558-7283 / FAX (S l21 558-7289 (914) 278-G700 ! FAX (9l4) 278-6788 PAVESTONE COMPANY 169 Peggy [ane, Tyrone, GA 30290 (770) 306•9G91 I FAX (770) 306•8741 UPiIIACK CHiCAGO, INC. 301 E. Sullivan Rd., Aurora, IL 60504 (G30) 892-9191 / FAX (630) 892-9215 PAVFSTONE COMPANY 64033 Highway 434, Lacombe, LA 70445 (504) 882-91I I / FAX (504) 882-5225 UNILOCK MICHIGAN, ING 12>91 Emerson Dc, Brighton, MI 48116 (2481437-7037 I FAX (248) 437-4G19 PAVESTONE COMPANY IINILOCK OHIQ INC. 8479 Broadwell Rd., Cinrinnati, OI-I 45244 I?560 Sheeu R~., Ritcman, OH 44270 (513) 474-3783 / FAX (5 t3) 474-~iG83 (330) 927-4000 / FAX (330) 927-4t00 PAVER SYSTEMS PAVESTONE COMPANY 7167 Inrerpaa Rd.. West Palm Beach, FL 33407 ~015 S. 43rd Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85009 1224 4588 / FAX (G02) 257 G l 2 (561) 844-5?02 I FA7C (561) 844-5454 - ) O 57• ( (800) 226-0004 PAVESTONE COMPANY PAVER SYSfEMS 60! N. E. Pavescone Dc, Odando, FL 32824 39 West Landscreec Rd. ~e's Summic, MO 64064 , (40i1859-91171 FAX (407) 851-9316 ~816) 524-9900 / FAX (816) 524-9901 (800) ?2G-9117 PAVFSTONE COMPANY PAVER SYSTEMS 9401 E. 96th Ave., Hendcrson, CO 80640 890T I3. 12ch Sc & Busch Bivd., 13~3) 287-3700 ! FAX {303) 287-9759 Tampa, FL 33604 PAVESTONE COMPANY (8t3) 932-??12 / FAX (813) 933-4914 4675 Wynn Rd., Ias Vegaz, NV 89103 (8001 356-PAVE (702) 221-27001 FAX (702) 221-2727 PAVER 5Y5'fEMS 343 Incers~ace Blvd.. Sarasora, FL 34240 (941) 377-9594 I FAX (941) 377-9780 PAVESTONE COMPANY CORPORATE HF.ADQUART£4tS 700 Heritage $quare I 4835 LS) @ Dallas Parkway, Dallaz, TX 75z44 (972) 404-0400 I F.IX (97z) 404-9200 (800) 580-PAVE (Texas Only) (800) ?45-PAVE (hationaf} PAVESTONE COMPAIBY 321 ~ Stace Highwav 3G0, Grapevine, T;C 7G099 (Sli) 481-5802/ FAX (SU) 488321G PAVESTONE COMPANY 3QOl Kary-Bronkshire Rd., Kary, "[":{ 77494 (281) 391-7?83 / F,1X (281) 391-7337 PAVESTONE COMPANY 4751 Power Inn Rd., $acramento, CA 95826 (916) 452-5233 / FAX (91G) 45z-9242 PAVESTONE COMPANY ?7600 Counry Rd. 90, Winrers CA 95694 (916) 452-5233 ~ FAX (9l6) 452-9242 UN[IACK, LTD. 287 Armscrong Ave. Georgetown, Oncario, Canada L7G-4XG (9051453-I438 ( FAX (905) 874-3034 UNILOCK, INC. S l0 Smich Sc., Buffalo, NY 14210 (716) 322-G0741 F;1X (71 G) 822-G076 W[LLAMETTE GRAYSTONE, INC. 2405 N. E. 244ch Ave., Wood Village, OR 970G0 (503) 669-7612 / PAX (503) 6G9-7619 L[CENS(NG OFF[CE: F. VON LANGSDORFF UCENSING LTD. 1414> Rennedy Road, RR#l, Inglewood, Oncario, Canada LON-IKO (905) 838-1980 / FAX (905) 838-1981 Visic our websice ac www.uni-groupusa.org for updared informanon on our manufaccurer liscings, research, daign guides and morc. ~ ~ . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS UNI ECO-STONE° PROJECTS .................................................................................................................................... ..4 , INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................:................................................................ ..5 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN .................................................................... ..6 UNI ECO-STONE~ PERMEABLE INTERLOCHING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS .................................................. ..7 , Features and Benefits of the Uni Eco-Stone° Pavement System ............................................................................. ..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 Macerials and Installacion Guidelines ................................................................................ Maintenance .......................................................................................................................................... 10 l l Cold Climate Considerations ................................................................................................................. 1 l RESEARCH AND TFSTING - UNI ECO-STONE~ PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEM ....................................... 12 ' Design Considerations for the UNI Eco-Stone~ Concrete Paver ................:.......................................................... 12 Drainage Design and Performance Guidelines for UNI Eco-Scone° Permeable Pavement ..................................... 13 ' Infiltracion and Structural Tests of Permeable Eco-Paving ..................................................................................... ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY ................................................................................................ 14 15 The Leaching of Pollutancs From Four Pavements Using Laboratory Apparatus ................................................... 15 , Storm~vater Investigation ofThermal Enrichment of Stormwacer Runoff From Two Paving Surfaces .................... Design and Installation ofTest Sections of Porous Pavements for Improved Qualiry of Parking Lot Runof~:.......... 19 21 Long-Term Stormwater Infiltracion Through Concrete Pavers ............................................................................. 24 , Feasibiliry of a Permeable Pavemenc Option in the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) fot Long-Term Continuous Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 27 ~ Restoracion of Infiltration Capaciry of Permeable Pavers ..............................~:...................................................... GUELPH SYNOPSES OF RESEARCH ..........................................................:.............................................................. ADDITIONAL IJNI ECO-STONE~ RESEARCH AND TESTING ............................................................................. 29 32 34 The Universiry of Washington Permeable Pavement Demonstration Project ......................................................... 34 ' Expert Oginion on UNI Eco-Stonem - Pedestrian Use .......................................................................................... Expert Opinion - In-Situ T'est of Water Pecmeabiliry ofTwo UNI Eco-Stone° Pavements ..................................... 34 34 Drainage with Incerlocking Pavers ....................................................................................................................... 34 ' Development of Design Criteria for Flood Control and Groundwater Recharge Utilizing UNI Eco-Stone° and ECOLOC° Paving Units .................................................................................................... 34 STRUCTURAL DFSIGN SOF'I'WARE ......................................................................................................................... 35 ' POWERPOINT~ PRESENTATION ............................................................................................................................ CASE STUDIES...... 36 ADDITIONAI. REFERENCFS ...................................................................................................................................... 37 ' INSPECTION FORMS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................. 38 ~ ^ ~I ~ r ' ~ 1 ' 1 l~ ' ~ , L_ 1 ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' ~ 1 UNI ECO-STONE° PROJECTS • Rio Visca Water Treatment Plant • Mickel Field & Highlands Park • Wilcox Lake Park, Ciry of Richmond Hill • Annsville Creek (ECOLOC~) • Private Residence • Atlanta Zoo • Private Residence • English Park • Homescead Village, VI • Private Residence • Humbenvood Development Cenrer • Commercial Parking Lot • Kean Design • Crazy Crab Rescaurant • Cumberland Island Nacional Seashore Museum • Booth's Cobblestone Parking Lot • Privace Residence • Howard Hook, Port of New York/New Jersey (ECOLOCm) • Residential Housing Development • Queenquay Communiry Center • Wynnsong Cinemas • Private Residence • Jordan Cove - Glen Brook Green • Regent Court Apartments • Sc. Andrews Church • Harbourfront Fire Station No. 9 • Parkland Homes • Shenvood Island State Park • Corkscrew Swamp State Park • Triniry United Church • Commercial Parking Lot • Newark Airport • Ford Canada Corporation • Private Residence • Private Residence • Multnomah Ares Center Castaic Lake Water Agenry, Santa Clarita> CA 27,000 sq fc Wilton Manors, FL 37,165 sq ft Oakridges, ON 8>000 sq ft Peekskill, NY ZO>000 sq fc Winter Park, FL 1,200 sq ft Adanta, GA 400 sq & South Shore> MA 1,000 sq fc Adanca, GA 2,700 sq ft Dallas, TX 3,OOQ sq ft Jupiter Island, FL 3,500 sq ft Ecobicoke, ON 9,000 sq ft North Hampton, NH 15>000 sq ft Winter Park, FL 3,000 sq fr Hilton Head, SC 900 sq ft Sc. Mary's, GA 4,000 sq fc Orlando, FL 1,800 sq ft Dallas, TX 4,000 sq ft Staten Island, NY 15,000 sq ft Hilton Head Island, SC 1,800 sq ft Toronto, ON 3>000 sq fr Savannah, GA 10,000 sq ft Winter Park, FL 14,000 sq ft Waterford, CT 15,000 sq ft Uero Beach, FL 5>500 sq fc Sonoma> CA 3>500 sq ft Toronto, ON 7,000 sq ft Wincer Park, FL 2,000 sq ft Westport, CT ~ 32,000 sq ft Naples, FL 2,500 sq ft Grimsby> ON 10,000 sq ft Nantucket, MA 23,000 sq & Newark, NJ 262,000 sq fr Oakville, ON 2,500 sq ft Long Island, NY 1,500 sq fc Sanibel Island, FL 395 sq ft Portland, OR 10,500 sq ft Please use this guide to review the extensive research that has been conducced by UNI-GROUP U.S.A. and UNI International. The references and guidelines will help ensure that your UNI Eco-Stone~ system will perform as intended over its design life. For additional informa~ion, contact UNI-GROUP U.S.A. or your local UNI~ Manufacturer. 4 ' 1 ' ' ~ ~ ' C! ~ ~ , ' ' ' ' , , ' 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 toxic combination of oils, pesticides, metals, nutrients, and sediments. Approximately 40% of America's surveyed waterways are still too pollu~ed for fishing or swimming and 90% of our population lives within 10 miles of these bodies of water. ~ ~~ , ~ ,F ~j} ~. a . _ .. . Mickel Field/Highlands Park, Wilton Manors, FL With the implementation of the United States Environmental Protection Agenry's Nacional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) s~ormwater 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, procection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation of water resources, and flood micigation. Traditional flood control measures chat rely on detention of peak flow are rypical of many stormwater management approaches, but generally do not target pollutant reduction, and often cause unwanted changes in hydrology and hydraulics. The EPA recommends an approach that integraces control of stormwacer flows and the protection of natural systems ~o sustain aquatic habitacs. Ef~ective stormwater management is ofCen achieved through a comprehensive management systems approach instead oE 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 appropriare situation-specific praccices 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 implement srrategies that include a combination of struccural and/or non-structural best management practices (BMPs) appropriate for their communities. Non-structural BMPs are preventacive actions thac involve management and source controls. Structural BMPs include storage practices, fil~ration practices, and infiltration practices thac capture runoff and rely on infiltration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction. Permeable pavements are considered structural BMPs under infiltration practices. From an engineering viewpoint, permeable pavements are infiltracion trenches wi~h paving over them to supporc pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Much of the design and construction is derived from experience with infiltration trench design, which has been used for years as a way to reduce stormwater runof~ and recharge groundwater. Permeable pavements should be designed by civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects familiar with stormwater managemenc concepts, especially the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method, (now know as the National Resources Conservation Service or NRCS method). For years, porous pavements consisted of cast-in-place asphalc or concrete comprised of coarse aggregate, which 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 volume flows, improving water qualiry, and recharging groundwater. UNI Eco- Stone° is a true interlocking paver that offers the structural support and stability of traditional concrere pavers, combined with the environmental benefit of s~ormwater management. Eco-Stone'a has a minimum compressive strength of 8000 psi, maacimum 5% absorption, and meets or exceeds ASTM C-936 and freeze-thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C-67. ECOLOC° features the same infiltration benefits as Eco-Stone°, but offers increased structural strength and stabiliry for industrial pavement applications. i ~lcox 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 ~he 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 stormwater pollution and protecting 1 watersheds. LID attempcs to replicate pre-development hydrology to reduce the impacts of development. By addressing runoff close to che source, LID can enhance the environment and protea the public, while saving developers and Iocal municipalities money. One of the primary goals oF LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrat-ng 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 che premise that stormwater management should not be seen as stormwater disposal, but instead thac numerous opportunities exist within a developed landscape to control scormwater ~ close to the source. This allows development to occur with low environmental impact. LID is much more than ~he management of stormwater - it is about innovation 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 na~ional ' green building assessment system developed by the U.S. Green $uilding Council) certification to achieve benefits, come the closest to a comprehensive approach to sustainable projects. While private seccor participation is voluntary, many mun~apalities are requiring that ciry-owned or funded projects achieve LEED objectives. Many municipalities nationwide already have local programs in place and are forming departments dedicated 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 cycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a"green building". It is a feature-orien~ed system where credits are , earned for satisfying each criteria. UNI Eco-StoneO permeable pavers may qualify under two areas. Credit 6- Stormwater Management and Credit 7- Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Hear Islands. The intent of Credic 6 is to limit the disruption of natural water Elows by minimizing scormwater runoff, increasing on-site infiltration, and reducing ' contaminants - pervious pavements are recommended. Credit 7's intent is ro reduce heat islands (thermal gradienr differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildliEe habitat - 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, wich higher values possible when pavers are manufactured using lighter color ' aggregates or white cement. Many local municipalities, regional authorities, and state agencies such as Deparcments of Environmental , Protection are now recommending or requiring best managemen~ practices for the mitigation of stormwater and are providing informarion to residents and the business communiry abou~ BMP praccices and srormwater solutions. The Ciry of Toronto, foc example, promotes stormwater pollution education to residents and industry through advertising ~ and cheir website. Among other suggestions, they recommend replacing impermeable surfaces with materials that allow for infiltration. The ciry has approved Eco-Scone`~ for parking pads in residencial applicacions. ' Websites of Interesc: Natural Resources Defense Council - www.nrdc.org/water/pollucion/storm/chapl2.asp Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials - www.nemo.uconn.edu EPA - www.epa.govinpdes/menuofbmps/post_12.htm ' www.epa.gov/npsllid.pdf EPA - www.epa.govlOWOW/NPSlMMGIlChapter4/ch4-2a.html Stormwater Magazine - www.forester.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/Pavemen~s/Albedo ' City of Toronto - www.ciry.toronto.on.ca ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~I , ' , ' ' ~ , ~~ , UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE INTERLOCHING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO-STONE~ PAVEMENT S~STEM • 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 ma~cimize groundwater recharge and/or storage • Mitigaces 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 regula~ory 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 ef~'ort. They require a greater level of conscruction skill, inspection during construction and aner inscallation, and actention to detail. In addition, maintenance is a critical aspect to help ensure long-cerm performance. It is recommended that a qualified professional engineer with experience in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for permeable incerlocking concrete pavement applications. This guide is intended as an overview of construction guidelines and research conducted to date. Piease 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 lots, driveways, overflow parking and emergenry lanes, boat ramps, revetments, bike paths, sidewalks and pedestrian areas> and low-speed roadways. MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, INFILTRATION PRACTICES, 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 mmlhr) 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°l0 of North America storms are comprised. Some municipalicies regulate both water qualiry and quantiry. They may require a criteria for reducing specific rypes of pollucants, such as phosphorous, metals, nitrogen, nitrates, and sediment, and water qualiry regulations are often written to protect lakes, screams, and rivers from problems associated with runoff. An increasing number of municipalities are limiting the use of impervious surfaces and many have creaced stormwater utilities to help cover the increasing costs of constructing, managing and maintaining stormwater drainage systems. , Selection of base, bedding, and joinr/drainage opening fill materials will be guided by local stormwater managemenc objectives. Generally, for runoff control, regulations try to mee~ one or more of four management objectives. , Newarklnternatiana[Airport, NJ (Specialty aggregate surface texture) ' , ' ' ' ~I L~I ' ' , , ~ ~ ' ' , ~J , , • Capture and infiltrate the entire stormwater volume so there is zero discharge from the drainage area. Costs for infiltrating or capturing all the runoff through the use of permeable pavements may be offset by reducing or eliminating pipes and other drainage appurtenances. • Infiluate 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 afrer developmenc, and the difference is to be infiltrated or stored, and then slowly released. Permeable pavements, vegetated 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 catchmenc area. Permeable interlocking concrete pavemenCS are usually capable of infiltrating the first inch (25 mm) or more of runoff, which helps reduce the "first Elush" of pollutants in this initial runoff volume. Grass swales and sand filters provide additional filtering and removal of some pollutants in rainwa~er, and designers may want to consider using them in conjunction with permeable pavements for added benefits. • Infiluate suf~icient water to control the peak rate of discharge. Many municipalities establish a maximum rate of peak discharge (in cubic feet/second or liters/second) for specific storm sewers or bodies of water. This approach favors detention ponds rather than infiltration as a means to control downscream flooding. Permeable interlocking concrete pavemencs can be used as a means of detention, especially in densely-developed areas where ponds are not feasible, by combining the benefits of a parking area with detention. Depending upon the amount of exfiltration (the downward movement of water through the crushed stone base into the subgrade soil), UNI Eco-Stone`~ can meet most of these stormwater management objectives. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES UNI-GROUP U.S.A. provides design professionals with a variery oEtools for designing Eco-Stone~ permeable interlocking concrete pavements. Please refer to the research section of this guide for information on designing the Eco- S~one`~ pavemenc syscem. In addition; we offer PCSWMM"" Permeable Pavement software for che hydraulic design of Eco-Stone~ permeable pavements. The computational 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 runoff is capcured by the pavemenc (i.e. no surface runoff occurs). Though ~his model is based on this zero runoff scenario, design parameters can be adjusted to meec 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 EXFILTRATION 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 co runoff reduction, permeable pavements may be designed to filter pollutants, treat the "first flush", lower runoff tempera[ure, and remove total suspended solids (TSS). Because it provides for infiltration and partial treatment of stormwater, i~ is considered a structural BMP (Best 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 heavy, overflow conditions or provide secondary drainage if the base loses some of its capaciry over rime. For installations where slow-draining subgrade soils are present and only partial Goss-serr1on ofryp;calEco-Srone~ par,emenr exfilcration will occur, perforated pipes can drain excess runoff. Often, these pipes are sized smaller than rypical drainage pipes in traditional pavemenc applications. If no exfiltration will occur due to site limitations, all the stored water would need to be directed to drains, though che flow rares would be reduced by the infiltrarion through the system. ' , In addition, if high levels of pollutancs are present, the pavement can be designed to filter and partially treat the , stormwater. In some cases an impervious liner may need to be placed becween the base and the subgrade. According ~o the EPA, there are four cases where permeable interlocking concrete pavements should not exfiltrate and where an impervious liner mighc be used. , • When the depth from the bottom of the base to the high level of che water table is less than 2 ft(0.6 m), or when there is noc sufficient depth of the soil to ofl=er adequate filtering and crea~ment of pollutants. ' • Directly over solid rock, or over solid rock with no loose rock layer above it. • Over aquifers where there isn't su~cien~ depth of soil to filCer the pollucants before entering the groundwater. These can include karst, fissured, or cleft aquifers. ' • Over fill soils, natural or fill, whose behavior may cause unacceptable performance when exposed to infiltrating 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 permeabiliry. As a resulc, water is usually ' srored in the base to slowly infiltrate into che 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 chrough this layer ' into the soil wich greacer permeabiliry. SITE SELECTION GUIDELINES ' Eco-Stonem permeable interlocking concrete pavers can be used for a wide variery of residen~ial, commercial, municipal and industrial applications (ECOLOCm). In addition to some of the guidelines previously described, permeable pavemen~s should be at least 100 Ft (30 m) from water supply wells, wetlands, and screams, though local , regulations may supercede this requiremen~. There are however, certain circumscances when permeable pavements should not be used. Any si~e classified as a stormwater hotspot (anywhere there is risk thac stormwater could infiltrace and contaminate groundwater) is not a ' candidace for permeable pavemencs. This might include salvage and recycling 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, che total catchmenr area draining into the permeable pavemenc is greater than 5 acres, or the pavemenc is downslope from building foundations where the foundations have piped drainage at the footers. , INFILTRATION RATE DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS ' , LJ , ' ' One of the most common misconceprions in designing permeable pavements is the assumption that the amount or percentage of open surface area is equal to che percencage of perviousness. For example, a designer might incorrectly assume that a 20°l0 open area is only 20% pervious. The permeability and amount of infiltration are dependent on the infilcration rates of the joint and drainage ope~ing material, bedding layer, and base materials. Compared to soils, Eco-Stone° permeable incerlocking concrete pavements have a very high degree of infilcration. The crushed aggregate used for the joints> drainage openings, and bedding has an initial infiltration rate of over 500 in./hr (over 10-' m/sec), much greater than native soils. Rapid-draining and open-graded base materials offer even higher infiltration rates of 500 to over 2000 in./hr. (over 10-' to 10~Z m/sec). Though che initial infiltration races for these aggregate materials are very high, it is important to consider che lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross-section, including the soil subgrade. As this may be difficult to predict, designers may want to use a conservative approach when calculating the design infiltration race. Limi•ted research has shown that permeabiliry decreases with the age of the pavement, rainfall intensities, and the conditions under which it is used and main~ained. This holds ~rue for infiltration crenches as well. In studies, newly installed permeable pavements demonstrated infiltration races of about 9 in./hr (6 x 10-5 m/sec), while pavements ranging from 2 to 5 years old had infiltration rares from 3 to 6 in.lhr (2 x 10-5 to 4 x 10~5 m/sec). i Drainage openings in Eco-Stone~ surface ' , ' ' ' LJ ' ' ' ' , ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ' CONSTRUCTION MATERIAIS AND INSTALLATION GUIDELINES The objective of permeable pavemencs is co infiltrate and store che 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 ro the long-term performance and success of the system. It is importanc that sediment be prevented from entering 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 paramecers 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 pavemen~s. Jordan Cove Development, Wate.f'ord, CT A professional engineet 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 the No. 200 sieve, though other soils may drain adequately depending on site conditians and specific characteristics. A minimum tested infiltration For full e~'rltration subject to vehicular craffic is 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x 10-6 m/sec), chough some areas may require higher or lower rates. With virtually all interlocking concrete 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, che soil subgrade should be compacted to ar least 95% standard Proctor densiry for pedestrian pavements, and to a minimum 95% modified Proctor densiry for vehicular applications. Some nacive soils, rypically silry sands and sands, have enough strength (a soaked CBR of at least 5%) chat compaction may not be required. For many years, engineers actempced to design pavements that kept water out of che base and subgrade layers, as water in a typical "impervious" pavement structure was recognized as a primary cause of discress. However, over the last 15 years, che 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 pavemencs much consideration. They have found that che use of rapid-draining or open-graded permeable bases in many pavement designs can result in longer pavement life (see Addicional 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 musc 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 oFthe base will vary with : ~~~,r~`~-~~~~ ~ ,~;":~,~~ its depth and the percentage of void spaces in it (void space of a certain material can ¢~~ :_ y ~' _ '~ ~~~~,,~ be supplied by che quarry or determined by testing). Please see the UNI-GROUP ,~ ~ `~~ ~„~~`~ ~; ` U.S.A. Eco-Stonem design manuals for additional information on base material ' " °~ `~` "~ ' ~ n" r~,..~..~~~ i s~~~#~~~,.r~~`< .~•~:F~~,f seleccion and contact your local UNI° manufacturer for guidance on recommended .~_ ~__~ ~~°~' -~ ~~ .`~ s .a' ~:.% f~ ~"qtl"~+~+'s' F~"'A,~F r 1 materials for your region. The base is installed in 4 to 6 in: (100~•150 mm) lifts and is j~; ',,r ,: ,~;;l~r-~~;~~~}~~' compacted. If open-graded materials are used, che larger size aggregates may create an `~~- ~< ,.,~.~~~~~.4~¢,'~ ~~ uneven surface when compacted. A 2 in. (50 mm) la er of ASTM No. 8 or No. 9 ~~~~ :;,~,,~ ,~ .:,r~"~ "~`z'~,~'~,.~, ,a' crushed a re te ma be "choked" into the to of the o en- raded material to '~ ~~A~~'~~ r~ ~'~~~ `~ ~~' gg ~ Y P P g ~~'~,,~ ~"~ ~~~~ ~2,~ ~ ~~~'~~, ,~"t.`~3 ~~ stabilize the surface and help meet filter criteria. In some cases, open-graded bases ECOLOC" tndustrial pernteab[e paven may be scabilized with asphalt or cement if necessary to increase structural capaciry. However, it should be noted chat this may reduce scorage capaciry of the base and must be carefully monirored during construction. Tlie Asphalt Institute and Portland Cement Association provide guidelines on constructing chese bases. For the bedding layer> testing has shown chat 2-5 mm clean, crushed aggregate containing no f nes provided the best performance in satisfying both scruccural and infiltration requirements. It should be screeded to a 1 to 1.5 in. 10 ~ (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 infiltration rates. In addition, we do not recommend sweeping a fine sand into the joints after the pavers are installed. ' ' ' ' ~ 1 ' , ~ ' ' , ' ' LJ , ~ If filter criteria betrveen the layers of the pavement (subgrade, base, and beddinp~ cannot be maintained with the aggregate marerials selected for the project, or if trafl-ic loads or soils require additional structural support, geotextiles or geogrids are often used. They are almost always used between the subgrade and che base. Consult the FHWA and AASHTO for informacion on geo~extile filter criteria. Edge restraints are required for all permeable interlocking concrete pavements. Cast-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 compacced with a place compactor. After initial compaction, ~he joincs and voids are filled with the 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 concrete pavements is proper maintenance. Any rype of permeable pavement can become clogged with sedimenr overcime, reducing infiltration and storage capaciry. When properly construcced and maintained, permeable interlocking concrete pavements should provide 20 to 25 years of service life. Tra~c levels and rype of usage, as well as sources char may wash sediment onto the paver surface often dictate how quickly the pavement might experience reduced infiltrarion levels. The properry owner plays an important role in the maintenance of permeable pavements. Many local municipalities and regional governing authorities require a maincenance agreement to help ensure long-term performance of all rypes of BMPs. Recenr testing at Guelph Universiry in Ontario, Canada on Eco-Stone° parking lot pavements inscalled in 1994 indicaced that trafficked areas with high clogging potential had lower permeabiliry values than areas wich low clogging potential such as parking stalls and areas near vegecated medians. Tests demonstraced cha~ 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 noced that these pavemen~s had NEVER been cleaned or maintained over the years, yet much oFthe pavemenc still infiltrated sufficienc amounts oE stormwatec Numerous research studies done over the years at this site have found that the Eco-Scone~' pavemencs were capable of substantially reducing contaminants in stormwater and exhibited reduced thermal impacc~loads. Please see the research section of this guide for additional informacion. It is highly recommended that permeable pavers be inspected and cleaned at regular intervals to ensure optimum performance. Depending on che amounc and rype of traffic on the pavement and its potential for clogging, cleaning may be needed from nvice a year to every 3 or 4 years. An indication that the pavement needs to be cleaned is when surface ponding occurs after rain storms. Vacuum sweepers can be used co remove any encrusted sediment on che surface of the drainage openings. As street sweeping is a BMP, this also satisfies other criteria in a comprehensive stormwater management program. More aggregate material may be added to refill the drainage voids if necessary after cleaning. Vegetated areas around permeable pavements should be encouraged to help filter runoff. COLD CLIMATE DESIGN CON5IDERATIONS In northern climaces the pavement must be designed for freeze-thaw conditions. For cold climates in the northern U.S. and Canada, the lowest recommended infiltration rate for the subgrade is 0.5 in./hr. (3.5 x 10~~ m/sec). The designec may wish to incorporace a 1-2% slope as a safery factor for over-flow should the system not be able to infiltrate all runoff under winter conditions. Snow can be plowed from Eco-Stone° pavements using srandard equipment. Deicing salts are not recommended, as salt will infiltrate inco the base and subgrade, and sand should be avoided as it will reduce infiltration of the system. However, che Eco-Stone~asurface, made up of joints, openings, and the units themselves (as opposed to a continuous area of slick pavemenc) may help provide traction under snowy condicions. 11 Mechanical iratallarion at Howard Hook Port of New Yark /New Jrrrey , ~ 1 , ' ' ~ ' ' , ' ' i~] ' ' ' ~ , 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 the UNI Eco-Stone~ pavement system. Numerous references ate included as well as tables on infiltration test and races, 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 • Descripcion 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 Considerarions • SPECIFICATIONS • APPLICATIONS • CONCLUSIONS • REFERENCES • SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS ; ~ 12 i DR.AINAGE DESIGN AND PERFOR:MANCE GUIDELINES FOR i UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE PAVEMENT Dan G. Zollinger, Su Ling Cao, and Daryl Poduska - 1998 ' GENERt1L SUMMARY The information provided in this report, based on testing begun in 1994 at the Department of Civil Engineering at ~ Texas A& M Universiry 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-S~one~ in ' pavement construction projects. Informatio^ is provided on how runoff infiltration can be controlled in the pavement subsurface and its interaction with the performance of the pavement system. A method is provided to determine the amount of infiltration and the storage capaciry of a permeable base relative to the time of recention 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 che criteria for maximum allowable rutting. ~ OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • Advantages of Using UNI Eco-S~one~ 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 • Compucarion of Runoff , • SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN • Introduction • General Considerations ' Properties of Material Design Alternatives • Design Criteria ' Inflow Considerations Outflow Considerarions Removal by Subgrade Percolation ' Removal by Subsurface Drainage The Selection of Base Material Filter Criteria Collection System ~ Maintenance • PERFORMANCE OF PERMEABLE BLOCK PAVEMENT SYSTEMS • REFERENCES ~ • APPENDIX A • Design Procedure for Drainage and Base Thickness for UNI Eco-Stone° • Paver Block Pavement Systems , • APPENDLX B • UNI Eco-Stone° Pavemenr Design and Drainage Worksheet • APPENDIX C ' • Storm Frequency Data • APPENDIX D • Permeabiliry and Gradacion Data 13 ~ r , ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ' ~~ , I IJ ~ ' ' ' 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 simulaced 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 best performance was achieved with a clean 2mm- Smm aggregate containing 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 MATERIAIS • Infiltration Tests • Structural Tests SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Pavements laid using 4mm to lOmm gravels as the bedding, jointing, and drainage medium could accept rainfall intensities of up to about 6001/ha/sec, with the best performance being given by a clean 2mm-5mm 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 pavemencs to accept rainfall. 3. Blinding the pavemenrs 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 blinc~ed 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 not significantly affect the infiltration of water into the pavement. 7. At a cross fall of 10%, the Eco-Loc° pavers accepted water more readily than Eco-Scone". 8. It was not possible to obtain any significant structural capaciry in pavements where the joints were le~t unfilled, and where rhe 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 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 blinding a pavement, using basalt as the laying medium, gave little improvement in structural capaciry. This can be explained in terms of the dif~iculty of getting sand into joints thac were already partially filled with aggregate. ~ 12. There was no structural problem associatec! 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 test results indicated that permeable eco-paving may be able to fulfill many of the roles now served by conventional pavers, even under significant traffic loads. This opens up new marketing opportunities for permeable eco- ~ paving once suitable design and specification procedures are established and verified. ~ 14 ~ ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY , Professor William james In 1994, laboratory and site cesting of the UNI Eco-Stone° Paving System was begun at Guelph Universiry in Ontario, ' Canada, under the direction of William James, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Wacer Resources Engineering. The research has generated several graduate theses with a focus on environmental engineering and stormwater management. Summaries of the cheses are to follow. ' THE LEACHING OF POLLUTANTS FROM FOUR PAVEMENTS USING ' LABORATORY APPARATUS Reem Shahin -1994 , GENERAL SUMMARY This 180-page thesis describes a laboratory investigation of pavement leachate. Four types of pavements were installed in the engineering laboratory: asphalt, conventional interlocking pavers, and two UNI Eco-Stone~ pavements, to de~ermine , the efFect of free-draining porous pavement as an alternative to conventional impervious surfaces. Runoff volume, pollutant load, and the quantiry and qualiry of pollutants in actual rainwater percolating through or running off these pavements under various simulated rainfall durarions and intensiries were studied. UNI Eco-Stone~ was found ro substantially reduce both runoff and contaminants. The report includes tables and charts documenting volumes of runoff ' collected on various slopes, water penetra~ion testing, water qualiry characteristics of the surface runoff - including trace metals, pH, phenols, sodium, nicrates, and concentrations of pollutants at all levels within the pavements. Numerous references are also inc[uded. ~ 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 Acidiry , 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 Pollutan~s 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 pocous pavements ' 2.4.2 Advantages and disadvancages 2.4.3 Porous pavement as an infiltration system 2.4.4 Previous research , 2.5 Asphalt pavement 2.6 Temperature effects 3.0 PROCESSES AT THE PAYEMENT 3.1 Impact energy of raindrops , 3.2 Splash distribution 3.3 Chemical reactions with che water 3.4 Erosion of loose particles ~ 3.5 Particulate wash-off throughout the pavement 15 ~ ~ 3.6 Surface infltration , 3.6.1 Infiltration equations 3.6.2 Infiltration process 3.6.3 Infiltration zones 3.7 Water percolation ~ 3.8 Solucion of chemicals in che pavement 3.9 Clogging of pores 4.0 THE LABORATORY EXI'ERIMENTS , 4.1 Water collection 4.1.1 Laboratory rainwater ~ 4.2 4.1.2 Fresh rainwater The rainfall simulator 4.2.1 Rainfall intensiry calibration 4.2.2 Areal uniformity calibration ' 4.3 Test pavements 4.4 Instrumencation foc sampling 4.5 Sampling in the field 4.6 Laboratory analyses ' 4.6.1 Laboratory apparatus 4.7 Mass balance S.0 RE.SULTS ' 5.1 Simulaced rainwacer calibration 5.2 Rainwatec qualiry , 5.3 Volume 5.3.1 Rate of removal 5.4 Wacer quality 5.4.1 Pollutant concentrations ~ 5.4.2 Comparison between LAB rain leachate and tap water leachate 5.4.3 Mass of pollutants 6.0 DISCUSSION ' 6.1 Difference between LAB and WDS rain ' 6.2 Dynamics oE water movement 6.2.1 V~ater movement within the soil 1 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 6.32 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 6.3.118acreria counrs 6.4 Rain-pavement interaction ~ 6.5 Mass balance 7.0 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 55. At this pH> it takes at least 72 hours before it neutralizes to a pH of 7. 16 ~ ' 2. Impervious asphalc pavements produce large amounts of surface runoff> compared to porous pavemenu, for ' similar rainfall intensities and durations. Porous pavement is evidencly a very effective way of reducing the quantiry of stormwater runoff from areas such as parking lots tha~ 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 ' ac reducing surface runoff from all the pavements studied. 4. The total void size on che porous pavecnent surfaces is one of the main factors that af~ects permeabiliry, and not the pore size in the joints. EC3 reduced the most surface runoff volume due to the large voids available at ' the surface and at the subsurface layers. Hence more water infilcrated 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 co the short duration of all the experiments. In addition, the pavements were placed in the laboratory, and hence, no dust or any other ' particulare 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 intensicies, ponding occurred at the joints and at ~ the outlets, which slowed down the infiltration 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 mixcure of stone and sand in one, and sand alone in the , ocher, 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 mecals, and bacteria counts. Eco-Stone~ , pavements showed the lowes~ concentrations in these parameters of the three pavements. 9. Percolation through the porous pavements surEace and underlying media slowed the water flow. The process allowed more cime for oxidation; the water had more time ~o react with other chemicals, such as chlorides, nitrates, and nitrites. Also, the pavement apparently filtered suspended solids and some contaminants, such , as sodium and sulphates. 10. Heavy metal removal through percolation appeaced to be good, even though the concentrations were very low. The biggest reduction was observed with zinc and iron in the surface runoff from the porous pavements, , which had lower concentrations than the surface runoff from the asphal~ surface (AS). 11. The porous pavement surface runoff had pH values more alkaline chan the asphalt surface gave pH values rhat were almost neucral. ' 1 12. The surface runoff from asphalt contained a higher mass of all the parameters investigated compared to the mass measured in the surface runoff of EC3. 13. Surface runoff from the AS surface concained a concentration of phenols higher than the concentrations found in the porous pavement surface and subgrades. , 14. The leachate from the pavemencs contained contaminants mainly from rainwater in the atmosphere. Hence, the processes that take place at the surface of the pavemencs are mainly due to the process of rainfall as it falls on rhe ground (i.e., raindrop distribution, rainfall energy, and acidiry of che rainwater). , 15• The laboratory experiments on porous pavement generally proved that the water is not being concaminated from the surface oE these pavements or their bedding materials, but rather from the external environmenc, as proven by the parking lot runoff analyses. With AS, the surface is made from the combustion of pecroleum ~ produccs, 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 convencional asphalt pavements in terms of its abiliry to reduce che quanriry of stormwater pollutants. EC3 redu~ed the amount of , stormwater pollutants more chan che other porous pavement. ~ 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data gathered and conclusions reached in this study, recommendations thac may be made include: 1. In addirion to the abiliry to reduce runoff, the porous pavements will have lower surface runoff ~emperature, ' as the water penetrares through the pavemenc. Hence, an experiment ro examine temperature of runoff under laboratory condicions will be valuable. The water qualiry analyses were perEormed at a constant temperature (25°C). Temperature changes will have a great impact on water qualiry, since many parameters 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 potential for clogging. 3. When performing cescs on water qualiry of scormwater runoff, some parameters remained almost constant. ' The contaminants that need not be examined in detail include TKN, NH~> BOD, COD, and some metals such as cadmium and chromium. 17 ~ ' ' 4. On the other hand, some parameters exhibited very interesting behaviour, particularly pH, phenols, oils and grease sulphate sodium and chloride nitrates and nitrites zinc l d i k l d , , , , , ea , n c e , an copper. 5. From the data obtained in this study, although the pH of runoff from asphalc seemed to be more neutral than the porous pavement pH, more invescigation 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 conductiviry is mainly dependent on temperature, when examining temperature, hydraulic conductiviry will be an importan~ parameter. , 7. The rising cost of petroleum-based asphalt is diminishing the price difference between asphalt pavement and porous pavement. Relative long-term predictions for the future cost of using asphalt and porous pavement would be an interesting srudy. ' 8. Porous pavements should be used in many applications of low traffic volume to effect significanc reductions in stormwater runoff. Qualitative and quanticative experiments should be carried out on porous pavemenc on lightly used roads. ' 9. Future experiments can be conducted using different conditions to give a more complete and detailed characterization of the erf f p ormance o porous pavements. ' , ~ ' , , ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' ' 18 ~ EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF ~ STO~ATER RUNOFF FR~JM TWO PAVING SURFACES Brian Verspagen - 1995 ~ GENERAL SUMMARY This 173-page scudy examines the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from an impervious asphalt surface and a UNI ~ Eco-Stone~ permeable paver surface. The pavemen~ samples were heaced and a rainfall simulacor was used to generate rainfall and cool the pave-ment samples. Thermocouples monitored the temperature in the subgrade and at the surface and inlet and outlet water temperatures were monitored. The primary objective of the research was to measure the ~ thermal enrichment of surface runoff from che two rypes of pavement. The study revealed that the UNI Eco-Stone~ pavemenc produced very little surface runoff and e~chibited less thermal impacc than the asphalt surface. The environmental advantage with the Eco-Stone~ permeable pavement is its a6iliry to altow 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 temperature differences, and surface temperature data. Figures inctude the impact of urbanization on stream temperature, surface runoff tempecature comparisons for asphalt and Eco- Stone° pavements, surface energy budgets under various conditions, and surface runoff impact on receiving rivers. Many ~ references are sited. 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 oE Energy Budget and Heat Transfer Equations 2.5 Rainfall Simulacion ~ , 3.0 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Surface and Heat Transfer Equations 3.2 Thermal Ennchment of Surface Runoff ~ 4.0 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT 4.1 The Test Pavements 4.2 The Rainfall Simulator 4.3 Rainfall Calibration and Intensity Selection 1 4.4 Data Collection and Sources 4.5 Heating the Test Samples 4.6 Comparison to Outdoor Conditions ' S.0 RESULTS 5.1 Surface Temperature Observations 52 Low and Medium Intensity Rainfall (25mm•hr-' & 115mm•hr') ~ 5.3 High Incensiry 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 Relacionship 6.3 Comparison of Asphalt and Paving Stone Surfaces - 6.4 Applicability 1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION5 Several conclusions may be inferred from che 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 the surface runoff, the paving stone surface less so than the asphalt surface. 19 ' ' 2. very little surface runoff was observed from the porous paving stone sample. ' 3. The rainfall intensity, thermal conductiviry of the pavement, initial surface runoff ternperature, and initial rainfall temperature are the dominant parameters in a surface runoff thermal enrichment relationship. 4. The expression OTsr = Aln(t) + B may be used to determine the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from ~ either impervious asphalt or porous paving stone (known as Eco-Stone~ and produced by LJNI-GROUP U.S.A. producers where: A=0.0047xi-5.~8xks-0.13 x TZS+0.15 x?'ir- 1•55 B=-0.0294 X i- 2.26 x ks + 0.52 X TZS + O.Q7 x Tzr - 14.62 ' where i is the rainfall intensiry [mm•hr']; ks is the thermal conductivity of the surface {kW m'•°C]; TZS is the initial surface runoff temperature[°C]; TtY is the initial rainfall temperature[°Cl; and t is the time afrer the ~ starr of rhe rainfall [min]. 5. The accurary of the relationship is ± 4.0 °C in the first 10 minutes after rainfall begins and ± 1.5 °C when averaged over the entire duration of the rainfall event. 6. Research should continue to improve che accuracy of 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 runoA`~ be considered when new developmencs 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 the magnitude of che thermal enrichmenc of a new development 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. Thac further research be conducted into the cooling of stormwater 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 che instrumenced parking lot. , ~ L_; , , , ~ ' 20 ' ' , DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF TEST SECTIONS OF POROUS PAVEMENTS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF PARHING LOT RUNOFF Michael Kaestner Thompson, P.Eng. - 1995 i 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 pavements commonly used in parking areas and low speed roadways. Appropriately designed Eco-Stone~ pavemen~s could reduce impacts from runoff and reduce pollutant load on ' surrounding surface waters by infiltrating storm-water. Preliminary results showed reductions in surface contaminants and temperatures when compared co impervious pavements. Figures include cross sections of pavement design and instrumentation, subsurface drainage system grading, laboratory test pavement apparatus, longitudinal and lateral flow , paths, collection system orien~ation, thermocouple details, and drainage pattern. Photographs include the subbase drainage system, base drainage system, surface inlet drains, connecting pipes, thermocouple, and wet/dry precipitation samplet The tables include a pollutant summary for highway runoff, pavement thickness and mater-als used, collected event summary, temperature results, rainfall volume summary, surface and sub-surface load summary, concaminant ' analysis and investigation, and concentrations and total loads. Results are presented under two categories - temperature and contaminants. Once again, numerous pollutants were analyzed including heary metals such as lead, zinc, iron, cadmium, and nickel, phenols, nitrates and nitrites, chromium, chloride, phosphates, ammonium and E.coli. References ~ are included. OUTLINE ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Goals and Objectives 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 Data Collection , 3.0 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MATERIALS BUDGET 3.1 Materials Budget 3.1.1 Pollutanc Build-up, PBU 3.1.2 Pollutant Wash-off, PWO ' 3.1.3 Net Accumulation, NAC 4.0 INSTRUMENTED PAVEMENTS 4.1 Test Pavements ' 4.2 Laboratory Test Pavements 4.3 Instrumentation 4.4 Flow Paths 1 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 Multiplexer ' S.4.3 Programming 5.5 Weather Station 5.6 WeclDry Precipitation Collector ' ' 21 , 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ~ 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Temperatures 6.3 Contaminant Load Results , 6.3.1 Ftow Results 6.3.2 Contaminant Results 6.3.3 Contaminant Load Analysis ~ 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions The purpose of chis study was to construct instrumented pavements for a study of porous pavement as an alternative to impermeable pavement for use in parking lots where tra~c 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 chapter, 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 faciliry for future porous pavement research for application in North America. , 2. The materials budget rhar was developed provides a preliminary background on the build-up and wash-off processes that are involved. The constructed and instrumenced test pavements provided the information necessary m understanding the materials budgeC. 3. Pavement temperatures were recorded between the monchs of June to September, 1994. Surface temperacures ' are directly retated to the meteorological conditions; the greatest temperature 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 pavemencs 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 pavement can be applied to all pavements. ' ~ 5. Base temperatures measured approximately 15 cm below the surface, showed a lower diurnal range ~han the surface temperatures. Maacimum base temperatures were less than the surface temperatures, at least in early summer. 6. Sub-base cemperatures, measured up to 600 mm below the surface, showed iittle diurnaJ temperature 1 fluctuation. In early summer, sub-base temperatures were lower than sucface temperatures. 7. Contaminant 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° effeccively reduces the amount of surface runoff. Runoff was only generated from the surface when the rainfall incensiry exceeded the infiltration rates of ~he pavemen~. UNI Eco-Stone~ proved to be an ~ adequate porous pavement for reducing surface contaminant runotf loads. 7.2 Recommendations 1. Improvements are necessary in the flow measurement. The use of a datalogger is recommended to adequately record flows. However, the TBRGs require further improvement or re~lacement. A proposed simple , alternative 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 che best size barrel for eaeh of the catchments. ~ 2. The present system is designed to measure ground temperacures 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 temperature as it passes through the layers. This would allow a better , understanding of the role of temperacures, runoff, and pavements. 3. The asphalt surface thermocouple requires constant observation due to the damage original~y sustained. Continuous monitoring of the temperature from the asphalt is necessary to ensure accurate measuremenc of ' temperarure. This is also true for all rhe pavements and layers. 4. Particular work is necessary in the heat transfer process between rhe pavement and wacec Appropriate instrumentation is necessary to accurately assess these water temperatures. 22 ~ ' 5. With the long-term continuation of this work, care must be taken to ensure minimal settling of the , pavements. Additional work is necessary in improving surface drainage: Improvements are necessary xo ensure adequate drainage of the surfaces. Adecjuate 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 future 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 restoration of the pavement in the long term when rhe study ~ is completed. , ~ ~ , , ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ , , 23 ~ , , LONG-TERM STO~ATER INFILTRATION THROUGH CONCRETE PAVERS Christopher Kresin - 1996 , GENERAL SUMMARY This 188-page study investigates the infiltration capaciry of porous concrete paver installations of various ages. Using a , rainfall simulating infiltromecer, several test plots at four UNI Eco-Stone~ installations were subjected to a total of 60 tests comprising two simulated rainfalls of known intensiry and duration. The first rainfall provides initial moisture losses to wetting the drainage cell material, while data collected during the second rainfall is used to calculate effective ' infiltration capaciry. Long-term stormwacer management modeling was reviewed and suggestions made to enhance the modeling capabilities of the United States Environmental Procection 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 that although the infiltration capaciry of the UNI Eco-Stone~ pavements decreased with age and degree of compaction (traveled versus untraveled), it could be improved with removal of the ~op 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 rypical permeable pavement structure, soil moisture zones, SWMM program organization, uniformiry coefficients 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 delineacor, test plo~ 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 Stormwater Management Practices 2.1.2 Stormwater Best Management Practices 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 Infilcration Hydrology 3.2.1 Determinarion of Infiltration Capaciry 3.3 Rainfall Simulators 3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation 3.4 Spatial Variabiliry and Scale Effects 3.4.1 Spatial Variabiliry 3.4.2 Scale Effects 24 ~ 3.5 Event Versus 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 Calibracion and Spatial Uniformiry , 4.3 Experimencal Procedure 4.4 Experimental Design ~ 4.5 4.6 Description of Test Installations Computational Methods 4.6.1 Computational Process - Example Calculations 5.0 RESULTS ' S.1 Darry Infiltration Capacicies 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-Srone° Insrallation and Specifications ~ 6.4 Cost Comparison - MICBEC (Modular Interlocking Concrete Block with External Drainage Cells) and PAP (Porous Asphalt Pavement) 6.4.1 Capiral 6.4.2 Maintenance and Repair ' 6.4.3 Environmental 6.5 SWMM and Permeable Pavement 6.5.1 LF90 Performance Enhancement ' 6.52 Accommodation of More Complex Models ~ 6.5.3 Code Modifications 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions Based on Experimental Results , 1. Infiltracion capaciry of UNI Eco-Stone~ MICBEC pavers decreases as the installation ages. 2. In6ltration capacities at UNI Eco-Stone° installations decreases wich increased compaction. 3. Infiltration capaciry of the EDC crusts, found to be significantly affected by age, limits f Eo. ~ 4. f Eo may be regenerated, most probably to some fraction of inicial f Eo, by street sweeping/vacuuming the Eco-Stone~ surface. 5. f Eo is affected to a greater exrent by EDC fines content than organic matter content. 6. Most fines are trapped near rhe surface of the EDC macerial. ~ 7. Except for Sites lA and 1B, UNI Eco-Stone~ installations are constructed wich improper EDC material, which restricts pocential f Eo. 8. f Eo values of che magnitudes presented in this study would not provide infiltration of the smallest storms , comman 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~ciencly ' and effectively. 7.2 Conclusions Based on Lirerature Review and Observations 1. Infilcracing 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 stormwater does not have adequate time to infiltrate the porous pavement. 4. Porous and conventional asphalt pavemenc has a greater potential to contaminate stormwater and the ~ adjacent 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 reeommended: 1. UNI Eco-Scone° installacions must be constructed and main~ained to manufacturer's specifications to ensure ' adequate performance. 2. Permeable pavement installations should be constructed with minimal siope and to provide surface detention , so that greater volumes of stormwater may be captured and infiltrated. 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 maintenance. 4. Every effort should be made to maximize runon to pervious areas. , 5. SWMM coding must be updated to FORTRAN 90 syntax and the RUNOFF block modified to allow better catchment discretiZation. Future research should be conducced to determine: 1. How deep into the permeable pavement do fines propagate and whether there is an optimal gradation of ,. EDC material that will capture fines as the surface, as well as provide adequate f Eo. 2. How well UNI Eco-Stone~ performs under freezing conditions. 3. An appropriate Eco-Scone~ maintenance frequency. ' , , ~ , ~ ~ i 1 1 1 1 ~~ 1 ! i ' ' ~ 1 ' ~ ~ , , ~ 1 ' 1 ' , ~ ~ FEASIBILITY OF A PERMEABLE 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 project was to examine the feasibiliry of, and attempt 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 simulare the response of permeable pavements in long-term modeling applications. The infiltration capaciry 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 rypes of permeable pavers, rypical permeable pavement structure, SWMM program structure, 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, RLINOFF block inpuc data, sample calculations, and description of permeable pavement parameters for various tests. Also included is a potential source code for a subroutine PERMPAV.FOR containing the calculations for the permeable pavement option for SWMM. Numerous references also are included. OUTLINE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Objective 1.2 Project.Scope 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Urban Stormwater 2.2 Permeable Pavement 2.2.1 Porous Pavements 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 STORMWATER 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 S~7MM RUNOFF Block 3.5 Subcatchment Schematizacion 3.6 Infiltration in the SWMM RUNOFF Block 3.6.1 Horton Mechod 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 CompiliRg SWMM 4.4 5.0 NEW CODE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 5.1 Changes made to the SWMM 4.4 Program 5.2 Changes ro RHYDRO.FOR 5.3 Changes to CATCH.FOR 27 ~ ' 5.4 S.5 Changes to WSHED.FOR Addirion of PERMEA.INC 5.6 Addition of PERMPAV.FOR 5.7 Quality Assurance 1 6.0 RESULTS 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 Conduccivities 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions 1. It is possible to insert new source code into SWMM to simulate the long-term hydrologic response of ~ permeabie 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 Qermeable 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 complexity of the code and numerous auchors over the past 30 years. , 7.2 Recommendations 1. The validity of the new source code must be tested using observed data from permeable pavementi , 2. installations. Test should be conducted using shorter time steps (1 minute). 3. Modifications should be made to connect the permeable pavement subroutine ro the groundwater routine. 4. Clarification of the wacer depth in the reservoir of the pecmeab(e pavement structure should be made. 1 5. Possible modificacions to the new source code should be made after further alpha and beca testing. 6. Further research must be conducted on the degradation of the infiltracion capaciry. 7. Appropriate guidelines for maintenance frequenry must be established to ensure chat the flow reducing qualities of permeable pavement remain effective. 1 8. Modifications to the SWMM code should be made to incorporate che water qualiry aspects of permeable pavement for long-term, continuous simularions. 9. Proper documentation must be prepared to support the proposed new code. , 10. Instructional material should be developed and distributed for instruccion in the use of the proposed new code. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 28 ~ I ~ u RESTORA.TION OF INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF PERMEABLE PAVERS , Christopher Gerrits - 2001 GENERAL SUMMARY , This study investigated the infiltration capacity of UNI Eco-Stone° permeable pavers at a research test section located at the Universiry of Guelph that was insralled in 1994. The objectives were to determine how infilrration capacity, volatile organic matter, heavy metal concentration, and particle size analysis of the drainage void material vary with average daily ~ tralfic use and surface ponding. Using a rainfall infiltrometer, 110 test plots were subjected to 420 tests comprising two simulated rainfall events of known intensiry and duration. Dara 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 che drainage void material for the differenr 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 sweepinglvacuuming. The tests" plots with a coarser gradation of aggregate ~ materials had higher infiltration rates than the section with a greater percentage of fines in the base and bedding materials. The grearesr infilrration rates were Eound in areas with low average daily tra~c and regeneration could be easily accomplished. In areas of inedium to heary average daily traffic usage, infiltration rates were lower and regeneration was ~ limited, indicacing a need to establish a periodic cleaning program to ensure optimum infiltration levels. OUTLINE ~ 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Objectives 1.2 Scudy 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 Infiltration BMPs 2.1.5 Green/Open Space ' ~ 2.2 Permeable Pavement 22.1 Types of Porous Pavements 22.2 Permeable Pavement Structure 2.2.3 Applications of Permeable Pavemencs ~ 2.3 UNI Eco-Stone° Paving System 2.4 Surface Sealing 2.5 Possible Maintenance Activities 2.5.1. High Pressure Washing with Water 1 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 Infiltration ~ 3.2.1 Determination of Infiltration Capaciry 3.3 Rainfall Simularors 3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ~ 4.1 Test Plor Specifications 4,2 The Rainfall Simulator 4.2.1 Rainfall Intensity Calibrations and Spatial Uniformiry ' 4,3 Experimental Procedure 4.4 Expenmental Design 4.5 Description of Test Installations ~ 4.6 Computational Methods 4.G 1 Example Calculations 29 ' ~ I ~J ~ 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Summary of Infiltracion Rates 5.2 Heary Metal Analysis 6.0 DISCUSSION ~ 6.1.. Infiltration Rates 6.2 Particle 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 Vegetated 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 installations, this study will serve as a guideline for future permeabie pavement research in ' North America. 2. The infiltration capacity tested 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 cest ' installation subbase specifications. The infiltration capaciry was also found to be dependent, to a lesser degree, on che percentage of volatile organic matter within the EDC. 3. The infiltration rates were Eound to be greatest in the low ADT area and regeneration to the maximum infiltration capacity could be accomplished by removing as little as 15mm of EDC material. , 4. The infiltration races in che medium ADT area were found to be less than the low ADT area. Although regeneration to the cricical infiltration capaciry could not be reached by removal of 25mm of EDC material, buc results suggest that this could be possible with removal of more EDC material. Some degree of i regeneration was noted at all excavation depths. 5. The infiltracion rates in the high ADT areas were found to be the lowest, and only a minimal amount of regeneration could be obtained. ' ~ 6. The infiltration rates were higher, and regeneration could be reached by removing less EDC matter, in the Eco-Scone~ 3" installation. The infiltracion rates within the Eco-Stone° 4" installations were much lower initia~ly and regeneration to the critical infiltration capaciry was noc obtained for any test plot. 7. The infiltration rates are very spatially variable, as illustrated by the large coefficients of variation obtained. 1 8. The percentage of fine matter within che EDCs, measured up to 25mm from the top of the paver, was much higher in the Eco-Stone° 4" installation. The percentage of fine matter was also found to be inversely proportional to the infiltration rate. ~ 9. The infiltration rate was found to be lower for the plots that have water ponded on chem for a period oF grea~er rhan one hour after a storm event, than plots where the water does no~ pond. The percent of fine matter in the EDCs was found to be slightly greacer within the first Smm and approximately equal for all ~ other depths. The percent of VOC was found to be significancly higher in the frequently flooded plots; for all depths, not just che upper 5mm. 10. The percentage 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 greater for the vegetated plots, underneath the large ~ coniferous tree along the grass verge. The infiltration rate was nor found ro be greatly affecred by rhe percenc VOC, with the exception of plots where che percent VOC was significantly greater than the average VOC percent. In this case, che infiltracion rate was found to be an order of magnitude greater than the , unvegetated area. 11. The concentracions of heary metals wichin the EDCs were found to be less than the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Guideline Concentrations for Selected Metals in Soils. All oE the metals tested were below the ~ MOE guideline level, and, with the exception of zinc, be(ow the expected value for Onrario soils. ~ 30 . , ~ 7.2 Recomrnendations ~ 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 installation to keep the EDCs clear of f ne matter. The frequency of cleaning will be dependent on the ADT, as well as land use practices on and adjacent to the ~ test installation 2. The percent VOC within the cells helped to keep fine matter from accumulating within the EDCs. Whenever possible, coniferous trees should be encouraged to grow atong permeable pavement installations ~ and on any islands or verges within rhe parking loc. Coniferous trees were found co be useful because the needles falling off of the trees, into the EDCs, helped to maintain high infiltration caQacities. ~Iegetation of any kind should not be discouraged from growing within the EDCs. 3. Future permeable pavement installations should be constructed so that drainage is in the direction of the ~ highly vegetated areas near the curb. 4. Fine macter should not be used when installing the subbase material, as it decreases the infiltration capaciry and the abiliry to regenerate the infiltration capaciry. ' S. 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 optima[ infiltration rate. 6. Further studies should be aimed at testing permeable pavement installations on a largec scale. Tkis would ' allow for better estimation of the inscallation as a whole and lessen the spatial variability of testing at such a small scale. 8.0 REFERENCES ~ ~ , ~ ''~ , ~ ' ~ ' , ~ 31 ~ ~ , 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 reseazch conducted at Guelph University described on the previous pages. ! PROVISION OF PARHING-LOT PAVEMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER POLLUTION 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-Scone° concrete pavers, traditional concrete pavers and asphalt in the laboratory and in a ' parking application. The purpose was to investigate porous pavement as an alternacive to impervious pavemenc for parking lots. A large number of contaminancs were investigated, including, heary 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° pavemenr was shown to effectively reduce the amount of surface runoff, with runoff generated only when rainfall intensiry exceeded inf-ltration rates. However, this is likely to be a rare occurrence due to high infil~ration rates of the pavement. I CONTAMINANTS FROM FOUR NEW PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENTS IN A PARHING LOT ' William James and Michael K. Thompson- 1996 While the previous study described the design, construction, and instrumenration of four pavements in the laboracory ' and parking lot, this study reports on the interim conclusions ob~ained from the parking-lot pavements for the firsr year after 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 asphalt 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 temperacure of the runoff more than 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-Stonem), infiltrarion 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 infiltration capaciry was reduced as the pavement aged, ' it was found that 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 infiltration capaciry. Research also found that fines in the drainage cell material affected infiltration to a greater extent ' than organic macerial, which reinforces proper material specification guidelines be followed during installation. A LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF POLLUTANTS LEACHED FROM FOUR ' DIFFERENT PAVEMENTS BY ACID RAIN William James, Reem Shahin - 1998 In this study, the contaminants investigated were phenols, pH, zinc, iron, oils and grease. It was found thac pH of rain is ~ a significanc factor, wich asphalt having the least buffering, and that Eco-Stone reduced both runoff and contaminants ~ 32 ' 1 the most. Percolacion ~hrough 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 sulfates. Heavy metal removal chrough percolation appeared to be good. Surface runoff from asphalt contained a higher mass of ' all the parameters investigated compared to the Eco-Stone runoff. It was found that generally, while water is not contaminated by the surface of the porous pavement, asphalt surfaces are made from petroleum products and some pollutants such as oils, grease, and phenols would be generated from the surface. IT was found the Eco-Stone pavement . appears to have significant long-term benefits compared to conventional asphalt pavements in terms of its abiliry to ~ reduce the quantiry of stormwacer 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 computer code into the USEPA's 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 pavements can greatly reduce flows compared to impervious surfaces. ~ ' r ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OF PERMEA.BLE PAVEMENTS William James, W. Robert C. James, and Harald von Langsdorff - 2000 This monograph decails the underlying method and function of a free-ware program that uses the USEPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) for the design of permeable pavement installations - PCSWMM. The program allows quick implementation of a BMP in SWMM and is very user-Eriendly. The SWMM code for groundwa~er and infil~ration 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 in~ended for use by civil engineers, chat are competent in evaluation of the significance and limitations of the computations and results. It is not a substitution for engineering judgement, nor is it meant to replace the services of professional qualified engineers. ' 33 ~ ADDITIONAL UNI ECO-STONE° RESEA.RCH AND TESTING 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PERMEABLE PAVEMENT ' DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Professor Derek B. Booth, Jennifer Leavitt and Kim Peterson - Reseurch Assistants - 1996 ' This project was initiated to review the rypes and characteristics of permeable pavements in the Pacific Northwest to . provide potential users of these systems with information. They construcced a well-inscrumented full-scale test site in a seetion 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 incent of the project is to evaluate the long-term performance of the systems over a number o~years. The study is being conducted in conjunction with King Counry, the City of Olympia, Washington State Department of Ecolog}; and the ~ City of Renton. Initial results of this study showed the use of permeabLe pavements dramatically reduced surface runoff volumes and attenuated peak discharge and though there were significant structural differences in the systems, the hydrologic benefits were consistent. In addition, it was found that a significant contribu~ion of permeable pavements is ~ the ability to reduce effective impervious area> which has a direct connection to downstream drainage systems. As a result> ' i~ can be used to control runoff timing, reduce volume, and provide water quality benefits. EXPERT OPINION ON ITNI ECO-STONE~ - PEDESTRIAN USE t Professor Burkhard Bretschneider - 1994 This report tested UNI Eco-Stone~ for safery and walking ease under a pedestrian traffic ap ' the Lenze Company in Aerzen, Germany. Bicycles, wheel chairs, baby carriages, and foor tr heel shoes were tested for penecration depth in che drainage cell aggregate materials. The fin filling and compaction of the drainage cell materials was important for good overall perform , EXPERT OPINION - IN-SITU TEST OF WATER PERMEABILITY ECO-STONE° PAVEMENTS ' ~ Dr. Soenke Borgwardt - Institute for Planning Green Spaces and for Landscape Architecture - U Tests were performed on two UNI Eco-Stone° pavements of various ages ac two differenc lo parking lot at the crain station in Eldagsen was installed in 1992, while the Lenze Company ~ was installed in 1989. The resulcs showed that the ~Idagsen site was capable of infiltrating 3 minuces, absorbed more than 200 1/sec/ha. At the Lenze site, the Eco-Stone~ pavement was 1/sec/ha, and even afcer 60 minuces, a rainfall amount of 400 1/sec/ha was absorbed. Althou ~ the older test area had a higher permeabiliry than the newer installation, laboratory tests sho values of the Eldagsen site were the result of the existence of fines. This reconfirms the reco proper gradacion of drainage cell and bedding materials in the 2mm to Smm range and tha not be used if infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. ~ DRAINAGE WITH INTERLOCHING PAVERS , I'rofessor W. Muth - Research Instin~te for Water Resources - Karlsruhe University - 1994 plicacion in the parking lot oF affic were tested. Ladies high dings showed that proper ance. OF TWO UNI niversiry of Hannover - 1994 cations in Germany. A parking lot in Gross Berkel 50 1/sec/ha, and even after 60 capable of infiltrating 430 gh the comparison shows that wed the lesser permeabiliry mmendation for selecting t ASTM C-33 grading should The ins~itute cested UNI Eco-Stone`~ pavers in comparison to ~raditional pavers for water permeabiliry. Surface runoff and the associated drainage were measured under a variery of rainfall amounts and intensities. , DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE UTILIZING iJNI ECO-STONE° AND ECOLOC° ,, PAVING LTNITS Professor Thomas Phalen, Jr. - Northeastern University - 1992 ' The purpose of this research was to develop the technical dara related to the paving system's permeabiliry characteristics. This early research was expanded on in the Rollings and Texas A&M design manuals. 34 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.J ,~ ~ LOCKPAVE° PRO Dr. Brian Shackel STRUCTU~AL DESIGN SOFTWARE The LOCKPAVE° PRO computer program has been developed to assist design professionals in the structural design of interlocking concrete block pavements for a variery of applications, including streets, airport, and industrial projects. It provides a choice of inechanistic or empirical design methodology and offers the abiliry to selecr, analyze, and compare alternative pavement rypes. It also includes UNI Eco-Stone° permeable pavement hydraulic modeling based on the USEPAs SWMM model. FEATURES OF PGSWMM'" FOR PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS • Allows user to develop a simple model of permeable pavement design> run the 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 function (design storm), surface runoff (if any), depth of water in the base material, and drainage of the base material for the duration of the model run • A summary report includes user-defined input and tabulation of numerical resulrs • Features support for Run-On - flow concributions from adjacent impecvious and pervious surfaces • Incorporates new regeneration data from research studies ~ • The model accepts an arbitrary rainFall hyetograph and provides a step-by-step accounting (conservation of mass) of water movement through the permeable pavement installation, including surface detention, overland flow, infiltration, subsurface storage, and subsurface drainage ~ L r 1 ~ ~ ~' ' ~ When designing Eco-Stone° pavements, please use LOCKPAVE~' PRO first to establish rhe minimum requirements For the strucrural performance of rhe pavement. The program defaults to the most conservative parameters - very poor drainage conditions and sacuration of the base more than 25% 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 escablished by LOCKPAVE° PRO is inadequate for your storage/drainage. requirements, increase che base layer thickness step-6y-step until your hydraulic parameters are met. POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ECO-STONE° POWERPOINT PRESENTATION This comprehensive slide/computer PowerPoint presentation is oriented to che design professional. It includes basic design guidance, hydraulic information, research information> and project references and is based on the Design Considerations for the UNI Eco-Stone~ Concrete Paver by Rollings and Rollings. 35 ~ Private Residence, Long Lrlanc~ NY LJ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ' ~ ~' , , ~ i ~ 1 j ~ CASE STUDIES RIO VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT Case Study - 2 page Case study on the Casraic Lake Water Agenry of Santa Clarita, CA projecr - 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. JORDAN COVE URBAN WATERSHED STUDY Case Study - 4 page Case study is on an innovative research project funded in part by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection through the USEPt1s National Monitoring Program Section 319. Other participants in the project include the Universiry of Connecticut Na~ural Resources Management and Engineering Dept., the rown of Waterford, CT, and the developer John Lombardi. Over 15,000 sq ft of UNI Eco-Stone° pavers were used for the street 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. 36 ~ ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ~ American Associaxion oFState Highway and Transportation O~cials (AASHTO), 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design ofPavement Structures, Washingcon, DC. i American Sociery for Tescing and Materials (ASTM), 1999: Annua! Book ofASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA American Society af Civil 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 Washington Permeable Pavement Demonstration 1'roject - Background and First-Year Field Results> Universiry of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering> Seattle, WA. Cedegren, H., 1987. Drainage of Highway and Air~aeld Pavements, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar> FL. ~ Corps of Engineers, 1991. Subsurface Drainage of Pavement Srrucrures, Research and Development Service: Current Corps of Engineers and Industry Pracsice, 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 1'roject, USEPA> Universiry of Connecticut, Aqua Solutions, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Waterford, CT. Federal Highway Administracion (FHWA), 1990. FHWf1 Tecbnical Guide Paper 90-01: Subsurface Pavement Drainage, FHWA, ~ Office of Engineering, Pavement Division, Washingcon, DC. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1992. Demnnstration Project 87.' Drainable Pavement Syste»u Participant Notebook, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-SA-92-008, Washington> DC. ~ Ferguson, B., 1991. "The Failure of Stormwater Decention and che Future of Scormwater Design"> Landscape Design, Vol. 4, No. 12, Gold Trade Publicacions, Van Nuys, CA. ~ Ferguson, B., 1994. Stormwater rnfzltration, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Racon, FL. ~ Ferguson, B, and T. Debo, 1990. On-site Stormwater Management, Second Edicion, Van Nosuand Reinhold, New York, NY. Goforth, G.; E. Dinia> and J. Rauhut, 1983. Stormwater Hydrologica! Characteristics of Porous and Conventivnal Paving Systems, United ~ States Environmental Protection Agenry, Grant No. R806338-01-2, Austin, TX. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 1982, 1997. Synthesis of Highway Practlce 96.• Pavement Subsurface ~ Drainage Systems, Sequim> WA. Nationai Resources Defense Council, 2 999. Stormwater Strategies, Community Responses to Runof~'Pollution, New York, NY. ~ Porcland Cement Association, 1992. Properties and Uses of Cement-Modified Soi[, Skokie, IL. Rollings, R. and M. Rollings, 1992. Applications for Concrete Paving Blnck in the United States Market, Uni-Group U.S.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL. ~ Shackel, B.> 1990. Design and Construction of Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY. Smich, D., 2001. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements, Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Washington, DC. ~ The Asphalt Tnsticute, 1989. The Asphalt Handbook, MS-4, Lexington, KY. United States Environmental Protection Agenry (USEPA), Office of Water and Low Impact Development Center, 2000. Low Impact Development (LID). A Literature Review, EPA-841-$-00-005, Washington, DC. ~~ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water, 2000. National Menu of Best Management Practices for Starm Water Phase II, Washington, DC. ~ United States Em~ironmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water, 2000. Non-Poins Source Pollution, II. Urban Runoff Washington, DC. 37 ~ , ~ ~ DATE: , PROJECT: _ LOCATION: _ ~ SITE STATUS: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 CJ ACTIVE INACTIVE COMPLET'ED Satisfactory Uasatisfactory 1. Pre-consuuction Runoff diverted Area stabilized 2. Excavation Size and location conforms to plans Side slopes stable Soil permeabiliry Groundwater/bedrock 3. Geotextile/Filter Fabric Placement Fabric specification Placement conforms to specifications Sides of excava~ion covered 4. Aggregate Base Course ' Size as specified, sieve analysis conforms to spec Cleanfwashed material Thickness, placemenc, and compaction meets spec 5. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers Meets ASTM or CSA standards as applicable Elevations, slope, pattern, placemen~ and compaction as per specifications Aggregate joint materials conform to specification Drainage or bio swales, vegecated areas for emergenry runofF overflow and pre-treacment for filtering runof~ 6. FinalInspection Elevation and slope conform to drawings Transitions to impervious pavemenc separated with edge restraints Stabilization of soil in areas draining onto pavement (vegetative stcips recommended) Action to be taken: No action necessary. Continue routine inspections Correct noted site deficiencies by ist notice 2nd notice Submit plan modifications as noted in writcen comments by Notice to Comply issued Final inspection, project completed 38 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA INFILTRATION PAVING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED: l , ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA INFILTRATION PAVING MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT T~ATE: TIME: PROJECT: LOCATION: Individual Conduaing Inspection: Inspection frequency shown in parentheses 1. Debris on infiltracion paving area (Monthly) 2. Vegetation areas (Monthly) Mowing done when needed Fertilized per specifications No evidence of erosion 3. Dewatering (Monthly) Infiltration paving dewaters between storms 4. Sedimenrs (Monthly) Area clean oE 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 After major storm Action to be taken: "As built" plans available Y/N Satisfactory Unsatisfactory ~ If any of the answers to the above items is checked unsatisfactory, a time frame shall be established for their corrective action or repair. No action necessary. Continue routine inspections Correct noted faciliry deficiencies by Faciliry repairs were indicated and completed. Site reinspection is necessary to verify corrections or improvements. Site reinspection accomplished on Site reinspection was satisfactory. Nexr rourine inspection is scheduled for approximately: Signature ofInspector 39 ~1 I ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ I ~ l ur~~ t UNI-GROUP U.S.A. MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONE5 4362 Nonh(ake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 •(561) 62G-4666 • Fax (561) 627-6403 •(800) 872-1864 ~ w~vw.uni-groupusa.org • info@uni-groupusa.org j ~ i 1 ~ t ~ ~~ ~ ~ , Appendix V Facility Summary Forms ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ THUR5TON REGION FACILITY SUMMARY FORM Complete one (]) 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 Facility Name or ldentifier (e.g., Pond A): See Part 6 Name of Road or Street to Access Faciliry: 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, ich) 1 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) i ~ Part 1- Proiect Name and Proponent Project Name: Green Villa~e Subdivision , Project Owner: Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc Project Contact: George Hom. Ph.D I Address: 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW, OlymUia, WA 98502 Phone: ~'~F~~ 943-74~7 ~ Project Proponent: (if different) Same Address: Same ~ Phone: Same Project Engineer.• Rnh~r~ F Nnl~nmh P F Firm: ~C'A Cnn.cZtlting C:f•ot ~ Phone: 13~i0) =193-60(12 , ~ ~ ~ Part 2 - Pro~ect Location ~ Section 13 Township 17N ~ Range 1 E ~ Part 3- Type of Permit Application Type of permit (e.g., Commercial Bld~: Residential Subdivision Other Permits (circle) 1 ^DOF/W HPA ^COE 404 ^COE Wetlands []DOE Dam Safety ' OFEMA ^Floodplain ^Shoreline Mgmt ^Rockery/Retaining Wall ~ ^Encroachment ~Grading ^NPDES ` ^Other Plumbing, Electrical, Utiliry ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Other Agencies (Federal, State, Local, etc.) that have had or will review this Drainage Erosion Control Plan: N/A ~ Part 4 -Pro~osed Proiect Description What stream basin is this project in (e.g., Percival, Woodland): Nisqually River Project Size, acres 10 Zoning: R-6 Onsite: Residential Subdivision: Number ofLots: 52 Lot size (average), acres: 0.13 Building Permit/Commercial Plat : Building(s) Footprint, acres : Concrete Paving, acres: 0 Gravel Surface, acres: 0 Lattice Block Paving, acres: Public Roads (including gravel shoulder), acres: 1.87 ~ ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ t i ~ Private Roads (including sidewalks), acres : Onsite Impervious Surface Total, acres: Part 5- Pre-Developed Project Site Characteristics Stream through site, yin: Name: DNR Type: 1.34 3.21 No 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 hazard, 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, yln: No No No No No No No ~ Yes ~ , , , ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~ Part 6 - Facilitv Description -Basin_A Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): 2.=19 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0. 78 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Faciliry (acres): 1~17 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 1.95 Enter a one (1) for the rype of faciliry: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground detention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Vet vault) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each rype present) Filter ~ Oil water separator Single orifice Multiple orifices Weir Spilltivay Pump(s) Other (inftltration to groundwater) 1 Part 7- Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 in/hr ~ ~ , Part 6- Facilitv Description - Basin B Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): 2.38 ~ Total Onsite Area Tributary to Faciliry (acres): 2.38 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0. 74 , Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.20 Design Total Tributary Area to Faciliry (acres): 194 ~ Enter a one (1) for the rype offacility: Wet pond detention ~ Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention ~ Underground detention ation Inf lt nd r po i Drv well infiltration ~ Coalescing pdate separator Centrifuge separator ~ Other: (Vet vault) 1 ~ Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each tvpe present) , Filter ~ Oil water separator Single orifice ~ Multiple orifices Weir , Spillway P (s) ump Other (infiltration to groundwater) 1 ~ I Part 7- Release to Groundwater Design Pej•colation Rate to Groundwater (if applicahle) ZO inches/hour , ~ , , , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Part 6- Facilitv Description - Bain C Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): 2. 78 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.78 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.88 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.45 Design Total Tributary Area to Faciliry (acres): 2.33 Enter a one (1) for the rype 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: (Vet vault) ~ 1 Outlet rype (Enter a one (1).for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orifrce Multiple orifrces Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration) 1 Part 7- Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 inlhr ~ ' , , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ Part 6- Facilitv Descriqtion - Bain D Total Area Tributary to Faciliry Including Offsite (acres): 2.49 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.81 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.12 Design Total Tributary Area to Faciliry (acres): 1.93 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 infltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Vet vault) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each rype present) Filter ~ Oil water separator Single oriftce Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration) 1 Part 7- Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 in/hr ~ ~ , ' ' ~ ' ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ' Part 6- Facility Descriqtion - Pervious Parkin,~ Lot Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): Total Onsite Area Tributary to Faciliry (acres): Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Faciliry (acres): Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): Enter a one (1) for the rype of faciliry.• 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) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0 0.16 1 ~ ~~ , l~ ~ ~ , ~ Appendix VI , Maintenance Agreement 1 i 1 i 1 r ~ 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 facifities 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 1 responsibilities of each party to this Agreement are +dentified below. OWNER SHALL: ~ , (1) Imp~ement the stormwater facility maintenance program included herein as Attachment ~,A„ I THE JURISDICTION SHALL: 1 (1) Provide technica{ 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 pe~formance 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 r.equired to be done to the stormwater facility existing on the OWNER property, the JURiSDICTION shall give the owner of the property within which the drainage facility is located, and the ~ ~ , 1 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 andlor repair is not completed within the time set by the JURISDtCTION, 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 of 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) andJor (2). ! (4) The persons listed in (1), above, shaN assume all responsibility for the cost of any maintenance and for repairs to the stormwater facility. Such responsibility sha11 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 desi~ability 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, titfe, 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 ' , , ' ~ , , ~ , ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , , ' ' ~ ~ 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 sea! this day of , 200 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires City of Ye1m 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 , ' , , ~ i 1 ~ Appendix VII ~ Vicinity Map ' ~ , ~ ~ L~ W cp ~ r ~ a ¢ ~ ~ 1 r , , ' ' , a a ~ ~ ~ ^r ~ ~ ...s ~ z 0 ~ > 0 m ~ ~ ~ w J J Q ~ Z W W ~ ~ V CJ i ~ i i~..~ ~ ~ s. ...._. , ~ ~ _.r~i/ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~o . ~U ~