The URL can be used to link to this page

Prelim Drainage Report 02-24-05 001Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report February 2005 DESIGN/BUILD .CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING. PLANNING •SURVEVING Preliminary Drainage Report Project Information Project: Prepared for: Contact: Green Village Subdivision Yelm, Washington February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc. George Hom, Ph.D. 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 9437437 Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: City of Yelm, Washington Project Number: Project Contact: Project Engineer Prepared by: SCA Consulting Group 4200 6th. Ave. SE, Lacey, WA 98509 (360) 493-6002 FAX (380) 493-2476 Contact Robert E. Holcomb, P.E. SCA Project: 04166 File Number: g:\text\pt\04116\Reports\04116~dcdoc PROJECT ENGINEERS CERTIFICATION: f hereby certify that this Preliminary Drainage Report for Green Village SobdPoi o Yelm Washington has beau prepared by me or under my supervision and meets the intent of the City of Yelm Development Guidelines and Washingtnn State Depar[men[ of Ecology (l4'SDOE) Stormwa[er Management Manual for [he Puge[ Sound Basin unless noted p[henvise, and wrmal s[andards of engineering practice. I understand chat the rvrisdittion does not avd will no[ assume liability for the sufficiency, suitvbility. or perPormance of drainage facilities designed for this development ~ , TABLE OF CONTENTS nrpeNntces PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT......._......__ ...................._......_......_.................... ........... 1 APPe^dix I -Preliminary Deamage Cal<ulatiov SECTION 1 - PROPOSED PROTECT DESCRIPTION _._________..._ ........................ _......... 1 SECTION 2- EXISTING CONDITIONS ......... .._..... .__.... ..__. } Appendix ll-Prelimivry Dmiemge and TESC Plan SECTION I- MFILTRATIOM1 RATES .......... ...... _...__ _... _..4 SECTION i-WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ............. .. _......... ........... 4 Appendix 111-FEMA FIRM Map SECTIONS- FUEL TANKS ___._ ___... _ ............ .......... 4 SECTION 6- SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION... ..... _.__ _..._.. 4 Appendix lV -Pervious Pavers Literature SECTION]- ANALYSIS OF I00-YEAR FLOOD ........ ._......... . .._....... 4 SECTION B - AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES _....._....._....... ...._..._ 5 Apprndix V -Facility Summary Fomn SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING __...__....___. ........_..5 SECTION IO -COVENANTS. DEDIGTIONS,EASEMENTS......_...._._....._........_ .. ............5 Appendu Vl-Maintrnance PART II-EROSION CONTROL REPORT ..............._..............__......_...._........_...._..... ........... 6 Agreement SECTION I - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE ....................... ............ fi Appendix VII -Vicinity Map SECTION 2 - TRAPPMG SEDIMENT _....... _......... ._ ...... ......... 6 SECTION}- PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL&SITE RESTORATION _..... ._.........] SECTION 4- GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT_....___....._ .............._ ...._...._ ] SECTIONS- INSPECTION SEQUENCE.__ __ __._. __.. _. ] SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS _ ........... ... _....._] PART 111-MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................... .......... g SECTION 1 ~ REQUIRED MAINTENANCE ......... _....... 10 SECTION 2- RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION ____ ....__. ____ IS SECTION 3- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAM1 ___._ __.. _....... Ig SECTION 4- SOURCE CONTROL .......... _......... ........... ........ IB Part I Storm Drainage Report Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT SECTION 7 • PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Proponent: Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc. 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW Olympia, WA 98502 (360) 943-7437 Parcel Numbers: 21713340000 and 21713340200 Total Site Area: 10. Acres Zoned: R-6 Site Address: Burnett Road, Yelm, WA 98597 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 ie located in Yelm, Washington and is bordered on the west by Burnett Road on the east by Mountain View Road and situated about 500' northerly from Yelm Ave. Project Overview: The proposal is to subdivided the existing parcels into senior citizen oriented developed with 52 single family lots a community center with parking for 20 automobiles for use by the home owners in the subdivision. In addition a 6-foot wide walking trail will be constructed around the perimeter of the development. The development of the proposed subdivision will be constructed in one phase and will include appropriate erosion control measures as needed, grading, storm drainage improvements, frontage improvements and extension of underground utilities including water and sanitary sewer. Storm Drainage Improvements: The completed project will create in approximately 486 acres of new impervious area (roadway, drrveways, paths and sidewalks), 0.16 acres of pervious parking lot and 0.25 acres of new disturbed pervious areas. SCA Consulting Group Page ~ February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report Pre-Development Coverage Summary (Including Frontage Improvements) Basin Un-Disturbed Pervious Roadway Total A 2.45 0.04 2.49 B 2.32 0.06 2.38 C 2.46 0.04 2.50 D 2.74 0.03 2.77 Toml 9.97 0.17 10.14 Post-Development Coverage Summary (Including Frontage Improvements) Basin Disturbed Pervious Pervious Parking Lot Roofs Sidewalks Pa[h Roadways Driveways Total A Ll9 0.1I 0.43 0.12 0.09 0.43 0.12 2.49 B 1.31 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.38 O.IS 2.38 C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.49 0.17 2.77 D 1.17 0.05 O.SI 009 O.12 0.39 0.15 2.49 Total S.12 0.16 1.89 0.28 0.41 1.69 0.59 10.14 Stormwater Treatment: Stormwater treatment design requirements are based on the 1992 edition of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual. Preliminary treatment calculations are provided in 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 ae shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 wID be collected via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment excepts o for the parking lot for the community within Basin A. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. will be constructed from structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff wiB 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 Appendix 2 will be collected via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a SCA Consulting Group Page 2 Fehruary 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix I for calculations and Appendix 2 for details. Sub-basin'C': Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and the proposed new roadways within Basin C of the proposed subdivision as shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix 1 £or calculations and Appendix 2 for details. Sub-basin `D': Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and the proposed new roadways within Basin D of the proposed subdivision as shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected via catch basins and conveyed to a Aqua-Swirl for treatment excepts o for the parking lot for the community within Basin A. The Aqua-Swirl has been design to treat the 100 yr storm rather than the 6-month storm, in order to remove as much of the sediment as possible prior to discharging into the a infiltration gallery. From the Aqua-Swirl the storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration trench that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. will be constructed from structara] interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff will be achieved on site through native soils layers below pavers See Appendix 1 for calculations and Appendix 2 foc details. Roof Runoff. Roof runoff are considered clean imprevious surfaces and is not required to be treated.. from new construction shall be routed to individual onsite drywells. The roof runoff from the housee on the individual lots will be drywells shall be sized per the DOE Stormwater Manual based on an average roof size of 1,500 s£. 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 ie 10 acres rectangulaz in shape with 330 feet fronting Burnett Road and 330 fronting on Mountain View Road.. The site ie 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 Bcoom growth with indigenous field grasses.. On site eoile are well drained and formed in glacial outwash. SCA Consulting Group Page 3 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report There are no creeks, lakes, ponds, springs, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes or other environmentally sensitive areas identified onsite or down gradient of the subject property. The site is located in an aquifer sensitive area, according to the 198fi Thurston County Comprehensive Plan M-8. The site is not located in a wellhead protection area. SECTION 3 -INFILTRATION RATES The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Thurston County classifies onsite soils as Spanaway (110) aeries. 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 oc abandoned fuel tanks on the project site. SECTION 6 - SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION 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'e site investigation and Boils analysis, it appeared that all onsite stormwater runoff is contained onsite and infiltrated back into the groundwater, which is typical of the site's soil classification. All onsite stormwater runoff wi116e 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 FEbfA FIRiI Map is included in Appendix III. SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report SECTION 8 - AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES The storm drainage facilities are located underground. Al] disturbed pervious areas will be vegetated and landscaped. SECTION 9 - DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING Sizing calculations for the project's stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration facilities are provided in Appendix I of this report. All calculations correspond to the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and TESC Plan, which can be found in Appendix II of this report. Since all stormwater will be infiltrated onsite, a downstream analysis was deemed unnecessary. SECTION 10 - COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS Onsite drainage facilities including pipes, wet vaults, and infiltration galleries will require routine maintenance. The maintenance manual prepared for the project will list the maintenance requirements. A copy of the completed Maintenance Manual can be supplied to the City upon completion of the project. SCA Consulting Group Page 5 February 2005 Part II Erosion Control Report Green Village Subtlivision Preliminary Drainage Report PART II -EROSION CONTROL REPORT SECTION 1 • CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE The proposed commercial development will include site grading and erosion control measures designed to contain silt and soil within the project boundaries during construction until permanent vegetation and site improvements are in place. Erosion sedimentation control shall be achieved by a combination of structura]/vegetative cover measures and construction practices tailored to fit the site. Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. Before any construction begins onsite, erosion control facilities shall first be installed. The planned construction sequence is as follows: 1. Schedule preconstruction conference with the city, contractor, project engineer, and construction-staking surveyor. 2. Install rock construction entrance. Use 4" to 8" diameter spa]]s 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 eliminate entry into the storm drainage system. 7. Instal] underground utilities (water, sewer, storm). 8. Provide inlet protection around al] new catch basins. 9. Construct roadway and parking and install landscaping, sod and/or seed, and mulch al] disturbed areas. 10. Maintain all erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and sIlt runoff ceases. SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SEDIMENT Filter fabric fencing will be installed to trap sediment before runoff exits the site. In addition, inlet protection will be installed around all existing and new catch basins to filter out sediment before runoff enters the storm system. A stabilized construction entrance will be installed to prevent construction vehicles from tracking soil onto roadways. If sediment is tracked offsite, it shall be swept or shoveled from paved surfaces on a daily basis, so that it ie not washed into existing catch basins or other storm drainage facilities. During the rainy season from November 1 through March 31, the contractor must cover any disturbed areas greater that 5,000 SF in size if they will be unworked for more than 12 hours. Mulch, sodding, or plastic covering shall be used to prevent erosion in these areaa. SCA Consulting Group Page 6 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report SECTION 3 - PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL 8 SITE RESTORATION All disturbed areas will be paved with asphalt, covered by buildings, or landscaped with grass, shrubbery, or trees per the landscaping plans. SECTION 4 - GEOTECNNICAL 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 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 Baeine c. Conveyance Piping d. Roof Drain Piping 3. The infiltration galleries shall be inspected during construction to ensure that the facility is constructed to design specifications. 4. The permanent site restoration measures shall be inspected after landscaping is completed. A final inspection shall be performed to verify final grades, settings of structures and all necessary information to complete the Engineer's Construction Inspection Report Form. This Form must be completed prior to final public works construction approval. SECTION 6 - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS The contractor will be required to designate a washdown area for concrete trucks as well as a temporary stockpile area for construction debris. Catch basin inlet protection and filter fabric fencing shall remain in place until construction on the site is complete. SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Part III Maintenance Plan Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report 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 Sle, 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 exiet. SCA Consulting Group February 2005 Green Village Subtlivision Preliminary Drainage Report ATTACHMENT "A": MAINTENANCE PROGRAM COVER SHEET Inspection Period: Number of Sheets Attached: Date Inspected: Name of Inspector: Inspector's Signature: SCA Consulting February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Draina a Report SECTION 1 - REQUIRED MAINTENANCE The drainage facilities wdl require occasional maintenance. The checklists below are the minimum maintenance requirements and inspection frequencies. Maintenance Checklist for Conveyance Systems (Pipes and Swales) Frequency Drainage J Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Req'd Exist Feature M.S. Pipes V Sediment & Accumulated sediment [hat Pipe cleaned of all debris exceeds ZO% of the diameter of sediment and debris. the pipe. M Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free All vegetation removed movement of water through pipes. so water flows freely. A v Damaged Protective coating is damaged, Pipe repaired or replaced. (rusted, rust is causing more then 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%). '.11 ~' Pipe has major cracks or tears Pipe repaired or replaced. allowing groundwater leakage. M.S. Swales Trash & Dumping of yard wastes such as Remove trash and debris debris grass clippings and branches' into and dispose as prescribed Swale. Accumulation of non- by City Waste degradable materials such as Management Section. glass, plastic, metal, foam and coated paper. M Sediment Accumulated sediment that Swale cleaned of all buildup exceeds 20% of the design depth. sediment and debris so [ha[i[ 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 smrmwa[er treatment. Remove woody growth, recomour 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 inwmpetibl shrubbery, etc. Swale area be restored. e use Contact City to report problem if no[ rec[if ed voluntarily. A Swale does Water stands in Swale or flow A survey may be needed not drain velocity is very slow. Stagnation to check grades. Grades occurs. need to be in l% range if SCA Consultin February 2005 Page Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report Frequency Drainage V Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Req'd Exist Feature possible. If grade is less than 1%, underdrains may need to be installed. trroa are Cesare wne~ne<a vmmam ex~sa, Dl~e cwun mo mnsamuon asa ask ror ~~n~mal as:~ssaare. commmu: K<Y- A~Annoal(March ae APnl Drermed) M - Momhly (sre schedule) S = AFler major norms SCA Consulting Group pogo 11 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Catch Basins and Inlets Frequency Drainage d Problem Conditions m Check For Conditions That Sy4em Should Exist Feature M.S. General v 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 IO%. front of catch basin opening. Grate is kept clean and allows water to enter. M J Sediment or debris Qn the No sediment or basin) [hat exceeds 1!3 the debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin Catch basin basin [o im-art of [he is dug out and lowest pipe into or cut of clean. the basin. M.S. V Trash or debris in any inlet Inlet and outlet or pipe blocking more than pipes Rae of trash 1/3 of its height. or debris. M ~ Structural Comer of Rame extends Frame is even with damage to frame more than 3/4" past curb curb. and/or mp slab face into [he stree[(if applicable). M v Top slab has holes larger Top slab is free of than 2 square inches or holes and cracks. cracks wider then I/4" (intent is to make sure all material is running into the basin). M Rame not sitting Flush on Frame is sitting [op slab, i.e., separation of flush on top slab. more than 3/q" of [he fame from the top slab. A v' 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 s[avdards. Contact entering catch basin a professional through cracks or engineer for maintenance person judges evaluation. that structure is unsound. A Cracks wider than I/2" and No cracks more longer than 1' at thejoin[ than 1/4" wide a[ of any inletioutle[pipe or thejoinf of any evidence of soil inlet/outlet pipe. particles entering catch basin through cracks. SCA Consulting Group Page t2 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That System Should Exist Feature A Senlementlmis- Hasin has settled more than Basin replaced or alignment 1" or has rotated more than repaired to design 2"out of alignment. standards. Contact a professional engineer for evaluation. M.S. Fire hazard or Presence of chemicals such No color, odor or other pollution as natural gas, oil and sludge. Basin is gasoline. Obnoxious dug out and clean. caloq odor or sludge noted. M.S. J Outlet pipe is Vegetation or roots No vegetation or clogged with growing in inleUOUdet pipe root growth vegetation joints that is more than 6" present. tall and less than 6" apart. If you arc unsure whe~M1er a problem exists, plow comm~ she IoriWiction.v~d uck for ttthnical arrisunce. Cum ems: Key.m A=Annual (March or ApA prefe+rM) M =MOmhly [see schedule) 5 =Atler mujarsmrms SCA Consulting Group Page 13 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dreinage Report ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should System Exist Feature M,S General Trash $ Ses Maintenance See Maintenance debris Checklist for Povde. Checklist for Ponds. buildup in pond M Poisonous See Maintenance See Maintenance vegetation Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M,S Fire hazard See Maintenance See Maintenance or pollution Checklist £or Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M Vegetation See Maintenance See Maintenance not growing Checklist for Ponds. Checklist fox Ponds. ar is overgrown M Rodent See Maintenance See Maintenance holes Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds. M Iveecte See Maintenance See Maintenavce Checklist for Ponds. Checklist For Ponds. A Storage J Sediment A soil texture test Sediment ie removed area buildup in indicates facility is not and/or facility ie cleaned system working at its designed so that in&ltration capabilities or was system woeks according incorrectly designed. to design. A sediment trapping area is installed to reduce sediment transport into in5ltration area. A J Stotage A soil texture test Additional volume ie axes 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 houxe) incorrectly designed. aerated and rototilled to or improve drainage. ovexflowe Contact the City for information on its requirements regarding excavation. SCA Consulting Group - Page 14 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report M Sediment Any sediment and debris Clean out sump to design trapping filling area to 10%of depth. area depth from sump bottom-to-bottom of outlet pipe or obstructing Row 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 eolids. present Segregate settling area from rest of facility. Contact City for guidance. il3 Rock ~ Sediment By visual inspection Replace gravel in rock Rlters and debris little or no water Rowe filter- . through filter during heavy rainstorms. S Infiltratio InRltration Standing Water in Excavate bottom of n Failure Inspection Wel] ARer [tench 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 exist, please covrae[vhe Surisdiction end ask far technical aesieance. fommevcs_ A =Annual (March or April preferred) M =Monthly (sea schedule) S = Aker major storms a~H wnsmnng croup Page 15 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Gxounde (Landscaping) Frequen Drainage J Problem Conditions to Check Conditions That Should cy System For Exist Feature M Genera] J Weeds Weeds growing in Weeds present in lees (nonpoieono more than 20% of the than 5°/o of the landscaped us) landscaped area (trees area. and shrubs only). M d Safety Any presence of poison No poisovws vegetation hazard ivy or other poisonous or insect nests present in vegetation or insect landscaped area. nests. M,S J Trash oc See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist. litter M,S J 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 J 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 J Trees or shrubs that Replant tree, inspecting have been blown down for injury to stem or roots. or knocked over. Replace ffseverely damaged. A J Trees or ehrnbs, which Place etakea and rubber- are not adequately coated ties around young supported or are trees/shmbs for support. leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. If you are unsure whvvher a problem exists, please oon[ae[ No Jurisdiction and vek for [eehneal assistance. Comments: A =Annual (Ivtvroh or AprJ preferred) M =)tenthly (see xhedule) 5 =After major smrme SCA Consulting Group Page 16 February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dreinage Report ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Pervious Pavers Frequency Gainage Synem Req'd Problem fontlitio^smCheck Forantl A[II^n l^ CoMitions Thmghould Feature Take Exist M.S Pervious pavers v Sedimem buildup Emurt tbeuhe pervious pavers surface sMimmtia removed and/or surtace is free of sediment pavemem is leaned so slur inelreadnn wom, ace^remg mm:ign M.S Pervious pavers v $edimml buildup Evsure tM1at Ne wmnbming and Sediment is rem^vM and~or surface aQacent landscape artas are stabilisstl pavemem is cleaned so that and mowed, with dipPmBS rem^vetl Inflved^n w^hs accoNing m eeaien 4 Times Year Pmi us pav rs v Setlimem buildup Vac um cep or vac or porous pav rs Sedimem ~s removed. Min. surtace mmicesW Replace with dean gnvel mct graeati Upon Failurt Pem us pours v Spotdogging Pml^^ged spot puddling on pav mmt R<m ve pave and rtplaz surface. ballast antl sa^d as ^eetledc If you are wsure whether a problem exists, please coma tFe lunsdiai^n aM azk for tttMical assisunce. Cpmm<ms: Key'. d°Annual(Marth or Apnl prefe H) M=MOnNly flee schedulel $-After majormmu SCA Consulting Group Page n February 2005 Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report SECTION 2 • RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION The project owner shall be responsible for the operations and maintenance of all onsite storm drainage facilities. SECTION 3 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN All disturbed pervious areas on the site will be landscaped to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment. SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste -Drains to Groundwater") will be embossed ar painted on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets and will be repainted periodically as necessary. SCA Consulting Group Page 18 February 2005 Appendix I Preliminary Drainage Calculations 1 1 1 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 INFORMATION SUMMARY: Soil Classification (Soil Survey of Thurston County, WA): SCS Soil Classification: Spanaway, Nisqually Hydrologic Group: B Design Infiltration Rate: 20 inches hour SCS 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 storm = 4.0" Pre-Development Coverage Summary(Including Frontage Improvements) Basin Un-Disturbed Pervious Roadway Total A 2.45 0.04 2.49 B 2.32 0.06 2.38 C 2.46 0.04 2.50 D 2.74 0.03 2.77 Total 9.97 0.17 10.14 Post-Development~Coverage Summary(Including Frontage Improvements) Basin Disturbed Pervious Pervious Parking Lot Roofs Sidewalks Path Roadways Driveways Total A 1.19 0.11 0.43 0.12 0.09 0.43 0.12 2.49 B 1.31 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.38 0.15 2.38 C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.49 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 T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss BASIN A W/O ROOFS 1.65 8.00 0.6940 3.71 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASIN A W/O ROOFS 0.23 8.00 0.1047 3.71 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo Drainage Area: BASIN A WITHOUT ROO FS Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Inty: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 2.8600 ac 77.00 0.38 hrs Impervious 0.8500 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs Total 3.7100 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPING 77.00 2.8600 ac Impervious CN Data: PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND DW 98.00 0.8500 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet OVERLAND 97.00 ft 0.50% 0.1500 21.06 min Channel PIPE FLOW 197.00 ft 3.00% 42.0000 0.45 min 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% 42.0000 0.70 min Channel PIPE FLOW 128.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.72 min MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.2288 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 4561.88 cf - 0.1047 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS -100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.6549 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 30231.01 cf - 0.6940 acft 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 ID: BASIN A Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 300.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00 ' Node ID: BASIN A RLP Desc: Manhole structure ' Start EI: ~ 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN A Discharge Id: BASIN A ' RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN A RLP] SUMMARY 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.6549 cfs Peak Out Q: 1.1171 cfs -Peak Stg: 304.99 ft -Active Vol: 1532.05 cf BASIN B W/O ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD PeakQ Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss BASIN B W/O ROOFS. 1.02 8.00 0.3932 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASIN B W/O ROOFS 0.17 8.00 0.0691 1.94 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo Drainage Area: BASIN B W/O ROOFS ' Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min ' Area CN TC Pervious 1.3100 ac 77.00 0.32 hrs Impervious 0.6300 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs ' Total 1.9400 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.3100 ac ' Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.6300 ac Pervious TC Data: ' Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ACCROSS LOT 105.00 ft 1.00% 0.1500 17.00 min Channel PIPE FLOW 282.00 ft 3.10% 42.0000 0.64 min ' Channel PIPE FLOW 116.00 ft 0.94% 42.0000 0.47 min Channel PIPE FLOW 189.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.06 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ALONG GUTTER 16.00 ft 3.10% 0.0110 0.30 min Channel PIPE FLOW 282.00 ft 3.10% 42.0000 0.64 min Channel PIPE FLOW 116.00 ft 0.94% 42.0000 0.47 min Channel PIPE FLOW 189.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.06 min MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.1698 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3007.93 cf - 0.0691 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B W/O ROOFS -100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.0198 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17129.17 cf - 0.3932 acft Control Structure ID: BASIN B -Infiltration control structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice ' Start EI Max EI Increment 303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10 Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 Node ID: BASIN B Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 150.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00 Node ID: BASIN B RLP Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN B Discharge Id: BASIN B RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN B RLP] SUMMARY ' 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.0198 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.6318cfs -Peak Stg: 305.48 ft -Active Vol: 953.49 cf BASIN C W/O ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD Peak O Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss BASIN C W/O ROOFS 1.10 8.00 ' 0.4487 2.12 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASIN C W/O ROOFS 0.22 8.00 0.0850 2.12 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 6 mo Drainage Area: BASIN C W/O ROOFS ' . Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min ' Area CN TC Pervious 1.3100 ac 77.00 0.44 hrs Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00 0.12 hrs ' Total 2.1200 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: ' LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.3100 ac Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.8100 ac Pervious TC Data: ' Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ACCROSS LOT 120.00 ft 1.00% 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: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ALONG GUTTER 456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min Channel PIPE FLOW 153.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 0.40 min Channel PIPE FLOW 102.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 ' 0.57 min MOVEHYD [BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.2170 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3702.11 cf - 0.0850 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS -100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.0996 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 19545.65 cf - 0.4487 acft Node ID: BASIN C RLP Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN C Discharge Id: BASIN C Node ID: BASIN C Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 150.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00 RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN C RLP] SUMMARY 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 1.0996 cfs Pe ak Out Q: 0.7081 cfs -Peak Stg: 306.02 ft -Active Vol: 1158.98 cf BASIN D W/O ROOFS Event Summary: BasinlD PeakQ Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss BASIN D W/O ROOFS 1.01 8.00 0.4109 1.93 SCS/SCS TYPEIA 100y BASIN D W/O ROOFS 0.20 8.00 0.0783 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 1.1800 ac 77.00 0.45 hrs Impervious 0.7500 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 1.9300 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: LANDSCAPE 77.00 1.1800 ac Impervious CN Data: ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00 0.7500 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet ACCROSS 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: Travel Time Sheet ALONG GUTTER 174.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 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 W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS - 6 mo] AS [6 mo] Peak Flow: 0.2017 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3411.54 cf - 0.0783 acft MOVEHYD [BASIN D W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS -100y] AS [100y] Peak Flow: 1.0051 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17898.86 cf - 0.4109 acft Control Structure ID: BASIN D -Infiltration control structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice Start EI Max EI Increment 303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10 Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 Node ID: BASIN D Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 150.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 64.00 Node ID: BASIN D RLP Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: BASIN D Discharge Id: BASIN D RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN D RLP] SUMMARY 100y MatchQ=PeakO= 1.0051 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.6437 cfs -Peak Stg: 305.57 ft -Active Vol: 985.33 cf PARKING LOT Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss PARKING LOT 0.36 8.00 0.1217 0.39 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 Peak Factor: 484.00 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Area CN Pervious 0.0000 ac 77.00 Impervious 0.3900 ac 98.00 Total 0.3900 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: PARKING LOT 98.00 ROOF 98.00 SIDEWALK 98.00 ROOF 98.00 Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Loss Method: SCS CN Number SCS Abs: 0.20 Intv: 10.00 min TC 0.00 hrs 0.02 hrs 0.1500 ac 0.1100 ac 0.0200 ac 0.1100 ac Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time r i i Channel PIPE FLOW 201.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.13 min Channel PIPE FLOW 30.00 ft 2.00% 42.0000 0.08 min MOVEHYD [PARKING LOT] TO [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 Control Structure ID: PARKING LOT -Infiltration control structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice Start EI Max EI Increment 303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10 Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00 Node ID: PARKING LOT Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Width Void Ratio 64.7100 ft 100.0000 ft 30.00 Node ID: PARKING LOT RLP Desc: Manhole structure Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: PARKING LOT Discharge Id: PARKING LOT RLPCOMPUTE [PARKING LOT RLP] SUMMARY 100y MatchQ=PeakQ= 0.3551 cfs Peak Out Q: 3.0020 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.46 ft -Active Vol 890.54 cf w Appendix II Preliminary Drainage and TESL Plan dt1W 1Vld 1~lIVNIWIl3lld NOISI~109f1S 39tllll~ N33a~J ,„m N3tl n° eso .a ^^• 090 +e mwsn ~~ ~~ ~ ~o Eg o~ ~9q$ ~Q> ~ a Si?ylm _-~-x~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ z o ~"~$E >3 b~ a~ F F s 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ Z $ $~ ¢ d ~ tl d 6 6 O Q ~ O ~ ~ d d LL ~ N tl ~ £ ~ ~ A ~ & ~ ~ i ]q. S ~ 3~ R U ~ w a A n NHId 39tlNltllia - _=-- '89NIOtl>j9 NOISI~109NS ~„~a~ ~ -_.~~ ~~ ~~ . ~ ,~I. _i AlitlNlWil39d A3lltl~ N33l19 ~;a °M U ~~ ~~~~ ~~ :~ "i - eaa ae mw¢ ~ S ' d 8 pg`'- ~_~ ~ n ~u g~Q~A ~'o~o o ~,N, ~~I€~ iil8~~~~~ I F o ~ BFI ~~ a~ s w o w Sao =:, _~., - ~ @: s~ ~ a ~o° ° ~ ~ ~E~ ~ m ~~ :~ e ~~ ~§6~ 8 ~~ ~~~ s~k ~~ d Lb ^~°e G~'k m3 $ p <~ .~~p ~ ~€ ~~s yes` .~ ~o s8~o _ d~ ., `:B dog - - OS=.I Nolslnlaens 311SOdW00 ,d ~, i~~~~~ ~~ r ~° ~~I e~ AaVNIWll3lJd A3llHn N33a9 ~ ~ ~.~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~o s Ai - era ,..o~ ~ o~ ~~~ s • j` ~ m ~ ~ +"m; ~ ~~-~ s~.. ~ ~F 4 ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ° o a€ ~~ „ ~~~€~ a s~ _, ~~ z ~~~~~ e e F ~ o o ~~ ~~~~~#~ 1 a ~i~ ~ i F ti _ _- -- ; SlIV130 39VNldliO = _ _- ~ ~ ~ a ~ nub € R "'°a' ~ ' NOISIA108f1S g P ~ ~g 8 9NIaVl19 ~t1 ~ ~~ ~ ° r A3llVAN33li9 - - . .~~~ ~~~ a " - Al1VNIWIl3Hd - ~ ~ ~a ~~ g d a .e cps g o~ d~"~~ e a _ _ e ~ ~ m ~., ~ J ~ ~ ,. .a w z z ~ ~ W g c~ z (/~ W ~ ~ -iii a U ~ a z ~ rc ~ 3 ° x ~ w - '-] - pi W ~ = m° m ° w ' ~ o 3 p s p ~ ~ ~ kc as mW Z uo O } ~~'~ 4 O e ~ ~~a ~ ~rc~ N ~ a a~a ~ ~ z ~ $e".T ss z in i F r e t m w ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~~ w W ~~``. ~ °o y W d ~4ob ~ ~ ~ ~ L z a ~ 1 € = ~ " W~ m 0 55 a E" ~ €F I e~ x e~ a~ ~ ----' -i-~ __-_ _ ` ° l - --_- __ - u tea. :~ ~ ~o ~ i wQ U c~~ a~, Jc~ a~ UW Cj~ Y F`~~ t~ "gE ~ ti a oy e° ¢~~~ ~ ~ _k w w y o ~ a ' '6 o,i w *~ ~ Q ~ z W ~~~ ~r ~ :7 tl ~~ ea q 8~ ~ ~ aao:°~} ej ~ a U A 33 F6 ®: ~ B~, yy aA ~ ~~eP @@ j m ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ c7 t :~ ~ ¢ ;~ a y d x k W ~ o ~ n o ~ s ~ ~ ~ p a F U] ~ W t € -r, o ~ 6° e fe d es ge ~ 3° ~ ~ EF s@ y rF€ ~ :€ ~5 U~~ vL 6e s6~g% s °`^ i5a~ R€Ya ~€$5a ? fe ,e~= eea: o:~ee o _~ ,F'a 'se`e Ea€-ae°;: ~s gg aa nP ~_c 's w=ag@~ sP"~~l:~eg°= _~ E rdSn~PY E-i°=~'o °Geei Sg T DES iAfre 4~~aY'°me 8. S'g ~ Y'8°- ~5°aE gvF E EE~o£- F$fr5ug ee5~EE %~ ~ 4€~~E!~ E°~g'$es~SES E~~ s nos a5 ssE e~EAgapga tlFu~Gm o e,ee~d= Ss-'a K &~a fi Bf .% p Ea°g ~Q b Eaa ~~: aEm~ .;ao !Ep; 5e o° €~~ x~g;p W o~€ E=m8 ~p .~ ~`~ ~4eST E°eY g5e sva 6g€ 8 vY~-, ~8E €65v ~=E %Sg `SY~ ~~b° %[Y% ~oe: s>v5 50 51L5a ~~ €ve' °' •ers~ FYa SY:~ ~~~ pe~XL B'sE e=o `s _ 5:4•°6 '4-°e8 i,e` S:as~ .~~ a -g_E", oa ee Eo~. .QR£ ,E? a ego Y3e s L a'o-°a QSE35 cc_'~'a a5 "-.. is{as F-~S S8 `~o Epaa E~gR ;SAE° of%S ~n ~ „ Y o tia _ = U~ ~3 00 ~ ~ c~ - o W ~ ° m~ --- - --- -- ~ - ---- -- ~ ~ s ' ~ _ R - - t ~ ~ U w W __ Z - .mc u~ ~ ~- y~ -- - a~~ t , wmi - - J §z _...._.__- . _ __-_ _ ~ _ ______ __ w w - ° Y k E ' a ~y J ° kd S o b q~ ~ ~ R ~` g ~~ YJ ~, y~y~ . ., ~~ 8~ 8 A4¢~ ~ ~ f~ ~~ Qq ~~ d ~~6s ~ v° C a A ~~~ ' ~~ ~~~ a~~ Y 44 ~~ e`§ I I a~F- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix III FEMA FIRMMap vi ~' ~ z W O m O j OJ Z ~ J Z J w V U o ~ ~ N Q Z a ~ n z ~ a o 0 0 ~ ro ro ~ w o~ o] w o w o N ~ °O w a o ,~ ," z w ~ o a ~ i ~ V w w V Z w O N U W z o U ~ ~ H J ~ ~ • a ~ ^ 070H ~ M31A NIV1Nf10W ~• ~_ .~1332i 1S L3Nafl9 O ..~~' ~~ ~} I --I ~ ~1~, !T ~il QI o L' ¢, m. a o° ~t o • •~s ~~L • ~ e 'o T `< LL ~ z O a a° c m i ~ w a> J Q W > LL z w w 1 Appendix IV Pervious Pavers Literah~re t n 1 UNI ECO-STONE GUIDE AND RESEARCH SUMMARY - ~ - - '` _T - __ ~_r_._ _.-__.~__..~. .~ _.,._ ___~._ ..~ _.____~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ ~ _-_ s ~~ ~_ .~. ~'-~~ `~' ~.~ ~r~: _. - ~. t, ~ . ~ ~,~~ t ~ __~i` ~~ --, ,, . ._;._ _ " ~. - ~~ ; ~~ s ~ ~ __' _ . ddb ,~ .. ,;: ~~_ .~. ~ ~ ~~ : Permeable Pavement `' 7:'~,~,~~'~~yV~~~ ~ , ~,;, for Stormwater Management ~~ uri UNI-GROUP U.S.A. MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES -~- -,- - -_ '. ur~~ UNI-G~tOUP U.S.A. 4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 • (561) 626-4666 • Fax (561) 627-6403 • (800) 872-1864 This paper is a summary of the Eco-Stone research and studies that have been done to date and includes a general design overview and other information chat 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® interlocking concrete permeable pavements. Recommendations are guidelines only and will vary with local regulations, specifications, environmental conditions, materials, and established construction methods for an area. It is not intended to replace the judgement or expertise of professional engineers or landscape architects, who should be consulted in the design and construction of permeable pavements. © 2002 UNI-GROUP U.S.A. This report may not be reproduced whole or in part without the express written consent of UNI-GROUP U.S.A. ACKER STONE MUTUAL MATERIALS, INC. 13296 Temescal Canyon Rd., Corona, CA 91719 605 119th Ave. N. E., Bellevue, WA 98005 (909) 674-0047 /FAX (909) 674-0477 (425) 452-2300 !FAX (425) 637-0794 (800) 477-3008 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS MUTUAL MATERIALS INC. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS , 6721 E. Trent, Spokane, WA 99212 1913 Atlantic Ave., Manasquan, NJ 08736 (809) 922-4!001 FAX (509) 922-7207 (732) 292-25001 FAX (,73'_) 292-2650 (800) 755-0413 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS 975 Burnt Tavern Rd., Brick, N) 08724 (732) 458-6888 /FAX (732) 840-4283 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS 10o Foulrift Rd., Phillipsburg, NJ 08865 (908) 475-1225 I EAX (908) 475-1787 ANCHOR CONCRETE PRODUCTS 110 Bergen Turnpike, Little Ferry, NJ 07643 (201) 641-2161 /FAX (201) 641-2'779 BALCON/BETCO 2630 Conway Rd., Crofton, MD 21114 (410) 721-1900 /FAX (410) 793-0657 Baltimore (410) 793-0638 Metro Washington, DC (301) 261-0200 BORGERT PRODUCTS, INC. 8646 Ridgewood Rd., St. Joseph, MN 56374 (320) 363-4671 /FAX (320) 363-8516 [DEAL CONCRETE BLOCK CO. 45 Power Rd., Westford, MA 01886 (781) 894.3200 /FAX (978) 692-0817 (800)444-7287 IDEAL CONCRETE BLOCK CO. 232 Lexiogmn St., Waltham, MA 02454 (731) 894-3200 /FAX (781) 894.8526 (800)444-7287 INTERLOCK PAVING SYSTEMS, INC. 802 West Pembroke Ave., Hampton, VA 23669 (757) 723-0774 /FAX (757) 723-8895 (800) 572-3189 (In NC & VA) KIRCHNER BLOCK & BRICK, INC. 12901 St. Charles Rock Rd., Bridgeton, MO 63044 (314) 291-3200 /FAX (314) 291-0265 MUTUAL MATERIALS, INC. 18230 S.W. Boones Ferry Rd. Portland, OR 97224 (503) 624-88601 FAX (503) 620-4709 (800) 477-7137 PAVESTONE COMPANY UNILOCK NEW YORK, INC. 1900 Clovis Barker Rd., San Marcos, TX 78666> 1 Inrernational Blvd., Brewster, NY 10509 (512) 558-7283 /FAX (512) 558-7289 (914) 278-6700 I FAX (914) 278-6788 PAVESTONE COMPANY 169 Peggy Lane, Tyrone, GA 30290 {770) 306-9691 /FAX (770) 306-8741 UNILOCK CHICAGO, INC. 301 E. Sullivan Rd., Aurora, IL 60504 (630) 892-9191 /FAX (630) 892-9215 PAVESTONE COMPANY 64033 Highway 434, Larombe, LA 70445 (804) 882-9111 /FAX (504) 882-5225 UNILOCK MICHIGAN, INC. 12591 Emerson Dr., Brighton, MI 48116 (248) 437-7037 /FAX (248) 437-4619 PAVESTONE COMPANY UNILOCK OHIO, INC. 8479 Broadwell Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45244 12560 Sheets Rd., Rittman, OH 44270 (513) 474-3783 /FAX (513) 474-6683 (330) 927-4000 I FAX (330) 927-4100 PAVER SYSTEMS PAVESTONE COMPANY 7167 Inrerpace Rd., West Palm Beach, FL 33407 1015 S. 43rd Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85009 (561) 844-5202 /FAX (561) 844-5454 (602) 257-4588 /FAX (602) 257-1224 (800) 226-0004 PAVESTONE COMPANY PAVER SYSTEMS 601 N. E. Pavesrone Dr., 39 West Landstreet Rd., Orlando, FL 32824 Lee's Summit, MO 64064 (407) 859-91171 FAX (407) 851-9316 -, (816) >24-99001 FAX (816) 524-990t (800) 226-9117 PAVFSTONE COMPANY PAVER SYSTEMS 9401 E. 96th Ave., Henderson, CO 80640 8907 N. 12th St. & Busch Blvd., (303) 287-3700 /FAX (303) 287-9759 Tampa, FL 33604 {813) 932-2212 I FAX (813) 933-4914 PAVFSTONE COMPANY (800) 356-PAVE 4675 Wynn Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89103 (702) 221-2700 /FAX (702) 221-2727 PAVER SYSTEMS 343 ]nterstate Blvd., Sarasota, FL 34240 (941) 377-9594 /FAX (941) 377-9780 PAVESTONE COMPANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS 700 Heritage Square I 4835 LBJ C~ Dallas Parkway, Dallas. TX 75244 (972) 404-0400 /FAX (972) 404-9200 (800) 580-PAVE (Texas Only) (800) 245-PAVE (National) PAVESTONE COMPANY 3215 State Highwav 360, Grapevine, TX 76099 (817) 481-5802 /FAX (817) 488-3216 PAVESTONE COMPANY 3001 Katy-Brookshire Rd., Katy, TX 77494 (231) 391-72831 F,4,X (281) 391-7337 PAVESTONE COMPANY 4751 Power Inn Rd., Sacramento, CA 95826 (916) 452-5233 I FAX (916) 452-9242 PAVESTONE COMPANY 27600 County Rd. 90, Winters CA 95694 (916) 452-52331 FAX (916) 452-9242 UNILOCK, LTD. 287 Armstrong Ave. Georgetown, Ontario, Canada L7G-4X6 (905) 453-1438 I FAX (905) 874-3034 UNILOCK, INC. S l0 Smith Sc, Buffalo, NY 14210 (716) 822-6074 I FAX (716) 822-6076 WILLAMETTE GRAYSTONE, INC. 2405 N. E. 244th Ave., Wood Village, OR 97060 (503) 669-7612 /FAX (503) 669-7619 LICENSING OFFICE: E VON LANGSDORFF LICENSING LTD. 14145 Kennedy Road, RR» I, Inglewood, Ontario, Canada LON-1K0 (905) 838-1980 /FAX (905) 838-1981 Visit our website at wvvw.uni-groupusa.org for updated information on our manufacturer listings, research, design guides and more. 1 i ~I iJ ii 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 Exfilcration ................................................................................... ...8 Site Selection Guidelines .......................................................................................................:............... ...9 Infiltration Rate Design and Considerations .......................................................................,........:......... ...9 Construction Materials and Installation Guidelines ....................................................................:.......... .10 Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................... .11 Cold Climate Considerations .................................................:.............................................................. .1 l RESEARCH AND TESTING -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-Stone° Permeable Pavement .................................... .13 Infiltration and Structural Tests of Permeable Eco-Paving ...................................................................................: .14 ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY ............................................................................................... .15 The Leaching of Pollutants From Four Pavements Using Laboratory Apparatus .................................................. .15 Stormwater Investigation of Thermal Enrichment of Stormwater Runoff From Two Paving Surfaces ................... .19 Design and Installation ofTest Sections of Porous Pavements for Improved Quality of Parking Lot Runoff...........21 Long-Term Stormwater Infiltration Through Concrete Pavers .............................................................................24 Feasibility of a Permeable Pavement Option in the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) for Long-Term Continuous Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 27 Restoration of Infiltration Capacity of Permeable Pavers ...................................................................................... 29 GUELPH SYNOPSES OF RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................... 32 ADDITIONAL UNI ECO-STONE° RESEARCH AND TESTING ............................................................................. 34 The University ofWashington Permeable Pavement Demonstration Project ......................................................... 34 Expert Opinion on UNI Eco-Stone° -Pedestrian Use .......................................................................................... 34 Expert Opinion - In-Situ Test of Water Permeability of Two UNI Eco-Stone° Pavements ..................................... 34 Drainage with Interlocking Pavers ....................................................................................................................... 34 Development of Design Criteria for Flood Control and Groundwater Recharge Utilizing UNI Eco-Stone° and ECOLOC° Paving Units .................:.................................................................................. 34 STRUCTURAL DESIGN SOFTWARE ......................................................................................................................... 35 POWERPOINT° PRESENTATION ............................................................................................................................. 35 CASE STUDIES .....................................................................................................................................................:....... 36 ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ........:............................................................................................................................. 37 INSPECTION FORMS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................. 38 3 UNI ECO-STONE® PROJECTS • Rio Vista 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 • Homestead Village, VI • Private Residence • Humberwood Development Center • Commercial Parking Lot • Kean Design • Crazy Crab Restaurant • Cumberland Island National Seashore Museum • Booth's Cobblestone Parking Lot • Private Residence • Howard Hook, Port of New York/New Jersey {ECOLOC®) • Residential Housing Development • Queenquay Community Center • Wynnsong Cinemas • Private Residence • Jordan Cove -Glen Brook Green • Regent Court Apartments • St. Andrews Church • Harbourfront Fire Station No. 9 • Parkland Homes • Sherwood Island State Park • Corkscrew Swamp State Park • Trinity United Church • Commercial Parking Lot • Newark Airport • Ford Canada Corporation • Private Residence • Private. Residence • Multnomah Arts Center Castaic Lake Water Agenry, Santa Clarita, CA 27,000 sq fr Wilton Manors, FL 37,165 sq ft Oakridges> ON 8,000 sq fr Peekskill; NY 20,000 sq fr Winter Park, FL 1,200 sq fr Atlanta, GA 400 sq fr South Shore, MA 1,000 sq fr Atlanta, GA 2,700 sq fr Dallas, TX 3,000 sq fr Jupiter Island, FL 3,500 sq fr Etobicoke, ON 9,000 sq ft North Hampton, NH 15,000 sq fr Winter Park, FL 3,000 sq fr Hilton Head, SC 900 sq fr St. Mary's, GA 4,000 sq fr Orlando, FL 1,800 sq fr Dallas, TX 4,000 sq fr Staten Island, NY 15,000 sq fr Hilton Head Island, SC ~ 1,800 sq fr Toronto, ON 3,000 sq fr Savannah, GA 10,000 sq fr Winter Park, FL 14,000 sq fr Waterford, CT 15,000 sq fr Vero Beach, FL 5,500 sq fr Sonoma, CA 3,500 sq fr Toronto, ON 7,000 sq ft Winter Park, FL 2,000 sq fr Westport, CT 32,000 sq ft Naples, FL 2,500 sq fr Grimsby, ON 10,000 sq fr Nantucket, MA 23,000 sq fr Newark, NJ 262,000 sq fr Oakville, ON 2,500 sq ft Long Island, NY 1,500 sq fr Sanibel Island, FL 395 sq fr Portland, OR 10,500 sq fr Please use this guide to review the extensive research that has been conducted 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 information, contact UNI-GROUP U.S.A. or your local UNI° Manufacturer. 4 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 polluted for fishing or swimming and 90% of our population lives within 10 miles of these bodies of water. ~ ~ 1_. ,,~ I~~ 67lLt '1Q, _ ~~y,i, Y` .~~,~3,. _ _s'_; Mickel Fielcl/Higfilands Park, Wilton Manors, FL With the implementation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater regulations in the early 1990s, state agencies, municipalities, and regional authorities began searching for new options in stormwater management. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers a number of benefits, including improved quality of surface waters, protection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation of water resources, and flood mitigation. Traditional flood control measures that rely on detention of peak flow are typical of many stormwater management approaches, buc generally do not target pollutant reduction, and often cause unwanted changes in hydrology and hydraulics. The EPA recommends an approach that integrates control of stormwater flows and the protection of natural systems to sustain aquatic habitats. Effective stormwater management is often achieved through a comprehensive management systems approach instead of individual practices. Some individual practices may not be effective alone, but may be highly effective when used in combination with other systems. The EPA's Phase II rule encourages system building to allow for the use of ' appropriate situation-specific practices that will achieve the minimum measures. Ordinances or other regulations are used to address post-construction runoff from new development or redevelopment projects. In addition, it is important to ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs. Governing authorities must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural and/or non-structural best management practices (BMPs) appropriate for their communities. Non-structural BMPs are preventative actions that involve management and source controls. Structural BMPs include storage practices, filtration practices, and infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely on infiltration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction. 0 Permeable pavements are considered structural BMPs under infiltration practices. From an engineering viewpoint, permeable pavements are infiltration trenches with paving over them to support pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Much of the design and construction is derived from experience with 'U; infiltration trench design, which has been used for years as a way to reduce ~ I ~ ~ ~' stormwater runoff and recharge groundwater. Permeable pavements should be ~ y , designed by civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects familiar with - '"' stormwater management concepts, especially the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) - - - ~ .... ~. . method, (now know as the National Resources Conservation Service or NRCS - "° ' ~` method). For years, porous pavements consisted of cast-in-place asphalt or concrete `"~'''-' = j! ;r,;y comprised of coarse aggregate, which had earned a poor reputation, as they tended to quickly clog and there was no way to renew porosity. Today, permeable = - - interlocking permeable pavements offer a better solution. _ . - - _= - _ UNI Eco-Stone`s is a permeable interlocking concrete pavement system designed to mitigate stormwater runoff through infiltration, thereby reducing = "= volume flows, improving water quality, and recharging groundwater. UNI Eco- .,,,.,~. "'~,,~ ~ ~ =~ -,yam Stone`s is a true interlocking paver that offers the structural support and stability of ! ".-. - ~~, `~ ~` traditional concrete pavers, combined with the environmental benefit of stormwater Wilcox Lake Park, Oakridges, ON management. Eco-Stone`' has a minimum compressive strength of 8000 psi, maximum 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 stability for industrial pavement applications. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN In addition to the EPA, other agencies and organizations are addressing the issue of development and the impact of stormwater runoff on the environment and society. According to the National Resources Defense Council, Low Impact Development (LID) has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling stormwater pollution and protecting watersheds. LID attempts to replicate pre-development hydrology to reduce the impacts of development. By addressing runoff close to the source, LID can enhance the environment and protect the public, while saving developers and local municipalities money. One of the primary goals of LID design is to reduce runoff volume by infiltrating rainwater into groundwater and finding beneficial uses for water as opposed to pouring it down storm sewers. Some of LID runoff control objectives include reducing impervious cover, preserving and recreating natural landscape features, and facilitating infiltration opportunities. LID principles are based on the premise that stormwater management should not be seen as stormwater disposal, but instead that numerous opportunities exist within a developed landscape to control stormwater close to the source. This allows development to occur with low environmental impact. LID is much more than the 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 national green building assessment system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council) certification to achieve benefits, come the closest to a comprehensive approach to sustainable projects. While private sector participation is voluntary, many municipalities are requiring that city-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 aself-assessing, voluntary building system for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. It evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspective over a building's life rycle, providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a "green building". It is afeature-oriented system where credits are earned for satisfying each criteria. UNI Eco-Stone° permeable pavers may qualify under two areas. Credit 6 -stormwater Management and Credit 7 -Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands. The intent of Credit 6 is to limit the disruption of natural water flows by minimizing stormwater runoff, increasing on-site infiltration, and reducing contaminants -pervious pavements are recommended. Credit 7's intent is to reduce heat islands (thermal. gradient differences between developed and undeveloped areas) to minimize impact on microclimate and human and wildlife 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, with higher values possible when pavers are manufactured using lighter color aggregates or white cement. 1Vlany local municipalities, regional authorities, and state agencies such as Departments of Environmental Protection are now recommending or requiring best management practices for the mitigation of stormwater and are providing information to residents and the business community about BMP practices and stormwater solutions. The City of Toronto, for example, promotes stormwater pollution education to residents and industry through advertising and their website. Among other suggestions, they recommend replacing impermeable surfaces with materials that allow for infiltration. The ciry.has approved Eco-Stone° for parking pads in residential applications. Websites of Interest: Natural Resources Defense Council - www.nrdc.org/water/pollutionlstorm/chapl2.asp Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials - www.nemo.uconn.edu EPA - www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/post_12.htm www.epa.gov/nps/lid.pdf EPA - www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter4/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 Hear Island Group - www.eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/Albedo City oEToronto - www.ciry.toronto.on.ca ii UNI ECO-STONE® PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO-STONE® PAVEMENT SYSTEM • The unique, patented design features funnel-like openings in the pavement surface, which Facilitate the infiltration of rainwater to reduce or eliminate stormwater runoff and maximize groundwater recharge and/or storage • Mitigates pollution impact on surrounding surface waters and may lessen or eliminate downstream flooding and stream bed and bank erosion • Improves water quality by infiltrating water through the base and soil, and also reduces runoff temperatures • Decreases project costs by reducing or eliminating drainage and retention systems required by impervious pavements and reduces the cost of compliance with many stormwater regulatory requirements • Permits better land-use planning, allowing more efficient use of available land for greater economic value • Provides a highly durable, yet permeable pavement capable of supporting vehicular loads Permeable interlocking concrete pavements do require greater initial site evaluation and design effort. They require a greater level of construction skill, inspection during construction and after installation, and attention to detail. In addition, maintenance is a critical aspect to help ensure long-term performance. It is recommended that a qualified professional engineer with experience in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for permeable interlocking concrete pavement applications. This guide is intended as an overview of construction guidelines and research conducted to date. Please see the research and reference sections for detailed guidance and additional information. Eco-Stone`s 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 emergency lanes, boat ramps, revetments, bike paths, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, and low-speed roadways. MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, INFILTRATION PRACTICES, AND OBJECTIVES Municipal polity, design criteria, and local experience usually govern the use of infiltration systems such as permeable pavements. Design criteria and regulations vary nationwide, as rainfall amounts, geography, climate, and land- use development patterns can vary widely. Most BMPs are designed for a specific design storm, for example a 2-year, 24- hour storm of 1.5 in./hr. (33 mm/hr) or volume from the first '/z to 1 in. (I3 , ~"~ ,~ " ~: to 25 mm). Though initial infiltration rates can be quite high with UNI Eco- ` ~' Stoney permeable pavements, a few studies have shown that long-term ; infiltration rates for permeable interlocking pavements in general range ~-;~!'. ~±Y 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 ~~ -a~'r- wish to use this conservative range as a guideline. This range would be able to .,~~ . _ - -~- infiltrate frequent, short duration rainstorms, of which 70-80% of North V` ~ __ -. America storms are comprised. -_ Some municipalities regulate both watec quality and quantity. They may require a criteria for reducing specific types of pollutants, such as phosphorous, metals, nitrogen, nitrates, and sediment, and water quality regulations are often written to protect lakes, streams, and rivers from problems associated with runoff. An increasing number of municipalities are limiting the use of impervious surfaces and many have created stormwater utilities to help cover the increasing costs of constructing, managing and maintaining stormwater drainage systems. ~. ~;~. Newark International Airport, NJ (Specialty aggregate surface texture) Selection of base, bedding, and joint/drainage opening fill materials will be guided by local stormwater management objectives. Generally, for runoff control, regulations try to meet one or more of four management objectives. • 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. • Infiltrate the increased runoff generated by development and impervious surfaces. The goal is to attain runoff volumes equal to or near those prior to development. Volumes are estimated prior to and after development, and the difference is to be infiltrated or stored, and then slowly released. Permeable pavements, 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 catchment area. Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are usually capable of infiltrating the first inch (25 mm) or more of runoff, which helps reduce the "first flush" of pollutants in this initial runoff volume. Grass swales and sand filters provide additional filtering and removal of some pollutants in rainwater, and designers may want to consider using them in conjunction with permeable pavements for added benefits. • Infiltrate sufficient 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 downstream flooding. Permeable interlocking concrete pavements 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 variety of tools for designing Eco-Stone° permeable interlocking concrete pavements. Please refer to the research section of this guide for information on designing the Eco- Stone° pavement system. In addition, we offer PCSWMM'" Permeable Pavement software for the hydraulic design of Eco-Stone° permeable pavements. The computational engine is the Runoff module of the USEPA's 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 captured by the pavement (i.e. no surface runoff occurs). Though this model is based on this zero. runoff scenario, design parameters can be adjusted to meet other stormwater management objectives. PCSWMM~' for Permeable Pavements software is a tool to aid design professionals and provides general guidance. It is intended for use by professional civil engineers and is not a substitute for engineering skill and judgement and in no way is intended to replace the services of experienced, qualified engineers. DESIGN OPTIONS -FULL, PARTIAL OR NO EXFILTRATION Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are typically built over an open-graded or rapid-draining crushed stone base, though a variety of aggregate materials, including free-draining and dense- graded, may be used depending on design parameters. In any case, fines passing the No. 200 sieve should be less than 3%. In addition to runoff reduction, permeable pavements may be designed to filter pollutants, treat the "first flush", lower runoff temperature, and remove total suspended solids (TSS). Because it provides for infiltration and partial treatment of stormwater, it is considered a structural BMP (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 capacity over time. For installations where slow-draining subgrade soils are present and only partial Cross-Secnon ofryplcalEco-Stone® pavement exfiltration will occur, perforated pipes can drain excess runoff. Often, these pipes are sized smaller than typical drainage pipes in traditional pavement applications. If no exfiltration will occur due to site limitations, all the stored water would need to be directed to drains, though the flow rates would be reduced by the infiltration through the system. L i~ In addition, if high levels of pollutants 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 between the base and the subgrade. According to the EPA, there are four cases where permeable- interlocking concrete pavements should not exfltrate and where an impervious liner might be used. • When the depth from the bottom of the base to the high level of the water table is less than 2 ft (0.6 m), or when there is not sufficient depth of the soil to offer adequate filtering and treatment of pollutants. • Directly over solid rock, or over solid rock with no loose rock layer above it. • Over aquifers where there isn't sufficient depth of soil to filter the pollutants 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, etc. Even if these situations are not present, some soils may have a low permeability. As a result, water is usually stored in the base to slowly infiltrate into the soils. In some cases, there may be a more permeable soil layer below a low or non-permeable layer, where it may be cost effective to drain the water with a french drain or pipes through this layer into the soil with greater permeability. SITE SELECTION GUIDELINES Eco-Stone° permeable interlocking concrete pavers can be used for a wide variety of residential, commercial, municipal and industrial applications (ECOLOC°). In addition to some of the guidelines previously described; permeable pavements should be at least 100 ft (30 m) from water supply wells, wetlands, and streams, though local regulations may supercede this requirement. There are however, certain circumstances when permeable pavements should not be used. Any site classified as a stormwater hotspot (anywhere there is risk that stormwater could infiltrate and contaminate groundwater) is not a candidate for permeable pavements. 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, the total catchment area draining into the permeable pavement is greater than 5 acres, or the pavement is downslope from building foundations where the foundations have piped drainage at the footers. INFILTRATION RATE DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS One of the most common misconceptions in designing permeable pavements is the assumption that the amount ,_.,J ' ~ t- -~ ~~- ~ or percentage of open surface area is equal to the percentage of perviousness. For '~ - example, a designer might incorrectly assume that a 20% open area is only 20% 1 f ~ ~ pervious. The permeability and amount of infiltration are dependent on the infiltration rates of the joint and drainage opening material, bedding layer, and 5 ) ~ ~ 1 base materials. Compared to soils, Eco-Stone° permeable interlocking concrete 1, _ pavements have a very high degree of infiltration. The crushed aggregate used for J { ;1 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 Drainage openings in Eco-Stone° surface in.lhr. (over 10' to 10-= m/sec). Though the initial infiltration rates for these aggregate materials are very high, it is important to consider the lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross-section, including the soil subgrade. As this may be difficult to predict, designers may want to use a conservative approach when calculating the design infiltration rate. Limited research has shown that permeability decreases with the age of the pavement, rainfall intensities, and the conditions under which it is used and maintained. This holds true for infiltration trenches as well. In studies, newly installed permeable pavements demonstrated infiltration rates of about 9 in./hr (6 x 10 5 m/sec), while pavements ranging from 2 to 5 years old had infiltration rates from 3 to 6 in./hr (2 x 10-5 to 4 x 10 5 m/sec). CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION GUIDELINES The objective of permeable pavements is to infiltrate and store the runoff and drain it into the subgrade, or if the subgrade is impermeable, into a drainage system. Proper construction of permeable interlocking concrete pavements is crucial to the long-term performance,and success of the system. It is important 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 "' '~"~ `l ~ with infiltration trenches). This will help ensure the specified materials and design ~~" ` . ~ ~ ~~~ j `~ parameters selected by the engineer are followed. Though a range of materials '- ': i ma be used for the oint and draina e o enin beddin and base la ers, some %'~ ~,~ Y 1 g P g~ g~ Y - general guidelines have been included here. Consul[ the UNI Eco-Stone° design manuals and the PCSWMM'" program for more information on designing Eco- Stone° permeable pavements. Jordan Cove Development, Waterford, CT A professional engineer with soils experience should assess the site's subgrade soils for design strength, permeabiliry, and compaction requirements. The Unified Soils Classification System provides general guidance on the suitability of soils for the infiltration of stormwater and bearing capacity. 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 conditions and specific characteristics. Aminimum tested infiltration for full enfiltration subject to vehicular traffic is 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x 10-6 m/sec), though some areas may require higher or lower rates. With virtually all interlocking concrete pavements, including permeable pavements, compaction of the subgrade soil is required to ensure adequate structural stability and to minimize rutting. However, compaction does reduce the infiltration rate of soils. Therefore, this should be considered in the drainage design calculations for the project. Typically, the soil subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density for pedestrian pavements, and to a minimum 95% modified Proctor density for vehicular applications. Some native soils, typically silty sands and sands, have enough strength (a soaked. CBR of at least 5%) that compaction may not be required. For many years, engineers attempted to design pavements that kept water out of the base and subgrade layers, as water in a typical "impervious" pavement structure was recognized as a primary cause of distress. However, over the last ~ 5 years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials. (AASHTO), and the Corps of Engineers (COE) have given the subsurface drainage of pavements much consideration. They have found that the use of rapid-draining or open-graded permeable bases in many pavement designs can result in longer pavement life (see Additional Reference section for more information). For the base layer, a crushed stone, open-graded or rapid-draining. aggregate is generally recommended, though as discussed earlier, other aggregate materials may be used depending on design parameters and objectives. The base must be designed and constructed to prevent the pavement from becoming saturated and losing its load-bearing capacity in the presence of water, and stability 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 susceptibility to frost, as well as anticipated traffic loads. The water storage capacity of the base will vary with _ its depth and the percentage of void spaces in it (void space of a certain material can be supplied by the quarry or determined by testing). Please see the UNI-GROUP ~ ~, ~~ b,-: U.S.A. Eco-Stone° design manuals for additional information on base material ~ l~ ~- ~) :~ ,: . selection and contact your local UNI° manufacturer for guidance on recommended ~ ~• materials for your region. The base is installed in 4 to 6 in. (100-150 mm) lifts and is compacted. If open-graded materials are used, the larger size aggregates may create an '~-~ - . ~~~ uneven surface when compacted. A 2 in. (50 mm) layer of ASTM No. 8 or No. 9 ~~ ~ . crushed aggregate may be "choked" into the top of the open-graded material to ~_ stabilize the surface and help meet filter criteria. In some cases, open-graded bases `^ ~ ~ -`' '~ may be stabilized with asphalt or cement if necessary to increase, structural capacity. ECOLOC'A indusrrza! permeable pavers However, it should be noted that this may reduce storage capacity of the base and must be carefully monitored during construction. The Asphalt Institute and Portland Cement Association provide guidelines on constructing these bases. For the bedding layer, testing has shown that 2-5 mm clean, crushed aggregate containing no fines provided the best performance in satisfying both structural and infiltration requirements. It should be screeded to a 1 to 1.5 in. 10 0 n 0 (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. If filter criteria between the layers of the pavement (subgrade, base, and ; bedding) cannot be maintained with the aggregate materials selected for the project, ~>~~ ~~ ~ », ,~ :;~ or if traffic loads or soils require additional structural support, geotextiles or geogrids ~ ' ~ I ~, are often used. They are almost always used between the subgrade and the base. „~; ~+ ;,: ~ -- Consult the FHWA and AASHTO for information on geotextile 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. ~Me hanical installation at Howard Hook Port of New York/New jersey The UNI Eco-Stone° pavers are installed on the screeded bedding layer and are compacted with a plate compactor. After initial compaction, the joints and voids are filled with 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 type of permeable pavement can become clogged with sediment overtime, reducing infiltration and storage capacity. When properly constructed and maintained, permeable interlocking concrete pavements should provide 20 to 25 years of service life. Traffic levels and type of usage, as well as sources that may wash sediment onto the paver surface often dictate how quickly the pavement might experience reduced infiltration levels. The property owner plays an important role in the maintenance of permeable pavements. Many local municipalities and regional governing authorities require a maintenance agreement to help ensure long-term performance of all types of BMPs. Recent testing at Guelph University in Ontario, Canada on Eco-Stone° parking lot pavements installed in 1994 indicated that trafficked areas with high clogging potential had lower permeability values than areas with low clogging potential such as parking stalls and areas near vegetated medians. Tests demonstrated that it was possible to regenerate infiltration rates by removing some of the drainage void material and refilling the openings with fresh material. It should be noted that these pavements had NEVER been cleaned or maintained over the years, yet much of the pavement still infiltrated sufficient amounts of stormwater. Numerous research studies done over the years at this site have found that the Eco-Stone° pavements were capable of substantially reducing contamir-ants in stormwater and exhibited reduced thermal impact loads. Please see the research section of this guide for additional information. It is highly recommended that permeable pavers be inspected and cleaned at regular intervals to ensure optimum performance. Depending on the amount and type of traffic on the pavement and its potential for clogging, cleaning may be needed from twice a year to every 3 or 4 years. An indication that the pavement needs to be cleaned is when surface ponding occurs after rain storms. Vacuum sweepers can be used to remove any encrusted sediment on the 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 CONSIDERATIONS 11 In northern climates 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 designer may wish to incorporate a 1-2% slope as a safety 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 standard equipment. Deicing salts are not recommended, as salt will infiltrate into the base and subgrade, and sand should be avoided as it will reduce infiltration of the system. However, the Eco-Stone" surface, made up of joints, openings, and the units themselves (as opposed to a continuous area of slick pavement) may help provide traction under snowy conditions. 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 are included as well as tables on infiltration test and rates, permeability values, filter criteria, potential drainage void gradations, and more. Sample design cross sections are also included. A 4-page addendum of updated research was added in 1999. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • Purpose • Description Subgrade and Base Course Surfacing Materials • DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS • Structural Considerations • Water Impact on Design Wearing Course and Bedding Layer Base and Subbase Courses Subgrade • Hydraulic Design • Filter Requirements • Special Considerations • SPECIFICATIONS • APPLICATIONS • CONCLUSIONS • REFERENCES • SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS 12 DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES FOR UNI ECO-STONE® PERMEABLE PAVEMENT Dan G. Zollinger, Su Ling Cao, and Daryl Poduska - 1998 GENERAL SUMMARY 1 'I u 1 The information provided in this report, based on testing begun in 1994 at the Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A & M University under the direction of professor Dan Zollinger, serves as a guideline for the design of concrete paver block pavement systems using UNI Eco-Stone°. The guidelines are organized to give the reader a brief review of basic hydrological concepts as they pertain to the design of pavements and the benefits of using UNI Eco-Stone° in pavement construction projects. Information is provided on how runoff infiltration can be controlled in the pavement subsurface and its interaction with the performance of the pavement system. A method is provided to determine the amount of infiltration and the storage capacity of a permeable base relative to the time of retention and degree of saturation associated with the characteristics of the base. The guidelines contain a simple step-by-step process for the engineer to select the best pavement alternative in terms of base materials and gradations for the given drainage, subgrade strength conditions, and the criteria for maximum allowable rutting. OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • Advantages of Using UNI Eco-Stone° Pavement • The Considerations for Water • The Purpose of This Report • GENERAL HYDROLOGY CONCEPTS • Rainfall • Intensity-Frequency Duration Curve . • The Depth of Rainfall • Storm Water Runoff Volume • Unit Hydrograph • SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM • Computation of Runoff • SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN • Introduction • General Considerations Properties of Material Design Alternatives • .Design Criteria Inflow Considerations Outflow Considerations Removal by Subgrade Percolation Removal by Subsurface Drainage The Selection of Base Material Filter 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 • APPENDIX B • UNI Eco-Stone° Pavement Design and Drainage Worksheet • APPENDIX C • Storm Frequency Data • APPENDIX D • Permeability and Gradation Data 13 INFILTRATION AND STRUCTURAL TESTS OF PERMEABLE ECO-PAVING B. Shackel, J.O. Kaligis, Y. Muktiarto, and Pamudji GENERAL SUMMARY In laboratory tests conducted on UNI Eco-Stone° and UNI Eco-Loc° in 1996 by Dr. Brian Shackel at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, measurements of water penetration under heary simulated rainfall were studied, and the structural capacities of the paver surfaces were evaluated. A range of bedding, jointing, and drainage void materials was tested, ranging from 2mm to l Omm aggregates. The best performance was achieved with a' clean 2mm- 5mm 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 MATERIALS • 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 ability of the pavements to accept rainfall. , 3. Blinding the pavements. with a conventional laying sand reduced the amount of water penetrating the pavement by nearly 50% at moderate rainfall intensities. 4. There was little significant difference in water infiltration in pavement blinded by sand from that observed for pavements using a sand complying with ASTM grading C33, as the bedding, jointing, and drainage medium. 5. The use of ASTM grading C33 appears inappropriate where water infiltration is the prime function of the pavement. 6. At crossfalls below 2%, the type of Eco-paver and the laying pattern did not significantly affect the infiltration bf water into the pavement. 7. At a cross fall of 10%, the Eco-Loc° pavers accepted water more readily than Eco-Stone°. 8. It was not possible to obtain any significant structural capaciry in pavements where the joints were left unfilled, and where the mechanism of load transmission between the pavers was solely via the spacer nibs'. 9. In pavements using a l Omm 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 capability 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 difficulty of getting sand into joints that were already partially filled with aggregate. 12. There was no structural problem associated with closely spaced continuous joints running through the Eco-Loc° cluster pavements. Such joints are a severe simulation of the situation encountered when machine laying paving clusters. In other words, in the tests described here, there was no intrinsic problem associated with cluster laying. Overall, the 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 testing of the UNI Eco-Stone® Paving System was begun at.Guelph University in Ontario, Canada, under the direction of William James, Professor of Environmental Engineering and Water Resources Engineering. The research has generated several graduate theses with a focus on .environmental engineering and stormwater management: Summaries of the theses are to follow. THE LEACHING OF POLLUTANTS FROM FOUR PAVEMENTS USING 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 determine ' the effect offree-draining porous pavement as an alternative to conventional impervious surfaces. Runoff volume, pollutant load, and the quantity and quality of pollutants in actual rainwater percolating through or running off these pavements under various simulated rainfall durations and intensities were studied. UNI Eco-Stone® was found to substantially reduce both runoff and contaminants. The report includes tables and charts documenting volumes of runoff collected on various slopes, water penetration testing, water quality characteristics of the surface runoff -including trace metals, pH, phenols, sodium, nitrates, and concentrations of pollutants at all levels within the pavements. Numerous references are also included. OUTLINE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objectives of the study 1.2 Scope of the study 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Nature of Water 2.1.1 Properties of water 2.1.2 Acidity ' 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 Pollutants 2.3.1 Atmospheric sources of water pollution 2.3.2 Man-made sources of water pollution 2.4 Porous pavement 2.4.1 Types of porous pavements ' 2.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages 2.4.3 Porous pavement as an infiltration system 2.4.4 Previous research ' 2.5 Asphalt pavement 2.6 Temperature effects 3.0 PROCESSES AT THE PAVEMENT 3.1 Impact energy of raindrops 3.2 Splash distribution 3.3 Chemical reactions with the water 3.4 Erosion of loose particles 3.5 Particulate wadi-off throughout the pavement 15 4.0 5.0 G.0 7.0 3.6 Surface infiltration 3.6.1 Infiltration equations 3.6.2 Infiltration process 3.6.3 Infiltration zones 3.7 Water percolation 3.8 Solution of chemicals in the pavement 3.9 Clogging of pores THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 4.1 Water collection 4.1.1 Laboratory rainwater 4.1.2 Fresh rainwater 4.2 The rainfall simulator 4.2.1 Rainfall intensity calibration 4.2.2 Areal uniformity calibration 4.3 Test pavements 4.4 Instrumentation for sampling 4.5' Sampling in the field 4.6 Laboratory analyses 4.6.1 Laboratory apparatus 4.7 Mass balance RESULTS 5.1 Simulated rainwater calibration 5.2 Rainwater quality 5.3 Volume 5.3.1 Rate of removal 5.4 Water quality 5.4.1 Pollutant concentrations 5.4.2 Comparison between LAB rain leachate and tap water leachate 5.4.3 Mass of pollutants DISCUSSION 6.1 Difference between LAB and WDS rain 6.2 Dynamics of water movement 6.2.1 Water movement within the soil . 6.2.2 Surface percolation 6.2.3 Water movement in the subgrade 6.2.4 Runoff collection 6.2.5 Ponding 6.3 Water quality 6.3.1 pH 6.3.2 Oxygen demand parameter 6.3.3 Solids 6.3.4 Conductivity 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 6.3.1 OMetals 6.3.11 Bacteria counts 6.4 Rain-pavement interaction 6.5 Mass balance CONCLUSIONS 1. Rainwater is very acidic in the city of Guelph, having a pH of approximately 3.4 when it first makes contact with the ground. It takes almost 2 hours after collection to release CO, into the atmosphere and reach a pH of 5.5. At this pH, it takes at least 72 hours before it neutralizes to a pH of 7. 16 2. Impervious asphalt pavements produce large amounts of surface runoff, compared to porous pavements, for similar rainfall intensities and durations. Porous pavement is evidently a very effective way of reducing the quantity of stormwater runoff from areas such as parking lots that are normally paved with asphalt. 3. For all gradients, EC3 (UNI Eco-Stone° with 3" base and joints filled with washed stone) performed the best at reducing surface runoff from all the pavements studied. 4. The total void size on the porous pavement surfaces is one of the main factors that affects permeability, 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 infiltrated through the pavement. 5. In these experiments, EC3, EC4 (Eco-Stone° with 4" base and joints filled with a mixture of washed stone and sand), and PC (regular concrete pavers) pavements did not clog, due to the short duration of all the experiments. In addition, the pavements were placed in the laboratory, and hence, no dust or any other particulate accumulated on the surface and in the joints. 6. PC> EC3, and EC4 performed well in reducing volume of surface runoff at 1%, 5%, and 10% gradients with rainfall intensities lower than 55.6mm•hr. At higher rainfall intensities, ponding occurred at the joints and at the outlets, which slowed down the 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 mixture of stone and sand in one, and sand alone in the 1 other, respectively. 8. The runoff collected from porous pavement in the laboratory showed very low concentrations in all water quality parameters, especially in oils and grease, phenols, heavy metals, and bacteria counts. Eco-Stone° pavements showed the lowest concentrations in these parameters of the three pavements. 9. Percolation through the porous pavements surface and underlying media slowed the water flow. The process allowed more time for oxidation; the water had more time to 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 appeared 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 asphalt surface (AS). 11. The porous pavement surface runoff had pH values more alkaline than the asphalt surface gave pH values that were almost neu'rral. 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 contained a concentration of phenols higher than the concentrations found in the porous pavement surface and subgrades. 14. The leachate from the pavements contained contaminants mainly from rainwater in the atmosphere. Hence, the processes that take place at the surface of the pavements are mainly due to the process of rainfall as it falls on the ground (i.e., raindrop distribution, rainfall energy, and acidity of the rainwater). 15. The laboratory experiments on porous pavement generally proved that'the water is not being contaminated from the surface of these pavements or their bedding materials, but rather from the external environment, as proven by the parking lot runoff analyses. With AS, the surface is made from the combustion of petroleum products, and hence, some of the pollutants will originate from the surface, as in oil, grease, and phenols. 16. Porous pavement appears to have significant long-term benefits compared to conventional asphalt pavements in terms of its ability to reduce the quantity of stormwater pollutants. EC3 reduced the amount of ' stormwater pollutants more than the other porous pavement. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the data gathered and conclusions reached in this study, recommendations that may be made include: 1. In addition to the ability to reduce runoff, the porous pavements will have lower surface runoff temperature, as the water penetrates through the pavement. Hence, an experiment to examine temperature of runoff under laboratory conditions will be valuable. The water quality analyses were performed at a constant temperature (25°C). Temperature changes will have a great impact on water quality, 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 tests on water quality of stormwater runoff, some parameters remained almost constant. The contaminants that need not be examined in detail include TKN, NHS, BOD, COD, and some metals such as cadmium and chromium. t 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, lead, nickel, and copper. 5. From the data obtained in this study, although the pH of runoff from asphalt seemed to be more neutral than the porous pavement pH, more investigation of the pH is needed in order to reach a more definite conclusion on the performance of AS vs porous pavement in terms of pH. 6. Since hydraulic conductivity is mainly dependent on temperature, when examining temperature, hydraulic conductivity will be an important 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 study. 8. Porous pavements should be used in many applications of low traffic volume to effect significant reductions in stormwater runoff. Qualitative and quantitative experiments should be carried out on porous pavement on lightly used roads. 9. Future experiments can be conducted using different conditions to give a more complete and detailed characterization of the performance of porous pavements. r 18 1 In u n EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF STO~ATER RUNOFF FROM TWO PAVING SURFACES Brian Uerspagen -.1995 GENERAL SUMMARY This 173-page study examines the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from an impervious asphalt surface and a UNI Eco-Stone° permeable paver surface. The pavement samples were heated and a rainfall simulator was used to generate rainfall and cool the pave-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 the two types of pavement. The study revealed that the UNI Eco-Storie° pavement produced very little surface runoff and exhibited less thermal impact than the asphalt surface. The ' environmental advantage with the Eco-Stone° permeable pavement is its ability to allow rainfall to infiltrate the surface and thereby reduce total thermal loading on surrounding surface waters. Tables include surface runoff observations, sample and instrumented pavement comparison and temperature differences, and surface temperature data. Figures include the impact of urbanization on stream temperature, surface runoff temperature comparisons for asphalt and Eco- Stone° pavements, surface energy budgets under various conditions, and surface 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 of Energy Budget and Heat Transfer Equations 2.5 Rainfall Simulation 3.0 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Surface and Heat Transfer Equations 3.2 Thermal Enrichmenr of Surface Runoff 4.0 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT 4.1 The Test Pavements 4.2 The Rainfall Simulator 4.3 Rainfall Calibration and Intensity Selection 4.4 Data Collection and Sources 4.5 Heating the Test Samples 4.6 Comparison to Outdoor Conditions 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Surface Temperature Observations 5.2 Low and Medium Intensity Rainfall (25mm•hr' & 115mm•hr') 5.3 High Intensity Rainfall (190mm•hr') 5.4 Regression Analysis 6.0 DISCUSSION 6.1 Accuracy of the Proposed Equations 6.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the Thermal Enrichment Relationship 6.3 Comparison of Asphalt and Paving Stone Surfaces . 6.4 Applicability 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Several conclusions may be inferred from the information presented in this study: 1. Both the asphalt surface and the porous paving stone surface used for the experiments conducted in this study caused increases in the temperature of the surface runoff, the paving stone surface less so than the asphalt surface. 19 2. Uery little surface runoff was observed from the porous paving stone sample. 3. The rainfall intensity, thermal conductivity of the pavement, initial surface runoff temperature, and initial 1 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 UNI-GROUP U.S.A. producers where: A=0.0047xi-5.18xks-0.13x TIS+0.15x Ttr-1.55 B = -0.0294 x i -.2.26 x ks + 0.52 x TZS + 0.07 x Tir - 14.62 1 where i is the rainfall intensity [mm•hr']; ks is the thermal conductivity of the surface [kW m~'•°C]; Tts is the initial surface runoff temperature[°C]; Ttr is the initial rainfall temperature[°C]; and t is the time after the start of the 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 the 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 runoff be considered when new developments are proposed 2. . That thermally-sensitive pavement materials be used more extensively than in current applications 3. . That the relationship presented in this study be used to estimate the magnitude of the thermal enrichment 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. That 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 the instrumented parking lot. 1 20 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF TEST SECTIONS OF POROUS PAVEMENTS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF PARKING LOT RUNOFF Michael Kaestner Thompson, P.Eng. - 1995 GENERAL SUMMARY This 162-page thesis examines the design, construction, and instrumentation of four rest 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 iti parking areas and low speed roadways. Appropriately designed Eco-Stone° pavements 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 to 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 orientation, thermocouple details, and drainage patterri. Photographs include the subbase drainage system, base drainage system, surface inlet drains, connecting pipes, thermocouple, and wet/dry precipitation sampler. The tables include a pollutant summary for highway runoff; pavement thickness and materials used, collected event summary, temperature results, rainfall volume summary, surface and sub-surface load summary, contaminant analysis and investigation, and concentrations and total loads. Results are 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 i~ n w ~l 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Literature Review 2.1.1 Porous and Asphalt Runoff Quality 2.1.2 Temperature 2.1.3 Vehicular Particulate and Emissions Discharge 2.2 Porous Pavements 2.3 Instrumentation and Data Collection 3.0 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MATERIAIS BUDGET 3.1 Materials Budget 3.1.1 Pollutant Build-up, PBU 3.1.2 Pollutant Wash-off; PWO 3.1.3 Net Accumulation, NAC 4.0 INSTRUMENTED PAVEMENTS 4.1 Tesr Pavements 4.2 Laboratory Test Pavements 4.3 Instrumentation 4.4 Flow Paths 5.0 INSTRUMENTATION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING 5.1 Water Samplers 5.2 Tipping Bucket Runoff Gauge (TBRG) 5.3 Thermocouples 5.4 Datalogger and Accessories 5.4.1 Datalogger 5.4.2 Multiplexer 5.4.3 Programming 5.5 Weather Station 5.6 Wet/Dry Precipitation Collector 21 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Temperatures 6.3 Contaminant Load Results 6.3.1 Flow Results 6.3.2 Contaminant Results 6.3.3 Contaminant Load Analysis 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions The purpose of this study was to construct instrumented pavements for a study of porous pavement as an alternative to impermeable pavement for use in parking lots where traffic speed is less than 50km/hr. Four instrumented test pavements were built in parking lot P10 at the University 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 instrumentation of the facility. 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 facility for future porous pavement research for application in North America. 2. The materials budget that was developed provides a preliminary background on the build-up and wash-off processes that are involved. The constructed and instrumented test pavements provided the information necessary in understanding the materials budget. 3. Pavement temperatures were recorded between the months of June to September, 1994. Surface temperatures are directly related 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 pavements show more adverse results than the other pavements. 4. In the summer, average daily temperatures were generally similar for all the pavement surfaces..Average temperatures for one pavement can be applied to all pavements. 5. Base temperatures measured approximately 1~ cm below the surface, showed a lower diurnal range than the surface temperatures. Maximum base temperatures were less than the surface temperatures, at least in early summer. 6. Sub-base temperatures, measured up to 600 mm below the surface, showed little diurnal temperature fluctuation. In early summer, sub-base temperatures were lower than surface temperatures. 7. 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° effectively reduces the amount of surface runoff: Runoff was only generated from the surface when the rainfall intensity exceeded the infiltration rates of the pavement. UNI Eco-Stone° proved to be an adequate porous pavement for reducing surface contaminant runoff loads. 7.2 Recommendations 1. Improvements are necessary in the flow measurement. The use of a datalogger is recommended to adequately record flows. However, the TBRGs require further improvement or replacement. 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 the best size barrel for each of the catchments. 2. The. present system is designed to measure. ground temperatures and not runoff temperatures. Additional work is necessary for reliable measurement of runoff and precipitation temperatures. A system is necessary to accurately measure the runoff water temperature as it passes through the layers. This would allow a better understanding of the role of temperatures; runoff, and pavements. 3. The asphalt surface thermocouple requires constant observation due to the damage originally sustained. Continuous -nonitoring of the temperature from the asphalt is necessary to ensure accurate measurement of temperature. This is also true for all the pavements and layers. 4.. Particular work is necessary in the heat transfer process between the pavement and water. Appropriate instrumentation is necessary to accurately assess these water temperatures. 22 S. 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 Im roveme ts are necessa to ensure . p n ry adequate drainage of the surfaces. Adequate drainage of the system can be effectively accomplished by removing two of the pavements, i.e:, the CP and the E3 pavements could be removed. CP would then be l i h E4 d h d h rep ace w t , t is oubling t e 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 the study is completed. 1 7 ii 23 LONG-TERM STO~ATER INFILTRATION THROUGH CONCRETE PAVERS Christopher Kresin - 1996 GENERAL SUMMARY This 188-page study investigates the infiltration capacity of porous concrete paver installations of various ages. Using a rainfall simulating infiltrometer, several test plots at four UNI Eco-Stone® installations were subjected to a total of 60 tests comprising two simulated rainfalls of known intensity and duration. The first rainfall provides initial moisture losses to wetting the drainage cell material, while data collected during the secorid rainfall is used to calculate effective infiltration capacity. Long-term stormwater management modeling was reviewed and suggestions made to enhance the modeling capabilities of the United States Environmental Protection Agency'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 capacity of the UNI Eco-Stone® pavements decreased with age and degree of compaction (traveled versus untraveled), it could be improved with removal of the top layer of the drainage cell aggregate material. The report also noted that all but two of the sites studied were constructed with improper drainage cell material, which restricted the potential infiltration. The thesis strongly recommends that Eco-Stone® installations be constructed and maintained as per the manufacturers' specifications to ensure adequate performance. The tables include simulated rainfall intensities, effective infiltration rates and capacities, grain-size analysis results, drainage cell material analysis, and SWMM run times. Figures show typical permeable pavement structure, soil moisture zones, SWMM program organiiation, uniformity coe~cients and intensities at various pressures, grain-size distribution curves for previous research and test sites, and porous pavement water balance. Photographic documentation includes various trash, oil deposits, and vegetation in drainage cells, the test plot delineator, test .plot under rainfall conditions, rainfall simulator, drainage cell material extraction and crust removal, stormwater runoff, and test site locations. OUTLINE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Objective 1.2 Study Scope 1.3 Need 2.0 REVIEW OF URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES 2.1 Urban stormwater Management 2.1.1 Traditional 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 Infiltration Hydrology 3.2.1 Determination of Infiltration Capacity 3.3 Rainfall Simulators , 3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation 3.4 Spatial Variability and Scale Effects 3.4.1 Spatial Variability 3.4.2 Scale Effects 24 1 ~~ 0 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 Intensity Calibration and Spatial Uniformity 4.3 Experimental Procedure 4.4 Experimental Design 4.5 Description of Test Installations 4.6 Computational Methods 4.6.1 Computational Process -Example Calculations 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Darry Infiltration Capacities 5.2 EDC (External Drainage Cell) and Crust Materials 6.0 DISCUSSION 6.1 Regeneration of Infiltration Capacity 6.2 Reliability of Results 6.2.1 Data Collection Phase . 6.2.2 Calculation Phase 6.3 Permeable Pavement Design and Installation 6.3.1 UNI Eco-Stone° Installation and Specifications 6.4 Cost Comparison -MICBEC (Modular Interlocking Concrete Block with External Drainage Cells) and. PAP (Porous Asphalt Pavement) 6.4.1 Capital 6.4.2 Maintenance and Repair 6.4.3 Environmental 6.5 SWMM and Permeable Pavement 6.5.1 LF90 Performance Enhancement 6.5.2 Accommodation of More Complex Models 6.5.3 Code Modifications 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conclusions Based on Experimental Results 1. Infiltration capacity of UNI Eco-Stone° MICBEC pavers decreases as the installation ages. 2. Infiltration capacities at UNI Eco-Stone° installations decreases with increased compaction. 3. Infiltration capacity of the EDC crusts, found to be significantly affected by age, limits fEo. 4. fEo may be regenerated, most probably to some fraction of initial fEo, by street sweeping/vacuuming the Eco-Stone° surface. 5. fEo is affected to a greater extent by EDC fines content than organic matter content. 6. Most fines are trapped near the surface of the EDC material. 7. Except for Sites lA and 1 B, UNI Eco-Stone° installations are constructed with improper EDC material, which restricts potential f Eo. 8. fEo values of the magnitudes presented in this study would not provide infiltration of the smallest storms common to the Toronto area. 9. SWMM currently can not simulate the response of permeable pavement. 10. SWMM can be modified to model systems that include permeable pavements, over along-term, efficiently and effectively. 7.2 Conclusions Based on Literature Review and Observations 1. Infiltrating stormwater is environmentally beneficial. 2. Permeable pavement is an effective infiltration BMP. 3. Eco-Stone° offers limited benefits when used for small surface areas as stormwater does not have adequate time to infiltrate the porous pavement. 4. Porous and conventional asphalt pavement 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 recommended: 1. UNI Eco-Stone° installations must be constructed and maintained to manufacturer's specifications to ensure adequate performance. 2. Permeable pavement installations should be constructed with minimal slope 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 conducted 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 fEo. 2. How well UNI Eco-Stone° performs under freezing conditions. 3. An appropriate Eco-Stone° maintenance frequenry. 26 ~~ t 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 feasibility 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 simulate the response of permeable pavements in long-term modeling applications. The infiltration capacity of the permeable pave-ment was determined from past studies of UNI Eco-Stone® and accounts for degradation over time and regeneration by mechanical means. Various simulations run with the proposed new code indicated that using permeable pavements could greatly reduce flows when compared to impervious surfaces. Figures include types of permeable pavers, typical 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 Kresn's experimental results, subcatchment surface classification, RUNOFF block input data, sample calculations, and description of permeable pavement parameters for various tests. Also included is a potential source code for a 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 Quantity 2.5 Water Quality 2.6 Subsurface Quality . 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 SWMM RUNOFF Block 3.5 subcatchment Schematization 3.6 Infiltration in the SWMM RUNOFF Block 3:6.1 Horton Method 3.6.2 Horton Method in SWMM 3.6.3 Green-Ampt Method 3.7 Entering Data in SWMM 4.0 COMPILING WITH LF90 VER 4.0 4.1 FORTRAN 4.2 Compiling 4.2.1 Lahey FORTRAN Compiler 4.3 Compiling SWMM 4.4 5.0 NEW CODE AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 5.1 Changes made to the SWMM 4.4 Program 5.2 Changes to RHYDRO.FOR 5.3 Changes to CATCH.FOR 27 G.0 7.0 5.4 Changes to WSHED.FOR 5.5 Addition of PERMEA.INC 5.6 Addition of PERMPAV.FOR 5.7 Quality Assurance 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 Conductivities 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 permeable pavement. 2. Various simulations, with the proposed new source code, indicated that the model produces reasonable results. under a generalized set of input conditions. 3. As expected, simulations showed that using permeable pavement can greatly reduce flows when compared to impervious surfaces. 4. Difficulties can arise in receiving programming support with SWMM because of the size and complexity of the code and numerous authors over the past 30 years. 7.2 Recommendations 1. The validity of the new source code must be tested using observed data from permeable pavement installations. 2. Test should be conducted using shorter time steps (1 minute). 3. Modifications should be made to connect the permeable pavement subroutine to the groundwater routine. 4. Clarification of the water depth in the reservoir of the permeable pavement structure should be made. 5. Possible modifications to the new source code should be made after further alpha and beta testing. 6. Further research must be conducted on the degradation of the infiltration capacity. 7. Appropriate guidelines for maintenance frequency must be established to ensure that the flow reducing qualities of permeable pavement remain effective. 8. Modifications to the SWMM code should be made to incorporate the water quality aspects of permeable pavement for long-term, continuous simulations. 9. Proper documentation must be prepared to support the proposed new code. 10. Instructional material should be developed and distributed for instruction in the use of the proposed new code. 28 CI u 1 C RESTORATION 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 University of Guelph that was installed in 1994. The objectives were to determine how infiltration capacity, volatile organic matter, heavy metal concentration, and particle size analysis of the drainage void material vary with average daily traffic use and surface ponding. Using a rainfall infiltrometer, 110 test plots were subjected to 420 tests comprising two simulated rainfall events of known intensity and duration. Data collected during the second rainfall was used to calculate effective infiltration capacity. Preliminary results yielded different results for infiltration capacity and particle size analysis of the drainage void material for the different average daily traffic uses. The purpose of the research was to test the hypothesis that UNI Eco-Stone° infiltration capacities decrease with age and traff=ic use, and that the infiltration capacities could be improved by street sweeping/vacuuming. The tests plots with a coarser gradation of aggregate materials had higher infiltration rates than the section with a greater percentage of fines in the base and bedding materials. The greatest infiltration rates were found in areas with low average daily traffic and regeneration could be easily accomplished. In areas of medium to heavy average daily traffic usage, infiltration rates were lower and regeneration was limited, indicating a need to establish a periodic cleaning program to ensure optimum infiltration levels. OUTLINE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Objectives 1.2 Study 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 2.2.1 Types of Porous Pavements 2.2.2 Permeable Pavement Structure 2.2.3 Applications of Permeable Pavements 2.3 UNI Eco-Stone° Paving System 2.4 Surface Sealing 2.5 Possible Maintenance Activities 2.5.1. High Pressure Washing with Water 2.5.2 Street Sweeping 2.6 Previous Research 2.6.1 Permeable Pavement Installation Maintenance 3.0 APPLICABLE THEORY 3.1 The Rainfall-Runoff Process 3.2 Infiltration 3.2.1 Determination of Infiltration Capacity 3.3 Rainfall Simulators 3.3.1 Rainfall Simulation 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 4.1 Test Plot Specifications 4.2 The Rainfall Simulator 4.2.1 Rainfall Intensity Calibrations and Spatial Uniformity 4.3 Experimental Procedure 4.4 Experimental Design 4.5 Description of Test Installations 4.6 Computational Methods 4.6.1 Example Calculations 29 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Summary of Infiltration Rates 5.2 Heavy Metal Analysis 6.0 DIS CUSSION 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 capacity of permeable pavement installations, this study will serve as a guideline for future permeable 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 test installation subbase specifications. The infiltration capacity was also found to be dependent, to a lesser degree, on the percentage of volatile organic matter within the EDC. 3. The infiltration rates were found to be greatest in the low ADT area and regeneration to the maximum infiltration capacity could be accomplished by removing as little as 15mm of EDC material. 4. The infiltration rates in the medium ADT area were found to be less than the low ADT area. Although regeneration to the critical infiltration capacity could not be reached by removal of 25mm of EDC material, but results suggest that this could be possible with removal of more EDC material. Some degree of regeneration was noted at all excavation depths. 5. The infiltration rates in 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-Stone`s 3" installation. The infiltration rates within the Eco-Stone° 4" installations were much lower initially and regeneration to the critical infiltration capacity was not obtained for any test plot. 7. The infiltration rates are very spatially variable, as illustrated by the large coefficients of variation obtained. 8. The percentage of fine matter within the EDCs, measured up to 25mm from the top of the paver, was much higher in the Eco-Stone`a 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 them for a period of greater than one hour after a storm event; than plots where the water does not pond. The percent of fine matter in the EDCs was found to be slightly greater within the first 5mm and approximately equal for all other depths. The percent of VOC was found to be significantly higher in the frequently flooded plots, for all depths, not just the upper Smm. 10. The 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 not found to be greatly affected by the percent VOC, with the exception of plots where the percent VOC was significantly greater than the average VOC percent. In this case, the infiltration rate was found to be an order of magnitude greater than the unvegetated area. 11. The concentrations of heavy metals within the EDCs were found to be less than the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Guideline Concentrations for Selected Metals in Soils. All of the metals tested were below the MOE guideline level, and, with the exception of zinc, below the expected value for Ontario soils. 30 7.2 Recommendations 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 fine matter. The frequenry 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 along permeable pavement installations ' and on any islands or verges within the parking lot. Coniferous trees were found to be useful because the needles falling off of the trees, into the EDCs, helped to maintain high infiltration capacities. Vegetation of any kind should not be discouraged from growing within the EDCs. 3. Future permeable pavement installations should be constructed so that drainage is in the direction of the ' highly vegetated areas near the curb. 4. Fine matter should not be used when installing the subbase material, as it decreases the infiltration capacity and the ability to regenerate the infiltration capacity. S. It is recommended that additional testing be done on other permeable pavement installations in order to better identify the frequency of cleaning required to maintain and optimal infiltration rate. 6. Further studies should be aimed at testing permeable pavement installations on a larger scale. This would allow for better estimation of the installation as a whole and lessen the spatial variability of testing at such a small scale. 8.0 REFERENCES I~ n 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, Ontazio 1994-2000. They are based on the reseazch conducted at Guelph University described on the previous pages. PROVISION OF PARKING-LOT PAVEMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL STUDIES William James and Michael K. Thompson - 1994 This study prepared a facility for future research on porous pavement for application in North America with comparatsve test sections of UNI Eco-Stone° concrete pavers, traditional concrete pavers and asphalt in the laboratory and in a parking application. The purpose was to investigate porous pavement as an alternative co impervious pavement for parking lots. A large number of contaminants were investigated, including, heavy metals, chlorides, nutrients, phenolics, solids, and solvents. Preliminary results showed that contaminant loads from the asphalt surface were always greater than the other pavement surfaces. The Eco-Stone° pavement was shown to effectively reduce the amount of surface runoff, with runoff generated only when rainfall intensity exceeded infiltration rates. However, this is likely to be a rare occurrence due to high infiltration rates of the pavement., CONTAMINANTS FROM FOUR NEW PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENTS IN A PARKING LOT William fames and Michael K. Thompson- 1996 While the previous study described the design, construction, and instrumentation of four pavements in the laboratory and parking lot, this study reports on the interim conclusions obtained from the parking-lot pavements for the first 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 'T'his 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 temperature 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-Stone°), infiltration capacities may be improved by simply street sweeping and/or vacuuming the surface. The research used data collected at several Eco-Stone° installations in the area. While studies showed infiltration capacity 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 capacity. Research also found that fines in the drainage cell material affected infiltration to a greater extent than organic material, which reinforces proper material specification guidelines be followed during installation. A LABORATORY EXAMINATION OF POLLUTANTS LEACHED FROM FOUR DIFFERENT PAVEMENTS BY ACID RAIN William James, Reem Shahin - 1998 In this study, the contaminants investigated were phenols, pH, zinc, iron, oils and grease. It was found that pH of rain is a significant factor, with asphalt having the least buffering, and that Eco-Stone reduced both runoff and contaminants 32 1 ' the most. Percolation through the permeable pavement surface and underlying media slowed the water flow, allowing more time for oxidation. It also was shown to filter suspended solids and some contaminants such as sodium and sulfates William James, Craig William Kipkie - 1998-9 This project focused on examining the feasibility of inserting new FORTRAN computer code into the USEPAs SWMM, such that it would allow designers to simulate the hydrological response of permeable pavements in long-term modelling applications. It was found that it was possible to insect new code, and the model produced reasonable results under a generalized sec of input conditions. Simulations showed that using permeable pavements can greatly reduce flows compared to impervious surfaces. Heavy metal removal through 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 ability to reduce the quantity of stormwater pollutants. FEASIBILITY OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT OPTION IN THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) FOR LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS MODELLING 1 n 1 n STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OF PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS William James, W. Robert C. James, and Harald von Langsdorff - 2000 This monograph details 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-friendly. The SWMM code for groundwater and infiltration has not been comprehensively tested against a specific permeable pavement field program due to lack of field testing to dare. PCSWMM is a tool to aid designers and is intended for use by civil engineers that 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® RESEARCH AND TESTING THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PERMEABLE PAVEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Professor Derek B. Booth, Jennifer Leavitt and Kim Peterson -Research Assistants - 1996 This project was initiated to review the types and characteristics of permeable pavements in the Pacific Northwest to provide potential users of these systems with information. They constructed awell-instrumented full-scale test site in a section of a new employee parking lot at the King County Public Works facility in Renton, WA, to evaluate the durability, infiltratability, and water-quality benefits of four types of permeable pavements -UNI Eco-Stone°, Grasspave2°, Gravelpave2° and Turfstone'". An additional section of impervious asphalt was constructed as a control. The intent of the project is to evaluate the long-term performance of the systems over a number of years. The study is being conducted in conjunction with King County, the Ciry of Olympia, Washington State Department of Ecology, 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 contribution of permeable pavements is the ability to reduce effective impervious area, which has a direct connection to downstream drainage systems. As a result, it can be used to control runoff timing, reduce volume, and provide water quality benefits. EXPERT OPINION ON UNI ECO-STONE®-PEDESTRIAN USE Professor Burkhard Bretschneider - 1994 This report tested UNI Eco-Stone° for safety and walking ease under a pedestrian traffic application in the parking lot of the Lenze Company in Aerzen, Germany. Bicycles, wheel chairs, baby carriages, and foot traffic were tested. Ladies high heel shoes were tested.for penetration depth in the drainage cell aggregate materials. The findings showed that proper filling and compaction of the drainage cell materials was important for good overall performance. EXPERT OPINION - IN-SITU TEST OF WATER PERMEABILITY OF TWO UNI ECO-STONE° PAVEMENTS Dr. Soenke Bargwardt -Institute for Planning Green Spaces and for Landscape Architecture -University of Hannover - 1994 Tests were performed on two UNI Eco-Stone° pavements of various ages at two different locations in Germany. A parking lot at the train station in Eldagsen was installed in 1992, while the Lenze Company parking lot in Gross Berkel was installed in 1989. The results showed that the Eldagsen site was capable of infiltrating 3>0 1/sec/ha, and even after 60 minutes, absorbed more than 200 l/sec/ha. At the Lenze site, the Eco-Stone® pavement was capable of infiltrating 430 1/sec/ha, and even after 60 minutes, a rainfall amount of 400 i/sec/ha was absorbed. Although the comparison shows that the older test area had a higher permeability than the newer installation, laboratory tests showed the lesser permeability values of the Eldagsen site were the result of the existence of fines. This reconfirms the recommendation for selecting proper gradation of drainage cell and bedding materials in the 2mm to Smm range and that ASTM C-33 grading should not be used if infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. DRAINAGE WITH INTERLOCHING PAVERS Professor W. Muth -Research Institute for Water Resources -Karlsruhe University - 1994 The institute tested UNI Eco-Stone° pavers in comparison to traditional pavers for water permeability. Surface runoff and the associated drainage were measured under a variety of rainfall amounts and intensities. DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE UTILIZING UNI ECO-STONE° AND ECOLOC° PAVING UNITS Professor Thomas Phalen, Jr. -Northeastern University - 1992 The purpose of this research was to develop the technical data related to the paving system's permeability characteristics This early research was expanded on in the Rollings and Texas A&M design manuals. 34 t 1 n t 1 LOCKPAVE° PRO Dr. Brian Shackel STRUCTURAL 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 variety of applications, including streets, airport, and industrial projects. It provides a choice of mechanistic or empirical design methodology and offers the ability to select, analyze, and compare alternative pavement types. It also includes UNI Eco-S[one° permeable pavement hydraulic modeling based on the USEPA's SWMM model. FEATURES OF PC-SWMM' 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 results • Features support for Run-On -flow contributions from adjacent impervious and pervious surfaces • Incorporates new regeneration data from research studies • The model accepts an arbitrary rainfall hyetograph and provides astep-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 ' When designing Eco-Stone° pavements, please use LOCKPAVE° PRO first to I' ,~ ~ establish the minimum requirements for the structural performance of the '7"~ pavement. The program defaults to the most conservative parameters -very ~~ ~i ~~?.~~-:a poor drainage conditions and saturation of the base more than 25% of the time - ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~w -for its structural analysis: Then run PC-SWMM'" to see if your drainage -_,_.~,_r~ design parameters are met. If the minimum base thickness established by ~: -~- ~~ ,~ _._ LOCKPAVE° PRO is inadequate for your storage/drainage requirements, '~ ~ ;~~~ ! ' ~ '~ ~ t increase the base layer thickness step-by-step until your hydraulic parameters are li met. ' Private Residence, Long Island, NY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ECO-STONE° POWERPOINT PRESENTATION ' This comprehensive slide/computer PowerPoint presentation is oriented to the design professional. It includes basic design guidance, hydraulic information, research information, and project references and is based on the Design ' Considerations for the UNI Eco-Stone° Concrete Paver by Rollings and Rollings. CASE STUDIES RIO VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT Case Study - 2 page Case study on the Castaic Lake Water Agenry of Santa Clarita, CA project -Water Conservatory Garden and Learning Center Parking Lot.. Features 27,000 sq ft parking lot installation of UNI Eco-Stone° permeable pavers. MICKEL FIELD AND HIGHLANDS PARK Case Study - 2 page Case study on Mickel Field/Highlands Park of Wilton Manors, FL project -Renovation of community 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 USEPA's National Monitoring Program Section 319. Other participants in the project include the University of Connecticut Natural Resources Management and Engineering Dept., the town of Waterford, CT, and the developer John Lombardi. Over 15,000 sq ft of UNI Eco-Stone° pavers were used for the street cul-de-sac and driveways of some homes in the "paired watershed" development. A variety of BMPs have been incorporated into the site for long- term monitoring and comparison with traditional subdivision construction. 36 n 1 1 I~ I U ADDITIONAL REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Washington, DC. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1999. Annua! Book ofASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, PA American Society of 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 Project -Background and First-Year Field Results, University of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA. Cedegren, H., 1987. Drainage of Highway and Airfield Pavements, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL. Corps of Engineers, 1991. Subsurface Drainage of Pavement Structures, Research and Development Service: Current Corps of Engineers and Industry Practice, Hanover, NH. Corps of Engineers, 1992. Engineering and Design Drainage Layers for Pavements; Engineer Technical Letter 1110-3-435, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. Cote Jr., M., J. Clausen, B. Morton, P. Stacey, and S. Zaremba, 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watershed National Monitoring Project, USEPA, University of Connecticut, Aqua Solutions, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Waterford, CT. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1990. FHWA Technical Guide Paper 90=01: Subsurface Pavement Drainage, FHWA, Office of Engineering, Pavement Division, Washington, DC. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1992. Demonstration Project 87.• Drainable Pavement Systems Participant Notebook, FHWA, Publication No. FHWA-SA-92-008, Washington, DC. Ferguson, B., 1991. "The Failure of Stormwater Detention and the Future of Stormwater Design", Landscape Design, Vol. 4, No. 12, Gold Trade Publications, Van Nuys, CA. Ferguson, B., 1994. Stormwater Infiltration, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Ferguson, B. and T. Debo, 1990. On-site Stormwater Management, Second Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. Goforth, G.; E. Diniz, and J. Rauhut, 1983. Stormwater Hydrological Characteristics of Porous and Conventional Paving Systems, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Grant No. R806338-01-2, Austin, TX. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 1982, 1997. Synthesis of Highway Practice 96.• Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems, Sequim, WA. National Resources Defense Council, 1999. Stormwater Strategies, Community Responses to Runoff'Pollution, New York, NY. Portland Cement Association, 1992. Properties and Uses of Cement-Modified Soil, Skokie, IL. Rollings, R. and M. Rollings, 1992. Applications for Concrete Paving Block in the United States Market, Uni-Group U.S.A.,. Palm Beach Gardens, FL. Shackel, B., 1990. Design and Construction of Interlocking Concrete Block Pavements; Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York, NY. Smith, D., 2001. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements, Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Washington, DC. The Asphalt Institute, 1989. The Asphalt Handbook, MS-4, Lexington, KY. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water and Low Impact Development Center, 2000. Low Impact Development (LID). A Literature Review, EPA-841-B-00-005, Washington, DC. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water, 2000. National Menu of Best Management Practices for Storm Water Phase II, Washington, DC. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water, 2000. Non-Point Source Pollution:, II. Urban Runoff, Washington, DC. 37 i. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA INFILTRATION PAVING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT DATE: INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED: PROJECT: _ LOCATION: SITE STATUS: ACTIVE INACTIVE COMPLETED Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 1. Pre-construction Runoff diverted Area stabilized 2. Eatcavation Size and location. conforms to plans Side slopes stable Soil permeability Groundwater/bedrock 3. Geotextile/Filter Fabric Placement Fabric specification Placement conforms to specifications Sides of excavation covered 4. Aggregate Base Course Size as specified, sieve analysis conforms to spec Clean/washed material Thickness, placement, and compaction meets spec 5. Penrneable Interlocking Concrete Pavers Meets ASTM or CSA standards as applicable Elevations, slope, pattern, placement and compaction as per specifications Aggregate joint materials conform to specification Drainage or bio swales, vegetated areas for emergency runoff overflow and pre-treatment for filtering runoff 6. Final Inspection Elevation and slope conform to drawings Transitions to impervious pavement separated with edge restraints Stabilization of soil in areas draining onto pavement (vegetative strips recommended) Action to be taken: No action necessary. Continue routine inspections Correct noted site deficiencies by 1st notice 2nd notice Submit plan modifications as noted in written comments by Notice to Comply issued Final inspection, project completed 38 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA INFILTRATION PAVING MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT DATE: TIME: PROJECT: LOCATION: Individual Conducting Inspection: "As built" plans available Y/N Inspection frequency shown in parentheses Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 1. Debris on infiltration 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. Sediments (Monthly) Area clean of sediments Area vacuum swept on a periodic basis as needed 5. Structural condition (Annual) No evidence of surface deterioration No evidence of rutting or spalling Inspection Frequency Key: Annual Monthly After major storm Action to be taken: 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 facility deficiencies by Facility repairs were indicated and completed. Site reinspection is necessary to verify corrections or improvements. Site reinspection accomplished on Site reinspection was satisfactory. Next routine inspection is scheduled for approximately: Signature of Inspector 39 urn UNI-GROUP U.S.A. MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES 4362 Northlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 • (561) 626-4666 • Fax (561) 627-6403 • (800) 872-186.4 www.uni-groupusa.org • info@uni-groupusa.org r-, LJI t 1 Appendix V Facility Summary Forms G' I~ THURSTON REGION FACILITY SUMMARY FORM Complete one (1) for each facility (detention/retention, coalescing plate filter, etc.) on the project site. Attach 8 1/2 x 11 sketch showing location of facility. Proponent's Facility Name or Identifier (e:g., Pond A): See Part 6 Name of Road or Street to Access Facility: Burnett Rd./Moutain View Road Hearings Examiner Case Number.• Development Rev. Project No./Bldg Permit No.: Parcel Number: 2 71 4 2 1 2 To be completed by Utility, Staff: Utility Facility Number Project Number (num) Parcel Number Status: (num, lch) 0, Known; 1, Public; 2 Unknown; 3, Unassigned Basin and Subbasin: (num, 6ch) (2ch for basin, 2ch for subbasin, 2ch future Responsible jurisdiction: (alpha, lch) Part 1 -Project Name and Proponent Project Name.• Green Village Subdivision Project Owner: Sunshine Ol m is Enter rises Inc Project Contact: _ George Hom. Ph.D Address: 2218 Blossomwood Court, NW, Olvmnia. WA 98502 Phone: 1360) 943-743 7 Project Proponent: (f different) Same Address: Same Phone: Same Project Engineer.• Roher•t F. Hnhnmh. P F Firm: A'C'A C'nnsultin~ (;rnun Phone: ~ (360] 493-6002 Part 2 -Project Location Section Township Range 13 17N IE Part 3 - Tvne of Permit ADDlication Type of permit (e.g., Commercial Bldg: Residential Subdivision Other Permits (circle) []DOF/W HPA ~COE 404 []COE Wetlands QDOE Dam Safety ' []FEMA OF7oodplain []Shoreline Mgmt QRockerylRetaining Wall ]Encroachment ®Grading []NPDES Other Plumbing, Electrical, Utility Other Agencies (Federal, State, Local, etc.) that have had or will review this Drainage Erosion Control Plan: • N/A Part 4 -Proposed Project Description What stream basin is this project in (e.g., Percival, Woodland) Project Size, acres Zoning.• Onsite: Residential Sa~bdivision: Number of Lots: Lot size (average), acres: Building Permit/Commercial Plat Building(s) Footprint, acres Concrete Paving, acres: Gravel Surface, acres: .Lattice Block Paving, acres: Public Roads (including gravel shoulder), acres: Nisqually River 10 R-6 S2 0.13 0 0 ' 0 t t 1 Private Roads (including sidewalks), acres Onsite Impervious Surface Total, acres: Part 5 -Pre-Developed Project Site Characteristics Stream through site, y/n: Name: DNR Type: 1.69 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, y/n: No No No No No No No ~~ Yes Part 6 -Facility Description -Basin A Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 2.49 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.30 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.19 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.49 Enter a one (1) for the type of facility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground detention infltration pond Dry well infltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Aqua Swirl) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orifice Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration to groatndwater) 1 Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 in/hr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Part 6 -Facility Description -Basin B Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 2.38 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.3$ Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.07 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.31 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.38 Enter a one (1) for the type of facility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Drv pond detention Underground detention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centr~ge separator Other: (Aqua Swirl) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orif ce Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration to groundwater) 1 Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 inches/hour Part 6 -Facility Description -Bain C Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 2.77 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.77 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.32 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.45 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.77 Enter a one (1) for the type of facility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Drv pond detention Underground retention Infiltration pond Day well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Aqua Swirl) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Single orifice Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration) 1 Part 7 -Release to Groundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (f applicable) 20 in/hr Part 6 -Facility Description -Bain D Total Are T ib ta t F ili I l di O i a r u ry ac ty o nc u ng ffs te (acres): 2.49 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 2.49 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.32 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.17 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2.49 Enter a one (1) for the type of facility: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground retention Infiltration pond .Dry well infiltration Coalescingplate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Aqua Swirl) 1 Outlet type (Enter a one (1) for each type present) Filter Oil water separator Sin le orific g e Multiple orifices Weir Spillway Pump(s) Other (infiltration) 1 r Part 7 -Release to Crroundwater Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater (if applicable) 20 in/hr Part 6 -Facility Description -Pervious Parking Lot Total Area Tributary to Facility Including Offsite (acres): 0.26 Total Onsite Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.26 Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.26 Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility. (acres): 0 Design Total Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 0.26 Enter a one (1) for the type offaci[ity: Wet pond detention Wet pond water surface area, acres Dry pond detention Underground retention Infiltration pond Dry well infiltration Coalescing plate separator Centrifuge separator Other: (Pervious pavers w/storage in base layersl) 1 Appendix VI Maintenance Agreement 1 . 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 1 Whereas, OWNER has constructed improvements, including but not limited to, homes, pavement, and stormwater facilities on the property described above. !n order to further the goals of the JURISDICTION to ensure the protection and enhancement of JURISDICTION's water resources, the JURISDICTION and OWNER hereby enter into this Agreement. The responsibilities of each party to this Agreement are identified below. OWNER SHALL: (1) Implement the stormwater facility maintenance program included herein as Attachment ..A,. THE JURISDICTION SHALL: (1) Provide technical assistance to OWNER in support of its operation and maintenance activities conducted pursuant to its maintenance program.. Said assistance shall be provided upon request, and as City time and resources permit, at no charge to OWNER. (2) Conduct a minimum of one (1) site visit per year to discuss performance and problems with OWNER. (3) Review this agreement with OWNER and modify it as necessary at least once every three (3) years. REMEDIES: (1) If the JURISDICTION determines that maintenance or repair work is required to be done to the stormwater facility existing on the OWNER property, the JURISDICTION shall give the owner of the property within which the drainage facility is located, and the person or agent in control of said property, notice of the specific maintenance and/or repair required. The JURISDICTION shall set a reasonable time in which such work is to be completed by the persons who were given notice. If the above required maintenance and/or repair is not completed within the time set by the JURISDICTION, written notice will be sent to the persons who were given notice .stating the JURISDICTION's intention to perform such maintenance and bill the owner for all incurred expenses. The JURISDICTION may also revoke stormwater utility rate credits for the quality component or invoke surcharges to the quantity component 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) and/or (2). (4) The persons listed in (1), above, shall assume all responsibility for the cost of any maintenance and for repairs to the stormwater facility. Such responsibility shall include reimbursement to the JURISDICTION within 90 days of the receipt of the invoice for any such work performed. Overdue payments will require payment of interest 'at the current legal rate for liquidated judgments. If legal. action ensues, any costs or fees incurred by the JURISDICTION will be borne by the parties responsible for said reimbursements. This Agreement is intended to protect the value and desirability of the real property described above and to benefit all the citizens of the JURISDICTION. 1t shall run with the land and be binding on all parties having or acquiring from OWNER or their successors any right, title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their heirs, successors, and assigns. They shall inure to the benefit of each present or future successor in interest of said property or any part- thereof, or interest therein, and to the benefit of all citizens of the JURISDICTION. Owner 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OFTHURSTON ) 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 helshe signed the same as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires City of Yelm STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OFTHURSTON ) 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix VII Vicinity Map Bog Garden ~ Plants ' A bog garden presents a unique design option.for managing stormwater on site. A lined depression filled with an organic soil mix and wetland vegetation can be an attractive method for promoting evaporation and transpiration of collected runoff. A functioning bog garden generally displays no standing water, but soils are saturated much of the time, necessitating facultative wetland plant selections. ' To select plant species appropriate for a bog garden refer to those listed in this appendix, Zone 1, as well as those found in the following table. The list below includes additional native and non-native plant species (not listed in the bioretention plant list) that have been successfully applied in Pacific Northwest bog gardens. It may be necessazy to provide additional water to the bog system during seasonal dry periods due to a lack of stormwater runoff. As with any system, plant species in a bog garden setting have various preferences for moisture and sun. Check listed comments below and research plant needs to optimize growth in the conditions specific to individual bog garden systems.. ~, Bog Garden SPECIESI COMMON NAME ~ EXPOSURE MATURE SIZE TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS Haiantum ateuticum* Shade/partial shade I-2 feet Moist to wet soils; graceful, delicate fern; Western maidenhair fern vivid bright green with black stems; spreads through creeping rhizomes: often called A. pedotum, but this refers to the related East Coast maidenhair fern; also try A. capillis- ueneris (Venus-hair fern) Andromeda poli(olia* Sun/partial shade I-I.5 feet Spring Moist to wet soils: low-growing evergreen Bog rosemary shrub; white to pink flower clusters; ornamental varieties include 'Blue Ice', 'Grandiflora' and 'Nana' Blechnum spicant* Shade/partial shade I-3 feet Moist to wet soils: has both evergreen Deer fern and deciduous leaves; prefers soils high in organic material:.is sensitive to frost earex spp. Sunlshade varies A number sedge choices are great options Sedges for a bog garden setting; two are listed in Zone I of this appendix, but there are many alternative species to investigate. including Corex mertensii* (Mertens' sedge) and C. lyngbyei* (Lyngbys sedge) fleocharis palustris* Sun To 3.5 feet Wet soils to shallow water; perennia! Creeping spike-rush forming small clumps Empetrum nigrum* Sun To 8 inches Early spring Dry to wet/boggy soils: low-growing Crowberry evergreen shrub: small purplish Flowers and purplish-black berries Equisetuin hyemafe* Sun/partial shade 2-5 feet Moist to wet soils; hollow-stemmed, Scouring-rush evergreen perennial; spreads through creeping rhizomes; vigorous and persistent; with high silica content: also E. scirpoides (Dwarf horsetail); use both with caution - Equisetum can be very invasive and difficult to remove once established Gaultheria ouati/olia* Partial shade To I fdot Late spring - Moist to wet soils: low-growing evergreen Oregon wintergreen/ summer shrub: pink or whitish flowers and Western teaberry red berries; also ~,. humi(usa* (Alpine wintergreen) ~lyceria elata* Sun/partial shade 3-4.5 feet Moist to wet soils; loosely tufted perennial. Tall mannagrass spreads through creeping rhizomes; also try the taller ~. grandis* (Reed mannagrass) Appendix 3: Bioretention Plant List 195 Bog Garden SPEC7ESI COMMON NAME EXPOSURE MATURE SIZE TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS ~unnera manicata Sun/partial shade 4-6 feet) Moist to wet organic soils; prefers humid Gunriera 4-8 ft. spread setting; non-native from Brazil and Columbia needing mulching protection in the winter: also referred to as 'giant rhubarb'; huge • rounded leaves: needs plenty of space; also ~. tinctoria from Chile Hakonechloa macro Shade/partial shade I-3 feet Japanese forest grass Prefers moist, rich soil; slowly spreading perennial grass: green leaves turn coppery orange in the fall Hosta Shadelpartial sun To Z.5 feet Summer Prefer moist, rich soil; many varieties and Plantain lily hybrids available in avarious-sizes, foliage textures and colors; thin spikes of blue or white flowers; some are tolerant of sun, but most prefer shade Juncus spp. Sunlshade varies As with the Carex species, .there are a number Rushes of native rushes that would work well in a bog garden. Three options are listed in Zone I of this appendix. Others to investigate include Juneus mertensianus* (Mertens' rush) and J. -acuminatus* (Tapered rush) Kalmia occidentolis* Sun 5-2 feet Spring - Also known as K. poli(olia, prefers moist soils; Swamp-laurel early summer low shrub with aromatic leaves; rose-purple flowers; also try K. microphylla* (Western bog-laurel) amat-forming, evergreen shrublet: generally found in wet subalpine conditions Ledum groenlandicum* Shadelpartial sun 1.5-4.5 feet Summer Moist to boggy soils: evergreen shrub with Labrador tea small white flower clusters; foliage aromatic when crushed Liguloria dentata Shade/partial shade 3-5 feet Summer Moist to wet soils: large-leaved, clumping Bigleaf ligularia perennial: yellow-orange blooms; not tolerant of high heat or low humidity; try L. dentata cultivars 'Othello' and 'Desdemona'; also 1. prZewalskii (Shavalski's ligularia) and L. stenocephala (Narrow-spiked ligularia) Linnaea borealis* Shadelpartial shade q-6 inches June - Moist or dry soils; evergreen perennial: pink. Twinflower September fragrant, trumpet-like flowers: trailing ground cover; try L. borealis on the less saturated margins of a bog garden: may be difficult to estab{ish Lobelia cardinalis Sun/partial shade 2-4 feet Summer Wet to moist. rich soils; clumping perennial; Cardinal flower tubular, bright red. inch-long flowers; also try L. siphilitica (Blue lobelia), another perennial with blue flowers Lysichiton omericanum* Shade/partial shade 2-3 feet March Prefers wet soils: deciduous perennial: has Skunk cabbage odor that some consider to be skunky especially when blooming: yellow hooded fleshy flower spike; great leaves dominate Matteuccia struthiopteris Sun/shade To 6 feet Moist. rich soils; hardy northern fern: Ostrich fern clumping narrowly at base with foliage soreadins? to 3 feet in width Mimulus spp. Sun/partial shade I-3 fee[ Spring- Wet soils; perennial or annual that reseeds Monkey-flower summer nicely and keeps spreading; many species available including natives. M. guttatus* (Yellow monkey-flower) and M. tilingii* (Mountain monkey-flower); also M, lewisii* with rose-red to pale-pink flowers. 196 • .LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound ' Bog Garden SPECIES/ COMMON NAME EXPOSURE Myrica gole* Sun/partial shade MATURE SIZE To 4 feet TIME OF BLOOM COMMENTS - Moist to wet soils; aromatic de id Sweet gale , c uous perennial shrub; glossy green leaves; a nitrogen fixing species Oplopanax horridum Shadetpartial sun ' 3-10 feet Moist to wet soils; forms extensive clumps; Devil s club aggressive grower, but huge palmate leaves highly decorative; clusters of small whitish flowers: wand-like stems have sharp spines ' Osmundo cinnamomea Sunlpartial shade 2-5 feet Moist to wet soils; large deciduous fern; Cinnamon fern unfolding'fiddlehead' fronds are edible Oxycoccus oxycoccos* Sun 4-16 inches Moist to wet soils, prefers Sphagnum moss ' Bog cranberry mats, peat and acidic conditions: evergreen, low-creeping vine-like shrub; pink to red flowers; red berries: shade intolerant Polystichum munitum* Shadelpartial shade 2-5 feet Moist soils: large evergreen fern; dark green Sword fern fronds with dagger shaped leaflets; hardy and easy to grow Potentilla palustris* To 3 feet Moist to wet soils; perennial with reddish- Marsh cinquefoil purple flowers: stems both prostrate and 1 ascending ~ Ribes diuaricatum* Partial shadelshade 1.5-6.5 feet Prefers wet or moist soils: green or purple Wild gooseberry flowers and smooth, dark purple berries; a hedge or screen provides good habitat for birds and wildlife: beware prickly spines; also try R. lacustre* (Black gooseberry) Salix arctica* Sun/shade To 2 feet Spring Moist soils; deciduous, prostrate or trailing Arctic willow shrub; leaves are dark green on the bottom and lighter on top; brownish to pink flowers; see Zone I of this appendix for details on S. purpurea 'Nana' Trientalis arctica* Shade/partial shade To 8 inches Wet, boggy soils; small perennial; star-shaped Northern starflower white flowers, or with a pink tinge Sources: Bioretention Plant List Azous, A.L. and Horner R.R. Eds.. 2001 . Wetlands > ( ) ( ) and Urbanuation.• Implications for lice Future. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. B l K renze , .N. (Ed.). (2001). Sunset Western Garden Book. Menl o Park, CA: Sunset Publishing Corporation. Broili, Michael, Well Home Program Director. Personal communication, May 2004: Crawford, C. (1982). Wetland Plants of King County and Puget Sound Lowlands. King County, WA: King County Resource Planning Section. DeWald, S. City of Seattle S.E.A. Streets tree schedule and planting schedule. http:~~www.cityofseattle.net/util~naturalsystems~plans.htm#SEA Greenlee,. and Fell, D. (1992). The Encyclopedia of Ornamental Grasses. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Guttman, Erica. Washington State University~I'hurston County Extension Office. Native Plant Salvage Project Coordinator. Personal communication, May 2004. Hogan, E.L. (Ed.). (1990). Sunset Western Garden Book. Menlo Park, CA: Lane Publishing Co. Appendix 3: Bioretention Plant List 19T Johnson, Jim, and DeWald, Shane. Appropriate Plants for Swales and Rain Gardens (Broadview Green Grid). Seattle, WA: City of Seattle. Kruckeberg, A.R. (1996). Gardening with Native Plants (2"`' ed.). Seattle, WA: University Press. Leigh, M. Qune 1999). Grow Your Own Native Landscape: A Guide to Identifying, Propagating f~ Landscaping with Western Washington Plants. Native Plant Salvage Project, WSU Cooperative Extension -Thurston, County. Metro. Qune 2002). Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream Crossings. Portland, OR: Author. Pojaz, J. and MacKinnon, A. (1994). Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska. Renton, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. Puget Sound Acfion Team. (2003, March). Natural Approaches To Stormwater Management: Low Impact Development in Puget Sound. Olympia, WA: Author. U.S. Forest Service, FEIS Information webpage. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/f'eis/plants/ University of Florida, Environmental Horticulture. http:/~hort.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/ Washington Depaztment of Ecology. (2001 June}. An Aquatic Plant Identification Manual for Washington's Freshwater Plants. Olympia, WA, Author. Weinmann, F., Boule, M., Brunner, K, Malek, J., & Yoshino, V. (1984). Wetland Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 198 LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound alp ~ r ~r ~ ~ ~ ® ® s ® ® ~w ~ ~ ~ ® ® silo ,\~V~, R '~ VIEW ACRE 0 z ~ 88T ~ f- m y 89TH z z cn Q ~ z Q ~ ~ z o w ~ ~ m - ~ _ 93RD AVE ° RoJEC - - o J ~ ~ SITE ~ ~ U ~ Q ~- ~ ~ VALLEY ~F ~ s ~ ~ ~ z X 1 .~ iii: Consulting Group VICINITY MAP GREEN VALLEY SUBDIVISION FIGURE 1 04116