Prelim Drainage Report 06-02-05 001Green Village Subdivision
Preliminary Drainage Report
June 2005
I
DESIGN/BUILD.CIVIL AND TRANSPORTATION EN 67N EERING PLAN NIN6 •SU RVEYING
oneulting Group
Preliminary Drainage Report
Green Village Subdivisiou
Yelm, Washington
June 2005
Project Information
Project Green Village Subdivision
Prepared for Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc.
Contact George Hom, Ph.D.
2218 Blossomwood Court, NW
Olympia, WA 98502
(360) 94&4437
Reviewing Agency
Jurisdiction City of Yelm, Washington
Project Number
Project Contact
Project Engineer
Prepared by~ SCA Consulting Group
4200 6rh Ave. SE,
Lacey, WA 98509
(360) 493-6002 FAX (360) 4932496
Contact Robert E. Holcomb, P.E.
SCA Project 04166
File Number g:Atext\pfV04116AReportsA04116~dr_053105.doc
PROJECT ENGINEERS CERTIFICATIONS I hereby ceaifj~ chat Ihts Preliminary Droivage Nepo¢ for Green Village
Subdivisim in Yelm Waehingron has been prepared by me or under my sopervislon end meeru the intent of the Ciry of
Yelm Development CuideRms and W ashingmn Srnw Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Smrmwa[er Ylanagemevr Manual
Por the Puger Sound Basiu unless noted oeherwise, and normal standards of enpnearing practice. 7 understand that the
jorisdfoeinn does not and will mr assume Ilabiliry for she sul]"imeney, .vui[abllicy, or performance of drainago facilieiee
designeA f r this development /r~,
°~ Y
I a_ fi
~~ t`~\l F ,, ra
I. IL 1
~,y R
-:c_:~ i./ v ~A
Ip„ ~
t ~.AN ~8"
!>K.eTa.S-5
EXY~R}S ~ ~ ..
TABLE OF CONTENTS ArrElanicss
PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT ........................................................................... .............1 APPendix l-Preliminary
SECTION I-
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ___.. _.........
__.._.1 Drainage Calculations
SECTION 2- EXISTMG CONDITIONS....__.. .....___ _. _...... ...__.} Apprndix ll-Preliminary
SECTION3-
INFILTRATION RATES ....... .......... ...___
........A Drainage and TESC Plan
SECTION 4-W ELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS _.. _... .........._ _.._.Q Appendix 111-FEMA FIRM
SECTIONS- FUELTANKS
......... ._...... _. __. _
............4 Map
SECTION 6- SUB-BASH DESCRIPTION._. _......... .........._ _._....4 Apprndix lV -Pervious
SECTION]- ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD _.,._._ _......... __.9 Pavers Lilemmre
SECTION 8 - AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILRIES_..._..........._.___ _._........4 Appendix V -Facility
SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING.____.._......_. __._. _.5 Summary FOems
SECTION 10- COVENANTS. DEDICATIONS. EASEMENTS _.._ .............. _.._.._.._ ....._._..5 Appendix VI -Maintenance
PART 11-EROSION CONTROL REPORT ....................................................._............. ..........._6 Agreemrnt
SECTION I- CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE._............_.__... _.._...._fi
gpprndix Vll-Vicinity Map
SECTION 2- TRAPPING SEDIMENT .... ....... ...._..... _-.6
SECTION]- PEILMANE6T EROSION CONTROL&SITE RESTORATION _.___ __........J
SECTION4- GEOTECHNIC4L ANALYSIS AND REPORT.......... _.. _.___ ............. .. _. _...]
SECTIONS- INSPECTION SEQUENCE.._._ _.__ .__.. _......]
SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS ............ .__._..]
PART III -MAINTENANCE PL: VV.._ .............................................................................. ............8
SECTION I - REQUIRED MAINTENANCE_ .... _.. ...___ ._.._. 10
SECTION 2- RESPONSIBLE ORGAN RATION ___. _..._. ...._._18
SECTION]- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ........._ .... _..._ _._..JB
SECTION]- SOURCE CONTROL _._. _._._ ____ .._..... IS
11
Part I
Storm Drainage Report
Green Village Subd'ysion Prel'm' arv Dra' a e R port
PART 1 STORM DRAINAGE REPORT
SECTION 1 - PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Proponenti Sunshine Olympic Enterprises, Inc.
2215 Blossomwood Court, NW
Olympia, W A 95502
(360) 943-7437
Parcel Numbers 21713340000 and 31713340200
Tota] Site Area 10. Acres
Zoned R 6
Site Address Burnett Road, Yelm, WA 98597
Required Permita~ Grading, Utility, Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical etc.
Section, Township, Range Section 13, Township 17 North, Range 1 East, W.M.,
Thurston County, WA
Site Location
The site is located in Yelm, Washington and ie bordered on the west by Burnett Road on the
east by Mountain View Road and situated about 500' northerly from Felm Ave.
Project Overview
The pcoposa] 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 Improvementa~
The completed project will create in approximately 5.03 acres of new impervious area (roadway,
driveways, paths, roofs and sidewalks), 0.16 acres of pervious parking lot and 4.95 acres of new
disturbed pervious areas.
SCA Consulting Group Page 1
Febmary 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
Pre-Development Coverage Summary (Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Uu-Disturbed
Pervious Roadway Total
A 2.45 0.04 2.49
B 2.32 0.06 238
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 Dismrbed
Pervious Pervious
Parking
Lot Roofs Sidewalks Path Roadways Driveways Total ',.
A 1.17 O.ll 0.43 0.12 0.09 0.45 0.12 2.49
B I.20 0 0.44 0.02 0.08 0.49 0.15 2.38
C 1.45 0 0.51 0.02 0.13 0.48 0.17 2.78
D 1.12 0.05 0.51 009 O.12 0.45 0.15 2.49
Total 4.95 0.16 L89 0.28 0.42 1.87 0.59 10.14
Stormwater TY~eatment:
Stormwater treatment design requirements aze based on the 1992 edition of the WSDOE
Stormwater Management Manual. Preliminary treatment calculations are provided in
Appendix I.
Sub-basin'A':
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Mountain View
Road and the proposed new roadways within Basin A of the proposed subdivision as
shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected
via catch basins and conveyed to an underground wet pipe for treatment excepts for
the parking lot for the community within Basin A. The wet pipe has been designed to
treat the 6 month 24 hr storm. From the wet pipe stormwater will be conveyed to an
inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the
groundwater. The parking lot for the community center will be constructed from
structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff will 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 an underground wet pipe for treatment. From the
wet pipe storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will
provide for storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix 1 for
SCA Consulting Group Page 2
Pebmary 2005
Green Village Subtlivision Preliminary Drainage Report
calculations and Appendix 2 for details.
Sub-basin'C':
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and
the proposed new roadways within Basin C of the proposed subdivision as shown on
the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected via catch
basins and conveyed to an underground wet pipe for treatment. From the wet pipe
storm water will be conveyed to an inline infiltration gallery that will provide for
storage and infiltration back into the groundwater. See Appendix 1 for calculations
and Appendix 2 for detail.
Sub-basin'D':
Stormwater runoff from the proposed frontage improvements on Burnett Road and
the proposed new roadways within Basin D A of the proposed subdivision as shown
on the preliminary grading and drainage plan in Appendix 2 will be collected via
catch basins and conveyed to an underground wet pipe for treatment excepts for the
parking lot for the community within Basin A. The wet pipe has been designed to
treat the 6 month 24 hr storm. From the wet pipe storm water will be conveyed to an
inline infiltration gallery that will provide for storage and infiltration back into the
groundwater. The pazking lot for the community center will be constructed from
structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Treatment of runoff will be achieved
on site through native soils layers below pavers See Appendix 1 for calculations and
Appendix 2 for details.
Roof Runoff:
Roof runoff are considered clean impervious surfaces and is not required to be
treated. from new construction shall be routed to individual onsite drywalls. The roof
runoff from the houses on the individual lots will be drywalls shall be sized per the
DOE Stormwater Manual based on an average roof size of 1,500 sf. As all lots shall
have drywalls based on Class B soils. The roof runoff from the community center will
be tightlined to the structural interlocking concrete pervious pavers. Ballast will
provide storage before infiltration to ground.
SECTION 2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is 10 acres rectangulaz in shape with 330 feet fronting Burnett Road and 330 fronting
on Mountain View Road. The site is fairly flat with gentle slopes to the northwest and
northwest. The site is currently vacant land. The site is covered with a light density of Scotch
Broom growth with indigenous field grasses. On site sails aze well drained and formed in
glacial outwash.
There aze no creeks, lakes, ponds, springs, wetlands, ravines, gullies, steep slopes or other
environmentally sensitive azeas identified onsite or down gradient of the subject property.
The site is located in an aquifer sensitive azea, according to the 1986 Thurston County
Comprehensive Plan M-8. The site is not located in a wellhead protection azea.
SCA Consulting Group Page 3
Febmary 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dra'nage Report
SECTION 3 -INFILTRATION RATES
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soi] Survey of Thurston County claesiSes oneite Boils as
Spanaway (110) aeries.
The design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr was assumed far 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 oneite well
logs were found at the Department of Ecology.
No abandoned or existing septic systems were identified during SCA'a site investigation or at
the Thurston County Development Services office. Any septic system found will be removed
in accordance with Thurston County Department of Health standards.
SECTION 5 - FUEL TANKS
No fuel tanks were located during SCA's site inspection or during soils work. Additionally, a
review of the DOE's Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list did not indicate any
existing or abandoned fuel tanks on the project Bite.
SECTION 6 - SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the Thompson Creek Drainage Sub-Basin, Nisqually River
Drainage Basin per'Churston County Comprehensive Map M-4.
During SCA's site investigation and soils analysis, it appeared that all onsite stormwater
runoff is contained onsite and infiltrated back into the groundwater, which is typical of the
site's soil classification. All onsite stormwater cunoff will be contained and infiltrated onsite.
There does not appear to be any significant existing offsite drainage to the property.
As discussed previously, the proposed development has been divided into three drainage sub-
basins.
No hazardous materials handling is anticipated in the area tributary to the storm drainage
facilities.
SECTION 7 - ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD
This project does not lie adjacent to or contain a stream onsite and has not been identified as
a 100-year flood hazard area. A FEbL4 FIRM Map is included in Appendix III.
SECTION 8 - AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES
The storm drainage facilities are located underground. All disturbed pervious areas will be
vegetated and landscaped.
SCA Consulting Group page q
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dra'nage Report
SECTION 9 - DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FACILITY SIZING
Sizing calculations for the project's stormwater treatment, storage, and in£tration 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 facil~ ' including pipes, wet vaults, and infiltration galleries will require
routine maintenance~l'he maintenance manual prepared for the project will list the
maintenance requirements. 9 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 Il
Erosion Control Report
Green Village Subd~v s'on Prel'm'n rv D a' 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 boun ries during construction until
permanent vegetation and site improvements are in place~rosion/sedimentation control
shall be achieved by a combination of structurallvegetative cover measures and construction
practices tailored to St 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 5rat be installed. The planned construction sequence is as follows
1. Schedule preconstruction conference with the city, contractor, project engineer, and
constructiomstaking surveyor.
3. Install rock construction entrance. Use 4" to 8" diameter spans with 1~' minimum
depth.
3. Install filter fabric fencing in the locations shown on the plans.
4. Clear site (grubbing and rough grading).
6. 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. Install underground utilities (water, sewer, storm).
8. Provide inlet protection around all new catch basins.
9. Construct roadway and parking and install landscaping, sod and/or seed, and mulch
all disturbed areas.
10. Maintain al] erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and silt runoff
ceases.
SECTION 2 - TRAPPING SEDIMENT
Filtee fabric fencing will be installed to trap sediment before runoff exits the site. In addition,
inlet protection will be installed around all existing and new catch basins to filter out
sediment before runoff enters the storm system.
A stabilized construction entrance will be installed to prevent construction vehicles from
tracking soil onto roadways. If sediment is tracked offsite, it shall be swept or shoveled from
paved surfaces on a daily basis, so that it is not washed into existing catch basins oc 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, eodding, or plastic covering shall be used to prevent erosion in theee areas.
SCA Consulting Group Page 6
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Repoli
SECTION 3 - PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL & SITE RESTORATION
All disturbed areas will be paved with asphalt, covered by buildings, or landscaped with
grass, shrubbery, or trees per the Landscaping plans.
SECTION 4 - GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT
None of the storm drainage facilities are located near the top of a steep slope. Therefore, a
geotechnical analysis for slope or soil stability was deemed unnecessary. See Appendix V for
a complete soils description.
SECTION 5 - INSPECTION SEQUENCE
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 Fabcic Fences
c. Inlet protection of new catch basins
3. The conveyance systems will be inspected after construction of the facilities, but before
project completion to ensure the following items are in working order
a. Pavement Drainage
b. Catch Basins
a 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 contractoe 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 Page 7
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 moat components that are part of the
drainage system. A checklist should be completed for all system components accrording to the
following schedule:
1. Monthly from November through April
2. Once in late summer (preferably September)
3. After any major storm (use 1" in 24-hours as a guideline) items marked `S" only.
Using photocopies of these pages check off the problems identified with each inspection. Add
comments on problems found and actions taken. Keep these "checked" sheets in a file, as they
will be used to write the annual report (due in May of each year). Same items do not need to
be checked with every inspection. Use the suggested frequency at the left of each item as a
guideline for the inspections.
The City of Yelm is available for technical assistance. Do not hesitate to call, especially if it
appears that a problem may exist.
SCA Consultlng Group Page e
Rebruary 2005
Green Villaee Subd'v's'on Prel'm'nary D a'naoe Report
ATTACHMENT °A"~ MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
COVER SHEET
Inspection Period
Number of Sheets Attached
Date Inspected
Name of InapectoY
Inapectot's Signature
SCA Consulting Group
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary D2inage Report
SECTION 1 - REQUIRED MAINTENANCE
The drainage facilities will require occasional maintenance. The checklists below are the
minimum maintenance requirements and inspection frequencies.
Maintenance Checklist for Conveyance Systems (Pipes and Swales)
Freyuency Drainage v' Problem Conditions ro Check For Conditions Tha[ Should
System Req'd Exist
Feature ~
M.S. Pipes J Sediment& Accumulated sediment [hat Pipe cleaned of all
debris exceeds 20 0 of the diameter of sediment and debris.
[he pipe.
M V Vegetation Vegetation that reduces' free All vegetation removed so
movement of water through pipes. water flows freely.
A ~ Damaged Protective coating is damaged, Pipe repaired or replaced.
(rusted, rust is causing more than 50%
beet or deterioration to any pert of pipe.
CNSIICdI
M V My den[ that significantly Pipe repaired or replaced.
impedes Flow (i.e., dwreases the
cross section area of pipe by more
then 20%).
M ~ Pipe has major cracks pr rears Pipe repaired or replaced.
allmving groundwater leakage.
M.S. Swales Trash & Dumping of yard wastes such as Remove [rash and debris
debris grass clippings and branches into and dispose as presrnbed
Swale. Accumulation of non- by City Waste
degradable materials such as Management Section.
glasa plas'[ic, metal, foam and
coated paper.
M Sediment Accumulated sediment that Swale cleaned of all
buildup exceeds 20% of the design depth. sediment and debris so
that it matches design.
M Vegetation Grass cover is sparie and weedy Aerate soils' and reseed
not or auras are overgrown with and mulch bare areas.
growing or woody vegetation. Maintain grass height at a
overgrown minimum of fi" for best
s[ortnweter treatment.
Remove woody growth,
recontour and reseed es
necessary.
M Conversion Swale has been filed in or If possible, speak with
by owner ro blocked by shed, woodpile, owner and request that
incompatibl shrubbery, etc. Swale area be restored.
e u5C Contact City t0 rCport
problem if not rectified
voluntarily.
A Swale does Water stands in Swale or flow A survey may be needed
no[ drain velocity is very slow. Stagnation to check grades. Grades
occurs. need to be in 1 % range if
ossible. If rade is less
scn Consulting Group Page 10
February 2005
Green Village Subtlivision Preliminary Dra'nage ReOOrt
Frequency Drainage ~ Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should '
System &eq.d Exist
Feature
than I%, underdrains may
need to be installed.
If you are unmrc whether a problem gists, please comae[ ~M1e JurisAiniu~ an0 ask for tecM1nical assismnce.
Com ems:
Krym A=Anvevl(Ma¢h or April palmed)
M = Mon~bly (sce scM1edule)
S = Afler major norms
SCA Consulting Group Page t 1
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dminaqe Report
ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Catch Basins and Inlets
Frequency Drainage V Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That
System Should Exist
Feature
M.S. General J Trash, debris and Trash or debris in (root of No trash or debris
sediment in or on the catch basin opening is located
basin blocking capacity by more immediately in
than l0°o. Root of catch basin
opening. Grate is
kept dean and
allows water to
enter.
M J Sediment or debris (in the Fo sediment or
basin) that exceeds 1/3 the debris in the catch
depth from the bottom of basin Catah basin
basin to invert of the is dug out and
lowest pipe into or out of clean.
the basin.
M.S. J Trash or debris in any inlet Inlet and outlet
or pipe blocking more than pipes free of trash
I/3 of its height. or debris.
M J Structural Comer of frame extends Frame is even with
damage to frame more than 3/4" past curb curb.
and/or rop slab face into the street (if
applicable).
M J "Cop slab has holes larger Top slab is Gee of
than 2 square inches or holes and cracks.
cracks wider than 1/4"
(imevt is to make sure all
material is running into the
basin).
M v F2me no[ sitting flush on Frame is sitting
rop slab, i.e., separation of Flush on top slab.
more than 3/4" of the
Rome from the rop slab.
A J Cracks in basin Cracks wider than 1/2" and Basin replaced or
wallsPoottom longer then 3', any repaired m design
evidence of soil particles' standards. Contact
entering catch basin a professional
through cracks or evgineer for
maintenance person judges evaluation,
[hat slruaure is unsound.
A J Cracks wider than 1/2" and No cracks more
longer than l'at thejoin[ than l/4"wide a[
of any inlerloutlel pipe or thejoin[of
any evidence of soil inletloutlet pipe.
particles entering catch
basin through cracks.
SCA Consulting Group Page 12
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
Frequency Drainage J Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions Thet
System Should Exist
Feature
A J Senlementr'mis- Basin has settled more than Basin replaced or
alignment 1" or has rotated more than repaired to design
2"out of alignment. standards. Contact
a professional
engineer for
evaluation.
M.S. J Fire hazard or Presence oC chemicals such No color, odor or
other pollution as natural gas, oil and sludge. Basin is
gasoline. Obnoxious dug ou[and clean.
color, odor or sludge
noted.
M.S. J Outlet pipe is Vegetation or roots No vegetation or
clogged with growing in inleVoutlet pipe root gowth
vegetation Joints that is more than G' present.
tell and less than 6" apart.
If you are unsure whe~her a problem exins pleue conmci ihu ]uri W ic~ion and ask for technical usisionce.
Comments:
Kcy: A-AnnuaifMerch or Apnl prefertedl
M = Nonihly [see schedule)
$ = Afler motor sloems
SCA Consulting Group Page 13
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainaoe Report
ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems
Frequency Drainage v Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should
System Esiet
Feature
M,S General Trash & See Maintenance See Maintenance
debris Checklist for Ponder Checklist for Ponds.
buildup in
pond
M Poisonous See Maintenance See Maintenance
vegetation Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponder.
M,S Eire hazard See Maintenance See Maintenance
or pollution Checklist for Ponder. Checklist for Ponds.
M Vegetation See Maintenance See Maintenance
not growing Checklist for Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
or is
overgrown
M Rodent See Maintenance See Maintenance
holes Checklist for Panda. Checklist for Ponds.
M Insects See Maintenance See Maintenance
Checkl~tfor Ponds. Checklist for Ponds.
A Storage J Sediment A soil texture test ~ Sediment is removed
area buildup in indicates facility is not and/or facility is cleaned
system working at its designed so that infiltration
capabilities or was system works according
incorrectly designed. to design. A sediment
trapping area is installed
to reduce sediment
transport into
infiltration area.
A J Storage A soil texture tesC Additional volume is
area drains indicates facility is not added through
slowly working at its designed excavation to provide
(more than capabilities or was needed storage. Soil is
48 hours) incorrectly designed. aerated and rototilled to
or improve drainage.
overflows Contact the Gty for
information on its
requirements regarding
excavation.
SCA Consulting Group Page 14
February 2005
Green Village Subtlivision Preliminary Drainage Report
M Sediment Any sediment and debris Clean out sump to design
trapping filling area to 10% of depth.
area depth from sump
bottom~to-bottom of
outlet pipe or
obstructing flow into the
connector pipe.
One Time Sediment Stormwater entees Add a trapping area by
trapping infilteatim area directly constructing a sump for
area not without treatment. settling of solids.
present Segregate settling area
from rest of facility.
Contact City for
guidance.
M Rock J Sediment By visual inspection Replace gravel in rock
filters and debris little or no water slows filter.
through filter during
heavy rainstorms.
S Infiltratio Infiltration Standing Water in Excavate bottom of
o Failure Inspection Well After trench ea necessary but
Trenches 48 hours after storm or at least 3 feet. Replace
Overflow during Storms with crushed rock.
Chock pretreatment
systems for
effectiveness. Check
tributary area for
sediment sources.
If you are unsure whe[hev n problem esfst, planes contact the Jurisdictipa and ask fov techvfcal assisoance.
Comment:
Kev
A=Annual6'vlnmh or dpril prefevradl
M =Momhly (see echedulel
5 = diter major smrms
SCA Consulting Group Page 15
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Drainage Report
ATTACHMENT"A"(CONTINIIED)
Maintenance Checklist For Grounds (Landscaping)
Frequen Drainage J Problem Conditions to Check Conditions That Should
cy System For Exist
Feature
M General J Weeds Weeds growing in Weeds present in less
(nonpoisono more than'LO%ofthe than o%ofthe landscaped
us) landscaped area (rases area.
and shrubs only).
M J Safety Any presence of poison No poisonous vegetation
hazard ivy or other poisonous or insect nests present in
vegetation or insect landscaped area.
nests.
M,S J Trash or See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist.
litter
M,S J Erosion of Noticeable rills ere Cuuses of erosion are
Gromd seen in landscaped identified and steps taken
Surface areas. to slow down spread out
the water. Eroded areas
sea filled, contoured, and
seeded.
A Trees and J Demags Limbs or parts of trees Trim trees/shrubs to
shrubs or shmbs that are split restore shape. Replace
or broken which affect' trees/shrubs with severe
more than 25"/0 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 if severely
damaged.
A J Trees or shrubs, which Place stakes and rubber
are not adequately coated ties around young
supported ar are trees/shrubs for support.
leaning oveq causing
exposure of the roots.
I[yoa ave unsure wM1ethev a problem ezis[s, plevse mvtac[ the .Iuvisdicuonsnd ask Pov teehvful ascis[nnce_
Comments
Key.
A =Annual (btareh or AprO pmPevred)
M = Mmchly (see ~rohedule)
S =,VFer major smvms
SCA Consulting Group Page 16
Febmary 2005
Green Village Subtlivisign Preliminary Drainage Report
ATTACHMENT"A"(CONTINUED)
Maintenance Checklist for Pervious Pavers
Fregcevcy preiruge System Req'a Problem Cordiliom to Cteck FOr and Anionb CoMilions Thal SlnWd
Fealuee Take F.xisl
M.S Peni us pavers v $eJirtenl buildu0 ErtsweitauM pervi us pav rssudace $edimeN isremwed alv4'or
nsWSce is free o(sedimem pav nen is clearcdso aal
iMltraaon woks according
m design
M, S pervious pavers v Sediment buildup Euurt Jal IM conlnbming aM Sedi~rem is removed aM/or
~~a'ace aaiacem uwseape area re subir a pav roam is aeaaea ao mat
aryl rtnwea, wiN CIiPP np removetl iNiltrztioa works accoring
to aeai~
a rmealrear Pervio~ti Pavers , xaimem buaa~p vacaam aweep or samorpomus pavers seaimemmremovm.
Mire aamraae imaallcea. Replaoe wnn deaa morel at
rtect ylaaaliun.
Upon Failurt Pen'ious pavers v Spal clo~ny Prolonged spot P'radlingon pavnanl Renou'e pavers aM replace
surfim ballasraM SaM as rceded
If you art urswe wFtlRr a problem exia6-please comm~ Ne lwaaiclion aN ask fonectutical vasisbrce.
Conmxnls.
Key: q=Nmwl(Ma¢M1 Or Apnl pre(eeredl
M = MonNty Isu acnedule)
S =Alter major smn~ss
SCA Consulting Group Page 17
February 2005
Green Village Subdivision Preliminary Dra'naae Report
SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION
The project owner shall be responsible for the operations and maintenance of all onsite storm
drainage facilities.
SECTION 3 - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
All disturbed pervious areas on the site will be landscaped to provide an aesthetically
pleasing environment.
SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL
Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste -Drains to Groundwater") will be embossed or painted
on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets and will be repainted periodically as necessary.
SCA Consulting Group Page 18
Febmary 2005
Appendix I
Preliminary Drainage Calculations
PRELIMIN.9R.Y DRAINAGF. CALCULATIONS
The following calculations are based oa 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 Couuty, 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 Isopluvia] Maps -App. AIII-1.1 of WSDOE Storm
Manual)
6 month storm (64% of 2 yr. storm) = 1.25"
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 Roadwav 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 1U.14
Past-Development Coverage Summary(Including Frontage Improvements)
Basin Disturbed
Pervious Pervious
Parking
Lo[ Roofs Sidewalks Path Roadways Driveways Total
A 1.19 0.11 0.43 0.t2 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 0 051 0.02 0.13 0.49 0.17 2.77
D 1.17 0.05 0.51 009 0.12 0.39 O.IS 2.49
Total 5.12 0.16 1.R9 0.28 0.41 1.69 0.59 10.14
BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS Event Summary
BasinlD Peak O Peak TPeak VoI Area Method Raintype Even[
------ (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss
BASINA 1.07 8.00 0.4188 1.95 SCSISCS TVPE1A t00y
BASINA 0.21 8.00 0.0809 1.95 SCS/SCS TVPE1A6 mo
Drainage Area: BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd Loss Melhod: SCS CN Number
Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Inlv: 10.00 min
Area CN TC
Pervious 1.1700 ac 77.00 0.38 hrs
Impervious 0.7800 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs
Total 1.9500 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPING 77.00
Impervious CN Data:
PAVEMENT, SIDEWALK, AND DW
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet OVERLAND
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ALONG GUTTER
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
1.1700 ac
98.00 0.7800 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
97.00 ft 0.50 % 0.1500 21.06 min
197.00 ft 3.00 % 42.0000 0.45 min
176.00 ft 1.00 % 42.0000 0.70 min
128.00 ft 0.50 % 42.0000 0.72 min
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
170.00 ft 3.00% 0.0110 1.99 min
197.00 ft 3.00 % 42.0000 0.45 min
176.OOft 1.00% 42.0000 0.70 min
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: 0.2100 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3522.20 cf - 0.0809 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS] TO [BASIN A WITHOUT ROOFS - 100y] AS [t00y]
Peak Flow: 1.0705 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 18242.50 cf - 0.4188 acft
Control Structure ID: BASIN A -Infiltration control structure
Descrip: Multiple Orifice
Start EI Max EI Increment
303.0000 ft 304.0000 ft 0.10
Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00
Node 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 6.0000 ft 51.00
Node ID: BAS IN 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
1 OOy Match D: 1.0705 cfs Peak Out O: 0.9573 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.44 ft -Active Vol: 393.91
cf
BASIN B W/O ROOFS Event Summary
BasinlD Peak O Peak T
------- (cfs) (hrs)
BASIN B 1.08 8.00
BASIN B 0.20 B.00
Drainage Area : BASIN B W/O ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Uni[ Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Pervious 1.2000 ac 77.00
Impervious 0.7400 ac 98.00
Total 1.9400 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPE
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ACCROSS LOT
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ALONG GUTTER
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
(ac-ft) ac /Loss
04111 1.94 SCS/SCS TVPEIA 100y
0.0]]6 1.94 SCS/SCS TVPEIA 6mo
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Inty: 10.00 min
TC
0.32 hrs
0.04 hrs
77.00 1.2000 ac
98.00 0.7400 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
106.00 ft 1.00 % 0.1500 17.00 min
282.00 ft 3.10% 42.0000 0.64 min
116.00 ft 0.94% 42.0000 0.47 min
189.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.06 min
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
16.00 ft 3.10 % 0.0110 0.30 min
282.00 ft 3.10 % 42.0000 0.64 min
116.00 ft 0.94 % 42.0000 0.47 min
189.00 ft 0.50 % 42.0000 1.06 min
MOVEHYD [BASIN B WIO ROOFS] TO [BASIN 8 W/O ROOFS - 6mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.1994 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3378.28 cf - 0.0776 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN B W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN B WIO ROOFS - 100yj AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 1.0825 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 17905.64 cf - 0.4111 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: BAS IN B
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Widlh Void Ratio
300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00
Node ID: BASIN B RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303,0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: BASIN 8 Discharge Id: BASIN B
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN B RLP] SUMMARY
100y Match O: 1.0825 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.9342 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.36 ft -Active Vol: 326.93
cf
BASIN C W/O ROOFS Event Summary
BasinlD Peak O Peak T
------- (cfs) (hrs)
BASIN C 1.14 0.00
BASIN C 0.22 0.00
Drainage Area: BASIN C WIO ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Pervious 1.4500 ac 77.00
Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00
Total 2.2600 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
LANDSCAPE 77.00
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ACROSS LOT
Sheet ALONG GUTTER L INE
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ALONG GUTTER
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Even[
(ac-ft) ac /Loss
0.4697 2.26 BCSISCS IYPEtA 100y
0.0665 2.26 SCSISCS TVPEfA 6mo
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
InN: 10.00 min
TC
0.44 hrs
0.12 hrs
1.4500 ac
0.8100 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
120 .00 ft 1.00 % 0.1500 18.92 min
456 .OOft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min
153 .00 ft 2.26 % 42.0000 0.40 min
102 .00 ft 0.50 % 42.0000 0.57 min
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
456. 00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min
153. OOft 2.26% 42.0000 0.40 min
102. 00 ft 0.50 % 42.0000 0.57 m in
MOVEHYD [BASIN C WIO ROOFS] TO [BASIN C W/O ROOFS - 6mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.2170 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3765.95 cf - 0.0865 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN C W/O ROOFS] TO [BASIN C WIO ROOFS - 100y] AS [100y]
Peak Flaw: 1.1384 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Val: 20458.98 cf - 0.4697 acft
Control Structure ID: BASIN C -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: BAS IN C
Desc: Manhole structu re
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ratio
300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00
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
RLPCOMPUTE [BASIN C RLP] SUMMARY
100y Match O: 1.1384 cfs Peak Out O: 0.9004 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.27 ft -Active Vol: 243.99
cf
BASIN D W/O ROOFS Event Summary
BasinlD Peak O Peak T
---- (cfs) (hrs)
BASIN D 1.04 8.00
BASIN D 0.22 8.00
Drainage Area: BASIN D W/O ROOFS
Hyd Method: SCS Unit Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Pervious 1.1200 ac 77.00
Impervious 0.8100 ac 98.00
Total 1.9300 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
landscaping 77.00
Impervious CN Data:
ROADWAY,SIDEWLKS,DW 98.00
Pervious TC Data:
Flaw type: Description:
Sheet ACROSS LOT
Sheet ALONG GUTTER L INE
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Sheet ALONG GUTTER
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
(ac-ft) ac /Loss
0.4206 1.93 SCS/SCS TVPEIA 100y
0.0830 1.93 SCS/SCS TVPEIA 6ma
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Intv: 10.00 min
TC
0.45 hrs
0.07 hrs
1.1200 ac
0.8100 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
120.00 ft 1.00% 0.1500 18.92 min
456.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 6.46 min
434.00 ft 2.26% 42.0000 1.15 min
52.00 ft 0.50 % 42.0000 0.29 min
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time
174.00 ft 1.14% 0.0110 2.99 min
434.00 ft 2.26 % 42.0000 1.15 min
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: 0.2179 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 3613.87 cf - 0.0830 acft
MOVEHYD [BASIN D WIO ROOFS] TO [BASIN D W/O ROOFS - 100y] AS [100y]
Peak Flow: 1.0433 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Vol: 18322.24 cf - 0.4206 acft
Control Structure ID: BASIN D
Descrip: Multiple Orifice
Start EI Max EI
303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft
Infil: 20.00 in/hr
Node ID: BASIN D
Infiltration control structure
Increment
0.10
Multiplier: 1.00
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EI: 303.0000 ft Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd:
Length Width Void Ralio
300.0000 ft 6.0000 ft 51.00
Node ID: BAS IN D RLP
Desc: Manhole structure
Start EC 303.0000 f[ Max EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basi¢ Contrib Hyd:
Storage Id: BASIN D Discharge Id: BASIN D
RLPCOMPUTE (BASIN D RLP] SUMMARY
100y Match O: 1.0433 cfs Peak Out O: 0.9186 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.30 ft -Active Vol: 276.41
cf
PARKING LOT Event Summary
BasinlD Peak O Peak T
------ (cfs) (hrs)
PARKING LOT 0.36 8.00
PARKING LOT 0.11 6.00
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:
Channel PIPE FLOW
Channel PIPE FLOW
Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event
(ac-ft) ac /Loss
0.121] 0.39 SCSISCS TVPEIA 100y
0.0342 0.39 SCSISCS TVPEtA 6mo
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
201.00 ff 0.50 % 42.0000 1.13 min
30.00 ft 2.00 % 42.0000 0.08 min
MOVEHYD [PARKING LOT] TO [PARKING LOT - 6mo] AS [6 mo]
Peak Flow: 0.1051 cfs Peak Time: 8.00 hrs Hyd Val: 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 Orifce
Slart EI Max EI Increment
303.0000 ft 305.0000 ft 0.10
Infil: 20.00 in/hr Multiplier: 1.00
Node ID: PARKING LO7
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 Maz EI: 307.0000 ft
Contrib Basin: ConVib Hyd:
Storage Id: PARKING LOT Discharge Id: PARKING LOT
RLPCOMPUTE [PARKING LOT RLP] SUMMARY
100y MatchO=PeakO= 0.3551 cfs Peak Out O: 3.0020 cfs -Peak Stg: 303.46 ft - Ac[ive Vol:
890.54 cf
Appendix II
Preliminary Drainage and TESC Plan
31130ad'3 Ntlld NOISIA108(iS
39tlNItlaO'a 9NIOtla9 39tlllIA N33a9
>,avNlwn3ad
_~ e f ~I a ~~
~~
~ x
C ~.
'~ \
I ~. I~~ a
I ~ ~ ~ m„
~ ~ ~~
I ~ a
_ ~ ~ ~ \• ~ \\ om Io
mm' m ~ g. ~~ 1 Z
\ ~~
i i
n ..~ ~~IQ
e II ~ N
~' ~ $
_ I L~-
u~~ I -
~~;~ I
- /\ k~
„ '~
- ~ V
- o~ ~~
F6 ~~ ~~.1 ) ; I
a ~ r
_ ~q~ ~ ~.I .-,a c
4 lo~-
- ~ ~l' __ ~. m 3
y $ m
zS ~~ z 1111 IIII _~. __
I - z[
Cg S+ I,
Irr
s ~ ~/ /- k r
f ~ ~~
~ . ~~ r°,-
1 e
i °' ^'i
/ /;
~;
m x/` ~ ~ ~ O
/ i ~' Z i
L j i m
e I ~~ n r~
°.Q ~ I' ~ Qe ~ ^~ a
'm i.. I ~ vas
w
i
~' ~"
a ~ ~
`~' ~~ ~~
'~~ ~ .~\ -
II t
~ ~~,i ~_
it I A _
~~~~ \
s
\--. ,
i~ s
z ~w
^~Fd
~~
~
s
o
~
~
Leo
~
~
€ ~ o
I
p
~~~ C
m'a~
£ow
~£
_
o
~~ '
0 o S a o
e~ ~~ ac
o a
~ i~
`~ eggW 8 G£
~ b~
o ~b
a
O O OO
~e Si
x
"
,
-
P,~s
~~ 6
.y ; y
i r
H
~
~
~~a
~g1
e
_
~~~=
49 9~
~e
ao
e
; b
s
~I
~
~
¥
~~s~~
5
! SEQ.'
a
: g $
a ~_
v' a < n
M M ~
6 >SS=n 3 __ - -
~ 90'L3
~
i f l
N~
N
i 3
w
f] =fc)
~
$ p
~1a ,
yf
~ ~ 1 ~ . osoct f .,
I I
~
r
~ is trt ~
..
_
' I
.-L
I ea fce
.(
',
f = 4dn _
I ~
~ o
i
oo-s +a~= s-fdn sc zcc N
~. ~
I
~ F3 L .~ o
i
~
6 tfC
Tl3 dl I i~ I f6LCC ~
06 F f Il tlL5 d~ 1
I
II ~ f ff; o
I -
a 6 a4~ = m'i idn
o
e of
aGS mn ~
~ _
y f
I r 6 cf vi
5 ~ - 99zs a
G
' f fs,f
•. , _ _
-t ~e ccc o
6 9fi 13 San L efC)
~ O
--fl& 4+6 = lS- .
0> SSS
m I
~~
~
_ , . 9C[ss ~
0
00 BPf
L 0 - nli ldn
15 l
l
d
- ~- -
~ - I f i Ar.
/
{ I
i
~
c
r oa
fs m
~'
v
t
9
v ao
C
y
m ian
L idn f
` ~' ~
I
~ ~~~
- ~ ~ 9f lec
°n
f
I
-- I
I ~~
i I I_>:i
o'
e-wF-
4 as d
ll --
1 - I 99 iot ~
P] 96
9 tl16 d I ~
J ~ 1 ._ 1 ., I ._:
f .ef N
~ ~
z Iaf t' do
0 Z+9 1G do
~ 1
I
~
~~
J6fU
SCO9t o
o
o
I ~~I 10fC1 i
_ - 00'0>f
~ n
- I
I
~_
I rsl of t; o
~ } 4
.
(I
I
1 I
~ sz 6rf
~~ ~
.
I I
l '~~ _
69ff-
10
~
_ - _ ~ ~ ~sf p
- i
ff _
s, f n
~
1
.L ~f,
o
j 1
o
-~ Ltc '= lnfa idn
I
_
- ~ ae 9fc;
a c ~°
~
ao s*c = aa5 idn 9
ff
U 6 i¢ - ~e n
- ~
-
i
o
Qq 9+[= is~n 3~~ i-~ ooscc ~
/
~~ N
~_ ~ a 0 i
t
~ _ 68 ff4 ~
\
I n~
C bCf
T n/~ n ~ ~
r ~
~ - .. i 0f
C
2
~ I i i
oa o+e ys fan C
Z f ~I
~
~ I ~ -9,; Rff
C L C o
a
I i ~ LT
L
ao aL£ = n~3 IM ~
9o s6.~ = eGS Ian
LOCO T13 d 1 I
~ _ 6rffO o
_ 1 ~ - tlL 1 I , i 6COLC 6
~.
~ -
~ ~ ~~
o Iff~ 1 ..
.. I'.
+-- ~ ~x evf ?~
9 S ~
_ +9 Nv3tl d9ve ~ ~ ~ i 02 Ltf +
~ I l ~
~
I I
i t
L Z ~ v I I
~ I I
... ~ o
~
I. 6~~ U
i 9
-16 3N a I i ~
o n
0 /1 0
M M
M
M
M M
M
M
M M
-~,~
,
-
' ~_ ~
S~IH134 39VNIVliN e
'
~"~~~
~ m ~ ~
NOISI~108f1S
~~~
~a ~
~~ ~
"
V1~1~ N33li9
3 -
9 ~o =~ ~~~
d~ .
~a
~ll1VNIWIl3ad _
~
~,~ -
m
r
,
.
z
4 i
s J
z ~ e
~~~~"' ~~
i
~
° ~
n
I r~
- O
n
~ 5 Q
w ~
~ s
U
6
n m3
d
K
Z ° ~
C
Lw H
_
~
c _ °_ ~
z =~ s
~: ,
O
F
~Y >
d?
I i I
"' d
_ __- v-A- _ ____-. ,.c
W. E Ede"
g3gP ~ a=d@
0 - s - __ - BEY gaa M1"
-. w.. n. gyn. E
g ~ ° a:
e €~d~
z
_
u~ o
.a w
~
I e~ c
: fY
Z n
~ 32 d
a ( ~~
E
~
s
~a
~
F
~ @E£ ~ W
V
w ~
F€€Se ; s
y ,
36~
w
O
~~'h m
u n
~&~~ ~
Q ~ Z
s ~& "
a a
w 9 x
- °
~ s
E ~ zi
~
w
~
r9
o~ -..~
,
~
i ~~
!
r
.e
~„L __ ~
U
G" ~°"
~~
691 ~
€ r} ~
9
~
o d~ ~ . Id 9 ~~@ 6€
w I~ S: &~ ^I o .~g~ Be
~
~ ~-~
g
w
0 I
~
o F. n~•
~'
~
e -
°[ K Efr E ._
tm ~3 Y5 fiOO FaN .Y ~ Eo[
5: >S~ _° [_ 6~ fru~ fie " ~ 6
_ _ t goo sEo °~5_ fraa
_ -off': _ Es°nF3E° eb °S° o°E u`$Yu b'_
q _ _ _ _a5„
° --` ~ni' ~5£.~E`'°°°~ a- of„' a -~ ^E~€
€ a°"° S~ om :.6ee~6fia. = vio ~= cA- ay_
e~ ~~u °°b~-"°
€ ~¢_~m8 Fe: 8~3s •°soeb a~ fi ~; E$ :~°6b _~-_
-_ ova ~- s `Y _ _ - __
_ mS PY.°° goS - of E3 yip
_ ocE~ o e~ a-a ou bfi~ S*PF a°°6 ~^,auv o.
E E[ua mr ~a~oFNeVJa One S'q£5 froee ..0~5 ~5"Ya
° f@u~~a~ ¢~e.s €~^ySLoog Eva a`P.E "spa °a~cE s'€e
m
g
6
1 ~ ~ ~ F
d o s ° ry ~
' F y
~ ° ~~ s
d9
u ~S
3
p ~ R
a e ~
8 ~C ~
$ ~~ F
§
@
c~ w
~
s ~ _s
=` ~
§ v
~~ <
3
1
@ w
o
_ ~
a§ ~,
3d a
U
_
~8
B p~
d ~
€ $~ o
~n~
~
~~
~
~a~ $
a
g
a_o s
'`
~
,a
„
~
e
:d
?~ B
3~
~a
a~
~~.~~,
eL/11
Appendix III
FEMA FIRM Map
Z
W s
m o
° ~~
z ~,
Z J
w U U U ~
Q r~'l ~ Q Z
a ~
a oo ~
w ro ro w o
W ~ N
O O W Q
~ M M Z W
U ~ M O ~
~ N Q
W
H ~
~ U
W W
w O
N
U
W
z
,_ o
w
~_~
~ ~ ~ ~ ^
OVOli d M31/~ NIV1N(tOW
0
o
' r c
- ~ i J
.~13aals -~u3Nana ~ -~,_ c>'
0
--i ~i
wl
a~,l
o~~
~, ~ ~,
~a
o ~ I
a ~ ~ ~ ~,
•~•
• ~
^ c~ •W,. s • c c ,..y.
6 1O
a r a
z
O
N
a >
a m
N
Q }
W
J
J
Q
W >
LL w
w
Appendix IV
Pervious Pavers Literature
,,
UNI ECO-STONE®
GUIDE
~ti ~ AND
" RESEARCH
SUMMARY
~~ ,« .;
,~ ~ t i
~, xv .„cq r„y'
F3 { S ~ `-
-_. y-_ _
`~~ u ~ V
~5 ~:,
"i F ~ ~.' t ~, ~ K,_„~ ~ CUB
:5 i ~ ~~ ~4s~Y ~',. Q ~'
h
f t
1 ~ ~
L\.~
,~ _¢..1 r
J
a ei".:. 8: .: a _'
-,~:..
-z- -
-:
"s'n
~.,,'PY.z ...
Permeable Pavement
for Stormwater Management
u~~
UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES
u~~
UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
4362 Norrhlake Blvd. • Suite 204 • Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 • (S6q 626-4666 • Pax (561) 627~i403 • (900) 872-1864
'Phis paper is a summary of the Eco-Scone reseacch and studies char have been done to dare and includes a geveral design overview
and ocher information char may be helpful m the designee For a copy oFam of these reports, theses, or articles call UNI-GROUP
U.S.A. at 1-800-872-1964 or contact us vie a-mail at info@uni-groupusa.org.
The information included in this report is imended m provide guidance and recommendations Eor the design and construction of
UNI Eco-Stne° incerlo<king concrete permeable pavements. Recommendations arc guidelines only and will vary with total
regulations, specifications, environmental conditions, marerials, and established construction methods for an area. It is not intended
ro replace the judgement or expertise of professional engineers or landscape architects, who should be consulted in the design and
construction of permeable pavements.
O 2002 UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
This report may not be reproduced whole or in part without the express wriacn consent of UNI-GROUP U.S.A
ACKER STONE MUIL'AL MATERWS, INC. PAVESTONE COMrANT L"JILOCK NEW TORK, ING
13396 Temnal Canvan Rd., Camnu,CA 919 19 fi0S 1194. be. V. E, Bdlevoe. WA 98005 1900 Clovis Buda Rd. Sn Norms, TX )8666 it lnrom.nomi BHd., Brcwna NY 10509
19096]4~W4)I FAK 19091 E4L4A (425)45?300/Ei%4?5)6310194 ($Il)55BgE83lfAX ($131 i5A-0289 19141 Z/Ab/OOf FAX l9141Db6]AB
IAW1411-3008
ANCH00. CONCRETE PRODUCTS PAVESTONE COMPANY LIpILOCK CHIGGO.INC.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS MUNAL MATERWS, MG 169 PaggF 6~cTvrooc GA )490 301 CSoGivan Rl. AUmn, ILG0504
1913 ArOnricdve. Mamrymn, d'l0A]J6 6T.I E. Trent Spolone, WA 99212 ID0130496911 FAX ]101306~3J41 (6301 A92.91911FKK 1630)392-9215
1132139245001 fAX p331292-2650 15091933-11001 FAX (5091922-020]
I3fg1 P5S-0413 PAVESTONE GOMPANY UNLOCK MICHIGAN,ING
ANCHOR CONCRETE PPOOUCIS 64033 HIghmv434, Iawmbe LA ]0445 13591 Emerson Dq Boghmn, MI48116
9]5 Bnmr Tavcm Rd. 9nd, N] OB134 'M~AI"M'ATE~~~ ING 604) 832-9111 f PAX ISOeI 332-435 1248143]-T03] / PAX (24A43Lf61Y
p321453L8331 FAX 091840A23d 133305.W Boaon &ay RR
Pon6nd.0R 91234 PAVESfONf COMPANY IM1'ILOCK OHIO, INC.
ANCH00. CONCRETE PRODUCTS 15031624.33601 FAX 6031620-0]09 8499 emadwell Rd.. G'neinmri.OH 45246 ^5605M1ao Rd, Rlmmvo.OH 44210
100 FouGh Ri. P6iillpkurg, NJ 03865 130014]b113i f51A 494 )1831 FAX 15131 f/4~633 C30 9P-0OW I FAX (330) 92141 W
19031425-13251 FAX 190314)5-IJ3]
ANCHOR CONCRETE P0.000Cf5 PAVER SYSTEMS PAVESTONE COMPANY WILIAMEITEGMYSIONE, INC.
110 &rg<n TumpkeLlP
; N10964) 16.1 pee Rd,W realm Boeh, FL334 0"1015543N Ave. PAa~ozAZ 35009 403 N.E244rh drc.
,
13011641-3161 / PAX 1.011691 ]T9 661' 849 5303 / Fix'S6p 344-5454 /603) 3P-0533 /FAX (602)'59-IP4 W od Viingc OR 91W0
I3NI L'60004 pAVEttONE fOMPANY 15031669-]6C/FAX 15031669)619
BALCON/BETCO
3630 Conway RJ., Gofim, Mp 21114
14101 T31-19001 FAX 1410) ]93-06P
Billimort 14101193-0633
Mam Wuhmgron, DC 1)011'.61-@OU
BORCERT P0.0DOCR, INC.
8646 Rdgewaod Ad.. St Jasepb, MN 56314
1320) 36&4611 / fAC U3A) 36}3)16
4S Power Rd.. Wnr(od, MA OIB36
f131394d2001 FA%f9131 Gffi-0311
{3W1444~9239
IDE4 CONCRETE BLOCK CO.
Z33lenogmn h. Wilrham, MA 02454
V311894R00 / FAK 681) 394-0536
10001444.831
INTERLOCK PANNG sY$TEMA. INC.
303 Wm Pr,nbmke Ave, Hampmn-VA ll669
p5lnz3 0114! FAx a=-1 a3.339s
1300) 5:1313911n NC 3l'A)
KIRCHNF.R BLOCK k BRICK.INC.
1501 N. Chndes Rock Rd..
3odgemn..MO 631144
IJ141291J20011'AX IS1iI J'I-iCGi
PAVER SYSTEMS
39 Wes landsrrar R1, Odendo, FLJ2R24
14011 35 9 91 R /FAX (gO]1351-9316
IBWI ^6.911)
rnvER 515TEM5
tl901 N. 134, Sc k Bm1A IIIrJ..
Tampa, FL 33604
13131933-0312 / lAX 1313) 9334914
(BIro3SGPAVE
PAVER SYSTEMS
343Inm~¢ BIB Santora. PL 34340
[9411ID_9994 /FAY 194113]1-9580
PAVESTONE COMPANY
CORPORATE HEADQUARTE0.1
?W Heorcge 5gmml
4335 LRl N O+liv PskmY Dillas. TX]444
14?1404-0900 /fir 19: LI 404.9300
ftlW15B0-PAVE ITmr Onl.l
l3om gas-PAVE o4nomll
601 N. E. Pavrnone Or,
Ieds Som,nlt M064064
10161534-Y900 /FAX 1016] 5249901
PAVESTONE COMPANY
9401E 96rA Ave H.,,dum9 CO BW40
(3031339-)]001 FAx 1303) lA]-9]59
DAVESTONE COMPANY
4635 Wynn pd.. W Vagn. NV 89103
V02122 W]00 / G% 8021331-212]
PAVESTONE COMPANY
4151 Powu Inn Rd..lrmmemq CA 953M
1916)45: i333/PA%19161952-9"_4'_
PAVESTONE COMPANY
29600 Cmmrv Rd 90, Wmars G 95694
1916145L5L33/FAX 1916144-9242
uNILOCK, LrD.
281 Armxmosdm
eeoNernwn. on~>nn,r d, gc-ax6
PAVESTONE COMPMY 1905] 45 3-143 6 1 FAt 19051814-JU34
915 Scum Hlgnwav 360. Gnpnloe. TX 16099 UNILOLK, INC.
1A~ H3Li90!14AC 131114BA-0316 flOSmi~h Sr. Rufilo. NY 14210
PAVESTOFE COMPANY fi6)8]_'-LU/41 FAX p16)822fi016
3001 Rim3makshlre Rd.. Kam iX "194
I".311391- '_931 FAX 12313 J9!-133'
LICENSING OFFICE:
E tON LANGSDORFF LICENSING LTD.
HI4i KennNy Rovd. RR:I, Inglewood.
Ooruia Ccnoda LON-TKO
19os; 333.1930 /FAX 19051 aie-1931
V6troor websim m wwwnnS~rovpocog for
updorM inform nuhcn
orlon on ow ma
Iis:v3, w+n«h, deign goidnaud mo,er
TABLE OF CONTENTS
UNI ECO-STONE' PROJECTS ............................
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN .............................................................. ........G
UNI ECO-STONE® PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS._ ......................................... ........7
Features and Benefits of the Uni Eco-$rone® Pavement Sysrem ....................................................................... ........7
Municipal Regulations, Infiltration Practices, and Objectives ....................................__................................. ........7
General Construction Guidelines .................................................._..._..........._............................................ .._....8
Design Options -Full, Partial, or No Exfiltration .............................................................................. ........8
Site Selection Guidelines .................................................................................................................. ........9
Infiltration Rate Design and Considerations ..................................................................................... ........9
Construction Materials and Installation Guidelines ..............................._..................................._._. ......10
Maintenance .................................................................................................................................... ...... l l
Cold Climate Considera[ions ........................................................................................................... ......1 l
RESEARCH AND TESTING -UNI ECO-STONE'" PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SYSTEM ................................. ......12
Design Considerations For the UNI Eco-Stone° Concrece Pavec .................................................................... ...._ 12
Drainage Design and Performance Guidelines for UNI Eco-Stone" Permeable Pavement........._ .................... ......13
Infilaation and Structural Tests of Permeable Eco-Paving.._......_ ................................................................... _....14
ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY ................_..._.._..........._................................................... .....15
The Leaching of Pollutants From Four Pavements Using Laboramry Apparatus ..........................................._. .....15
S[ormwa[er Inves[iga[ion ofl'hermal Enrichment of Srormwarer Runoff From Two Paving $urfaces ............... .....19
Design and Installation ofTest Sections of Porous Pavements For Improved Quality of Parking Lot Runoff...... .....21
Long-Term $mrmwater Infiltration Through Concrete Pavers .................._..._............................................... .....24
Feasibility of a Permeable Pavemem 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-STONEm RESEARCH AND TESTING ........................................................................ .....34
The University of Washington Permeable Pavement Demonstration Pmjea .................................................... .....34
Expert Opinion on UNI Eco-Srone' - Pedes[rian Use ......................................._............................................ .....34
Expert Opinion - In-Situ lest of Water Permeability ofTwo UM EcoStone° Pavements ................................ .....34
Drainage with Interlocking Pavers ..................................................................._..._....................................... .....34
Development of Design Crireria for Flood Control and Groundwater Recharge Utilising
UNI Ern-Stone' and ECOLOC'" Paving Units ....................._..._._.................................................._.._........ .....34
STRUCTURAL DESIGN SOFTWARE .................................................................................................................... .....35
POWERPOINT® PRESENTATION ....................................................._...._........................................_._.............. .....35
CASE STUDIES ......................................................................._._._..............._.............................._........................ .....3G
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ................................_........._......._...................._....................._.............................. .....37
INSPECTION FORMS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS........_....._ ............................_.._._.. .....3R
UNI ECO-STONE® PROJECTS
• Rio Visn Wamr Treazment Plant Castaic Lake Warer Agenry. Santa Clari[a, CA 27.000 sq
• Mickel Field & Highlands Park Wilron Manors. PL 37.165 sq k
• Wilcox Lake Park, Ciry of Richmond Hill Oakridges, ON 8,000 sq k
• Annsvillc Creek (ECOLOC') Peekskill, NY 20,000 sq k
• Private Residence Winrer Park, FL 1,200 sq k
• Adama Zoo Atlanta. GA 400 sq k
• Private Residence South Shore, MA 1,000 sq k
• English Park Atlanta. GA 2,700 sq k
• Homestead Village, VI Dallas, TX 3.000 sq k
• &ivam Residence Jupiter Island, FL 3500 sq
• Humberwood Development Cen[er &ohicoke, ON 9,000 sq k
• Commercial Parking Lo[ Noah Hampmv, NH 15,000 sV k
• Kean Design Winrer Park, FL 3,000 sq k
• Crazy Cmb Restauram Hilron Head, SC 900 sq
• Cumberland Island National Seashore Museum Se Mary's, GA 4,000 sy k
• Booth's Cobblestone Parking Lor Orlando, FI, 1,800 sq k
• Pnvace Residence Dahas, TX 4,000 sq k
• Howard Hook. Poa oFNew York/New Jersey (ECOLOC') &aren Island, NY 15,000 sq k
• Residential Housing Development Hilron Hcad Island, SC 1,800 sq ft
• Queenquay Community Cencer Toronm, ON 3,000 sq &
• Wynnsong Cinemas Savannah, GA 10,000 sq @
• Privare Residence Winrer Park, FL 14,000 sq k
• Jordan Covc - Glcn Brook Green Warcrford. CT 15,000 sq k
• Regen[Cnua Apartments Vero Beach, FL 5,500 sq k
• St. Andrews Church Sonoma, G 3,500 sq fi
• Harbourfront Eire Station No. 9 1'oronm, ON 7.000 sq k
• Parkland Hnmcs Wincer Park, FL 2,000 sq k
• Sherwood Leland Smm Pvrk Westporq CT 32,000 sq k
• Cotksaew Swamp Sta¢ Park Naples, PL 2,SOU sq k
• Trinity United Church Grimsby, ON 10,000 sq k
• Commercial Parking Lor Nanmckeq MA 23,000 sy k
• Newark Airport Newark, NJ 262,000 sq k
• Ford Canada Corporazion Oakville. ON 2500 sq k
• Privam Residence Long Island, NY 1,500 sq
• Ptivaa Residence Sanibel Island, FL 395 sq k
• Mulmomah Arts Cenru Portland, OR 1Q500 sq k
Please use this guide to review [he extensive research that has been conduced by UNI-GROUP U.S.A. and UNI
[n[ernarional. The references and guidelines will help ensure that your UNI Eco-S[one'O system will perform az intended
over its design life. For additional iuformaziom con[act UNI-GROUP U.S.A. or your local UNI`9 Manufacturer.
INTRODUCTION
As open land is developed and covered with impervious surfaces such as asphalt roadways, contre[e parking
decks, and buildings, [here is an increase in swrmwater runoff that may result in downstream flooding, sveambank
erosion, and excessive strain on existing drainage facilities. Numerous studies indica[e that stormwater runoff is also the
primary source of pollutants found in surface waters and oken contains a toxic combination of oils, pes[icides, metals,
nutrients, and sediments. Approximately 40% of America's surveyed waterways are still wo polluted for fishing or
swimming and 90"/0 of our population lives within 10 miles of these bodies of water.
With the implemen[a[ion of the United Stares Environmental
&otection Agenc~s National Pollutant Dischazge Elimina[ion System
(NPDE$) srormwarer regulations in [he early 1990s, state agencies,
municipalities, and regional authorities began searching for new options in
swrmwater management. Effective management of stormwater runoff offers
a number of benefits, including improved quality of surface wacers,
protection of wetland and aquatic ecosystems, conservation of water
resources, and flood mitigation. Traditional Flood control measures that mly
on detemion of peak Flow are typical of many stormwater managemen[
approaches, but generally do not target pollutant reduction, and often cause
unwanted changes in hydrology and hydraulics. The EPA recommends an
approach that integmres control of srormwarer flows and [he protection of
nazuml systems w sus[ain aquatic habitats.
Effective stormwater managemen[ is often achieved through a comprehensive management rystems 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 [he use of
appropriate situation-specific practices that will achieve the minimum measures. Ordinances or other regulations are used
to address poso-cons¢uction runoff From nesv development or redevelopment projects. In addition, i[ is important to
ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs. Governing authorities must develop and implemen[
strategies that include a combination of s¢ucturul and/or non-structural bes[ management practices (BMPs) appropria[e
Fnr their communi[ies. Non-sauctuml BMPs vre preventative actions that involve management and source controls.
$vuctural BMPs include srorage practices, filtration practices, and infiltration practices that capture runoff and rely on
infiltration through a porous medium for pollutant reduction.
Permeable pavements are considered s[tucnual BMPs under infiltration practices. From an engineering
viewpoint, permeable pavements are infiltration trenches wi[h paving over them to support pedestrian and vehicular
traffic. Much of the design and construction is derived from experience with
infiltration trench design, which has been used For years as a way ro reduce
swrmwater runoff and recharge groundwater. Permeable pavements should be
designed by civil engineers, architects, or landscape archirecs Familiar with
stormwamr management concepts, especially the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
method, (now know as the National Resources Conserva[ion Service or NRCS
method). Por years, porous pavements consisted of cyst-in-place asphalt or conctete
comprised of worse vggregate, 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-Scone' is a permeable imerlocking concrete pavemem rystem
designed to mitigate stormwater mnoff through inFlluaziom thereby reducing
volume Flows, improving water quality, and recharging groundwater. UNI Eco-
$mne° is a true interlocking paver chat offers the stmcmral support and smbiliry of
traditional concrete pavea, wmbined with the environmental bevefit of stormwater
management. Ew-Stone" has a minimum compressive strength of 8000 psi, maximum ~% absorption, and meets or
exceeds ASTM C-936 and Freeze-thaw testing per section 8 oFASTM C67. ECOLOC~ features the some infll¢ation
benefice as &oSwne'`, but offers increased smucwral srength and stvbilirv for indusnial pavement applications.
Mirke! FirN/Highland~ Pa.k, W(Uun Manors FL
Wi(rox Lrkr ['a.k. Oakddgrs. ON
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
In addition to the EPA, other agencies and organizazions are addressing the issue of development and the impact
of stormwacer runoff on the environment and society. According to the Na[ional Resources Defense Council, Low
Impact Developmen[ (LID) has emerged as an attractive approach to controlling stormwarer pollution and protecting
watersheds. LID attempts ro replicarepre-development hydrology to reduce the impacts of development. By addressing
mnoff 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 az 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
infdtration opportunities. L[D principles are based on the premise [hat stormwarer management should not be seen as
smrmwater disposal, bu[ instead that numerous opportunities exist within a developed landscape w control stormwarer
close to the source. This allows development to occur with low environmental impact LID is much more [han the
management of stormwarer - it is about innovation in the planning, designing, implementing, and maintaining of
projects. Permeable pavers, such azEco-Smnea, are listed as one of the ten common LID practices.
Increasing numbers of municipal green huilding progams am offering incentives for sustainable landscape
archi¢cture and development. Programs thaz require LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a national
green building assessmen[ system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council) certification to achieve benefits, come
the doses[ to a comprehensive approach to msainable projects. While private secror participation is voluntary many
municipalities are requiring that city-owned or funded projects achieve LEED objectives. Many municipalities
na[ionwide 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. h evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspective over a building's lik cycle,
providing a definitive standard for what constitutes a "green building". It is a Featurerotirnred system where credits are
earned for satisfying each criteria. W IEco-Stone" permeable pavers rosy qualify under two areaz. Credit 6 - $tormwater
Management and Credi[ 7 -Landscape and Exterior Design w Reduce Heat Islands. The in¢nt of Credit 6 is to Limit
the disruption of numral water flows by minimizing stormwarer runoff, increazing on-site infiltration, and reducing
conraminvnts -pervious pavements are recommended. Credit Ts intent is to reduce hear islands (thermal gradient
differences between developed and undeveloped aaaz) to minimize impact on mictodimate and human and wildlife
habitat -light-colored, high~lbedo materials and open grid paving are recommended. Concrete paves albedo values can
range from 0.14 to 0.27 for standard colors, with higher values possible when paves are manufactured using lighter color
aggregates or white cement.
Many local municipalities, regional authorities, and state agencies such u Depatments of Environmental
Protection are now recommending or requiring best management practices for the mitigation of stormwarer and are
providing information m residents and the business community about BMP practices and srormwarer solutions. The
City of Toronto, for example, promotes smrmwa[er pollution education to residents and industry through advertising
and their websim. Among other suggestions, they recommend replacing impermeable surfares with materials that allow
For inflaation. The city has approved Eco-Stone° For parking pads in residential applications.
Wehsites of Interest.
Natural Resources Defense Council - www.nrdcorg/water/pollution/storm/chap l2.asp
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials - www.nemo.uconn.edu
EPA - www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/post_12.htm
www.epa.gov/ nps/I id. pdF
EPA - www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Chapter4/ch4-2a.html
$rormwater Magaine - wvn¢forester.nedsw_0203_green.html
l!S. Green Rullding Council - www.usgbeorg
Center for Watershed Prorerxion - www: wp.org
Heat Island Group - www.eerd.lbl.gov/Headstand/Pavements/.416edo
City oPCoronm - wwwciry.rownto.on.ca
UNI ECO-STONE® PERMEABLE
INTERLOCHING CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
FEATURES AND BENEFITS OF THE UNI ECO-STONEi9 PAVEMENT SYSTEM
• The unique, patented design features Funnel-like openings in the pavement surface, which facilita[e the infiltration of
rainwater to reduce or eliminate stormwaer runoff and maximize groundwa[er recharge and/or storage
• Mitigates pollution impact on surrounding surface wares and may lessen or eliminate downstream flooding and stream
bed and bank erosion
• Improves water quality by infilaating water through the base and soil, and also reduces runoff mmperatums
• Decreases project costs by reducing or eliminating drainage and retention systems required by impervious pavements
and reduces the cost of compliance with many smrmwamr regula[ory requirements
• Permits better land-use planning, allowing more efficiem 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 vddinon, maintenance is v aificvl aspect to help ensure long-term performance. h is recommended that a qualified
professional engineer with experience in hydrology and hydraulics be consulted for permeable interlocking concrete
pavement applicaions. This guide is incended az an overview of construction guidelines and reseazch conducted ro da¢.
Pleaze see the mseamh and reference sections for derailed guidance and additional information.
Eco-StoneO° provides an attractive pavement surface that tan be used For residential, commercial, and municipal
pedestrian and vehicular pavement applications. Ir can be used for parking lots, driveways, overflow parking and
emergency lanes, boa[ ramps, reve[men[s, bike paths, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, and low-speed roadways.
MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS, INFILTRATION PRACTICES, AND OBJECTIVES
Municipal policy design criteria, and local experience usually govern the use of infiltration systems such az
permeable pavements. Design criteria and regulations vary nationwide, as rainfall amoun[s geography, climate, and land-
use development patterns cvn vary widely. Most BM@ are designed for a specific design storm, for example a 2-year, 24-
hour srorm of L.5 in./hr. (33 mm/hr) or volume from the first Y: m I in. (l3
to 2> mm). Though inital infiltration rotes can be quite high with UNI Eco-
Smne'• permeable pavements, a few studies have shown that /ung-term
infdvation races for permeable interlocking pavements in general range
between 1D and 2.5 in./hr (25 and 65 mm/hr). Though higher tares may be
possible with optimal consauaion and regular maintenance, designers may
wish m use this wnservative range as a guideline. This range would be able m
infiltrate frequen[, short duration rainstorms, of which '0-BO%of North
America storms are comprised.
Some municipalities regulate both water quality and quantity.
They may require a ¢iteriv for reducing spedfic types of pollutants, such as
phosphorous, metals, nitrogen, nitrates, and sediment, and water quality
regulations are often wriaen ro protect lakes, screams, and risers from problems
associated with runoff. An increasing number of municipalities are limiting [he
use of impervious surfaces and many have created stormwarer utilides ro help
cover the increasing costs of constructing, managing and maintaining
stormwarer dmirmge rysrems.
Selection of base, bedding, and joint/drainage opening fill mvterials will be guided by local sormwarer management
objectives Generally, for mnoff con¢ol, regulations try to meet one or more of foot management objectives.
Nmark /nrnrsariarsa/Airyorz, NJ
6perirslty aggngatt mfi «reerurc/
• Capture and infiltnta the entire stormwater volume so there is zero discharge kom the drainage area. Costs for
infil[rating or capturing all [he runoff through the use of permeable pavements may be offset by reducing or eliminating
pipes and other drainage appurtenances.
• Infilvare the increased runoff generated by development and impervious surfaces. The goal is m attain runoff
volumes equal to or near those prior to development Volumes am estimated prior to and after development, and the
difference is to be infltared or stored, and then slowly released. Permeable pavemenn, vegetated swales, or rain gardens,
among other BMPs can accomplish this.
• Infilvare a fixed volume of runoff from every storm. This fixed amount of infiltrated water oken is indi<a[ive of a
large percentage of the region's srorms. The volume is usually expressed as depth in inches (or mm) of runoff over the
catchment area. Permeable ivterocking wn¢ete pavements are usually capable of infilvating 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 m consider using
them in conjunction with permeable pavements for added benefits.
• Infilvare sufficien[ water to convol the peak rate of discharge. Many municipalities establish a maximum rate of peak
discharge (in cubic feedsecond or liters/second) for specific srorm sewers or bodies of water. This approach favors
detention ponds rather than infiltration as a means ro convol downsveam flooding. Permeable interlocking concrere
pavements can he used as a means of detention, especially in densely-developed areas where ponds are not feasible, by
combining the benefits oFa parking area with detention.
Depending upon the amount of exFdtrazion (the downward movement of water through [he crushed stone baze
into the subgtade soil), UNI Eco-Stone° can nee[ 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 pavemenn. Please refer m the research section of [his guide for information on designing the Eco-
Sronev pavement system. [n addition, we offer PCSWMM° Permeable Pavement software for the hydraulic design of
EcoStonev permeable pavements. The computational engine is the Aunoff module. of the USEPA's Smrmwa[er
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
entiro volume of mnoff is captured by the pavement Q.e. no surface runoff occurs). Though this model is based on [his
zero runoff scenario, design parameters can be adjusted to meet other stormwater management objectives. PCSWMM'"
For Permeable Pavements software is a cool m 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
m replace the services of experienced, qualified engineers.
DESIGN OPTIONS -FULL, PAR'T'IAL OR NO FXFILTRATION
Permeable interlocking concrere pavements are typically built over an open-graded or rapid-draining crushed scone base.
though a variety of aggregate materials, including kee-draining and dense-
graded, may be used depending on design parameters. In any case, fines passing ~- r° ~_s~~ ^'
the No. 300 sieve should he less than 3%. In addition m mmff reduction.
permeable pavements may be designed m firer pollutanrs, yea[ [he "first flush", ~ ) ~,...., ~~~~
~~
Inver mnoff temperamm, and remove [oral suspended solids (TSS). Because it 1~'-I'~ ' A..m.,_,..,.
provides For iufilvation and gavial veatmem of stormwateq it is considered a ~
svuctutal BMP (Best Management Ptaaice). The most optimal installation is _ '""°
iufilvation through the base and complete exfilvatiou into a permeable a,,,to,,,o„o,
subgtade. Howeyeq the design oFthe pavement can be very flexible. Perforated
drainage pipes can provide drainage in henry, overflow conditions or provide w ~® .-.,..,n•....~..,.,.
secondary drainage iF the base loses some of its capacity over time. For """"""'°"`°
installations where slow-draining subgmde soils are pmsent and only gavial Gorr-rrrziov ofrypiral PioS~ane° pavmeenr
exfilvatiou will occur, perforated pipes can drain excess runoff. Often, these pipes ate sized smaller than typical drainage
pipes in traditional pavement applintions. If no exfilvatiou will occur due to situ limitations, all the stored water would
need m be directed m drains though the flow totes would be reduced by the iufilvation [hrough the system.
In addition, if high levels of pollutants are present, [he pavement can be designed to filter and partially treat the
srormwater. In some cases an impervious liner may need ro be placed between the base and the subgrade. According to
the EPA, there are four <azes where permeable interlocking concre¢ pavements should not exfiltrate and where an
impervious liner might be used.
• When the depth from the bosom of the base m the high level of the warer table is less than 2 @ (0.6 m), or when there
is no[ suff¢ien[ depth of the soil to offer adequate filtering and treatment of pollutants.
• Directly over solid rock, or over solid rock with no loose tuck layer above it.
• Over aquifers where there isdt sufficient depth of soil ro filter [he pollmants before entering the groundwater. These
can include karsq fissumd, or deft aquifers.
• Over fill soils, natural or fill, whose behavior may cause unacceptable performance when exposed m infiltrating water.
This might include expansive soils such as loess, poorly compacted soils, gypsiferous soils, etc.
Even iE these situations are not present, some soils may have a low permeability. As a result, water is usually
stared 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 i[ may be cost effective ro drain the water with a Erench drain or pipes through [his layer
inm 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 applica[ions (ECOLOC°). In addition to some of the guidelines previously described,
permeable pavements should 6e at least 100 & (30 m) From wamr 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
rtarmruater hatrpot (vnywhere [here is risk that stormwvter could infiltrate and wntaminate groundwater) is not a
candidate for permeable pavements. This might include salvage and recycling yards, fueling, maintenance, and leaning
stations, industrial facilities that store or generate hazardous materials, srorage areaz with conten[s tha[ could damage
groundwater and soil, and land uses that drain pes[icides and/or fertilizers into permeable pavements. In addition,
permeable pavements may not he feasible when the land surrounding and draining into the pavement exceeds a 20"/0
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 footees.
INFILTRATION RATE DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS
One of the most common misconceptions in designing permeable pavemenes is the azsumption that [he amount
or percentage of open surface area is equal to the percentage of perviousness. For
example, a designer might incormaly assume that a 20^/0 open area is only 20%
pervious. The permeability and amount of infiltration are dependent on the
infilta[ion rates of the join[ and drainage opening material, bedding layer, and
base materials. Compared to soils, EcoSmne°' permeable interocking conaete
pavements have a very high degree of infil[ration. The crushed aggmgare used for
[he joints, drainage openings, nail bedding haz vn initial inflltrariov rare of over
500 in./hr (over 10° m/sec), much greater than native soils. Rapid-draining and
D.aimgr oprningi:n Fro-SronC m~« open-graded base materials offer even higher infiltration rates of 500 m over 2000
in./hr. (over 10'to 10-' m/sec).
Though the initial infiltration races for these aggregate materials are very high, i[ is impoaant to consider the
lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement ¢oss-section, including the soil subgrade. As [his may be difficult to
predict, designers may want m use a conservative approach when calculating the design infiltration rate. Limi[ed research
has shown chat permeability decreases with the age of the pavement, rainfall intensities, and the conditions under which
it is used and maintained. This holds sue foc infiltration trenches as well. In studies, newly installed permeable
pavements demonsaaad infiltration rates of about 9 in./hr (6 x 10' m/sec), while pavemenes ranging f[om 2 to 5 yeas
old had infiltmdon ales from 3 co 6 is/hr (2 x IO` m 4 x IO` m/sec).
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION GUIDELINES
The objective of permeable pavements is to infiltrate and score the runoff and drain it into the subgrade, or iF the
subgrade is impermeable, into a drainage system. Proper construction of permeable incerlocking concrete pavements is
main! to [he 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
permeability of the rystem. h is highly mcommended that the designing engineer
inspect the site during the construction of permeable pavements (az is the rase
with infdtrarion trenches). This will help ensure the specified materials and design
r parameters selected by the engineer are followed. Though a range of materials
may be used For the joint and drainage opening, bedding, and baze layers, some
general guidelines have been included here. Consult the UNI Eco-Srone'° design
manuals and [he PCSWMM° program For more information on designing Eco-
.. Stone° permeahle pavements.
Jo.dnv Cove Darbpmr~+. War:rfod, CT A professional engineer with soils experience should azsess the si[e's subgrade
soils for design streng[h, permeability, and compaction requirements. The Unified Soils Clazsification System provides
general guidance on the sui[abiliry of soils for the infiltration of srormwarer and bearing rapacity. To help maximize
infiltration, the subgrade should have less than 5°o passing the No. 200 sieve, though other soils may drain adequately
depending on site conditions and specific characteristics. Aminimum tested inhltrarion for full exfi[tration subject to
vehicular aaffic is 0.52 in./hr (3.7 x 10~G m/sec), though some areas may require higher or lower rates. Wi[h virtually all
inredocking concrete pavements, including permeable pavements, compaction of the subgrade soil is requimd to ensure
adequate svuaural stability and w minimize rutting. However, compaction does induce the inFdrration cote of soils.
Theafore, this should be considered in the dtaiwge design calculations For the project Typically, the soil subgrade
should be compacted to at least 95°/v standard Pmaor density for pedesaian pavemeuts, and to a minimum 95%
modified Pmcror density kv vehicular applications. Some native soils, typically silty sands and scuds, have enough
strength (a soaked CBR of ar least 5%) char companion may nor be inquired.
For many years, engineers attempted ro design pavements that kept water ou[ of the baze and subgrade layers, as
water in a typical "impervious" pavement svuaure was recognized as a primary cause of distress. However, over the lazt
15 years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American .Associa[ion 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 ofrapid-draining or open-graded permeable hazes in many pavement designs
can result in longer pavement IiFe (see Additional Reference section for more information).
For [he base layer, a crushed stone, open-graded or rapid-draining aggregate is generally recommended, though
az discussed earlier, other aggregace materials may be used depending on design parameters and objectives. The haze 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 nonelastic materials are used. The thickness of the base depends on
the amount of waer smrage required, the permeability and strength of the soil subgrade, and susceptibility to frost, as
well as anticipa[ed traffm loads The water smrage capacity of the base will vary wtth - ~~
ns depth and the percentage of votd spaces in it (oid space of a certain ntarenal pn ,p '
be supplied by the yuarry or determined by testing). Pleaze see the UNI-GROUP ~~t vh
U.S A Eco-Stoney design manuals for additio I nFuma[ion on haze material ~ a~i
seleamn and coutaa your local UNI° mvnnhvmrer For guidance on recommended ~ ~'yu~,n ° ...yr
n; .; ds /r9
materials for your region. The haze is installed in 4 to 6 is (100-150 mm) bfts and rs t~~ C,r c~
compacted. If open graded materals are used, the larger size aggregates may create an •' yy ~'~~ rr"A 3~
uneven mrface when compacted A 2 is (50 mm) layer of ASTM No. 8 or No 9 R "C t• -S,'
'; R
crushed aggregate may be "choked" into the cop of the open-graded material to ' I(.i"'S,y£ ~ ~ls`1~~
stabilize the sutfvice and help meet filar aireria. In some cases, open-graded buses ECO[OC" fvdrurrta! 6/r
may be stabilized wi[h asphalt or cement if newssary to increase snuctural capacity p`rmea pnven
Howere[, it should be no[ed that this may reduce smrage capaury oFthe bye and must be carefully monitored during
constucion. The Asphalt Institute and Portland Cement Association provide gnidelices on wnstructing these bases.
For the bedding layer. testing has shown that 2-5 mm clean, crushed aggregate conralning no fines provided the
best performance in satisfying both stm<tural and infilnation requirements. Ir should be weeded ro a I ro LS in.
10
(25-45 mm) depth. This material is also recommrnded for the join[ and drainage openings for the Eco-Stonem pavement.
ASTM C-33 sand, which is used in traditional interlocking concrete pavement bedding layer construction, is not
recommended for permeable pavemen[ installations as it reduces infiltration rates. In addition, we do not recommend
sweeping a fine sand into the joints aker the pavers are installed.
If film[ aireria between the layers of the pavement (subgmde, base, and
bedding) cannot be maintained with the aggregate materials selected for the project,
or if traffic loads or soils inquire additional structural support, geotextiles or geogrids
are often used. They are almost always used between [he subgmde and the baze.
Consult the FHWA and AASHTO for information on georextile filter criteria.
Edge restraints are required for all permeable interlocking concrete
pavements. Caso-in-place and precast concrete curbs are generally recommended.
They should be a minimum of 6 is (150 mm) wide and 12 in. (300 mm) deep.
Mrrba~ira(imra!/ano~arX ar6 Haok
Pon ~Nrw Yark/N J ry
The UNI Eco-Swne° pavers are installed on the screeded bedding layer and are compacted with a place
compactor After initial compaction, the joints and voids are felted with the 2-5 mm aggregate material and the pavers are
compacted again For vehicular areas, proof rolling maybe preferable. UNI Eco-Swnea pavers can be installed manually
or mechanically. Mechanized installation can offer subs[antial cos[ savings on larger-scale installations.
MAINTENANCE
One of the most importan[ 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 conaere pavements should provide 20 ro 25 years of
service life. Traffic levels and type of usage, az well as sources that may wash sediment onro the paver surface often dictate
how quickly the pavement might experience reduced infihration levels. The property owner plays an important role in
the mainenance of permeable pavements. Many local municipalities and regional governing authorities require a
maintenance agreement to help ensure long-term performance of all types of BMEs.
Recent testing at Guelph University in On[ario, Canada on Eco-Stone" parking lot pavements installed in 1994
indica[ed that trafficked areas with high clogging potential had lower permeability values than areas wi[h low clogging
potential such as parking stalls and areas near vegetamd medians. Tests demonstra[ed that it was possible to regeneram
infiltration rates by removing some of [he drainage void material and refilling the openings with fresh material. h should
be noted that these pavements had NEVER been cleaned or maintained over the years, yet much of the pavemen[ still
infilvared sufficien[ amounts of smrmwater. Numerous research studies done over the years at this site have Found that
the Eco-Stone" pavements were capable of substantially reducing contaminants in smrmwater and exhibited reduced
thermal impact loads. ['lease see the research section of this guide for additional information.
It is highly recommended that permeable pacers be in,aperaed and cleaned at regular intervals to ensure optimum
performance. Depending on the amount and type of traffic on the pavemen[ and its potential for clogging, cleaning may
be needed from twice a year to every 3 or 4 years. An indication that [he pavement needs to be cleaned is when surface
ponding ours after rain srorms. Vacuum sweepers can be used to remove any enuusted sediment on the surface of [he
drainage openings. As sage[ sweeping is a BMB this also satisfies other criteria in a comprehensive stormwarer
management program. More aggregate material muy be added m ¢f II the dcvinage voids if necessary after cleauing.
Vege[ated areas around permeable pavements should be encouraged m help filter runoff.
COLD CLIMATE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
In northern climates the pavement mus[ be designed for freeze-thaw conditions. For cold climates in the
northern U.S. and Canada, the lowest recommended infiltration rate for the subgmde is 0.5 in./hr. (3.5 x IOz m/sec).
The designer may wish to inrorpomte a 1-2 i slope az a safety factor for over-flow should the system not be able m
infiltrate all mnoff under winter conditions. Snow nn be plowed from Fco-Stone" pavements using standard equipment.
Deicing sales are not recommended, as salt will infiMate inro the baze and subgmde, and scud should be avoided as it will
reduce infltration of the system. However the EcoStone°surface, made up oFjoints, openings, and the units themselves
(az opposed to a cmttinuout 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 Railings - 1993
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 32-page manual reviewed tes[ing information from the U.S. and Germany and extrapolaced From existing design
practice m provide basic design guidance on the development of designs for the UNI Ern-Stonem pavement system.
Numerous references are included as well as tables on infiltration ms[ and rams, permeability values, filter criteria,
potemial 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
• Desaiprion
Subgrade and Base Course
Surfacing Materials
• DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• $truaural Considerations
• Watcr Impact on Design
Wearing Coure and Bedding Layer
Base and Subbase Courses
Subgrade
• Hydraulic Desigu
• Filter Requirements
• Special Consideratious
• SPECIFICATIONS
• APPLICATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS
72
DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES FOR
UNI ECO-STONE° PERMEABLE PAVEMENT
Dan G. Zallinges Su Ling Caa, and Daryl Podurka - 1998
GENERAL SUMMARY
The information provided in this report, based on testing begun in 1994 at the Department of Civil Engineering a[
Texas A & M University under the direction of professor Dan Zollingeg 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 <oncep[s as they pertain to [he design of pavemen[s and the benefits of using UNI Eco-Stone® in
pavement construction projec[s. Information is provided on how runoff infiltration can be controlled in the pavement
subsurface and its interaction wi[h the performance of [he pavement system. A method is provided to determine the
amount of infiltration and the storage capacity of a permeable base relative ro the [ime of retention and degree of
satura[ion associa[ed with the chamaeristia oFthe haze. The guidelines contain a simple step-by-step process for the
engineer to selec[ the best pavement alternative in terms of base materials and gradations for the given drainage, subgrade
strength conditions, and [he criteria for maximum allowable rutting.
OUTLINE
• INTRODUCTION
• Advantages of Using UNI EcoStone' Pavement
• The Considerations for Waer
• The Purpose oFThis Report
• GENERAL HYDROLOGY CONCEPTS
• Rainfall
• Intensity-Frequency Durazion Curve
• The Deprh of Rainfall
• Storm Water Runoff Volume
• Unit Hydrograph
• SURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
• Compu[ation of Runoff
SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE DESIGN
• In[roduction
• General Considerations
Proper[ies of Material
Design Alrerna[ives
• Design Criteria
Inflow Considerations
Outflow Considerations
Removal by Subgrade Percolation
Removal 67 Subsurface Drainage
The Selection of base Material
Fiber Criteria
Collection System
Maintenance
PERFORMANCE OF PERMEABLE BLOCK PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
• Design Procedure for Drainage and Base Thickness For ONI EcoSmce"'
• Paver Block Pavemen[ Sys[ems
APPENDIX B
• UNI Eco-Scone"' Pavemem Design and Drainage Worksheet
APPENDIX C
• Smrm Frequency Data
APPENDIX D
• Permeability and Gmdarion Data
13
INFILTRATION AND STRUCTURAL TESTS OF PERMEABLE
ECO-PAVING
B. Sbackel, J.O. Kaligit Y Muktiarto, and Pamudji
GENERAL SUMMARY
In laborazory rests conducred on UNI Eco-Smne• and UNI Eco-Loc" in 1996 by Dr. Brian Sha<kel a[ the University of
New $ou[h Wales in Sydney, Aus[ralia, measurements of water penetration under henry simulated rainfall were studied,
and [he structural opacities of the paver surfaces were evaluated. A range of bedding, joining, and drainage void
materials was tested, ranging from 2mm [o IOmm aggregates. The best performance was achieved with a clean 2mm-
Smm aggregate containing no fines. The use of ASTM C-33 grading was found ro be inappropriate where waer
infiltration is the primary function of the pavement. The experimental data showed that it waz possible to reconcile the
requirements of obtaining good water infiltration (capable of infdtra[ing rainfall intensities similar to [hose in tropical
conditions) with adequate sauctural opacity that is comparahle w [hat of conventional conctete pavers.
OUTLINE
CONCEPTS, BENEFITS, AND BACKGROUND OF ECO-PAVING
BEDDING, JOINTING, AND DRAINAGE MATERIALS
• Inflration Tests
• Structural Tests
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
]. Pavements laid using 4mm to lOmm gravels as the bedding, joining, and drainage medium could accep[ rainfall
intensities ofup to about 6001/ha/sec, with the best performance being given by a clean 2mm-Smm basal[
aggrega[e conraining no fines.
2. ]unease in the fines presen[ in [he loin[ing and drainage material led to a reduction in the ability of [he
pavements to accept rainfall.
3. Blinding the pavements with a conventional laying sand reduced the amount of warer penetrating the pavement
by nearly 50^/o at moderate rainfall inensities.
4. There was little signifiom difference in water infiltration in pavement blint(ed by sand from that observed for
pavements using a sand complying with ASTM grading C33, as the bedding, jointing, and drainage medium.
5. The use of ASTM grading C33 appears inappropriate where waer infiltration is the prime function of the
pavement.
6. A[ aossfalls below 2%, [he type of Eco-paver and the laying pattern did nor signifion[ly affec[ the infilaation of
water inro the pavement.
7. Ac a cross fall of 10%, the Eco-Loc• pavers accepted warer more readily than Eco-Smne'.
8. [[ was no[ possible m obtain any significant structural capacity in pavements where the joints were left unfilled,
and where the mechanism of Toad [ransmission be[ween the pavers was solely via the spacer nibs.
9. [n pavements using a IOmm bazalr aggegate az the bedding, joiming, and drainage material, the joints were only
partially filled when normal consauction practices were followed. This did, however, impart some load-bearing
structural capacity ro dte pavements.
I0. Good load-bearing opabiliry was achieved using grovels with a maximum particle sine of abou[ 4mm-Smm. The
values of mar modulus measured were then comparable m those tepoaed for conventional paves rested in the
same way using normal sand jointing materials.
1 L Sand blinding a pavemenq using bualt as the laying medium, gave little improvement in structural opacity. This
can be explained in terms of the difficulty of geming sand inro joiner that were already partially filled with
aggregate.
12. There was no stmctural problem associared with closely spaced continuous joiner mooing through the Eco-Loc"
duster pavements. Such joints are a severe simulation of [he situation encountered when machine laying paving
clusters. In other words, In the rests described here, there was no imrinsic problem associated with dusrer laying.
Overall, the test results indio[ed that permeable eco-paving may be able to fulfill many of [he roles now served by
conventional pavers, even under signifont traffic loads. This opens up new marketing oppor[unities for permeable eco-
puvingonce sui[able design and specification procedures are established and verified.
14
ONGOING RESEARCH AT GUELPH UNIVERSITY
Professor William )emu
In 1994, laboratory and site costing of the UNI EcoSmne® Paving Sys[em was begun at Guelph University in Ontario,
Canada. under [he direction of William James, Professor of Environmemal Engineering and Water Resources
Engineering. The research haz 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 laboramry investigation of pavement leachate. Four types of pavements were installed in
the engineering laboratory: asphalt, conventional inarlocking pavers, and two UNI Eco-Stone' pavements, to determine
[he 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 simulared rainfall durations and intensities were studied. UN[ Eco-Srone'T was found ro
substan[ially reduce both runoff and contaminants. The report includes tables and charts documenting volumes of runoff
collected on various slopes, wear penetration testing, water quality characteristics oFthe surface runoff- including trace
metals, pH, phenols, sodium, nitrates, and concentrations of pollutan[s at all levels within the pavements. Numerous
references are also included.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
L 1 Objectives of the smdy
1.2 Scope of the smdy
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Nature of Water
2.1.1 Properties oFwaar
2.11 Acidity
2.1.3 Rainwater
2.1.4 Behaviour of rainwater in the envimnmenr
2.1.5 Water pollution
2.2 Urbanize[ion Effects
2.2.1 Effects of urban storm water on aquatic ecorystems
2.3 Nature of Pollutants
2.3.7 Atmospheric sources of water pollution
23.2 Man-made soutres of wear pollution
2.4 Porous pavemem
2.4.1 Types of porous pavements
2.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages
2.4.3 Porous pavement az an infiltration system
2.4.4 Previous research
25 Asphalt pavement
2.G Temperature effects
3.0 PROCESSES AT THE PAVEMENT
3.1 Impact energy of raindrops
31 Splash distribution
3.3 Chemical reactions with the wear
3.4 P.rosion of loose particles
3.5 Pa¢icvlure wash-off [hroughout the pavement
IS
3.G Surface infiltration
3.6.1 Infiltration equations
3.6.2 Infiltration process
3.63 Infilaation zones
3.7 l8'arer percolation
3.8 Solution of chemicals in the pavement
3.9 Clogging of pours
4.0 TH E LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
4.1 Water collection
4.1.1 Laboratory rainwaer
4.1.2 Fresh rainwater
4.2 The rainfall simulator
4.2.1 Rainfall intensity calibration
41.2 Areal uniformity calibration
4.3 Test pavements
4.4 Insrrumen[azion for samplivg
4.5 Sampling in the field
4.6 Laboratory analyses
4.6.1 Laboratory apparatus
4.7 Mass balance
5.0 RESULTS
5.l Simulated rainwacer calibration
52 Rainwater quality
5.3 Ualume
5.3.1 Rate of removal
5.4 Water quality
5.4.1 Pollutant concentrations
5.4.2 Comparison between LAB rain Iea<hate and [ap water leachate
5.4.3 Mass of pollutann
6.0 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
G1.3 Water movement in the subgrade
61.4 Runoff collection
6.2.5 Ponding
6.3 Water quality
6.3.1 pH
6.3.2 Oxygen demand paramerer
6.3.3 Solids
6.3.4 Conductivity and transmittance
G.3.5 Oils and grease
6.3.6 Nunien¢
6.3.7 Total phenols
6.3.8 Sodium vnd chloride
G.3.9 Sulphates
G.3.1 OMerals
G.3.11 Bacteria counts
G4 Rain-pnvement interaction
6.5 Mass balance
7.0 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. & takes almost 2 hours afrer mlleaion to release COQ into [he atmosphere and teach a pH
of 5.5. At this pH, it takes a least 72 hours before it neutralizes to a pH oF7.
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 stormwarer runoff from areas such as parking lo[s [hat are normally paved with azphalt.
3. For all gradients, EC3 (UN[ EcoStoneiD with 3" base and joints filed with washed stone) performed the best
a[ reducing surface runoff from all the pavements studied.
4 The mtal void sine 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 m the large voids available at
the surface and at the subsurface layers. Hence more water infilrramd rhrough the pavement.
5. In these experiments, EC3. EC4 (Eco-Sronee with 4" base and joints filled with a mixture of wazhed stone
and sand), and PC (mgular conaete pavers) pavements did not clog, due ro the short duration of all the
experiments. In addition, the pavements were placed in the laborazory and hence, no dust or any other
particulate accumulated on the surface and in the joints.
G. PC, EC3, and EC4 performed well in reducing volume of surface runoff ar 1%, 5%, and 10% gradients with
rainfall intensities lower than SS.Gmm~hr. A[ higher rainfall inansities, ponding occurred at [he joints and at
the outlets, which slowed down the inFilaation 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 ECk and PC subgrades, which had a mixture of stone and sand in one, and sand alone in the
ocher, respectively.
8. The runoff collected From porous pavement in the laboratory showed very low concentrations in all water
qualiry parameters, especially in oils and grease, phenols, heary metals, and bacteria counts. EcoSwnea
pavements showed the lowest concentrazions in these parameters of the three pavements.
'). Percola[ion through the porous pavements surface and underlying media slowed the water Elow. The process
allowed more time for oxidation; [he water had more time to react with other chemicals, such as chlorides,
niaaas, and nitrites. Also, the pavemen[ apparently filared suspended solids and some contaminants, such
as sodium and sulphates.
10. Heave meal removal through percolation appeared ro be good, even though [he concentrations were very
low. The bigger 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).
I1. The porous pavement surface runoff had pH values more alkaline than [he asphalt surface gave pH values
that were almos[ neutral.
12. The surface runoff from asphalt contained a higher mass of all [he parameters investigated compared ro the
mass mensuad in the surface runoff of EC3.
13. Surface runoff from the AS surface contained a concentration of phenols higher than the concentations
found in the porous pavement surface and subgrades.
14. The leachace from the pavements contained cooraminvnts mainly fmm rainwazer in the atmosphere. Hence,
the processes that take place at the surface of the pavements are mainly due ro [he 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 no[ being contamina[ed
from the surface of these pav menu or their bedding materials, but rather from the external environmen[, ss
proven by the parking lo[ runoff analyses. With AS, the surface is made From the combustion of petroleum
products, and hence, some of the pollutants will originate from the wrface, as in oil, grease, and phenols.
I6. Porous pavemen[ appears w have significant long-term benefits compared ro conventional asphalt pavements
in arms of its ability to reduce the qunmirv of stormwarer pollutants. EC3 reduced the amount of
srormwater 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, [he porous pavements will have lower surface runoff temperature,
as the water penetrates rhrough the pavement Hence, an experiment to examine tempemma of mnoff under
laboramry conditions will he valuable. The water qualiry analyses were performed at a constan[ temperature
(25°C). Temperazua changes will have a gear impact on water qualiry, since many parameters were found to
he reload m pH, and pH changes with temperature.
~. Tess should be performed m determine long-corm effects of maintenance and potemial for clogging.
3. When performing acts on water yualig~ of smrmwaar mnoff, some parameters amained almost constant.
The contaminants that need not be examined in detail include TKN, NH„ ROD, COD, and some metals
such as cidmium :rod chromium.
V
4. On the other hand, some parameters exhibited very interesting behaviour, particaluly pH, phenols, oils and
greaze, sulphate, sodium and chloride, nitraces and nitrites, zinc, lead, nickel, and copper.
5. From the data obtained in this study, although the pH of runoff from asphalt seemed m be more neuaal than
the porous pavement pH, more investigation of the pH is needed in order to reach a more defini¢
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 bean in¢resring study.
8. Porous pavements should be used in many applications of low aaff~c volume to effect significant reductions
in s[ormwamr runoff. Quali[a[ive and quanti[ative experiments should be carried out on porous pavement on
lightly used roads.
9. Future experiments can be conducted using different conditions m give a more complete and detailed
characterization of the performance of porous pavements.
18
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF
STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM TWO PAVING SURFACES
Briam l/errpagen - 1995
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 173-page study examines the [hermal enrichment of surface runoff from an impervious asphalt surface and a UNI
Eco-Srone® permeable paver surface. The pavement samples were heated and a rainfall simulator was used to generate
rainfall and cool the pave-men[ samples. Thermocouples monirored the temperature in the subgrade and at the surface
and inlet and outlet water temperatures were monitored. The primary objective of the research was ro meazure the
thermal enrichment of surface runoff from [he two types of pavement. The study revealed that the UNI Eco-Srone®
pavement produced very little surface runoff and exhibited less thermal impact than the azphah surface. The
environmental advantage with the EcoStone' permeable pavement is its ability ro allow rainfall ro infiltrate the surface
and thereby reduce [oral 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 sired.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
L1 Study Objective
L2 Study Swpe
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Impacts of Thermally Enriched Urban Smrmwarer Runoff
2.2 SurFaw Energy Budgets
2.3 Hear Transfer
2.4 Applica[ion of Energy Budget and Heat Transfer Equations
25 Rainfall Simulation
3.0 THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
3-I Sensi[iviry Analysis oFSurface and Heat Transfer Equations
3.2 Thermal Enrichment of Surface Runoff
4.0 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
4.1 The Tes[Pavements
4.2 The Rainfall $imulamr
4.3 Rainfall Calibration and Inteusin_ Selection
4.4 Dara Collection and Sources
4S Healing the Tesr Samples
4.6 Comparison to Outdoor Conditions
5.0 RESULTS
5-I Surface Temperature Observazions
5.2 Low and Medium intensity Rainfall (25mm~hr' & 115mm~hr')
5.3 High Intensity Rainfall Q90mm~hr`)
~.4 Regression Analysis
60 DISCUSSION
6.1 Accuracy of the Proposed Equations
6.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the Thermal Enrichment Relationship
6.3 Comparison of Asphalt and Paving Scone Surfaces
6.4 Applicability
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Several conclusions may be inferred from the information presented in [his study:
1. Both the asphalt surfnce and the porous pacing stone surface used For the experiments conducted in this
study mused increases in the remperamte of [he surfnce mrmf}; the paving stone surface less so than the
asphalt surface.
I)
2. Very little surface runoff was observed from the porous paving stone sample.
3. The rainfall intensity, thermal conductiviry of the pavement, initial surface runoff rempemmre, and initial
rainfall temperature are the dominan[ parameters in a surface runoff [hermal enrichment relationship.
4. The expression 4Trr= AIn(t) + B may be used to determine the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from
either impervious azphalt or porous paving stone (known az Eco-Stone® and produced by UNI-GROUP
U.S.A. producers where:
A=0.0047xi-5.18xks-0.13x Tfr+0.15 xTir- 1.55
B = -0.0294 x i - 216 x ks + 0.52 x Tir + 0.07 x TFr - 14.62
where i is the rainfall intensity [mm~hr']; ks is the thermal conductiviry of the surface [kW m'~°C]; Tia is the
initial surface runoff temperature[°C]; Tip is the initial rainfall temperature[°C]; and t is the [ime aker the
start of the rainfall [min].
5. The accuracy of the relationship is ± 4.0 °C in the first l0 minutes aker rainfall begins and ± 1.5 °C when
averaged over the entire duration of the rainfall event.
6. Research should continue m 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 swrmwarer runoff be considered when new developments are proposed.
Z. Thar thermally-sensitive pavement maerials be used more excensively than in current applications.
3. That the relationship presented in this study be used to estimate the magnitude of the [hermal enrichment of
x new development on receiving waters.
4. That the relationship proposed in this study be used in a stormwater model ro provide an estimate of the
[hermal enrichment resulting from specific catchments.
5. That further research be <onduaed using different surface materials (e.g. roofing materials or concrete).
6. Thar further research be conducted into [he cooling oFswrmwater 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 runofftemperatures.
8. That infrared thermometers be installed ro monitor the surface temperature of the instrumented parking lot.
20
DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF TEST SECTIONS OF POROUS
PAVEMENTS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF PARHING LOT RUNOFF
Michael K¢ermer Thompron, !?Eng. - 1995
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 162-page thesis examines the design, construction, and instrumentation of four test sections of parking lot
pavement (one conventional interlocking paver, two UNI Eco-Stone® using two different filter materials, and one
conventional asphalt) to assess almrnatives to the impervious pavements commonly used in pazking 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 Bow
paths, collection system orientation, thermocouple details, and drainage pattern. Photographs include the subbase
drainage system, base drainage system, surface inlet drains, connecting pipes, thermocouple, and weddry precipitation
sampler. The tables include a pollutant summary for highway runoff, pavement thickness and materials used, collected
event summary, [emperamre results, rainfall volume summary, surface and sub-surface load summary, contaminant
analysis and investigation, and concentrations and rotal 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, niaates and nitrites, chromium, chloride, phosphates, ammonium and E.coli. ReEetences
are included.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Goals and Objectives
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Literature Review
2.1.1 Porous and Asphalt Runoff Quality
2.1.2 Tempemturo
2.1.3 Vehicular Particulate and Emissions Discharge
2.2 Porous Pavements
2.3 lnsnumemation and Data Collection
3.0 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MATERIAIS BUDGET
3.1 Materials Budge[
3.1.1 Pollutam Build-up, PBU
3.1.2 Pollutant Wash-off, PWO
3.1.3 Net Accumulation, VAC
4.0 INSTRUMENTED PAVEMENTS
4.1 Test Pavements
4.2 laborarory Test Pavements
4.3 Insrrumenrvrion
4.4 Flow Paths
5.0 INSTRUMENTATION, SAMPLING, AND MONITORING
>.1 Water Samplers
5.2 Tipping Bucket Runoff Gauge (TBRG)
5.3 Thermocouples
5.4 Dandogger and Accessories
5.4.1 Datalogger
5.4.? Multiplexer
5.4.3 Programming
5.5 Weather Srnion
5-6 Wed Dry Precipitation Collector
21
6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Inmoduction
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 insaumented pavements for a study of porous pavement as an
alternative to impermeable pavemen[ for use in parking lots where traffm speed is less than SOkm/hr. Four
instrumented test pavements were boil[ in parking lot P10 at the Universiry of Guelph. A materials budget waz
developed for the contributing variables at the scale of a pazking lot This study is only a preliminary step for
continuous work necessary ro delineate the processes involved in a parking lot system. In this chapteq conclusions
are drawn related ro the design, construction, and instrumentation of the faciliry. Recommendations are then made
For improvemen[s m the work.
The following conclusions can be made:
1. No previous experimen[al work haz examined the effectiveness of porous pavements as an alternative m
impervious pavements. This study prepared a facility for furore 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 tha[ are involved. The constructed and instrumented test pavements provided the informs[ion
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 Eor most of the time, the asphalt surface generally had the highest maximum daily
temperatures and lowest minimum daily temperatures. Asphalt pavements show mots adverse results than the
other pavements.
4. In the summer, average daily rempernmres were generally similar for all the pavement surfaces. Average
temperatures for one pavemeve can be applied ro all pavements. '
5. Base temperatures me:uured appmximarely U cm below the surface, showed v lower diurnal range than the
surface temperatures. Maximum base temperatures were less than the surface temperatums, az least in early
summer.
6. Sub-base temperatures, measured up m 600 mm below the surface, showed little diurnal temperature
fluctuation In early summer, sub-base remperamres were lower than surface temperatures.
7. Contaminant loads from asphalt wrface were always greamr than the other pavements and surfaces. This is
mostly due to the asphalt being I OOv/n impervious, which increazes [he amoum of mnoff and pollutants
reaching [he sewea vnd ultimately the receiving wares.
8. UNI Eco-Smne° 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 EmSrone® proved to be an
adequate porous pavement for reducing surface mntaminant mnoff Toads.
7.2 Recommendations
L Improvements are necessary in the flow measurement The use of v daralogger is recommended m adequately
record flows. However, the TBRGs require further improvement or replacement A proposed simple
alternaive to the TBRG could be large barrels located in the instrumentation chamber under each of the
catchments. This system would be inspected Frequently ro decermine the best situ 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 temperarures..4 system is necessary to
accurately measure the mnoff water temperature az i[ passes through the layea. This would allow v better
undestanding of the role of temperatures, mnoff, and pavements.
3. The asphalt surface thermocouple requires wnsrant observation due m the damage originally suspined.
Continuous monitoring of the temperature Fmm the asphalt is necessary to ensure accurate measurement of
temperature This is also true for all the pavements and lavers.
4. Particular work is necessary in the hen[ transfer process between the pavement and water Appropriate
ins¢umenration is necessary to accurazely assess [hese water rempemmres.
5. With the Long-term continuation of this work, care must be [aken to ensure minimal settling of [he
pavements. Additional work is necessary in improving surface drainage. Improvements are necessary to ensure
adequa[e drainage of the surfaces. Adequate drainage of [he system can be effectively accomplished by
removing [wo of the pavements, i.e., [he CP and the E3 pavements could be removed. CP would then be
replaced with E4, this doubling the size of [he E4 surface. E3 would he replaced with [he AS, thereby
doubling [he size of the AS pavement. These changes would effectively reduce [he drainage problems, as well
as provide the appropriate grading necessary for future use.
G. It is recommended [ha[ additional locations and other materials be investigated for porous pavement research.
7. More detailed observa[ion of the effect of vehicles parking on the rest pavements must be made to moniror
vehicle pollutan[ con[ribution.
8. Consideration mus[ be given to the removal and res[otntion of the pavemen[ in the long term when [he study
is completed.
23
LONG-TERM STORMWATER INFILTRATION THROUGH
CONCRETE PAVERS
Christopher Krerin - 1996
GENERAL SUMMARY
This 188-page study investigates the infiltration capacity of porous concrete paver installations of various ages. Using a
rainfall simulating inBlaometeq several test plots at four UNI Em-Srone® installations were subjected ro a wtal of 60
tests comprising two simulated rainfalls of known intensity and duration. The first rain Fall provides initial moisture losses
to wetting the drainage cell material, while data collected during the second rainfall is used to calculate effective
infiltration capacity. Long-term stormwater management modeling was reviewed and suggestions made to enhance the
modeling capabilities oFthe United States Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Management Model. These
changes will permi[ simulation of long-term responses of surfaces paved with permeable conaete pavers.
The study showed that although [he inFltration capacity of [he UN[ Eco-Smne'T pavements decreased with age and
degree of compaction (traveled vecsus untraveled), it could be improved with removal of the top layer of the drainage tell
aggregate material. The report also noted that all but two of the sires studied were constructed with improper drainage
cell material, which restricted the potential infiltration. The thesis strongly recommends that Eco-Srone® installations be
constructed and maintained as per the manufacturers' specifications to ensure adequate performance. The tables include
simulated rainfall intensities, effective infiltration rotes and capadties, grxio-size analysis results, drainage cell material
analysis, and SWMM run times. Figures show typical permeable pavement structure, soil moisture zones, SWMM
program organization, uniformity coefficients and intensities at various pressures, grain-size disaibution curves For
previous research and test sins, and porous pavement wacer balance. Phomgraphic documentation includes various trash,
oil deposi[s, and vegetation in drainage cells, the test plot delineator, test plot under rainfall conditions, rainfall simulator,
drainage cell material extraction and gust removal, stormwater mnoff, and test site locations.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I.1 Study Objective
1.2 Study Scope -
1.3 Need
2.0 REVIEW OF URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
2.1 Urban Srormwarer Managemen[
2.1.1 Traditional Srormwarer Management Pracdces
Z.L7 Stormwater Best Management Practices
2.1.3 Envitun mentally Responsible (Beaer) Management Techniques
2.2 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Types of Porous Pavements
2.2.'_ Permeable Pavement Sauauce
2.2.3 Application
2.2.4 Performance
2.2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
2.2.6 Previous Resea¢h
2.3 Summery of Survey Resula
3.0 APPLICABLE THEORY
3.1 The Rainfall-Runoff Process
3.2 Infiltration Hydrology
3.2.1 Detumination of Infiltration Capacity
3.3 Rainfall Simulators
33.1 RninFall Simulation
3.4 Spafial Variability and Scale EFkcrs
3.4.1 Spativl Variability
3.4.7 Scale Effects
24
3.5 Even[ Versus Long-Term Hydrologic Modelling
3.6 Urban Srormwatet Modelling
3.6.1 Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
3.6.2 SWMM vnd Pervious Surfaces
4.0 FIELD EXPERIMENTS
4.1 Test Plot Specifations
4.2 The Rainfall Simularor
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.G.1 Computational Process -Example Calculations
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Darry [nBlaation Capacities
5.2 EDC (Ex[ernal Drainage Cell) and Cmst Ma[erials
6.0 DISCUSSION
6.1 Regeneration of [nfilaation Capacity
6.2 Reliability of Results
G.2.1 Data Collection Phase
6.2.2 Calculation Phase
6.3 Permeable Pavement Design and Installation
6.3.1 UN] Eco-$tonex Installation and Specifications
6.4 Cost Comparison -MICBEC (Modular [nrerlocking Concre[e Block with Ex[ernal Drainage Cells) and PAP
(Porous Asphak Pavement)
G.4.1 Capital
G4.2 Maintenance and Repair
6.4.3 Environmental
65 SWMM and Permeable Pavement
6.5.1 LF90 Performance Enhancement '
6.5.? Accommodation of Mote Complex Models
6.5.3 Code Modifications
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ZI Conclusions Based on Experimental Results
1. Infilaation capacity oFUNI Eco-Stone'° MICBEC pavers decreases v the installation vges.
2. Infiltration capacities at UNI Eco-Smne`°installarions decreases with increased companion.
3. Infiltration capacity of the EDC crusts, found ro 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
Ew-Srone' surface.
5. fEo is affected m 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 IA and 1B, UNI Eco-Stones Installations are construned with improper EDC material,
which resaicts pomntial fEo.
8. fEo values of [he magnitudes presented in this study would not provide infiltration of the smallest storms
common w the Totonro area.
9. SWMM currently can not simulate the response of permeable pavement.
I0. SWMM can be modified to model sys[ems that include permeable pavements, over along-term, efficiently
and effectively.
7.2 Conclusions Based on Literature Review and Observations
I. Infiltrating srormwarer is environmentally beneficial.
2. Permeable pavement is an effective infilnarion BME
3. Eco-$tone`° offers lim l[ed bene6rs when used for small surface areas as srormwarer does no[ have adequate
time to infiltrate the porous pavement.
4. Porous and conventional asphalt pavement has n greater potential to romamina[e stovnwater and the
adjacent environment dean concrete pavea.
25
5. MICBEC pavements will always reduce stormwater runoff volumes through depressions storage.
7.3 Recommendazions
From the conclusions, the following is recommended:
1. UNI Eco-5[one® installations must be constructed and maintained to manufacturers 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-Stones 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 m maximize canon to pervious areas.
5. $WMM coding must be updated ro FORTRAN 90 syntax and the RUNOFF block modified to allow better
catchment discretization.
Future research should be conducted to determine:
1. How deep into the permeable pavement do fines propagate and whether there is an optimal gradation of
EDC material that will capture fines az the surface, az well az provide adequate fEo.
2. How well UNI &o-$rone'H performs under Freezing conditions.
3. An appropriate Eco-$mne® maintenance frequency.
26
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 w examine the feazibiliry of, and attempt ro develop computer code for the
Uni[ed Sates Environmental Protection Agenry's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). The code would allow
planners and designers m simulate the response of permeable pavements in long-term modeling applications. The
infiltration capacity of [he permeable pave-menr was determined From pazt studies of UNI Eco-Srone® and accounts for
degradation over time and regeneration by mechanical means. Various simulations tun 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 pavemen[ stucture, SWMM program structure, SWMM RUNOFF
subca¢hment schema[ivation, porous pavement water balance, and hydrographs for various dates from 1971 to 1981.
The tables include IGesin's experimental results, subcatchment surface classification, RUNOFF block input data, sample
calculations, and desaip[ion of permeable pavement parameters for various ¢sts. Also included is a potential source
code for a subroutine PERMP.4V.FOR containing the calculations For the permeable pavement option for SWMM.
Numerous rofetenws also are included.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Ll Project Objective
1.2 Project Scope
2.0 LIT ERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Urban Smrmwarer
22 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Porous Pavements
2.2.2 Permeable Pavemen[ Structure
2.3 Permeable Pavement Applications
2.4 Water Quantity
2.5 Water Quality
2.6 Subsurface Quality
2.7 Smrmwarer Management Model (SWMM)
3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM)
3.1 Smrmwarer Modelling
3.2 U.S. EPA's Smrmwarer Management Model
3.3 SWMM: Overview of Program Structure
3.4 SWMM AINOFF Block
3.5 Subcatchment Schema[iza[ion
3.6 Infiltration in the SWMM RUNOFF Block
3.6.1 Horron Method
3.6.2 Horron Method in SWMM
3.6.3 Green-Amer 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 FORTRIuV 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 m CATCH.FOR
27
6.0
7.0
5.4 Changes to WSHED.FOR
5.5 Addition of PERMEA.[NC
5.6 Addition of PERMPAV FOR
5.7 Quality Assurance
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
6.1 Test File
6.1.1 Da[a File
6.1.2 Rain Darv File
G.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 Samtarad Hydraulic Conductivi[ies
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
1. It is possible m insert new source code into SWMM to simulate the long-term hydrologic response of
permeable pavement.
2. Vvtious simulations, with the proposed new source code, indicated that the model pcoduces reasonable resul[s
under a generalized set of input conditions.
3. As expecred, simulations showed that using permeable pavement can greatly reduce flows when compared ro
impervious surfaces.
4. DiHiculries can arise in receiving programming support with SWMM because of the size and complexity of
[he code and numerous au[hors over the pest 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 ro mnnea the permeable pavement subroutine m the groundwater marine.
4. Clarification of the water depth in the reservoir of the permeable pavemen[ structure should be made.
5. Possible modifications ro the new source code should he made after Further alpha and beta resting.
6. Further research must be conducted m 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 simulntions.
9. Proper documentazion must be prepared to support the proposed new code.
10. Instructional material should he developed and distributed for instruction in the use ok the proposed new
code.
28
RESTORATION OF INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF PERMEABLE PAVERS
Chrirtopher Genitr - 200!
GENERAL SUMMARY
This study investigated the infiltration capacity of UNI &o-Srone° 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 rapacity volatile
organic matte[, heary metal concentration, and particle size analysis of the drainage void material vary with average daily
maffi< use and surface ponding. Using a rainfall infiltromerer, 110 rest plots were subjected m 420 tests comprising two
simulated rainfall events of known intensity and duration. Data collected during the second rainfall waz used to calculate
effective infiltration capacity. Preliminary results yielded different results For infiltration capacity and particle siu 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 &oSmne" infiltration capacities decrease with age and [raffic use, and that the infiltration
capacities could be improved by street sweeping/vacuuming. The tests plots wi[h a coarser gradation of aggregate
materials had higher infil[ration rates than the section with a greater percentage of fines in the base and bedding
materials. The greatest inFdtta[ion rates were found in areas with low average daily ttaff¢ and cogeneration could be eazily
accomplished. In areas of medium w heary average daily traffic usage, infilaation rates were lower and regeneration was
Limited, indicating a need to establish a periodic cleaning program to ensure optimum infil¢ation levels.
OUTLINE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Study Objectives
1.2 Study Scope
2.0 UR BAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES -LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Urban $mrmwater Management
2.L1 Stormwarer Management Practices
2.l? Urban Best Management Pmctices (BMPs)
2.L3 Agricultural BMPs
2.1.4 Infil¢arion BMPs
2.IJ Green/Open Space
2.2 Permeable Pavement
2.2.1 Types of Porous Pavements
2.2.Z Permeable Pavement Structure
2.2.3 Applications of Permeable Pavements
2.3 UNI Eco-Smne® Paving System
2.4 Surface Sealing
2.5 Possible Maintenance Activities
25.1. High &essure Wazhing wi[h Water
2.5.2 Street Sweeping
2.6 Previous Research
2.G.1 Permeable Pavement Installation Maintenance
3.0 MPLICABLE THEORY
3.1 The Rainfall-Runoff Process
3.2 Infilrrarion
3.2.1 Determination of Infilaarion Capacity
3.3 Rainfall Simulawrs
3.3.I Rainfall Simulation
4.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
4.1 Test Plot Specifications
4.2 The Rainfall Simulamt
4.2.1 Rain Fall Intensity Calibrations and Spatial Uniformity
4.3 Ezpcdmemal Procedure
4.4 Experimental Design
4.5 Desaipfion oFTest Installations
4.6 Computvrional Methods
4.6.1 Example Cnlculadons
29
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Summary of lnfilnazion Races
5.2 Henry Me¢I Analysu
GO DISCUSSION
6.1 Infiltration Rates
6.2 Panicle Size Analysis
6.2.1. Bedding Material
6.3 Heaw Metal Analysis
G.4 Volatile Organic Matter (VOC Content)
6.5 Effect of Ponded Water
6.5.I Frequently Flooded vs. Well-Drained Plots
6.6 Vegetated Plots
6.6.1 Vegetated vs. Unvegemted Plots
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Conclusions
I. Since no previous experimental work has examined the regeneration of the infil[ration capaciry of permeable
pavement installaions, this study will serve as a guideline for future permeable pavement research in
North America.
2. The infiltrazion capaciry tested between May and September, 2001, wu determined m 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 capaciry was also found w be dependent to a lesser
degree, on the percentage of volatile organic maaer within the EDC.
3. The infiltration rates were found m be greatest in the low ADT azea and regeneation m the maximum
infdnation capaciry could be accomplished by removing as Bale as 15mm of EDC material.
4. The infiltration rates in the medium ADT area were found w be less than the low ADT area. Although
regeneration m the critical inf Itration capaciry could not be reached by removal of 25mm of EDC material,
but results rugger[ that this could be possible wi[h removal of more EDC material. Some degree of
regeneraton was noted a[ all excavation depths.
5. The infiltration rates in the high ADT areas wem found to be [he lowest, and only a minimal amount of
regeneraion could be obtained.
6. The infil[ration rarer were higher, and regeneration could be reached by removing less EDC maaer, in the
Eco-Scone' 3" installation. The infiltration razes within the Eco-Stone" 4" installations were much lower
initially and regenerafion to the critical infilavtion capaciry 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-Srone'v 4" installation. The percentage of fine maaer was also found to be inversely
proportional to the infdnation rate.
9. The inf Itration 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 srorm event, than ploys where the water does not pond. The percent of fine
matter in the EDCs was found w be slightly greacer within the first Smm and approximately equal for all
other depths. The percent of VOC was found to be significantly higher in the Frequently flooded plow, for
all depths, no[jusr the upper Smm.
10. The percentage of volatile organic matter within the EDCs was found m be similar For both installations and
all traffic uses. The percen[ VOC was found m he much greater for the vegetamd plots, underneath the large
coniferous [tee along the grass verge The inf Itration rate was no[ found to be greatly akected by the pe¢ent
VOC, with the exmption of ploy where the percent VOC was significantly greater than the average VOC
percent [n this case, the infdnation rate was Found m be an order of magnitude greatec than the
unvegetated area.
11. The concentrations oFheavy metals within [he EDCs were found to be less than the Ontazio Minisav of the
Environments Guideline Concentrations For Selected Metals in Solls. All of the metals tested were below the
MOH guideline level, and, with the exception of zinc, below the expected value for Onratio soils.
30
7.2 Recommendations
I. It is necessary to minimize the amoun[ of fine matter accumulating within the EDC. This ran best be done
by periodically cleaning the permeable pavement installation to keep the EDCs clear of fine mattes The
frequency of cleaning will be dependent on the ADT, az well as Land use practices on and adjacent [o the
test installation
2. The percent VOC within the cells helped to keep fine matter from accumulating within the EDCs.
Whenever possible, coniferous [tees should be encouraged to grow along permeable pavement installations
and on any islands or verges within the pazking lot Coniferous trees were found m 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 vege[ated areas near the curb.
4. Fine matter should not be used when installing the subbase material, as i[ decreases the infiltration capacity
and the ability w regenerate the infiltration capacity.
5. 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 tasting permeable pavement installations on a larger scale. This would
allow for better estimation of the installation as a whole and lessen the spa[ial variability of testing at such
a small scale.
8.0 REFERENCES
3t
The following synopses are all edited by William James of Guelph University and aze Proceedings of the
Stormwater and Water Quality Management Modeling Conferences, Toronto, Ontazio 1994-2000. Thry
are bued on the research conduced at Guelph University described on the previous pages.
PROVISION OF PARHING-LOT PAVEMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL STUDIES
William Jamer and Michael K Thomprvn - 1994
This study prepared a facility for future research on porous pavement for application in Nonh America wi[h compara[ive
test sections of UNI Eco-Srone`° concrete pavers, traditional concrete pavers and asphalt in the laboratory and in a
parking application. The purpose was to investigate porous pavement as an alternative to impervious pavement for
parking lots. A large number of contaminants were investigated, including, henry mewls, chlorides, nunients, phenolics,
solids, and solvents. Preliminary resul[s showed that contaminant loads from the asphalt surface were always greater than
the other pavement surfaces. The Eco-Scone's 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 infltation rates of the pavement.
CONTAMINANTS FROM FOUR NEW PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS PAVEMENTS
IN A PARHING LOT
William Jamer and Michael K Thompron- l996
While the previous study described the design construction, and instrumentation of Eour pavements in the laboratory
and parking loq this study reports on the interim conclusions obtained from the parking-lot pavements For the first year
aker installation In addition m investigation of contaminants, remperamre studies also were conduced. The Eco-Stone'
pavement continued m show significant reductions in surface mnoff mmamiuant loads.
THERMAL ENRICHMENT OF STORMWATER BY URBAN PAVEMENT
William Jamer and Rrian I/erzpagen - /996
This study covers the thermal enrichment of surface runoff from impermeable asphalt and the Eco-Stone® porous
concrem paver. Though more research was required, it was found [hat thermal enrichment of urban smrmwater runoff
should be considered when new development is proposed, and thermally-sensi[ive pavement materials should be used
more extensively The asphalt paving surface was found ro increase the remperamre of the runoff more than the Eco-
Stone" pavemen[.
OBSERVATIONS OF INFILTRATION THROUGH CLOGGED POROUS CONCRETE
BLOCK PAVERS
William Jamey Chrirtopher K~erin and David Elrick - 1997
The purpose of this research was ro rest the hypothesis that, for a particular permeable paver (EcoSrone°'), infihmtion
capadties may be improved by simply street sweeping and/or vacuuming the surface. The tesearch used darn collected at
several Eco-Stone° installations in the area. While studies showed infilaation npaciry was reduced as the pavement aged,
it was Found char infiltration could be improved with removal of the rop layer of drainage cell mazerial. It was found that
very Bale surface water cons off new installations of UNI Eco-Sroue", and that maimenance was recommended ro renew
infiltration capacity. Research also found that fines in the drainage cell material affected infltration 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 Jmney Reem Shabin - 199R
[n this study the contaminants investigated were phemis. pH, zinc, iron oils and grease. It was found that pH of mica is
a signitlcant factor, with asphalt having the least buffering, and that Eco-Smne reduced both mnoff and contaminants
32
the most Percolation through the permeable pavement surface and underlying media slowed the water flow, allowing
more time for oxidation. It also waz shown to Filmr suspended solids and some contaminants such as sodium and sulfates.
Heary metal removal through percolation appeared to be good. Surface runoff from aphal[ contained a higher mass of
all the parameters inves[igated 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 pe[roleum products and some
pollutants such as oils, greaze, and phenols would be generated from the surface. [t waz found the Eto-Stone pavement
appears m have significant long-term benefi[s compared ro conventional asphalt pavements in terms of its ability to
reduce the quantity of srormwater pollutants.
FEASIBILITY OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT OPTION IN THE STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) FOR LONG-TERM CONTINUOUS
MODELLING
Willram Jamer. Crag William Kipkie - 7998-9
This projec[ focused on examining the feasibility of inserting new FORTRAN computer code inm the USEPA's SWMM,
such that it would allow designers to simulate the hydrological response of permeable pavements in long-arm modelling
applications. It was found that it was possible to insert new code, and the model produced reazonable results under a
generalized set of input condi[ions. Simulations showed that using permeable pavements can greatly reduce flows
compared to impervious surfaces.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN OF
PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS
William jamu, W Robert C. Jamer, and Harald von Langrdorff- 2000
This monograph details the underlying method and Function of a free-wale program that uses [he USEPA Srormwaar
Management Model (SWMM) For the design of permeable pavemen[ installations -PCSWMM. The program allows
quick implemenra[ion of a BMP in SWMM and is very user-Friendly. The SWMM code Eor groundwater and infiltration
has not been comprehensively tested against a specific permeable pavement field program due to lack of field testing ro
date. PCSWMM is a tool to aid designers and is incended for use by civil engineea tha[ are comperen[ in evaluation of
the significance and limitations of the compumtions and results. It is not a substimiion for engineering judgemenq nor is
it meant m replace the services of professional qualifed engineers.
33
ADDITIONAL UNI ECO-STONE° RESEARCH AND TESTING
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON PERMEABLE PAVEMENT
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Proferror Derek B. Booth, Jennifer Leavitt and Kim Peterzan - Retearch Asrutantt - l99G
This project was ini[iated [o review the types and characteristic of permeable pavements in the Pacific Northwest to
provide potential users of these systems wi[h information. They constructed awell-instrumented Full-scale test site in a
section of a new employee parking lot at [he King County Public Works facility in Renton, WA, to evaluate the
durability, infiltra[abiliry, and wateo-qualiry benefits of four types of permeable pavements -UNI Eco-S[one'T,
Grasspave2'9, Gravelpave2'g and Turfstone°. An additional section of impervious asphalt was constructed as a control. The
intent of the pmjea is ro evaluate the long-term performance of the systems over a number of years. The study is being
wnduc[ed in conjunction with King County, the Ciry of Olympia, Washingon State Department of Bcology, and the
City of Renron. Initial results of [his study showed the use of permeable pavements dramatically reduced surface runoff
volumes and aaenuated peak discharge and though there were significant svuaural differences in the systems, [he
hydrologic benefits were consis¢nt. In addi[ion, it was found [ha[ a significum contribution of permeable pavements is
[he ability to reduce effective impervious area, which has a direct connection to downstream drainage systems. As a result,
it ran be used to control mnoff timing, reduce volume, and provide water quality benefns.
EXPERT OPINION ON UNI ECO-STONES -PEDESTRIAN USE
Professor Burkhard Bxttrhneider - 1994
This report rested UNI EcoStone° For safety and walking eaze 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. [.adies high
heel shoes were [ested for penetration depth in the drainage cell aggregate materials. The findings showed Char proper
filling and compac[ion of the drainage cell mvterials was impor[ant For good overall performance.
EXPERT OPINION - IN-SITU TEST OF WATER PERMEABILITY OF TWO UNI
ECO-STONE' PAVEMENTS
Or. Soenke Borgwardt - /nrtitute for Punning Green Sparer and for Landrrape Arzhiteaure - Univerrsity of Hannover - l994
Tess were performed on two ['M Eco-Srone" pavements of various ages ar two differen[ locations in Germany. A
parking lot at the train station in Eldagsen was installed in 1992, while the Lenze Company parking lo[ in Gross Berkel
was installed in 1989. The results showed that the Eldagsen site was tupable of infihraring 350 I/sec/ha and even after 60
minutes, absorbed more [han 200 I/secJha. At the Lenxe site, the &o-Stoney pavemen[ was capable of infiltrating 430
I/sec/ha, and even after GO minutes, a rainfall amoun[ of 400 I/sec/ha was absorbed. Al[hough the comparison shows that
the older test area had a higher permeability than [he newer installation, laboratory tests showed the lesser permeability
values of the Bldagsen site were the resuh of the existence of Fines. This te onfirms the recommendation for selecting
proper gradation of drainage cell and bedding materials in the 2mm to Smm range and that ASTM G33 grading should
cwt be used if infilaation is the pnmury function of the pavement.
DRAINAGE WITH INTERLOCHING PAVERS
Proferror WMuth-Rrrearzh /nrdtute for Water Rerourcet - IGtrGruhe University - 1994
The institute tested UN[ EcoSrone" pavers in comparison to aaditional pavers for wvter permeability. Surface mnoff
and the associated drainage were measured under a varierv of rainfall amounts and intensities.
DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE UTILIZING UNI ECO-STONEa AND ECOLOC°
PAVING UNITS
Profennr Thumar Phalen, Jc -Nartheattene Univerzity- 1992
The purpose of [his research was ro develop [he technical datu related to the paving system's permeability characteristic.
This early research wus expanded on in the Rollings and Texas A&M design manuvls.
34
STRUCTURAL DESIGN SOFTWARE
LOCKPAVE~PRO
Dr Brian Shacke[
The LOCKPAVEm 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 me[hodology and offers the ability m select, analyze, and compare
alternative pavement types. It also includes UNI Eco-Scone" permeable pavement hydraulic modeling bazed on the
USEPA's SWMM model.
FEATURES OF PCSWMM° 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 V'i'izard interface guides the user through the required parameters
• Model results include graphs of the input Function (design storm), surface mnoff (if any), depth of ware[ in the base
material, and drainage of the baze material for the durazion of the model run
• A summary report includes user-defined input and [abula[ion of numerical results
• Features support for Run-On - Ilow contributions from adjacent impervious and pervious surfaces
• Incorporates new mgenera[ion data From research studies
• The model amepts an arbitrary rainfall hyerograph and provides astep-by-step accouu[ing (conservation of mazs) of
water movement through the permeable pavement installatiom including surface detention, overland flow, infiltration,
subsurface storage, and subsurface drainage
When designing EcoStone" pavements, please use LOCKPAVE° PRO first to
es[ablish the minimum requirements For the structural performance of the
pavemen[. The program defaults to the most conservative parameters -very
poor drainage conditions and saturation of the baze more than 25% of the time
- for its structural analysis. Then run PC-SWMM° m see if your drainage
design parameters are me[. If the minimum base thickness established by
LOCKPAVE° PRO is inadequa[e For your storage/drainage requirements,
increase the base layer thickness step-by-step until your hydraulic parameters are
me[.
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
ECO-STONE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
This comprehensive slide/computer Powerl'oim presentazion is oriented ro the design professional [t includes bazic
design guidance, hydraulic information, research information, and project references and is based on the Derign
Cnntiderationr for thr L'N/ Eto-Starve°' Cana¢e Pavrr by Rollings and Rollings.
35
CASE STUDIES
RIO VISTA WATER TREATMENT PLANT
care study - ZPa3e
Case study on the Castaic Lake Water Agenry of Santa Clarita, CA project -Water Conservatory Garden and Learning
Center Parking Lot. Features ?7,000 sq ft parking lot installation of UNI Eco-$toue® permeable pavers.
MICKEL FIELD AND HIGHLANDS PARK
curt study - 2page
Case study on Mickel Field/Highlands Park of Wilmn Manors, FL project -Renovation of community parks' walkways
and parking loa. Features over 37.000 sq ft of UN[ Eco-Swne's permeable pavers.
JORDAN COVE URBAN WATERSHED STUDY
Cme Study - 4-page
Case study is on an innovative research project funded in part by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Proce¢ion through the USEPAs National Monitoring Program Section 319. Other participants in [he project include [he
University of Connecticut Natural Resources Management and Engineering Depc, the town of Wa[erford, 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
oFsome homes in the "paired warershed" development. A variety of BMPs have been incorporated inro the site for long-
term monimring and compazison with traditional subdivision construction.
36
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Ametien Associuiov oFStam Highway and Trunspurtation Officials (AASHTO), 1993. AASLiTO Guidr fnr Duign afPavrmrnr
Srrurrurer, Washingmn, DC.
American Sociery For 9esting and Materials (AS"I ;M), 1999. Annual Book ofASTM Standardr, West Conshohocken, PA
Amerimn Sociery of Civil Engineers, 19)2. Design arzd Cvmnuainm of Urban &ormwarn Managemrnr Symm,, ASCE, New York, NY.
Booth, D., J. Leavia, and K. Peterson, 1995. The Univerriry ofWarbingron Permeable Pavemrnt Demonrrrarion Project - Barkgroum[
and Firn-Year FieN Rerulu Univerriry of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering, Seattle, WA.
Cedegren, H., 1987. Drainage ofHigbway and Ai ~rL[Pavrmmrr, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL.
Corps of Engin s, 1991. Subru./are Drainage nfPavemrnt Srrurturu, Ruearrh and Development Servirr Current Carpr (Engineers
and Indwtry Pracrirr Hanover, NH.
Corps of Engineers, 1992. Engineering and Design Drainage Layers for Pavements, Engineer Technical Larer 1110-3-435,
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washingmn, DC.
Core Jr., M., J. Clausen. B. Moaon, P Stacey, and S. Zaremba, 1997. Jordan Cove Urban Watenhrd Nariona[Moniraring Project,
CSEPA, Univerriry of Conncaicut, Aqua Solutions. Connecticut Department of Environmental Proreaiom Wamrford, CT.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1990. FHWA Terbnira( Guide P per 90-0l: Submf ce Pavemrnt Drainage, FHWA,
Offiw of F,ngineedvg, Pavement Division, Washingmn, DC.
Federal Highway Adminisrtauon (FHWA), 1992. Ormoutrarion Projra 8Z~ Drainabk Pavemrnr Synrrrsr Participant Notrbook, FHWA,
Publi<azion No. FH\S'A-SA-92-008, Washingmn, DC.
Ferguson, B., 199E °'I'he Failure of Srormwater Demotion and the Furore of Smrmwaret Design", LanGrapr Daigrs. VoI. 4, No. 12,
Cold Trade Publiuuons, Van Nuys. CA.
Ferguson, B., 1994. Srvrmwara /r~(t anon, Lewis Publishers, CAC Press, Bnca Ramn, FL.
Ferguson, e. and T Dcbo, 1990. Ors-tire Srarmwarer Managrmrrsr. Second F.dirion, Van Nosvand Reinhold, New York, NY.
GoForrh, G., E. Dinia, and J. Rauhut, 1983. Srormwamr Hydmlvgira( Charaaervrirr ofPorour and Convrnrianal!'aving Syr:emr, Onimd
States Environmental Promaion Agenry, Grant No. R806338-01-2, Austin, 7X.
National Cooperative Highwav Rrseurch &ogam (NCHRP), 1982, 1997. Syrsrheris vfH(gfiway Prachrr 96 Pavement Subrurface
Drainage Sysrcmr. Sequim, WA.
National Reroumes Dekiue Coundl, 1999. Srormwarer Smaregier. Communiry Rerpoma ra RunoffPo![uriars, New York. NY.
Portland Cement Assodatiom 1992. Proprrtia arsd Uru ofCemrnt-Mod~rd Soi{Skokie, IL.
RolGrsgz R. and M. RolGrsgs, 1992- App7lcarionrfm Corsoar Pavirsg Block in the Ursiad Sara Market Uni-Group U.S.A., Palm
Beach Gardens, FL.
Shackel, B., 1990. Design and Corsmurrion of/nrrr[ock:ng Connrrr Blork Pavemerzrs, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., New York NY.
Smith, D., 2001. Permeable /nrerlorking Connere Prsvemenrr, Inrerlocking Concrete Pavement Instimre, Washingmn, DC.
The Asphalt Institute. 1989. The Asphalt Handbook MS-4, Lexingron, KY.
Unfired States Envimnmevral Proreaion Agency (USEPA), OfBm of Water and Lnw impact Developmem Cenre¢ 2000. Law Impart
Devdopmenr (L/D). A Literature Review, EPA-84I-B-00-005. Washingon, DC.
Uni¢d States Environmenral &oreaion Agency (USEPA), OIBce of Wamr, 2000. N eianal Mersa afBur Managrmrrsr Pmairu for
Srarm Waeer Phan I/, W shinemn, DC.
Unfired Sm~es F.nvironmcnral Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Water, 2000. Non-Point Sonree Pa[huion. !L Urban Run
Washingmn, DC.
37
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA
INFILTRATION PAVING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION REPORT
DATE: INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
S[TF STATUS: ACTIVE INACTIVE COMPLETED
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
1. Pre-consvuttion
Runoff diverted
Area stabilized
2. Excavation
Size and location conforms to plans
Side slopes stable
Soil permeabiliry
Groundwarer/bedrock
3. Geotextile/Filter Fabric Placement
Fabric specifip[ion
Placement conforms w specifications
Sides of excavation coveted
4. Aggregate Base Course
Size as specified, sieve analysis conforms w spec
Cleanhvashed material
Thickness, placemenc, and wmpaction meets spec
S. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Meets ASTM or CSA standards as applicable
Blevations, slope, paaerm placement and compaction
as per specifcaions
Aggregate joint materials couform m specifcazion
Drainage or bio swales, vegetated areas for emergency runoff
overflow and pre-treatment for f Ivring runoff
G. Final Inspection
Elevation and slope wnform m drawings
Transitions m impervious pavement sepa~ared with
edge resrminrs
Stabilization of soil in areas draining onro pavement
(vegetative strips recommended)
Attion to be taken:
No action nemssary. Continue routine inspections
Correct noted site deficiencies by
lst notice 2nd entice
Suhmit plnn modiFcations as noted in written comments by
Nofice m Comply issued Final Inspecion, projecc completed
38
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION FORM
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE AND USEPA
INFILTRATION PAVING MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
Individual Conducting Inspection: _
Impetrian frequenry shown in parentherer
L Debris on infilaation paving area (Monthly)
2. Vegetation areas (Monthly)
Mowing done when needed
Fertilized pet specifications
Nn evidence of erosion
3. Dewamring (,Monthly)
Infilaation paving dewa[ea between corms
4. Sediments (.Monthly)
Area clean of sediments
Area vacuum swept on a periodic basis as needed
5. S¢uauml condition (Annual)
No evidence of surface deteriora[ion
No evidence of rutting or spalling
Inspection Frequency Key: Annual Monthly A@er major storm
Action to be taken:
"As built" plans available Y/N
Satisfactory Unsaas6aory
If any of the answers to the above items is checked unsatisfactory, a time frame shall he established for their corrective
action or repair.
No anion necessary. Continue marine inspections
Coaecr noted Facility de&iendes by
Facility repairs were indicaed and comple[ed. Site reinspection is necessary ro verify corrections or improvemen[s.
Site ainspeaion accomplished on
Si[e teinspection was sansFactorv. Next routine iospecfion is scheduled for appmxima[ely:
Signature of Lupeaor
TIME:
39
u~e~
UNI-GROUP U.S.A.
MANUFACTURERS OF UNI PAVING STONES
43Q !Jonhlake Bled. • Suirc 204 • Palm Bach Gardeas, FL 33410 • (5GI) 6264!,66 • Fnx (5GI) 627-6403 • (800) 872-1 fl64
www.uni-groupusa.org • info@uni-groupusa.org
Appendix V
Facility Summary Forms
THURSTON REGION
FACILITY SUMMARY FORM
Complete one (I) for each facility (detention/retention, coalescing plate filter, etc.) on [he
project site. Attach 8 1/2 x I I sketch showing location of facility.
Proponen('s Facili(y Name or (denfifier (e.V, Pond A): See Parr 6
Name of Road or S(reer to dccess Facility- Burnett Rd./Moumin View Road
Hearings Examiner Case ,Number:
Development Rev. Project No/Bldg Permit Na.:
Parced Number: 21713340000 31713340200
To be completed by Utility Staff:
Utility Facility Number
Project Number (num)
Parcel Number Stains (num, Ich)
Q, Known; I, Public; 2 Unknown; 3, Unassigned
Basin and Subbasin: (num, bch)
(2ch for basin, 2ch for subbasiq 2ch furore
Responsible jurisdiction: (alpha Ich)
Part 1 - Project Name and Propo t
Project Name: Greeo Villaee Subdivisiop
Project Owner Sunshine OLvmpic Epterpcises Inc
Projec(Conmc'r: Georee Hom. Ph D
Address: 2218 Blossomwood Court NW Olympia WA 98500
Phone: (Sfi0) 944-7447
Project Proponent (Jdifjerenq Same
Address: Same
Phone: Same
Project Engineer Rnh•rr F Hnlrnmh P F
Finn: SC4 Cnnaultino l:n tin
Phone: /_ffi01 l9i_h00~
Part 2 -Proiect Location
Section
Township
Range
Part_3 - Tyoe of Permit Aoolication
Type of permit (e.g_, Commercial BldgJ: Residential Subdivision
Other Permits (circle)
^DOFiW HPA ^COE JOJ
^COE Wetlands ^DOE Dam Safety
^FE;LfA ^F[oodpfain
^Shareline Mgmt ^Rockery/Refainiug Wall
^Encroachment ®Grading
^ NPDES
^Other Plumbing, Electrical. Utility
Other Agencies (Fedora( Stale, Local, eteJ Thal have had or will review this Drainage Erosion
Control Plan:
N/A
Part 4 -Proposed Proiect DescrioCon
Who! stream basin is this project in (e.g, Percival, Woodland):
Project Size. acres
Zoning
Onsite:
Residential Subdivision:
Number of Lats:
Lot sire /average), acres:
Building Permit/Commercial Plat
Building(s) Footprint, acres:
Conere(e Paving, acres:
Grnvel Surface. acres:
Lattice 6fock Paving, acres:
Public Roads (including gravel shoulder/, acres:
:Nisqua!!y River
!0
R-h
i2
0.13
n
0
1.87
Private Roads (including sidewalks), acres : 1.34
Onsite Impervious Surface Tolal, acres: 3,21
Part 5 -Pre-Developed Project S'te Characteristic
Stream through site, y/n:
Name:
DNR Type:
Type of feature this facility discharges to (i.e., lake, stream, intermittent stream, pothole,
roadside ditch, sheetFlow to adjacent private property, etc.):
Swa[es, Ravines, y/n:
Sleep slopes. (sleeper than l.i%J y/n:
Erasion hm_ard, y/n:
! 00 yr. F[oodplain, Y/n:
Lakes or {f'edands, y/n:
Seeps/Sprittgs. y/n:
High Groamdwater Table, y/n:
Wellhead Protection or Aquifer
Sencilive Area, Y/n:
No
No
No
No
.Na
No
,b'o
Yes
Parc 6 -Facility Description -Basin A
Total Area Tributary to Facility lne[uding OfJsi[e (acres): 2.d9
Total Orcsite Area Tributary to Faci(iry (acres): 2. d9
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.78
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 1.17
Design Total Tributary Area [o Facility (acreaJ: 1.95
Enter q one (I) for the type offaciliry:
Wet pond detention
GVet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground detenion
Infiltration pond
Dry well infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centrifuge separator
Other: (!%t vault) 1
Outlet Npe /Enter a one (IJ for each type present/
Filter
Oil water separator
Single orifice
Multiple orifices
Weir
Spilbvay
Pump(s)
Other (inf(ration m groundwater) 1
Part 7 -Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rare m Groundwater (ifapplicableJ 20 in/hr
Part 6 -Facility Description -Basin B
To[a! Area Tributary to Facility Including Ofjsite /acres): 2,3g
Tom! Onsite Area Tributary !o Facility (acres): z,3g
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): ~, 7{
Design Landscaped Area Tributary (o Facility /acres): l.20
Design Total Tributary Area (o Facility (acres): L9~J
Enter a one RJ for fhe type ofjaeillty:
Wet pond detention
We[ pond wafer surjaee area, acres
Orv pond detention
Underground detention
lnfi![rutian pond
Drv we(! inji[tra(ion
Coalescing plate separa(or
Centrifuge separa(or
Other: (Vet vault/ /
Outlet type (Enter a one p) for each type present)
Filter
Oil water separamr
Single or fce
Multiple orifices
Writ
Spillrvav
PPOnp/5/
Other (infiltrntion kr groundwn(erJ [
Part 7 -Release to Groundwater
Design Percolaliwr Rate (o Gro¢mdwatzr /ijapplicable) 20 inches hour
Part 6 -.Facility Description -Bain C
Tom(Area Tributary to Facility Including Ojfsite (acres): Z, 7g
Tata] Ons(te Area Tributary ro Facility (acres): Z 7S
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): p, gg
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to f~acidity (acres): [,q9
Design Totaf Tributary Area to Facility (acres): 2 J3
Enter a one (I) jor the type ofjacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground retention
InJ(ttrat(on pond
Dry we((infiltration
Coalescing plate separator
Centrifuge separator
Other: ryes vault) L
Oudef type /Enter a one Q) jor each type presenq
Filter
Oi! water separator
Single or fce
Mu&iplc orifices
Weir
Spi!lwuy
Pump(s)
Other /infiltra[iomJ
Part 7 -Release to Groundwater
Design Percolation Rate to Groundwater ~japp7icableJ 20 in/hr
Part 6 -Facility Description - Baitt D
Total Area Tributary to Facility Including OJjeire /acres): 2.-19
Totad Onsite Area Tribu[ary [o Facility (acres): 2.d9
Design Impervious Area Tributary to Facility (acres): 0.8L
Design Landscaped Area Tributary to Facility (acres): !.!2
Design Tom(Tributary Area to Faciliy (aeresf 1.93
Enter a one ([) for the type ojjacility:
Wet pond detention
Wet pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond detention
Underground retention
Infiltration pond
Dry well infiltration
Coalescing plate separa[or
Centrifuge separator
Other: (Vet vnult) 7
Outlet type /Enter a one (If Jor each type present/
Filter .-
Oil water separator
Single orifice
Multiple or ices
Weir
Spt[[way
Pump(s)
Other (infiltration)
Part 7 - Release to Groundwater
Design Percolntion Rate [o Groundwater (ijapplicuble/ ZO in/hr
Part 6 - Facili[v Description -Pervious Parkine Lat
Total Area Tributary to Facility Including O~ ite (acres):
Totad Onsi(e Area Tributary (a Facility (aeresJ:
Design Imperviouv Area Tributary to Facility (acres):
Design Landscaped Area Tributaryto Facrdity (acres):
Design Total TrPou(ary Area (o Facility (aeresJ:
Emer a one (l) jor the type of facility:
Wet pond detention
We! pond water surface area, acres
Dry pond de(ention
Underground re(ention
lnfiGration pond
Dry we![ rnJi(trarion
Coalescing plate n'eparator
Cemrijuge separator
Otlrec (Pervious pavers w/storage in base layers/)
0!6
0.16
0.16
0
016
Appendix [~!
Maintenance Agreement
AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN
STORMWATER FACILITIES
BY AND BETWEEN
GREEN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
ITS HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS
(HEREINAFTER "OWNER")
AND
THE CITY OF YELM
(HEREINAFTER "JURISDICTION")
The upkeep and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential to the protection of
water resources. All property owners are expected to conduct business in a manner that
promotes environmental protection. This Agreement contains specific provisions with
respect to maintenance of on site stormwater facilities.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plat of green Village, Thurston County, Yelm, WA
Whereas, OWNER has constructed improvements, including but not limited to, homes,
pavement, and stormwater facilities on the property described above. In order to further the
goals of the JURISDICTION to ensure the protection and enhancement of JURISDICTION'S
water resources, the JURISDICTION and OWNER hereby enter into this Agreement. The
responsibilities of each party to this Agreement are identified below.
OWNER SHALL
(1) Implement the stormwater facility maintenance program included herein as Attachment
„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. It shall run with
the land and be binding on all parties having or acquiring from OWNER or their
successors any right, title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their
title, or interest in the property or any part thereof, as well as their heirs, successors,
and assigns. They shall inure to the benefit of each present or future successor in
interest of said property or any part thereof, or interest therein, and to the benefit of all
citizens of the JURISDICTION.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF THURSTON
ss.
On the day of 200_, personally appeared before me,
known to be the individual(s) described, and who executed the
foregoing instrument and acknowledge that he/she signed the same as his/her free and
voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 200
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing
My commission expires
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF THURSTON
City
ss.
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
Appendix VII
Vicinity Map
r
LL ~
Z
a N
a
m
~ °
~ N
w
z Q
_ >
~ z
> W
w