Sea Aire Development Stormwater Management

Final Report
Austin Balser
Daniel Chewning
Kelly Creswell
Barbara DuBose
December 12, 2014

Executive Summary
Stormwater management is one of the greatest engineering challenges during designing new
residential developments. Stormwater designs must meet certain state regulations and cannot
impose on developable land. This project seeks to design a stormwater management system that
ensures post-development peak runoff rates do not exceed pre-development rates, while also
ensuring post-development runoff volume does not exceed pre-development volume for both 2 and
25 year storms. The pre-development runoff depth and peak flowrate for a 2 and 25 year storm are
1.35 inches and 2.31 cfs, and 3.77 inches and 7.07 cfs, respectively. The post-development runoff
depth and peak flowrate are 2.36 inches and 3.89 cfs, and 5.23 inches and 8.95, for a 2 and 25 year
storm, respectively. The average residential lot size used for LID method evaluation was 4857 ft
with an impervious percent of 40%. Low impact design methods consisting of vegetative roof, rain
garden, porous pavement, infiltration trench, and rain barrels were then sized accordingly to
accommodate for the total runoff within a single residential lot. The final stormwater management
techniques for each lot were chosen to be a 300 ft rain garden and a permeable driveway using
PorousPave. The public area of the site was 3.22 acres with an impervious area of 27%. The
stormwater techniques used to deal with this water were three bioretention cells, and two infiltration
trenches. The stormwater structures were connected by concrete culverts and a vegetative swale
that conveyed excess water to a constructed wetland. A weir box was used to ensure the peak flow
rates did not exceed pre-development levels. The goals of the project were met.
2

Introduction
Recognition of Problem
Urban and suburban development impacts local site hydrology and contributes to regional
changes in ground and surface water flow and quality. The largest impacts of altered hydrology
occur during and after storm events. Increased impervious surface coverage associated with
developed land leads to high runoff rates and low infiltration rates which both reduce the quality of
ground and surface water. The lower infiltration rates that result from increased impervious cover
also reduce the amount of groundwater available for local use.

Definition of Problem
High runoff rates and low infiltration rates lead to high volumes of runoff and lower
groundwater levels. The high runoff rates and volumes that are a result of development degrade
surface water quality, which is environmentally harmful. This is a particular concern in coastal
areas where surface runoff reaches tidal creeks and estuaries, which are environmentally and
economically important areas according to the State of South Carolina (SCDHEC). Specific to our
project, the construction of the Sea Aire residential community will create an increase in
impervious surface leading to the potential of increased stormwater runoff.

Goal of Project
The goal of this project is to design a stormwater management system for the Sea Aire
Development located in the City of Charleston, SC, to ensure the post-development peak runoff rate
does not exceed the pre-development peak runoff rate, as per State regulations, as well as to ensure
the post-development volume of runoff does not exceed pre-development runoff for 2- and 25-year

storms. The pre-development peak runoff rate and runoff depth for a 2- and 25-year storm are 2.2
cfs and 6.2 cfs, and 1.51 inches and 4.00 inches, respectively. The finished designs will need to
store at least 47,7353 ft3 of water and dewater any storage features within 72 hours without
exceeding pre-development runoff rates for each storm event. This goal will be accomplished by
designing stormwater management strategies to encourage infiltration on site and reduce runoff
flow rates and volume. Strategies will be chosen through researching Low Impact Development and
traditional stormwater management practices to determine the best choices for the site. During the
design, physical site and soil characteristics will be considered to ensure the designs will perform as
desired in situ. The project deliverable will be a site-wide stormwater management plan that meets
the goals of this project.

Constraints
The nature of this project and design team placed considerable constraints on the final
product. Cost was a consideration with this project and land development or remodeling projects
often carry high price tags. Ideally, project cost would not be an object and a perfectly
environmentally friendly site design could be implemented. However, this project had a budget and
was subject to approval from the City of Charleston as well as subject to implementation by several
contractors. Therefore cost and regulatory compliance, even at the expense of environmental design,
as well as feasibility of implementation with general contractors were obstacles.
The biggest challenges of the project came from the city and consideration of installation
and implementation. Regulators that approve plans are often resistant to change, and presenting new
strategies to replace traditional methods can be difficult. Convincing contractors of the importance
of following drawings and plans can also be extremely difficult. Contractors often have experience
with particular methods of accomplishing a goal and are reluctant to try new ideas. In an

environmentally conscious design, shortcuts or bypasses during installation may harm the
functionality of features and defeat the design goal.
The physical constraints of the site also posed difficulties. Soil characteristics on site may
not facilitate infiltration and may require augmentation to ensure design features function. The site
may also have a very shallow water table, that could hinder infiltration basins and below ground
storage. Ideally, the stormwater features designed will function as neighborhood amenities so
functionality beyond stormwater management will also shape the design. Ongoing maintenance
may have to be conducted by homeowners so ease of maintenance is an important consideration.
The budget for the design portion of this project was $1400 and was used to cover travel
costs and other incidental expenses. As implementation and construction of this plan was handled
by a contractor, the design budget did not control construction costs. The design budget did not
constrain the design or design process.

Questions of User, Client and Designer

Keeping the end users, client and designers in mind during the design process is key to
producing a functional and useful design. Involvement of stakeholders throughout the design
process allows for concerns to be addressed before they become problems and guarantees mutual
commitment and support for the project. In a residential development where lots have not been
purchased, communicating with all stakeholders can be difficult; however keeping questions that
stakeholders may ask in mind during the design process can shape the design toward a mutually
acceptable product. Possible questions of users, clients and designers are presented below.
The user of the final design will be residents of Sea Aire and three of their questions might be as
follows:

What makes a rain garden different from my regular garden?

4
o

A rain garden is a low lying garden that is used to capture stormwater runoff. The
garden has a unique variety of plants that can within extremes in moisture
conditions, promote infiltration of stormwater, and tolerate and reduce high nutrient
pollutant loads that are common to stormwater runoff.

Why are there plants in the swale and why cant we mow them very short?
o

The ditch is used to help convey water and reduce ponding on the site. Plants are
great stabilizers of soil which reduces erosion. The plants directly impact the velocity
of water flowing through the swale which must be kept down to prevent erosion.

What do I need to do to do my share of upkeep?

o

Please use your garden hose to spray your driveway clean of debris/organic matter if
you notice a build up. The rain garden will need to be viewed periodically to ensure
all the plants are thriving and new plantings may need to be added.

The client for this design is New Leaf Construction, and acting as their agent Robinson Design
Engineers (RDE), their questions might be as follows:

How effective will the design be compared to a traditional design?

o

This design will allow for more space to be available for public use by the residents
and this design will help promote more infiltration, reduce total volume, and reduce
the peak runoff rate to help lower impacts on waterways downstream.

How much more will it cost?

o

Roughly $220,000 for the entire site

Will people like it?

o

This design are made to be aesthetically pleasing and ecologically sound, the
stormwater management techniques are made to blend in to the surroundings and
offer a more natural look to the development.

The designer for this project will be the design team and RDE, their questions might be as follows:

How are the state regulations met using non-traditional methods?

o

For both a 2 and 25 year storm the peak runoff rate has been met by the design and
the constructed wetland will be used to help monitor the flowrate and slowly release
water as needed and will dewater within the appropriate amount of time.

How can long term effectiveness of the design be ensured?

o

Low impact design techniques for stormwater management have very few long term
studies but some have found that the structures can become clogged after a few years
of operation, inspections and maintenance should be performed every few years to
ensure proper drainage and infiltration. (Taylor, J. W. 2013)

How can a stormwater feature be turned into an amenity?

o

Using native plants and grasses the stormwater features can be used to help make the
rain gardens and bioretention cells more aesthetically pleasing. The constructed
wetland will mimic other wetlands in the area and attracted local wildlife for viewing
my the residents. The infiltration trenches can be concealed using filter fabric and
grass to provide open green space available for use by the resident.

Literature Review
Governing Equations
Governing equations applicable to this project include energy and mass balances as well as
other derivative equations. Separate equations were used to represent infiltration and runoff rates.
All equations are presented in Appendix A. An energy balance was be used to ensure the velocity
of the water was decreased throughout the target sub-basin to ensure stability of the design. Mass
balances were used to determine the volume of water entering and exiting the property during and

after a storm event. The Soil Conservation Service Runoff Method, using the curve number
equations, was used to predict runoff volume. Mannings equation was be used to size pipes, design
vegetated swales, and ensure the velocities and flowrates are not exceeded.

Literature Data
To gain an understanding of the problem academic and regulatory literature was consulted
and a variety of possible solutions were developed. Both conventional and Low Impact
Development (LID) stormwater Best Management Practices (BPMs) were researched. Conventional
BMPs focus on transporting stormwater to the lowest portion of the site and detaining it while
releasing it slowly in an attempt to mimic a natural stormwater response. However high percentage
of impervious cover leads to higher runoff volume, which does not mimic natural hydrology (Prince
Georges County, 1999). Traditional BMPs rely on designs such as detention ponds, concrete
piping, curb drains and other engineered hardscapes. LID techniques focus on infiltration across the
site removing the need for a single large detention basin. LID also relies upon softscapes such as
grassed swales or vegetated retention and treatment wetlands to move water across site. Through
lowering impervious cover and removing hardscapes LID seeks to more accurately mimic natural
hydrology and allow for groundwater recharge (Blount et al, 2011).
Stormwater wetlands have been a popular choice for stormwater management in order to
both capture water and reduce pollutants. Wetlands also have the added benefit of being
aesthetically pleasing and mimic natural processes. The water budget, consisting of a mass balance
of the water into and out of a wetland from Fangmeier et al. is presented in Appendix A.
Using this modified mass balance equation a wetland can be designed to hold a 25-year storm
(Burke et al, 2007).
Other LID practices researched include various biofiltration and bioretention cells. These
can be vegetated swales that filter and slow flow or rain gardens that encourage infiltration (BMP

Handbook, SCDHEC). Vegetated filter strips serve to filter runoff before it enters retention basins
and can reduce sediment volumes in runoff. Filter strips in conjunction with vegetated detention
ponds were modeled by Alexander et al. in IDEAL (Integrated Design, Evaluation and Assessment
of Loadings) to determine sediment and runoff reduction when compared to traditional designs. The
study found that among the techniques examined a combination of one filter strip and two vegetated
ponds reduced runoff volume and sediment load the most, by 40.8% and 98.6% respectively for a 2
year storm. Other scenarios, from one unmanaged site to other traditional and LID techniques
reduced runoff volume between 0-21.4% and reduced sediment load between 0-96.7% (Alexander
et al. 2008).
The BMP Database categorizes literature pertaining to stormwater management and
provided several articles on LID. The BMP Database compares data from across the world to
determine the effectiveness of different techniques. Technical Summary: Volume Reduction from
the database compares different LID BMPs to determine the volume reduction of runoff compared
to traditional BMPs. Data review determined that vegetated, normally dry BMPs, such as vegetated
filter strips, swales and bioretention basins, performed the best volume reduction function during
storm events. Filter strips saw a volume reduction potential of 30%, grassed swales saw a reduction
potential of 40% and bioretention basins with underdrains saw a reduction potential of 50%. These
reduction potentials more accurately represent smaller storms with short return periods than large
storm that occur less frequently (Clary et al. 2011).
An article by Clary et al. in 2012 focused on comparing the removal rates for suspended
solids, nutrients and other contaminants. The article compared various BMPs with a focus on LID
techniques. LID techniques performed well across all categories examined, removing suspended
solids, nutrients and bacteria. Traditional retention ponds and porous pavement both removed
suspended solids at a rate of 55 mg/L while detention basins removed suspended solids at a rate of

45 mg/L. Total fecal coliform reduction was best performed in a wetland basin with 6861 CFU/100
mL, and a grass strip with 8800 CFU/100 mL removed. Nutrient removal was characterized by total
phosphorus and total nitrogen removal. Phosphorus was best treated in bioretention basins with a
removal rate of 0.12 mg/L with retention ponds being the second best technique with a removal rate
of 0.07 mg/L. Nitrogen was best removed by retention ponds with a rate of 0.55mg/L while
bioretention basins were the second most effective with a removal rate of 0.35 mg/L (Clary et al.
2012). SCDHEC does not have regulations on nutrient pollutants for residential sites but it is
important to try and minimize impacts on the ecosystems affected by the development. Vegetated
roofs also performed consistently well across the categories tested. While not best at any one
function they functioned well across the board of tests, showing few weaknesses unlike other
techniques.
Low Impact Development was seen to have cost benefits when compared to conventional
stormwater management in an article titled Cost-Benefit Allocation of Selected Low Impact
Development Techniques Versus the Conventional Method. This article give multiple case studies
where LID methods not only saved money but also had greater reduction of runoff volume. One of
the case studies spoken of was of a subdivision in Prince Georges County, Maryland that used LID
techniques on half of the area of the subdivision and conventional techniques on the other. The
results of this study showed the LID methods to have saved $4,000 per lot and saved a total of
$19,634 overall compared to the cost of conventional methods. The runoff volume from the LID
half of the subdivision was also reduced by 20% when compared to that of the conventional half
(Jeng-Bulloch, K. S. 2011).
Through this literature review Low Impact Development stormwater techniques emerged as
the best choice for the design goals of this project. As LID is focused on volume reduction, BMPs
that encourage infiltration will serve to best accomplish the design goals of this project. Other

benefits of LID techniques include pollutant reduction and multifunctional stormwater features that
serve as amenities and management practices.

Past experience and heuristics

Coastal regions often have shallow water tables, and the greater Charleston area of South
Carolina is no exception. Shallow water tables make infiltration difficult as there is often not
enough space to store water while it infiltrates. Lack of elevation change and topography also
makes transporting water across the site for treatment or infiltration difficult without large
earthworks and grading. However, sandy soils, which are characteristic of coastal regions and
comprise most of the site encourage fast infiltration which was a benefit during design.
Field data was also collected to help determine if assumptions made during the design process were
valid. An infiltrometer test was performed at the site and the average infiltration rate at that
location was determined to be 3.05 in/hr. These results were lower than expected but the test was
performed during a heavy rain event and getting permission from landowners near the site was very
difficult and caused the test to be restarted several times. A sieve test was also performed on soil
collected at different locations of the site to determine the sand, silt, and clay content. The soil was
determined to consist of 94.5% sand and 5.5% silt. This information was very important for the
design of the rain garden, bioretention cells, and infiltration trenches to ensure effective infiltration
media. See Appendix B for data and calculations.

Design Methodology and Materials

Analysis of Information
The pre-development hydrograph of the 5.9 acre site were originally created in HEC-HMS
and then again with SWMM and the run off rates were compared with hand calculations done using
the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number Method. The hydrograph focused only on water that
fell directly onto the site. Due to Charlestons flat topography and low slopes, at this point in the

10

design runoff from area outside the site was considered negligible with the exception of the
constructed wetland. The wetland was also impacted by the base flow through the ditch, bringing in
water from above the site. The hydrograph developed in SWMM determined the peak runoff rate
and the total depth of runoff from the site. SWMM was used instead of HEC-HMS in the final
design because SWMM can model low impact design methods more precisely, is easier overall to
use for this project, and the clients requested that the SWMM software would be used in the
evaluation. The two softwares gave different outputs for pre and post development runoff depths
and this was attributed to the time of concentration calculations within each software. HEC-HMS
allows for the user to input a specific time of concentration while SWMM assumes a time of
concentration which is usually much smaller, which was the case for this site, than what is normally
calculated. This smaller time of concentration caused the water to move faster through the site and
decreased infiltration. SWMM can still be used for accurate results because the magnitude
difference between the pre and post development around about the same for each software. SWMM
gave, for a 2-year storm the total depth of runoff is 1.35 inches with a peak runoff rate of 2.31 cfs,
for a 25-year storm the total depth of runoff is 3.77 inches with a peak runoff rate of 7.07 cfs. After
the pre development conditions were assessed the post development conditions with no stormwater
management practices were put in place. This resulted in 2.36 and 5.23 inches of runoff for a 2- and
25- year storm, respectively, and an increase of peak runoff to 3.89 and 8.95 cfs, respectively.
The change in the hydrograph resulted from increasing the total impervious area. This
increase was caused by adding houses, driveways, garages, and roads to the site. This effectively
increased the curve number, meaning that less water will infiltrate and a larger volume of water will
leave the site. The stormwater management techniques that will be designed will focus on
promoting infiltration, evapotranspiration, evaporation, and preserving ecological functions of the
predevelopment site. The original volume of runoff was 28,910 cubic feet for a 2-year storm and

11

80.740 cubic feet for a 25 year storm. After development, the volume of runoff increased to 50,540
cubic feet and 112,010 cubic feet for a 2- and 25- year storm respectively. The total increase in
water volume was 21,630 cubic feet and 61,470 cubic feet for a 2- and 25- year storm respectively.
This will be the amount of runoff that the stormwater management practices retain over the site.
Each lot was designed to retain all the water necessary to maintain pre-development volumes and
flow rates for a 2 and 25 year storm. The water that does runoff from each lot, will travel to
designated features in the public space.
To determine the impact of each lot on the site wide hydrology, an average lot size was
calculated and modeled. To begin, the post-development volume of water that must be retained for
an average lot was calculated. The calculated volume was based on the runoff depth output from
SWMM and the area of an average lot. The difference between the pre-development and postdevelopment runoff depths represented the depth that needed to be retained in order to maintain the
pre-development runoff volume. The volumes calculated for a 2- and 25-year storm were 423 cubic
feet and 664 cubic feet, respectively (Appendix B). It is important to note that the percent of
impervious area on a residential lot is higher than the percent of impervious area found in the public
area, 40% versus 30% respectively. Using SWMM modeling software, for an averaged lot, the total
impervious area was about 40% and the runoff depth was 2.55 inches for a 2-year storm and 5.52
inches for a 25-year storm. This is higher than the runoff depth averaged over the entire site, 2.31
and 5.23 inches, respectively for a 2- and 25- year storm, meaning that the residential lots contribute
a large amount of runoff.
Synthesis of Design
The potential designs examined to handle stormwater runoff across the site included a
traditional stormwater pond, a non-traditional stormwater wetland, and a suite of LID techniques
applied across the site. The designs were driven by several aspects: the storage volume required to

12

maintain a pre-development hydrograph, maintaining the ecological integrity of the site, the
operational and practicality of the design, as well as consideration toward the design intent of the
entire development, especially the importance of the public open space. Several analyses of
alternative designs are presented below.
Alternative Design Options
Through hand and SWMM calculations, the total change in runoff volume that occurred post
development was determined. Traditional stormwater management strategies would suggest
constructing a retention pond to hold and slowly release excess runoff to maintain pre-development
runoff rates. If a traditional pond were to be built the high water table would limit its depth to less
than 4 feet, causing its surface area to be at least 31,430 square feet, or 0.8 acres. That area doesnt
account for side slopes, freeboard or any factor of safety, so it is safe to assume a traditional pond
would be 0.9 acres. A stormwater basin that size would take up half of the allotted open space and
occupy 15% of the site area, greatly reducing the usable open space on site. A traditional basin
would also increase the amount of runoff leaving the site post development due to the fact that only
the flow rate, the runoff volume, is regulated which can have detrimental environmental impacts.
This design was not chosen because of both the space limitations and the negative environmental
consequences.
Another alternative design would be a constructed stormwater wetland for the common area
space that would be permanently wet and offer storage volume and a slow discharge rate while
facilitating infiltration. This wetland would be in the center common area of the development and
drain to the existing ditch to allow treated water to flow off site. The center area of the property is
approximately two acres, which if turned into a three foot wetland would take over 70% of the
public area to be able to hold the post-development runoff from the site and release it slowly as per
SCDHEC regulations. The treatment wetland would have ecological benefits that the detention

13

basin would not, such as increased nutrient uptake and sediment settling as well as biological
removal of other pollutants. However the space lost to the wetland would be greater than the space
lost to the basin due to the contours required for a functional wetland as well as the plant material
that occupies a small volume of the storage area. While the wetland would be a positive community
feature the loss of recreation area would not benefit the community. As a low impact development
community, each lot is only a few thousand square feet, with the space that would in a traditional
development be yard space allotted as community space. Therefore it is important to keep the
community space available for recreation and community activities. The stormwater wetland design
was not chosen due to the space it would take up and potential maintenance concerns.
The third design option is to implement LID strategies across the entire site, managing
stormwater locally, in each lot and in the public space. The LID strategies examined were small,
unobtrusive features that manage water through infiltration and small scale storage. Major benefits
of LID techniques are that they can be multifunctional, aesthetically pleasing, and promote nutrient
removal, which although is outside of the scope of our goal, was still considered as a benefit.
Calculations for all three design alternatives can be seen in Appendix C.

Evaluation of Alternatives
The three options were evaluated on space required, ecological impact, cost, and practicality
and operation (details seen in Appendix C). A main design goal of the firm we were working with,
Robinson Design Engineers, was to create a usable public recreational space for the community to
share which was another heavily weighted factor in analysis of the design options. Engineering
principles were incorporated in the evaluation and design of each technique. Calculations were
performed, modeling software was utilized, and the constraints of real world design were taken into
consideration. Once the general approach of LID was selected specific LID techniques were

14

evaluated. Detailed evaluations of vegetated roofs, rain barrels, infiltration trenches, rain gardens,
and permeable pavement follow below.
Vegetative Roof
There are two different types of vegetative roof designs: extensive vegetative roofs and
intensive vegetative roofs. An extensive vegetative roof was chosen due to lower cost and low
maintenance. Features of the roof include plants, engineered soil, filter fabric, a drainage layer, root
protection layer and a waterproof membrane. The structural support design is out of the scope of
this project and will be left up to the structural engineer of the development. A soil layer of about 4
inches will be used to reduce total load on the roof and a flat roof design with a 1-2% pitch will be
used due to aesthetics and increase in water retention ability (Green Roofs: Inlet LID, 2014).
During a storm the plants and soil will retain water along with the drainage layer and root
protection layer to reduce runoff. Extra water will be removed from the roof via gravel and a
covered drain to avoid clogging. The roof was designed to capture 50% of a 2-year storm event that
falls directly on the roof, 405 cubic feet.
A roof protection layer will be placed between the waterproof membrane and the drainage
layer to ensure that plant roots do not penetrate the waterproof membrane (Miller, 2012). The
drainage/storage layer will be used to allow flow of water to the outlet point of the roof (Miller,
2012). A plastic drainage layer was chosen for this design to reduce weight and increased water
capacity. An engineered soil, detailed in Appendix B, will act as the growing media. The engineered
soil will have filter fabric under it to help reduce erosion (Raja et al., 2014). The vegetation used on
the roofs will be Sedum due to its drought resistance. A drain cover is used to avoid clogging
(Extensive Green Roofs, Dutch Green Building Council).
The vegetative roof can hold approximately 195 ft of water, calculated by determining the
3

water storage of each layer. The root protection layer can hold 4 l/m , the drainage layer can hold
2

15

8.7 l/m and the 4 inch soil layer has a 40% water holding capacity. This meets the goal of holding
2

50% of the water from a 2-year storm that falls directly on the roof, 400 ft of water.
3

Rain Barrel
Rain barrels offer a simple, inexpensive and effective method of capturing a portion of the
water flowing off a rooftop therefore reducing the volume of water contributing to runoff from the
site. The basic idea is to capture water flowing through downspouts of a house or other roofed
structure in a barrel where it can be stored for later use around the home. The rain water collected in
the barrels can be used for watering gardens, washing cars, and other yard applications without the
need for any filtration. The Sea Aire lots have houses and garages on each lot so rain barrels will be
incorporated on both structures. The most important design considerations are size and management
of overflow. The size of rain barrel that would be required to capture 100% of the house roof runoff
would be of 1800 gallons and would be 450 gallons for the garage after a 2 year storm. For a 25
year storm, barrels with volumes of 2800 gallons and 650 gallons would be required for the house
and garage respectively. A barrel of this magnitude on the small lots of the development be not be
reasonable as it would take up too much space and be an eyesore to the residents. An option that
would increase the storage capacity of the system without requiring a large tank is linked barrels.
By linking barrels together the storage capacity can be increased without increasing the height.
Linked barrels are often easier to hide behind bushes or fencing. 200 gallon rain barrels were
selected based on availability and dimensions small enough to be hidden by yard plantings. By
linking two 200 gallon barrels together on both the house and garage, a total of 800 gallons can be
captured. Since there will be more water coming off the roof than the barrels will be able to capture,
a system to direct overflow was selected. An automatic downspout diverter was chosen as the best
option for handling overflow due to ease of use. When the barrels become full, water will
automatically begin flowing out of the downspout instead of into the barrel (Appendix C). Since not

16

all of the water will be captured by the barrels, additional LID methods must be used in
collaboration with rain barrels. The rain barrels were given a fair rating for practicality and
operation due to the inability to guarantee dewatering in a certain time for regulation purposes. The
state requires a drawdown or dewatering time of 72 hours or less, but because the rain barrels would
be emptied manually by residents, it is difficult to get them approved as a stormwater management
feature. There are automatic dewatering systems on the market but they not extremely reliable.
Infiltration Trench
Infiltration trenches act as underground storage reservoirs that facilitate infiltration through
increasing the pressure head of a water column as well as increasing the surface area available for
water to infiltrate through. Trenches usually contain gravel with a void space of 40% with a high
hydraulic conductivity, offering storage space and infiltration rates that are usually greater than the
soil on site. Trenches depend on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil underlying the trench, so the
conductivity of the soil on site was researched on Websoil Survey, a website maintained by the
NRCS. The site is composed of two soils, both loamy fine sands, Seabrook and Kiawah classes
represented as Sk and Ka respectively. Both soils had high saturated conductivities, of 4.75 and
13.04 in/hr, respectively. These high infiltration rates make the site ideal for infiltration features,
therefore an infiltration trench is a good choice for LID stormwater management. The high water
table of the site constrains the size of any infiltration trench placed on the development so a trench
alone cannot be sized to address all the stormwater runoff from a single lot. A trench can be placed
in a yard and grassed over to maintain the appearance of a lawn so water management can happen
without losing lawn space.
Until soil and site test results come in from a third party testing service the water table was
assumed to be 5 feet below the surface based upon standing water in a 5+ foot ditch on the site. An
infiltration rate of 2 to 4 inches per hour was assumed based on WebSoil and the recommendation

17

of the PE overseeing the project and the infiltrometer test perform on site. Based on
recommendation by Virginia DEQ in published design specifications the depth of the infiltration
trench was designed to be three feet allowing for two feet distance between the bottom of the trench
and the water table (Virginia DEQ). The trench was sized at fifteen percent of the yard area to allow
for other techniques to also be used in remaining areas.
Rain Garden
Rain gardens can be incorporated into the landscape of each individual property. The first
parameter of the rain garden that was designed was the depth. Multiplying the estimated infiltration
rate of 2 in/hr by 24 hours gave a suggested depth of 4 feet (Jaber et al., 2012). However, the level
of the water table on the site was also a factor to be taken into consideration. With an estimated
water table at 5 feet below the surface, a 4 foot depth of garden was determined to be too close to
the water table. Therefore a depth of 3 feet was decided upon. This depth will maximize water
storage capacity while remaining a safe distance away from the water table. The optimal soil
composition for drainage and plant growth is 50% sand, 20-30% compost, and 20-30% topsoil
(Kaemmerlen, B. 2008). The results of the sieve test gave a soil composition of 95% sand and 5%
silt. Since it is clear from the existing site that the soil contains enough organic matter to support
ample plant life, and the high sand content provides excellent drainage, the existing soil was able to
be used for the rain garden without amendment. This factor cut down on the cost of the rain garden
tremendously. The surface area of the garden will be 300 ft which is about 10% of the yard space.
2

This area was decided upon so that the garden would still allow for adequate open space around the
homes. A ponding depth of 8 inches will be created to increase the water storage of the feature and
a freeboard of 4 inches will be implemented as a safety measure (Rutgers University). Three inches
of shredded hardwood mulch will be placed on top of the soil media (Jabor, Woodson, LaChance,
and York, 2012). Planting material will include the following native water tolerant plants:

18

Beautyberry, Dwarf Palmetto, Muhly Grass, and Carolina Rose (Carolina Yards Plant Database,
2014). These plants were chosen based on their capability to survive periods of inundation during
storms as well as dry conditions during lack of precipitation.
The water holding capacity of the designed rain garden was calculated by multiplying the
void space of the desired soil, depth, and surface area of the garden and then adding the volume
held by ponding which is the ponding depth times the surface area. The calculated storage capacity
was determined to be 342 ft for a garden of this size as seen in Appendix C.
3

Permeable Pavement
Permeable pavements, act as water-storing and water-conveying devices. This LID option
has multiple layers to analyze, including the surface layer pavement, storage, and underdrain layer.
There are several design options when considering surface layer pavement. Options include single
sized aggregate, interlocking concrete pavers, and variations of permeable concrete. Single sized
aggregate essentially refers to gravel driveways. The option of installing gravel driveways was ruled
out initially for safety reasons. Gravel can be a difficult surface for handicapped or elderly people to
maneuver and the site needed to be accessible to these demographics. Interlocking pavers were
considered as a good option initially, due to their aesthetic appeal and stable surface, but eventually
ruled out because of the emphasis we decided to place on incorporating recycled material into the
design. Therefore we looked to recycled material options which were present as variations of
permeable concrete. Two reputable products were researched, PorousPave and FilterPave.
PorousPave was composed of 50% recycled tire rubber and 50% crushed stone and had a void space
of 29%. The maintenance required to keep PorousPave functioning at its maximum efficiency is to
simply spray debris and sediment off the surface with a garden hose if it begins to accumulate. The
cost of PorousPave is $6.95/ft . FilterPave, also made of recycled material, is composed of 50%
2

recycled glass and 50% crushed stone. The void space of FilterPave is 39% which is 10% higher

19

than PorousPave, however the maintenance and costs of FilterPave are higher than those for
PorousPave. Cost for FilterPave range from $8.50-$16.00. The pavement must also be flushed and
vacuumed annually and a UV stabilizing topcoat must be reapplied every 2-3 years. Due to the
maintenance and cost considerations, PorousPave was chosen for use in our design. The PorousPave
is to be applied at 3 inch thickness.
Like the infiltration trench, the subsurface storage layer of our permeable pavement will be
designed to have a 40% void space by using No. 8 and No. 57 stone. The surface slope needs to be
less than 5% (Hunt and Collins, 2008); we chose a slope of 3%. The permeability of the pavement
layer is set to approximately 40 inches per hour as modeled in SWMM. The storage layer depth will
be set to 18 inches, and the average area for each driveway is 527 square feet. A storage volume of
342 ft was calculated for an average driveway with these design parameters (Appendix C).
3

Common Area
The common area of the property will contain stormwater features to manage the water that
falls outside individual lot boundaries including the road, road right of way and common meadow.
The management strategies will also provide extra storage and treatment volume in the case of a
storm event that produces more runoff than the individual lot management practices are able to
handle. Four main LID features were evaluated for the common area, bioretention cells, infiltration
trench, vegetated swale, and a modified stormwater wetland. All of these features will be
interconnected and encourage infiltration on site. Any runoff not able to be infiltrated in the on site
features will ultimately flow, after treatment through percolation and filtering, to an existing ditch
that carries water off site.
Bioretention Cell
For the common area multiple bioretention cells will be placed in low lying areas and
connected via vegetative swales and underdrains, if needed, to help infiltrate water and move water

20

to the constructed wetland. The bioretention cell will have much the same structure as the rain
gardens with the potential addition of an underdrain. In the case of incorporating an underdrain,
below the soil layer there will be a layer of choke stone (2 inches) and a layer of stone (up to 9
inches) that will allow water to infiltrate and travel into an underdrain pipe (Bioretention, 2014).
The area around the bioretention cell will be sloped to allow overflow to travel into the vegetated
well via a stable grass outfall on the lower side. The bioretention cells will be sized and strategically
placed to optimize water capture and infiltration.
Infiltration Trench
A large portion of the common area in the center of the development is open meadow.
Approximately half of that space will be a relatively flat field for recreation and off limits to vehicle
traffic which makes it a prime candidate for a large scale infiltration system. The space will be sized
to handle any excess runoff from individual lots and handle runoff from public spaces such as roads
and sidewalks. The public area infiltration trench operates on the same principles that the lot scale
model does and will operate in the same manner.
Constructed Wetland
The undeveloped site has several drainage ditches running through it. The one that is to
remain after construction is oriented on a North South axis and carries water off site. The existing
smaller ditches will mostly be filled or transformed into infiltration features while the main ditch
will be excavated and designed into a modified stormwater wetland. Traditional stormwater
wetlands cover large areas and have meandering paths, but the site constraints of this project will
require a modified design. The wetland area will still offer nutrient uptake and other pollutant
removal through settling and biological activity as a traditional design, but the impacts will not be
as pronounced (Darnault 2014).

Selection of Final Approach

21

Average Residential Lot

The final design selection for an average residential lot will consist of a 300 ft rain garden
2

and permeable pavement that will replace the traditionally impermeable driveway. Lot layout
options drawn to scale are seen in Appendix G. Integrating different lot layouts throughout the
community will offer aesthetic diversity to the site. The final selection was based on cost,
operation/practicality, and water storage capacity. The cost of the LID techniques were $5700,
$5500, $9625, $925, and $1170 for a green roof, permeable pavement, infiltration trench, rain
garden and rain barrels, respectively (see Appendix E). The rain garden and permeable pavement
met the water storage capacity requirement while being very practical and lower in cost. The rain
garden is designed with a 3 ft storage depth to avoid unwanted contact with the groundwater and a
ponding depth of 8 inches with 4 inches of freeboard for safety.
The permeable pavement used on the lots will be comprised of three layers. The top layer
will be PorousPave, which is made of 50% recycled tire rubber and 50% crushed stone. Beneath the
PorousPave will be a 2 inch layer of No. 8 bedding stone followed by a 16 inch layer of No. 57
stone. A layer of WaterDrain Filter Fabric was placed at the interface of the stone and soil to
prevent soil and other organic material from entering the water storage layers and decreasing the
storage capacity. The WaterDrain Filter Fabric is composed of 100% post consumer recycled plastic
bottles, making it a very sustainable choice of material. The profile and specifications of the rain
garden and permeable pavement can be seen in Appendix G.
Public Lot
The public lot will contain several different LID components to help promote infiltration,
store water, and reduce the overall peak flow rate of runoff. These designs were all modeled in
SWMM 5.1 to show their cumulative effect on site runoff. The LID components were designed to
be able handle a 25 year storm such that there is no increase in runoff from pre-development levels

22

as stated in the goal. All components are interconnected to allow any runoff to ultimately flow to a
constructed wetland where pollutants will be filtered naturally and the water will be slowly released
to the ditch just below the site that feeds into the tidal creek. The layout of these LID components
are displayed to scale in Appendix G.
There will be three bioretention cells throughout the public area, giving a total of 3785ft of
2

surface area. Cell 1 will be 1200 ft , cell 2 will be 1500 ft , and cell 3 will be 10285 ft . Locations of
2

each are shown on a site layout (Appendix G). Each bioretention cell will be 36 inches deep with a
ponding depth of 18 inches with 6 inches of freeboard for safety. A 3 inch layer of mulch will be
placed in the bed of the bioretention cells to reduce the risk of erosion. The top of the bioretention
cell will have slopes sides 2H:1V. This slope is appropriate for reducing the risk of erosion of the
mulch bed by water flowing into the cell. The high infiltration rate and sand content of the native
soil on site eliminates the need for soil amendment for increased storage and drainage in the cells.
The naturally high infiltration rate also eliminates the need for an underdrain beneath the cells. The
profile view and specifications of a bioretention cell can be seen in Appendix G.
A vegetative swale will be used to connect all of the LID components together and allow for
water to travel to the outlet structure. A vegetative swale is a wide set shallow ditch and will
promote infiltration although the infiltration is variable and will not be used in the storage
calculations to meet the 25 year design. Mannings equation was used to determine the width,
height, and side slopes of the vegetative swale (Vegetated Swales, www.ncagr.gov). A maximum
permissible velocity and an allowable shear stress were selected based on the type and length of
grass that will be used in the vegetative swale, 4 ft/s and 2.1 lb/ft respectively (Akan et al., 2003) .
The grass to be used in the swale will be a native mixture for Southeastern U.S. of Virgnia Wildrye,
Purpletop, and Broomsedge maintained at a height of 24 inches. The swale will be trapezoidal for
maximum stabilization with a bottom width of 1 ft 10 in, a top width of 9 ft 10in, side slopes of

23

2H:1V, and a ponding depth of 1.5 ft with a freeboard of 0.5 ft for safety. The swale will convey
water around the large circular open space in the middle of the site. The grading of the site will
direct overland flow into the swale where it will then travel to the downstream bioretention cell. The
profile and specifications of the swale can be seen in Appendix G.
Two infiltration trenches will be used in the open space in the center of the lot. Each
infiltration trench will have a surface area of 1250 ft and a depth of 3ft. This depth remains a safe
2

distance away from the water table which is at a depth of 5 ft. They will provide a total storage
volume of 3,000 ft . The trenches will be placed on either side of the open area as seen in Appendix
3

G. The elevations of this portion of the open space will be graded so that the runoff is directed
towards the trenches. The profile and specifications of both infiltration trenches is displayed in
Appendix G. The 1-2 inch diameter gravel used in the subsurface 3 foot layer will allow for quick
infiltration and provide storage to a large volume of water. Any excess water that can not infiltrate
into the trench during a storm will continue as overland flow to the vegetative swale and/or
bioretention cells.
Constructed Wetland
The constructed wetland will be a multifunctional, aesthetically pleasing stormwater strategy
that demonstrates how stormwater features can serve as recreational amenities for a
development. The wetland will work with existing drainage features on the property to ensure off
site drainage is not affected by the development. The wetland design was driven by the available
space in the public area along the existing ditch-line. Water from above the site flows through the
ditch during storm events as well as water from other management features on site flowing into the
ditch as overflow. Unfortunately neither the volume of water nor the flow rate entering the site from
upper reaches of the watershed was known during the design phase of this project. The wetland then
was designed as constrained by the local water table and available space. Ideal depths for

24

stormwater wetlands range between 1 and 3 feet with 3:1 or 4:1 side slopes, according to the
Minnesota Metropolitan Councils stormwater wetland publications.
Three wetland cells will be constructed along the ditch, separated by the two roads that will run
across the ditch. The first wetland is a filtration wetland with alternating high and low sections
following a sedimentation pool. The second two wetlands are meandering pocket wetlands with
long flow paths to encourage filtration while providing flood storage capacity above the mean pool
level. Each wetland steps down one foot in excavated depth and six inches in water surface
elevation to ensure flow throughout the entire wetland and allow for increased water storage in the
lowest wetland as it will catch the majority of on site runoff. A profile view of the wetland is
presented in Appendix G. Each individual wetland is based upon designs presented in Minnesotas
Metropolitan Council recommendations presented in Appendix G.
Plant Selection
Plant selection is very important when designing and maintaining the stormwater features
listed above. The right plants will help hold the feature together by avoiding erosion, provide
aesthetics to the development, sequester carbon, uptake excess water and increase biodiversity in
the area. The plants in the bioretention cells and rain gardens will need to be hardy and adaptable to
dry and wet conditions. Some plants that fall into this category are white wild indigo, orange and
purple cone flower, saw and dwarf palmetto, elderberry, and eastern red cedar. The plants that will
reside in the constructed wetland will need to tolerate constant wet conditions and potentially high
amounts of salinity. River birch, panic grass, golden canna, blue flag iris, summer sweet, and bald
cypress are native to the Carolina coast and would attract wildlife to the constructed wetland while
being aesthetically pleasing and improving the water quality and air quality of the site.
Connecting Infrastructure

25
The site has a circular road that surrounds the public area, water that overflows during a

storm will need some way to travel under the road and to a stormwater management
feature. Concrete culverts will be used in 4 different locations, shown in Appendix G, to help route
water under the road and to the vegetative swale or the wetland. The peak flow rate for a 100 year
storm, with a 25% safety added, at each location was determined using SWMM and plugged into
Mannings equation to determine the hydraulic radius needed (Hydraulic Engineering, 2012). An
elliptical pipe was chosen due to the very low slopes found on site, this lead to using a parabolic
shape for the hydraulic radius to determine the appropriate depth and width (Owino, 2014). Precast
concrete pipes were used to reduce cost and heights and depths used to determine and compare flow
rates to the 100 year safety storm to pick the right sized pipe. One of the culverts will have a width
of 23 inches and depth of 14 inches while three of the culverts will be 30 inches width and 19
inches in depth (Elliptical Concrete Pipe, web). Dimensions of these pipes can be seen in Appendix
G. Riprap will need to be placed under the culvert outlet to reduce erosion and Mannings equation
along with an equation using mannings coefficient was used to determine the size of the riprap
needed to meet the maximum permissible velocity. The average diameter of the riprap was
determined to be 5 inches for the larger culvert and 3 inches for the smaller culvert (Owino, 2014).
Outlet Structures
The outlet structure at the bottom of the wetland system is one of the key elements of the
design for regulatory purposes. The amount of runoff from the site is relatively low, but without
knowing the volume or flow rate of water entering the site the onsite runoff was used to design the
outlet structure. After consideration of several different options for level and flow control, including
perforated risers and orifices, a multi stage weir box was chosen for its ease of operation and low
cost. The weir box was designed to meet state requirements by ensuring flow rates for 2- and 25year storms did not exceed predevelopment flow rates. On site post-development runoff rates were

26

below predevelopment levels for both storm events so the weir was designed to hold a certain
volume of water at each flow rate. Runoff volumes and storage volumes were calculated in Excel
using flow rates from SWMM and forward finite difference method with a 5 minute time step. The
flow rate from each stage of the weir was calculated as detailed in hand and Excel calculations in
Appendix C. The final design of the weir was a three stage weir with dimensions of 3 by 3 for the
lowest opening, 3 deep by 7 wide for the second opening and 4 deep by 12 wide for the upper
opening, an illustration of the design can be found in Appendix G.

Sustainability Measures
Life Cycle Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a useful tool to examine the long term costs of materials
and designs. A brief LCA was conducted for the midterm report that aided in the selection of the
final design, but a more thorough LCA focusing on embodied energy, carbon cost and
transportation energy was conducted on the final design and is presented here.
The final designs for the Sea Aire site include rain gardens, porous pavement, infiltration
trenches, vegetative swale, bioretention cells, a constructed wetland, culverts, and a two stage weird
box. The materials needed include filter fabric, gravel, plants, porouspave, mulch, gravel/riprap,
and concrete. The filter fabric is made out of recycled post-consumer waste making the material
more sustainable than the more common polypropylene and other plastics that are used. The
transportation energy was about 264.92 MJ/ton, this is high due because the material is made in
Tennessee (Cannon Design, 2013). The plants for the rain garden, bioretention cells, and the
wetland have very minimal transportation energy since they will come from local nurseries. The
plants will be carbon negative because they will sequester carbon once planted and this will negate
the emissions of CO2 released during transportation. The porouspave is a particular brand of pavers

27

that are made up of 50% recycled tired and stone. The transportation energy for the material is
264.92 MJ/ton, this is high because the pavers will come from Ohio (Cannon Design, 2013). The
mulch has a lower transportation energy, 18.834 MJ/ton, due to the close proximity to the site;
appropriate 20 tons of carbon is emitted to use the wood chipper but this is a 99.98% reduction in
CO2 compared to sending the trees to a landfill (Barber, 2011). The gravel/riprap will also be
obtained locally using 18.834 MJ/ton for transportation, the gravel has an embodied energy of 0.5
MJ/kg and 0.0018 kg/kg of carbon emissions (Al-Amin, et al., 2011). Construction waste debris
was considered, but the gravel must be clean and a certain size in order to assure the structure will
function properly. Concrete will also be obtained locally using 27.594 MJ/ton of energy for
transportation, the embodied energy in concrete is about 1.3 MJ/kg, and carbon emissions are
0.1311 kg/kg for concrete (Al-Amin, et al., 2011).

Contributions to Sustainability
There are three general foci that address the sustainability of this project. First, it addresses
the efficiency of the system as a whole. Second, it addresses the social acceptance of the project.
Finally, it addresses the carbon and water footprint that is left behind due to construction (i.e.
ecological disturbances) and other development processes.

Efficiency
The goal is to capture 100% of excess runoff on site for both 2-year and 25-year
storms. This goal is reached by the increased infiltration rates of the implemented LID methods.

Societal Issues
This project puts great emphasis on the public open space in the center of the site. It is
understood that the design and construction of this area creates a sense of community and equality
among the individuals in Sea Aire residency. The engineers believe that the environmental

28

friendliness of this area creates a learning environment for the consumers as well as allows for the
development of relationships between each neighbor.

Carbon and Water Footprint

The final product of this design will introduce little carbon into the atmosphere as the plants
growing in the vegetated infiltration features will sequester carbon (Klotz 2013). The development
and installation of the design will involve carbon emissions but ongoing operation will be emission
free with the only emissions associated with the project coming from occasional maintenance. The
design will also require minimal irrigation while allowing for water storage to reduce potable water
for other irrigation uses. Also, as infiltration rates improve, LID aids in groundwater recharge.

Conclusion
After analyzing the total rainfall over the entire residential development there will be an
increase of approximately 0.16 million gallons for a 2-year storm and 0.23 million gallons for a 25year storm. Each lot required an average water storage capacity of 664 ft , which was met by using
3

permeable pavement and a 300 ft rain garden. The public area of the site needed appropriately
2

13,550 ft of water storage to meet the goal stated and this was met with a combination of LID
3

techniques including bioretention cells, infiltration trenches, and a wetland. These designed
components were connected via a vegetated swale and concrete culverts. A constructed wetland
was then designed as a requirement of the client and used to control the final flowrate off site by use
of a 2 stage weir to meet the peak flowrate of a 2- and 25- year storm. The focus of this report was
on containing the water found within each lot and the public area by analyzing effectiveness,
comparing cost, operation and practicality, and determining total water storage capacity of low
impact development methods. SWMM modeling software was used to determine the most effective
combination of these low impact development methods, the client and costs was also used to help
determine which methods were chosen for use on the site. The goals of the project were met by

29

capturing the excess volume of runoff for both a 2- and 25- year storm after development using LID
techniques and the peak flow rates for a 2- and 25- year storm were less than that of predevelopment rates and a weir box was added to ensure the peak flow rate would not exceeded predevelopment rates.

Timeline
The detailed timeline produced for this design process is in the format of a Gantt Chart and can be
found in Appendix F.

Budget
A preliminary budget is presented in Appendix E.

References
Akan, A.D., Houghtalen, R.J. 2003. Stormwater Drainage Structures. Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics,
and Stormwater Quality. 210-213.
Al-Amin, M. Mahmud, K. and Shams, S. 2011. A Comparative Analysis of Building Materials for
Sustainable Construction with Emphasis on CO2 Reductions. Int. J. Environment and Sustainable
Development. Volume 10 Number 4. 364-372
Alexander, M.D., Barfield, B.J., Bates, B/T/, Chalavadi, M., Harp, S.L., Hayes, J.C., Stevens, E.
2008. Modeling Impacts of Post Development Water Quality BMPs. 21st Century Watershed
Technology: Improving Water Quality and Environment, Proceedings of the 29 March-3 April 2008
Conference.
Barber, A. 2011. EcoCover, Woody Mulch and LDPE primary Energy and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. AgriLINK.
Best Management Practices Handbook. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control. www.scdhec.gov/Environment/waterquality/stormwater/BMPHandbook/
Bioretention. 2014 Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. Chapter 4. 11-42
<www.northinlet.sc.edu/LID/>
Blount, J., Storey, A., Talbott, M.D. 2011. Harris COunty Low Impact Development Green
Infrastructure Design Criteria for Stormwater Management. Adopted by Harris County
Commissioners Court.
Bosch, T., Borghi, V., Watson, J., Miranda, M. 2004. Life Cycle Assessment of PVC and of
Principal Competing Materials. Commissioned by European Commission.
Burke, M.K., Hitchcock, D.R., Lewitus, A.J., Strosnider, W.H., 2007. Predicting Hydrology in
Wetlands Designed for Coastal Stormwater Management. An ASABE Meeting Presentation, Paper
Number 077084.
Bonta, J.V. 2012. Managing Landscape Disturbances to Increase Watershed Infiltration. American
Society of Agricultural and BIological Engineers. 56(4): 1349-1359.
Carolina Yards Plant Database. 2014. Clemson University Cooperative Experience.
Clary, J., Earles, A., Poresky, A., Strecker, E. 2011. Technical Summary: Volume Reduction.
International Stormwater Best management Practices (BMP) Database.
Clary, J., Hobson, P., Leisenring, M. 2012. TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals. International
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary.
County of Fairfax, Virginia: Department of Public Works Environmental Services, Land
Development Services. 2014. <www.fairfax.gov/dpwes/publications/2014ups.pdf>
Darnault, C., 2014. Ecological Engineering Class Notes. Unpublished.
DuPont. 2014. Sonora Life Cycle Assessment.
Elliptical Concrete Pipe.
<www.concreteindustries.com/images/product_specs/Ellipitcal/ConcretePipe.pdf>
Extensive Green Roofs: Design and Installation Guide. Nophadrain. Dutch Green Building Council.
Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J., Huffman, R.L., Workman, S.R. 2013. Wetlands. Soil and Water
Conservation Engineering. Seventh Edition. 287-302.


Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J., Huffman, R.L., Workman, S.R. 2013. Precipitation. Soil and Water
Conservation Engineering. Seventh Edition. 31-54.
Fangmeier, D.D., Elliot, W.J., Huffman, R.L., Workman, S.R. 2013. Infiltration and Runoff. Soil
and Water Conservation Engineering. Seventh Edition. 81-111.
Green Roofs. Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina. North Inlet- Winyah Bay:
National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Hammond, G., Jones, C. 2008. University of Bath. Inventory of Carbon and Energy.
Hunt, W.F., Collins, K.A. NCSU Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering. PermPave.
2008.

Hydraulic Engineering CIrcular 14- Energy Dissipators. 2012. U.S. Department of

Transportation. No. FHWA-NH1-06-086.
Infiltration Trenches. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. Metropolitan Council / Barr
Engineering Co.
Jeng-Bulloch, K. S. 2011. Cost-Benefit Allocation of Selected Low Impact Development
Techniques Versus the Conventional Method. University of Houston, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing.
Kaemmerlen, B. 2008. Fuss & ONeill. LCSC Rain Garden Workshop.
Klotz, L., 2013. Sustainable Construction Class Notes. Unpublished.
Jaber, Woodson, LaChance, and York. Texas A & M AgriLife Extension. Stormwater Management:
Rain Gardens.
Low Impact Development in Coastal South Carolina: A Planning and Design Guide. Guide to
Stormwater Best Management Practices. Chapter 4..

Mariam, A., Gozde, O., Ramazan, K., Rajedran, Hodzic, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Particulate
Recycled Low Density Polyethylene and Recycled Polypropylene Reinforced with Talc and
Fiberglass. Academia.edu.
Material Life: Embodied Energy of Building Materials. 2013. Cannon Design.
Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. Metropolitan Council / Barr Engineering Co.
Mille, C. 2012. Extensive Vegetative Roofs. Whole Building Design Guide.
Owino, T. 2014. Riprap Sizing. Lecture in Hydrology. Unpublished
Prince Georges County, Maryland. 1999. Low Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis.
Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division.
Raja, F.D., Vijayaraghavan, K. 2014. Design and Development of Green Roof Substrate to Improve
Runoff Water Quality: Plant Growth Experiments and Adsorption. Water Research, 63: 94-101.
Robinson, J., 2014. Personal Communication
Rutgers University. Rain Garden Design.
Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet: Vegetated Swales. 1999. EPA.
Taylor, J. W. 2013. Stormwater Management Program Effectiveness and Literature Review: Low
Impact Development Techniques.
Treatment Wetlands. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual. Metropolitan Council / Barr
Engineering Co.
Udden and Wentworth. Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd. Blott & Pye. Particle Size
Classification.
http://www.kpal.co.uk/Particle_size_scale.pdf


UN WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. New York, NY. United Nations, World Commission on Environment and
Development.
Vegetated Swales. <www.ncagr.gov/SWC/costshareprograms/CCAP/documents/Chapter8VegetatedSwales.pdf>
Virginia Division of Environmental Quality. 2011. Bioretention, Stormwater Design Specification
No. 9.
http://www.seedland.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=Seedland&Category_
Code=FSN-SE


Appendix A: Governing Equations
Energy Balance
P= Pressure (N)
V= Volume (m3)
v= velocity (m/s)
m= mass (kg)
H= Height (m)
g= gravity, 9.81 m/s2

1
1
!! ! + !!!! + mg! = !! V + m!!! + mg!
2
2

Mass Balance
!"##!" !"##!"# !"#$%&'() = !""#$#%!&'()
Curve Number Method
!=
CN= curve number
I= Precipitation (in)
Mannings Equation
1 !/! !/!
! !
!
Vmax = max permissible velocity
R = hydraulic radius
S = slope
!!"# =

Shear Stress Equation

! = !"#
! = max shear stress
R = hydraulic radius
S = slope

!!!.!! !
!!!.!!

,!=

!"#$$
!"

254


Appendix B: Analysis of Site Conditions
Rainfall Distribution Curves:

Cummulative Rainfall (in)

2 year storm:
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

10

15
Time (hours)

20

25

30

Native Soil Analysis:

Sieve Test Results:

9
Cummulative Rainfall (in)

25 year storm:
25 Year Storm
Fraction of
Time
24 hour
Rainfall
(hr)
rainfall
(in)
0
0
0
2
0.02
0.16
4
0.043
0.344
6
0.072
0.576
7
0.089
0.712
8
0.115
0.92
8.5
0.13
1.04
9
0.148
1.184
9.5
0.167
1.336
9.75
0.178
1.424
10
0.189
1.512
10.5
0.216
1.728
11
0.25
2
11.5
0.298
2.384
11.75
0.339
2.712
12
0.5
4
12.5
0.702
5.616
13
0.751
6.008
13.5
0.785
6.28
14
0.811
6.488
16
0.886
7.088
20
0.957
7.656
24
1
8

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

15
Time (hours)

20

25

30

Void Space = 0.9452 * 0.43 + 0.0548*0.45

Reference
particle diameter classification ranges:

for
= 0.43
Udden and Wentworth. Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd. Blott & Pye. Particle Size Classification.
http://www.kpal.co.uk/Particle_size_scale.pdf
Infiltrometer Test Results:

Appendix C: Design Calculations:

Alternative Design Evaluation:

Residential lot elements:

Automatic downspout diverter for rain barrels

http://www.gardeners.com/buy/downspout--diverter/33--991VS.html

Public Area elements:


Orifice calculations

!"#$%&%'"('
,,7
C

./0&&%1%./23%4%5657
)6@%4%,-%4%8)<:=/3
,7%4%8>%D%./)%4%5:%4%5=8&6@:

)%*"+$
5%89:
57%89:
5657%;%3
@
./.20)
./0.&
./&@
)3%*"+$
5%89:
57%89:
5657%;%3
@
./.20)
./0.&
./&@
&..%*"+$
5%89:
57%89:
5657%;%3
@
./.20)
./0.&
./)3

,./2.0.B&3&
,7
)/.B

,./2.0.B&3&
,7
)/.B

,./2.0.B&3&
,7
@/22

)%*"+$
C
C%-"(#<?
./.3@EE0E)
./.03
FG(
&/B.

)3%*"+$
C
C%-"(#<?
./&A@0BE&2
./)..
FG(
3/.2

&..%*"+$
C
C%-"(#<?
./@...EAAA
./)A0
FG(
&./0.

HI'+J%KJI7$+'"%8)1)3:

0/BE

8)<:=/3
>%89:
>%8#?:
A/A)BAA0B)
./.20)

8)<:=/3
>%89:
>%8#?:
A/A)BAA0B)
./&22E

8)<:=/3
>%89:
>%8#?:
A/A)BAA0B)
./).@)


!"#$%&"'()$*
+')",$%*")$%-./0"'1%"')/%0$).2'3%4
/().$)
55
6-*
#/.%-)4
7%6-*
8/.%/()%-)4 8-%*)/,$3
8"%*)/,21$%
>>?@A
BCB>
4
B
D
>>?AB
BCB>
4
B
>E
>>?AA
BCB>
4
B
>A
>E?BB
BCB>
4
B
>F
>E?BA
BCB>
4
B
E>
>E?>B
BCB>
4
B
E@
>E?>A
BCBE
G
B
4B
>E?EB
BCBE
G
B
4G
>E?EA
BCBE
G
B
@E
>E?4B
BCB4
D
B
A>
>E?4A
BCB4
D
B
GB
>E?@B
BCB4
D
B
GD
>E?@A
BCB4
D
B
HF
>E?AB
BCB4
D
B
FH
>E?AA
BCB4
D
B
B
DG
>4?BB
>CBF
4E@
B
B
@EB
>4?BA
>CBF
4E@
>CHE
A>G
4E@
>4?>B
>CBF
4E@
>C@
@EB
4E@
>4?>A
>CG>
@F4
>C@
@EB
@F4
>4?EB
>CG>
@F4
>CHE
A>G
@F4
>4?EA
>CG>
@F4
>CHE
A>G
@F4
>4?4B
ECHA
FEA
>CHE
A>G
FEA
>4?4A
ECHA
FEA
ACG@
>GDE
FEA
>4?@B
ECHA
FEA
ACG@
>GDE
FEA
>4?@A
4CDD
>>DH
ACG@
>GDE
>>DH
>4?AB
4CDD
>>DH
GC@H
>D@>
>>DH
>4?AA
4CDD
>>DH
GC@H
>D@>
>>DH
>@?BB
@CFH
>@G>
GC@H
>D@>
>@G>
>@?BA
@CFH
>@G>
GCDF
EBD@
>@G>
>@?>B
@CFH
>@G>
GCDF
EBD@
>@G>
>@?>A
ACBG
>A>F
GCDF
EBD@
>A>F
>@?EB
ACBG
>A>F
GCDF
EBD@
>A>F
>@?EA
ACBG
>A>F
GCDF
EBD@
>A>F
>@?4B
4CBG
D>F
GCDF
EBD@
D>F
>@?4A
4CBG
D>F
GC@H
>D@>
D>F
>@?@B
4CBG
D>F
GC@H
>D@>
D>F
>@?@A
ECHH
F4>
GC@H
>D@>
F4>
>@?AB
ECHH
F4>
GC@H
>D@>
F4>
>@?AA
ECHH
F4>
GC@H
>D@>
F4>
>A?BB
BCGF
EB@
GC@H
>D@>
EB@
>A?BA
BCGF
EB@
>C@
@EB
EB@
>A?>B
BCGF
EB@
>C@
@EB
EB@
>A?>A
BC4D
>>H
>C@
@EB
>>H
>A?EB
BC4D
>>H
B
B
E4@
>A?EA
BC4D
>>H
>C@
@EB
>>H
>A?4B
BCEH
F>
B
B
>DF
>A?4A
BCEH
F>
>C@
@EB
F>
>A?@B
BCEH
F>
B
B
>GE
>A?@A
BC>F
A@
>C@
@EB
A@
>A?AB
BC>F
A@
B
B
>BF
>A?AA
BC>F
A@
B
B
>GE
>G?BB
BC>E
4G
B
B
>DF
>G?BA
BC>E
4G
B
B
E4@
>G?>B
BC>E
4G
>C@
@EB
4G
>G?>A
BC>B
4B
B
B
GG
>G?EB
BC>B
4B
B
B
DG
>G?EA
BC>B
4B
B
B
>EG
>G?4B
BCB>
4
B
B
>ED
>G?4A
BCB>
4
B
B
>4E
>G?@B
BCB>
4
B
B
>4A
>G?@A
BCB>
4
B
B
>4F
>G?AB
BCB>
4
B
B
>@>
>G?AA
BCB>
4
B
>@@
>H?BB
>H?>A
>H?4B
HEDDD
>H?@A
>F?BB

9$:);%<"'=
BCB
BCB
BC>
BC>
BC>
BC>
BC>
BC>
BCE
BCE
BCE
BC4
BC4
BC4
BC@
BC@
E
>
>
E
E
E
@
@
@
A
A
A
G
G
G
G
G
G
@
@
@
@
@
@
>
>
>
B
>
B
>
B
>
BCE
BCA
BCH
BCF
>CB
BCE
BC4
BC@
BCA
BCA
BCG
BCG
BCG
BCG


Appendix D: Software Analysis
Hydrographs from SWMM 5.1 (whole site):

2-Year Storm: Pre- Development

Peak Runoff Rate: 2.31 cfs

2-Year Storm: Post-Development (no management)

Peak Runoff Rate: 3.89 cfs

25 year storm: Pre-development

Peak Runoff Rate: 7.07 cfs

25-Year Storm: Post- Development (no management)

Peak Runoff Rate: 8.95 cfs

2 Year Storm: Post-Development with LID

Peak Runoff Rate: 0.9 cfs

25 Year Storm: Post-Development with LID

Peak Runoff Rate: 5.06 cfs
Increase in runoff volume to be managed (from SWMM 5.1):

HEC-HMS modeling:

Image 1C: Input values into HEC HMS to determine pre-development runoff values

Image 2C: Input values into HEC HMS to determine post-development runoff values

Image 3C: Determining Input value for HEC HMS including time of concentration and lag time

Figure C1 and C2: HEC HMS results for a 2-year pre-development storm

Figure C3 and C4: HEC HMS results for a 2-year post-development storm

Figure C5 and C6: HEC HMS results for a 25-year pre development storm

Figure C7 and C8: HEC HMS results for a 25-year post development storm
Appendix E: Budget


Evaluated Methods for Individual Lots:

Mulch
Plants
Excavation
Total

Rain Garden
$40/yd3
Estimated
$25/yd3

Permeable Pavement
Excavation $25/yd3
734.7
2
PorousPave $6.95/ft 3666.13
Gravel
$55/yd3 1073.50
Filter Fabric $0.15/ft2
99.75
Total
5474.33

110.00
800.00
13.95
923.95


Infiltration Trench
Gravel
Excavation
Filter Fabric
Total

$55/yd3
$25/yd

8965.00

151.59

508.50
9625.09

$0.15/ft

Selected methods for final design and total budget:

Appendix F: Timeline
Event
Finish Proposal
Present Proposal
Finish majority of Literature Review
Pick Design
Start Writing Midterm Paper
3- week progress report
Develop preliminary Design
Calculations for Design
Finish Writing Midterm paper
Midterm Presentation and paper due
Cost Analysis for Design
Bring together final design
Write Final Paper
Final Presentation
Final Paper Due

9/8

9/10

Appendix G: Design Drawings

9/17

9/24

10/1

10/7

10/8

10/15 10/22 10/29 11/5 11/12 11/19 11/26

12/3

12/12

Open space layout. Drawn by Daniel Chewning.

Culvert dimensions. Drawn by Tyler DuBose.