RIVERE Ecological Center Parking Lot and

Stormwater Management Plan

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA
Department of Biological Systems Engineering
Expected Graduation: May 2024

Contestants:

Noah LaFleur Makenna Moore Reilly Oare

nlafleur3@vt.edu mooremakennam@vt.edu reillyo@vt.edu
540-842-7919 540-446-8478 540-272-4699
ASABE #: 1065052 1059840

Advisors:
Dr. Tess Thompson Dr. David Sample

Date Signed: Date Signed:

Department Head of Biological Systems Engineering:

Dr. Dwayne Edwards

Date Signed:

i
Abstract
In the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the Embry Dam Power Station has sat unused
beside the Rappahannock River since its retirement in the early 1960s. Today, the property is
owned by Dreamland LLC, which has partnered with the RIVERE ecological group to build an
ecological center focused on stormwater research, education, and management. The goal of this
project is to design a parking lot for the center that incorporates innovative stormwater
management practices. Research and calculations have been conducted to ensure that the project
meets city, state, and national standards. Since the site lies within the 100-year floodplain and
partially within the Rappahannock floodway, the parking lot design must also meet additional
requirements established by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR),
the Virginia Floodplain Management Standards (VFMS), and the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) regulations, as well as Chesapeake Bay watershed requirements. The design
incorporates best stormwater management practices, including a bioretention pond. The design
circumvents the building site’s steep topography with creative configuration of the lot’s entries,
exits, and limitations while abiding by specifications set by the Virginia Code of Ordinances and
Virginia Asphalt Association (VAA). Despite significant obstacles involved in developing the
site, the final design is visually pleasing, effective, ecologically friendly, and meets all codes and
requirements.

Acknowledgements
The RIVERE Ecological Center Parking Lot and Stormwater Management Plan team
would like to thank our senior design professor, Dr. Cully Hession (VT BSE), and our academic
advisors, Dr. Tess Thompson (VT BSE) and Dr. David Sample (VT BSE), for their contributions
and guidance over the course of this project. We would also like to thank Denton Yoder (VT
BSE) for his significant contributions regarding using Civil3D. Additionally, we thank Henry
“Buck” Cox (RIVERE founder) and Mikel Manchester (Executive Director RIVERE) for their
assistance with our site visit and research and for submitting this project to the BSE Department
of Virginia Tech. Lastly, thank you to Ed Whelan (Dreamland LLC) for allowing us access to his
property.

ii
Table of Contents

Abstract............................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................ii
Problem Statement...........................................................................................................................1
Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................................2
Goal 1...........................................................................................................................................2
Goal 2...........................................................................................................................................2
Criteria and Constraints ...................................................................................................................3
Standards..........................................................................................................................................4
Methods ...........................................................................................................................................4
Grading.........................................................................................................................................4
Best Management Practice...........................................................................................................5
Water Quantity .............................................................................................................................5
Water Quality ...............................................................................................................................6
Flood Resilient Items ...................................................................................................................6
Budget ..........................................................................................................................................6
Final Design.....................................................................................................................................6
Grading.........................................................................................................................................6
Bioretention Cell ..........................................................................................................................8
Water Quantity ...........................................................................................................................11
Water Quality .............................................................................................................................13
Flood Resilient Items .................................................................................................................14
Budget ........................................................................................................................................14
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................15
References......................................................................................................................................16
Appendix........................................................................................................................................19

iii
 Background
The site of the defunct Embrey power plant is located on the Rappahannock River in
downtown Fredericksburg, Virginia. The plant was discontinued in 2004, leaving the building
and neighboring properties vacant for the past 20 years. With Fredericksburg’s population and
industry growing, there is more opportunity than ever for businesses to develop. Recently, a non-
profit organization, RIVERE, has partnered with the current landowner of the Embrey power
plant to develop an ecological center. The center would include environmental research and
education for the city, allowing studies to be conducted and data collection to occur. It would
also be a place for people to learn about their local ecosystems and appreciate their environment.
To accompany the ecological center, the landowner also wants to build a brewery on the Embrey
power plant property.
With both properties being so close to the Rappahannock River, the construction comes
with many challenges. One challenge is to provide adequate parking for both the brewery and the
ecological center. The design of the parking lot must not exceed the immediate floodway of the
river and cannot raise the water height of the 100-year floodplain. The runoff water from the site
to the river must meet Fredericksburg standards. RIVERE also wants the parking lot to be
aesthetically pleasing and to contain educational aspects, to continue the theme of their
ecological center. The River Reps team has developed a parking lot design to best meet the
requirements of the city and desires of the landowners and developers.
The team will accomplish these goals with stormwater best management practices
(BMPs). BMPs are often required for construction and development projects. BMPs remove a
portion of the pollutants in the stormwater and help to meet the water quality standards. Water
quality standards come from the state, being granted authority by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to set them. In some cases, local governments have National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit programs to regulate pollutant discharges into waters
(Crafton et al., 2013). The chosen BMPs will meet the necessary water quality components, be
aesthetically pleasing for the overall appeal of the property, and provide educational
opportunities for locals to learn about stormwater management and native ecosystems.

Problem Statement
Since its removal in 2004, remnants of the defunct Embrey Dam have laid between the
Rappahannock River and downtown Fredericksburg. Although the dam was removed, the
abandoned power station, canal, and underground pipe remain. Dreamland LLC and RIVERE
intend to build a brewery and an ecological center on the site, respectively.
Our team's mission is to design the future parking lot for the brewery and the center,
incorporating sustainable stormwater practices and exemplifying RIVERE's core values of
watershed conservation, research, and education.
 Figure 1. City of Fredericksburg in VA (Wikimedia Commons, 2023)

Figure 2. Site location within Fredericksburg.

Goals and Objectives

This project can be organized into two goals with several intermediate objectives
involved in accomplishing each goal.
Goal 1: Build a parking lot for the RIVERE center and Dreamland L.L.C. brewery that meets
building standards and requirements.
• Compile the city, state, and federal regulations for parking lot construction.
• Compile building standards regarding the parking lot's specific location in the 100-year
floodplain.
• Consult with local officials and experts to ensure that building plans meet standards.
• Have building plan approved by the Fredericksburg Building Services Division.
Goal 2: Ensure that the parking lot exemplifies RIVERE's core values of watershed
conservation, research, and education.
• Consult with RIVERE members about their intentions for the parking lot design.
• Conduct research on different best management practices (BMPs) for managing
stormwater from a parking lot.
• Compare BMPs to determine which measures best fit the project criteria, using research
and input from RIVERE members.
 • Incorporate desired BMPs into the parking lot design.

Criteria and Constraints

Criteria are measurable rules that the project must follow. For this project, the primary
criteria are:
• Construction should not disrupt the regulatory floodway.
• Construction cannot cause an increase in base flood elevation greater than 1 foot.
• Stormwater must be treated to meet Fredericksburg water quality standards before
entering Rappahannock River.
The regulatory floodway refers to the river channel and the adjacent land reserved for
discharging base flood (FEMA, 2020). Virginia, Fredericksburg, and Chesapeake standards
require that this land not be intruded upon in a way that will negatively impact the area’s ability
to discharge base flood. The site lies partially within the floodway and entirely within the 100-
year floodplain. Within the floodplain, construction that will raise the base flood elevation by
more than one foot is not permitted. This necessitates limiting the fill added to the site. Lastly,
according to city, state, and Chesapeake Bay standards, stormwater must be treated before it
enters the Rappahannock River. The property slopes down to the river and carries runoff from
heavily used roadways and several parking lots. With the addition of another parking lot within
the floodplain, it will be necessary to filter and additionally treat the stormwater before releasing
it to the river.
Constraints are observable requirements placed upon the project that serve to enhance it
beyond the bare minimum. The following constraints are placed upon the project:
• Must be visually appealing to attract visitors.
• Must have loading ramp for supply trucks and school buses.
• Must demonstrate and provide educational benefits of stormwater management BMPs.
RIVERE seeks to exemplify their ideals of watershed conservation, research, and education
with the design of their facility and property. The parking lot should also follow these ideals. By
incorporating multiple stormwater BMPs into the parking lot design, stormwater will be treated
before being released to the river and the parking lot can help demonstrate their effectiveness.
RIVERE also requires that the parking lot and adjacent areas retain an element of aesthetic
beauty. This will be accomplished with landscape planning using native plantings and
incorporating indigenous land management techniques. The BMPs and landscaping will be both
beautiful and purposeful. Finally, the parking lot must include a loading area for supply trucks
and school buses. In the future, the RIVERE parking lot may share users with a restaurant or
brewery located within the defunct power station. The parking lot design should accommodate
the additional users, which will include higher traffic and greater loads.
 Standards
The parking lot design comes with several standards that must be followed. Specifically,
with the parking lot’s unique site near the Rappahannock River, there are additional standards.
First, the parking lot design must adhere to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and the subsequent Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) Stormwater
Management Handbook details the necessary regulations about construction within a 100-year
floodplain and immediate floodway. Next, it must adhere to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) regulations for proper slope, grading, and turning radii for the parking
lot. Also, stormwater measures must follow the VDOT and Virgina DEQ guidelines for both
controlling the water quality and water quantity. Table 1 lists the standards for the design project
and briefly describes them.
Table 1. Design project standards
Standard Description
Virginia DEQ Stormwater Management o Details construction within the 100-
Handbook year floodplain
Virginia DEQ Stormwater Design o Details implementation of stormwater
Specification management BMPs
o Guidance location, specifications, and
maintenance of stormwater BMPs
City of Fredericksburg Code of Ordinances o Off-street parking and loading
Section 72.53 standards
o Dimensional standards for parking
spaces
Virginia Asphalt Association Parking Lot o Design standards for parking lots
Design o Minimum and maximum slopes for
parking lots and spaces
o Design standards for full-depth asphalt
Park and Ride Design Guidelines (by VDOT) o Design standards for different density
parking lots
o ADA-accessible parking
o Recommended directional signs and
BMPs
Virginia Department of Transportation o Details the necessary water treatment
VRRM Water Quality credits for a given development
project

Methods
Grading
One of the largest challenges associated with transforming the site into a parking lot
involves altering the terrain. The original site includes a steep slope at the traffic inlet and outlet
location that is undrivable, as Virginia limits the maximum safe slope of a road to 10%. Slopes
where a car may be parked must not exceed 5% in any direction and an overall slope of 2-5% is
recommended to prevent standing water in the lot.
Furthermore, the site’s terrain must be graded to satisfy the floodplain and floodway
requirement that construction may not raise the base flood elevation by more than 1 foot. Lastly,
the parking lot must fit 31 spaces at a minimum but intrude as little as possible into the
regulatory floodway, severely limiting the space available for construction. Given these strict
requirements, it was necessary to creatively alter the slopes throughout the entire parking lot site,
all while keeping in mind parking lot regulations and the gravity-driven flow of stormwater from
Caroline Street ultimately into the Rappahannock.
Best Management Practice
After analysis and research, the team decided that a bioretention pond was the best BMP
to integrate with the parking lot design. Other options included a rain garden/microbioretention
facility, a dry swale, a detention pond, and a constructed wetland. These options were evaluated
considering the area they occupied, nutrient removal, flood resilience, aesthetic value,
educational value, maintenance, cost, and peak flow reduction. Overall, a rain garden scored
highest, but after considering key features of the site, a large bioretention facility was determined
to be the better option. Driving regulations for turning radii made it difficult to structure a
parking lot around multiple rain gardens, and a single rain garden would not be sufficient for the
whole site. Furthermore, as the site is situated within the floodplain and regulatory floodway, a
requirement for the project was minimal cut and fill to avoid raising the base flood elevation.
Since a bioretention pond requires excavation, choosing this BMP allowed more fill to be used
for adjusting slopes within the rest of the parking lot. The BMP’s large size is a byproduct of the
necessary flow of traffic within the parking lot. State regulations require that the minimum
effective turning radius be no less than 25 feet to accommodate all standard cars and buses.
Therefore, the north and south ends of the cell follow this radius, allowing for a large BMP that
stretches the length of the row of parking spaces.
Water Quantity
Secondly, the design must meet the water quantity requirements. According to the
Virgina DEQ, if the development site does not exceed 1% of the drainage area for the body of
water it is releasing to, the Energy Balance Method water quantity calculations in the VDOT
Drainage Manual do not have to be done. Therefore, the only water quantity calculations needed
to be done for the site were to ensure that selected BMP and subsequent outlet structure could
withstand the 10-year storm event. To ensure that these requirements were met, the team
estimated the stage-discharge relationship for the BMP using the HydroCAD tool within
AutoCAD Civil 3D. The 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm hydrographs were made in the application.
Next, the BMP was modeled as a trapezoid with its length, width, and side slope height. This
was done simply for the purpose of modeling the BMP in HydroCAD, despite the true shape
being more contoured. Finally, the outlet structure was modeled to fully represent the
infrastructure in place to stage the stormwater discharge. The storm hydrographs and subsequent
discharge values were then run through the system and a stage vs. discharge hydrograph was
produced.
Water Quality
Another challenge in the design process includes accommodating the stormwater on the
site. The two main aspects of meeting the stormwater requirements are water quality and water
quantity. First, to meet the water quality requirements, the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method
(VRRM) had to be met. The method involves choosing between “New Development” or “Re-
Development” for the given site and measuring the total disturbed area for the construction.
Since the site of the RIVERE parking lot had been previously developed, despite being vacant,
the team chose to follow the Re-Development set of calculations and requirements. The Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) provides a comprehensive spreadsheet that allows for
users to insert the total acreage and final land cover type for the construction, along with the
chose BMPs, to determine whether the site meets the water quality requirements. The team used
this method and spreadsheet to complete the water quality calculations for the site and design.
Flood Resilient Items
As mentioned previously, the entire site of the parking lot is in the 100-year floodplain,
and approximately half of the site is within the floodway. When analyzing possible solutions for
pavement options and BMPs, flood resilience was a major consideration. Flood resilience was
defined as the capacity for a solution to withstand flooding without major damage or the need for
intensive maintenance. The design aspects most vulnerable to flood damage were determined to
be the parking lot pavement, lighting, and the BMP. Flood resilience was carefully considered in
its own category when determining the best pavement and BMP options for the site. Post-flood
maintenance was also taken into consideration when evaluating the upkeep of pavement and the
BMP. Overall, the location of the site within the floodplain and floodway played a major role in
determining major aspects of the design.
Budget
Since RIVERE and its site plans are still in the preliminary stages of development, there
was no explicit budget for the parking lot design. RIVERE gave the team no monetary limit to
complete the parking lot and its additional components. Despite this, the team continually
updated spreadsheets throughout the design process to estimate the budget necessary for the
proposed project. The team used online resources to estimate the cost of human resources,
parking lot and BMP materials, and all additional items needed. Estimates were calculated using
the proposed square footage of pavement, retaining walls, and BMP.

Final Design
Grading
The final design of the parking lot can be seen in Figure 3. The parking lot’s highest
elevation is where it adjoins Caroline Street in the northwest corner. From there, the lot slopes
south and east. Water that falls upon the west and south sides of the BMP will follow the grading
until it collects at a drain, which will funnel the water into the BMP at its south end. Water that
falls on the east side of the BMP will enter the BMP via sheet flow sloping westward. This
grading will collect all the water that enters the parking lot either through precipitation or
through sheet flow from the western retaining wall and ensure that it passes through the
bioretention cell before it enters the Rappahannock River.

Figure 3. Final design layout including grading and location of Figure 4 cross-section.

Figure 4. Cross section profiles of site pre- and post-design.

 Significant grading was necessary to adjust the site’s original contours into a drivable
parking lot. Further parameters due to the floodplain required minimal cut and fill to avoid
raising the base flood elevation of the site significantly. Figure 4 shows a cross-section of the
original grading of the parking lot and the grading of the team’s final design.
To minimize intrusion upon the floodway, two retaining walls were added to the design.
These retaining walls account for the substantial change in elevation within the space site,
creating flat ground that can be used for drivable slopes and parking spaces. The walls
additionally insulate the parking lot from Caroline Street, a moderately busy roadway. The site’s
parameters necessitate that the walls be objectively tall, ten feet and thirteen feet at their tallest,
so for safety concerns, pedestrian and vehicle barriers are placed along the tops of the walls. The
walls are both slightly sloped at a 3:1 ratio to assist with slowing the passage of stormwater and
to allow the possibility for green walls, an additional BMP that RIVERE can choose to
incorporate later.
Bioretention Cell
The bioretention cell is approximately 50 feet wide by 180 feet long. It has a one-foot
ponding depth with half a foot of freeboard. Stormwater enters from the parking lot through an

Figure 5. BMP dimensions with inlet and outlet details.

underdrain in the south end of the BMP and through sheet flow along the east side. Figure 5
shows the dimensions of the pond including the horizontal width of its sloped walls. The cell has
a 0.5% downward slope from the water entry in the south end to the water exit in the north end to
allow water to gradually process through the BMP. The water entry incorporates a riprap apron
to distribute the flow force. Calculations and detailed dimensions for the riprap apron can be
found in Appendix A.

Figure 6. Cross-section of the BMP.

Figure 7. Final design planting plan.

 RIVERE requested that the final design incorporate native plantings and have aesthetic
value. These requests, along with the site conditions, were considered when determining a
planting plan for the bioretention pond. The final planting plan incorporates five native plants
that are tolerant of variable moisture conditions ranging from standing water to drought, partial
sun to full sun conditions, tolerant of high pH resulting from stormwater runoff, and which meld
cohesively together to create a visually attractive display. The BMP planting plan is seen below
in Figure 7.
The largest plants in the BMP are river birches (Betula nigra). These trees can grow 40 to 70 feet
tall and can have a 30-foot diameter canopy. River birches thrive in wet conditions and are
known for their beautiful bark. The three trees are situated in the center of the BMP away from
the inlet and outlet points to avoid interference from their roots with the underground structures.
The secondary plantings are buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and Joe-Pye weed
(Eutrochium purpureum). Buttonbush is the larger of the two shrubs at six to eight feet tall and
wide and is more tolerant of shade, and therefore is situated closest to the river birches beneath
their maximum canopy. Joe-Pye weed grows to about three feet tall and two to three feet wide.
Both shrubs have colorful blooms that are excellent for attracting pollinators, and buttonbush
especially is known for year-round visual appeal. Lastly, two groundcovers were chosen, bristly
cattail sedge (Carex frankii) and marsh marigold (Caltha palustris). As the names suggest, these
low-lying, fast-spreading plants flourish in moist soil and flood conditions. They grow
approximately one to two feet tall and wide. Most importantly, these groundcovers have strong,
deep root systems that are ideal for holding topsoil and media in place during high flow events in

Figure 8. Layout demonstrating pedestrian walkway and flow of traffic.

the BMP. The different textures and colors of the sedge and marigolds create visual contrast and
interest. Overall, the combination of these five plants is cohesive, visually attractive, and
extremely effective within a bioretention pond.
RIVERE also requested that the design include educational opportunities directed toward
visitors. The team decided that this could be best accomplished by incorporating informational
signs along the pedestrian walkway. The content of the signs could include topics ranging from
the Chesapeake watershed, the Rappahannock River ecosystem, or the meaning and location of
the floodplain and floodway. Appendix C shows a sample educational sign that explains the
parking lot’s BMP and its function.
Water Quantity
After inputting the site characteristics into HydroCAD, the hydrographs for the 2-,10-,
and 100-year storm events were created. The hydrographs were made to eventually develop stage
versus discharge relationships for the BMP. These were created using the Kirpich method, with
the total drainage area contributing to the BMP of 1.1 acres, the approximate distance of the
furthest drainage point being 150 feet, post-development land cover curve number being 98, and
the basin slope being 0.097%. The resulting hydrographs can be seen in Figure 10. Next, the
BMP’s approximate trapezoidal dimensions were determined and put into the program. These
values can be seen in Table 3. Finally, several iterations of the outlet structure were conducted
until the bioretention cell and accompanying outlet structure kept the final stage under the 1.5-
foot depth of the BMP. The final outlet structure dimensions, orifices, and weirs can be seen in
Tables 4 and 5.

Figure 9. Storm Hydrographs

Table 3. Bioretention Trapezoidal Dimensions
Data Input Value
Storage Type Trapezoid
Bottom Elevation (ft) 12.68
Bottom Length (ft) 165.20
Bottom Width (ft) 35.60
Side Slope, z:1 3.00
Depth (ft) 1.00
Voids (%) 100

Table 4. Outlet Structure: Orifices

Culv/Orifice A B C
Rise (in) 24 4 4
Span (in) 24 4 4
No. Barrels 1 2 2
Invert Elev (ft) 12.68 12.78 12.78
Length (ft) 273.85 0 0
Slope (%) 0.0038 0 0
N-Value 0.013 0.013 0.013
Orifice Coeff. 0.6 0.6 0.6
Multi-Stage n/a Yes Yes
Note: Culvert A is the exit pipe
Table 5. Outlet Structure: Weirs
Weir A B
Weir Type Rectangular Broad Crested
Crest Elev (ft) 13.08 13.68
Crest Length (ft) 3.00 5.00
Weir Coeff. 3.33 2.6
Multi-Stage Yes Yes

As shown in the tables above, the outlet structure in the north end of the bioretention cell
will have multiple orifices and weirs. It will have four, 4-inch orifices, one on each side of the
rectangular structure. These will be the first measures to control the water flow entering pipe that
eventually discharges to the Rappahannock River. Next, the outlet structure has a 3-foot-wide
rectangular weir slightly above the previously mentioned orifices. This is the second step of
measures to control the flow. Finally, the outlet structure contains a broad-crested weir at the
very top of the overall structure. This is the final measure to control flow. Overall, the structure
is 5 feet wide, 5 feet in length, and a foot tall. The outlet structure can be seen in Figure 6.
Once the water has gone through the bioretention cell and accompanying outlet structure,
it will pass through a pipe system before discharging into the Rappahannock River. The first
section of the pipe system will take the water from the outlet structure and travel southeast,
underneath east side of the parking lot. The pipe will then turn directions at a manhole, going
almost directly south until it meets and ties into the existing structure at Rappahannock River.
The piping system can be seen in Figure 5 (refer to BMP dimensions figure on pg. 6), with the
details in Table 6.
Table 6. Piping System
Section Diameter (in) Length (ft) Top (ft) Invert Invert Upstream Structure
In (ft) Out (ft)
A-B 18 23.80 17.80 14.62 14.4 Drop Inlet Grate
B-C 18 196.39 14.13 8.24 7.20 Rectangular Outlet
C-D 18 77.46 8.05 6.60 6.26 Manhole

Water Quality
Upon finalizing the parking lot design, the estimated area of the parking lot was 0.94
acres. The entire parking lot was in Soil 41, which is in hydrologic soil group (HSG) “A”. After
inserting the total disturbed acreage, its proposed new land use cover, and its HSG into the Re-
Development VRRM spreadsheet, the post-development treatment volume came out to be 3,242
cubic feet. Also, the post-development total phosphorus load equaled 2.04 lb/year. Next, the
“Bioretention Level 2” option for BMP was selected. Given the size of our proposed bioretention
cell, the team felt it could achieve the 80% runoff reduction necessary for the Level 2
bioretention. The VRRM spreadsheet calculated the total phosphorus reduction exceeded the
necessary 1.65 lb/year by 0.18 lb/year. This was done using the runoff reduction method. The
inputs and outputs of the VRRM spreadsheet can be seen in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively.
Table 7. Drainage Area Land Cover
A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Totals

Forest/Open Space (acres) 0.00

Managed Turf (acres) 0.00

Impervious Cover (acres) 0.94 0.94

Total 0.94

Table 8. Total Phosphorus

Final Post-Development TP Load (lb/yr) 2.04
TP Load Reduction Required (lb/yr) 1.65
TP Load Reduction Achieved (lb/yr) 1.83
TP Load Remaining (lb/yr) 0.21
 Remaining TP Load Reduction Required (lb/yr) 0.00

Flood Resilient Items

After consideration, several otherwise viable solutions were passed over in lieu of the
team’s choice for the bioretention cell as the BMP and conventional asphalt as the pavement
type. Permeable pavement was considered for the main portion of the parking lot’s surfaces to
assist with water filtration and absorption. However, since even minor flooding would deposit
sediment into the pores of the pavement and render it impervious without regular, intensive
maintenance, it was passed over. Instead, the site uses conventional asphalt, but directs all the
stormwater into the bioretention basin for absorption and filtration there. Similarly, soil cement
is recommended for the pedestrian trail. This material is known for its durability and soil
stabilization properties, making it an excellent choice for the pedestrian trail in the floodway.
Another major consideration for flood resilience within the parking lot was its lighting. Standard
pole-mounted area lights are permanently wired beneath a parking lot to a power source, but this
leaves them susceptible to flood damage at numerous points, especially in high water. Our
proposed alternative is solar-powered pole mounted LED lights with automatic sensing to save
energy. These lights would remain safe from flood damage and furthermore, solar power is an
excellent, recognizable demonstration of energy efficiency to help achieve RIVERE’s
educational goals.
Budget
Upon completion of the final design, a budget estimate was finalized. Overall, the project
was estimated to cost almost $700,000, including all personnel resources, materials, and
plantings. A summary of the cost analysis can be found in Table 9. For a more detailed cost
analysis, refer to Appendix X1-X2.
Table 9. Summary of Cost Analysis
Personnel Bioretention
Materials
Site Visit $ 1,200 Stone $ 213
Design Work $ 9,600 Drainage System $ 38,944
Grading $ 150,000 Mulch and Media $ 80,456
Parking Lot Plants
Materials
Pavement $ 99,384 All Materials $ 458
Painting and $ 10,264
Guiders
Retaining Walls $ 306,441
Other $ 2,330
Total $ 699,290
Conclusions
Our team has designed a functional parking lot for the proposed RIVERE Ecological
Center in Fredericksburg, Virginia. This design satisfies the criteria of stormwater treatment and
quantity before entering the Rappahannock River. These were met through the extensive grading
design along with the evaluation of stormwater quality and quality requirements. The lot also
meets all constraints: the parking lot must have aesthetic beauty, must contain a loading ramp for
buses and trucks, and must provide educational benefits for visitors. The parking lot will flow
continuously around the bioretention cell, providing an easy and aesthetically pleasing site.
Lastly, the bioretention cell will include various native plants and educational signs to exemplify
RIVERE’s core values and business plan.
References

Bureau, U. C. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-

releases/2022/urban-rural-populations.html
Caicedo, F., Blazquez, C., & Miranda, P. (2012). Prediction of parking space availability in real
time. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7281–7290. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.091
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations, State Water
Control Board 9VAC25-830 (2022).
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title62.1/chapter3.1/article2.5/
City of Fredericksburg, VA: Off-street parking and loading. (2020). Retrieved from
https://ecode360.com/29016879
Crafton, S., Hirschman, D., Collins, K., Battiata, J., Hoffman, G., Woodworth, L., … Beisch, D.,
Virginia DEQ stormwater design specification (2013). Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2023). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/laws-
regulations/summary-clean-water-act
Floodway. (2020). Retrieved from
https://www.fema.gov/glossary/floodway#:~:text=A%20%22Regulatory%20Floodway%22%20
means%20the,more%20than%20a%20designated%20height.
Fredericksburg Map. (2023). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VAMap-
doton-Fredericksburg.PNG
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (2016). (rep.). Parking generation—Replacing flawed
standards with the custom realities of Park+. Richmond, Virginia.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2023). Retrieved from
https://megamanual.geosyntec.com/npsmanual/bioretentionareasandraingardens.aspx#:~:text=Bi
oretention%20areas%20are%20similar%20to,engineered%20soils%20to%20promote%20infiltra
tion.
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Floodplain Management Requirements: a study guide
and desk reference for local officials (2005). Alexandria, Virginia: U.S. Department of
Homeland Security.
Office of Water, NPDES: Stormwater best management practice—Green parking (2021).
Washington, DC: EPA.
Office of Water, NPDES: Stormwater best management practice—Permeable pavements (2021).
Washington, DC: EPA.
Roser, H. R. (2019, November). Urbanization. Retrieved from Our World in Data:
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#citation
Sample, D. J., Fox, L. J., & Hendrix, C. (2020). (publication). Best Management Practice Fact
Sheet 11: Wet Swale. Virginia Cooperative Extension.
Shen, S., Burton, M., Jobson, B., & Haselbach, L. (2012). Pervious concrete with titanium
dioxide as a photocatalyst compound for a greener urban road environment. Construction and
Building Materials, 35, 874–883. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.097
Un, K. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.mapc.org/resource-library/fact-sheet-bioretention-
areas/
University of New Hampshire. (2007). (rep.). The impacts of impervious surfaces on water
resources, NHEP . PREP.
USA Facts. (2022, July). Our changing population: Fredericksburg city, Virginia. Retrieved
from USA Facts: https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-and-
demographics/our-changing-population/state/virginia/county/fredericksburg-city/
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2023). Retrieved from
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/water/ultraurban_bmp_rpt/3fs10.aspx#:~:text
=Two%20general%20types%20of%20grassed,a%20downstream%20surface%20water%20body.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). (2023). Virginia DEQ. Retrieved from
Water Quality Standards: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/water/water-
quality/standards
Virginia Asphalt Association. (2023). Retrieved from https://vaasphalt.org/pavement-
guide/pavement-design-by-use/parking-lot-
design/#:~:text=Minimum%20Requirements,9%E2%80%B2%20x%2019%E2%80%B2).
Virginia Department of Transportation - Home. (2018). Retrieved from
https://www.virginiadot.org/travel/resources/parkAndRide/Park_Ride_Design_Guidelines.pdf
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Bains, V., Swanson, C., & Mills, R., VDOT
drainage manual (2021). Richmond, Virginia: VDOT.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), BMP maintenance manual: A guidance manual
for maintenance of BMP facilities (2016). Richmond, Virginia: Maintenance Division.
May 1st, 2024

Gunlogson Environmental Design Student Competition

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, Michigan 49085

Dear Competition Judges,

I affirm that this undertaking is an original project conceived and completed as part of our
capstone Comprehensive Design course. Neither the project nor its report is a part of any other
ASABE student design competition.

Thank you for your service to ASABE and to our students.

With best regards,

Dwayne R. Edwards, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor and Department Head
Appendix A. Riprap apron calculations and dimensions.
Appendix B. Cost Analysis.
Parking Lot
Material Count Length Cost per unit Total Cost
(ft)
Aluminum Fence 2 548.46 $15 per foot $8,226.90
Traffic Delineators unknown 109.32 $15.95 per cone $159.50
Parking blocks (cement) 36 NA $47.00 per block $1,692.00
Pavement lines for parking 39 NA $0.50 per foot $175.50
Pavement arrows 4 NA $0.50 per foot $10.00
Helical bike racks 2 NA $515.00 per rack $1,030.00
Solar Lights 3 NA $300 per light $900
Educational Signs 4 NA $100 per sign $400
$12,594

Bioretention
Material Count Length Area Depth Volume Cost per unit Total Cost
(ft) (sq. ft.) (ft.) (cu. ft.)
Soil cement N/A 300 1800 0.5 900 $0.5 per $900.00
trail sq ft
#1 Crushed 2 N/A 71 0.5 35.5 $3.0 per $213.00
Stone sq ft
Grated Drop 1 Diameter N/A N/A N/A $9,037 per $9,037
Inlet 2.0 inlet
Concrete 3 297.67 N/A Width N/A $100 per $29,767
Pipe 1.5 LF
Dome Grate 1 Diameter N/A N/A N/A $140 N/A $140
2.0
Bioretention N/A N/A 7414.0 0.25 1853.51 $48 per $3,295.13
Mulch cubic
yard
Bioretention N/A N/A 7414.05 3 22242.15 $68 per $56,017.27
Soil Media cubic
yard
Bioretention N/A N/A 7414.05 0.25 1853.5125 $4.00 per $29,656.20
Choker sq ft
Stone (Pea
gravel)
Bioretention N/A N/A 7414.05 0.5 3707.025 $5.00 per $37,070.25
Stone Layer sq ft
(#57)
Total $166,095.85
 Plants
Material Count Cost per unit Total
Cost
Black Tupelo 7 $18.99 per bush $132.93
River Birch 3 $35.00 per bush $105.00
Bristly Cattail Sedge 12 $4.00 per quart $48.00
Marsh Marigold 9 $5.25 per quart $47.25
Button Bush 24 $1.45 per $34.80
seedling
Sweet Joe-Pye-Weed 21 $4.25 per quart $89.25
Total $457.23

Human Resources
Task Time (hrs) Rate ($/hr) Total ($)
Site Visit 8 150 $ 1,200.00
CAD Design Work 80 120 $ 9,600.00
Total $ 10,800.00
Appendix C. Sample Educational Sign.
Appendix D. Bioretention Stage vs. Discharge