December 6, 2023

W. Cully Hession, P.E.

Professor of Biological Systems Engineering
204 Seitz Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24060

Dear Dr. Hession,

Enclosed is the Analysis of Potential Solutions for the "RIVERE Ecological Center Parking Lot
and Stormwater Management Plan." This document covers potential design solutions for
constructing a parking lot and accompanying Stormwater Best Management Practices. This report
also discusses criteria on which each olution will be analyzed. The analysis of each solution is
displayed using a decision matrix, and a conclusion on which solution ranked the highest after
considering all criteria is discussed. Finally, this review contains a discussion on the future of the
project and its design after the completion of the documented analysis, along with a proposed
project timeline.

We have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance on this assignment.

This report has been reviewed by our advisors. Please contact the team below with any questions
or concerns.

Sincerely,

Emma Reilly Oare Noah LaFleur Makenna Moore

Enclosure: Analysis of Potential Solutions Report

 RIVERE Ecological Center Parking Lot
and Stormwater Management Plan

Analysis of Potential Solutions

BSE 4125 Comprehensive Design Project
6 December 2023

Team River Reps

Team Members: Noah LaFleur, Makenna Moore, & Emma Oare
Advisors: Dr. David Sample & Dr. Tess Thompson
Introduction
The City of Fredericksburg, located in central Virginia, is a fast-growing area with an
increasing population and expanding urban infrastructure. The downtown area of Fredericksburg,
in particular, is a business destination and tourist attraction, with its dense population and
proximity to the scenic Rappahannock River. To capitalize on the success of business and
tourism in this area, RIVERE, a recently created non-profit, has partnered with a local landowner
to develop an ecological center in a parcel of land directly along the Rappahannock River. The
ecological center will combine education and research to provide a place for people to learn
about and appreciate their local environment while also allowing the center to collect resourceful
data to assess the river's health and ecosystem. The landowner also has plans to build a brewery
in the neighboring land of the proposed center, allowing visitors to enjoy food and drinks while
they attend the ecological center. The River Reps will focus on designing and creating an
environmentally sound parking lot that will provide sufficient parking and loading space for the
brewery and ecological center.
With the proposed center located near the Rappahannock River, the design and
construction of the two buildings and parking lot come with a few regulations. First, the
construction must not exceed the immediate floodway and has strict regulations within the 100-
year floodplain. Also, as with any urban project, stormwater management must be considered.
To mitigate the effects of stormwater runoff into nearby waterways, Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are used to slow water flow and allow for the filtration of pollutants from the water. The
River Reps proposed a technical review of the construction regulations and design specifications
within a floodplain and urban BMPs. This report analyzes the potential solutions for constructing
a parking lot within a floodplain while maintaining sufficient parking spaces and meeting
stormwater management requirements.
Potential Solutions
The final design for the RIVERE ecological center parking lot will include an area
designated for parking spots with BMPs integrated within and along the sides of the pavement.
This report presents two decision matrices to identify the most appropriate solutions for
pavement material and BMP design.
BMP Potential Solutions. The potential solutions analyzed for the BMP design are
presented below.

Page 1
 The first BMP design solution is a bioretention facility. Bioretention facilities are filter
beds that temporarily pool runoff during storm events and then infiltrate water through the
system within 72 hours after the event (VA DCR, 2013d). Bioretention cells are generally used
within parking lots where sheet flow is the major stormwater inflow. The design can include an
underdrain, overflow inlet, gravel bed, and engineered soils, as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix
B.
The second BMP design solution is a rain garden. Rain gardens are micro-bioretention
facilities designed to treat runoff from small drainage areas up to 0.5 ac (VA DCR, 2013d). Rain
gardens are also intended for sheet flow scenarios like roof drain or driveway flow. Typical
basins will include an underdrain with a gravel sump, filter media, and native grasses and shrubs,
illustrated in Figure 2 in Appendix B.
The third BMP design solution is a dry swale. Dry swales are vegetated channels with
permeable soil that convey runoff (VA DCR, 2013a). Swales are shallower and more linear than
bioretention facilities and can be planted with turf grass, meadow grasses, herbaceous cover, or
trees. The designs are generally aligned along the length of the impervious surface, such as
parking lots, to capture the lateral flow, as shown in Figure 3 in Appendix B. As with
bioretention facilities, most of the pollutant removal is achieved through settling, infiltration, and
plant uptake.
The fourth BMP design solution is a detention pond. Detention ponds are temporary
ponding structures designed to hold stormwater runoff for 24 to 36 hours after a rain event (VA
DCR, 2013c). During the detention period, gravitational settling acts as the main pollutant
removal mechanism for particulate pollutants, although there is little to no removal of soluble
pollutants. Typical designs provide channel protection and flood control measures through the
use of permanent pools and native landscaping, as exhibited in Figure 4 in Appendix B.
The fifth BMP design solution is a constructed wetland. Constructed wetlands are
shallow basins with permanent pools, typically 6 to 18 in deep, populated with dense and diverse
wetland vegetation (VA DCR, 2013b). Within the wetland environment, gravitational settling,
biological uptake, and microbial activity allow multiple pollutant removal mechanisms to occur
over the long residence time. Designs can vary based on the site, but most constructed wetlands
have a basin with 24-hr storage, a stone layer, and native vegetation within the cell (Figure 5 in
Appendix B).

Page 2
 Pavement Potential Solutions. The potential solutions analyzed for the pavement
material are presented below.
The first pavement solution is conventional asphalt. Conventional asphalt refers to the
widely used pavement materials used in similar projects. The pavement structure will vary based
on the function of the project. Generally, an aggregate base will be placed on a compacted
subgrade, which is then covered with one or more layers of asphalt (Virginia Asphalt
Association, 2023). SM-9.5 is a common mix for producers, but the design and specifications
will depend on state regulations and local asphalt mixes available.
The second pavement solution is pervious concrete (PC). PC is a pavement that contains
little to no fine material with controlled amounts of water and cement (U.S. Office of Pavement
Technology, 2012). As the paste binds the particles together, voids create a system of highly
permeable materials. PC can capture pollutants, reduce stormwater runoff, and recharge
groundwater by capturing and percolating water through a base layer and filter fabric below the
PC layer, illustrated in Figure 6 in Appendix B.
The third pavement solution is porous asphalt (PA). PA is constructed of standard
bituminous asphalt where the fine particles have been screened and reduced to create ample void
spaces, such as in PA (Dauphin County Conservation District, 2006). The average void space
achieved in PA is 16%, and the material can provide some pretreatment of runoff. The crushed
aggregate filter located underneath the PA layer also aids with pollutant removal. Finally, a
highly permeable reservoir layer and nonwoven geotextile material are placed underneath the
crushed aggregate, illustrated in Figure 7 in Appendix B.
The fourth pavement solution is permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP). PICP
designs usually consist of four layers: an upper layer of thick pavers with permeable joints, an
open-graded bedding layer, an open-graded base course, and an open-graded subbase on non-
compacted soil (Figure 8 in Appendix B). Well-maintained designs have been shown to reduce
runoff volumes by 70% to 90% during intense precipitation events (ICPI, 2008). PICP can be
combined with other BMPs to remove pollutants, reduce runoff, and increase the property's
aesthetic value.
Description of Evaluation Criteria
Multiple criteria were considered to identify the most effective and feasible solutions for
the RIVERE ecological center parking lot. For the BMP design, the eight criteria were aesthetic

Page 3
value, area required, cost, educational value, flood resilience, maintenance, nutrient removal, and
peak flow reduction. For the pavement material, the seven criteria were accessibility, cost, flood
resilience, longevity, maintenance, permeability, and traffic-bearing capacity. The complete list
of criteria is listed below in alphabetical order.
Accessibility. The RIVERE ecological center will be designed to ensure that all people
have equitable access to the facilities. According to the ADA, car-accessible parking spaces must
have a surface that is “firm, stable, and slip-resistant” (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights
Division, 2023). Other accessibility issues could result from people wearing high heels or
cyclists if the pavement is not a continuous surface. Accessibility is therefore given a weight of
10 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Aesthetic Value. The RIVERE staff have requested the prioritization of aesthetics in the
parking lot design to highlight the beauty of natural landscapes. Traditional parking lot designs
often fail to integrate BMPs into the landscape, providing little in terms of natural or aesthetic
visuals. The chosen BMPs should serve their ecological function and provide an aspect of
intrigue and attractiveness to the site to offset the inherent disruption to nature (American
Planning Association, 1964). Aesthetic value was given a weight of 15 out of 100 in the BMP
decision matrix.
Area Required. The RIVERE ecological center and accompanying parking lot are area-
restricted, as are most urban development projects in small land parcels and near existing
infrastructure. The RIVERE center is proposed to be on a 1-acre lot next to an old power station
that will be transformed into a brewery. The brewery, ecological center, and parking lot will all
be along the Rappahannock River. This further reduces the area available to construct a parking
lot and accompanying BMPs, as the development cannot be in the 100-year floodway. Given the
constraints on the site size, area required received a weight of 20 out of 100 in the BMP decision
matrix.
Cost. It is in RIVERE’s interest to conserve the available budget where possible.
Determining the tradeoff between the highest cost and highest quality is necessary to ensure the
facility is well-built but within budget. Cost is assigned a weight of 10 out of 100 in the
pavement decision matrix and 5 out of 100 in the BMP decision matrix.
Educational Value. The RIVERE ecological center will aim to mitigate the
environmental pressures on Virginia’s waterways by promoting conservation awareness and

Page 4
research. Using the center as a model for environmentally responsible BMPs is an important
aspect of RIVERE’s mission (Cox & Manchester, 2022). Therefore, the parking lot for the center
must have educational value by demonstrating the effectiveness of ecological BMPs. To ensure
the facility promotes environmental education, educational value received a weight of 10 out of
100 in the BMP decision matrix.
Flood Resilience. Given the unique location of the RIVERE parking lot, the ability of the
potential solutions to survive a flood event is an essential consideration. Floods come with
increased water and sediment flows, and the sediments are deposited once the event is over. The
BMP solution must be evaluated based on predicted maintenance and reconstruction after such
an event. This includes the need for sediment removal, replanting, reseeding, reworking of
contours, and reconstruction of necessary infrastructure damaged during high flows. Therefore,
flood resilience was given a weight of 15 out of 100 in the BMP decision matrix.
The potential pavement solutions will also be evaluated based on flood resilience. Most
pervious pavements require periodic vacuuming to remove built-up sediment from low
stormwater flow. The pavements will be evaluated based on the additional vacuuming needed
after a substantial flood event. Also, the pavements will be evaluated based on their ability to
survive a flood event and not require complete renovation. Flood resilience was given a weight
of 20 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Longevity. Constructed materials will degrade with exposure to time, human activity,
and environmental factors. The longevity is generally provided with the assumption that the
project receives regular maintenance, which is considered in later criteria. Longevity received a
weight of 10 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Maintenance. Most BMPs require periodic maintenance to maintain their health and
functionality. Failure to perform such maintenance could result in the BMP or pavement material
losing its ability to reduce flow and remove nutrients, subsequently becoming ineffective.
Furthermore, frequent project maintenance is time-intensive and expensive. Scoring
considerations include maintenance frequency and complexity of maintenance requirements
needed to maintain functionality. Maintenance received a weight of 10 out of 100 in the BMP
decision matrix and 15 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Nutrient Removal. This site is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and there is a
total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulation in effect for nutrients. An overabundance of

Page 5
nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, unbalances aquatic environments, leading to the
harmful overgrowth of algae, called eutrophication. Since the site directly borders the
Rappahannock River, limiting nutrient removal is a high priority to prevent environmental harm
(Water Resources Mission Area, 2019). In the BMP decision matrix, nutrient removal was
weighted 20 out of 100.
Peak Flow Reduction. Peak flow refers to the maximum rate of runoff created by a
rainstorm event for a certain area. A high peak flow results from low permeability of the ground
and can contribute significantly to soil erosion, nutrient loss, and pollution of waterways. Parking
lots generally create high peak flows during rainstorm events, transporting soil, nutrients, trash,
and oil into neighboring waterways. Peak flow reduction must be considered when building this
parking lot due to its proximity to the river (Janowiak, et al., 2016) (RIVERE, 2023). Therefore,
peak flow reduction has a weight of 5 out of 100 in the BMP decision matrix.
Permeability. Given the climate and location of the parking lot within the 100-year
floodplain, the pavement material will ideally be able to infiltrate water through the surface to
reduce ponding and high stormwater runoff rates along the surface. The permeability of each
material is directly related to the interconnecting voids amongst the pavement particles, allowing
water to pass through the voids when water reaches the surface (Zamara, 2022). Permeability
received the highest weight of 20 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Traffic-Bearing Capacity. The RIVERE ecological center will be hosting a variety of
people and vehicles, including personal vehicles and school buses. Heavier vehicles will need to
access the project site during construction, and the pavement must be able to bear large
emergency vehicles. Traffic-bearing capacity is included in the criteria for the pavement material
to account for the forces the pavement can bear, considering how larger forces affect the
pavement surface. Since the parking lot must account for many vehicles, traffic-bearing capacity
received a weight of 15 out of 100 in the pavement decision matrix.
Decision Matrix
The BMP and pavement decision matrices are presented in Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix
A, respectively. The decision matrices contain the ranking for the potential solutions, and the
criteria are weighted based on their importance to the project, adding up to 100 points total. The
solutions received a score of 1 through 5 in each category—1 was the lowest, and 5 was the
highest. The weights and ranking were used to calculate the final score for each solution.

Page 6
Discussion of Results
The analysis of the potential stormwater management BMPs for the RIVERE ecological
center parking lot resulted in the following ranking, from first to last: rain garden, bioretention
facility, dry swale, constructed wetland, and detention pond.
The rain garden BMP received high scores in all criteria, placing it first out of all BMPs.
First, it received a 5 out of 5 score for area required, as rain gardens are typically smaller than
other BMPs, with a maximum contributing drainage area of 0.5 acres (VA DCR, 2013). Rain
gardens also received a 5 out of 5 for nutrient removal, being able to remove 90% of both total
phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) (VA DCR, 2013). Rain gardens also provide an
excellent opportunity to incorporate and display a multitude of native plants. This is an important
part of the evaluation criteria due to RIVERE’s desire to have an aesthetically pleasing BMP
with educational aspects. Native plants are a great way to achieve both desires, leading to rain
gardens receiving a score of 4 out of 5 in both aesthetic and educational value. Rain gardens
received a 3 out of 5 score for peak flow reduction, as even though rain gardens do not have the
same reduction capabilities as other BMPs, they can be designed to infiltrate 85-90% of annual
stormwater runoff (Jarrett, 2022). Rain gardens also received a 3 out of 5 score in both
maintenance and cost. After implementation, rain gardens require six months of monitoring,
including reseeding bare areas, removing dead plants, and mowing (VA DCR, 2013). Also, the
typical cost of rain gardens ranges from $1.5 to $3.0 per square foot (Jarrett, 2022). Finally, the
rain gardens received a 3 out of 5 score for flood resilience. This score was given based on the
prediction that the rain garden plants would be damaged and likely require replanting. However,
the integrity and function of the rain garden would remain as only little clogging would be
expected.
The bioretention facility ranked second among all BMP solutions, scoring the same as
rain gardens in all categories except area required, peak flow reduction, and flood resilience. The
bioretention facility received a 4 out of 5 score in area required, as it can be effective without
being very large. Typically, a bioretention facility only needs to be 3-6% of the total contributing
drainage area, with a maximum contributing drainage area of 2 acres (Jarrett, 2022). Bioretention
scored a 4 out of 5 in peak flow reduction. The bioretention facility received a higher score than
rain gardens in peak flow reduction because it has a larger BMP and more holding capacity (VA
DCR, 2013). The bioretention facility also received a 4 out of 5 score in peak flow reduction, as

Page 7
it will contain underdrains that will be large enough to sustain moderate clogging while still
conveying flow.
Ranking third in the BMP solutions was the dry swale. The dry swale scored moderately
in the area required criterion, receiving a 4 out of 5 score. Dry swales are similar to bioretention
facilities in that they require an area of 3-5% of the total contributing drainage area (VA DCR,
2013). Dry swale also received a 4 out of 5 in nutrient removal, as it is typically able to remove
76% of TP and 74% of TN (VA DCR, 2013). In terms of maintenance, dry swales require annual
inspections to monitor sediment accumulation, plant growth, and the condition of inlets.
Generally, dry swales require sediment cleanups every 5-7 years (VA DCR, 2013). For these
reasons, dry swale received a 4 out of 5 for the maintenance criteria. Dry swales also received a 4
out of 5 for cost, as they are slightly less expensive than rain gardens and bioretention facilities,
costing $0.5 to $1.00 per cubic foot (NRCS, 2022). Dry swales scored poorly in educational
value, peak flow reduction, and aesthetic value, receiving scores of 2, 2, and 1 out of 5,
respectively. Dry swales consist of grass, providing no native plants for beautification or learning
opportunities. Dry swales also do not significantly reduce the runoff volume without adding
drainage pipes (MSM, 2022). However, dry swales are expected to have good flood resilience
given their relative roughness and bendable plants. This led to dry swales receiving a 4 out of 5
in flood resilience.
The constructed wetland BMP ranked fourth out of the five potential solutions. The
strongest aspects of constructed wetlands are their ability to reduce peak flow and provide
educational opportunities, receiving 4 out of 5 and 5 out of 5 scores in each criterion,
respectively. Constructed wetlands are able to reduce roughly 86% of peak flow with its multiple
aspects and various components (Rizzo, 2018). The many components allow for a broad range of
plants and vegetation, allowing visitors to observe and learn about the foliage. The multitude of
plants required also allows for aesthetic value. For this reason, constructed wetlands received a 4
out of 5 score for the aesthetic value criteria. However, the large space and shrubbery increase
the cost of constructed wetlands. Constructed wetlands cost, on average, $1.03 per square foot
(Crites & Ogden, 1998). This price led it to receive a 3 out of 5 for the cost criteria. Also, due to
the high number of plants, constructed wetlands would require much reseeding and replanting
after a flood event. Even though the wetland would efficiently convey the high flow, the
reconstruction would be time-intensive. For this reason, constructed wetlands received a 3 out of

Page 8
5 for flood resilience. Constructed wetlands also received a 3 out of 5 for nutrient removal, with
a 75% TP removal rate and a 55% TN removal rate (VA DCR, 2013). The areas where the
constructed wetland scored the lowest were maintenance and durability and area required,
receiving 2 and 1 out of 5, respectively. Constructed wetlands require 6 months of initial
inspection upon completion, reseeding, watering, controlling of invasive species, and sediment
removals every 5 to 7 years (VA DCR, 2013). Finally, constructed wetlands are used for a
minimum of 10 acres of contributing drainage areas and have a footprint of 3% of the
contributing drainage area.
The detention pond placed last out of all BMP solutions. Detention ponds offer mediocre
aesthetic and educational value, earning a score of 3 out of 5 in both categories. Detention ponds
offer a body of water that can appeal to some visitors but encourage mosquito growth. While
detention ponds are a good way of openly displaying stormwater management, they are not
easily accessible for educational tours. The treatment area required for detention ponds ranges
from 1-3% of the contributing drainage area, but the need for the surrounding area to create a
buffer of land to protect visitors increases the total area needed (VA DCR, 2013). This led to it
receiving a score of 2 out of 5 for the area required criterion. Detention ponds also require a
decent amount of maintenance, needing annual inspections to monitor the sediment
accumulation, plant growth, and conditions of inlets. Detention ponds also require sediment
removal every 5 to 7 years (VA DCR, 2013). For these reasons, it received a 2 out of 5 for
maintenance. The most limiting criterion for detention ponds is nutrient removal. Detention
ponds are only capable of a 31% reduction of TP and 24% TN (VA DCR, 2013). This was the
lowest out of all BMPs and yielded a score of 1 out of 5. The two strong aspects of detention
ponds are their ability to reduce peak flow reduction and be resilient to flooding. Detention
ponds have a high holding capacity and are designed specifically for peak flow reduction. They
are also designed to be flood resilient, usually containing infrastructure to support high flows.
Detention ponds received a 5 out of 5 score for both peak flow reduction and flood resilience.
The overall best pavement solutions were PC and conventional asphalt with a shared
score of 385; PA, with a score of 365; and PICP, with a score of 270 (Table 2 in Appendix A).
PC scored above all options in the permeability criteria with a 5 out of 5, which was determined
to be the most important with a weight of 25 out of 100. PC and PA scored similarly at 3 out of 5
for flood resilience and conventional asphalt scored best at 4 out of 5. PC absorbs the most water

Page 9
of all the options at 10 ft/day, PA at 6 ft/day, PICP at 2 ft/day, and conventional asphalt absorbs
0 ft/day (VA DCR, 2013). PC scored a 3 out of 5 for maintenance as it requires mid-level
maintenance, compared to high-level maintenance required by PICP and low-level maintenance
required by conventional asphalt (National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, 2023). All
pavement options have comparable weight-bearing capacity, however, frequent exposure to high
pressures will cause PA, PC, and PICP to break down more quickly (Advanced Concrete
Pavement Technology, 2012). Therefore, conventional asphalt scored 5 out of 5 and the other
options scored 4 out of 5 for weight-bearing capacity. All pavement options except for PICP
scored 5 out of 5 for accessibility. Since PICP is a less accessible surface for pedestrians, it
scored 4 out of 5. Conventional asphalt scored 5 out of 5 for longevity, PC and PICP scored 4
out of 5, and PA scored 3 out of 5, based on their respective rates of breakdown (VA DCR,
2013). Conventional asphalt is the most cost-effective pavement solution and scored 5 out of 5,
PA scored 4 out of 5, PC scored 3 out of 5, and PICP scored 1 out of 5 (VA DCR, 2013).
Overall, both conventional asphalt and PC scored higher than other pavement options.
The design will proceed using a combination of PC and conventional asphalt for the
pavement materials and incorporating rain gardens, a bioretention facility, and possibly grass
swales in the design. PC is an ideal choice for the parking spaces and main parking lot of the
facility, but would degrade quickly if used in spaces for large vehicles, like bus lanes and loading
docks. Conventional asphalt will be used for the spaces alongside the road for busses and in the
loading and unloading lanes. Combining these two options will make the parking lot reasonably
affordable and require less maintenance while remaining ecologically friendly by reducing
runoff. Using a variety of BMPs allows more dead space in the parking lot design to be
converted into stormwater control measures. Rain gardens can occupy unused spaces within the
parking lot to help add aesthetic value, decrease runoff, and intercept pollutants. A bioretention
facility and dry swales can be designed to occupy space along the border of the regulatory
floodway, creating an absorbent barrier between the parking lot and the Rappahannock River.
Neither the BMPs nor the pavement are prohibitively costly. Overall, this combination of BMPs
and porous concrete should effectively integrate with one another and satisfy the requirements
for the design project.

Page 10
References
Advanced Concrete Pavement Technology. (2012, December). Pervious Concrete. Retrieved
from ACPT: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif13006/hif13006.pdf

American Planning Association. (1964, September ). Parking Lot Aesthetics. Retrieved from
American Planning Association: https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report190.htm

Bruinsma, J., Nassiri, S., Smith, K., & Pershkin, D. (2017). Guidance for Usage of Permeable
Pavement at Airports. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24852

Cox, H. B., & Manchester, M. A. (2022). RIVERE Business Plan 2022. Fredericksburg, VA:
RIVERE. Retrieved from RIVERE.

Dauphin County Conservation District. (2006). Best Management Practices Fact Sheet: Porous
Asphalt. Dauphin, PA. Retrieved November 25, 2023

Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI). (2008). Fact Sheet: Permeable Interlocking
Concrete Pavement (PICP) For Residential and Commercial Developers. Herndon, VA:
Low Impact Development Center, Inc. (LIDC). Retrieved Novemeber 25, 2023

Janowiak, M., Dostie, D., Wilson, M., Kucera, M., Skinner, R. H., Hatfield, J., . . . Swanston, C.
(2016). Reduce peak flow, runoff velocity, and soil erosion. Retrieved from Climate
Change Resource Center- USDA: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/approach/reduce-peak-
flow-runoff-velocity-and-soil-erosion

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. (2023). Pervious Concrete Pavement Maintenance
and Operations Guide. Retrieved from NRMCA.

RIVERE. (2023). Retrieved from RIVERE: riverecenter.org

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2023). Accessible Parking Spaces. Retrieved
from ADA.gov:
https://www.ada.gov/topics/parking/#:~:text=Accessible%20parking%20spaces%20must
%20have,disabilities%20to%20move%20about%20independently.

U.S. Office of Pavement Technology. (2012). TechBrief: Pervious Concrete. Springfield, VA:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Retrieved November 25, 2023

Page 11
Un, K. (2016, September 15). Fact Sheet: Bioretention Areas. Retrieved November 25, 2023,
from Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC): https://www.mapc.org/resource-
library/fact-sheet-bioretention-areas/

Virginia Asphalt Association. (2023). Parking Lot Design. Retrieved from Virginia Asphalt
Association: https://vaasphalt.org/pavement-guide/pavement-design-by-use/parking-lot-
design/

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). (2013). Virginia DCR
Stormwater Design Specification No. 10: Dry Swales. Richmond, VA: VA DCR.
Retrieved November 25, 2023

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). (2013). Virginia DCR
Stormwater Design Specification No. 13: Constructed Wetlands. Richmond, VA: VA
DCR. Retrieved November 25, 2023

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). (2013). Virginia DCR
Stormwater Design Specification No. 15: Extended Detention (ED) Pond. Richmond,
VA: VA DCR. Retrieved November 25, 2023

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VA DCR). (2013). Virginia DCR
Stormwater Design Specification No. 9: Bioretention. Richmond, VA: VA DCR.
Retrieved November 25, 2023

Water Resources Mission Area. (2019, March 3). Nutrients and Eutrophication. Retrieved from
U.S. Geological Survey: https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-
resources/science/nutrients-and-
eutrophication#:~:text=Nutrients%20are%20essential%20for%20plant,starts%20a%20pr
ocess%20called%20eutrophication.

Zamara, K. (2022, November 17). The Permeability of Soils Explained. Retrieved from Tensar:
https://www.tensar.co.uk/resources/articles/the-permeability-of-soils-
explained#:~:text=Soil%20permeability%20is%20a%20measure,the%20soil%20strength
%20and%20stresses.

Page 12
 Appendix A: Decision Matrices
Table 1. Decision matrix for potential design solutions for the BMPs at the RIVERE ecological center parking lot.
Bioretention Constructed
Criteria Weight Rain Garden Dry Swale Detention Pond
Facility Wetland

Area Required 20 4 5 4 2 1

Nutrient Removal 20 5 5 4 1 3

Flood Resilience 15 3 3 4 5 3

Aesthetic Value 15 4 4 1 3 4

Educational Value 10 4 4 2 3 5

Maintenance 10 3 3 4 2 2

Cost 5 3 3 4 2 3

Peak Flow
5 4 3 2 5 4
Reduction

Total 100 390 405 325 265 290

Page 13
Table 2. Decision matrix for potential design solutions for the pavement material in the RIVERE ecological center parking lot.
Permeable
Conventional Pervious Concrete Porous Asphalt Interlocking
Criteria Weight
Asphalt (PC) (PA) Concrete Pavement
(PICP)

Permeability 20 1 5 4 3

Flood Resilience 20 4 3 3 2

Maintenance 15 4 3 3 2

Traffic Bearing
15 5 4 4 4
Capacity

Longevity 10 5 4 3 4

Accessibility 10 5 5 5 3

Cost 10 5 3 4 1

Total 100 385 385 365 270

Page 14
Appendix B: Design Figures

Figure 1. Diagram of typical bioretention facility with additional surface ponding (from VA DCR, 2013d).

Page 15
Figure 2. Diagram of typical micro-bioretention facility (rain garden) (from VA DCR, 2013d).

Page 16
Figure 3. Diagram of typical Level 2 design of dry swale with underdrain (from VA DCR, 2013a).

Page 17
Figure 4. Diagram of typical detention pond design (from VA DCR, 2013c).

Page 18
Figure 5. Diagram of typical Level 1 design of constructed wetland (from VA DCR, 2013b).

Page 19
Figure 6. Diagram of typical pervious concrete (PC) structure (from U.S. Office of Pavement Technology, 2012).

Figure 7. Diagram of typical porous asphalt (PA) structure (from Bruinsma et al., 2017).

Page 20
Figure 8. Diagram of typical permeable interlocking concrete pavement (PICP) structure (from ICPI, 2008).

Page 21
Appendix C: Gantt Chart

Page 22