Innovative Stormwater Management at the Radnor Middle School in Wayne, Pennsylvania D. Wible and T.

Cahill Cahill Associates, 104 S. High Street, West Chester, PA 19382; 610-696-4150; email: dwible@thcahill.com; tcahill@thcahill.com Abstract The new Radnor Middle School (RMS), located in downtown Wayne at the site of the existing school (to be demolished), is an ambitious project expected to achieve LEED Gold Certification with its array of energy efficient technologies, recycled building materials, and sustainable site design techniques. The school site lies at the lower portion of a highly urbanized local watershed (Upper Ithan Creek), where a headwater stream was buried in the early 1900s. Flooding has plagued the existing school site, as well as other areas of downtown Wayne, for many years due to an inadequate and overstressed drainage system. Working as a consultant to both Radnor Township and the Radnor School District, Cahill Associates analyzed the existing drainage conditions at the site and developed several mitigation measures for both alleviating localized flooding (both upstream and downstream) and managing the increased runoff associated with the new school. Using the EPA SWMM model, Cahill analyzed the existing stormwater infrastructure in the contributory 210-acre drainage area, the existing flooding conditions at the Middle School, and the benefits of various floodplain restoration strategies and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The final design entailed two large underground storage systems, one of which is actually within the existing school basement, and one large underground groundwater recharge system, which are collectively an attempt to restore the filled-in floodplain of that area. Several CDS water quality units were incorporated to pre-treat runoff before it enters this system. To address the runoff associated with the new school, Cahill designed several stormwater BMPs, including multiple porous asphalt parking lots with groundwater recharge beds, a vegetated groundwater recharge system, a rain garden, and a partial vegetated roof system. This paper will cover design, construction, and performance of the project and its role in the larger watershed context. Introduction Radnor Township has experienced significant problems resulting from stormwater runoff throughout the municipality over the past several decades, as the density of land development has increased and the natural stream channels and drainage pathways have been encroached upon, piped and buried beneath the surface. These factors have contributed to more extreme stormwater impacts downstream in the Darby Creek watershed, with Radnor Township situated in the northern portion, or headwaters, of this stream. The increases in the volume of runoff and the surface pollutants carried with this stormwater have degraded not only the two tributaries that flow from Radnor Township, the Little Darby and Ithan Creeks, but the entire watershed, and even contribute to the current water quality problems in the Delaware Estuary. The flooding impacts are the most severe in the main channel of the Darby Creek, and have enlarged the original flood plain throughout the system, as urbanization has covered the watershed during the past century.

Not so obvious is a solution that is affordable and fits within the long term planning of the community. The stream system draining through the Township is an important natural resource and warrants protection. The more obvious impacts center on localized flooding within low lying portions of the community, where homes have been situated too close to drainage pathways or where flood plains have increased in dimension with increasing runoff. In some areas, buried culverts completely eliminate any trace of a natural flood plain. The pollution carried with stormwater runoff is also a concern, as waterways are degraded downstream and habitats diminished. Most residents recognize the values that clean streams provide and the network of open space lands that bring quality to each neighborhood, but few associate stormwater runoff with degradation in these streams. The portion of the Township along Route 30 has experienced the greatest amount of impervious development in recent years, with some areas exceeding 60%. The rooftops, roadways and parking lots that now cover the land resulted in the removal of most of the original woodland. The lands downstream from this development have been the hardest hit portions of the Township, and alterations to the stream channels made a century ago now create constrained flow pathways for the increasing volume of stormwater. The area surrounding the community of Wayne reflects these conditions and stormwater problems, and presents limited opportunities to mitigate the impacts. Within a 210-acre portion of the headwaters of Ithan Creek, so much of the watershed has been paved over that even the smallest rainfalls produce local flooding, and major storms result in small lakes in every possible low point in the drainage area. One of the major low points is the RMS (Figure 1), situated along and over the original natural stream channel, now conveyed in a brick arch culvert for several blocks through the community. In many ways, this flooding (Figure 2) replaces the natural flood plain of the stream, which would have served as a location for temporary storage of runoff in the watershed. That floodplain has been filled in and buried during the land development process over the past century, and cannot easily be recovered or restored. Where small lakes existed a century ago, homes now occupy the surface, and cannot be removed. Midland Avenue, east of the RMS site, is one specific example of this situation, and the resultant flooding occurs because the natural riparian channel is gone.

Figure 1. The Radnor Middle School (c. 2005)

Figure 2. Flooding in the School playfield

Radnor Middle School Throughout the 210-acre study drainage area, little open area remains, even along the original stream flow pathways as floodplain. The single largest open land is a 10-acre (+/-) parcel located at what had been the natural confluence of two small headwater drainage elements, which forms a tributary of Ithan Creek. This parcel has been occupied by school-related structures since the late 1800s, and currently is the site of the RMS. The main school building was built in the late 1920s around a pre-existing school structure. As the school building foundation was expanded, it was built over one of two small drainage swales (Figure 3), with the primary channel enclosed in a brick arch culvert directly adjacent to the building, probably built previously. The construction used a relatively small (15 diameter) pipe to convey drainage from the northern, highly impervious 67 acres to the larger stream (fed by the predominantly residential 113 acres), which had been previously enclosed in a brick arch culvert, presumably in the late 19th century (Figure 4). In the decades following the expansion of the main school building, the storm sewer beneath the main building created a constant problem for the building, with basement dampness and flooding a perpetual nuisance. After various attempts to manage this problem, as flows greatly increased from the largely impervious Route 30 corridor, the decision was made to construct a new school building on the same parcel, but to avoid and prevent any impact from the contributing drainage area. At the same time, a regional solution would be formulated to reduce the stormwater volume and pollutant transport from the full drainage area, utilizing the School land to the greatest extent possible.

Figure 3. Buried drainage elements at the RMS

Figure 4. Brick arch culvert at the RMS

Goals A large stream or river system begins in hundreds (or thousands) of locations, as stored groundwater is discharged from springs or seeps along the tiny surface channels where natural erosion processes and bedrock have sculpted the land surface. In the Piedmont physiographic

region of which the Ithan Creek is a small part, a drainage area of 400 to 500 acres is usually required before the flow in small drainage areas is sufficient to produce a constant discharge as a first order perennial stream. The Stormwater Management Program outlined here is focused on a catchment of only 210 acres, and prior to development probably resulted in an intermittent stream flow, although the current discharge is that of a first order stream. The natural drainage from this catchment can best be understood by examining the stream system as it existed in the late 1880s, as shown in Figure 5, with two man-made lakes in the channel directly below the current RMS parcel. As a study area, it also offers the opportunity to apply many of the stormwater management solutions currently considered as Best Management Practices in the State of Pennsylvania (PADEP, 2005).

Figure 5. Study Area stream system, circa 1892 The Program outlined in this report centers on three basic concepts: create new storage space for the lost flood plain along the creek, reduce and slow the volume of runoff in the upper watershed through various stormwater measures, and increase the infiltration of rainfall throughout the drainage area, especially on the higher ground, where greater opportunities exist. Some of these parcels have been identified and measures taken to allow rainfall to soak into the soil mantle beneath previously impervious surfaces, but a broad-based effort that is applied to every parcel of land, from the commercial developments along Route30 to the residential parcels in much of the drainage area, must be implemented. Without reducing the increase in runoff volume caused by our built community, no amount of flood plain storage will totally restore the natural hydrology and water balance of this area, or any other similar portion of the Township, or for that matter the entire Darby Creek watershed. Much of the analysis in this report is concerned with optimizing the available open lands at the RMS parcel, and extensive use has been made of hydraulic computer models to be sure that the benefits of flood impact reduction warrant the public investment.

As in so many situations, the critical question is how best to invest our wealth in the restoration of our community, and what actions have the greatest cost-benefit. Because of the timing and availability of the RMS site as a location for mitigation measures, that part of the program has received the greatest attention and most of the currently available funding, but it is only a part of the program and long-term solution. Without significant efforts to reduce runoff volume throughout the drainage area, downstream flooding will only increase over time. This Program had several specific Goals. They were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eliminate or reduce flooding on South Wayne Avenue (west side of the RMS) Eliminate or reduce flooding on the RMS playfields Reduce flooding on Midland Avenue (east side of the RMS) Reduce all downstream impacts from flooding, pollution, and erosion Reduce NPS pollutant load downstream and enhance aquifer recharge

As the study progressed, these Goals evolved and reflected the findings of the analysis. Existing Drainage Conditions in the Study Area Figure 6 illustrates the drainage boundary and current land cover conditions within the 210-acre Study Area. The Study Area is essentially comprised of two large catchments (Figure 24): the northern area, which is 67 acres of highly impervious (64%) land along the Route 30 corridor (downtown Wayne), and the larger southern area, which is 113 acres of less developed, residential cover (36% impervious). Combined, these two areas account for 180 acres of runoffproducing area culminating at the west side of the existing RMS parcel. The balance of the 210acre Wayne Study Area consists of 30 acres from both the north and south, which drain to a point at the eastern end of the school parcel.

Figure 6. Land cover of Study Area From a hydrologic/hydraulic perspective, the Study Area currently suffers from both a marked lack of stormwater management systems and an inadequate runoff conveyance system of subsurface drainage. Even during small storm events, such as the 1-year storm of 2.5 inches, flooding has been a continual nuisance in much of the Study Area, especially along Route 30, South Wayne Ave, and at the RMS. A number of field investigations were performed to document the shortcomings of the current system, including an engineering survey of key inlets and pipes and a detailed review of archived engineering plans for the various small-scale runoff mitigation projects throughout the Study Area. The Radnor GIS database was supplemented with this data, and detailed hydrologic/hydraulic modeling performed, as discussed below. It is clear that multiple flow constraints exist in the piping network and that these bottlenecks are the direct cause for most of the surcharges in the Study Area. These flow constraints occur where a larger diameter pipe flows into a smaller diameter pipe that does not have sufficient capacity and thus surcharges the inlet. There are at least three major bottlenecks in the Study Area, though more may exist. The most egregious example is found near the intersection of South Wayne and West Wayne Avenues, where a 30dia. pipe drains to a 24dia. pipe, which in turn drains to a 15dia. pipe. Due to this and other several other bottlenecks, flooding plagues much of the Study Area, with some areas naturally worse off than others. On South Wayne Ave, for instance, runoff from Route 30 combines with surcharged flows (due to bottlenecks) and ponds at the low point, which is directly in front of the RMS. At the low point, significant surficial ponding occurs due to the sheer volume of runoff from the contributing 180 acres, as

well as the presence of three old-fashioned (and inefficient) curb inlets that directly drain to a brick arch culvert (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Flooding on South Wayne Ave (7/11/07) (Photo courtesy of Sam Strike, Wayne Suburban) Hydrologic/Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis of Study Area In order to design the most efficient mitigation effort, a hydrologic model was used to estimate the quantity and timing of runoff from the watershed. A hydrologic (rainfall and runoff) and hydraulic (surface and pipe flow) computer model that simulates drainage conditions within the 210-acre Study Area was developed, incorporating the best available information from sources such as Township-archived engineering plans, the Township G.I.S. database, a survey of selected inlets and pipes, and multiple field investigations. Although critical information was sometimes lacking and/or inconsistent, especially regarding plumbing connections, the various drainage system elements were integrated as completely as possible. In its analysis of the Study Area, Cahill employed the EPAs Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which is a comprehensive computer model for investigation of quantity and quality problems associated with urban runoff, where much of the runoff is conveyed in sub-surface pipes, rather than surface runoff. To develop the model and to more accurately quantify the stormwater problem in Wayne, a greater level of information about the contributing land cover and infrastructure was needed. Once the more detailed information described above was gathered, the two catchments were each broken down (delineated) into six smaller sub-basins (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Study Area major drainage elements

Culvert Field Data Staff engineers from Cahill also studied the existing brick arch culvert that lies beneath the school field and traversed the entire culvert length through the RMS site and beneath the sidewalk of Midland in the block below. As they proceeded, they documented changes in geometry, construction material, and stream bottom condition (smooth, natural, signs of sedimentation, etc.). As shown in Figure 4 above, the arch culvert varies in width and height. There is even a 115-ft stretch in which it becomes a concrete rectangular culvert. (This length of culvert actually runs below the southeast corner of the existing RMS.) The terminus of the culvert field investigation, as well as the SWMM modeling of the culvert, is approximately 860 feet to the east of the school parcel on Midland Ave, just before the culvert heads under St. Katharine of Siena School. All in all, approximately 1,510 feet of the culvert were analyzed in the model. Hydrologic Analysis Once the SWMM model was constructed, it was run to simulate a variety of rainfall events, specifically the 1-inch, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year, 24-hour design storms. Although no actual stream or culvert flow data was available by which to calibrate the model, the input parameters were adjusted based on anecdotal evidence, historic flood photographs, and engineering judgment. This was an iterative process, as the parameters were continually adjusted until the model results approximated the observed drainage conditions in the Study Area. The adjusted model quantifies what was previously suspected about the conveyance inadequacies and bottlenecks of the system. While the model was run for a variety of rainfall events, the 2-year, 24-hour design storm (3.55 inches) was considered as the primary focus for this analysis since it accounts for around 95% of the total annual rainfall in this region. Thus, from a practical management standpoint, mitigating quantity and quality impacts from the 2-year storm, as opposed to larger, less-frequent events like the 100-year storm, is more informative. By focusing on this design storm for existing drainage conditions, various stormwater best management practices could be adequately sized for significant quantity and quality improvements. The major disadvantage of creating a synthetic rainfall record is that the assumptions used tend to greatly exaggerate the peak rate of runoff, based on the assumed intensity of rainfall during the mid-point of the storm. From a design perspective, this would give values of runoff peak rates that are seldom experienced in actual storms, and the net result would be the over-sizing of structures such as pipes, culverts and bridges. For this model application, however, the objective is to approximate reality, and so all of the rate estimates should be considered as greater than would actually be experienced. For comparison, an actual rainfall record covering a three-year period was applied in the model, to consider the long-term performance of the system. This rainfall record covered a dry, wet and average year in terms of total rainfall amount, and included several major storm events, including several equal to or greater than the two-year design storm, both in total volume and intensity.

Predicted Culvert Flooding The stormwater runoff that is produced within the 210-acre drainage area is controlled by the brick arch culvert, which limits the rate at which this runoff, no matter the volume, discharges downstream. The flow is limited by the size of the culvert and the slope of the ground, which provides the energy to convey runoff. When the water level rises in the field (i.e. field floods), it increases the energy gradient or head on the culvert, but only slightly. When the water level reaches a certain elevation, the excess water flows down Midland in the gutters to the open culvert below St. Katherines School. But there is little evidence that this has actually occurred in recent memory, and so the storage of excess runoff in the playfields and above the school on South Wayne Avenue has provided sufficient capacity to hold runoff until it can be released through the culvert. The computer model analysis indicates that this overflow will occur even after the increased storage capacity is provided in the proposed system (described below), but with far less frequency. Again, the analysis is mostly based on spiky synthetic storms (with artificially high peaks). The model results confirmed much of the anecdotal evidence about the problematic drainage conditions in the Study Area. Many of the modeled inlets surcharged, or overtopped, during the 2-year, 24-hour storm, as well as the smaller 1-inch rainfall event. Also as anticipated, significant surcharging occurred in the model at the various bottlenecks alluded to above, with flooding at the low point on South Wayne Ave (start of the brick arch culvert) and within the playfield at the RMS. The modeled surcharge (flooding) volume on South Wayne Ave was some 2.96 ac-ft, while that on the playfield amounted to 3.39 ac-ft, with a total surcharge volume at or above the RMS of 6.35 ac-ft. Anecdotal evidence and engineering judgment had previously predicted anywhere from 4 to 6 ac-ft of surface flooding in these areas. Thus, the model parameters were considered to be adequately adjusted, perhaps even conservatively so, and various design options of both storage and outlet control were evaluated.

Floodplain Storage, Groundwater Recharge and Runoff Quality at the RMS Parcel The stormwater management design challenge at the RMS site was to optimize soil infiltration to the greatest extent possible in order to reduce the volume of runoff, to replace (or restore) temporary floodplain storage (mostly beneath the finished field surface), and build a surface of playfields that will serve the needs of the school and community. Within the existing building foundation no infiltration was possible, nor would the deeper soils adjacent to the stream culvert infiltrate to any degree, but the area reserved for the geothermal field and the aggregate beds beneath school parking bays were expected to infiltrate reasonably well. All subsurface beds were designed to allow total exfiltration from the storage media, so that any possible volume reduction would be achieved. While this approach would be effective during dry weather conditions, when the water table is depressed below normal elevations, it would most likely not be very effective, at least for the lower beds, during wet weather and times of severe flood. The existing soil underlying the RMS playfields has been disturbed and filled over the years, and the measured rate of infiltration is greatest on the higher (northern) ground. This is the location planned for the construction of the geothermal energy field, comprised of some 150 wells, each 500 feet deep, with the wells capped at a grade several feet below the finished surface and a maze of plastic tubing connected in a manifold system to the heat exchanger located in the new

10

school building south of the stream culvert. It was anticipated that after this energy field was constructed, the sub-grade would offer an opportunity for infiltration, and so the storage bed would be extended over the capped wells. A number of stormwater management measures were designed for the new RMS (Figure 9) in order to significantly offset potential runoff impacts from the building program and related impervious surfaces (Table 1). But they would have little to no effect on the existing runoff impacts produced in the 210-acre Study Area. (For more information about the stormwater measures associated with the new RMS, see below.) The construction of new inlets on South Wayne Ave in front of the school was expected to greatly reduce the current flooding, but only if the excess runoff could be held in the proposed storage beds downstream, including the existing building basement. Elevating the playfields to a higher elevation would prevent any ponding on the fields, but would also eliminate a significant opportunity to hold excess runoff during severe storms. The playfields and the foundation of the existing RMS on the north side of the parcel offer the only locations for mitigation measures that would reduce the runoff impacts from the contributing drainage area. It was hoped that these measures would achieve the following design objectives: 1. Temporarily hold a major portion of increased runoff from the contributing watershed (for up to the 2-year storm, if possible), 2. Restore the storage capacity that the original floodplain once provided, and surrounding the RMS

11

Geothermal Energy Field

Existing RMS Basement

Playfield Porous Pavement (typical)

Vegetated Groundwater Recharge Bed

Recharge Garden

Figure 9. Stormwater management measures at the RMS Table 1. Summary of Stormwater Management Associated Only with the New RMS Building
Measure Type Area (sf) Porous Pavement / Infiltration Bed #1 Porous Pavement / Infiltration Bed #2 Porous Pavement / Infiltration Bed #3 Vegetated Roof Rain Garden Equivalent Storage Volume Provided (cf/sf) Net Storage Volume (cf)

11110

0.80

8888

7,380

0.80

5904

12,990 20,000 1,650

0.80 0.13 0.50

10392 2500 825

TOTAL STORAGE PROVIDED : 2-YR VOLUME INCREASE (Pre to Post):

27684 15792

12

The flooding in the vicinity of the RMS has been a major problem for many years, and both the Township and School District hope to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the frequency of flooding conditions on South Wayne Ave. Thus, it was determined that a subsurface storage system was required to provide temporary flood storage and floodplain restoration. The proposed system would underlie the playfields and be installed in the basement space of the existing building, with storage extending over the geothermal energy field on the upper portion of the playfield. This would allow some measure of groundwater recharge in the field area where the water table is several feet below the storage zone under most conditions (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Cross-section through stormwater storage/groundwater recharge elements (playfield and geothermal energy field) Of course, it was recognized that any stormwater system at the school site has limited storage capacity, and especially limited infiltration capacity, even when opportunities are maximized. Thus, even the most effectively designed system here will only do so much to alleviate current flooding conditions, while doing even less to reduce the volume of flows from the Study Area. The real solution to volume lies upstream within the watershed, a good example being the porous parking lot at the Strafford Office complex. In addition to some programmatic and construction timing conflicts, there are several physical limitations on the storage depth of the proposed system. The deepest that any storage system should be constructed in this location is at elevation 363.00, one foot above the stream bottom and assumed water table elevation. This conclusion was based on records of groundwater elevation obtained from multiple borings and deep pit excavations, undertaken at different times of the year. A system any deeper than elevation 363.00 would likely fill up from groundwater, and have water continuously ponding in the bottom. There is also an upper limit of temporary runoff storage at or around elevation 371.30. This upper limit is the low point on Louella Ave, the east boundary of the RMS site. One of the greatest concerns with utilizing underground flood storage systems is keeping them clean of debris and sediment throughout their lifetime. For this reason, several manufactured water quality devices were considered for pre-treatment of the first flush. After researching and comparing the various available options on the market, the inline stormwater treatment system manufactured and sold by CDS Technologies was selected. The CDS inline device is a

13

single unit that treats runoff by creating a vortex that separates and directs suspended and fine sediments to the center of the unit for eventual settling in the sump. A separation screen further filters runoff as it passes through, while the vortex action ensures it does not get clogged in the process. Analysis of Various Storage Options Following the initial model analysis of pipe flow in the existing drainage network, and the identification of potential points of overflow, the analysis focused on the school playfields and the design of the storage beds. The primary focus of this next stage of hydrologic modeling was the capacity and type of media to be used in the sub-surface groundwater recharge/detention bed system. As the comparison proceeded, the possibility of re-grading the playfields to allow additional surface storage was considered, and so several options included both sub-surface and surface storage. Seven different storage design options were then considered in this analysis, with significant variability in storage capacity, effectiveness, and installation cost. In the end however, both the Radnor School District and Township rejected surface storage, leaving only those four options with subsurface storage to be seriously considered. Different types of storage systems require different outlet designs in order to optimize the capacity, and so the impact on the overall system hydraulics also varies. The analyses varied the outlet designs in several options, all of which were fixed structures. With smaller bed capacity, the outlet was designed to allow initial runoff to pass quickly through the storage bed, so that the storage capacity is available at the time of peak runoff during the middle of the storm. The outlet design varied by size of low flow outlet, number of orifices, height of overflow weir and other combinations. The capacity of the various options was directly dependent upon the storage media, with uniformly-graded aggregate providing 40% void space and plastic modular units over 95% void space for every cubic foot of media volume. The following four subsurface storage options, in order of decreasing storage capacity, were analyzed in the final model: A. Modular Storage Units in the recharge bed (above geothermal area) and playfield, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the existing school basement; total estimated storage capacity 7.34 ac-ft, B. Modular Storage Units only in the playfield, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the recharge bed and basement; total estimate storage capacity 6.29 ac-ft, C. Modular Storage Units only in the recharge bed, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the playfield and basement; total estimated storage capacity 5.14 ac-ft D. Uniformly Graded Aggregate in all storage elements; total estimated storage capacity 4.09 ac-ft Analysis of Various Storage Options Following the initial model analysis of pipe flow in the existing drainage network, and the identification of potential points of overflow, the analysis focused on the school playfields and the design of the storage beds. The primary focus of this next stage of hydrologic modeling was the capacity and type of media to be used in the sub-surface groundwater recharge/detention bed system. As the comparison proceeded, the possibility of re-grading the playfields to allow

14

additional surface storage was considered, and so several options included both sub-surface and surface storage. Seven different storage design options were then considered in this analysis, with significant variability in storage capacity, effectiveness, and installation cost. In the end however, both the Radnor School District and Township rejected the possibility of surface storage, leaving only those four options with subsurface storage to be seriously considered. Different types of storage systems require different outlet designs in order to optimize the capacity, and so the impact on the overall system hydraulics also varies. The analyses varied the outlet designs in several options, all of which were fixed structures. With smaller bed capacity, the outlet was designed to allow initial runoff to pass quickly through the storage bed, so the necessary storage capacity was available at the time of peak runoff during the middle of the storm. The outlet design varied by size of low flow outlet, number of orifices, height of overflow weir and various combinations of these factors. The capacity of the various options was directly dependent upon the storage media, with uniformly-graded aggregate providing some 40% void space and plastic modular units over 95% void space for every cubic foot of media volume. The following four subsurface storage options, in order of decreasing storage capacity, were analyzed in the final model: E. Modular Storage Units in the recharge bed (above geothermal area) and playfield, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the existing school basement; total estimated storage capacity 7.34 ac-ft, F. Modular Storage Units only in the playfield, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the recharge bed and basement; total estimate storage capacity 6.29 ac-ft, G. Modular Storage Units only in the recharge bed, Uniformly Graded Aggregate in the playfield and basement; total estimated storage capacity 5.14 ac-ft H. Uniformly Graded Aggregate in all storage elements; total estimated storage capacity 4.09 ac-ft In all four cases, the storage areas of the site consist of 0.69 acres of playfield area (from elevation 363.00 to 368.71), 1.27 acres of the geothermal area (from elevation 368.25 to 370.75), and 0.84 acres of the existing school basement (from elevation 363.00 to 368.71, with deeper areas (below 363.00 in the basement) to be filled with construction debris or other suitable fill material. The challenge of the modeling analysis was to determine how each design option would perform during the 2-year, 24-hour design storm, specifically in reducing surface flooding in and around the RMS site and providing attenuation of peak rates (if possible) in the brick arch culvert. Each design option was configured to make maximum use of the geometric opportunities of the site, limited as they are by groundwater elevation, topography, the geothermal energy system, the new school building, and surrounding development (both existing and proposed). Table 2 summarizes the modeled 2-year surface flood volumes in the vicinity of the RMS and compares them to the volumes predicted for existing conditions. (Recall that the theoretical 2-year precipitation pattern tends to exaggerate the extreme peak rate. Nonetheless, it is used here as the primary basis for design for the various reasons discussed earlier.)

15

Table 2. Comparison of Flood Volumes for the 2-year Storm

Drainage Condition Existing Conditions Playfield Storage Components Approximate Flooding in Vicinity of Total Storage Capacity (ac- Radnor Middle School (ac-ft) ft) % Reduction from Existing Conditions

---

---

3.33

---

Modular Storage Units Modular Storage Units in Playfield and Aggregate in Recharge Bed

7.34

0.26

92%

6.29

0.31

91%

Aggregate in Playfield and Modular Storage Units in Recharge Bed

5.14

1.18

65%

Aggregate

4.09

1.69

49%

(Note: Vicinity of Radnor Middle School includes the school site and South Wayne Ave; all options included aggregate in the existing school basement) It is generally apparent from Table 2 that the greater the storage capacity of the system, the greater the reduction in surface flood volumes, though it bears mentioning that no option entirely eliminated surface flooding. For example, in the case of option A (modular storage in playfield and recharge bed), which has the greatest storage capacity of the four options, the flooding in the vicinity of the RMS was reduced by 92%. Compare this with option D (all aggregate), which has the least amount of storage capacity, in which the flooding was reduced by 49%. It should also be noted that for the 2-year storm, under existing conditions, the model predicted no flooding on Midland Ave, which is located below the RMS site to the east. According to the model, it takes a 5-year storm, or greater, to cause flooding on Midland Ave. As would be expected, the model predicts that for a 5-year storm, the various storage options reduce, to various degrees, the surface flooding on Midland Ave, as well as the vicinity of the RMS, though to lesser extents than for the 2-year storm. Table 3 summarizes the modeled 2-year peak rates in the culvert under Midland Ave and compares them against the peak rates predicted for existing conditions. Of the four modeled design options, only option A reduced the peak rate in the culvert, but only by a nominal 2.8%. For the other three options, the model actually predicted a slight increase in the culvert peak rates. However, the modeled increases were so slight that they can probably be considered within the limits of the model and ignored. It should be noted that for options B, C, and D, the culvert has reached its hydraulic capacity of 150.7 cfs. (Under existing conditions, it takes a 5-year storm, or greater, to cause the culvert to flow full, according to the model.) It can be concluded then that no appreciable decrease in the culvert peak rate is possible with subsurface storage at the RMS, even when storage opportunities are maximized.

16

Table 3. Comparison of Peak Rates for the 2-year Storm

Analyzed Condition Existing Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate (in Mil $$$) --2-year Peak Rate (cfs) 146.0 % Reduction in Peak Rate ---

$2.60

141.9

2.80%

B C D

$2.28 $1.72 $1.40

150.7 150.7 150.7

nominal increase (within limits of model accuracy) " "

Cost/Benefit Comparison In Table 4 below, the order of magnitude cost estimates of the four options are compared against one another, with option A proving the most expensive and option D the least expensive. In the way of a cost-benefit analysis, Table 4 presents this in two ways. The first method consists of a comparison of the ratios of cost estimate to the total storage capacity. The second method is somewhat more telling however, in that it consists of a comparison of the ratios of cost estimate to reduction in surface flood volume. This second method, presented in the last column of Table 4, is a much more significant measure of the modeled options capitol cost versus its effectiveness in reducing surface flooding. For example, while option B is the most expensive option compared to the total storage capacity, it is actually the least expensive option when compared against effectiveness. Table 4. Comparison of Costs
Analyzed Alternative# Playfield Storage Components Total Storage Capacity (ac-ft) Order of Magnitude Cost Cost (Mil $$$)/ Estimate Total Storage (in Mil $$$) Capacity Cost (Mil $$$)/ Reduced Flood Volume (2-year Storm)

Modular Storage Units

7.34

$2.60

$0.35

$0.85

Modular Storage Units in Playfield and Aggregate in Recharge Bed Aggregate in Playfield and Modular Storage Units in Recharge Bed

6.29

$2.28

$0.36

$0.75

5.14

$1.72

$0.33

$0.80

Aggregate

4.09

$1.40

$0.34

$0.85

17

After much debate, the Radnor Township Board of Supervisors eventually selected option C. This decision was ultimately based on cost and anticipated system performance. While not the most effective of the four modeled options, option C is nonetheless expected to reduce surface flooding by 65% for the 2-year storm and would be substantially less expensive than options A and B. Moreover, option C was considered more cost-effective than option D, which reduced flooding by only 49% and cost only slightly less than C. Option C, which includes modular storage units in the recharge bed and uniformly graded aggregate in the playfield and existing school basement, will be constructed in 2008 and is expected to greatly improve flooding conditions in the vicinity of the RMS. It should be noted once again that even with the maximum storage capacity at the RMS site, the volume of runoff generated by the 210-acre Study Area will not be reduced in any significant way. Nor will the nuisance surface flooding in the vicinity of the RMS be completely eliminated, as is apparent from Table 2. This only reinforces the need for a watershed-wide program of infiltration and evapotranspiration strategies, such as those proposed for the Wayne Business District and the backyard BMPs. Radnor Middle School (Open Fall 2007) As previously illustrated in Figure 9, stormwater management for the new RMS consisted of multiple porous asphalt parking lots with subsurface aggregate groundwater recharge beds, an aggregate groundwater recharge bed beneath lawn, a recharge garden, and a partial vegetated, or green, roof. The goals of the Middle School stormwater management plan included runoff volume reduction (above and beyond even the new Township Stormwater Ordinance), pollutant removal, and rate attenuation, as per the previous Township Ordinance. In addition to capturing direct rainfall, the ground-level systems will capture, hold, and infiltrate runoff conveyed from the impervious areas of the site by catch basins and pipes. During small, frequent storm events, water will be collected and infiltrated into the underlying soil mantle, preventing any significant discharge to the proposed underground storage system beneath the playfield and in the existing Middle School basement. During large storm events, the beds will provide both volume reduction and peak rate mitigation to meet the Township Ordinance. Overflow structures within the beds will allow for discharge at controlled rates during larger storm events, and all releases from the site will discharge to the sub-surface beds on the north side of the culvert, and not directly to the culvert. Thus, the overall system has been designed to prevent the new RMS site conditions from having any adverse effects on the watershed and neighboring properties in terms of rate, water quality, and volume. Many of the groundwater recharge beds will underlie porous bituminous asphalt (Figure 11). Porous asphalt is standard bituminous asphalt from which the last two grades of fines have been reduced, creating a fully permeable AC pavement that allows rainfall to drain through the pavement into the aggregate bed beneath, and thence into the soil mantle. Since the infiltration of the soil is slower than the pavement and rooftop inflows, the aggregate bed serves as a storage chamber, which fills up until the stored rainfall can soak in. Multiple surface inlets will assure continued infiltration in the unlikely event that the porous asphalt is adversely modified in the future (i.e. rendered impervious). The groundwater recharge beds will be lined with non-woven geo-textile and filled with washed coarse aggregate (AASHTO #3), which provides roughly 40% void space for stormwater storage. The beds will vary in depth, but always have a minimum

18

depth of 12. The bottoms of the beds will be uncompacted, undisturbed natural soils and will be graded level to promote uniform infiltration. The construction of the groundwater recharge beds is the most critical part of the system, and requires great care to assure that the bed bottoms are not compacted during site grading, which could compromise soil permeability. The vegetated roof system (Figure 12), designed to cover some 20,000 SF of the building, will provide significant stormwater mitigation. While it will retain at least one inch of rainfall from every storm, it will also provide detention storage for double that volume. That is, the overflow will be much delayed than any direct runoff from the surface, and should help to mitigate any increase in runoff rate downstream.

Figure 11. Porous asphalt at the RMS

Figure 12. Vegetated roof at the RMS

Final Recommendations (2008 and beyond) On the basis of the analysis described herein, the following final recommendations are made to Radnor Township: Construct a sub-surface storage and groundwater recharge bed beneath the new playfields at the RMS. Replace existing storm sewers that are severely undersized in the vicinity of South Wayne Avenue. This should greatly reduce local flooding within the drainage. Add pollutant removal systems in line prior to the groundwater recharge/storage beds. Infiltrate rainfall beneath new parking lot pavements, the geothermal energy field, and all suitable locations, especially upstream of the school site. Institute the construction of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on residential parcels to reduce runoff volume, with a cost-sharing incentive program by the Township. Construct infiltration BMPs along Route 30 as part of the Wayne Master Plan. Provide incentive and regulatory guidelines to developers and building owners.

19