integrating green infrastructure into water quality
Post on 27-Apr-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© 2014 HDR, all rights reserved.
Integrating Green Infrastructure into Water Quality Solutions: New York City and Beyond
This image cannot currently be displayed.
What Got Us Here, Won’t Get Us There.
First attempt to exercise influence
Water Pollution Control WPCA: 1948
Protecting ecological values and in-stream water uses
Water Quality Act WQA: 1965
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA: 1972) Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Construction Grand Amendments Water Quality Act
(WQA: 1987)
Legislative-Actions thru 70s and 80s
EPA regulates = somebody sues = courts overturn = EPA starts again
The Lawyers Retirement Act
Atlanta one of the first consent decree cities Georgia EPD fined the city
$19 million
Enforcement Action Becomes “The Heavy”
Plan approved July 2001 $2.7+ billion program
Atlanta CSO Program . . . Then
$3.2 billion in debt Debt service 40 percent of
the department’s annual budget Rates highest in the
country 250 percent in a decade
Affordability Alters Atlanta’s CSO Program
Atlanta CSO Program . . . Now
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash approved the City’s request to push out deadlines on some remaining work to 2027. 1 Percent Sales Tax Generates
About $100 Million A Year More opportunities to implement
sustainable projects o Envison® verification in process for
for Historic Fourth Ward Park
Water Quality Regulatory Cycle
Water Quality
Standards
Total Maximum
Daily Loads
Prevent Impairment &
Antidegradation Impairment
Determination Water Quality &
Biologic Monitoring
NPDES Permit Requirements
Technology Standards
Key USEPA Integrated Planning Policies
“Achieving Water Quality Through Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Plans” • October 2011
“Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework” • June 2012
“Assessing Financial Capability for Municipal Clean Water Act Requirements” • January 2013
“Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning - Frequently Asked Questions” • July 2013
USEPA Overarching Principles
Maintain existing regulatory
standards that protect public health & water
quality
Balance CWA requirements in a
way that addresses the most pressing
health & environmental
issues first
Responsibility to develop an
integrated plan rests with the municipality
Innovative technologies are
important tools…& may be
fundamental aspects of
integrated solutions
Addresses combined and separate
storm sewer overflows as pollutant sources
Provides for a watershed based approach
Identifies regional and urban strategies Allows for hybrid approaches More cost-effective than gray?
Depends. Community co-benefits? Maybe. New opportunities? Yes!
Why Green Infrastructure?
Sanitation District No. 1 of Northern KY
Drivers o Combined Sewer Overflows o Sanitary Sewer Overflows o Flooding o Stream Degradation
Solution o Watershed-based Approach o Pollution Sources beyond Sewer
Overflows
Iterative Assessment Process o Investigate new technologies o Evaluate/update based on Initial 5 years
Boone County, 1995 (top) and Today (bottom)
Terraced Reforestation/ St. Elizabeth Detention Basin Retrofit
CSO reduced by 3.1 million gallons annually
$0.39/gal volume reduction vs $0.50/gal for typical gray infrastructure
Total cost was $1.39M SD1 received an ARRA loan of $834,200;
52% of loan does not have to be repaid by the Northern Kentucky community
Ratepayers saved $434,600 Final project cost assumed by SD1 was
$951,800
Banklick Creek Wetland & Taylor Site
Projected water quality improvements: 88% reduction recreation season
geometric mean for fecal coliform 50 more days of compliance with
recreation season single sample max
Total cost was $2.5M SD1 received an ARRA loan of $1.37M;
52% of loan does not have to be repaid by the Northern Kentucky community
Ratepayers saved $ 714,600 Final project cost assumed by SD1 was
$1.8M
Criteria Difference
Days of attainment 96 versus 63 (52% more)
% Reduction in bacteria loads 51% versus 47%
% Reduction in nutrient loads 9% versus 2%
Stream miles improved 148 miles versus 64 miles
Integrated Plan Benefits versus Traditional Plan
Co-benefits to Track An Educational Tool for Many Audiences
Co-Benefit Indicators Affected Populations within Cleveland’s Neighborhoods Pedestrian Connections
within a 5-minute Walk to GI Feature Site
Neighborhood scale
Union GI Project
GI Project by Project Comparison Environmental Justice Populations in Surrounding Community
Integration in the Community Stakeholder Interview Responses Embraced the concept of stormwater
management and found ways to incorporate into future development
Collaborations with the District have been successful; desire to partner on future projects
Hope that GI projects will result in jobs within the community and economic growth from within
Neighborhood beautification is a positive for future development in the area
Co-benefits in the Short-Term, Adaptive Management for the Long-Term NYC Consent Order Milestones for Green Infrastructure (2012) requires
8,000 impervious acres to be managed by 2030
Co-benefits & Adaptive Management
Construction of “Gray” Project
NYC GI Monitoring Program (Site Scale)
City-Owned Sites • Right-of-Ways • Agency Buildings and
Parking Lots • Public Housing • City Parks • Public Schools
Monitoring Approach Inflow and outflow measured
with remote monitoring equipment.
Soil moisture and ponding levels measured.
Performance at regular intervals, typically five minutes.
Site visits critical
Rain gauges or weather stations at most locations
Calibrate, calibrate, calibrate!
Rain Gardens at Public Housing Complex Pilot in the Bronx with bedrock
and space constraints
Bio 1 - 7:1 Bio 2 - 6:1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0625 0.25 1 4
Volu
me
Ret
aine
d
Effective Storm Depth (in)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0625 0.25 1 4
V
olum
e R
etai
ned
Effective Storm Depth (in)
Rain Gardens Performance: Volume Retained
ROW Bioswale Design
A simple, passive system to achieve stormwater management requirements in the ROW
ROW Bioswales Performance: Volume Retained
Right of bioswales with pretreatment systems built in to collect trash & debris, minimize O&M
Improved ROW Bioswale Designs
Bump out design and modified inlet
Improved ROW Bioswale Designs
Connected inlets to capture more drainage area
Improved ROW Bioswale Designs
Bioretention cell constructed to drain bridge surface Pittsburgh to
demonstrate similar concept as part of Liberty Ave Bridge project
Other ROW Applications
Photo courtesy of dlandstudio.
Bus rapid transit projects in NY constructed bioswales behind bus shelters Overflow piped to street
Other ROW Applications
NYC GI Monitoring Program (Neighborhood Scale)
Monitoring for Long-Term Success NYC In-sewer Monitoring of Runoff Reduction from Demonstration Areas (2015)
48%
53%
38% 34%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<1"
>1"
Volu
met
ric R
unof
f Coe
ffic
ient
(Cv)
Storm Depth Range (in)
Pre-GI Post-GI
Source: NYCDEP
Different Cities, Different Approaches
Different Cities, Different Approaches
Regional Storage/
Detention Community
Spaces Pocket Parks Streetscapes Public & Private
Development Lots
Timing is Everything!
Spectrum of Approaches
• Build in time upfront to develop program • Sequence to capture low hanging fruit • Aggregate benefits to achieve target • Monitor performance and O&M! • Invest now or later?
There will be costs along with benefits…
Photo courtesy of NYCDEP
A different way of thinking….
• Adaptive systems work • Manage cross solutions • View systems holistically • Water fit for purpose • Doing more with less • Involve all players • Innovative technologies • Maximizing benefits • Security through diversity
© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, all rights reserved.
The Path to Lowest Cost CWA Compliance
Balanced
Prioritized
Affordable
Implementable
top related