Choose clean water 060414
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
70
On Slideshare
70
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Stormwater Trends Clean Water Optimiazation Tool David J. Hirschman Program Director Virginia Office djh@cwp.org
  • 2. We Work Here…..  National non-profit 501(c)3 organization  21 staff  Offices in MD, VA, NY, PA • Distill research into practical tools • Provide local watershed services • Train others to manage watersheds What we do
  • 3. djh@cwp.org
  • 4. Stormwater News & Gazette: Late Breaking Headlines!
  • 5. Job Duties: Counting Runoff Volume & Pollutant Loads Want Ads: Needed Immediately: Stormwater Accountants
  • 6. Stormwater Goes Quantitative MS4 Wasteload Allocations – TMDLs Pollutant Removal Rates for BMPs
  • 7. “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.” -Albert Einstein
  • 8. Stormwater part of obesity epidemic Diet Prescribed – Volume Must Be Reduced!
  • 9. Runoff Reduction Processes Runoff Reduction is not just infiltration!  Infiltration  Canopy Interception  Evaporation  Transpiration  Rainwater Harvesting  Extended Filtration Center for Watershed Protection
  • 10. State (and many local) Stormwater Performance Standards & Manuals are Changing*  D.C. – 1.2” on-site retention  DE – retain “resource protection event” (2.7”)  WV MS4 – retain runoff from 1” rainfall  MD – on-site retention using Environmental Site Design  Coastal GA – reduce runoff from 1.2” storm  WI – Infiltration standards  Others? *Replacing previous “treat & release” & 80% TSS standards
  • 11. Stormwater Style Goes Retro
  • 12. New BMPs vs. Retrofits (Shenandoah Valley MS4s  Average Cost-Effectiveness ($ per pound of Phosphorus Removed)  New Retrofits = $56,000  Retrofits/Conversions of Existing BMPs = $24,000 (some ½ of this)
  • 13. Sports: Contractors Roll Over Inspectors in BMP Installation Bowl Inspectors Fail to Show Up During Critical Match-Up
  • 14. Drainage Area Stabilized? Installed too early during construction; fouled with construction sediment Inlet blocked temporarily during bioretention installation
  • 15. Make Sure Water Gets In! Inlets blocked or small elevation change diverts flow from inlet Inlets unimpeded with pretreatment stone strip or inlet channel
  • 16. Style: Stormwater BMPs Go Shaggy Is Clean-Cut A Thing of the Past?
  • 17. Finance: Investors Rush to Purchase Stormwater Credits
  • 18. Stormwater/Pollutant Trading $ Pollutant Reductions Source: nrcs.usda.gov
  • 19. Impact Mitigation Perceived Impacts/Benefits Not Everyone Thinks It’s a Great Idea!
  • 20.  D.C. (up and coming)  MN – Capital Regional Watershed District  City of Fredericksburg, VA (policy stage)  Chesapeake Bay  Neuse River, NC  MD Critical Areas  Maine sensitive lakes Some Existing Off-Site Compliance/Trading Programs
  • 21. Clean Water Optimization Tool for Maryland’s Eastern Shore funded by Town Creek Foundation
  • 22. Clean Water Optimization Tool Overview The Center for Watershed, Inc. is developing a Clean Water Optimization Tool. • Municipalities can develop the lowest cost implementation strategy possible to meet the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and other local water quality goals • Use defaults from the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office and override options • Develop strategies to optimize by cost, pollutant, or user defined value
  • 23. Clean Water Optimization Tool Overview • Pilot areas on the Eastern Shore are Wicomico Co., Talbot Co., Kent Co., and Queen Anne’s Co. – Case studies • Robust communications strategy will guide widespread dissemination and help increase the credibility of the Bay restoration effort • Disseminate the Clean Water Optimization Tool – Website, newspaper, emails, etc.
  • 24. Clean Water Optimization Tool Background and Importance of This Work Cost for meeting WIP Targets are all over the place Source: MDE Nutrient Allocation Files (CBP Model 5.3.2.), MDE prepared 2010 Progress MAST loading decks, and the Core Planning Team Loading Decks Urban Sector Bar Graphs Representing TN and TP Loads for 2010 Progress, 2017 Interim Strategy and Target, and 2025 Final Strategy and Target.
  • 25. Clean Water Optimization Tool Background and Importance of This Work Innovative BMPs can substantially reduce costs Annual cost to remove equivalent annual TN load The cost-effectiveness of stormwater controls for nitrogen removal. Practice Type of practice Equivalent Annual cost ($/lb N/IC1 ac) Bag filter Structural $691 Bioretention (new, suburban) Structural $335-$6342,3 Wet pond (new) Structural $7334 Street sweeping Non-structural $1655 1 Based practice life expectancy of 10-years. 2 Costs for other practices based on King and Hagen (2011) over a 20-year period and an urban loading rate of 14.1 lb TN/acre. 3 Range represents a removal efficiency of 45% and 85% from Simpson and Weammert 2009. 4 20% removal efficiency for TN from Simpson and Weammert 2009 5 Berretta et al. 2011 expressed as lb N/year
  • 26. Illicit discharge elimination is a cost effective approach to nutrient management Common sense housekeeping practices can be extremely cost effective also
  • 27. 36 Urban Practices: • Pavement/Impervious Cover • Rooftop • Bioretention • Filtering/Infiltration • Channels • Ponds/Wetlands • Conservation/Enhancement • Land Use Change • Social/Programmatic • Also Includes cross-sector trading and user-defined options Clean Water Optimization Tool Cost BMPs
  • 28. Clean Water Optimization Tool Cost Cost Components • Initial Costs - design, construction, land costs • Operation and Maintenance – annual routine maintenance, intermittent maintenance, county implementation cost (inspection and enforcement) • Annualized life cycle costs are estimated as the annual bond payment required to finance the initial cost of the BMP (20- year bond at 3%) plus average annual routine and intermittent maintenance costs.
  • 29. Clean Water Optimization Tool Cost User-Adjusted Values User-Adjusted Input Default Land Cost per Developable Acre $100,000 % Project Acres Developable 50% # Years to Project Cost Estimate Over 20 County-Specific Cost Adjustment 0.97
  • 30. Clean Water Optimization Tool Cost • Additional BMP Benefits should be quantified: – Public Health/ Safety – Public Education – Recreation – Neighborhood Beautification – Urban Heat Island – Carbon Footprint – Wildlife Habitat – Stream Habitat – Flood Control
  • 31. Clean Water Optimization Tool Research – Pollutant Load and BMP effectiveness BMP Effectiveness Component – Structural practices based on Chesapeake Bay Program Expert Panel Recommendations – Land use changes – Programmatic practices are based on various sources • IDDE Expert Panel • Watershed Treatment Model (WTM) • Previous CWP publications, research, and experience
  • 32. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 1: Desktop Assessment/Informative Exercise – Use local knowledge – Accepted data sources • National • State • County • Town Field work in the South Prong, Wicomico County
  • 33. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 2: Entering Practical Estimates – Apply information gathered to selected/accepted BMPs • This will allow practical maximums to be set – Practical maximum amount of permeable pavement to be installed, for example – Apply local knowledge and practical experience • For example, sand filters may not be readily accepted by the community – This would limit installation of this particular practice
  • 34. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 3: Override Default Cost Values & Specify Programmatic Information – Enter information about local costs, if available • Important for realistic scenario development – Modify land cost, and length of time to project costs – Estimate parameters for programs • Quantity of Promotional and education materials for a pet waste program, for example
  • 35. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 4a: Enter Structural Practices Already Installed – These entries will count towards TMDL goals • For example, over an entire county there may be 20 acres treated by a bioretention, these can be aggregated and entered as one
  • 36. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 4b: Enter High Priority Practices – Enter information about high priority practices • Practices that are publicly accepted • Practices proven to be effective • High comfort level with installation/maintenance – These practices will be weighted heavier during optimization • Estimated costs will not be changed Outfall net in Talbot County
  • 37. Clean Water Optimization Tool Steps to Use the Tool • Step 5: Optimize – Select optimization goals • Based on cost per pound of nitrogen reduction • Based on cost per pound of phosphorus reduction • Based on cost per pound of sediment reduction • Based on a nitrogen and phosphorus weighting – 50/50 would equally weight optimization based on cost per pound of N AND cost per pound of P – Results will show pertinent information • Pounds reduced, if less than goals • Estimated cost • Number of acres requiring treatment for each practice to achieve total reductions
  • 38. Center for Watershed Protection Questions/Comments Sadie Drescher srd@cwp.org or sdrescher@chesapeakebay.net 410.461.8323 xt 215 or 410-267-5717 Bill Stack, P.E. bps@cwp.org or wstack@chesapeakebay.net 410.461.8323 xt 222 or 410-267-5717