Onondaga County’s 2010 PorousPavement ProjectsMeeting Stormwater Goals while Managing Costs                               ...
www.SaveTheRain.us     Dan Wible, P.E., LEED AP     Senior Project Engineer
Presentation Outline• Case Studies:  • City Lot #21 (formerly the “Farmer’s Market    Lot”  • City Lot #3  • Pearl Street ...
Parking Lot #21   (Formerly “Farmer’s Market Lot”)
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Lea...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components:   • 5,000sf infiltration system      • T...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components:   • Impervious area managed: 26,250sf   ...
Parking Lot #21     (Formerly “Farmer’s Market Lot”)                                    After      BeforeCSO Area: Clinton
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Les...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Total Project Cost: $188,046 • Total Estimated CSO Reductio...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Les...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Stormwater Details and Specifications  • Concrete structures...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Trees and Plantings  • Temporary maintenance: emphasize/enfo...
Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the “Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Subsurface Materials  • Infiltration bed stone availability...
Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • Design Assumptions / Guidelines:   • Static storage of fi...
Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • More Design Assumptions / Guidelines:   • Dewater within ...
Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • More Design Assumptions / Guidelines:   • Setbacks:      ...
City Parking Lot #3
Lot #3             Porous Concrete Captures over 700,000 gallons of stormwater annually         CSO Area: Erie Blvd
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components:   • 8,380sf infiltration system      • Tree trench with 36” of CU-Structural ...
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components:   • Impervious area managed: 38,507sf   • Infiltration area: 8,380sf (loading...
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Total Project Cost: $239,102 • Total Estimated CSO Reduction: 625,000 gal • Cost per CSO Reducti...
Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: City Lot #3• Stormwater Details and Specifications  • Inlet restoration – check if necessary• Porous Concrete ...
Pearl Street Parking Lot
Pearl Street Parking Lot   CSO Area: Franklin FCF
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot• Design Components:  • 25,300sf infiltration system     • Porous asphalt (1.5”) on 3” of asph...
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components:   • Impervious area managed: 73,172sf   • Infiltration area: 25,300sf (l...
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Total Project Cost: $396,772 • Total Estimated CSO Reduction: 915,000 gal • Cost per CSO Re...
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Subsurface Utility Location – coordinate with   utilities early; lack of response or delaye...
Creekwalk
Creekwalk
Revisit Winter 2011: Pearl Street
Revisit Winter 2011: Pearl Street
Revisit Winter 2011: Lot 3
Winter Revisit Notes • Pearl Street porous pavement performing well,   particularly vs. standard pavement, but is   being ...
Go Nova!Thank You!             Questions?         Please Visit:      www.SaveTheRain.us                                   ...
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs

2,860 views
2,720 views

Published on

Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflows. Dan Wible, CH2M Hill (presented March 17, 2011)

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,860
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,805
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Using Porous Pavements and Other Green Technologies to Reduce Urban Runoff & CSOs

  1. 1. Onondaga County’s 2010 PorousPavement ProjectsMeeting Stormwater Goals while Managing Costs March 17, 2011 Joanne M. Mahoney, County Executive
  2. 2. www.SaveTheRain.us Dan Wible, P.E., LEED AP Senior Project Engineer
  3. 3. Presentation Outline• Case Studies: • City Lot #21 (formerly the “Farmer’s Market Lot” • City Lot #3 • Pearl Street Lot (DOT) • Creekwalk• Case Study Topics: • Design Components / Goals • Pre/Post-Construction Photos • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  4. 4. Parking Lot #21 (Formerly “Farmer’s Market Lot”)
  5. 5. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  6. 6. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components: • 5,000sf infiltration system • Tree trench (2,000sf) with porous pavers and 36” of CU-Structural Soil • Aggregate infiltration bed under standard asphalt (31” deep) • Inlet filter inserts • Entire lot repaved (standard asphalt) and restriped (6 more spaces) • Two outlet control structures with weirs (connection to existing storm sewer) • Infiltration testing yielded a rate of 20 in/hr
  7. 7. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components: • Impervious area managed: 26,250sf • Infiltration area: 5,000sf (loading ratio of 5.3:1) • Runoff capture goal (1”): 2,190cf • 6 new trees • Total soil: 6,000cf (1,000cf per tree) • Total static storage capacity: 4,200cf (equates to around 2.1” of runoff capture)
  8. 8. Parking Lot #21 (Formerly “Farmer’s Market Lot”) After BeforeCSO Area: Clinton
  9. 9. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  10. 10. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Total Project Cost: $188,046 • Total Estimated CSO Reduction: 328,000 gal • Cost per CSO Reduction: $0.57 per gal
  11. 11. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”) • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  12. 12. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Stormwater Details and Specifications • Concrete structures preferred • Overflow weir plates • Concerns over inlet filter inserts (maintenance)
  13. 13. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the“Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Trees and Plantings • Temporary maintenance: emphasize/enforce temporary irrigation and initial pruning • Species selection and maintenance streamlined in the future with the City Arborist
  14. 14. Case Study: City Lot #21 (formerly the “Farmer’s Market Lot”)• Subsurface Materials • Infiltration bed stone availability: NYSDOT #3A is typically the cleanest, most available stone in the size range desired • CU-Structural Soil Handling/Acceptance: ensure contractor provides appropriate cover and maintenance, and perform testing if needed• Porous paver edge termination
  15. 15. Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • Design Assumptions / Guidelines: • Static storage of first inch of runoff • Maximum loading ratio of 10:1 (impervious area to infiltration area); 5:1 is preferred • Geotextile liner separating rock from soil (non-woven or woven… or sand?) • Impervious liner where needed (proximity to utilities, buildings, etc) • Observation well and cleanouts • Perforated distribution pipe and/or underdrain
  16. 16. Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • More Design Assumptions / Guidelines: • Dewater within 72 hours • Level bed/trench bottom • Maximum surface grade change of 1-2 feet; steeper sloped areas may warrant a change in bottom elevation (via berms or other) • Upper 3” of the infiltration bed subgrade should be scarified prior to bed installation (if necessary) • Total facility depth should between 24-31 inches (frost consideration) • Protect existing utilities
  17. 17. Porous Pavement / Infiltration Practicesin Onondaga County, NY • More Design Assumptions / Guidelines: • Setbacks: • 10ft to buildings with basements • 3ft to buildings without basements • 3ft from utility structures, vents, poles, etc
  18. 18. City Parking Lot #3
  19. 19. Lot #3 Porous Concrete Captures over 700,000 gallons of stormwater annually CSO Area: Erie Blvd
  20. 20. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  21. 21. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components: • 8,380sf infiltration system • Tree trench with 36” of CU-Structural Soil • 6” porous concrete / aggregate infiltration bed (23” deep) • Interior tree plantings • Inlet filter inserts and sumps • Entire lot repaved (standard asphalt) and restriped • One outlet control structure with removable weir (connection to existing storm sewer) • Infiltration testing yielded an average rate of 0.48 in/hr (0.24 in/hr used for design)
  22. 22. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components: • Impervious area managed: 38,507sf • Infiltration area: 8,380sf (loading ratio of 4.6:1) • Runoff capture goal (1”): 3,209cf • 23 new trees • Total soil: 7,650cf (333cf per tree, not including existing soil volume along edge) • Total static storage capacity: 3,392cf (equates to around 1.1” of runoff capture) • Dewatering time: 72 hours (100-year storm)
  23. 23. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  24. 24. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Total Project Cost: $239,102 • Total Estimated CSO Reduction: 625,000 gal • Cost per CSO Reduction: $0.38 per gal
  25. 25. Case Study: City Lot #3 • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  26. 26. Case Study: City Lot #3• Stormwater Details and Specifications • Inlet restoration – check if necessary• Porous Concrete • Test pad quality control • Letter to contractor noting concerns with aggregate, water retarder, water content • Site installation permitted as 2nd “test pad” • Cold weather placement: 7 days curing time per specified temperature requirements
  27. 27. Pearl Street Parking Lot
  28. 28. Pearl Street Parking Lot CSO Area: Franklin FCF
  29. 29. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  30. 30. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot• Design Components: • 25,300sf infiltration system • Porous asphalt (1.5”) on 3” of asphalt treated permeable base (ATPB) • Aggregate infiltration bed under both standard and porous asphalt (24” deep) • Inlet filter inserts and sumps• Entire lot repaved (standard asphalt) and restriped• One outlet control structure with removable weir (connection to existing combined sewer)• Infiltration testing was variable, but yielded an average rate of 7 in/hr (2 in/hr used for design)
  31. 31. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components: • Impervious area managed: 73,172sf • Infiltration area: 25,300sf (loading ratio of 2.9:1) • Runoff capture goal (1”): 6,098cf • Total static storage capacity: 10,120cf (equates to around 1.7” of runoff capture) • Dewatering time: 24 hours (100-year storm)
  32. 32. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  33. 33. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Total Project Cost: $396,772 • Total Estimated CSO Reduction: 915,000 gal • Cost per CSO Reduction: $0.43 per gal
  34. 34. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Design Components / Goals • Costs and Metrics Summary • Lessons Learned
  35. 35. Case Study: Pearl Street Lot • Subsurface Utility Location – coordinate with utilities early; lack of response or delayed response resulted in field directives • Unforeseen Conditions • Subsurface structure demolition: multiple building foundations were encountered • Balance research costs with schedule and field directive costs • Ample public notification
  36. 36. Creekwalk
  37. 37. Creekwalk
  38. 38. Revisit Winter 2011: Pearl Street
  39. 39. Revisit Winter 2011: Pearl Street
  40. 40. Revisit Winter 2011: Lot 3
  41. 41. Winter Revisit Notes • Pearl Street porous pavement performing well, particularly vs. standard pavement, but is being over-salted • Lot 3 wheelstops – wheelstops vs. curbs with inlets • Lot 3 porous concrete performing well • Snow storage areas
  42. 42. Go Nova!Thank You! Questions? Please Visit: www.SaveTheRain.us 64

×