CCW Conference: Cost effective practices for clean water


Published on

what are the best and most cost effective ways to return clean water to the region?

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This template can be used as a starter file for presenting training materials in a group setting.SectionsRight-click on a slide to add sections. Sections can help to organize your slides or facilitate collaboration between multiple authors.NotesUse the Notes section for delivery notes or to provide additional details for the audience. View these notes in Presentation View during your presentation. Keep in mind the font size (important for accessibility, visibility, videotaping, and online production)Coordinated colors Pay particular attention to the graphs, charts, and text boxes. Consider that attendees will print in black and white or grayscale. Run a test print to make sure your colors work when printed in pure black and white and grayscale.Graphics, tables, and graphsKeep it simple: If possible, use consistent, non-distracting styles and colors.Label all graphs and tables.
  • Give a brief overview of the presentation. Describe the major focus of the presentation and why it is important.Introduce each of the major topics.To provide a road map for the audience, you can repeat this Overview slide throughout the presentation, highlighting the particular topic you will discuss next.
  • CCW Conference: Cost effective practices for clean water

    1. 1. COST EFFECTIVE PRACTICES FORCLEAN WATERHye Yeong Kwon, Executive DirectorCenter for Watershed Protection, Inc.
    2. 2. • 501c3, started in 1992; offices in MD, VA,PA, NYWhat we do• Distill research into practical tools• Provide local watershed services• Train others to manage watersheds• Association/ membership servicesYour first source for bestpractices in watershed/stormwater management
    3. 3. Stormwater BMP Cost-Effectiveness StudyJames River Basin, VA• Evaluation of all urban practices• Costs and pollutant removal• Case study in the City of Richmond
    4. 4. Methods: BMP Selection• 34 urban practices– 26 CBP practices with approved efficiencies– 5 CBP practices with recently approved expertpanel recommendations– 2 CBP practices under review by expert panel– 1 additional practice reviewed: pet wasteprograms• Status of CBP BMP review panels available onChesapeake Stat website
    5. 5. Methods: Cost Estimates• King and Hagan (2011): Costs of StormwaterManagement Practices in Maryland Counties• Additional studies, data and assumptions usedfor pet waste programs, illicit dischargeelimination, stormwater retrofits, and urbangrowth reduction• Considered 20-year life cycle costs, including:– Design and construction– Land values and financing– Operations and maintenance
    6. 6. Methods: Cost-Effectiveness FormulaCost effectiveness ($/lb) =Annual pollutant reduction (lbs)Average annual cost over 20 years ($)For TN, TP, and TSS:
    7. 7. Results: Most Cost-Effective Practicesfor Nitrogen Removal1. Pet waste programs2. Illicit discharge elimination: sewer repair3. Illicit discharge elimination: crossconnections4. Forest buffers5. Urban stream restoration
    8. 8. Results: Most Cost-Effective Practicesfor Phosphorus Removal1. Pet waste programs2. Illicit discharge elimination: sewer repair3. Illicit discharge elimination: crossconnections4. Urban stream restoration5. Forest buffers
    9. 9. Results: Most Cost-Effective Practicesfor Sediment Removal1. Urban stream restoration2. Illicit discharge elimination: sewer repair3. Urban growth reduction4. Retrofit of existing dry pond (conversion towet pond or wetland)5. Vegetated open channels (A/B soils, nounderdrain)
    10. 10. Case StudyThree scenarios developed:1. Old CBP approved practices, noimplementation constraints2. Current CBP approved practices, withimplementation constraints3. All practices, with implementationconstraints
    11. 11. Case StudyInitial estimates for stormwater pollution reduction in the City of Richmond = $305 million$84 million$64 million$68 million
    12. 12. Illicit DischargeA discharge to storm sewer system that is notcomposed entirely of storm water except permitteddischarges and fire fighting related discharges
    13. 13. Findings from recent studies27-40% of outfalls have dry weather flowAverage Dry Weather Flow "Hit" Frequencyfor 5 Mid-Atlantic Watersheds020406080100120Any Wastewater Tap water Washwater Bacteria (co-indicator)Type of IndicatorPercent
    14. 14. 57%43%Other activitiesRemoval of illicitdischargesEstimated percent of required total nitrogen reduction that can be met throughremoval of illicit discharges in Western Run*Illicit discharge load estimates based on single grab sampleSligo Creek required 79% reduction and 17% could met be through illicitdischarge elimination
    15. 15. *Assumes 50K per repair for 47 repairs**Assumes 100% of the water quality volume provided by treating 1" of rainfallCost Comparison$0$20,000,000$40,000,000$60,000,000$80,000,000$100,000,000$120,000,000IllicitDischargeRepair*DrySwaleConstructedWetlands**Bioretention**WetSwalePermeablePavement**PracticeCostTotal NitrogenTotal PhosphorusIllicit discharge elimination is a cost effective approach to nutrientmanagement
    16. 16. Why should governments get credit forsomething that they are required to do?• Illicit discharges fall through the cracks of MS4permits and Consent Decrees• MS4 permit requirements and guidance for IDDE isdeficient• Pollution load from illicit sources has not beenaccounted for in the Bay Model – coordinated actionand response is needed• We need more tools in the toolbox
    17. 17. What are gross solids?• Litter: Human derived trash such aspaper, plastic, Styrofoam, metal andglass greater than 4.75 mm• Organic Debris: Leaves, branches, seeds,twigs and grass clipping greater than4.75 mm• Coarse Sediments: Inorganic breakdownproducts from soils, pavement, orbuilding materials greater than 75microns (0.075mm), & fragments oflitter and organic debris not included inthe other two categories
    18. 18. Stormwater Gross Pollutant Filters
    19. 19. Cost Summary ComparisonAnnual cost to remove equivalent annual TNloadThe cost-effectiveness of stormwater controls for nitrogen removal.Practice Type of practice Equivalent Annual cost($/lb N/IC1 ac)Bag filter Structural $691Bioretention (new, suburban) Structural $335-$6342,3Wet pond (new) Structural $7334Street sweeping Non-structural $16551 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 20095 Berretta et al. 2011 expressed as lb N/year
    20. 20. Discharge Flow Types•Pathogenic & toxic discharges•Sanitary wastewater•Commercial & Industrial discharges•Nuisance & aquatic life threatening discharges•Landscaped irrigation runoff•Construction site dewatering•Automobile washing•Laundry wastes•Unpolluted discharges•Infiltrating groundwater•Natural springs•Domestic water line leaks
    21. 21. Other ToolsStream RestorationMaintenance of Stormwater BMPsCrediting New from EPA/ CBPLow Impact Development/Green Infrastructure
    22. 22. Hye Yeong Kwon,Executive Directorhyk@cwp.org410-461-8323ext 212