Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Toolbox for Clean Water Construction


Published on

A presentation about protecting clean water during construction projects. Presented by Robert Roseen of Geosyntec Consulting during the Buzzards Bay Coalition's 2014 Decision Makers Workshop series. Learn more at

Published in: Environment, Technology, Business
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

The Toolbox for Clean Water Construction

  1. 1. Sustainable Development: Practical Solutions to Real World Problems Robert Roseen, PhD, D.WRE, PE 603-205-8056 2014 Decision Makers Workshops: Construction and Clean Water Building Techniques and Technologies that Protect Clean Water Marion, MA April 16, 2014
  2. 2. The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: What Went Wrong and Why-- 10 Lessons Learned from Katrina by the ASCE Hurricane Katrina External Review Panel and the USACE Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force 1. Failure to think globally and act locally-We must account for climate change 2. Failure to absorb new knowledge 3. Failure to understand, manage, and communicate risk-Need to take rigorous risk based approach, 4. Failure to build quality in 5. Failure to build in resilience 6. Failure to provide redundancy 7. Failure to see that the sum of many parts does not equal a system 8. The buck couldn’t find a place to stop--Poor organization, lack of accountability 9. Beware of interfaces: materials and jurisdiction 10. Follow the money-People responsible for design and construction had no control of the monies.
  3. 3. Contentious issues require a commitment to listen carefully and work together for solutions to be effective
  4. 4. Trust, Legitimacy and Relevance of Science • Building trust can be accomplished by developing partnerships within local governments and stakeholders • Through participation and familiarity in the process people will facilitate a deeper trust in science products.
  5. 5. Video by Laura James, Seattle, WA
  6. 6. Regulatory Drivers • Consent decrees and Long term control plans for CSO separation • NPDES MS4 Phase I and Phase II has been largely an issue of due diligence with respect to SWMP • TMDLs are based on WQ standards—due diligence does not matter • 80% TSS Removal will not meet “no net increase standard” • GI and LID will be needed to meet TMDL requirements
  7. 7. In the News….. What is difference between these outcomes? Negotiated plans using Green Infrastructure to reduce reliance on Gray Infrastructure
  8. 8. Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Modeling designs after natural systems
  9. 9. Low Impact Development
  10. 10. • The environmental and water quality benefits of LID are well established, • There are considerable economic, infrastructure, and adaptation planning benefits that are NOT WELL KNOWN from using LID-based strategies. Benefits of LID and Green Infrastructure
  11. 11. Triple Bottom Line Analyses
  12. 12. Not All Costs are Equal When implementing stormwater improvements, it is important to consider: who pays, how, and when. 1. Existing municipal programs and long-term bonds 2. Stormwater Utilities—fees upon amount of SW generated 3. Developer, Owner, Consumer
  13. 13. Economic Case Studies
  14. 14. Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH  2009 Installation of 1300’ of first PA private residential road in Northeast  Site will be nearly Zero discharge  LID subdivision 55+ Active Adult Community  Large sand deposit  Cost 25% greater per ton installed
  15. 15. Conventional Site Design LID Design Avoided use of 1616’ of curbing, 785’ pipe, 8 catch-basins, 2 detention basins, 2 outlet control structures Built on 9% grade 1.3 acres less of land clearing 17
  16. 16. Comparison of Unit Costs 6% savings on total cost of SW infrastructure for a ~zero discharge site
  17. 17. A Low Impact Development Approach at Greenland Meadows Greenland, New Hampshire Utilizing an LID approach that featured acres of porous asphalt and a gravel wetland, a cost- competitive drainage system was designed for a large retail development. The total impervious area of the development – mainly from rooftops and non-porous parking areas – is approximately 25.6 acres. This project had an estimated 26% cost reduction due to cost avoidance in associated drainage infrastructure (ponds and piping) with the use of Low Impact Development.
  18. 18. Greenland Meadows Commercial, Greenland, NH • “Gold-Star” Commercial Development • Cost of doing business near Impaired Waters/303D • Brownfields site, ideal location, 15yrs • Proposed site >10,000 Average Daily Traffic count on >30 acres
  19. 19. Comparison of Unit Costs 26% savings on total cost of SW infrastructure for a ~zero discharge site
  20. 20. Portland, OR Tabor to the River: Brooklyn Creek Project • Program sought to rectify CSO, street and basement flooding • The original cost estimate using gray infrastructure was $144 million (2009 dollars). • Gray-Green design including a total of $11 million allocated for green solutions, the cost estimate for this integrated approach was $81 million. • A savings of $63 million for the city
  21. 21. New York City, New York Taking it to the next level… and added value
  22. 22. O&M Costs CSO Control Scenarios • GI will provided a 22% reduction in LTCP capital cost • Funds for labor, supplies, and equipment • Replacing energy demands of grey infrastructure O&M burden shifts to people in replace of heavy energy demand
  23. 23. Economic Conclusions • Green Infrastructure is being embraced nationally due to reduced demand on gray infrastructure • GI has value for social and economic in addition to environmental • LID may add expense on a per item basis • Project cost reductions were observed from 6% in residential developments to as high as 26% in commercial projects. • Municipal use of GI reported cost reductions of 21% to as high as 44%. • Benefits extend to municipal, private, and commercial entities • Transfer of monies from infrastructure to jobs associated with the maintenance activities. • From a sustainability perspective, a range of benefits includes reductions in flood damage and increased resiliency of drainage infrastructure; • Reductions of 33 to 50% in energy demands for heating and cooling. • A 50% reduction in time to sale, and increased property values of 12-16%. • Other benefits were incentives in the form of rebates, cost-sharing, and tax credits. IE. Impervious cover charge 26
  24. 24. The Need for Innovation
  25. 25. WHY DO WE CARE? • System performance determines the degree and intensity of usage of a technology, and influence the cost of implementation • Municipalities will be developing implementation plans for managing nutrients • Improvements in performance could result in reduced cost of implementation
  26. 26. Design and Performance Not all bioretention systems function equally • There is a tremendous amount of variety within design specifications and resulting performance that is not well understood • Bioretention systems vary widely with respect to design features
  27. 27. Blue Line is at median INFLUENT concentration for all systems. Red Line is at median EFFLUENT concentration for all systems. Green Line, when present, indicates median EFFLUENT concentration of categories with particularly good performance. NO3 Median INF = 0.36 mg/L Median EFF = 0.22 mg/L Median %RE = 14% 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent N=35 N=10 N=10 N=14 N=10 N=29 N=3 N=7 N=3 N=23 N=8 N=9 N=8 All Systems 40-69% Sand Mix 70-100% Sand Mix No Compost Mix Compost Mix Underdrain No Internal Storage Internal Storage <24 in Media Depth 24-36 in Media Depth >36 in Media Depth Pre- treatment No Pre- treatment NO3Concentration NO3 Box Plots
  28. 28. Bioretention-Gravel Wetland HybridGravel Wetlands Bioretention
  29. 29. System Layout 32 VISR/WQV =0.1
  30. 30. 33 Bio-3Influent Bio-3Effluent Bio-4Influent Bio-4Effluent GWInfluent GWEffluent Bio-5Cell2 Influent Bio-5Cell2 Effluent 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.01 0.1 1 %RE NO3Concentration(mg/L) Nitrate Bioretention--STD Gravel Wetland Bioretention- ISR An increase in performance efficiency of 50% is the equivalent of a 33% cost reduction
  31. 31. Low Impact Development as a Climate Adaptation Tool and Community Resiliency Mill Pond Rd after dam failure at Nottingham Lake, 4/18/2007
  32. 32. Increasing Impervious Surfaces (Source, USGS, Reston, VA, 2007 )
  33. 33. Increase in Precipitation Changing Trends (Source, NOAA Climatic Data Center) County Historic 100-Yr NRCC 100-Yr % Incr. Rockingham 6.4 8.8 27% Strafford 6.3 8.2 23%
  34. 34. 37 15 Highest Events Peak Recorded Discharges on Lamprey River Current Flood Insurance Study 100-Year Flood = 7300 cfs Of 15 largest events since 1934: 8 have occurred in last 25 years 5 have occurred in last 15 years 3 have occurred in last 5 years Rank Date Discharge (cfs) Return Period 1 1 16-May-06 8,970 76-Year 2 18-Apr-07 8,450 38-Year 3 7-Apr-87 7,570 25.3-Year 4 22-Oct-96 7,080 19-Year 5 15-Mar-10 6,760 15.2-Year 6 20-Mar-36 5,490 12.7-Year 7 15-Mar-77 5,000 10.9-Year 8 15-June-98 4,720 9.5-Year 9 3-Apr-04 4,690 8.4-Year 10 30-Mar-83 4,570 7.6-Year 11 6-Apr-60 4,470 6.9-Year 12 11-May-54 4,070 6.3-Year 13 2-Feb-81 3,670 5.8-Year 14 31-July-38 3,530 5.4-Year 15 1-Apr-93 3,400 5.1-Year Source: 1Return Period based on order statistics and Wiebull plotting position of peak annual events
  35. 35. Costs from Presidentially Declared Disasters in NH We can decide not to prepare, but we are then choosing to increase our risk
  36. 36. Conventional Site Design LID Design Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH
  37. 37. Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH Boulder Hills, Pelham, NH
  38. 38. Newmarket, NH Moonlight Brook
  39. 39. How do we actually do this?
  40. 40. Commercial Street Reconstruction Porous Pavement Provincetown, Massachusetts In 2012 Provincetown began the installation of over 5,000’ of the first “Porous Municipal Main Street”. The project addressed existing infrastructure problems with flooding and drainage along a main thoroughfare that has tremendous traffic during the busy tourist season. A high durability asphalt mix-design was chosen to meet the commercial traffic requirements. Through the use of widespread infiltration, the design seeks to manage stormwater and beach impairments which occur from the discharge of untreated runoff from many outfalls. Beach closures at these outfalls were eliminated in 2013 and numbered 18 in 2011, and 9 in 2012.
  41. 41. Provincetown • Harbor is listed on the 2010 Integrated List of Waters as a “Category 4a” water body – TMDL for pathogens • Heavy recreational and commercial use • Economic driver for the Town • Beach closures affect economy and public perception • Year-round population of around 3,000 • Significant growth during the summer – Seasonal population increases to approximately 30,000 – Summer tourism can bring in half a million visitors to Commercial Street
  42. 42. Image placeholder Image placeholder Image placeholder Image placeholder • Phase I: Winter 2012, Johnson to Winthrop Street, approx. 3,300 LF • Phase 2: Winter 2013, Winthrop to West End, approx. 2,000 LF • Project costs include: Stone bed and trench, Drainage replacement, 2 courses of porous pavement, New granite curbing, brick sidewalks and miscellaneous detail work Porous Pavement Project (Continued)
  43. 43. Harbor Beach Closures 0 1 2 3 4 5 BeachClosures 2011 2012 2013 12 7 8 Porous Pavement Standard Pavement 6 Closures in 2013 No 2013 Closures 2013 had a total of 15 closures at 10 locations
  44. 44. Does Impervious Cover Reduction Really Work? Urban Watershed Renewal in Berry Brook Robert Roseen, Viktor Hlas, Tom Schueler, Tom Ballestero, Mark Voorhees, Melinda Bubier, Joel Ballestero, James Houle, Dean Peschel, Bill Boulanger, David Burdick, Lorie Chase, Ann Scholz, Sally Soule, John Magee, Ben Nugent, Matt Carpenter, University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, City of Dover, University of New Hampshire, Cocheco River Watershed Coalition, New Hampshire Fish and Game, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 47 Funding Sources: NHDES 319 Watershed Assistance NHDES Aquatic Resource Mitigation Funds
  45. 45. Gravel Wetland DA=11.0 ac, Treated IC = 9.55 ac (86.8%) Stream Restoration ~800 ft, including C, A and Aa - channel Page Ave DA = 5.23 ac, Treated IC = 1.88 ac (36.0%) Crescent Ave DA = 2.97 ac Treated IC = 1.5 ac (28.5%) Wetland Expansion ~0.6 acres Roosevelt AveUpper Horne Street DA = 12.2 ac Treated IC = 3.7 ac (31%) Glencrest Ave DA = 6.8ac Treated IC = 2.3 ac (33%) Lowell Ave DA = 2.6 ac Treated IC = ac (43%)
  46. 46. Hydrology---Benefits of LID Retrofits 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.0000.00000 0.01000 0.02000 0.03000 0.04000 0.05000 0.06000 7/11/2011 10/19/2011 1/27/2012 5/6/2012 8/14/2012 11/22/2012 Precip(in) Discharge/Area(cfs/ac) Date Average Daily Flow per Watershed Area Separation of hydrographs for developed and undeveloped watersheds pre- constructions Similarity of hydrographs for developed and undeveloped watersheds post-LID installs Shift towards pre- development hydrology POST-CONSTRUCTION LID CONSTRUCTIONPRE-CONSTRUCTION
  47. 47. Low Impact Development Hydrology 50 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 Pn Average Daily Flow per Watershed Area (cfs/ac) Flow Duration Cuves by Time Period Isinglass_Pre-LID BB-Station_Pre-LID Isinglass_Post-LID BB-Station_Post-LID Average daily area weighted flow duration curves for Berry Brook-Lower Watershed (Station, DA = 184.8 acres) and Isinglass River (DA = 73.6 sq.miles) Extreme Storms—Less Frequent Everyday Storms Separation of hydrograph for developed and undeveloped watersheds Shift towards predevelopment hydrology post-LID installs
  48. 48. 2010 State Street Reconstruction Portsmouth, NH • Award-winning CSO separation with GI in historic downtown • Included tree filters, bioretention systems, and subsurface detention and filtration.
  49. 49. 2009 Long Creek Watershed S. Portland, ME • Surface Transportation ARRA Project • First DOT PA road in the northeast-Sept 09 • 1500 feet of 6 Lane Highway Reconstruction • 20,000 vehicles per day • 2% cost differential in comparison with std build 52
  50. 50. 2012 Cottages at Capstone, Durham, NH • 600+ Bed Student Housing complex • Located in drinking water supply area • Watershed impaired for Nitrogen • Included gravel wetlands, porous pavements
  51. 51. Acknowledgements Friends and Colleagues at the UNHSC • James Houle, CPSWQ • Thomas Ballestero, PhD, PE, PH, CGWP, PG • Alison Watts, PhD, PG • Timothy Puls Forging the Link Project Team • Todd Janeski, Virginia Commonwealth Univ • James Houle, CPSWQ, UNHSC Environmental Research Group • Michael Simpson, Antioch University New England • Jeff Gunderson, Professional Content Writer • Tricia Miller, Graphic Designer
  52. 52. Climate Change and Land Use Impacts on the 100-Yr Floodplain • Cameron Wake & Fay Rubin, EOS, University of New Hampshire • Robert Roseen, Ann Scholz & Tom Ballestero, UNH Stormwater Center • Michael Simpson, Antioch University New England • Steve Miller, Great Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve • Julia Peterson & Lisa Townson, UNH Cooperative Extension • John Echeverria, Katherine Garvey & Peg Elmer, Vermont Law School Commercial Design Partners • Joseph Persechino and Greg Mikolaities, Tighe and Bond • Brian Potvin, and Austin Turner of Tetra Tech Rizzo • David Jordan of SFC Engineering Partnership, Acknowledgements
  53. 53. National Estuarine Research Reserve Coastal Training Program Coordinators: • Heather Elmer of the old Woman Creek NERR, • Christine Feurt of the Wells NERR, • Steve Miller of the great Bay NERR, • Tonna-Marie Surgeon-Rogers of the Waquoit Bay NERR, • David Dickson, National NEMO Coordinator; • LaMarr Clannon, Maine NEMO Coordinator; and Julie Westerlund of Northland NEMO. Municipal partners for sharing their valuable information and • Tom Brueckner, Engineering Manager at the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC); • John Zuba, NBC Permits Manager; • Linda Dobson, Program Manager for Sustainable Stormwater Management at the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services; • Bill Owen, P.E., Engineering Services with the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services; • Peter Mulvaney, Sustainable Infrastructure Administrator for the City of Chicago Department of Water Management. Volunteer municipal decision makers that participated in the development of this project. Acknowledgements
  54. 54. Questions? 57