American Public Works Association CEU Request Form Low ... Impact... · *IF you hold a PE License...
Transcript of American Public Works Association CEU Request Form Low ... Impact... · *IF you hold a PE License...
Please submit a copy of the completed CEU Request form and the survey evaluation to:
APWA, Attn: Heather DelaCruz, 2345 Grand Blvd, Suite 700, Kansas City, MO 64108‐2625 ‐ or ‐ Fax: (816) 595‐5315
The American Public Works Association ‐ CEU Request Form
Low Impact Development Maintenance Where’s the runoff going from YOUR Streets? (CLL14)
Downloadable Program (.2CEUs)This is a two part form. For receipt of CEU Credits for downloadable programs, please submit a copy of the completed CEU Request form and the corresponding survey evaluation. CEU Request Forms that are submitted without an accompanying evaluation will not be processed.
By signing this form, I attest that I did participate in this education session, in its entirety.
Signature: ________________________________________________ Date:_____________
First Name: _________ Middle Initial: ___ Last Name:
APWA Membership Number: *Florida License Number (if applicable):
Job Title: Employer:
Address:
City: State/Province: Zip:
Email Address: (required)
Phone No. : Cell No.:
*IF you hold a PE License in Florida, and would like CEU credit - you MUST include your Middle Initial and Florida License Number on this form. APWA is an approved Florida Board of Professional Engineers training provider – 0003888.
The American Public Works Association has been accredited as an Authorized Provider by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET), 1760 Old Meadow Road, Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102; (703) 506‐3275.
*CEU requirements for water/waste water operators vary from state to state. Before you send in your CEU application, check with your state certifying agency to see if CEUs from APWA will be accepted.
Please direct CEU questions to Heather DelaCruz at (800) 848‐2792. You will be notified (via email) when your CEU Transcript has been processed and is available for secure download via APWA’s web site at http://www.apwa.net/Education/CEU.
APWA Finance Use Only: iMIS#_______________ Transaction #___________ Last 4 Digits of CC__ __ __ __ Date_________
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
If you have a current APWA Membership, there is no charge for CEU registration; however,
if you are NOT currently an APWA Member, the cost of CEU registration is $7 USD.
Non‐Members Only ‐ please complete the following payment information and submit your payment of $7 (USD) via check, Visa, Mastercard or American Express.
□ Check Box for Receipt (alternate email address for receipt: _____________________________________________)
Name on Card: Authorized Cardholder Signature:
__ __ __ __-__ __ __ __-__ __ __ __ -__ __ __ __ Exp Date: __ __/20__ __ (VISA, MasterCard or American Express) (mo.) (yr.)
Please submit a copy of the completed CEU Request form and the survey evaluation to:
APWA, Attn: Heather DelaCruz, 2345 Grand Blvd, Suite 700, Kansas City, MO 64108‐2625 ‐ or ‐ Fax: (816) 595‐5315
The American Public Works Association ‐ CEU Request & Evaluation Forms
Low Impact Development Maintenance Where’s the Runoff Going from YOUR Streets? (CLL14)
Downloadable Program
This is a two part form. For receipt of CEU Credits for downloadable programs, please submit a copy of the completed CEU Request form and the corresponding survey evaluation. CEU Request Forms that are submitted without an accompanying evaluation will not be processed.
Please rate the items below by placing an “X” in the appropriate boxes below.
Session Content: Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
Program Content
Relevance of Topic
Overall Session Rating
After attending this session, I am now better able to: Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Evaluate alternative strategies for dealing with runoff in the right of way.
Calculate the strategic risk in utilizing porous surfaces.
Explain the challenges and benefits of using porous pavement
Skill of speaker(s) in presenting message:
Would you recommend to speak again? Poor Fair Good Great
Would you recommend to speak again?
Yes No
Freeman Anthony, PE
Evan N. Pratt, PE
Holly Piza
Moderator: Lee Joel Kellenberger
Comments:
American Public Works Association presents…
LID Maintenance – Where’s the runoff going from YOUR streets? Thursday November 14, 2013: 11:00 am ET/ 10:00 amCT/ 9:00 am MT/ 8:00 am PT
SPEAKERS: Evan N. Pratt, PE Water Resources Commissioner Washetenaw County, MI Evan N. Pratt, P.E. is the Washtenaw County, Michigan, Water Resources Commissioner. He is Past President and Treasurer of the Michigan Chapter of APWA. He graduated from MIT’s department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in 1987 and is a licensed engineer in five states. His career has included over 25 years of field and consulting experience on all aspects of municipal infrastructure, with about half that work in the water resources field. Along with writing articles for the APWA
Reporter, Mr. Pratt has given multiple presentations at APWA’s Congress, Sustainability Conference and at APWA Chapters and other municipal planning and infrastructure organizations in Michigan and Tennessee on topics related to Green Infrastructure, transportation, funding, budget management, and asset management. He has served on the APWA Sustainable Transportation Subcommittee since 2010. In his current role as an elected official, Mr. Pratt understands the need for our solutions to meet the public’s demand for effective field performance while addressing a complex set of design and regulatory parameters for the best life cycle cost.
Freeman Anthony, PE Project Engineer City of Bellingham, WA Freeman Anthony is a registered Professional Engineering in Utah and Washington State. He has 12 years of experience as a both a private consultant and public sector engineer in municipal water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation infrastructure with a focus on sustainable design and construction. He has worked in New Zealand, Indonesia and the United States and currently works for the City of Bellingham, overseeing a $45M wastewater treatment plant expansion via alternate delivery process. His design background includes water/wastewater facilities, multi‐
modal transportation corridors and sustainable design concepts such as porous concrete, rain‐gardens, and pin foundations. With the City of Bellingham, he has worked on agency sustainable construction specifications, transportation policies, and infrastructure facility plans. His projects have received project of the year awards in transportation for Washington State from both APWA and ASCE. He currently serves as the chair of the APWA National Transportation Sustainability Subcommittee and serves on the APWA Transportation Committee.
Holly Piza Senior Project Engineer Urban Drain & Flood Control District Denver, CO Holly Piza joined the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in 2009. Her work is focused on criteria promulgation and stormwater quality research. Prior to joining UDFCD, she worked as a consulting engineer where her experience included design of stormwater quality and flood control facilities, stream stabilization, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, and floodplain mapping. She received a BS from the University of Florida and is a Professional Engineer. She is also active in the Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers, chairing the Water Quality Committee.
MODERATOR:
Lee Joel Kellenberger Project Manager Johnson County Stormwater Olathe, KS Lee Kellenberger has 8 years in stormwater management related experience. He currently manages the Stormwater Management Program for Johnson County, which provides both financial and technical assistance to 20 municipalities. This includes the identification, prioritization and funding of flood mitigation projects, as well as assisting the cities with the requirements of their NPDES Phase II
permits. Prior to joining Johnson County Government, Lee spent 7 years at the U.S. Geological Survey collecting water quantity and quality data as a Hydrologist for the Kansas district.
11/12/2013
1
LIDMaintenance
Where’s the runoff going from YOUR streets?
12/12/2013How to get buy‐in for Asset Management
Programs
1/20/2014Envision™ : The Sustainability Rating
System for ALL Infrastructure
2/13/2014Heavy rain is forecasted – is your levee
certified?
3/13/2014Are you ready for the next step in waste
reduction?
Education Calendar
Visit www.apwa.net/Education for more Education Opportunities
11/12/2013
2
www.apwa.net
LIDMaintenance
Where’s the runoff going from YOUR streets?
11/12/2013
3
Our Moderator
Lee KellenbergerProject Manager
Johnson County Stormwater
Polling Questions
If you are in full screen mode, you will need to minimize the screen to vote
11/12/2013
4
Our Speakers:
EVAN N. PRATT P.E.
• WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI
• Water Resources Commissioner
FREEMAN ANTHONY P.E.
• Project Engineer
• City of Bellingham, WA
HOLLY PIZA, P.E.
• Master Planning Program
• Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Green Streets and Porous Pavement: Lessons for
Sustainability, Savings, and Success
EVAN N. PRATT, P.E.
WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI
Water Resources Commissioner
11/12/2013
5
TODAY’S LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
• SUSTAINABILITY: (AT LEAST) FIVE TECHNIQUES FOR STREET RUNOFF INFILTRATION
• SAVINGS: WHAT TO COMPARE & COSTS
• SUCCESS: POST‐CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE
EVAN’S FOCUS AREAS:
• WHY SHOULD ROW INFILTRATION BE 1ST CHOICE?
• TECHNIQUES:
– Porous Pavements
– Infiltration Beds/Planters in the ROW
– 3 New ways to infiltrate road drainage
• SAVINGS: WHAT YOU’VE NEVER HEARD ABOUT POROUS O/M
• SUCCESS = FEEDBACK LOOP AND ADAPTATION.
11/12/2013
6
EVOLUTION OF WATER QUALITY
• 1972 – CLEAN WATER ACT
• 1970s‐80s ‐‐ INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION TARGETED
• Late 1980’s – present – SEWER OVERFLOWS
• Late 1990’s – PHASE I TARGETS MS4 POINT/NON
• 2000’s – present PHASE II – KEY QUESTIONS:
– What is Non‐Point Source (NPS) Pollution?
– Will Public Education Take care of NPS?
– Who can have the biggest impact on NPS?
11/12/2013
7
WALT KELLY DEBUNKS “NON‐POINT SOURCE”• ANN ARBOR, MI: POP. ~115,000: 27.7+ SQ. MI.
• ROW = 2.9 SQUARE MILES IMPERVIOUS AREA
• =10.5% of total City area
• = 25.9% of total impervious area in the City but generates 54% of runoff*
• LARGELY UNTREATED!!
• =54% OF NPS POLLUTION – IT IS US!!*Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin DNR
(Drapper et al [Source: Kobringer, N.P. 1984. Volume I. Sources and Migration of Highway Runoff Pollutants- Executive Summary. FHWA/RD-84/057. Federal Highway Administration, Rexnord, EnviroEnergy Technology Center, Milwaukee, WI])
Constituent Primary Sources
Particulates Pavement wear, vehicles, atmosphere, maintenance, snow/ice abrasives, sediment disturbance
Nitrogen, Phosphorus Atmosphere, roadside fertiliser use, sediments
Lead Leaded gasoline, tire wear, lubricating oil and grease, bearing wear, atmospheric fallout
Zinc Tire wear, motor oil, grease
Iron Auto body rust, steel highway structures, engine parts
Copper Metal plating, bearing wear, engine parts, brake lining wear, fungicides and insecticides use
Cadmium Tire wear, insecticide application
Chromium Metal plating, engine parts, brake lining wear
Nickel Diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricating oil, metal plating, brake lining wear, asphalt paving
Manganese Engine parts
Bromide Exhaust
Cyanide Anticake compound used to keep deicing salt granular
Sodium, Calcium De-icing slats, grease
Chloride De-icing salts
Sulphate Roadway beds, fuel, de-icing salts
Petroleum Spills, leaks, blow-by motor lubricants, antifreeze, hydraulic fluids, asphalt surface leachate
PCBs, pesticides Spraying of highway right of ways, atmospheric deposition, PCB catalyst in synthetic tires
Pathogenic bacteria Soil litter, bird droppings, trucks hauling livestock/stockyard waste
Rubber Tire wear
Asbestos*
Clutch and brake lining wear
* No mineral asbestos has been identified in runoff, however some breakdown products of asbestos have been measured
11/12/2013
8
CITY =54% OF NPS POLLUTION
• HOW TO HANDLE THIS??
• OPPORTUNISTIC INFILTRATION
– CURB NOTCHES/RAINGARDENS, BUMP‐OUTS, ETC
– FIND SAND ‐‐ PERFORATED PIPE, CISTERN SHAFTS
– BASE UNDER POROUS/IMPERVIOUS PVMT
• MINIMIZE SWIRL CHAMBERS!!
TSS Removal Efficiencies
SOURCE: 2005 DATA REPORT, UNH STORMWATER CENTER
11/12/2013
9
Top 5 TSS Removal Efficiencies
• POROUS PAVEMENT– 100%
• GRAVEL WETLAND – 100%
• STORAGE BASIN INFILTRATION– 100%
• TREE FILTER – 93%
• BIORETENTION – 92%
Case Study: Boulder HillsPelham, NH
• 2009 ‐‐ 900’ OF PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PAVING IN NE
• SITE GOAL OF ZERO DISCHARGE
• 55+ ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY
• SANDY SOILS (NOT A MUST)
11/12/2013
10
The Design
COST AVOIDANCE
• 1616’ CONCRETE CURB
• 785’ PIPE
• 8 CATCHBASINS
• 2 DETENTION BASINS & 2 OUTLET STRUCTURES
• SAVED 1.3 ACRES IN LAND CLEARING/CONSUMPTION
• CONVENTIONAL = $789,500 vs. LID SWM= $740,300
• INFILTRATION COST SAVINGS = $49,000 = (6.2%)
• O/M DISCUSSION LATER – ALSO LESS
11/12/2013
11
Comparison of Unit Costs
Performance of Porous Asphalt
Willard Beach Park: Porous vs. Regular Asphalt Battle Creek, MI
Entrance to Pringle Creek Community: Porous vs. Regular AsphaltSalem, OR
11/12/2013
12
Other Project Benefits
• GLARE REDUCTION SUBSTANTIAL
• BETTER TRACTION THAN HMA
• SOUND REDUCTION USE BY CALTRANS, OTHERS
• ELIMINATED ICING & CRASHES IN ANDERSON CO, OH
• LESS SALTING NEEDED ‐ $$ AND ENVIRONMENTAL
• LESS MOSQUITO BREEDING AREA
• REDUCES THERMAL IMPACT TO STREAMS
POROUS vs. REGULAR ASPHALT
POROUSREGULAR
vs.
PAVER &TRANSVERSEJOINTS
11/12/2013
13
PREVENTING PITFALLS OF POROUS
KNOW YOUR MIX DESIGN ‐‐MULTIPLE OPTIONS IF LOADING OR RAVELING ARE CONCERNS
SUB‐BASE COMPACTION IS IMPORTANT TOO
CHOKER LAYER IS KEY TO A WORKING PLATFORM
NO SANDING FOR WINTER MAINTENANCE!!
THE MYTH OF “MORE EXPENSIVE MAINTENANCE”
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
• WHAT IF YOU HAD PAVEMENT THAT NEVER CRACKED?
11/12/2013
14
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
…AND IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE WATER IN THE BASE
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
• WHAT IF YOU HAD PAVEMENT THAT NEVER CRACKED?
• AND PAVEMENT THAT DIDN’T FAIL DUE TO WET BASE?
• WHO IS UNDER AN NPDES PERMIT?
• SWEEPING COSTS ARE ACTUALLY SIMILAR
• A MILE OF POROUS CAN COST $57,750 LESS IN O/M
11/12/2013
15
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
$‐
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
HMA Maintenance With Sweeping
Cumulative Porous Sweeping Costs
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
• *$57,750/MILE HMA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COSTS
– YEAR 0‐4 – NO COSTS
– YEAR 5: FIRST CRACK SEALING; $750
– YEAR 6‐10: LIMITED PATCHING; $6,000 ($2,000/LANE MILE)
– YEAR 6‐10: 2ND CRACK SEAL; $3,000, CHIPSEAL; $15,000
– YEAR 10‐15: 3RD/4TH CRACK SEAL; $12,000
– YEAR 16‐20: MAJOR PATCHING, POSSIBLE SEALCOAT; $21,000
– 4x ANNUAL STREET SWEEPING, $1,000/YR‐‐IF PERMIT REQ’S.
*YOU MAY WISH TO REVISE COSTS BASED ON YOUR AGENCY PRACTICES
BASED ON 20 YEAR CYCLE FOR 1 MILE RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH 36’ PAVEMENT WIDTH
11/12/2013
16
HOW POROUS O/M IS MUCH LESS
• POROUS PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE COSTS:
– 2x ANNUAL STREET SWEEPING, $1,000/YR REGEN VACUUM
– NO CRACK SEALING
– NO PATCHING DUE TO FROST HEAVE OR BASE FAILURE
– NO RESURFACING DUE TO CRACKING, ETC
• TOTAL LIFE CYCLE COST SAVINGS:
– $57,750 IF STREET SWEEPING IS DONE ON HMA ANYWAY
– $37,750 IF NO HMA STREET SWEEPING
BASED ON 1 MILE RESIDENTIAL STREET WITH 36’ PAVEMENT WIDTH
REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT
• UTILITY CUTS, OTHER PATCHING NEEDS
• BASE FAILURES TYPICALLY RARE – BETTER BASE
• CAN REPAIR WITH REGULAR HMA
• CAN REPAIR BY HEATING AND RE‐ROLLING
• TO REPLACE – MILL TO CHOKER COURSE
11/12/2013
17
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT:
1. POROUS MIX DESIGNS ARE NOT ALL THE SAME
2. HMA WITH PAVERS OR POROUS IS AN OPTION
3. INFILTRATION UNDER TRADITIONAL HMA
Easy Street, Ann Arbor, MI
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #1:
• MIX DESIGN IS IMPORTANT (STRENGTH & DURABILITY GOALS) – AZ‐87 30,000vpd
• KEY VARIABLES:
–AGG SIZE
– FIBER/ADDITIVE
–ASPHALT CONTENT
• SEE RESOURCES FOR MIX DESIGN INFO –WASHINGTON DOT, UNH
11/12/2013
18
TOOLKIT #2: SYLVAN AVE, ANN ARBOR, MI
• Reconstructed in 2010
• Approx. 825’ long; and 20’ wide.
• Scope: Full reconstruction; full replacement of sidewalks, curb & gutter; construction of permeable HMA section; some infiltration at east 200’ of project, but remainder had an impervious line to prevent flooding of adjacent basements; installation of underdrains below sidewalks with tees to allow connection of sump pumps from individual properties.
• Construction Cost: $385,000
TOOLKIT #2: SYLVAN AVE, ANN ARBOR, MI
11/12/2013
19
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #2:
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #2:
Permeable HMA 4” or as designed
Permeable Asphalt Typical Cross Section
11/12/2013
20
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #2:
POST CONSTRUCTION INFILTRATION
WORST INTENSITY* RAIN IN SE MI: 0.23 in/hr for the 5 minute, 1,000-year storm
5 MIN, 10-Yr storm = 0.11 in/min = .55 in/hr
2 ASPHALT STREETS: 0.25 to 9 in/min = 15 to 540
1 CONCRETE ALLEY: 0.8 to 14 in/min = 48 to 840
3 POROUS LOTS: 11 to 60 in/min = 660+ in/hour
*June 2013 NOAA Atlas 14
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #3: NO POROUS PAVEMENT
• CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI 2013 INFILTRATION PAVING
• TRADITIONAL HMA WITH SITE‐SPECIFIC BASE INFILTRATION
–FOREST STREET
–FOURTH AVENUE
–MADISON STREET
11/12/2013
21
West Madison Street Cross Section
11/12/2013
22
FOREST STREET X‐SECTION 1
FOREST STREET X‐SECTION 2
11/12/2013
23
FOREST STREET LEACHING BASIN
FOURTH AVE. PLAN AND PROFILE
11/12/2013
24
FOURTH AVE. X‐SECTION 1
FOURTH AVE. LEACHING BASIN
11/12/2013
25
INFILTRATION TOOLKIT #3: NO POROUS PAVEMENT
• HMA PAVEMENT WITH POROUS BASE
• STRATEGIC INFILTRATION AREAS IN ROW
Curb & Gutter vs. Swales
11/12/2013
26
Street Trees and Planter Design
• Tree planting areas often too small
• Tree planting areas typically raised
• Can be lowered to accommodate stormwater
• Many design alternatives
IN CONCLUSION…• UP TO 54% OF POLLUTANTS FROM STREETS
• INFILTRATION IS BEST, MOST SUSTAINABLE
• MANY OPTIONS FOR INFILTRATION
11/12/2013
27
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the City of Ann Arbor and the University of New Hampshire Stormwater
Center for their support.
References/Resources
• http://tinyurl.com/streetrunoff
• Porous Pavement Presentation, City of Puyallup, WA– Extra focus on mix design and aggregate selection for asphalt, choker, and base courses.
• Roseen Robert, Thomas Ballestro, et al. Sustainable Stormwater Management in Road Environments: Porous Asphalt for Local Roads (2010). Accessed 1 Apr. 2013. (University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center)
• City of Ann Arbor. Willard Street Permeable Pavement Project (2012), Madison, Fourth, and Forest Paving Projects (2013). (734) 794‐6430
• Resource 3 is a detailed listing of contacts at agencies that have porous pavement installations, and other helpful resources accessed for this presentation.
11/12/2013
28
If you are in full screen mode, you will need to minimize your screen view
the question pod.
LID Maintenance - Where's the runoff going from YOUR streets?
APWA Click Listen and Learn14 November 2013
Freeman Anthony P.E.Project Engineer
City of Bellingham, WA
11/12/2013
29
Presentation Overview Porous Design Concepts Bioretention Design Concepts Regulations Maintenance Cost Assessment Porous/Bioretention Traditional Cost assessment
Bellingham Case Studies Northshore Road Rehabilitation Meador Kansas Ellis Corridor Improvement
Repair Summary
Porous Design Concepts Porous pavements Concrete Asphalt Cellular concrete Aggregate Pavers
11/12/2013
30
Bioretention Design Concepts Bioretention Contained raingardens Open raingardens Modular raingardens Modified swales Open-bottom sandfilters
Regulations EPA Forthcoming Stormwater Rulemaking (?)
Washington State Dept of Ecology 2012 Stormwater Manual – Mandates LID
Project Rating Systems
11/12/2013
31
Porous Maintenance Activities Twice yearly vacuum Purpose built equipment Dry weather required Predictable scheduling
5 –Year Restoration Pressure wash with vacuum Vacuum truck accessory
Installation vs Maintenance
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cumulative SF
Cumulative SF
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Hours Spent/Yr
Hours Spent/Yr
11/12/2013
32
Bioretention Maintenance Activities Once yearly inspection/clean Remove trash Clean spreaders Add mulch Weed/trim plants
5 –Year Restoration Replace mulch layer
Detention Maintenance Activities Clearing/vegetation control Ponds – yearly Pipes/vaults – every 3 years Similar to bioretention and porous activities
11/12/2013
33
Maintenance Cost Evaluation Job tickets for facilities maintenance Evaluated against serviced roadway area Results are $/lf/year for facilities LID and traditional facilities
Northshore Roadway Improvements Roadway rehabilitation – stringent stormwater
requirements. Before: After:
Traditional stormwater system vs LID Options?
11/12/2013
34
Street Design Section
Capital Cost Comparisons - Stormwater Option 1: Buy waterfront property for new facilities If you have to ask, you can’t afford it…
Option 2: 100% Impervious – treatment vaults Piped system and treatment vaults (11,000 cf requried) 20 (8x12) vaults x $30,000 each (installed) = $600,000
Piped system = $203,000
Total = $803,000
Option 3: 38% Porous Replacement (Sidewalks/bike lanes) Impervious area reduction, stormwater infiltration, piped system back-up
3125 SY installed x$23.00/sy (additional cost for porous) = $71,900
Piped system and porous underdrain = $282,400 Total = $354,300 Construction savings = $448,700
11/12/2013
35
Maintenance Cost Comparisons Yearly Maintenance Costs Detention Pipes - $0.70/lf of arterial roadway Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks – $1.28/lf of arterial roadway
Porous Restoration (5 year cycle) = $1.25/lf 20 Year Maintenance Costs Detention Pipes - $30,800 Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks - $56,320+$11,000 = $67,320
Total 20-Year Project Costs Detention Pipes - $833,800 Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks - $421,620 Porous design = 49% less over 20 years
Meador Kansas Ellis Trail Corridor improvement/pedestrian bridge project Before: After:
Traditional stormwater system vs LID Options?
11/12/2013
36
Street Design Section
Capital Cost Comparisons - Stormwater Option 1: 100% Impervious – detention requirement Piped system and treatment/detention vaults (11,000 cf requried)
300 lf 48” PVC pipe x $210/lf (installed) = $63,000 Piping improvements = $65,000
Total = $128,000
Option 2: 65% Porous (sidewalks/paver parking) Impervious area reduction, stormwater infiltration, piped system back-up 800 SY installed x$23.00/yd (more) = $18,400
Piping improvements = $11,200
Total = $29,600 Construction savings = $98,400
11/12/2013
37
Maintenance Cost Comparisons Yearly Maintenance Costs Detention Pipes - $0.70/lf of arterial roadway Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks – $0.13/lf of arterial roadway*
20 Year Maintenance Costs Detention Pipes - $70,000 Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks - $13,000 + $19,643 = $32,643 Porous design = 53% less over 20 years
Total 20-Year Project Costs Detention Pipes - $198,000 Porous Bikelanes/Sidewalks - $42,243 Porous design = 69% less over 20 years*Porous data for this street design is limited to 1 year of data – restoration data is pro-rated from Northshore data
Surface Repair New residential water connection Added to sidewalk repair contract – available year round Similar costs to traditional sidewalk Easier to repair than a detention structure
11/12/2013
38
Maintenance Support - Contractor Service Contracts Frequently already in place Can be more economical Need to be aware of facilities design Vacuuming, landscape maintenance, other…
Maintenance Support - Community Community Support Sponsors receive training and provide ‘aesthetic maintenance’
(raingarden facilities) PR opportunities/Lowered Agency Effort
11/12/2013
39
Summary Porous surfaces in streetscapes are proven in both design
and construction Regulation driving implementation Installation is becoming standardized - contractors and
inspectors knowledge base is expanding Supports all street infrastructure Maintenance costs should go down with increased
efficiencies
Questions?Thanks for your time!
APWA Click Listen and Learn14 November 2013
Freeman Anthony P.E. [email protected]
11/12/2013
40
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Holly Piza, PEMaster Planning Program
The Four Step Process
11/12/2013
41
Figure PPS-1 from Volume 3 of the USDCM
11/12/2013
42
ConstituentData set with Higher Concentration at
the Reference SiteData Set with Higher
Concentration at the BMP
CY Reference
Site Median
CY BMP Site
MedianUnits
Alkalinity 2005, 2006, 2007, CY 85 45 mg/L
Chemical Oxygen Demand
2009, 2010, CY 18 97.5 mg/L
Chloride 2009, 2010, CY 4 50 mg/L
Conductivity 2005, 2006, 2007, CY 72.7 87 umho/cm
Hardness 2007, CY 39 55 mg/L
pH 2005, 2006, 2007, CY 6.5 9.4
Dissolved Calcium 2009, 2010, CY 5 10 mg/L
Dissolved Iron 2009, CY 0.06 0.095 mg/L
Dissolved Magnesium 2009, 2010, CY 0.6 1 mg/L
Dissolved Sodium 2007, 2009, 2010, CY 6 57.5 mg/L
Dissolved Chromium 2007, 2009, 2010, CY ND 2.2 μg/L
Dissolved Manganese 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, CY 13.35 2.85 μg/L
Dissolved Nickel 2007, 2009, 2010, CY ND ND μg/L
Dissolved Copper 2006, 2007, 2009, CY 5 6.2 μg/L
Dissolved Zinc 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, CY 11.9 ND μg/L
7 Years of Pervious Concrete Data
ConstituentData set with Higher Concentration at
the Reference SiteData Set with Higher
Concentration at the BMP
CY Reference
Site Median
CY BMP Site
MedianUnits
Dissolved Selenium CY ND ND μg/L
Total Chromium 2010 ND ND μg/LTotal Nickel 2009, 2010, CY 1.8 1.1 μg/LTotal Zinc 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, CY 47.2 ND μg/LTotal Selenium CY ND ND μg/LTotal Cadmium CY ND ND μg/LTotal Lead 2009, 2010, CY ND ND μg/LTotal Manganese 2010 2006 53 42.6 mg/LTotal Copper 2010 2006, 2007 10 9.95 mg/L
Dissolved Potassium 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, CY 2 12 mg/L
Nitrite+Nitrate 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, CY 0.63 1.65 mg/L
Ortho-Phosphorus CY 0.046 0.081 mg/L
Total KjeldahlNitrogen
2007, 2009, 2010, CY 1.8 1.1 mg/L
Total Phosphorus 2009, 2010, CY 0.155 0.1 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids
2009, 2010, CY 64 23.5 mg/L
CY = Combined Years Data, ND = Below Detection Limits
The full report, Stormwater Quality Monitoring Report: Pervious Concrete at Lakewood Maintenance Facility 2005-2010, can be found at www.udfcd.org
11/12/2013
43
If not maintained permeable pavement will lose infiltration capacity and may become impervious.
Impervious pavement does not improve water quality.
Maintenance is pavement specific.• Type of pavement• Site Conditions
Maintenance intervals can range anywhere from once every year to 2 to 4 times yearly.
Maintenance of pervious concrete and porous asphalt must to be proactive (more frequent) because these pavements may not be able to be restored.
11/12/2013
44
LeavesPollenHigh impervious run-on ratioUnstable catchment (or other source
control problems)
Broom (most common) – Not capable of removing silt from the pores of the surface. A Combination sweeper is also a type of broom sweeper that
includes a filtered vacuum system but this is just designed to control airborne dust and will not restore a clogged surface.
ProactiveMaintenance
11/12/2013
45
Regenerative Air Sweepers (2nd most common) –Appropriate for routine maintenance of permeable pavement but not enough to “restore” pavement.
• Uses a blast of air the width of the sweeping head to dislodge material from the surface and lift it into an airstream
Periodic Maintenance
Pure Vacuum Sweepers (least common in the US) – Can be used to restore some clogged permeable pavements.• This is the only type of sweeper that uses air suction
near the surface of the pavement.• Typically configured with side brooms that move
debris into the 3-foot wide path of the vacuum.• May need to adjust the suction for the site. PICP
restoration requires removal of the aggregate. NC State recommends 2000 rpm for this.
Reactive Maintenance
11/12/2013
46
Concrete Grid Pavement (0.5 inch) PICP (1.5 inches) Pervious Concrete and Porous Asphalt (bottom
of slab) Slotted Concrete (bottom of slab)
11/12/2013
47
11/12/2013
48
Regenerative Air Sweeper on Clogged PICP
Before After
More sediment may have been removed if the aggregate level had been maintained.
11/12/2013
49
Dislodges sediment on the surface but doesn’t extend deep enough to restore the surface even after vacuuming
11/12/2013
50
This works on small areas.
Power wash first for porous asphalt and pervious concrete.
Clogged Pervious concreteEstimated cost to unclog the entire 2000 sf (12 parking spaces) at approximately $1200 (8 hours) vs. $300 for periodic and proactive maintenance.
11/12/2013
51
11/12/2013
52
Pour 1 gallon of water over approximately 30 seconds. If the wetted area exceeds a 10-foot diameter, recommend maintenance and/or infiltration testing.
Caked sediment
A high water mark in the curb and gutter or other evidence of ponding
Sediment or pollen streaks on the surface of the pavement.
Caked sediment
low aggregate between pavers
11/12/2013
53
Flame weeding or chemical spot treatment is effective.
Pulling larger weeds can result in movement of the pavers
Removing stains can be done with spot removal with a biodegradable degreaser –one that will sit on the surface and can then be washed off.
11/12/2013
54
Rubber “cutting edge”
Don’t store snow on the permeable pavement
No chemical deicers on porous concrete
No sand on ANY permeable pavement
Use rubber snow plow blades
If you are in full screen mode, you will need to minimize your screen view the question pod.
11/12/2013
55
Please remember to fill out the online survey at:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/lidmaint
This program is worth .2 Continuing Education Credits.To request your CEU’s you must complete the survey.
Thank you!
The American Public Works Association has been accredited as an Authorized Provider by the International Association for
Continuing Education and Training (IACET),
1760 Old Meadow Road, Suite 500, McLean, VA 22102; (703) 506‐3275.
11/12/2013
56
Education Calendar
12/12/2013How to get buy‐in for Asset Management
Programs
1/20/2014Envision™ : The Sustainability Rating
System for ALL Infrastructure
2/13/2014Heavy rain is forecasted – is your levee
certified?
3/13/2014Are you ready for the next step in waste
reduction?
Visit www.apwa.net/Education for more Education Opportunities
www.apwa.net