choose clean water 060414

Stormwater TrendsClean Water Optimiazation Tool

David J. HirschmanProgram Director

Virginia Officedjh@cwp.org

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

BMP

V

djh@cwp.org

Stormwater News & Gazette:Late Breaking Headlines!

Job Duties: Counting Runoff Volume & Pollutant Loads

Want Ads:Needed Immediately: Stormwater Accountants

Stormwater Goes Quantitative

MS4 Wasteload Allocations – TMDLs

Pollutant Removal Rates for BMPs

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”-Albert Einstein

Stormwater part of obesity epidemic

Diet Prescribed –

Volume Must Be Reduced!

Runoff Reduction ProcessesRunoff Reduction is not just infiltration!

InfiltrationCanopy Interception EvaporationTranspiration Rainwater Harvesting Extended Filtration

Center for Watershed Protection

State (and many local) Stormwater Performance Standards & Manuals are Changing*D.C. – 1.2” on-site retentionDE – retain “resource protection event” (2.7”)WV MS4 – retain runoff from 1” rainfallMD – on-site retention using Environmental

Site DesignCoastal GA – reduce runoff from 1.2” stormWI – Infiltration standardsOthers?

*Replacing previous “treat & release” & 80% TSS standards

Stormwater Style Goes Retro

New Wardrope

Prescribed for Old

Streets, Parking

Lots

New BMPs vs. Retrofits (Shenandoah Valley MS4sAverage Cost-Effectiveness ($ per pound of

Phosphorus Removed)New Retrofits = $56,000Retrofits/Conversions of Existing BMPs =

$24,000 (some ½ of this)

Sports: Contractors Roll Over Inspectors in BMP Installation Bowl

Inspectors Fail to Show Up During Critical Match-Up

Drainage Area Stabilized?

Installed too early during construction; fouled with

construction sediment

Inlet blocked temporarily during bioretention installation

Make Sure Water Gets In!

Inlets blocked or small elevation change diverts flow

from inlet

Inlets unimpeded with pretreatment stone strip or inlet

channel

Style: Stormwater BMPs Go Shaggy

Is Clean-Cut A Thing of the Past?

Finance: Investors Rush to Purchase Stormwater Credits

Will This Bubble

Burst?

Stormwater/Pollutant Trading$

Pollutant Reduction

s

Source: nrcs.usda.gov

Impact

Mitigation

Perceived Impacts/Benefits

Not Everyone Thinks It’s a Great Idea!

D.C. (up and coming)MN – Capital Regional Watershed DistrictCity of Fredericksburg, VA (policy stage)Chesapeake BayNeuse River, NCMD Critical AreasMaine sensitive lakes

Some Existing Off-Site Compliance/Trading Programs

Clean Water Optimization Tool for Maryland’s Eastern Shore

funded by Town Creek Foundation

Clean Water Optimization ToolOverview

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

Clean Water Optimization ToolOverview

• 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.

Clean Water Optimization ToolBackground 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.

Clean Water Optimization ToolBackground and Importance of This Work

Innovative BMPs can substantially reduce costsAnnual 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 20095 Berretta et al. 2011 expressed as lb N/year

Illicit discharge elimination is a cost effective approach to nutrient management

Common sense housekeeping practices can be extremely cost effective also

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 ToolCost

BMPs

Clean Water Optimization ToolCost

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.

Clean Water Optimization ToolCost

User-Adjusted Values

User-Adjusted Input DefaultLand Cost per Developable Acre $100,000 % Project Acres Developable 50%# Years to Project Cost Estimate Over 20County-Specific Cost Adjustment 0.97

Clean Water Optimization ToolCost

• 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolResearch – 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Clean Water Optimization ToolSteps 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

Center for Watershed Protection

Questions/CommentsSadie 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