green techniques in an uburban eie nvironment …...presentation agenda • neorsd and green...
TRANSCRIPT
Controlling CSO UtilizingControlling CSO Utilizing Green Techniques in an
U b E iUrban Environment
Fleet Avenue Green InfrastructureInfrastructure
Presentation Agenda
• NEORSD and Green Infrastructure RequirementsRequirements
• City of Cleveland Coordination
• Alternative Evaluation and Design Selection
• Design– Hydrology and Hydraulics– Plan and Sections– Plant and Soil Selection
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer DistrictSewer District
• Created in 1972 by Court Order• Created in 1972 by Court Order
• Servicing all or part of 62 b itimember communities
• 1 million customers
• 90+ billion gallons wastewater treated each yeartreated each year
• Consent Decree - Project Clean Lake
Combined Sewer Area
Combined Sewer Area
• 81 square miles in combined sewer area
• 65 square miles are impervious
• 80% impervious
Consent Decree Requirements for Consent Decree Requirements for Northeast Northeast Ohio’s CSO Ohio’s CSO Volume Reductions Volume Reductions Northeast Northeast Ohio s CSO Ohio s CSO Volume Reductions Volume Reductions
9
7
8
9
6.2
ng
5
6 4.5
cal Year
me R
emaini
BG)
2
3
4
0 494
Typic
CSO Vo
lum (B
0
1
Baseline (1970s) Early 2000s Re‐Baseline (2011) Target (2036)
0.494
Appendix 3: Gray plus Green
District submitted Green Infrastructure Plan in December 2011
City of Cleveland Coordination City of Cleveland Coordination
• Complete and Green Streets Ordinance in effect as of J 2012January 2012
• Fleet Avenue Reconstruction project is the first l t d t t i th di t b complete and green street since the ordinance to be
designed and constructed for the City
Fl t A ithi t t f CSO l • Fleet Avenue was within a target area for CSO removal for NEORSD
Actively coordinated with Slavic Village Development • Actively coordinated with Slavic Village Development Corp and the City’s ward councilperson
Project Area MapProject Area Map
Project Area MapProject Area Map
GI Project Limits
City Project Limits
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure AlternativesAlternativesAlternativesAlternatives
We have… SAND!!
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure AlternativesAlternativesAlternativesAlternatives
1. Bioretention along rights-of-way2 Offl di t W t (B k B k) 2. Offloading to Waterway (Burke Brook) 3. Infiltration
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure AlternativesAlternatives
1. Bioretention along rights-of-way2 Offl di t W t (B k B k)
AlternativesAlternatives
2. Offloading to Waterway (Burke Brook) 3. Infiltration
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure AlternativesAlternatives
AlternativesAlternatives
Green Infrastructure Green Infrastructure AlternativesAlternatives
1. Bioretention along rights-of-way2 Offloading to Waterway (Burke Brook)
AlternativesAlternatives
2. Offloading to Waterway (Burke Brook)3. Infiltration
• wells, trenches, basin(s)
Green InfrastructureGreen InfrastructureSelected DesignSelected DesignSelected DesignSelected Design
Final Selection: Infiltration Basin Final Selection: Infiltration Basin Reduce Utility ConflictsAvailable Land (Vacant)Available Land (Vacant)Overall CostsCost per gallon of CSO removedNo negative effect on scheduleControls typical year event, overflows to
bi d tcombined systemCentralizing O&M
Project Costs and ScheduleProject Costs and Schedule
Total Project Costs $9 1 millionTotal Project Costs $9.1 million
GI Project Costs $1.8 million
Design Nov 2012 – Dec 2013
Construction Jul 2014 – Jul 2016
GI Basin Construction Apr 2015 – Nov 2015
Contributing Drainage AreaContributing Drainage Area
Total CatchmentA
Area to GICM F t
Imp. Area t GICM
% Imp. to GICM Remaining Area to E i t C b SArea Feature to GICM Exist Comb. Sewer
19.4 acres 15.2 acres 10.0 acres 66% 4.2 acres% Area Captured: 78% Annual CSO Reduction = 0.8 MG
Non‐Building Scenario
All‐Building Scenario
Annual Runoff: 4.7 MG 6.7 MGAnnual Stormwater 4 7 MG 6 6 MG io
nio
n
Capture: 4.7 MG 6.6 MG
TY CSO Reduction: 0.8 MG 1.1 MGNo. of TY “Overflows” to Exist. Combined Sewer: NONE 2
edu
cti
edu
cti
SO
Re
SO
Re
ng
/C
Sn
g/
CS
odel
inod
elin
Mo
Mo
Non‐Building Scenario
All‐Building Scenario
Annual Runoff: 4.7 MG 6.7 MGAnnual Stormwater 4 7 MG 6 6 MG io
nio
n
Capture: 4.7 MG 6.6 MG
TY CSO Reduction: 0.8 MG 1.1 MGNo. of TY “Overflows” to Exist. Combined Sewer: NONE 2
edu
cti
edu
cti
SO
Re
SO
Re
ng
/C
Sn
g/
CS
odel
inod
elin
Mo
Mo
ssR
atio
Rat
ion
ing
Rn
ing
R P
lan
n P
lan
n--A
FP
AFP
G
IG
I--
0.45
0.535
nn
0.35
0.4
25
30
G)(CFS)
ecti
onec
tion
0 2
0.25
0.3
15
20
ume (M
G
eak Flow
m S
ele
m S
ele
0.1
0.15
0.2
10
VolPe
Sto
rmS
torm
Storm 54 Storm 60 Storm 86 5yr 6hr (1 5yr 6hr (15 0
0.05
0
5
sig
n S
sig
n S
Storm 54 Storm 60 Storm 86 hr peak) min peak)Macro Volume 0.27 0.16 0.41 0.44 0.47Macro Peak 4.5 6.3 2.7 14.4 30.5
De
De
Green InfrastructureGreen InfrastructureControl Measure (GICM)Control Measure (GICM)Control Measure (GICM)Control Measure (GICM)
Goals• Capture of • Capture of
Typical Year rainfallrainfall
• CSO ReductionCommunity • Community Amenity
NNS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
wwn
Vie
wn
Vie
wN
: P
lan
N:
Pla
nS
IGN
SIG
ND
ED
E
lan
lan
ace
Pac
e P
bsu
rfa
bsu
rfa
N:
Su
bN
: S
ub
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
lan
lan
ace
Pac
e P
bsu
rfa
bsu
rfa
N:
Su
bN
: S
ub
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
lan
lan
ace
Pac
e P
bsu
rfa
bsu
rfa
N:
Su
bN
: S
ub
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
CM
CM
N:
GIC
N:
GIC
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
CM
CM
N:
GIC
N:
GIC
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
CM
CM
N:
GIC
N:
GIC
SIG
NS
IGN
DE
DE
DESIGN: GICM Typical Year HGLDESIGN: GICM Typical Year HGL
Raised Planter = 686.5Stone Channel = 684.5
Overflow = 688.5
• Overflow Structure ElevationPl ti El ti /Pl t S l ti /S il• Planting Elevation/Plant Selection/Soil
• Stone/Pipe Storage Volume
DESIGN: GICM Typical Year HGLDESIGN: GICM Typical Year HGL
Raised Planter = 686.5
Stone Channel = 684.5
DESIGN: Storm Pipe HGLDESIGN: Storm Pipe HGL
GICM Overflow Elevation= 688.5
DESIGN: Storm Pipe HGL DESIGN: Storm Pipe HGL (All(All--Bldg)Bldg)
GICM Overflow Elevation= 688.5
DESIGN: H/H Design SummaryDESIGN: H/H Design SummaryGI Project Cost $1.8 M
Annual Runoff: 4.7 MGAnnual Stormwater
C 4.7 MG $0.38/galCapture: 4.7 MG $0.38/gal
TY CSO Reduction: 0.8 MG $2.25/galNo. of TY “Overflows” to Exist. Combined Sewer: NONE
• GICM Capture for Typical Year Storms• 5-year Design Storm for Pipe Network• Coordination with Landscape Architecture
design for frequency of inundationdesign for frequency of inundationTotal Catchment
Area Area to GICM
FeatureImp. Area to GICM
% Imp. to GICM Remaining Area to Exist Comb. Sewer
19.4 acres 15.2 acres 10.0 acres 66% 4.2 acres% Area Captured: 78% Annual CSO Reduction = 0.8 MG
GICM Functional Design
• Creating a Neighborhood Amenity with Multiple Benefits:
• Reduction in Stormwater Runoff
b l• Improving Livability• Reducing Heat Island Effect• Providing Habitat• Cultivating Public Education
Opportunities• Increase in Groundwater
Recharge• Reduction in Carbon Dioxide
GI Control Measure Aesthetic Design• Create a lush, vibrant public space• Create a natural feeling landscape within a structured
frameworkframework• Provide community access that promotes engagement
Why Plants and Soil?• Short and Long term Infiltration• Interception and Evapotranspiration• Nutrient Removal• Decreased hydrologic flow rates can increase TSS
Sequestration• Soil Mix: 30% Sand / 20% Organic / 50% Silt & Clay/ g / y
Plant Selection and Landscape Design
Celebration Maple Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry Washington Hawthorn Knock‐Out Rose
Green Velvet Boxwood Grey Owl Juniper Karl Foerster Reed Grass Day Lilies (Various Cultivars)
Raspberry Wine Bee Balm Blue Vervain Great Blue Lobelia Iris (Various Cultivars)
QuestionsQuestions
Kim Colich, [email protected]
216 881 6600
Mike Seluga, [email protected]
216 881 6600
Christian Lynn, [email protected]
216 622 2395216‐881‐6600 216‐881‐6600 216‐622‐2395