1 / 15

Implementation of SW retrofit and restoration projects in DC – lessons learned

Implementation of SW retrofit and restoration projects in DC – lessons learned. Peter Hill DC Dept. of Health, Watershed Protection Division. Review of stream conditions.

ezhno
Download Presentation

Implementation of SW retrofit and restoration projects in DC – lessons learned

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Implementation of SW retrofit and restoration projects in DC – lessons learned Peter Hill DC Dept. of Health, Watershed Protection Division

  2. Review of stream conditions • MS4 (storm sewer area) has extremely “blown out” streams – high sediment contribution from failing banks, high channel instability • SW infrastructure is failing (esp. headwalls) • Biological diversity is low due to urban runoff and sewer leaks • This occurs even in stream with low percentage of impervious areas

  3. Sources of these problems • SW quantity not mitigated in large areas of the city • Large areas of city with no SW quality control • Aging sewer lines Fenwick Branch sw outfall Ft. Davis sw outfall (30 ft deep canyon)

  4. What we’re doing…. SW retrofit prioritization • Identification and prioritization of SW retrofit sites (field determined) • Identification of estimated reduction loads • Identification of required agency buy-in • (Most difficult area)

  5. LID Demonstration projects • Over 8 implemented • Over 25 in design phase • Funded with 319 and Ches. Bay Program funds

  6. 1 – Bancroft ES LID 2 – Ross ES LID 3 – Human Rights Campaign Foundation green roof 4 – Casey Trees Foundation green roof 5 – Police substation rain garden 6 – Capitol Hill LID 7 – Peabody ES LID 8 – Benning Road bioretention cell

  7. SW Retrofits – lessons learned Programmatic issues • More costly than expected (20-60K/biocell (.3-.6 acres treated) • DDOT right of way issues unresolved • Maintenance issues unresolved • Several agencies involved in each small project • Clear directive from agency directors has not been issued • Streamlined agency coordination has not thus been achieved Benning Rd bioretention cell

  8. SW retrofits – lessons learned • Policy issues • Will this type of sw be cost-shared by the local jurisdiction? • How could these be incentivized through the permit process? Logistical/design issues • Significant space required • “Hand holding” needed • Each project unique – contractors frequently unable to modify/adapt to ensure a successful project • Issues of overflow/underdrains • Untested solutions – unexpected problems • When designed correctly – THEY WORK! Bancroft elementary SW retrofit

  9. Peabody Elementary Pavers installed at school’s request Teachers sued when they were unhappy with result

  10. SW retrofits - unanswered questions • Can these be projects be streamlined? • Can the city procure these projects effectively? • Is this a cost effective alternative to treat urban runoff?

  11. SW retrofits – predicting costs • Back of envelope calculation….assuming that it was technically possible • 8,726 acres of paved roads, lots, alleys in DC: 22.3 % of DC land • *.67 (area not in CSO) = 5,846 acres • If average LID/biocell treats 0.35 acres, we would need 16,702 LID projects • Low cost is currently 20K/cell • Total cost for retrofitting the MS4 area= $334,040,000 • This does not account for roofs and sidewalks, only high pollutant load areas

  12. DC’s Wetland restoration projects WPD has completed two large wetland restoration projects (35 & 18 acres) in the Anacostia River in partnership with the US Army Corps of Engineers. These have the promise of providing additional wildlife habitat as well as capturing nutrients and sediment. A new 7 acre project is currently under construction.

  13. DC’s Wetland restoration projects- lessons learned • Removal efficiencies for wetlands are typically determined by treatment wetlands (ie.. closed system). Efficiencies for tidal systems is not known and may be much lower. • Invasive species can be a significant problem. Getting the elevation right can reduce invasive pressure by some species. • Resident Canada goose herbivory is a major problem in urban and suburban areas and can dramatically affect a wetland restoration project. Without a hunting season, it is extremely difficult to do anything about this overpopulation of an introduced species. Fencing is the typical method used to address geese, but is not a suitable long term solution.

  14. DC’s Wetland restoration projects- lessons learned • USACE is experienced in wetland creation/restoration, but costs are extremely high in urban areas. $220,000-$175,000 per acre are the costs that include all ACE planning, coordination, and construction. Multi-year delays are common since funding is dependent upon congressional earmarks. • Other avenues for contracting out this aspects of this work / partnering with non-profits might be more cost effective and would involve the public more

More Related