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. fanthony@cob.org

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