euclid initial green solutions

Bluestone HeightsRoy Larick

1) Streams into Sewers

City of Euclid boundary

Google Earth aerial viewer

Restoring the Pulse

© 2015 Bluestone Heights

Bluestone

Heightsbluestoneheights.org

3) Integrated Planning

4) Eco-Greenways

of Nature in Euclid

2) Initial Green Solutions

5) Euclid Ecology Unit

Overview

In five SlideShares, Restoring the Pulsepresents two goals for stormwater Integrated Planning in Euclid, Ohio:

• Revive the natural regulation of stormwater at relatively low cost and high community benefit.

• Reconnect fragmented natural habitat areas as a means to build local biodiversity and natural capital.

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

Total storm catchment area: 6,867 acres (10.7 sq mi)

Yellow balloons: 17 CSO regulator pointsPink balloons: 2 SSO regulator points*

Catchment types: Separated Sewer (newer): 6,447 acres (94%) Combined Sewer (older): 420 acres ( 6%)

Initial Green SolutionsRestoring the Pulse

Sa

lt

Ru

n

Euclid stormwater profile

Many Euclid residential areas were built with Combined Sewer systems. In the ‘CSs,’ storm and sanitary sewage is mixed for treatment.

Each Combined Sewer subsystem drains a small catchment. Each catchment has an Overflow point (CSO) at which a regulator dumps storm surges into an escarpment run sewer.

In this way, CSOs can deliver polluted stormwater directly to Lake Erie.

Euclid has just two remaining Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) points. These will be eliminated in 2015, in compliance with the consent decree.



Basic data on Euclid storm sewer catchments :

*


Euclid storm sewers

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

9 CSOs (108 acres) overflow <4 times/year: ‘non-priority’ 8 CSOs (312 acres) overvlow >4 times/year: ‘priority’

The EPA consent decree addresses ‘priority’ CSOs, those that activate (overflow) four or more times in a typical year. EPA regulates overflow. We need to manage catchment runoff.

Euclid has 8 priority catchments draining 312 acres with total annual overflow of 53.7 million gallons.

In order to meet the EPA mandate, the priority CSOcatchments must be the targets for ‘gray’ and ‘green’ stormwater infrastructure.

We must see the priority CSO catchments as localized landscapes on which ‘green’ can help solve the stormwater problem and enhance neighborhood quality of life.

Yellow balloons: priority CSO overflow pointsRed areas: priority CSO catchments

Priority CSO catchments





Sa

lt

Ru

nEuclid storm sewers

Typical year priority CSO activations (2012 data)

Activation frequencyLilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

20 07

120609

08

11

22

CSO 12 06 07 22 09 20 11 08

CSOs 21 & 6: severe CSOs 07, 22, 09 & 20: significantCSOs 11 & 08: moderate

Activation frequency classification

Typ

ical

ye

ar f

req

ue

ncy

Euclid priority CSO catchment activations

4





Sa

lt

Ru


Priority catchment runoff volumes & overflow streamsID acres MG/e MG/y overflow stream06 75 0.821 15.029 Burk Run07 42 0.280 3.698 Salt Run08 15 0.013 0.113 Babbitt Run09 9 0.037 0.763 Creek 511 37 0.012 0.274 Lilly Creek12 42 0.652 21.855 Salt Run 20 36 0.240 3.966 Burk Run22 56 0.412 8.013 Green CreekTotals 312 2.467 53.732

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

20 07

120609

08

11

22

Euclid priority CSO overflow volumes

MG/e: million gallons per typical eventMG/y: million gallons per typical year





Sa

lt

Ru


In 2011, CT Consultants, Euclid’s engineering firm, wrote a Long Term Control Plan to address priority storm events.

Priority catchment overflow would be delivered to ‘gray’ equalization tanks near each catchment.

The stored overflow is later delivered to an upgraded wastewater treatment plant for processing.

Equalization tank location (red balloons), size and projected cost were as follows.

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

20 07

120609

08

11

22

CT priority catchment ‘gray’ solutions

Priority catchment equalization tanks ID basin location size MG $ M06/09 Erwine school lot 0.804 6.4307/12 Bir-Bee-Wal triangle 1.375 8.1608 Bab-NKPRR-Tungsten 0.009 0.6711 E 222-Coulter basin 0.012 1.1020 St. Robert church lot 0.240 4.4022 NKPRR-E 196-E 204 0.412 6.12

Totals 2.852 26.88





Sa

lt

Ru


In 2013, Strand Associates and Human Nature (Strand) were hired to identify green stormwater possibilities within six priority CSO catchments. The goal was to eliminate or downsize the equalization tanks.

In five catchments, Strand identified areas in which new separate storm sewers could direct runoff to small bio-retention basins. These are called ‘green sub-catchments’.

Green sub-catchments can infiltrate significant volumes of stormwater thereby reducing the need for ‘gray’ infrastructure. As we shall see, the green sub-catchment solution is cost effective.

Particular features of Strand’s green sub-catchments are outlined in the following slides

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

20 07

120609

08

11

22

Strand’s priority green proposals





Sa

lt

Ru


Data legend for the next fives slides:

Typical bioretention basin profile

Lilly

Cre

ek

Ba

bb

itt Ru

n

Cre

ek

5

Bu

rk R

un

20 07

120609

08

11

22 acres % c’ment cap MG $ M

11.7 10.6 0.099 1.14

Strand’s green sub-catchment features

Proposed green sub-catchment size

Green area relative to total catchment

Biorention basin capacity (million gallons)

Approximate cost (million dollars)

Three basic functions





Sa

lt

Ru


Green sub-catchment 07+12*

Blue: storm sewerYellow: sani sewerRed: combined sewer

CSO regulator point

green sub-catchment

bioretention facility

acres % c’ment cap MG $ M

11.7 10.6 0.099 1.14


One green sub-catchment can serve CSOs 07 & 12.

*


Green sub-catchment 06


CSO

green sub-catchment



9.8 13.6 0.155 0.41





CSO regulator point

green sub-catchment



4.8 30 0.107 0.35





CSO regulator point

green sub-catchment



9.3 25 0.075 0.89





CSO regulator point

green sub-catchment



33.5 55 0.528 2.34



Priority catchment ‘gray’ equalization tanks ID basin location size MG $ M06/09 Erwine school lot 0.804 6.4307/12 Bir-Bee-Wal triangle 1.375 8.1608 Bab-NKPRR-Tungsten 0.009 0.6711 E 222-Coulter basin 0.012 1.1020 St. Robert church lot 0.240 4.4022 NKPRR-E 196-E 204 0.412 6.12

Totals 2.852 26.88

Green sub-catchment bioretention featuresID acres % c’ment cap MG $ M06 9.8 13.6 0.155 0.4107/12 11.7 10.6 0.099 1.1408 4.8 30 0.107 0.3511 9.3 25 0.075 0.8922 33.5 55 0.528 2.34Totals 69.1 0.964 5.13

5.13/0.964 =$5.3 M per MG

26.88/2.852 =$9.6 M per MG

Priority CSO solution comparisons

Strand’s green installations cost about $5.3 million per million gallons of captured runoff, little more than half that of gray.

Strand estimated that the five green installations could save more than $4 million in reduced equalization basin size.

Strand has taken a first step to put green onto CT’s gray plan. This is a rational step in building a top notch green approach.



Public PresentationEuclid Public LibraryJune 10, 2015



1) Streams into Sewers


Restoring the Pulse

Bluestone

Heightsbluestoneheights.org

3) Integrated Planning

4) Eco-Greenways

of Nature in Euclid

2) Initial Green Solutions

5) Euclid Ecology Unit

Roy Larick

Walk back in time Look to the Future

Bluestone Heights


A production by

bluestoneheights.org

[email protected] bluestone outcropDoan Brook, Cleveland OHR. Larick

bluestoneheights.org

euclid initial green solutions

Environment

euclid storm sewer catchments

priority catchments

overflow point cso

combined sewer older

combined sewer subsystem

combined sewer systems

catchment types

small catchment