Community Partner Optimizing Stormwater Management to Protect - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

community partner
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Community Partner Optimizing Stormwater Management to Protect - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Community Partner Optimizing Stormwater Management to Protect Streams from Erosion Dr. Bob Hawley, PE Central Ohio SW & EC Expo, 2/26/16 The Urban Stream Syndrome (Walsh et al., 2005; Booth, 2005, etc.) Stream Function Pyr yramid


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Community Partner

slide-2
SLIDE 2
slide-3
SLIDE 3
slide-4
SLIDE 4
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Optimizing Stormwater Management to Protect Streams from Erosion

  • Dr. Bob Hawley, PE

Central Ohio SW & EC Expo, 2/26/16

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The Urban Stream Syndrome

(Walsh et al., 2005; Booth, 2005, etc.)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Stream Function Pyr yramid

(Adapted from Harmon et al., 2012)

Hydrologic Hydraulics Physicochemical Geomorphology Biological Stormwater Management

slide-8
SLIDE 8

~2000-2015

Extended Detention Basin with Sediment Forebay

Analysis of the 2-yr, 2-hr storm from Fort Collins, CO by Bledsoe (2002), Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management

Conventional Detention (Peak Matching) No Detention Pre-Developed

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Conventional Detention = More Erosion than Pre-Developed Conditions

Conventional Detention (Peak Matching) No Detention Pre-Developed

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Longer Durations of Flo lows > Qcrit

itic ical

In Increased Transport of Stream Bed Materia ial

t > tc Q+

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Unconfined Valley with Well-Connected Floodplain

2x low flow depth

Confined Valley

4x low flow depth

Confined vs. Unconfined Example: Required Depth to Convey Same Flow On Same Slope

4’

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Rules and Regs

slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Big Darby setbacks

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Alum Cr. and Big Walnut

  • Cr. setbacks
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Public grant funds will be spent in some measure to protect these condos.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

From the day that they moved into their new homes around 6 years ago, the homeowners along the south side of this stream have been angry about the fact that their backyards flood and some of them are having their backyards eroded by the creek. A grant proposal requesting public funds has been written, in part because

  • f the problems these

homeowners have faced.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Just because there is no designated floodplain, it doesn’t mean that the creek doesn’t flood. (Images from the subdivision on the previous slide)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Over $200,000 private, post-construction dollars have been spent to try to protect this road and the condos by it from the erosion created by the stream.

The pink arrows point to infrastructure put in place to try to address the erosion problem.

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Public water quality improvement funds have been spent because the stream cut into a private storm water pond that had been placed in a flood plain.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Public funds were spent to protect this home from the creek. Partly as a result of the work done to protect the home identified above, this home downstream is now being threatened by the creek. The homeowner would like public funds spent to protect his home as well.

The pink arrow points to infrastructure put in place to try to address an erosion problem.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Homeowners of these properties in the picture below have been concerned about the threat to their properties posed by stream erosion. Two in the photo to the left have spent money to dump rock along the creek in efforts to protect their homes.

The pink arrows point to infrastructure put in place to try to address an erosion problem.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

On-the-ground photo of the erosion problem facing one of the homes pictured above.

slide-29
SLIDE 29
slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31
slide-32
SLIDE 32
slide-33
SLIDE 33
slide-34
SLIDE 34

PROPERTY RIGHTS

Ohio Revised Code. 1515, 6131.6133, 6135, 6137. Changing the flow of water, by changing volume, direction or velocity, in a manner that causes damage to an upstream or downstream neighbor may result in legal liabilities for those damages. In regards to legal recourse, a regulation like the stream buffer expansion regulation is not a taking (i.e. the government does not have to pay the landowner) unless it results in: 1) a significant detriment not substantially related to public benefit, 2) a complete taking or 3) a taking of a "vested right."

slide-35
SLIDE 35
slide-36
SLIDE 36
slide-37
SLIDE 37
slide-38
SLIDE 38

Stable channel wide bank

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Unstable bank narrow channel

slide-40
SLIDE 40
slide-41
SLIDE 41

181 excavations would equal 1 acre foot of storage. 4:1 10’ 10’ 2’

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Maintained turf

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Tree Wells

slide-44
SLIDE 44

1 Tree Well = 27 rain barrels

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Floodplain Restoration

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Soft & Hard Landscape

slide-47
SLIDE 47
slide-48
SLIDE 48
slide-49
SLIDE 49
slide-50
SLIDE 50
slide-51
SLIDE 51