A TECHNICAL PUBLICATION BY HDR’S WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES GROUP WINTER 2013-14

SUSTAINABILITY

2

Sustainable Return on Investment:A Triple Bottom Line Decision Making Framework for Water Infrastructure

11

14 A New LID Guidance Manual for Arid, Semi-Arid, and Cold Climate Regions:The Eastern WA LID Guidance Manual

18 Leveraging Our Industry & Community Partnerships to Implement Green Infrastructure

17 First Envision™ Gold Award Presented to HDR-designed Project

6 Optimization of Energy Usage at HRSD

When Storms Overwhelm Our Infrastructure

©ist

ockp

hoto

.com

/HDR

© Ji

m Ko

hl Ph

otog

raph

y

contents

W I N T E R 2 0 1 3 –1 4

Waterscapes is a technical publication produced and distributed by HDR. Address

changes and correspondence should be sent to the attention of:

waterscapes@hdrinc.comor

Waterscapes Editor Engineering Marketing Services

8404 Indian Hills DriveOmaha, NE 68114-4049

T E C H N I C A L E D I TO RJulie Stein

WAT E R S C A P E S E D I TO RSteve Beideck

E D I T I N G & D E S I G NMarketing Services

Creative Studio

hdrinc.com

© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved

For information on career opportunities at HDR, please visit: hdrinc.com/careers

We practice increased use of sustainable materials and reduction of material use.

Waterscapes is offset printed on Utopia Two Xtra Green 100# Dull text, which is FSC-

certified paper manufactured with electricity in the form of renewable energy (wind,

hydro, and biogas) and includes a minimum of 30% post-consumer recovered fiber.

[ front cover photo ]More than 100 volunteers worked to fill the rain garden, plant native species, and place gravel and mulch to complete construction

of a rain garden at Chicago’s Haines Elementary School.

Sustainability is no longer just a buzzword. Especially in the water, wastewater and stormwater industries, we have come a long way in understanding what sustainability looks like on the ground and what it may mean for our financial bottom line.

From industrial water reuse systems or a series of Bioswales in the right-of-way; to energy audits for critical infrastructure and detailed vulnerability analyses of “what could go wrong” in advance of storm events, we are seeing more examples like these implemented in our own communities.

The only question that remains is whether we will lead planning and design projects with sustainability principles as part of our projects’ stated goals or consider sustainable features as an afterthought.

In this issue of Waterscapes, we highlighted six projects in which a focus on sustainability guided efforts, and how a sustainable approach from the onset led to successful project outcomes.

• By being on the scene immediately after the September 2013 floods in Colorado subsided,HDR was able to support the communities most affected to assess the vulnerability ofinfrastructure overwhelmed by the extreme weather events that hit the region and providethe information needed to begin repairs and rebuild with infrastructure resiliency in mind.

• Learn how the Hampton Roads Sanitation District in Virginia modified its existing plants forenergy optimization to address the ‘triple bottom line’ without major capital costs or structuralchanges. Learn more about the method that was developed to meet these goals.

• Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) is a decision-making framework for water,wastewater and stormwater infrastructure investments which has proven to be a valuable toolfor utilities seeking to better understand the triple bottom line and balance direct financialimpacts with the implications to the environment and society.

• HDR teamed with six entities in eastern Washington to develop a low impact developmentmanual and provide stormwater managers, site designers and design reviewers with acommon understanding of LID goals, objectives, designs, flow reduction and water qualitytreatment standards and necessary operations and maintenance (O&M) activities for aridregions and cold weather climates.

• The first Envision TM gold award was presented in 2013 to the William Jack Hernandez SportFish Hatchery in Anchorage, Alaska by the Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI). You willlearn more about the sustainable features that earned this award and how several key projectelements have exceeded expectations.

• The stories of how a group of volunteers annually helps cities design and build greeninfrastructure projects as part of the WEFTEC Conference is our final article. Updates on thefirst six projects are presented to show just how effective these programs can be and lessonslearned to assist others to replicate “leading by doing” projects.

We hope that you find this edition of Waterscapes interesting. Please contact us to discuss any of the topics summarized here.

Julie Stein

HDR Northeast Area Stormwater Lead

message from technical editor

1

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

[ infrastructure resiliency ]

Our InfrastructureOVERWHELM

When Storms

By Michael McMahon, HDR Senior Hydro-Meteorologist, Denver

HUMANKIND HAS FOUGHT a continuous battle with the natural environment. The vulnerability of a given community is weighed by the level of its resilience to natural hazards. We all have heard of the 50-, 100-, and even 200-year levels of protection, but these levels of risk management no longer come into play when extreme events strike.

Extreme events are the aberration, the 1,000-plus year event, the coming together of the worst of the worst all at once.

Unfortunately, there is something diabolical about the way Mother Nature works, and it seems that extreme events are becoming more frequent and more severe.

Although there have been many extreme events the last few years—including Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and most recently Typhoon Haiyan in the

Philippines—the flooding in September in Colorado had the greatest impact on the lives and livelihoods of HDR professionals in all of our Colorado offices. This series of storms overwhelmed our infrastructure and made clear the vulnerabilities of our communities to extreme events.

Never has a moment more exemplified HDR’s “Client for Life” mentality than the events that transpired in Colorado during the storms of Sept. 9-11, 2013. Our transportation and utilities clients along the Front Range of the Rockies turned to HDR even before the extreme storm events were concluded. Although they knew that federal aid was coming, decisions needed to be made immediately to ensure that their communities could return to normal as fast as possible.

2

OVERWHELM

Synoptic Situation: September 9-11, 2013

An area of vertically stacked low pressure settled in over the western U.S., which was stalled from moving east by increasing high pressure over the North Central United States.

This mechanism set up a large scale pump of deep moisture northward from off the Pacific coast of Mexico.

Meanwhile, a cold front began to stall over the Continental Divide that provided ample instability to the incoming, moisture-laden air mass. Add these components to already saturated soils, and the extreme storm recipe for disaster was complete.

Here’s how Boulder, Colo., resident Kathie Joyner described what happened at her home.

“The night of Sept. 11, the basement began to flood around 8 p.m. It had been raining continuously for hours, saturating the soils. The water literally had nowhere else to go. That night we had about 3.5 feet of water in the basement.

“I had arranged for a restoration company to be at the house at 8 a.m. on Sept. 12. Much of the water was removed with pumps that day. However, as rain continued on the 12th, so did the flooding. The basement began to fill again, along with a sewer back-up (which nearly all of my neighbors experienced).

“Flood waters approached the level of our main floor that night and we took shelter in a house next door with a second story. Our street (Qualla Drive) was a river, spanning from porches on one side to porches on the other.

“Water was flowing from all directions over land, including from our side yards, onto the Qualla Drive floodway.”

Although the heaviest rains fell along the Front Range (17.63 inches in SE Boulder) and the Denver Metro area on Sept. 11 and 12, rain fell for six consecutive days. Rainfall return frequency values exceed the 1,000-year criteria in many locations for different durations (i.e. 6, 12 and 24 hours).

Damage from the flooding was estimated in excess of $2 billion with numerous lives lost and homes destroyed. Mountain communities were devastated, entire water, storm/wastewater systems were carried away in the flood waters in many locations.

Systems that had been hardened to be resilient to flash floods, which are common along the Front Range, showed their vulnerability to this extreme event.

HDR offices along the Front Range began to mobilize even before the flooding was over. Threats to infrastructure were real and ongoing. But this was not just an effort to see how fast systems could be brought back online or replace in-kind, infrastructure replacement would have to make considerations for future resilience to extreme events. Hardening, potential relocation, and planning and redesign would need to be considered.

City of Evans The city of Evans is located near the

confluence of the Big Thompson, Little Thompson, South Platte and Cache la Poudre rivers, all of which received significant flooding. It is estimated the flood was in the range of a 500-year occurrence.

The most significant infrastructure damage occurred along the South Platte River on the south side of the city. The city’s south end is normally protected by an uncertified levee system.

However, the levee system failed in a number of areas causing water inundation to what was previously considered the 500-year event. Key damage caused by the flooding included the following:• Major damage and roadway washout

to a number of key roads• Major damage to Riverside Parkway

including the uncovering of a previously unknown landfill

• Inundation and clogging of stormwater and wastewater collection systems

• Utility breaks due to washout of roadsThe greatest flood impact to the City

of Evans resulted from the wastewater treatment facility being inundated with flood waters. Water overtopped the lagoon treatment system and flooded the influent pump station, causing the system to shut down. Additionally, the backup generator system failed from water entering the engine.

With the wastewater treatment facility shut down, the city had to find other methods for providing sanitary service. For approximately eight days, the city implemented a “no flush” order and brought in 150 portable toilets.

A plan was developed to temporarily pump wastewater from an upstream manhole to a connection with the City of Greeley until the Evans system could be brought back online.

[left] © Google Earth [right] The night of Sept. 12, 2013

Qualla Drive, Boulder, Co.

3hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES

Once water was being pumped to Greeley, a second set of temporary pumps and pipeline was installed to bypass around the headworks and discharge directly into the first lagoon. Within eight days of the Evans facility being shut down, the system

was back up and operational allowing the city to lift the “no flush” order.

Next, a specialty electrical contractor was brought in to begin the process of replacing equipment and bringing the Evans wastewater treatment facility headworks back online. Finally, to repair other impacted areas including damaged roads and utilities, the city worked with Weld County to fill areas of erosion and stabilize pipelines.

All this work was accomplished in the first two months after the event. The city is now in the process of implementing the permanent repairs which could last for another two years.

Due to the uncertified nature of the existing levee system, the city was in the process of updating flood maps to show the 100- and 500-year inundation zones without the levee. When the floodwaters hit Sept. 13, the flooding extents matched closely what was predicted.

To reduce impacts in the future, the city is in the process of revising the

zoning documents to restrict development in the 100-year floodplain and require certain flood mitigation measures for constructing in the 500-year event.

To reduce the flood impact on the wastewater treatment system, the city and HDR are evaluating a number of alternatives including flood proofing the existing facility

or the possibility of decommissioning the Evans facility and sending flow to the Hill-n-Park facility located on the west side of the city.

The Hill-n-Park wastewater treatment facility treats approximately 30 percent of the Evans wastewater. But due to the treatment facility elevation, it was not impacted by floodwaters. The long-term plan will include considerations of safety, operability and cost.

Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District

The Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District (MWRD) of Denver experienced impacts to both the main wastewater treatment facility–the Robert W. Hite Treatment Facility (RWHTF) in Denver–and to one of their main interceptor sewers located near the border between the City of Aurora and the City of Denver.

The RWHTF is surrounded on one side by the South Platte River and on the other side by Sand Creek. The portions of the facility that share a border with Sand Creek underwent severe erosion due to high water levels in the creek.

HDR’s Atmospheric Science Group provided an analysis of the rainfall, so that the question, “Why was the flooding so bad?” could be answered and quantified.

No treatment facilities or buildings were damaged, but approximately two acres of land were washed down river. This area was planned for future process facility construction. HDR is helping to update and complete planning efforts following the changing landscape.

A portion of the Sand Creek sewer interceptor was washed away during the storm event (Photo 1). HDR is providing design-build assistance to replace the washed away portion of the Sand Creek interceptor in a timely manner to avoid any service interruptions to that area of the collection system.

[ Top] Sewer Interceptor (conduit lengths on left side of creek) from MWRD facility that has been washed away due to flooding along Sand Creek.

[ Bottom] Infrastructure damage at the Brodie Avenue crossing of Fish Creek in Estes Park, Colo.

4

Estes ParkHDR engineers visited Estes Park early

in the week following the rain/flood event to perform a post-event damage assessment. The damage to Fish Creek Road, the associated utilities and local street connectors, and the creek channel were reviewed, evaluated for damage, and recorded in field notes and photographs.

HDR met with FEMA representatives and accompanied them for the preliminary damage assessment (PDA) site visit in Estes Park, including Fish Creek Road.

The damage to the Scott Avenue east retention pond and the bridge on Fall River Court also were reviewed in the field. Following this one-day visit, the team assembled a damage assessment report that described the damage and estimated material, labor and installation costs to replace the utilities and the roads.

A two-day visit to Estes Park a week after the rain/flood event was completed to serve as the basis for an expedited design of a temporary water line. The team reviewed options for installing a temporary water pipeline at Brodie Avenue crossing Fish Creek (Photo to right) with the objective of developing a design schematic to reconnect customers to the potable water system.

A schematic design for the temporary waterline was developed, delivered to the Estes Park water department, and recommendations were discussed for construction.

Based on the input and feedback of water department staff, HDR produced a preliminary plan set of drawings to address the reconstruction of the Fish Creek roadway and embankment and the restoration of utilities.

In the plans, the road length is stationed and segmented with respect to major damage areas, with indications on the plans of the areas damaged. Estimated quantities of materials requiring

replacement for each segment are tabulated and shown in the plan set.

Following extensive utility coordination, preliminary details for the utility replacement/repair are included.

General notes describe the damage incurred by each type of utility and basic general notes are provided to inform potential contractors of the scope of the work.

Action taken by everyone—National Guard, FEMA, local utilities, police, fire

and other first responders—ensured that response would quickly become recovery and the vulnerabilities of the past would become lessons learned for the resilience of the future.

For more information about this article, please contact Mike McMahon at Michael.McMahon@hdrinc.com

temporary potable water line

5hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

[figure 1] Five HRSD plants evaluated at HRSD by HDR

By Christina L. Alito, Ph.D., Envision Sustainability Professional, Vienna, Va. Stephanie Spalding, P.E., Envision Sustainability Professional, Norfolk, Va. Dave Reardon, P.E., Envision Sustainability Professional, Folsom, Calif. Rick Raike, P.E., Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Va. Sherman Pressey, Hampton Roads Sanitation District, Virginia Beach, Va.

AS NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICAL COSTS steadily increase, the importance of sustainability and energy management in wastewater treatment plants has reached an all-time peak.

Water utilities have a growing interest in optimizing their energy usage to reduce operating costs and work toward more sustainable facilities that meet population demand and water quality regulations. Incentive programs from state and federal agencies, as well as private utility companies, have reduced the burden of energy expenditures to incentivize implementation of energy management strategies.

These programs also encourage energy vigilance and replacement of antiquated lighting and HVAC systems. Utilities are beginning to shift their focus to the “triple bottom line” of sustainability—social, environmental and economic measures for sustainable growth and energy conservation.

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) particularly face new energy consumption challenges as nutrient limits become more stringent and require enhanced biological and chemical processes to remove excess microconstituents.

Plant management now involves the use real-time observations of electrical demand and equipment improvements as a way to reduce energy consumption without compromising water quality. Designs of future WWTPs are striving to reduce net embodied energy, improve quality of life for neighboring communities and significantly reduce pollution.

MotivationThe Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD)—a partnership

between nine major wastewater treatment plants in Hampton Roads, Va., along with four smaller plants on Virginia’s Middle Peninsula—has a total capacity of 249 million gallons per day (MGD). With a goal of becoming more energy efficient, HRSD’s operations department continues to enhance its energy plan, which was created in 2010.

ATP

NTP

VIP

WTP

YRTP

[ energy optimization ]

optimization of E N E R G Y USAG E at HRSD

6

[ figure 2 ] Steps towards energy optimization through data analysis and client collaboration. After the energy optimizations, several HRSD plants went on to develop internal ECMs that lead to further energy savings.

To streamline and reduce energy use, HRSD began investigating ways to minimize consumption and lessen peak demands. HRSD also established an energy management team that developed objectives and budgets for energy optimizations. The energy management team is comprised of HRSD leaders whose collective goal is to create sustainability initiatives and standards of practice.

In 2011, HDR was tasked with conducting the first energy optimization at the Virginia Initiative Plant (VIP) in Norfolk. The focus of this energy optimization was to examine energy use from previous years and perform field investigations that could be used to develop energy conservation measures (ECMs).

The ECMs addressed changes to equipment, operations and maintenance that can lead to reduced energy expenditures.

HDR has performed two energy optimizations at HRSD plants each year since the kickoff, adding the Atlantic Treatment Plant (ATP), the Williamsburg Treatment Plant (WTP), the York River Treatment Plant (YRTP) and the Nansemond Treatment Plant (NTP) to the list of those reviewed. These plants vary in permit requirements and treat a range of 9 to 34 MGD.

The evaluations identified the significance of real-time tracking of electrical demand for load shedding.

Methodology for Energy OptimizationExisting plants can be modified to address the “triple bottom

line” without major capital costs or structural changes. Minor modifications to process equipment, electrical demand peaking, and process operations all can provide low capital cost energy savings with short paybacks.

The initial phase of the energy optimization was to characterize current energy usage at the plants. Historical electrical bills were used to determine how individual wastewater treatment processes were consuming energy at the plant.

Energy consumption per gallon treated, denoted as “energy intensity,” was calculated to establish the plants’ baseline energy usage rate. Figure 2 shows the steps to energy optimization taken by HDR staff to evaluate energy usage at HRSD plants.

Energy intensity values give a baseline energy performance value to a plant, but should not be used as a definitive value of efficiency. Process assemblies and nutrient limitations may dictate the power requirement necessary for complete wastewater treatment, especially if biological nutrient removal (BNR) is used to meet total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for nitrogen and phosphorus.

ATP discharges to the Atlantic Ocean and only regulates effluent BOD while Nansemond and other HRSD plants face stricter nutrient limits as part of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Program (total nitrogen limit of 5 to 8 mg/L and 1 mg/L total phosphorus). A summary of plant characteristics is shown in Table 1on the following page.

Gather Preliminary Electric, Gas, and Fuel Data. Determine Energy Intensity Values of Plant

Compare Energy Intensity Values to Plant Processes to Determine Efficiency of Plant

Conduct a Field Visit to Verify Equipment Usage and Speak with Plant Personnel

Identify Key Energy Consumers and Develop Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) to Mitigate

Energy Consumption

Implement ECMs to Reduce Energy Usage and Increase Savings

Establish Energy Management Team and Encourage Discussion of Energy Awareness

STEPS TO ENERGY OPTIMIZATION

At first glance, the plant’s energy intensities may indicate that WTP was inefficiently using energy due to its high energy intensity. However, after conducting the energy optimization, it was clear that the pumping requirements for oxidation towers and aeration blowers for the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process were large consumers of power.

Plant management officials also had taken widespread measures to reduce power consumption, including load shedding during peak demand, shutdown of unnecessary pumping, and dewatering improvements to increase solids percentage fed into energy-intensive centrifuges.

7hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

A comprehensive utility bill analysis was performed with three-year utility billing information supplied by HRSD and Dominion Virginia Power. A field investigation was performed for one day at each plant, followed by a debriefing meeting with HRSD. The field visit included an HDR-led kickoff meeting with plant personnel, a tour of the plant and a comprehensive evaluation of treatment processes.

ECMs were identified during the field investigation at each plant, and a debriefing workshop was held for plant personnel to discuss initial findings. An energy optimization report was put together following the plant visits and was based on plant data provided to HDR by HRSD staff and field observations.

An important stage of the energy optimization involved identifying which processes were consuming the most energy so they could be further refined. Figure 3 shows the breakdown in energy consumption at ATP and WTP.

The largest consumers were aeration blowers and odor control fans. Recirculation pumps and centrifuges also account for more than 10 percent of plant energy usage.

Energy Conservation MeasuresECMs were developed based on the data gathered before and

during the site visits. Accuracy of estimates provided are at the conceptual planning level and should be refined through design phases if implemented. The ECMs that encompassed the largest energy savings were common for all plants and are summarized as follows:• Immediately put in place an energy management system at each

plant to monitor demand of electrical service. Monitor power usage and communicate with power provider to take advantage of provider power usage incentives. Monitor real-time electrical demand to assess distribution of energy usage and reduce demand charges.

• Add variable frequency drives (VFDs) to motors to increase energyefficiency and reduce power cost when cost-effective. This usually applies to large motors (>30 hp).

• Investigate modifications to lighting system to improveaccessibility for maintenance crews and improve energy efficiency.Consider installing timers and motion sensors in facilities.

• Optimize pump operations by adjusting sheaves or impellersto operate pumps more efficiently through reduced speed ofpumps. Pilot testing may be necessary to confirm that changesdo not adversely affect plant operation. Evaluate NPW usage andoptimize to minimize unnecessary usage or high system pressures.

• Create a plant energy team to observe power usage and discussenergy goals and ideas. Team should meet monthly and will beresponsible for monitoring energy consumers and investigatingenergy conservation methods that could be useful. Energyteams also should develop incentive/motivation procedures toencourage sustainability and energy management, continueenergy training for staff.

• Agree upon sustainable design standards for HRSD that addresspotential methods of avoiding overdesign.

• Investigate modifying the operation of odor control systemsto reduce energy usage while maintaining system effectiveness.Test odor control flow rates to ensure they are performing atdesign levels and not exceeding necessary air change flows.

• Meet with HRSD’s Dominion Virginia Power representative todiscuss incentive programs and technical support offered.

[ table 1 ] COMPARISON OF FLOW, ENERGY INTENSITY, AND PROCESS TYPE FOR EVALUATED HRSD PLANTS

Plant Daily Flow (MGD)

Approximate Energy Intensity

(kWh/MG)Process Type

Virginia Initiative Plant (VIP) 34 1,700 Unique Design with Anaerobic, Anoxic, & Aeration Basins for BNR

Atlantic Treatment Plant (ATP) 30 2,100 Conventional Activated Sludge

Williamsburg Treatment Plant (WTP) 9 3,700 Oxidation Towers & MLE Process

Nansemond Treatment Plant (NTP) 17 2,800 Bardenpho Process

York River Treatment Plant (YRTP) 12 2,200 Conventional Activated Sludge & Denitrification Filters

[ table 2 ] SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTED ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED DURING OPTIMIZATION

PlantNo. of ECMs

Identified and Recommended

No. of ECMs Implemented

by Plant to Date

Implementation Cost

Simple Payback(years)

Total Implemented Savings1 ($/year)

Virginia Initiative Plant 12 7 $225,000 1.79 $125,900

Atlantic Treatment Plant 12 8 $8,400 0.03 $259,400

Williamsburg Treatment Plant 9 2 $0 0.0 $19,900

8

• Investigate decreasing the temperatures and heater use in facilities so boilers/heaters can be turned down when operators are not working in areas.

• Consider optimizing aeration systems to provide the necessary blower capacity for each plant. Some blowers may be interchanged between plants to ensure blowers are operating efficiently and are correctly sized.

• Consider modifying solids handling operations to increase sludge feed concentration to centrifuges to reduce energy. Pilot testing may be required.

• Consider using fats, oils and grease (FOG) tipping fees for FOG receiving facilities to fund improvements to the operations and maintenance of FOG facilities. Accepting FOG could be beneficial for providing carbon feed for denitrification systems or improving biogas production in anaerobic digesters. Several of the ECMs developed were tested and implemented

immediately, such as lowering the return activated sludge (RAS) pump recycle rate, running one non-potable water (NPW) pump instead of two, and increasing the centrifuge feed concentration.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

E�uent Pump Station

Return Activated Sludge Pump Station

Primary Treatment

NPW Pump Station

Small Motors & Equipment, Building & Lighting

Dewatering

Headworks

Acid Phase Digester

Gas Phase Digesters

Odor Control

Aeration Basins

Gravity Belt Thickener Building

Scum Building

Fats, Oils, and Grease Facility

Secondary Clari�ers

Oxidation Towers

Solids Incineration Building

Percent of Total Plant Energy Usage

ATP

WTP

[ figure 3 ] Percent of Energy Usage of Major Process Equipment

The other ECMs were included in HRSD’s yearly goals set forth by the energy management team. Since the completion of the first energy optimization in 2011, HRSD has achieved significant energy savings due to the proactive nature of the organization and electrical vigilance.

In total, 17 ECMs have been implemented successfully with large yearly savings at each plant. Table 2 summarizes the ECMs, associated costs, and simple payback at each plant. NTP and YRTP energy optimizations are ongoing.

Lighting OptimizationHRSD requested that HDR investigate plant lighting upgrades and

operational modifications to provide sustainable and cost-effective lighting design and increase ease of access and maintenance for plant staff. These recommendations were made to all plants.

During the lighting fixture storage walk-through, the fixture and lamp spare parts were not housed together with a common inventory. Instead, expended lamps were replaced as they burned out, resulting in unplanned maintenance activities. Lamps were

9hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

acquired as needed, which added time and cost to maintain those lighting fixtures.

HDR recommended that one department be established for lamp ordering to consolidate the lighting program. HDR also addressed inconsistencies in lighting fixtures throughout the wastewater facilities.

Because facilities were constructed or upgraded at different times, lighting fixtures used varied and created glare, high contrast, and unsafe shadows which could compromise working safety. HDR suggested that HRSD investigate outdated light sources and fixtures to improve lighting quality and plant operations.

Some facilities at HRSD plants already had installed some occupancy sensors in the administrative buildings, but lighting systems were not always integrated into the plant’s distributed control system (DCS). It was recommended that HRSD implement lighting controls compliant with the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in the short term at the administration buildings and in long term at the rest of the facilities.

There also was light pollution at some of the plant sites. Light pollution is a concern because it can cause ingress of insects, egress of unappreciated nighttime lighting, and disruption of nocturnal animals in oceanic, river and other natural boundaries.

Certain jurisdictions also have “dark sky” ordinances that require full cut-off fixtures.

HDR recommended that HRSD investigate light pollution reduction alternatives and DCS integration to streamline and reduce energy usage of the lighting systems.

Further Steps Toward Sustainability

As part of HRSD’s energy efficiency initiative, plant managers and other HRSD staff have put together a plant-wide energy plan that has a mission to “operate, build, renovate and continually improve HRSD systems and facilities in a manner that maximizes benefits from energy efficient policies, practices and equipment.”

The energy plan includes guidelines for designated energy managers and the energy efficiency team to implement

standards for energy measurements at wastewater facilities, monthly reporting, and internal energy auditing. HRSD’s Sustainability Advocacy Group has established sustainability initiatives for several plants which will lead to greater Keystone energy savings:• King William Treatment Plant – Zero discharge• Nansemond Treatment Plant – Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG)

fermentation project• Atlantic Treatment Plant – Digester Combined Heat Power (CHP)

Individual plant energy management teams have been established and meet regularly to discuss unique energy problems, solutions and goals at each plant. HRSD continues to reinforce and implement energy awareness, education and training programs at each plant for its staff. The training is performed by the energy team leaders.

They also encourage development of ECMs internally by plant managers and operators. Plant managers are empowered to troubleshoot load shedding protocols, debrief the group on successes, and develop standard methods of practice. Overall, HRSD is on a successful path for ensuring long-term sustainability and plant efficiency.

For more information about this article, please contact Christina Alito at Christina.Alito@hdrinc.com

10

[ triple bottom line ]

By Stephane Larocque, Associate Vice President HDR Decision Economics, Ottawa, Ontario

Susan Ancel, Director Water Distribution and Transmission, EPCOR Water Services, Edmonton, Alberta Heather Zarski, P.E., Manager of Planning, EPCOR Water Services, Edmonton, Alberta

Sustainable Return on Investment:

SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13514 “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance” there has been a greater emphasis on sustainability throughout North America.

This E.O.—“Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” —released Nov. 1, 2013, only heightens the focus on environmental and social concerns, especially when those concerns are focused on infrastructure projects.

Organizations are now encouraged, and in some cases required, to make their case using metrics that provide a full accounting of their projects’ social, economic and environmental impact, otherwise known as the “triple bottom line.“

Sustainability, including the impact to the environment, needs to be a top priority component of a successful water, wastewater and stormwater (W/WW/SW) infrastructure project. W/WW/SW staff often find that understanding the social and environmental impacts is critical in gaining stakeholder acceptance and turning concepts into reality.

While the importance of these issues is widely recognized, organizations are challenged when they try to integrate sustainability into their investment and operating decisions. This is especially evident in the highly regulated and capital intensive W/WW/SW sector.

HDR’s vision is to provide W/WW/SW agencies with a widely recognized and standardized process to model and prioritize projects with a balanced view of direct financial impacts and the implications to the environment and society.

Given the limited funds and increasing demand for W/WW/SW infrastructure over the next several years, more organizations are wisely seeking to use economic analysis to comprehensively assess investments to make the best use of available funds among competing capital projects.

Life Cycle Cost AnalysisFor many years decision makers have

used the Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA), a financial method of project evaluation where direct cash costs rising from a project (owning, operating, maintaining and disposing) are considered.

An LCCA primarily demonstrates whether the operational savings of a project are sufficient to justify additional investment cost. But where LCCA falls short is when the entire value proposition of a given project is considered.

That’s because the project may go well beyond cash to include things like saving water, improvements in health and safety, reduced waste, and avoidance of green house gas emissions. These and other items may be of value to a wide range of stakeholders.

A Triple Bottom Line Decision Making Framework for Water Infrastructure

11hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

SROI Builds on LCCAThe Sustainable Return on Investment

(SROI) framework builds on LCCA to incorporate evidence-based cost benefit, as well as probability and risk analysis that can provide a triple bottom line view of a project’s economic results.

The SROI process includes traditional inputs, such as operations and maintenance savings. SROI also takes into account the monetized value of the environmental benefits of reduced criteria air contaminant emissions or the preservation of clean water.

The process involves four distinct steps as outlined in Figure 1.

The key feature of the SROI process is its objectivity and transparency in assigning monetary value to the social and environmental impacts of a given project. It also provides the equivalent of traditional life cycle cost outputs, which are called Financial Return on Investment (FROI) metrics in the SROI analysis.

FROI accounts for internal (i.e., accruing to the organization) cash costs and benefits only, while SROI accounts for a wide range of internal and external costs and benefits, selected on a basis of relevance to the specific project.

SROI supplements traditional performance measures to help enhance the selection process for investment decision makers. Fully informed business cases facilitate prioritization around initiatives that best produce financial and sustainable

results. They also pave the way to explaining the logic behind recommendations.

The SROI process lies at the intersection of economics and sustainability. By combining cost-benefit analysis with risk analysis and stakeholder elicitation, it’s possible to capture the range of costs and benefits associated with sustainable projects while objectively demonstrating the likelihood of achieving benefits related to a given alternative or group of alternatives.

Throughout the process, stakeholders can validate the planned structure and logic of the analysis, as well as the variable inputs informing the analysis. These groups vary depending on the sponsor’s direction, from the actual project team to members of the community and regulatory agencies.

Experience has shown that securing stakeholder approval in decisions early in the planning process—and including their feedback on the potential value of the variable inputs informing the analysis

—increases the likelihood of achieving consensus. The use of a probability or risk-based approach to quantify variables that are difficult to measure further contributes to consensus building and, in turn, can ensure project funding is supported.

This process also reduces the risk of opposition. If there is agreement on the approach, as well as the data and probability assumptions, it’s difficult to challenge or disagree with the projected outcomes.

SROI can be applied to any kind of infrastructure or construction project, including green infrastructure. In water, wastewater and stormwater settings, dollar values can be assigned to intangibles that matter to stakeholders.

Examples of these include environmental savings from reductions in the use of fresh water, energy and chemicals. It can be used to balance the sustainable implications of water quality improvements versus increased energy use.

It also can help water management teams decide when an initiative or sub-element is spending too much money on sustainable attributes (i.e., money spent to save energy vs. reduce chemical usage.) When budgets are limited, SROI output can be used to rank the most sustainable strategies without losing focus on financial considerations.

If used early in project development, SROI costs only marginally more than LCCA, yet reveals considerably more information on which to base and explain investment decisions.

STEP 1 Develop the Structure and Logic Diagrams

STEP 2

STEP 3

STEP 4

Assign Monetary Values and Risk Ranges

Develop Consensus Among Stakeholders

Simulate and Quantify the Outcome

Map out all relevant economic, social and environmental variables of an initiative, starting from the basic division of costs and benefits.

Measure the impacts of the project by assigning monetary values and probability distributions, where possible, to each variable.

Bring stakeholders together to evaluate and validate the structure of the model and the assigned values and probabilities of each variable.

Once consensus regarding the inputs is achieved, compute the net present value, discounted payback period, rate of return and the distribution of benefits for the initiative.

HDR’S SROI PROCESS INVOLVES FOUR DISTINCT STEPS

[ figure 1 ]

SROI was developed by HDR’s Decision Economics Group with input from Columbia University. It was launched into the public domain at the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.

12

Case Study: EPCOREPCOR, a major utility with operations

in Canada and the United States, completed an initial literature review to analyze the applicability of alternate water supply strategies in a cold weather climate such as Edmonton in the Canadian province of Alberta.

Based on the initial literature review, Edmonton did not have the traditional supply vs. demand shortages that typically are found in municipalities which pursue alternate supply sources such as reclaimed municipal wastewater.

While EPCOR was aware that water-stressed locations around the world were turning to reclaimed municipal water, they had not confirmed the applicability of a reuse system in a cold weather climate.

Unique characteristics of Edmonton’s climate that needed to be explored included low/seasonal irrigation demand, ample fresh water supply from the North Saskatchewan River, and world class water/wastewater treatment infrastructure capable of providing years of future service to the city.

EPCOR retained HDR to provide decision support by conducting a comprehensive analysis of reclaimed water usage options for the City of Edmonton using HDR’s Sustainable Return on Investment analysis methodology. EPCOR was getting pressure from interest groups to do water reuse without data to support their concerns.

SROI provided EPCOR with an objective, transparent and defensible examination of the costs and benefits for three different sizes of water reuse alternatives in Edmonton—a small demand scenario, a medium demand scenario, and a large neighborhood-scale demand scenario.

Within the HDR analysis, the three alternatives were compared to a ‘base case.’ In the base situation, the Rossdale and E.L. Smith water treatment plants provide water service to customers, and the generated wastewater is diverted and treated at the Gold Bar Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), with tertiary treated effluent discharged into the North Saskatchewan River. In all three alternative cases, an onsite Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) facility would be in place.

The MBR facility would be sized to treat only the wastewater that would be needed to provide onsite toilet flushing and irrigation demand (via a scalping system), and the excess solids and wastewater would be discharged for treatment at the Gold Bar WWTP. The scenarios differed based on population, water demand, and water treatment facility size.

For this analysis, HDR considered traditional financial costs incurred by the owner/operator of the reclaimed water systems, including:• Capital costs• Land costs• In-street piping• Incremental O&M costs• Incremental energy costs• Public education costs

Among the societal costs are:• Increased greenhouse gas emissions• Increased criteria air contaminants• Costs of risks related to reduced potable

water pipe flow• In-building recycled-water supply

plumbing expenditure

Financial benefits would be gained by avoiding capital costs (delayed expansion) and the residual value applied to the infrastructure. Monetized social benefits included water savings (conservation); enhanced water quality; and promoting community development.

In this case, the social benefit of potable water quality refers to the reduction of

effluent discharge to the river, and reduced discharge of enhanced primary treatment water during wet weather events which reduces the pollution load to the river (including total suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus loadings).

The social benefit of a reliable quantity of potable water on the other hand, is valued using a widely known U.S. Forest Service methodology.

HDR’s comprehensive SROI analysis concluded that, unlike in many water scarce regions, for this specific location/situation, both the financial and triple bottom line costs far outweigh the benefits for the water reuse alternatives studied.

A view of the downtown buildings in Edmonton, Alberta, with the waters of the North Saskatchewan River in the foreground.

(continued on back cover)

©ist

ockp

hoto

.com

/HDR

13hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) is an approach to land development (or redevelopment) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible.

LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage features that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product.

Technical guidance for the design, construction, and long-term maintenance of LID practices in cold, arid climates was previously unavailable.

While numerous technical guidance examples had been developed for other parts of the country, such as Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound, designers in cold, arid climates such as eastern Washington, lacked standards and guidance specifically adapted to their region and climate conditions.

In response to this need, the team of HDR and AHBL prepared the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Eastern Washington (manual).

The purpose of this manual is to provide stormwater managers, site designers and design reviewers with a common understanding of LID goals, objectives, and planning and design strategies specifically suited to the region and similar cold, arid climate areas that cover much of the interior continental United States.

During the preparation of the manual, the consulting team worked closely with:

By Robin Kirschbaum, PE, LEED AP HDR Stormwater Lead, Bellevue, Wash.Wayne Calrson, AICP, LEED AP, Associate Principal at AHBL, Inc., Tacoma, WA

[ low impact development ]

A New LID Guidance Manual for Arid, Semi-Arid, and Cold Climate Regions: The Eastern WA LID Guidance Manual

• Spokane County• Washington Department of Ecology

(Ecology)• Washington Stormwater Center (WSC)• Washington State University (WSU)• Eastern Washington’s Phase II Municipal

Stormwater permit holdersBecause LID has limited history of use

in eastern Washington, HDR and AHBL performed considerable outreach and education to municipal engineering and planning staff; consulting engineers, landscape architects, and planners; representatives of the building trades; and elected officials.

The training sessions included a field design exercise that allowed the participants to practice using the Manual, then present their planning and design concepts to the class.

This manual consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 (Introduction) sets the context for the LID approach with an introduction to eastern Washington climate and hydrology and the effects of urban development on water resources.

It also establishes the goals and objectives for LID in the context of the reissued Eastern Washington Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater General Permit.

[figure 1] Eastern Washington Climate Regions Source: Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (2004) and AHBL, Inc.

14

Chapter 2 (Planning for LID) describes the LID planning principles, site analysis, site inspection, and composite map that form the foundation for an LID design. Chapter 3 (Designing for LID) builds on the planning and site map development and provides guidance for site design.

Chapter 4 (LID Best Management Practices [BMPs]) provides design guidance describing the use, applications and limitations, design factors, maintenance, and construction considerations associated with the following BMPs:• Amending construction site soils• Dispersion• Bioretention, infiltration planters

and flow-through planters• Trees• Permeable pavement• Vegetated roofs• Minimal excavation foundations• Rain water harvesting

Chapter 1–IntroductionThe landscape of eastern Washington

includes prairies, pine forests, the shrub-steppe, channeled scablands, and vast areas of irrigated and dry land agriculture. The hydrology and climate also vary considerably across the region.

The Washington State Department of Ecology has classified eastern Washington into four climate regions. Design guidance is provided in the manual applicable to each of these distinct climatic regions.

Guidance also is provided on the integration of hard and soft engineering approaches. Hard, or conventional, approaches focus on mechanical methods of managing stormwater runoff, while soft approaches use ecological principles and processes, such as filtration, infiltration and plant uptake to reduce peak flow rates, volumes and pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff (Figure 2).

This chapter highlights the importance and applicability of both infiltration- and non-infiltration-based practices. Specific considerations for implementing LID practices in arid, semi-arid, and cold climate conditions are provided.

The benefits of LID beyond stormwater management—including the potential to reduce energy costs in the case of vegetated roofs or improve the ability to build on challenging sites in the case of minimal excavation foundations—also are explored.

Chapter 2–Planning for LIDPerforming a comprehensive inventory

and analysis is an essential first step that must precede LID site design. The inventory and analysis process covers on- and off-site natural and built conditions that would affect the project design. Policies, land use controls, and legally enforceable restrictions are also evaluated and documented during this planning phase.

The planning process includes an in-depth analysis of the natural site conditions, as well as the built and regulatory environments that will influence development and use of LID practices. This chapter reviews LID planning principles and presents

guidelines for performing a site analysis and developing a composite site map that can be used as the basis for LID site design.

Chapter 3–Designing for LID The LID design process builds on

the planning process. The topography, hydrology, soils, vegetation and other natural site features that are identified and analyzed through the site analysis will guide the layout of roads, buildings, parking and other physical infrastructure, as well as LID BMPs.

This chapter provides guidance on the design process, including:• Clearly identifying site goals• Identifying applicable design standards

and requirements• Developing solutions that match

the project goals with site opportunities and constraints

• Preparing a preliminary layout• Finalizing the design

hard engineering storm drainage management

uptake

LIDConv

entio

nal

soft engineering storm drainage management

root storage

biochemicalbreakdown

absorbed as nutrients

infiltrateoutput

runo� runo�

[figure 2] Diagram of hard engineering and soft engineering. Source: AHBL, Inc.

15hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

Flow-through planters (next to building) for run-off from non-vegetated roof areas

Infiltration planter or flow-through planter (minimum 10’ setback from building)

Sculptural roof drain (stormwater art)

Disconnected downspout and splash basin

Infiltration or flow-through planter for street, parking, or sidewalk runoff

Vegetated roof

Permeable pavers

Figure 2 illustrates an example streetscape application and Figure 3 illustrates an example building application for LID design.

Chapter 4–LID Best Management PracticesThe LID BMPs in this chapter include tools used for

water quality treatment and/or flow control. By using the site inventory, analysis and planning practices described in chapters 2 and 3, the BMPs included in this chapter can be designed as landscape amenities that take advantage of:• Site topography• Existing soils and vegetation• Location in relation to impervious surfaces to reduce

stormwater volume, attenuate and treat flowsDesign guidance for each of the eight BMPs listed

provided in a separate section. Each section begins with a description of the BMP and the intent behind its use.

Following the description, subsections are provided on applications and limitations, design guidance, sizing, runoff model representation, infeasibility criteria, construction, and long-term maintenance for each BMP.

Detailed modeling guidelines are provided in Appendix C of the manual.

AppendicesEight appendices are included in the manual, providing

detailed discussion of soil infiltration rate evaluation methods, techniques for sizing LID facilities, plant lists, standard detail drawings, planning and design checklists, and maintenance guidelines.

Conclusion and Final ThoughtsResearch and vast case history shows that properly

planned, designed, constructed and maintained LID solutions work effectively at controlling the peak flow rates, volumes and pollutant loadings in stormwater runoff in a variety of climates.

This manual provides detailed guidance and tools for LID planning, design, construction and maintenance specifically applicable to arid, semi-arid and cold climate regions, such as eastern Washington.

As additional research becomes available, new and innovative practices become approved for general use, and professionals in the region gain more practical experience, this manual will continue to evolve.

The Washington Stormwater Center (WSC) website provides updates on LID research and new and emerging tools that are relevant to practitioners ( www.wastormwatercenter.org ). The LID Technical Guidance Manual for Eastern Washington is also available for download at this site.

For additional information about this article, please contact Robin Kirschbaum at Robin.Kirschbaum@hdrinc.com

Flow-through or infiltration planters at corners

LID swales, flow-through planters or infiltration planters

Street trees for shading and stormwater interception

Permeable pavement in parking lanes

Pedestrian crossing over swale

Catch basin receives overflows

[figure 2] Example LID Streetscape Design | Source: CleanWater Services

[figure 3] Example LID Building Design | Source: CleanWater Services

16

THE WILLIAM JACK HERNANDEZ SPORT FISH HATCHERY is the heart of Alaska’s sport fish stocking program. It also is the largest indoor sport fish hatchery in North America.

The industry provides a total economic impact of $1.4 billion annually—including nearly 16,000 jobs, $545 million in annual income and $246 million in annual tax revenue.

Serving a mission to protect, maintain and improve the state’s valuable sport fisheries, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish found that its aging hatcheries could not meet the growing production goals to keep Alaska’s rivers and lakes well-stocked.

To meet its goals and enhance its operation, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities hired HDR to plan and design the $96 million, 141,000-square-foot hatchery.

The new hatchery efficiently increases and diversifies sport fish production for the Division of Sport Fish. The new hatchery also:• Includes 107 fish rearing tanks and 35 mini-hatcheries• Over 8.5 miles of pipe, conduit and duct work• Produces more than six million fish per year• Stocks 200 different locations• Saves more than 54 million gallons of water per day through water

reuse during peak-use periodsHDR was responsible for the hatchery’s planning, design,

construction documents, construction administration and additional services including site analysis, NEPA, permitting, 3-D modeling, utility management and lease assistance. To successfully complete this project, 150 HDR professionals from 20 offices in all business groups were part of the project team.

This project was the first to receive an Envision™ Gold award. The hatchery’s Gold-level Envision™ award represents significant achievements in sustainable infrastructure design. The project was assessed using the 60 Envision™ sustainability criteria in the categories of Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk.

The sustainability aspects of the fish hatchery that earned high-level ratings included leaving the brownfield site cleaner than before, saving water and energy, keeping Ship Creek clean, and building public education into its design.

HDR project manager Dan Billman said the fish hatchery clients have told him this project has exceeded their expectations in almost every way. One example is in the tank system designed for the rainbow trout stocking program.

“They have had bigger, healthier fish to work with that produce more eggs,” Billman said. “It’s the combination of temperature, water quality, the ability to eat right and mature in the right growing conditions.

“There are no genetic changes to the fish. We simply created an ideal energy environment to grow healthy, robust fish. They’re getting better production than for what they planned.”

Billman said major points were earned for the Envision award in two places. The first was the way energy was used compared to what they were doing before.

The second was the public side of the project. There is a visitor’s center filled with artwork, and guests can take self-guided tours.

“The amount of public interest in the hatchery, the number of visitors, also has exceeded their expectations,” Billman said. “People are genuinely interested in the work being done there.”

This solution allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to meet its mission in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.

FIR ST ENVISION™ GOLD AWARD PRE SENTED TO HDR-DE SIGNED PROJEC T

© Jim

Kohl Photography

By Steven Beideck HDR Waterscapes Editor, Omaha

[ measuring sustainability ]

17hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

[ leading by example ]

leveraging our industry & community partnerships

to implement

PLANS AND DESIGNS mean nothing if they sit on a shelf, doing nothing but collecting dust. Cities often want to complete green infrastructure projects, but the funding and additional resources are not available to get them done.

While some strategies and alternatives seem like only a drop in the bucket when dealing with large scale problems like water quality or combined sewer overflows, every project counts when part of a plan to achieve aggregate or cumulative benefits. Green infrastructure exemplifies this.

For the past six years, hundreds of volunteers have given up their time on a Saturday to help construct green infrastructure in cities around the United States. This volunteer effort is part of the Water Environment Federation (WEF) Community Service Project, which is planned and hosted by the WEF Students and Young Professionals Committee (SYPC).

This project began as a challenge to the SYPC at WEFTEC 2007 in San Diego. Knowing that WEFTEC would be in New Orleans in 2010 around the 5-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, WEF leadership challenged the SYPC to complete a service project at WEFTEC.

Each year the SYPC service project team works to identify a project, coordinate with local agencies, gather sponsorship and donations, and manage project logistics to makes sure that all of the materials are available to complete the project and ensure that volunteers actually show up.

Before planning could begin, volunteers had to develop criteria for identifying and pursuing projects. The foundation for the project is that the volunteers and WEF want to leave the WEFTEC host city better than they found it.

By Haley Falconer, P.E. HDR Project Manager, Boise, Idaho

G R E E N I N F R A S T R U C T U R E

1

Phot

o cou

rtesty

Sara

h Hub

bell

18

With approximately 20,000 people in town each year for the conference, there is an economic impact. But they wanted to have a social and environmental impact as well. The three primary criteria for project selection are:• A water-related project. There are a large number of worthy

service events, but because the volunteer base is in the water sector, we wanted the project to be related.

• Sized for at least 50 and up to 100 volunteers. We did not want to end up with a project site that could not hold the number of volunteers we were expecting.

• A project that might not have happened without our support.These criteria led to green infrastructure projects in each of the

WEFTEC host cities. Stormwater management is a significant issue nationwide.

These green infrastructure projects have substantial local impact while addressing a nationwide concern.

Within each WEFTEC host city, the local wastewater utility was a key resource. The utilities helped identify projects, provided tools and equipment, and supported the event with volunteers.

The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) was involved in the inaugural project in 2008 and has become a key partner for the project now that WEFTEC is on a two-city rotation with Chicago and New Orleans through 2017.

The Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans another key partner. The Orange County Northwest Water Reclamation Facility was the host of the 2009 project. The bureaus of sanitation and engineering helped with project selection, planning and development of the 2011 project in Los Angeles.

Project Planning and DevelopmentThe WEF Community Service Project can be used as a template

to develop other community-driven green infrastructure projects. There are some upfront questions that need to be answered before planning can begin, and it also takes some up front work to identify the appropriate coordinator from the host agency.

Planning groups must identify the type of project to complete and what the constraints are (number of people, how much time to work, day of the week.) Depending on where the project is located and where the volunteers are coming from, the feasibility of travel must be decided.

If the planning group is reaching out to organizations as a means of identifying project ideas, it is important to develop a request for proposals to summarize what the expectations are and what the group will provide to the event (i.e. volunteers, materials, tools, media outreach.)

Once a project is selected, there are several key planning components that much be addressed. The project must be designed, materials must be acquired (either through purchase or donation), and equipment, such as tools for construction, must be organized.

Sponsorship often is required to purchase materials such as plants, soil, gravel and mulch. The planning committee identifies nurseries in the project area and contacts them to see if they grow the required native plants. Due to the volunteer and community service nature of the projects, nurseries often will donate some plants or provide them at wholesale cost.

In some cases, prep work will be required in advance of the day of construction. This could include pavement removal or site excavation. It is important not to overlook the role of the volunteers. Project planning also includes food and drinks, tools, gloves, sometimes boots, and often t-shirts that recognize the sponsors and supporters. These also are a nice token of appreciation for the work the volunteers are performing.

An often overlooked component of project planning is media outreach and project recognition. The project planning should include the development of media releases, as well as outreach to local leaders who support and recognize the importance of green infrastructure development and volunteer efforts.

Frequently there are community organizations that partner with WEF to complete these projects. Both the type and role of these organizations are different for each project.

[1] Over 100 volunteers plus community members and students from Haines Elementary helped complete the school’s first rain garden. [2] The established bioswale less than one year after construction. [3] The planted streetscape. [4] Treatment wetland with established plants less than one year after construction.

2

3 4

19hdrinc.com

WATERSCAPES | WINTER 2013-14

Each of the two wetland species, Arrowhead Syngonium Podophyllum and Fire Flag Thalia Geniculata, were planted to increase biodiversity and remove nutrients. Within less than a year, the wetland plants grew over six feet high.

Bioswales in the Bayou—Bioswale Construction in New Orleans 2010

This was the landmark year for the WEF Community Service Project – the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the year that the SYPC was challenged to plan a service project. Around 75 WEF volunteers worked tirelessly to construct a 125-foot by 35-foot bioswale.

The bioswale is located behind five newly constructed LEED Platinum homes located in the Holy Cross neighborhood of the Lower 9th Ward. The homes are part of one community organization’s efforts to revitalize this community.

Global Green New Orleans and Groundwork New Orleans provided local help and resources to complete this project.

The bioswale consists of three underground ponding areas and braided streams that serve to collect and infiltrate storm water in an area with a high groundwater table. The volunteers placed the perforated pipe in the streams, filled the beds with gravel, brought in top soil, and then planted approximately 400 plants.

The plant species included bald cypress, huckleberry and red maple trees, as well as several grass species, including spartina, cattail, horsetail, iris and palmetto.

These wet weather-tolerant species were planted because they are suitable for the overland flooding conditions experienced during rain events. The runoff from the homes and the future apartment and community center will flow into the bioswale.

Since the bioswale construction, there have been three wet seasons to test the construction. The bioswale is established and provides stormwater management for this area. Long-term maintenance is provided through the homeowner’s association. The WEF planning team is working with Global Green to construct additional bioswales in front of the homes.

Summary of WEF Service ProjectsSix service projects have been completed since 2008. The projects

range from rain garden construction to wetland replanting to stormwater capture and tree planning. Even with this variety, they all provide a water quality benefit and help grow green infrastructure programs in these cities.

Planning for the first project opened a lot of unknowns: How much funding would we need? How many volunteers would show up? How big of a project can we tackle? Answers to these questions have led to the completion of six successful projects.

Gettin’ out of the Gutter—Rain Garden Construction in Chicago 2008

The planning group started to work with the MWRDGC and a local non-profit committed to sustainable development.

Through this partnership, a local park was identified as a site for a new rain garden. The project consisted of disconnected the downspout to reroute the stormwater flow into the rain garden. The volunteers excavated the area before constructing a small rain garden.

Approximately 50 WEF volunteers plus a local high school environmental class showed up and got to work constructing the 200-square-foot garden. The long-term maintenance of the garden is performed by the local wastewater association young professionals of the Illinois Water Environment Association.

Wading for Wetlands—Wetland Construction in Orlando 2009Braving the heat and humidity to restore a treatment wetland,

around 50 students and young professionals proved to be an outstanding team in Orlando. The project included planting over 1,000 wetland species that revitalized a previously unplanted area of an existing wetland.

An area of nearly seven acres was replanted in a 70-acre wetland system at the Orange County Northwest Water Reclamation Facility (NWRF) outside of Orlando. Wastewater effluent flows through a series of wetland cells and eventually into a lake, ultimately providing fresh water inputs for lake augmentation.

5 6

[5] Volunteers working in the semi-drained wetland working to plant 1,000-plus individual plants. [6] Some of the 80-plus volunteers working in the rain and water to plant 5,000 plants. [7] The PVC device was placed in the curb and the hole where the tree was planted to collect stormwater

from the street and direct it to the roots of the tree. [8] Completed rain garden at Haines Elementary School in Chicago.

20

Wading to the South LA Wetlands—Tree Planting in Los Angeles 2011

This project attracted volunteers who came together with the City of Los Angeles to help revamp a city block in a South LA neighborhood. Championed by city council president Jan Perry, the scope of the South LA Wetland stretched from building a new high school to converting a blighted industrial lot across the street into a wetlands park.

The park was designed to collect and direct stormwater, treating it and using it to create an inner-city habitat for both plants and animals. Among other assets, this wetlands park will provide a hands-on education to the high school students next door.

WEF volunteers spent the morning planting 37 trees—24 australian willows and 13 evergreen pears—along the street between the high school and the park. These species were air quality management district approved, and known to thrive in the warm Los Angeles climate—both factors which are important to treatment efficiency and survival.

Collection pipes with two openings were installed in the curb to redirect rainwater from the streets the base of each tree. These stormwater collection devices can be installed at the time of curb and gutter construction or retrofitted in areas with existing curbs and gutters.

Bogging in the Big Easy—Wetland Construction in New Orleans 2012

This project took place in New Orleans City Park, where more than 80 enthusiastic volunteers gathered to plant a wetland designed retain stormwater that otherwise would reach the Mississippi River. The wetland also served to remove silt and pollutants from rainfall runoff before it reaches surface waters.

City Park officials were excited about participating in this community service project because they wanted to continue promoting best management practices for stormwater in the park, and they had been incorporating green policies into operations and new construction throughout the city. City Park officials developed a green committee to implement park-wide green practices and ensure that all park departments assist in implementation.

At 1,300 acres, City Park is the largest recreation area in the New Orleans metropolitan area and receives over five million visitors each year. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina flooded over 90 percent of the park, felling thousands of trees and destroying park buildings.

The wetland provides a wildlife habitat and recreational area for park visitors long after the WEF volunteers left town. The volunteers planted more than 5,000 plants in a 2-acre site in less than two hours—just before a steady rain began to pour for the balance of the day.

The City Park project could become a demonstration area for constructed wetlands in New Orleans. This project will help promote a city-wide focus on stormwater management as a result of flooding after Katrina. City Park is working with the Sewerage and Water Board to institute BMPs at the park and serve as a catalyst for change in the way we deal with stormwater in New Orleans.

Reading, Writing and Rain Gardens—Rain Garden Construction in Chicago 2013

WEFTEC returned to Chicago in 2013. The community service project included the construction of two green infrastructure systems at a local Chicago elementary school. These were a 1,000-square-foot area on the perimeter of the playground that was excavated and planted with native species, and a rain garden that was placed in an area where a storm drain already existed.

More than 100 volunteers, including students, helped with this project. The program included an environmental fair at the school. This fair provided an opportunity to teach the students about water and the environment, show them how rain gardens work, and teach them how to care for them.

The Illinois Water Environment Association will be working with Chicago Public Schools and the school staff to complete long-term maintenance of the rain garden.

Editor’s note: Falconer served as chair of the WEF Community Service Project from 2008 through 2012. The chair role included managing a team of volunteers who spent the year planning the service project and being on-site to participate in and manage the successful execution of the project. For additional information about these projects and more information on how to start one of your own, please contact Haley Falconer at haley.falconer@hdrinc.com

7

8

hdrinc.com

[ triple bottom line ]

All three alternatives follow a common theme—the social benefits of water reclamation in the Edmonton area are not great enough to outweigh the additional financial, environmental and social costs.

Edmonton simply does not fall within a scarce water resource region, and effluent flow is a fraction of the flow in the river. As such, the SROI valuation showed limited benefits relating to reductions in potable water use from the NSR through the implementation of reuse water systems.

ConclusionThe concepts of sustainability and

the triple bottom line continue to lack consensus, making it difficult to incorporate

into projects. The missing pieces have been an objective, transparent process that can demonstrate how sustainable infrastructure will benefit W/WW agencies while conserving limited resources and analytical output that can be understood by investment decision makers, operators, regulators and the ratepayers alike.

HDR, Columbia University and the Clinton Global Initiative teamed to develop an innovative approach that can be used by public and private water clients to measure the triple bottom line impacts of a project.

SROI determines the full value of a project by assigning monetary values to all relevant costs and benefits and helps communicate the full value of an investment including

direct, indirect and non-cash costs and benefits, as well as the value of external drivers that are generally overlooked in a financial assessment.

The SROI process has been used by corporations and all levels of government to evaluate the monetary value of projects with a combined value of over $15 billion.

SROI can act as a framework to help water and wastewater organizations understand sustainability for their particular location/application in a rigorous, objective and standard manner.

For more information about this article, please contact Stephane Larocque at Stephane.Larocque@hdrinc.com

[ table 1 ] PROJECTS USING HDR’S SROI PROCESS

Project Responsibilities

Wastewater Capital Projects Analysis – Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, CO

SROI analyses for 16 large-scale wastewater capital projects relating to distinct aspects of the management, treatment, and disposal process, including: biosolids treatment optimization; liquid stream processes; gas utilization and energy recovery; and nutrient removal.

On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Reuse – United States Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Bliss, TX

SROI analysis helped the DoD evaluate sustainable technologies amid complex and diverse strategies, including on-site wastewater treatment. The SROI analysis compared costs and benefits of water reclamation technologies such as conventional vs. advanced membrane technologies.

Nutrient Removal Technology – Confidential Wastewater Treatment Authority, Midwest

SROI assisted in making a holistic decision on how to prioritize facility improvements to multiple wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in order to meet increasingly stringent total phosphorus limits by assessing net benefit and cost to society from a triple bottom line perspective.

Water Reclamation Alternatives Analysis – EPCOR, Edmonton, AB, Canada

SROI analyses of three various-size water reclamation facilities for a major utility. While EPCOR was aware that water-stressed locations around the world are turning to water reclamation technologies, the SROI analysis helped assess their applicability in a cold weather climate with ample fresh water.

Reverse Osmosis Water Reclamation and Reuse – Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC), Galveston, TX

SROI analysis included assessment of a 1.0 million gallon per day (MGD) water reuse facility to reduce the potable water needs of a water-scarce region. The analysis quantified and monetized a variety of cash and non-cash benefits associated with energy use and reducing water needed from the Brazos River.

(continued from page 13)

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGE

PAIDOMAHA, NE

PERMIT NO. 9638404 Indian Hills Drive | Omaha, NE 68114-4049hdrinc.com