to open the presentation ()

PRIORITIZING STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECTS
APWA Fall Joint Conference| Kearney, NE | November 6th , 2013
Presented by
Lalit Jha, PE, D.WRE, CFM
Miles Simmons, EIT, M.S.
1
Agenda
• Urban Drainage Issues
• CIP Prioritization
• Study Methodology
• Project Benefits
• Conclusion
2
Urban Drainage Issues
• Flooding Problems
• Structural Condition of the System
• System Upgrades and Master Planning
• Operation and Maintenance
• Stormwater Program Financing 3
Localized Flooding
50th and R St.
63rd and Fletcher Ave.
4
Stormwater System Deficiencies
27th and Highway 2
33rd and Highway 2
5
Structural Condition
14th and Holdrege St.
11th and Oak St.
6
Urban Drainage Issues
“How can drainage problems be identified?”
“Which problems should be addressed first?”
“What are the financing needs?”
“Most bang for the buck”
7
Background – Lincoln, Nebraska
•
•
•
•
•
•
State Capital, second largest City in NE
Population 260,000
82 square miles within City limits
500 miles of public storm drain system
230 miles of open channel system
31,000 ancillary items
8
Background – CIP Prioritization
• Previous methodology developed in 1966
• Based on out‐dated standards
• Reactive approach
“Squeaky wheel gets the grease”
9
Project Objective
•
Develop an updated prioritization methodology and a proactive CIP
•
Identify stormwater CIP projects
•
Enhance the City’s stormwater database
“Reduce Flooding and Drainage Issues”
10
Prioritization Approach
• Written Scoring
• Written Policy
• Engineering Judgment / Committee Review
11
Prioritization Methodology
• Prioritization Categories
•
•
•
•
Structural Flooding Non‐Structural Flooding
Existing Infrastructure Condition
Miscellaneous Factors 




health and safety critical locations downstream impacts
community development links to other utility projects
12
Prioritization
Methodology
Example Prioritization Worksheet
13
Previous Study Process
• Data Preparation / Data Collection
• Identify Deficiencies – MicroStation GeoPak Drainage
– 1‐D, Rational Method, steady flow
• Propose Drainage Improvements
• Prioritize Projects
• GIS Coverage and Database
– Imported from MicroStation
14
Application
• Studied 10,000 acres of watershed
• 135 miles of pipe, 20,000 LF of open channel, 5,000 ancillary items
• Identified 150 CIP stormwater projects
– Dozens of projects proceeded to design/construction through funding from 2005‐2012 Stormwater bonds
15
Current
Urban
Drainage
Study
16
Current Study Process
• Phase 1‐ Screening Level Analysis
– 1‐D, Rational Method, steady flow
– Identify Storm System Deficiencies
• Pipe Capacity, Inlet Ponding Depths, Ponding Limits, Structural Flooding
– Update GIS Database
• Phase 2‐ Detailed Analysis and CIP Development
– Optional 2‐D, unsteady flow
– Develop CIP stormwater projects
• Evaluate conceptual alternatives
17
Hydrology and Hydraulics
Screenshot of DGN map
ArcGIS
XP SWMM
18
Stormwater System Deficiencies
Drainage system deficiencies based on design storm as
defined in City design criteria manual.
Pipes
(Discharge Relative to Capacity)
Inlets
(Ponded Depth at Inlet)
Ponding Areas
(Structural Flood Frequency)
Street Flooding
19
1-D/2-D Analysis
1-D Pipes/Open Channels
2-D Overland
Flow/Flooding
20
Flooding Animations
21
CIP Project Development
•
Structural Flooding
•
Location
•
City Design Standards
•
Cost-Effectiveness
22
CIP Project Development
23
CIP Project Prioritization
24
GIS Database Management
25
GIS Database Management
26
Model Validation
27
Conclusion
• Cost‐effective approach to prepare a proactive stormwater CIP
• Ensures taxpayers’ dollars spent on most needed projects • Helpful in justifying stormwater program financing needs to elected officials and public
28
Thank You!
Questions?
29