Volume 2-05, Chapter 3 - City of Wichita

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Section 3.1 - Stormwater Management Controls Overview Structural Controls on Each Development Site Regional Structural Stormwater Control Figure 3-5 On-Site vs Regional Stormwater Management 3.1.5.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Regional Stormwater Controls The use of a regional stormwater facility is not always the best solution and the following “pros” and “cons” should be considered during the decision process. Advantages of Regional Stormwater Controls Reduced Construction Costs: Design and construction of a single regional stormwater control facility can be more cost-effective than numerous individual on-site structural controls. Reduced Operation and Maintenance Costs: Rather than multiple owners and associations being responsible for the maintenance of several stormwater facilities on their developments, it is simpler and more cost effective to establish scheduled maintenance of a single regional facility. Higher Assurance of Maintenance: Regional stormwater facilities are far more likely to be adequately maintained as they are large and have a higher visibility. Maximum Utilization of Developable Land: Developers would be able to maximize the utilization of the proposed development for the purpose intended by minimizing the land normally set aside for the construction of stormwater structural controls. Other Benefits: Well-sited regional stormwater facilities often can serve as a community recreational and aesthetic amenity. Disadvantages of Regional Stormwater Controls Location and Siting: Regional stormwater facilities may be difficult to site, particularly for large facilities or in areas with existing development. Maintenance: The local government is typically responsible for the operation and maintenance of a regional stormwater facility. Page 3 - 18 Volume 2, Technical Guidance
Section 3.1 - Stormwater Management Controls Overview Need for Planning: The implementation of regional stormwater controls requires substantial planning, financing, and permitting. Land acquisition must be in place ahead of future projected growth. Water Quality and Channel Protection: Without on-site water quality and channel protection, regional controls do not protect smaller streams upstream of the facility from degradation and channel erosion. Ponding Impacts: Upstream inundation from a regional facility impoundment can eliminate floodplains, wetlands, and other habitat. 3.1.5.3 Important Considerations for the Use of Regional Stormwater Controls If a regional stormwater control is planned, then it must be ensured that the conveyances between the individual upstream developments and the regional facility can handle the design peak flows and volumes without causing adverse impact or property damage. Siting and designing regional facilities may be done by city of Wichita and/or Sedgwick County as part of watershed master planning efforts. Development and redevelopments will be required to compensate the local jurisdiction for construction of these regional facilities through any equitable and legal system proposed in the watershed master plan. At a minimum, future watershed master plans must provide: • Protection against water quality impacts to meet the 80% TSS removal standard; • protection against channel erosion to meet the channel protection requirement; and, • protection against downstream flooding to meet the peak flow control standard and 10% rule. Furthermore, unless the system consists of completely man-made conveyances (i.e. storm drains, pipes, constructed channels, etc) on-site structural controls for water quality and downstream channel protection will likely be required for all developments within the regional facility’s drainage area. Federal water quality provisions do not allow the degradation of water bodies from untreated stormwater discharges, and it is U.S. EPA policy to not allow regional stormwater controls that would degrade stream quality between the upstream development and the regional facility. Further, without adequate channel protection, aquatic habitats and water quality in the channel network upstream of a regional facility may be degraded by channel erosion if they are not protected from bankfull flows and high velocities. Based on these concerns, both the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have expressed opposition to in-stream regional stormwater control facilities. In-stream facilities should be avoided if possible and will likely need to be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Volume 2, Technical Guidance Page 3 - 19
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER 3 STORMWATER CONTROLS TABLE
Page 3 and 4: Chapter 3 - Table of Contents 3.2.8
Page 5 and 6: Chapter 3 - Table of Contents LIST
Page 7 and 8: Section 3.1 - Stormwater Management
Page 23: Section 3.1 - Stormwater Management
Page 31 and 32: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond 3.2
Page 33 and 34: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond Fig
Page 35 and 36: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond For
Page 37 and 38: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond •
Page 39 and 40: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond 1'
Page 45 and 46: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond 3.2
Page 47 and 48: Section 3.2.1 - Stormwater Pond Ste
Page 53 and 54: Section 3.2.2 - Extended Dry Detent
Page 59 and 60: Section 3.2.3 - Vegetative Filter S
Page 67 and 68: Section 3.2.4 - Grassed Channel 3.2
Page 73 and 74: Section 3.2.4 - Grassed Channel max
Page 75 and 76:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale 3.2.
Page 77 and 78:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale Chan
Page 79 and 80:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale B. G
Page 81 and 82:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale High
Page 83 and 84:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale Side
Page 85 and 86:
Section 3.2.5 - Enhanced Swale 3.2.
Page 87 and 88:
Section 3.2.6 - Infiltration Trench
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Section 3.2.7 - Soakage Trench 3.2.
Page 101 and 102:
Section 3.2.7 - Soakage Trench •
Page 103 and 104:
Section 3.2.8 - Surface Sand Filter
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Section 3.2.9 - Bioretention Areas
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Section 3.2.10 - Stormwater Wetland
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Section 3.3 - Secondary TSS Treatme
Page 153 and 154:
Section 3.3.1 - Proprietary Treatme
Page 155 and 156:
Section 3.3.1 - Proprietary Treatme
Page 157 and 158:
Section 3.3.2 - Gravity (Oil-Water)
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Section 3.3.3 - Alum Treatment 3.3.
Page 165 and 166:
Section 3.3.3 - Alum Treatment •
Page 167 and 168:
Section 3.3.4 - Underground Sand Fi
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Section 3.3.5 - Organic Filter 3.3.
Page 183 and 184:
Section 3.3.5 - Organic Filter •
Page 185 and 186:
Section 3.4 - Other Stormwater Mana
Page 187 and 188:
Section 3.4.1 - Conventional Dry De
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Section 3.4.2 - Underground Dry Det
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Section 3.4.3 - Porous Pavement 3.4
Page 201 and 202:
Section 3.4.3 - Porous Pavement The
Page 203 and 204:
Section 3.4.3 - Porous Pavement com
Page 205 and 206:
Section 3.4.3 - Porous Pavement Fig
Page 207 and 208:
Section 3.4.4 - Modular Porous Pave
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Section 3.4.5 - Green Roof 3.4.5 Gr
Page 215 and 216:
Section 3.4.5 - Green Roof Signific
Page 217 and 218:
Section 3.4.5 - Green Roof 3.4.5.3
show all

Volume 2-05, Chapter 3 - City of Wichita

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?