A Day in the Life of a Stormwater Inspector

Walking through a park isn’t always a walk in the park when it comes to conducting stormwater inspections. Our team routinely spots issues in need of attention when inspecting stormwater infrastructure; that’s why inspections are so important.

Princeton Hydro has been conducting stormwater infrastructure inspections for a variety of municipalities in the Mid-Atlantic region for a decade, including the City of Philadelphia. We are in our seventh year of inspections and assessments of stormwater management practices (SMPs) for the Philadelphia Water Department. These SMPs are constructed on both public and private properties throughout the city and our inspections focus on areas served by combined sewers. 

Our water resource engineers are responsible for construction oversight, erosion and sediment control, stormwater facilities maintenance inspections, and overall inspection of various types of stormwater infrastructure installation (also known as “Best Management Practices” or BMPs).

The throat of a sinkhole observed by one of our engineers while on site.

Our knowledgeable team members inspect various sites regularly, and for some municipalities, we perform inspections on a weekly basis. Here’s a glimpse into what a day of stormwater inspection looks like:

The inspector starts by making sure they have all their necessary safety equipment and protection. For the purposes of a simple stormwater inspection the Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) required includes a neon safety vest, hard hat, eye protection, long pants, and boots. Depending on the type of inspection, our team may also have to add additional safety gear such as work gloves or ear plugs. It is recommended that inspectors hold CPR/First Aid and OSHA 10 Hour Construction Safety training certificates. 

Once they have their gear, our inspection team heads to the site and makes contact with the site superintendent. It’s important to let the superintendent know they’re there so that 1) they aren’t wondering why a random person is perusing their construction site, and 2) in case of an emergency, the superintendent needs to be aware of every person present on the site.

Once they arrive, our team starts by walking the perimeter of the inspection site, making sure that no sediment is leaving the project area. The team is well-versed in the standards of agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and local County Soil Conservation Districts, among others. These standards and regulations dictate which practices are and are not compliant on the construction site.

After walking the perimeter, the inspection team moves inward, taking notes and photos throughout the walk. They take a detailed look at the infrastructure that has been installed since the last time they inspected, making sure it was correctly installed according to the engineering plans (also called site plans or drainage and utility plans). They also check to see how many inlets were built, how many feet of stormwater pipe were installed, etc.

If something doesn’t look quite right or needs amending, our staff makes recommendations to the municipality regarding BMPs/SMPs and provides suggestions for implementation.

One example of an issue spotted at one of the sites was a stormwater inlet consistently being inundated by sediment. The inlet is directly connected o the subsurface infiltration basin. When sediment falls through the inlet, it goes into the subsurface infiltration bed, which percolates directly into the groundwater. This sediment is extremely difficult to clean out of the subsurface bed, and once it is in the bed, it breaks down and becomes silt, hindering the function of the stormwater basin.

To remedy this issue, our inspection team suggested they install stone around the perimeter of the inlet on three sides. Although this wasn’t in the original plan, the stones will help to catch sediment before entering the inlet, greatly reducing the threat of basin failure.

Once they’ve thoroughly inspected the site, our team debriefs the site superintendent with their findings. They inform the municipality of any issues they found, any inconsistencies with the construction plans, and recommendations on how to alleviate problems. The inspector will also prepare a Daily Field Report, summarizing the findings of the day, supplemented with photos.

In order to conduct these inspections, one must have a keen eye and extensive stormwater background knowledge. Not only do they need to know and understand the engineering behind these infrastructure implementations, they need to also be intimately familiar with the laws and regulations governing them. Without these routine inspections, mistakes in the construction and maintenance of essential stormwater infrastructure would go unnoticed. Even the smallest overlook can have dangerous effects, which is why our inspections team works diligently to make sure that will not happen.

Our team conducts inspections for municipalities and private entities throughout the Northeast. Visit our website to learn more about our engineering and stormwater management services.

 

Senior Engineer Kevin Yezdimer Appointed to Chief Operating Officer

We are thrilled to announce a new executive position in the firm, Chief Operating Officer (COO), to which Kevin M. Yezdimer, P.E. was appointed effective July 1, 2019. Most recently, Kevin served as the Director of Geoscience Engineering and Office Manager for the company’s Sicklerville, New Jersey location since joining the firm in 2016.

Princeton Hydro has grown from a small four person idea operating out of a living room to a 65+ person qualified Small Business with five office locations in the Northeast region. Last year, the firm realized record revenue and is projected to continue notable growth due to its strong position in the marketplace of providing innovative and “value-added” ecological and engineering solutions. With Princeton Hydro’s steady growth, this new executive position is essential to optimize operational processes across the firm’s technical practice areas and geographic locations, as well as to best implement their strategic growth plan within the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions.

We are all excited and happy to have Kevin join the Princeton Hydro Executive Team. He has demonstrated leadership and success in executing strategies that are key to our success. Kevin has proven himself to have an intuitive understanding of technical and business practices, and can communicate these often complicated issues into meaningful and comprehensible conversation. Most importantly, Kevin is a true mentor to staff and will be able to support them in his new role,” said Princeton Hydro’s President Geoffrey Goll, P.E.I am proud that we were able to internally find someone to fill this position, and am confident that Kevin will be a great fit. As a firm, we are committed to maintaining the mission and values envisioned by the firm’s founders, including supporting our diverse clientele in the commercial, NGO, and government industries, while maintaining a personal touch and small business culture. This new position is vital to maintaining the stability and continuity of our mission and values.

Kevin is a multidisciplinary professional civil engineer with degrees in both Geology and Civil Engineering. With 14 years of experience as a design consultant and project manager, Kevin has proven his ability to lead others. His move to COO is a testament to all of Kevin’s continued success. In his new role, he will be working hand-in-hand with each practice area, the administration, and the principals to propel the firm forward. He will also work to ensure that the company culture remains driven towards excellence in innovative and integrated science and engineering. As the company continues to grow and mature, Kevin will ensure that the firm remains well-balanced and provide a positive working culture for all employees.

Our firm’s executives have afforded me with a tremendous leadership opportunity; I am truly humbled, honored, and ready to take on the role of Chief Operating Officer for Princeton Hydro,” said Kevin Yezdimer, P.E. “In this new position, I will have the ability to empower our passionate staff to achieve their full potential, unify operational practices, and assure that our business goals and mission are achieved. I’m looking forward to further implementing the vision of the firm’s founders as we continue to grow and evolve.

Kevin resides in Hockessin, Delaware with his wife Kristen, three children, and newly rescued dog Lizzy. Outside of the office, you can find Kevin running, swimming, playing disc golf, performing home improvement projects, following all Philadelphia sports (especially the Eagles), developing his faith, and striving to make the most of each and every day.

 

Part Two: Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don’t: Making Decisions and Resolving Conflicts on Dam Removal

Credit: FWRA.org

In this two part blog series piece we take a look at addressing and preventing potential conflicts and the key factors involved in dam removal decision-making – to remove or not to remove.

What to Do About Dams

Typically, the decision to remove a dam is made by varying entities, depending on the regulatory oversight of the dam. In most cases, the dam owner itself is the decision-maker, often deciding that the costs of continuing to operate and maintain the dam are more than removing the dam. State dam safety offices can sometimes order a dam to be removed or lowered if there are major safety concerns. State fish and wildlife offices and environmental organizations are also often involved in the decision-making, particularly when the goals of the project include restoration of habitat for migratory and resident aquatic species. If the dam in question is a hydropower facility, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also has the power to order a hydropower dam under their jurisdiction to be removed for both environmental and safety reasons.

Laura Wildman, P.E., dam removal and river restoration expert and Director of Princeton Hydro’s New England Regional Office, says, “Identifying key barriers early on and understanding which of those barriers might have potential solutions versus remain an impediment, is critical to prioritizing limited ecological restoration resources.”

The careful formulation and communication of the benefits for dam removal specific to each project, adequate education of the public, and stakeholder involvement are incredibly important components to dam removal conflict resolution. As is an understanding that not all dams will or should be removed, and that the local community and stakeholders needs/concerns should be fully integrated into the decision-making process.

Key facets of stakeholder involvement, include:

  • Initial Stakeholder Discussions: Gather information and input from all stakeholders involved
  • Field Work & Initial Assessment: Know the project site inside and out, conduct an in-person inspection, and gather all of the initial data needed to have an informed discussion
  • Report Back with Results, without Judgement: Share the current state of the dam with stakeholders & regulators, without implying any solution or recommendation
  • Detailed Analysis, Feasibility & Alternatives Assessment: Collaboratively select alternative options, and include for a discussion of the alternative analysis process in the pre-application regulatory and stakeholder meetings
  • Formal Regulatory Review w/ Public Meetings: Present solution and/or submit engineering design and permit applications to regulators, and host public meetings to inform the community about the timeline and status.  Some public meetings are required as part of the regulatory process, however, it is important to keep the stakeholders involved in the process. So, additional meetings or presentations are recommend for true engagement.
  • Implementation: If the solution is to remove or repair the dam, continue to update the community about the status and timeline of construction. Local residents, elected officials, and nonprofit groups could be your best allies in keeping everyone informed.

It’s crucial to keep stakeholders and general public informed throughout the process via regular social media and traditional media outreach. Successful projects are based on a transparent process that integrates the local community.  It is the local community that then becomes the environmental stewards of the restored river system.

Celebrating the start of the Columbia Dam removal with the New Jersey Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, Princeton Hydro, USFWS, NJDEP, the local community, and other stakeholders.

 

Analyzing Dams for Removal

There are few “easy” dam removal decisions. Most dams have both positive and negative impacts. The challenge in making a sound decision about whether or not to remove a dam is to identify all of the costs and benefits of keeping (and eventually repairing or replacing) that particular structure, as well as the costs and benefits of removing it, and balance the findings to determine the best option. It is important to ensure that the full range of costs and benefits are identified.

Working through the many issues involved in deciding to keep or remove a dam can offer surprising conclusions that can lead to a reasoned approach – reducing subjectivity and increasing objectivity. The key issues typically investigated include:

  • Impounded sediment
  • Infrastructure/utility impacts
  • Current use (& economic value of dam)
  • Environmental concerns & benefits
  • Geomorphic equilibrium
  • Public health & safety
  • Flooding & hydrologic impacts
  • Aesthetic & sentimental value
  • Historic/archeological
  • Community concerns
  • Sensitive or invasive species
  • Water rights
  • Cost & funding availability

When making a final decision, it’s important to critically examine all factors to understand the influences on the decision. No matter the final outcome, at least it will be a well-informed process, and the information and understanding gained can help shape future decisions.

Although each dam removal project is unique, we developed a standard process that we follow:

While there is often no definitive answer to a question about whether a particular dam should be removed, there is a right and wrong way to go about making a dam removal decision. A good dam removal/retention decision is one that is based on an assessment of all the facts, collaboration with all stakeholders, and objective criteria.

Princeton Hydro has designed, permitted, and overseen the reconstruction, repair, and removal of dozens of dams throughout the Northeast.  To contact us and learn more about our fish passage and dam removal engineering services, visit: bit.ly/DamBarrier.

Revisit part-one of this blog series:

Part One: Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don’t: Making Decisions and Resolving Conflicts on Dam Removal

Part One: Damned If You Do, Dammed If You Don’t: Making Decisions and Resolving Conflicts on Dam Removal

People have been building dams since prerecorded history for a wide variety of economically valuable purposes including water supply, flood control, and hydroelectric power. Back in the 1950s and 60s, the U.S. saw a boom in infrastructure development, and dams were being built with little regard to their impacts on rivers and the environment. By the 1970s, the rapid progression of dam building in the U.S. led researchers to start investigating the ecological impacts of dams. Results from these early studies eventually fueled the start of proactive dam removal activities throughout the U.S.

Despite the proven benefits of dam removal, conflicts are a prevalent part of any dam removal project. Dam removal, like any other social decision-making process, brings up tensions around economics and the distribution of real and perceived gains and losses. In this two part blog series, we take a look at addressing and preventing potential conflicts and the key factors involved in dam removal decision-making – to remove or not to remove.

Why We Remove Dams

The primary reasons we remove dams are safety, economics, ecology, and regulatory. There has been a growing movement to remove dams where the costs – including environmental, safety, and socio-cultural impacts – outweigh the benefits of the dam or where the dam no longer serves any useful purpose. In some cases, it’s more beneficial economically to remove a dam than to keep it, even if it still produces revenue. Sometimes the estimated cost of inspection, repair, and maintenance can significantly exceed the cost of removal, rendering generated projected revenue insignificant.

Safety reasons are also vital, especially for cases in which dams are aging, yet still holding large amounts of water or impounded sediment. As dams age and decay, they can become public safety hazards, presenting a failure risk and flooding danger. According to American Rivers, “more than 90,000 dams in the country are no longer serving the purpose that they were built to provide decades or centuries ago.” Dam removal has increasingly become the best option for property owners who can no longer afford the rising cost of maintenance and repair work required to maintain these complex structures.

The goal of removal can be multi-faceted, including saving taxpayer money; restoring flows for migrating fish, other aquatic organisms, and wildlife; reinstating the natural sediment and nutrient flow; eliminating safety risks; and restoring opportunities for riverine recreation.

Moosup River

Common Obstacles to Dam Removal

Dam removal efforts are often subjected to a number of different obstacles that can postpone or even halt the process altogether. Reasons for retaining dams often involve: aesthetics and reservoir recreation; water intakes/diversions; hydroelectric; quantity/quality of sediment; funding issues; cultural/historic values of manmade structures; owner buy-in; sensitive species; and community politics.

Of those common restoration obstacles, one of the more frequently encountered challenges is cost and funding. Determining who pays for the removal of a dam is often a complex issue. Sometimes, removal can be financed by the dam owner, local, state, and federal governments, and in some cases agreements are made whereby multiple stakeholders contribute to cover the costs. Funding for dam removal projects can be difficult to obtain because it typically has to come from a variety of sources.

Anecdotally, opposition also stems from fear of change and fear of the unknown. Bruce Babbitt, the United States Secretary of the Interior from 1993 through 2001 and dam removal advocate, said in an article he wrote, titled A River Runs Against It: America’s Evolving View of Dams, “I always wonder what is it about the sound of a sledgehammer on concrete that evokes such a reaction? We routinely demolish buildings that have served their purpose or when there is a better use for the land. Why not dams? For whatever reason, we view dams as akin to the pyramids of Egypt—a permanent part of the landscape, timeless monuments to our civilization and technology.”

Negative public perceptions of dam removal and its consequences can seriously impede removal projects. Although there are many reasons for the resistance to dam removal, it is important that each be understood and addressed in order to find solutions that fulfill both the needs of the environment and the local communities.

Stay tuned for Part Two of this blog series in which we explore strategies for analyzing dams and what goes into deciding if a dam should remain or be removed.

Study Data Leads to Healthier Wreck Pond Ecosystem

Wreck Pond is a tidal pond located on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean in southern Monmouth County, New Jersey. The 73-acre pond, which was originally connected to the sea by a small and shifting inlet, got its name in the 1800s due to the numerous shipwrecks that occurred at the mouth of the inlet. The Sea Girt Lighthouse was built to prevent such accidents. In the 1930s, the inlet was filled in and an outfall pipe was installed, thus creating Wreck Pond. The outfall pipe allowed limited tidal exchange between Wreck Pond and the Atlantic Ocean.

In the 1960s, Wreck Pond flourished with wildlife and was a popular destination for recreational activities with tourists coming to the area mainly from New York City and western New Jersey. In the early spring, hundreds of river herring would migrate into Wreck Pond, travelling up its tributaries — Wreck Pond Brook, Hurleys Pond Brook and Hannabrand Brook — to spawn. During the summer, the pond was bustling with recreational activities like swimming, fishing, and sailing.

Over time, however, the combination of restricted tidal flow and pollution, attributable to increased development of the watershed, led to a number of environmental issues within the watershed, including impaired water quality, reduced fish populations, and flooding.

Throughout the Wreck Pond watershed, high stream velocities during flood conditions have caused the destabilization and erosion of stream banks, which has resulted in the loss of riparian vegetation and filling of wetlands. Discharge from Wreck Pond during heavy rains conveys nonpoint source pollutants that negatively impact nearby Spring Lake and Sea Girt beaches resulting in beach closings due to elevated bacteria counts. Watershed erosion and sediment transported with stormwater runoff has also contributed to excessive amounts of sedimentation and accumulations of settled sediment, not only within Wreck Pond, but at the outfall pipe as well. This sediment further impeded tidal flushing and the passage of anadromous fish into and out of Wreck Pond.

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused wide-spread destruction throughout New Jersey and the entire eastern seaboard. The storm event also caused a major breach of the Wreck Pond watershed’s dune beach system and failure of the outfall pipe. The breach formed a natural inlet next to the outfall pipe, recreating the connection to the Atlantic Ocean that once existed. This was the first time the inlet had been open since the 1930s, and the reopening cast a new light on the benefits of additional flow between the pond and the ocean.

Hurricane Sandy sparked a renewed interest in reducing flooding impacts throughout the watershed, including efforts to restore the water quality and ecology of Wreck Pond. The breach caused by Hurricane Sandy was not stable, and the inlet began to rapidly close due to the deposition of beach sand and the discharge of sediment from Wreck Pond and its watershed.

Princeton Hydro and HDR generated the data used to support the goals of the feasibility study through a USACE-approved model of Wreck Pond that examined the dynamics of Wreck Pond along with the water bodies directly upland, the watershed, and the offshore waters in the immediate vicinity of the ocean outfall. The model was calibrated and verified using available “normalized” tide data. Neighboring Deal Lake, which is also tidally connected to the ocean by a similar outfall pipe, was used as the “reference” waterbody. The Wreck Pond System model evaluated the hydraulic characteristics of Wreck Pond with and without the modified outfall pipe, computed pollutant inputs from the surrounding watershed, and predicted Wreck Pond’s water quality and ecological response. The calibrated model was also used to investigate the effects and longevity of dredging and other waterway feature modifications.

As part of the study, Princeton Hydro and HDR completed hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) and geotechnical investigations of Wreck Pond’s sediment to assess potential flood damage reduction and ecological restoration efforts of the waterbody. The investigation included the progression of 10 sediment borings conducted within the main body of Wreck Pond, as well as primary tributaries to the pond. The borings, conducted under the supervision of our geotechnical staff, were progressed through the surgical accumulated sediment, not the underlying parent material. Samples were collected for analysis by Princeton Hydro’s AMRL-accredited (AASHTO Materials Reference Library) and USACE-certified laboratory. In accordance with NJDEP requirements, sediment samples were also forwarded to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for analysis of potential nonpoint source pollutants.

In the geotechnical laboratory, the samples were subjected to geotechnical indexing tests, including grain size, organic content, moisture content, and plasticity/liquid limits. For soil strength parameters, the in-field Standard Penetration Test (SPT), as well as laboratory unconfined compression tests, were performed on a clay sample to provide parameters for slope stability modeling.

The culvert construction and sediment dredging were completed at the end of 2016. Continued restoration efforts, informed and directed by the data developed through Princeton Hydro’s feasibility study, are helping to reduce the risk of flooding to surrounding Wreck Pond communities, increase connectivity between the pond and ocean, and improve water quality. The overall result is a healthier, more diverse, and more resilient Wreck Pond ecosystem.

During the time of the progression of study by the USACE, the American Littoral Society and the towns of Spring Lake and Sea Girt were also progressing their own restoration effort and completed the implementation of an additional culvert to the Atlantic Ocean.  The American Littoral Society was able to utilize the data, analysis, and modeling results developed by the USACE to ensure the additional culvert would increase tidal flushing and look to future restoration projects within Wreck Pond.

American Littoral Society

 

To learn more about our geotechnical engineering services, click here.

Employee Spotlight: Meet Our New Team Members

We’re excited to announce the expansion of our growing business with the addition of six team members who have experience and qualifications in a variety of fields related to water resource management.

Meet the new team members:

alexi sanchez de boado, DC Regional Office Manager and Senior Project Manager

As DC Regional Office Manager and Senior Project Manager, Alexi focuses on watershed management and green infrastructure. For almost two decades, he has managed watershed management projects in the DC metro area, and beyond, for federal, state, county and local governments and other government entities under the authority of the Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and related regulations.

Serving as an urban watershed manager and regulator for six years for the District of Columbia’s Watershed Protection Division, Nonpoint Source Management Branch, Alexi managed cross-jurisdictional, urban watershed rehabilitation projects, developed and coordinated the District’s Low Impact Development (LID) Initiatives Program, and oversaw complex stream and watershed assessment projects with a huge variety of stakeholders, from local NGOs to federal land holders. Since then, he has consulted as a scientist in both large and small consulting firms focusing on stormwater pollution, stream restoration, watershed planning, and green infrastructure.

Alexi holds a Master of Science in Environmental and Forest Biology from the State University of New York (SUNY) College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) and a Master of Public Administration from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

In his spare time, Alexi enjoys attending concerts, biking, and traveling, especially through Latin America.

Amanda cote, regulatory specialist

Amanda graduated from Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts with a Bachelor of Science in Geography. She has background knowledge in GIS which lead her to work in college labs making maps and running various applications.  She has also participated in water resources projects and is eager to learn.

In her free time, she enjoys being in the great outdoors. Adventuring is a huge part of her life in any form that she can experience it: hiking, fishing, snowshoeing, swimming, backpacking, etc. But of all places to explore, Amanda’s favorite place to be is on top of a mountain, reflecting on and appreciating the journey she took to climb to its peak.

Matt PapPas, staff engineer

Matt is a newcomer to the engineering field, just graduating in the summer of 2018 with a Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering and minor in Environmental Engineering from the University of Delaware. As an undergraduate, he was an active member of the UD ASCE chapter, where he was a leader in the organization and eventual captain of the concrete canoe team.

Prior to Princeton Hydro, he worked for a large construction firm in Delaware where he became quite familiar with the practical engineering world and was able to develop his working knowledge of constructability as well as hone his technical writing skills.

In his spare time, Matt enjoys cooking, hiking and wood carving.

Johnny quispe, Environmental Scientist

Johnny is a PhD candidate at Rutgers University’s Graduate Program of Ecology and Evolution investigating the effects of sea level rise on coastal ecosystems and communities. Through his research, he is identifying migration opportunity zones for marsh migration as well as areas for restoration and flood risk management. Johnny integrates social, economic, engineering, and natural systems into his projects to make coastal communities more resilient to natural disasters and climate change.

After Johnny earned his Bachelor of Science in Environmental Policy, Institutions, and Behaviors at Rutgers University, he focused on the conservation, restoration, and remediation of sites in NJ via a variety of roles in the nonprofit, public, and academic sectors. Johnny interned at the New Jersey Department of State and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, New Jersey Future, Jersey Water Works, and at USEPA Region 2 Headquarters, where he conducted research for the Emergency and Remedial Response Division. In his spare time, he enjoys traveling, hiking, and playing board games.

Jake Schwartz, Project Engineer

Jake is a Project Engineer with a BS in Civil Engineering from Rowan University, which he earned in 2017. After graduating college, Jake worked for a civil and environmental consulting company, where he gained experience with stormwater design, flooding, grading, site layout, construction inspection/administration, and environmental regulation. Prior to his career in civil engineering, Jake worked his way up in the pool industry, starting as a swim instructor. He quickly moved up to a life guard position, and then eventually became responsible for managing 12 commercial swimming pools. As a pool manager, Jake was responsible for system upkeep and water chemistry in the swimming pools. This position enabled Jake to acquire hands on experience with water chemistry and hydraulic principles. In this position, Jake also oversaw 40 staff members, leaving him with substantial leadership experience. Jake’s goal is to use his knowledge and experience to design sustainable site plans for Princeton Hydro’s projects.

Outside of work, Jake enjoys hiking, swimming, going to the beach, and hanging out with friends.

RYAN WASIK, EIT, water resource engineer

Ryan is a Water Resource Engineer with a B.S. in Civil Engineering and a minor in Environmental Engineering from Widener University in in Chester, PA. After graduating, he worked as a highway inspector for roadway reconstruction and rehab projects in Delaware. Then, he worked as a project engineer designing and drafting for a wide range of civil/site design projects throughout the Philadelphia region and New Jersey. He has experience in roadway design, ADA ramp design, site grading and layout, utility design, erosion and sediment control measures, and stormwater design/inspections.

In his free time, Ryan enjoys playing golf, disk golf, running, and playing bass guitar.

Part Two: Reducing Flood Risk in Moodna Creek Watershed

Photo of Moodna Creek taken from the Forge Hill Road bridge, New Windsor Post Hurricane Irene (Courtesy of Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons)

This two-part blog series showcases our work in the Moodna Creek Watershed in order to explore common methodologies used to estimate flood risk, develop a flood management strategy, and reduce flooding.

Welcome to Part Two: Flood Risk Reduction and Stormwater Management in the Moodna Creek Watershed

As we laid out in Part One of this blog series, the Moodna Creek Watershed, which covers 180 square miles of eastern Orange County, New York, has seen population growth in recent years and has experienced significant flooding from extreme weather events like Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and Hurricane Sandy. Reports indicate that the Moodna Creek Watershed’s flood risk will likely increase as time passes.

Understanding the existing and anticipated conditions for flooding within a watershed is a critical step to reducing risk. Our analysis revealed that flood risk in the Lower Moodna is predominantly driven by high-velocity flows that cause erosion, scouring, and damage to in-stream structures. The second cause of risk is back-flooding due to naturally formed and man-made constrictions within the channel. Other factors that have influenced flood risk within the watershed, include development within the floodplain and poor stormwater management.

Now, let’s take a closer look at a few of the strategies that we recommended for the Lower Moodna Watershed to address these issues and reduce current and future flood risk:

Stormwater Management

Damage to Butternut Drive caused when Moodna Creek flooded after Hurricane Irene (Courtesy of Daniel Case via Wikimedia Commons)

Stormwater is the runoff or excess water caused by precipitation such as rainwater or snowmelt. In urban areas, it flows over sewer gates which often drain into a lake or river. In natural landscapes, plants absorb and utilize stormwater, with the excess draining into local waterways.  In developed areas, like the Moodna Creek watershed, challenges arise from high volumes of uncontrolled stormwater runoff. The result is more water in streams and rivers in a shorter amount of time, producing higher peak flows and contributing to flooding issues.

Pollutant loading is also a major issue with uncontrolled stormwater runoff. Population growth and development are major contributors to the amount of pollutants in runoff as well as the volume and rate of runoff. Together, they can cause changes in hydrology and water quality that result in habitat loss, increased flooding, decreased aquatic biological diversity, and increased sedimentation and erosion.

To reduce flood hazards within the watershed, stormwater management is a primary focus and critical first step of the Moodna Creek Watershed Management Plan. The recommended stormwater improvement strategies include:

  • Minimizing the amount of impervious area within the watershed for new development, and replacing existing impervious surfaces with planter boxes, rain gardens and porous pavement.
  • Utilizing low-impact design measures like bioretention basins and constructed-wetland systems that mimic the role of natural wetlands by temporarily detaining and filtering stormwater.
  • Ensuring the long-term protection and viability of the watershed’s natural wetlands.

The project team recommended that stormwater management be required for all projects and that building regulations ensure development does not change the quantity, quality, or timing of run-off from any parcel within the watershed. Recommendations also stressed the importance of stormwater management ordinances focusing on future flood risk as well as addressing the existing flooding issues.

Floodplain Storage

Floodplains are the low-lying areas of land where floodwater periodically spreads when a river or stream overtops its banks. The floodplain provides a valuable function by storing floodwaters, buffering the effect of peak runoff, lessening erosion, and capturing nutrient-laden sediment.

Communities, like the Moodna Creek watershed, can reduce flooding by rehabilitating water conveyance channels to slow down the flow, increasing floodplain storage in order to intercept rainwater closer to where it falls, and creating floodplain benches to store flood water conveyed in the channel.  Increasing floodplain storage can be an approach that mimics and enhances the natural functions of the system.

One of the major causes of flooding along the Lower Moodna was the channel’s inability to maintain and hold high volumes of water caused by rain events. During a significant rain event, the Lower Moodna channel tends to swell, and water spills over its banks and into the community causing flooding. One way to resolve this issue is by changing the grading and increasing the size and depth of the floodplain in certain areas to safely store and infiltrate floodwater. The project team identified several additional opportunities to increase floodplain storage throughout the watershed.

One of the primary areas of opportunity was the Storm King Golf Club project site (above). The team analyzed the topography of the golf course to see if directing flow onto the greens would alter the extent and reach of the floodplain thus reducing the potential for flooding along the roadways and properties in the adjacent neighborhoods. Based on LiDAR data, it was estimated that the alteration of 27 acres could increase floodplain storage by 130.5 acre-feet, which is equivalent to approximately 42.5 million gallons per event.

Land Preservation & Critical Environmental Area Designation

For areas where land preservation is not a financially viable option, but the land is undeveloped, prone to flooding, and offers ecological value that would be impacted by development, the project team recommended a potential Critical Environmental Area (CEA) designation. A CEA designation does not protect land in perpetuity from development, but would trigger environmental reviews for proposed development under the NY State Quality Environmental Review Act. And, the designation provides an additional layer of scrutiny on projects to ensure they will not exacerbate flooding within the watershed or result in an unintentional increase in risk to existing properties and infrastructure.

Conserved riparian areas also generate a range of ecosystem services, in addition to the hazard mitigation benefits they provide. Protected forests, wetlands, and grasslands along rivers and streams can improve water quality, provide habitat to many species, and offer a wide range of recreational opportunities. Given the co-benefits that protected lands provide, there is growing interest in floodplain conservation as a flood damage reduction strategy.


These are just a few of the flood risk reduction strategies we recommended for the Lower Moodna Creek watershed. For a more in-depth look at the proposed flood mitigation strategies and techniques, download a free copy of our Moodna Creek Watershed and Flood Mitigation Assessment presentation.

Revisit part-one of this blog series, which explores some of the concepts and methods used to estimate flood risk for existing conditions in the year 2050 and develop a flood management strategy.

Two-Part Blog Series: Flood Assessment, Mitigation & Management

For more information about Princeton Hydro’s flood management services, go here: http://bit.ly/PHfloodplain

Employee Spotlight: Meet Our New Team Members

We’re excited to welcome four new members to our team. The addition of this group of talented individuals strengthens our commitment to delivering great service that exceeds our clients’ expectations.

Meet Our New Team Members
Miranda Lepek, EIT, Water Resource Engineer

Miranda is a civil engineer with expertise in grading and stormwater design, CAD drafting, environmental sampling, and construction oversight. Prior to Princeton Hydro, she worked for a small site development firm in Michigan where she developed her drafting skills and facilitated multiple aspects of private and commercial land development projects.

Miranda holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor. While on study abroad, she contributed to the one of the longest-running native amphibian field studies in New Zealand. In other previous experiences, she worked on major projects including the investigation phases of a Superfund site cleanup in Duluth, MN and a comprehensive sampling operation over 40 miles of the Hudson River near Albany, NY. In her free time, Miranda enjoys hiking, foraging, cooking and art.

Sumantha Prasad, PE, ENV SP, Water Resource Engineer

Sumantha is a Water Resource Engineer with a B.S. in Bioenvironmental Engineering from Rutgers University and a M.S. in Environmental Engineering and Science from Johns Hopkins University. She worked in Maryland for seven years focusing on ecological restoration projects, including stream restoration, wetland creation and enhancement, and stormwater management, and she worked for 3 years with a primary focus on highway hydrology and hydraulics.

In her spare time, she enjoys being a Toastmaster and serves as the Treasurer to a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to creating inclusive housing communities for adults with disabilities. She also enjoys telling terrible puns unapologetically.

Pat Rose, Environmental Scientist

Pat’s interest in aquatics began during a summer course studying at Lake Atitlán, Guatemala as an undergraduate at SUNY Oneonta. After graduation, he spent a year volunteering with AmeriCorps in Knoxville, Tennessee as part of a Water Quality Team. While in Tennessee, Pat spent the majority of his time educating high school students on how to protect and improve local waterways and watersheds as part of the Adopt-A-Watershed program. During his year with AmeriCorps, Pat worked with government organizations to perform biological sampling and erosion monitoring in local streams.

Pat graduated from SUNY Oneonta with a M.S. in Lake Management in December 2018. During his time in graduate school, he created an interim lake management plan for a small reservoir in New York that has had cyanobacterial blooms over the past few years. Pat spent this past summer completing a co-op with an aquatic plant management company in the Pacific Northwest, working primarily with invasive Eurasian and hybrid watermilfoil populations.

Duncan Simpson, Senior Environmental Scientist

For nearly a decade, Duncan has served as an Environmental Scientist/Planner in the Mid-Atlantic Region. His experience includes a wide range of natural resource studies, documentation, and permitting at both the project and program level. He has special expertise in wetlands; Waters of the US delineations; and permitting for stormwater management facilities, stream restoration, and TMDL program projects. He has conducted forest stand delineations; rare, threatened and endangered species consultations; mitigation monitoring; and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation.

Duncan holds an M.S in Biology from Towson University and a B.S. in Environmental Science with a Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation Minor from the University of Massachusetts. During his graduate studies, he researched amphibian species found in Delmarva Bays and testing models that predict their presence based on abiotic habitat characteristics. He also served as a student member of the Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (NEPARC) steering committee. Duncan is a Professional Wetland Scientist and member of the Society of Wetland Scientists. In his spare time, he enjoys hiking with his dog and learning how to fly fish.

 

Levee Inspections Along the Elizabeth River

Ursino Dam on the Elizabeth River in Union County, New Jersey is one of the sites Princeton Hydro inspected for flood control, ensuring the system is providing the level of protection it was designed to deliver.

By Brendon Achey, Princeton Hydro’s Lead Geologist; Soils Laboratory Manager; Project Manager

Located 20 miles southwest of New York City, the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is situated along the Elizabeth River. For the city’s 125,000 residents, living along the river has many benefits, but the benefits are not without flood risk. In order to manage the risk associated with potential flooding, a series of levees and floodwalls were installed along the banks of the Elizabeth River. A levee is an embankment that is constructed to prevent overflow from a river. They are a crucial element for protecting cities from disastrous flooding, and as such they require periodic inspections to ensure that all components are functioning properly.

Princeton Hydro was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District (USACE NYD) to perform rigorous flood control project inspections (i.e., “Periodic Inspections”) for the four levee systems located along the Elizabeth River.  For this project, our team inspected over 17,000 linear feet of levee embankment and 2,500 linear feet of floodwall.

Levee systems are comprised of components which collectively provide flood risk management to a defined area. These components can include levees, structural floodwalls, closure gates, pumping stations, culverts, and interior drainage works. These components are interconnected and collectively ensure the protection of development and/or infrastructure that is situated within a floodplain. Failure of just one critical component within a system could constitute an overall system failure. During Hurricane Katrina, for example, dozens of levees were destroyed, leaving the Louisiana coast with billions of dollars in damage and over one thousand lives lost.

Periodic inspections are necessary in order to ensure a levee system will perform as expected. They are also needed to identify deficiencies in the levee, or areas that need monitoring or immediate repair. Critically important maintenance activities include continuously assessing the integrity of the levee system to identify changes over time, collecting information to help inform decisions about future actions, and providing the public with information about the levees on which they rely.

Levee Inspection Process

Periodic inspections are extremely comprehensive and include three key steps: data collection, field inspection, and development of a final report.

Data Collection

Prior to conducting field inspections, Princeton Hydro’s engineers evaluated the Elizabeth River levee system’s documented design criteria. This evaluation was conducted to assess the ability of each feature and the overall system to function as authorized, and also to identify any potential need to update the system design. Princeton Hydro teamed with HDR to carry out the inspections. A comprehensive review of existing data on operation and maintenance, previous inspections, emergency action plans, and flood fighting records was also performed.

Field Inspection

The Princeton Hydro field inspection team consisted of geotechnical, water resource, mechanical, structural, and electrical engineers. Detailed inspections were performed on each segment of each levee system.  This included the detailed inspection and documentation of over 17,000 linear feet of levee embankment, over 2,500 linear feet of floodwall, four pumping stations, 29 interior drainage structures, five closure gates, and various other encroachments and facilities. Princeton Hydro identified, evaluated, and rated the state of each of these system elements. As part of this field inspection task, Princeton Hydro utilized a state-of-the-art tablet and GIS technology in order to field-locate inspection points and record item ratings. This digital collection of data helps expedite data processing and ensures higher levels of accuracy.

Development of Final Report

Princeton Hydro prepared a Periodic Inspection Report for each of the four levee systems inspected, which included the results of the design document review, methods and results of the field inspection, a summary of areas/items of concern, a preliminary engineering assessment of causes of distress or abnormal conditions, and recommendations for remedial actions to address identified concerns. Final report development included briefing the USACE Levee Safety Officer (LSO) on our inspection findings, assigned ratings, and recommendations.

Levee inspections are vital to the longevity of levee systems and the safety of the communities they protect. By providing the municipalities with detailed inspection reports, effective repair and management programs can be designed and implemented efficiently. This helps to ensure the levee systems are providing the level of protection that they were designed to deliver.

Princeton Hydro’s Geoscience and Water Resource Engineering teams perform levee and dam inspections throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regions. For more info, visit: http://bit.ly/PHEngineering

Brendon Achey provides a wide range of technical skills and services for Princeton Hydro. His responsibilities include: project management, preparation and quality control of technical deliverables, geotechnical investigations and analysis, groundwater hydrology, soil sampling plan design and implementation, and site characterization. He is responsible for managing the daily operations of the AASHTO accredited and USACE validated soil testing laboratory. In addition to laboratory testing and analysis, Brendon is responsible for analyzing results in support of geotechnical and stormwater management design evaluations. This may include bearing capacity and settlement analysis of both shallow and deep foundations, retaining wall design, and recommendations for stormwater management practices.

Two-Part Blog Series: Flood Assessment, Mitigation & Management

In this two part blog series, we showcase our work in the Moodna Creek Watershed in order to explore some of the concepts and methods used to estimate flood risk for existing conditions and the year 2050 and develop a flood management strategy (Part One), and traditional engineering and natural systems solutions used to manage and reduce flood risk (Part Two).

Part One: Flood Assessment & Mitigation Analysis in the Moodna Creek Watershed

The greater Moodna Creek watershed covers 180 square miles of eastern Orange County, NY. The watershed includes 22 municipalities and hundreds of streams before joining the Hudson River. This region has seen tremendous growth in recent years with the expansion of regional transit networks and critical infrastructure.

The Moodna Creek watershed can be split into two sub-basins — the Upper Moodna Creek and the Lower Moodna Creek. In the span of 15 months, Hurricane Irene, Tropical Storm Lee, and Hurricane Sandy each have caused significant flooding throughout the Moodna Creek watershed, damaging public facilities, roadways, and private properties. Both sub-basin communities have noted a concern about increased flood risk as more development occurs.

As global temperatures rise, climate models are predicting more intense rainfall events. And, the flood risk for communities along waterways — like the Moodna Creek watershed — will likely increase as time passes. In order to understand existing and future risk from flood events in this flood-prone area, a flood risk management strategy needed to be developed. The strategy uses a cost-benefit analysis to review the feasibility of each measure and the overall impact in reducing flood risks.

With funds provided from a 2016 grant program sponsored by the New England Interstate Waters Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYCDEC) Hudson River Estuary Program (HEP), Princeton Hydro along with a variety of project partners completed a flood assessment and flood mitigation analysis specific to the Lower Moodna Creek watershed.

Let’s take a closer look at our work with the Lower Moodna Creek watershed, and explore some of the methods used to estimate flood risk and develop a flood management strategy:

Lower Moodna Creek Watershed Flood Assessment & Analysis

The primary Lower Moodna Creek project goals were to assess flood vulnerabilities and propose flood mitigation solutions that consider both traditional engineering strategies and natural systems solution approaches (land preservation, wetland/forest restoration, green infrastructure and green water management). The project team focused on ways to use the natural environment to reduce risk.  Instead of strictly focusing on just Moonda Creek, the team took a holistic approach which included all areas that drain into the river too. These analyses were incorporated into a Flood Assessment Master Plan and Flood Mitigation Plan, which will serve as a road map to reducing flooding issues within the watershed.

Managing Flood Risk

The first step in managing flood risk is to understand what type of exposure the communities face. The Moodna Creek project modeled flooding within the watershed during normal rain events, extreme rain events, and future rain events with two primary goals in mind:

Visual assessment being conducted in flood-prone areas of Moodna Creek Watershed.

  • Assess the facilities, infrastructure, and urban development that are at risk from flooding along the Moodna Creek and its tributaries within the study area.
  • Develop a series of hydrologic and hydraulic models to assess the extent of potential flooding from the 10-year (10%), 100-year (1%),  and 500-year (0.2%) storm recurrence intervals within the study area. The modeling includes flows for these storm events under existing conditions and also hypothetical scenarios with predicted increases in precipitation and population growth.

 

The project team used these models and data to propose and evaluate a series of design measures that help reduce and mitigate existing and anticipated flood risk within the study area. Where possible, the proposed solutions prioritized approaches that protect and/or mirror natural flood protection mechanisms within the watershed such as floodplain re-connection and wetland establishment. In addition to flood protection, the project components also provide water quality protection, aesthetics and recreation, pollutant reduction, and wildlife habitat creation.

Land Use and Zoning

Zoning is a powerful tool that determines a region’s exposure to hazards and risk. Zoning determines which uses are permitted, or encouraged, to be built in moderate and high-risk areas. It also prevents certain uses, such as critical facilities, from being built in those areas. Zoning is also a determinant of a region’s character and identity.

In the Lower Moodna Creek watershed, a large majority (82%) of land is zoned for residential use. However, in the flood-prone areas, there is a higher ratio of areas zoned for non-residential uses (commercial, industrial) than in areas that are zoned for potential future development. Specifically, within the 10-year storm recurrence floodplain, 30% of the land is zoned for industrial use. This is likely because several facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants and mills, require access to the river and were strategically developed to be within immediate proximity of waterfront access. The Lower Moodna zoning analysis demonstrated a general preference within watershed to limit residential use of flood-prone areas. 

Land Preservation

Preserving land allows for natural stormwater management, as well as limits the exposure of development, and minimizes sources of erosion within the watershed. Preserved land also maintains the hydrologic and ecologic function of the land by allowing rainwater to be absorbed or retained where it falls and thus minimizing run-off. If the land within the floodplain is preserved, it will never be developed, and therefore the risk — a calculation of rate exposure and the value of the potential damage — is eliminated.  Therefore, land preservation, both within the floodplains and in upland areas, is the best way to minimize flood damage.

Conserved riparian areas also generate a range of ecosystem services, in addition to the hazard mitigation benefits they provide. Protected forests, grasslands, and wetlands along rivers and streams can improve water quality, provide habitat to many species, and offer a wide range of recreational opportunities. Given the co-benefits that protected lands provide, there is growing interest in floodplain conservation as a flood damage reduction strategy.

Within the mapped Lower Moodna floodplains, our assessment determined that there appears to be a slight priority for preserving land most at-risk for flooding. This is likely a consequence of prioritizing land that is closest to riparian areas and preserving wetland areas, which are the most likely to experience flooding. Within the floodplains for the 10-year storm, approximately 22.7% is preserved. For the 100-year storm, approximately 21.2% of the land is preserved. Within the 500-year storm, this number drops slightly to 20.3%. These numbers are so close in part because the difference between the 10-year, 100-year, and 500-year floodplains are small in many areas of the watershed.

Hydrology and Hydraulics

Hydrology is the scientific study of the waters of the earth, with a particular focus on how rainfall and evaporation affect the flow of water in streams and storm drains. Hydraulics is the engineering analysis of the flow of water in channels, pipelines, and other hydraulic structures. Hydrology and hydraulics analyses are a key part of flood management.

As part of this flood assessment, Princeton Hydro created a series of hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) models to assess the extent of potential flooding from the 10-year, 100-year, and 500-year storm recurrence intervals within the Lower Moodna. The modeling, which included flows for these storm events under existing conditions and future conditions based on predicted increases in precipitation and population growth, makes it easier to assess what new areas are most impacted in the future.

These are just a few of the assessments we conducted to analyze the ways in which flooding within the watershed may be affected by changes in land use, precipitation, and mitigation efforts. The flood models we developed informed our recommendations and proposed flood mitigation solutions for reducing and mitigating existing and anticipated flood risk.

Check out Part Two of this blog series in which we explore flood risk-reduction strategies that include both traditional engineering and natural systems solutions:

Part Two: Reducing Flood Risk in Moodna Creek Watershed

For more information about Princeton Hydro’s flood management services, go here: http://bit.ly/PHfloodplain.