Database Enhancements and Updated Findings

Transcription

1 Database Enhancements and Updated Findings by Jane Clary, Jonathan E. Jones, P.E. and John O BrienO Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Eric Strecker, P.E. and Marcus Quigley, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants WEFTEC, San Diego, CA, October 16, 2007

2 Background What, Why and Who? New Progress Overview New data Revised website New performance summaries Example Database Uses Future Efforts Partnerships with data providers Low Impact Development integration

3 What is the BMP Database? A large Microsoft Access database that facilitates scientifically based collection and management of BMP data linked to site conditions and design parameters. Contains 343 BMP studies in 21 states and 3 countries. Submitted data undergoes a QA/QC check. Project findings are publically available through

4 The Problem (1994 and Now) Widespread use of BMPs without sufficient understanding of performance and factors leading to performance Inconsistent data reporting methods limit scientific comparison/evaluation of studies Differences in monitoring strategies and data evaluation methods result in wide range of reported effectiveness (e.g. to + percent removals)

5 Project History : 96: UWRRC of ASCE identified the need to address urban stormwater BMP performance in a systematic and scientifically rigorous manner fall 2003: ASCE/EPA Cooperative Agreement Develop standardized BMP performance data reporting protocols Compile data of BMP performance in USA and other countries (Bibliography compilation & review) Develop a database and store data on BMP performance, the facility s s site conditions, and design parameters (1999 CD) Analyze data using rigorous standardized statistical protocols Develop monitoring guidance Develop website (

6 New Coalition 2004-present Coalition Partners (w/ steering committee representatives) Jeff Moeller, WERF Patricia Cazenas, FHWA Brian Parsons, ASCE-EWRI EWRI Colene Carter, APWA Eric Strassler, EPA

7 Project Subcommittee (PSC) Richard Tveten, Washington State DOT(PSC Chair) Ben Urbonas, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Former PI and PSC Chair) Michael Barrett, University of Texas Bob Carr, Water Resources Modeling, APWA Gregory Granato, U.S. Geological Survey David Graves, New York State DOT Jesse Pritts, EPA

8 Who Provides the Data? Data Provider # CalTrans: Brian Currier (UC Davis), Steve Taylor (RBF); Steve Austrheim-Smith (Caltrans), Anna Lantin (RBF Consulting); Michael Barrett (UT-Austin) 56 Florida DEP BMP Database (Eric Livingston) 44 Shaw Yu, University of Virginia 27 Robert Pitt, University of Alabama 19 Dolores Leonard and Robert Roseen, University of New Hampshire 17 Washington State DOT-Richard Tveten 14 Betty Rushton, Southwest Florida Water Management District 14 Tom Liptan, City of Portland BES 13 Ben Urbonas, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver) 11

9 Data Providers (cont.) Kevin White, U. of South Alabama 8 Leila Gosselinke and K. Moore, City of Austin, TX; Texas Natural Resources Conservation Com. 6 Michael Barrett, UT-Austin 5 Dan Borchert and Tracy Lawrence, NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection 4 William Hunt, NC State 3 Robert Traver, Villanova U. 2 Rich Horner, U. of Washington 2 John Cox, FL Dept. of Env. Reg. 2 Chad Horner, Gwinett County, GA 2 Original Literature Review (1999) 76 Others (1 study each) 12 City of Austin Wet Pond/Wetland, Source: Jean Drew, City of Austin

10 Geographic Distribution (S= Structural; NS = Non-structural) State S NS Total State S NS Total AL NJ 3 3 CA NY 6 6 CO OH 1 1 CT 1 1 OR FL PA 2 2 GA 2 2 TX IL VA MD 5 5 WA MI 5 5 WI MN 7 7 Canada 1 1 NC Sweden 1 1 NH Total

11 Current Numbers of BMP Types (Oct. 07) BMP Category Totals Biofilter (Grass Swales, etc.) 71 Detention Basin 35 Hydrodynamic Device 37 Infiltration Basin 2 Media Filter 54 Percolation Trench/Well 10 Porous Pavement 10 Retention Pond 62 Wetland Basin 20 Wetland Channel 14 Total Structural 315 Total Non-structural (maintenance practices) 28 Overall Total 343

12

13

14 Performance Summaries

15 New 1-Page 1 Overview of Median Performance (excerpt)

16

17 Online Results of Analysis - Summary

18 Online Results of Analysis BMP Plans and Images

19 Online Results of Analysis Quantitative Summary of Study

20 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 1 - Inflow/Outflow Descriptive Statistics

21 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 1 - Inflow/Outflow Time Series

22 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 1 - Box and Whisker Plots and Normal Probability Plots

23 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 2 - Summary of Distributional Characteristics

24 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 2 Hypothesis Test Results Raw Data

25 Standard Statistical Analysis Sheets Page 2 Hypothesis Test Results Raw Data

26

27 Data Entry Spreadsheets Data Entry Module originally issued on CD Now Abandoned More flexible Excel Spreadsheets now used Download data entry spreadsheets & user s guide from

28 Overview of Data Categories Test Site (location, mapping, testing/sponsoring agencies, test set-up) Test Watershed (topographic characteristics, land uses, paved/unpaved areas, soils, regional climate, settling velocities) Reference Watershed(s) (Non-structural BMPs must have a comparable reference watershed for comparison of data. Information required for test watersheds must also be completed for reference watersheds ) BMP(s) (installation dates, design parameters, cost, maintenance, inflow/outflow points, drawings) Monitoring Data Monitoring Stations (locations relative to BMPs) Instrumentation (types, dates, type of data collected) Monitoring Costs Precipitation (date, time, total, peak 1-hour) Storm Runoff and/or Baseflow (date, time, BMP flow volume & peak, bypass volume & peak) Water Quality (parameter, value, units, lab methods)

29

30 New Performance Analysis Results (Oct. 2007)

31 Box and Whisker Plots Data converted to natural logs Medians and quartiles calculated for natural logs Medians converted back to arithmetic space and plotted with box/whisker plots on log scale

32 BMP Performance Summary: TSS (mg/l) (BMP-weighted approach) Note: Particle size distribution not taken into account

33 BMP Performance Summary: Total Phosphorus (mg/l) (BMP-weighted approach)

34 BMP Performance Summary: Total Nitrogen (mg/l) (BMP-weighted approach)

35 BMP Performance Summary: Total Zinc (ug( ug/l) (BMP-weighted approach) 120 ug/l Dissolved Zinc EPA Freshwater Criterion

36 Why Not Just Use Percent Removal? Example Study -SWFWMD Tampa Pond Drainage area, 6.5 acres Land use (commercial, office) 30% roof tops and parking lots, 6% crushed stone, 64 % grassed Drained by swales to pond Five year study with two design modifications 1990 (shallow and vegetated, θ H = 2 day) 1993 (volume increased, 35% veg, θ H = 5 day) 1994 (area enlarged, replant littoral zone, θ H = 14 day)

37 Inflow and Outflow Log Mean TSS Concentrations (mg/l) and 95 Percent Confidence Limits for 3 Different Designs of a Wet Pond Located at SWFWMD Service Office in Tampa, Florida Log(EMC) Inflow %??? 0%??? Median= 21 mg/l θ H = 2 day Outflow mg/l 11 mg/l θ H = 5 day In fl ow %??? 94%??? mg/l Outflow mg/l 1.91 Inflow θ H = 14 day mg/l Ou tflo w Was 7 times larger worth going from about 10 to about 5 mg/l?

38 Field Study Evaluation of a Hydrodynamic Device Runoff TSSin (mg/l) TSSout (mg/l) % Reduction Event # Interpolated Arithmetic Interpolated Arithmetic Interpolated Arithmetic % 70% % 33% % 45% % -72% % 92% % 86% % 74% % 98% % 57% % 99% % 96% % 95% % 94% Averages % 84% (Winkler and Guswa 2002) Is an average of 100+ mg/l TSS acceptable performance?

39 Box plots of the fractions of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removed and of effluent quality of selected BMP types 1.0 Fraction of TSS Removed 90 % % TSS (mg/l) to 18 mg/l 0.0 Bioswales Detention Basins Media Filters Hydro - Dynamic Devices Retention Basins Wetlands Bioswales Detention Basins Hydro Dynamic Devices Retention Basins Wetlands BMP Type BMP Type

40 Analysis Findings Results of the analyses of the now expanded database have reinforced the initial finding that BMPs are best described by: 1. How much they reduce runoff volumes [Hydrological Source Control Performance], 2. How much of the runoff that occurs is treated (and not) by the BMP (e.g., bypass or overflow) [Hydraulic Performance], 3. Of the runoff treated, what effluent quality (concentrations and toxicity potential) is achieved? [Water Quality Performance] 4. And does the BMP reduce downstream erosion impacts? [Physical Stream Impact Performance]

41 Analysis Findings Cont. These Basic BMP performance description elements can be utilized to more accurately: assess assess the concentrations that BMPs are able to achieve (concentration TMDLs), assess assess effects on total loadings (TMDLs), estimate estimate the frequency of potential exceedances of water quality criteria or other targets, and develop develop other desired water quality performance measures.

42 Biofilters Detention Ponds Hydrodynamic Devices Media Filters Retention Ponds Wetland Basins Wetland Channels Runoff Volume Control Statistical Summary Ratio of Total Monitored Outflow to Total Monitored Inflow

43 Recommendations for Designers Use a treatment train approach for BMPs wherever possible that considers: the pollutants of concern and their form, the unit processes that are needed to remove those pollutants, and the unit processes that occur in significance in various BMP types. Using a treatment train will help to account for the inherent variability and uncertainties that are associated with BMP performance. Use conservative criteria, including sizing and focusing on longer residence times for volume based BMPs, as well as larger sizing of filters and other flow-through through BMPs.

44 Example Applications on Use of BMP Database

45 Applied Research that is Partially Relying on BMP Database Water Environment Research Foundation Project 02-SW SW-1: Critical Assessment of Stormwater Control Selection Issues Jeff Moeller PO, Bob Pitt Chair of PSC National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-20(01) 20(01) Development of a BMP Evaluation Methodology for Highway Applications Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control NR565 Chris Hedges PO, Ed Herricks Chair of PSC

46 WERF Research Project: BMP/SUDS Study (01( 01-CTS Co-funded by UKWIR and AwwaRF $700k Total Phase 1 published May 2004: Post-Project Project Monitoring of BMPs/SUDS to Determine Performance and Whole Life Costs (Stock No. 01CTS21T) Literature Review Performance Protocols & Study Plan Phase 2 published Aug. 2005: Performance and Whole Life Costs of BMPs and SUDS (Stock No. 01CTS21Ta) BMP Performance Whole Life Costs O&M Practices CTS-21Ta)

47 New Research Challenge (06-SW SW-1): Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection to Improve BMP Selection and Design GOAL: To link BMP control effectiveness for specific pollutants and flow to receiving water loadings, impacts and water quality objectives to improve selection and design of BMP systems. DURATION: 2-33 years FUNDING: $670,000

48 Next Steps for Database Project Continue growing/expanding the database Partnerships with local governments and state agencies Harris County Flood Control District, TX (w/pbs&j) Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection (state database built on Intl. Database) Depts. of Transportation (WSDOT, Caltrans) Revising database structure to better facilitate analysis Continued analysis and dissemination of BMP performance information Sharing data with researchers/others: USEPA NPDES Program Bob Pitt, UAB, Stormwater Quality Database Chesapeake Bay Efforts Ben Urbonas UDFCD-Denver; Denver; Larry Roesner Col. State Univ. Integration of Low Impact Development

49 Incorporating LID into the Database LID Low Impact Development Distributed Controls Combinations of Volume loss, Source Controls, Treatment Controls Various impervious surfaces being drained to different facilities Street biofiltration swales, etc. Roofs/Driveways to Rain Gardens Roofs to Landscaping Parking areas to biofiltration areas Green Roofs Above areas to Cisterns

50

51 Questions? WE WANT YOUR DATA!