What are We Learning About Commonly Used Stormwater Control Practices. Roger Bannerman Wisconsin DNR November 18, 2010

Transcription

1 What are We Learning About Commonly Used Stormwater Control Practices Roger Bannerman Wisconsin DNR November 18, 2010

2 Outline 1. WDNR Rules 2. Technical Standards 3.Results of our and others studies evaluating stormwater control practices. Jellyfish (Imbrium)

3 Runoff Management Rules (NR 151) Administrative Rule: Performance Standards for Flow & Water Quality

4 Relationship Between Hard Surface and Number of Fish Species

5 Number of species Wang, Y = 10 log10(x)*(-0.585) Connected imperviousness (%)

6 Impacts of Imperviousness on Surface Water and Groundwater Quantities Pheasant Branch Creek (Steurer, 2001) Type of Water Resource Stream Baseflow Impervious Increase from 2% to 18% Impervious Increase from 2% to 60% -20% Dry Stream Surface Runoff +90% +485% Regional Groundwater -10% -55%

7 Excellent Stream Habitat Impact of Urbanization on Habitat Structure Original Bank Lincoln Creek 30% Imperv. Very Degraded Habitat Some Urbanization

8 Post Construction Infiltration Performance Standards By design, infiltrate sufficient runoff volume so that the post-development average annual infiltration volume shall be a portion of pre-development infiltration volume. Residential Non-residential 90% (1% Cap) 60% (2% Cap)

9 Example of Water Samples Collected From Residential Storm Sewers

10 Problem Pollutants Oxygen Demanding Sediment Nutrients Chlorides Disease Causing Organisms Potentially Toxic Chemicals

11 Chronic Toxicity Discovered in Urban Streams Crunkilton, 1996 & Ramcheck, 1995

12 Post Construction & Developed Area Performance Standards In Developed Areas Reduce TSS by 40% as Compared to No Controls by 2013 For New Development, by design, Reduce to the MEP the Average Annual Total Suspended Solids Load for New Development by 80% as Compared to No Runoff Management Controls.

13 What Percentage of Pollutant is in the Particulate Form: Total Pollutant in Water = Dissolved + Particulate

14 Pollutant Percent of Constituent That is in the Particulate Form for Milwaukee Streams Total Solids Bannerman 1996 Crunkilton, 1996 Bannerman, 1979 Bannerman, 1979 Masterson, NA Total P 86 NA Zinc NA NA 95 Copper NA NA 72 Lead NA NA 98 PAH NA 51(1) NA NA NA 1) 86% PAH in particulate form in Milwaukee study (Greb, 2000)

15 Technical Standards Site Evaluation Standard Bioretention Standard Infiltration Basin Standard Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard Hydrodynamic Separator Standard Wet Detention Pond Standard Proprietary Filters r/techstds.htm

16 Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard (1002) Bioretention Standard (1004) Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard mwater/techstds.htm

17 Criteria for Bioretention Engineered Soil Mix Technical Standard 1004 Jeremy Balousek 40% Sand: prewashed, coarse silica 20 to 30%Topsoil: USDA sandy loam, loamy sand or loam 30 to 40% Compost

18 Jeremy Balousek Failed Bioretention System Jeremy Balousek Clay Textured Topsoil Used

19 Soil Texture for Two Bioretention Systems in Madison Number 1 Had Failed Site Number 1 (John Q) % Organic Matter % Sand % Silt % Clay Soil Texture Sandy Loam 2 (Omo) Sandy Loam Prince George County, Maryland No more than 5% fines.

20 Linda and Mark Piotrowski El Dorado Place, Lathrup Village

21 Engineered Soil Mix University of North Carolina (William Hunt, 2006) Fill Soil Media: 85 88% Washed Sand 8 12% Fines (Silt + Clay) 3 5% Organic Matter

22 Modify Technical Standard 1004: 50% Sand 50% Compost New Rain Garden Cross Plains, WI

23 Cumulative Percent Removal by Depth Allen Davis, University of Maryland (Lab & Field Results) Depth Cu Zn P TN 1 ft ft ft

24 William Hunt, 2006 Media Depth for Plants: Trees 3 feet Shrubs 2 feet Grass 18 inches

25 Location of Biofilter Study Town of Menasha, WI Evaluate Effect of Engineered Soil Depth on Pollutant Removal Three Depths: 1 foot 2 feet 3 feet

26 Geosynthetic Fabric and Perforated Drain Pipe Menasha Biofilters Clay Soils and High Bedrock

27 Soil Mix: 50% Sand and 50% Compost

28

29

30 Lodi Sampling Site

31 Temperature Readings at Inlet and Outlet to Lodi Bioretention System June 7, 2008 Outlet = Drain Tile

32 Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard (1002) Bioretention Standard (1004) Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard mwater/techstds.htm

33 Rain Garden Manual on WDNR Web Site us/org/water/wm/nps/r g/index.htm

34 Using Size Factor and Depth to Determine Final Rain Garden Size with 100% Control Type of Soil 3 to 5 Inches Deep 6 to 7 Inches Deep 8 Inches Deep Sandy Silty Clayey Less than 30 feet from downspout Soil Type All Depths Between 3 and 8 inches Sandy 0.03 Silty 0.06 Clayey 0.10 More than 30 feet from downspout Example 1: 500 sq ft x.25 = 125 sq ft rain garden Example 2: 500 sq ft x.43 = 215 sq ft rain garden

35 Long-Term Water Budget of Two Rain Gardens in Madison, WI

36 Breaking Ground

37 Adding Compost

38 Evapotranspiration Bill Selbig - USGS Volume In Datalogger Soil Moisture Pond Depth Volume Out

39 Water Balance in Prairie and Turf Clay Rain Gardens Water Year 2007 (Prairie) Precip., inches Influent, inches Effluent, inches Evapo, inches Recharg e, inches (3%) 169 (97%) 2007 (Turf) (11%) 194 (89%)

40 DEPTH BELOW LAND SURFACE (IN FEET) Silt/Clay rain garden soil core reveals sand down to approximately 3 feet then turns to clay 0 2 Old Sauk Native EXPLANATION Soil Texture Organic-rich A horizon Sand Sandy loam to loamy sand Sandy clay to sandy clay loam Loam to clay loam Clay Silty clay to silt clay loam No soil present Significant Zones Cementation Silty Sandy Organic materials Broken rock Gravelly or pebbly Stone intersected while coring 14

41 Capacity of Prairie Clay Rain Gardens Storage Volume = 200 cubic feet Equal Roof Runoff = 1.56 inches (90% of Events) Void Space Above Clay = 200 cubic feet Equal Roof Runoff = 1.56 inches Total Capacity = 3.12 inches of rain

42 Prairie Plant Roots in Clay Layer

43 30 Events Over Four Years in January, February, and March Zero Discharge From Prairie Clay Garden Prairie Clay Garden Turf Clay Garden

44 What Have We Learned About Biofilters So Far? Can work in clayey soils with proper sizing. They can work in the winter Recharge is significant Prairie roots penetrate clay soils Need to change required soil mix

45 Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard Bioretention Standard Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard mwater/techstds.htm

46 C e d a r H i l S i t e D e s i g n, C r o s s p l a i n s W I E x p l a n a t i o n W e t p o n d I n f i l t r a t i o n s B a s i n S w a l e s S i d e w a l k D r i v e w a y H o u s e s L a w n s R o a d w a y W o o d l o t N F e e t

47 Grass Swale Cedar Hills

48 Wet Detention Pond Pretreatment for Cedar Hills, WI

49 Infiltration Basin Cross Plains, WI

50 Diminished Effective Infiltration Area Infiltration Standard Requires Breaking Effective Infiltration Area into Cells when slope is indicated or the flow path exceeds 300 feet.

51 Level Spreader Cedar Hills, WI 2 Outlets for Wet Pond

52

53 Double Ring Infiltrometer

54 Infiltration Basin After Chisel Plowing Cedar Hills

55

56 Standard requires adding 2 inches compost and chisel plowing to 12 inches Infiltration Basin with Compacted Soils

57 Infiltration Basin Performance Overall Reduction in Runoff Volume for Infil. Basin = 51% Percent Reduction Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) Statistic > 1.0 Mean Median

58 Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard (1002) Bioretention Standard (1004) Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard (1005) Rain Garden Standard mwater/techstds.htm

59 Best Applications of Swales Best suited for lowto medium-density residential land uses. Swales treat a relatively small drainage area, generally only a few acres, depending on %

60 116 ft 75 ft 25 ft 6 ft 3 ft 2 ft Head (0ft) TSS: 10 mg/l TSS: 30 mg/l TSS: 63 mg/l Date: 10/11/2004 TSS: 20 mg/l TSS: 35 mg/l TSS: 84 mg/l TSS: 102 Source: PV Associates

61 Modeling Swales SLAMM Swale Geometry Select either a static or a dynamic wetted width. If use static width, width based on 1- inch depth of flow. Recommend default design value for Manning s n of 0.30 for turf.

62 Technical Standards Site Evaluation Standard Bioretention Standard Infiltration Basin Standard Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard Hydrodynamic Separator Standard Wet Detention Pond Standard Proprietary Filters r/techstds.htm

63 Examples of Proprietary BMPs Using Settling for Treatment Vortechs Stormceptor DownStream Defender Benefits: Underground Easy to Install Easy Maintenance

64 Downstream Defender Hydro International Partners: Waukesha Group USGS NSF EPA City of Madison EarthTech Hydro International WDNR

65 Downstream Defender Study Site Madison Water Utility Bldg. (1.9 acres: 55% Parking Lot, 15% Lawn & 26% Roof

66

67 Outlet to System Flow Splitter Inlet to Device Outlet Sampling Locations: 23 Events Sampled Between 2005 and 2006

68

69 Typical Samples For Study Site Inlet Samples Outlet Samples

70 Manufacturer s Claim For runoff at 15 C, the Downstream Defender will remove over 80% of settleable solids with a specific gravity of 2.65 with a particle size distribution similar to Maine DOT road sand at flow rates up to 3 cfs Hydro International defines settleable sediment as particles greater than 62 μm in size. ME Sand: Median = 700 microns Smallest = 70 microns 80% = Control All Particles > 300 microns

71 Statistical Evaluation Between Inlet and Outlet Concentrations Constituents with Significant Difference SSC TSS Dissolved P Constituents Not Significantly Different Dissolved Copper Dissolved Zinc Total Copper Total Zinc Dissolved Solids Total P

72 Sum of the Loads for Downstream Defender Constituent Total Suspended Solids Suspended Sediment Reduction for Device, % Reduction for System, % (7) (17) Diss. Phosphorus (11) Total Zinc (-3) ( ) = efficiency ratio

73 Percent TSS Reduction TSS Reduction as a Function of Peak Discharge Design Flow Peak Discharge, cfs

74 TSS Sum of the Loads by Particle Size

75 Particle Size Distribution for Solids Trapped in Bottom of Device

76 Sum of the Loads for Three Hydrodynamic Separators Constituent Total Suspended Solids Suspended Sediment Vortechnics Downstream Defender Stormceptor NA Total Phosphorus 10 Insignificant 17 Total Zinc % Sand in Water NA Inlet TSS mg/l % Sand in Tank

77 Downstream Defender Vortechs Stormceptor What Have We Learned: 1. No Changes to Technical Standard Stratification a problem over estimate reduction. 3. Increase Bypass Concentration 4. Devices Effective for > 250 micron 5. Effectiveness Range 0 to 25% TSS 6. Measuring PSD is very important 7. Devices very sensitive to flow changes

78 Technical Standards Site Evaluation Standard Bioretention Standard Infiltration Basin Standard Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard Hydrodynamic Separator Standard Wet Detention Pond Standard Proprietary Filters r/techstds.htm

79 Treat Small Areas Especially Useful for Retrofit and Re- Development Sites. Upflow Filter Stormceptor Benefits: Underground Easy to Install Easy Maintenance

80 Develop Technical Standard with Standards Oversight Committee (SOC) Process Tentative Criteria How to determine flow rate to control How to size filters based on desired flow rate. Method to determine TSS reduction Method to determine maintenance schedule

81 Flow Rate Distribution Calculations WinSLAMM was used to calculate cumulative flow rate distribution plots for all events in the 5-year study period. These flows were calculated on 6-minute increments, then exported to Excel, sorted and summed to prepare the fraction of time associated with any flow rate, or less (Pitt, 2010).

82 Percentage of Annual Flow Treated Percentage of Annual Flows Treated for Different Treatment Flow Rates (Pitt, 2010) Treatment Flow Rate (gpm per acre of impervious)

83 Example Treatment Rates Needed for Different Treatment Objectives (Pitt, 2010) (gpm/acre pavement) Location 50% 70% 90% Seattle, WA Portland, ME Milwaukee, WI Phoenix, AZ

84 Jellyfish (Imbrium) 1.Develop Technical Standard for Filters 2.Early Information Provided by Manufacturers: TSS & Cost. 3.Results of our and others studies. 4.Summary and future work.

85 Capitol Cost for Redevelopment on 1 Acre Impervious Area and 50% TSS Control Approximate Cost Provided by Manufacturers: Bayfilter (BaySaver) $20,000 to $50,000 (Retrofit Higher)

86 Cost of One Maintenance Cycle for Device Serving 1 Acre Impervious Area Approximate cost provided by manufacturers: $1,500 to $2,500 ecostorm Filter (Royal)

87 TSS Reduction with Sil-Co-Sil % Sand & 80% Silt Most tested at NJCAT Laboratory with 106 (median size of 20 microns): Upflow Filter (Hydro) TSS = 80 to 90% Reduction (Control about 7 micron)

88 NURP Particle Size Distribution

89 Proprietary Filters We Have Studied Green Bay, Milwaukee, & Madison (USGS) Arkal Pressurized Sand Filter Stormfilter

90 Arkal Filter Systems, Green Bay (Wisconsin) $ $ Disc Filter System (1st stage system) Sand Filter System (2nd stage system)

91 St. Mary s Hospital, Green Bay, WI Pressurized Stormwater Filtration System Site Conditions 5.5 acres Storm Sewer St. Mary s Hospital Drainage Boundary ` Flow Splitter Filter House Holding Tank

92 Percent Reduction Using Sum of the Loads for Arkal Filter (Horwatich, 2004) Constituent % Reduction EMC Inlet, mg/l EMC Outlet, mg/l TSS Suspended Sediment Total Rec. Zinc ug/l 26 ug/l Total Phosphorus Dissolved P

93 StormFilter (SMI) Installed in Milwaukee (ETV) & Madison

94 Elevated Deck I 794 (40,000 ADT) StormFilter ETV Site

95 Milwaukee,WI. Test Site: I 794 Drainage Area (0.19 ac) Drainage System from Deck

96 Storm Filter Installation -6 x 12-9 filter canisters cfs design -Perlite/Zeolite

97

98 EFFICIENCY FOR INDIVIDUAL EVENT, IN PERCEN ,000 10, SSC TSS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER (LOG SCALE)

99 OVERALL TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATI REMOVAL, IN PERCENT cfs SSC TSS PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

100 Sum of the Loads for Stormfilter at Milwaukee Site (Horwatich, 2010) Constituent % Reduction EMC Inlet, mg/l EMC Outlet, mg/l TSS Suspended Sediment Total Rec. Zinc ug/l 91 ug/l Total Phosphorus Dissolved Zinc ug/l 45 ug/l Dissolved P

101 Testing of StormFilter in Madison, WI. Partners: 1.Madison Gas and Electric 2.Wis DOT 3.USGS 4.ConTech 5.AECOM 6.State Lab of Hygiene 7.WDNR

102 Installation: $50,000 StormFilter Unit: $55,000 Engineering: $15,000 Total: $120,000 StormFilter 0.92 Acre MG&E Parking Lot

103

104

105

106

107

108

109 Device Efficiency MGE 1 Design Flow 0.87 cfs Inlet Peak Q (cfs) SSC TSS

110 Device Efficiency SSC TSS Concentration (m g/l)

111 Statistical Evaluation Between Inlet and Outlet Concentrations Constituents with Significant Difference SSC TSS VSS Dissolved P Total P Total Copper Constituents Not Significantly Different Dissolved Copper Dissolved Zinc Total Zinc Dissolved Solids Total COD Chloride

112 Sum of Loads and Mean EMCs for MG&E Site (Horwatich, 2008) Constituent EMC Inlet, mg/l EMC Outlet, mg/l Sum of Loads SSC % TSS % VSS % Diss. P % Total P % Total Copper 5 ug/l 4 ug/l 22%

113 SSC Reduction, % SSC Reduction as a Function of Percent Sand in Inlet Water Percent Sand

114 Distribution of SSC Trapped by Stormfilter at MG&E 22% Particle Size, um lbs % < < % % 17% % % Total %

115 Percent Load Reductions for StormFilter Constituent CALTRAN WI - Madison WI Milw. TSS SSC NA Total P Diss. P Total Zinc Diss. Zinc 18 NA 17

116 Median Sand Silt Splits at Both Sites Treatment Device % Sand at the Inlet % TSS Reduction Mean TSS Inlet EMC, mg/l Mean SS Inlet EMC, mg/l Arkal Filter 22% StormFilter (Milwaukee) 76% Stormfilter (Madison) 40% MCTT NA

117 Pilot-Scale Field Monitoring (Pitt, 2010) Data collected through extensive field testing by the University of Alabama No chemical exhaustion of media after 10 months of field testing Greater than 70% removal of particulate metals & nutrients and fine TSS

118 Suspended Soilds (mg/l) Performance Plot for Mixed Media on Suspended Soilds for Influent Concentrations of 500 mg/l, 250mg/L, 100 mg/l and 50 mg/l Pilot-Scale Tests of Upflow Filter - 10 Months of Actual Runoff Events (Pitt, 2010) High Flow 500 Mid Flow 500 Low Flow 500 High Flow 250 Mid Flow 250 Low Flow 250 High Flow 100 Mid Flow 100 Low Flow 100 High Flow 50 Mid Flow 50 0 Influent Conc. Effluent Conc. Low Flow 50 particle size range (µm) SS effluent mass (kg) SS influent mass (kg) sum % reduction Effluent quality is relatively constant over broad range of influent concentrations and flows.

119 What Have We Learned About Proprietary Filters Potential for Higher Pollutant Removal For Most Sites At Least 40% TSS Reduction Filters Trap Some Finer Silt Sized Partilces Reduce Concentration of Some Dissolved Constituents Less Sensitive to Change in Flows Sensitive to PSD and concentration Concentrations and PSD Varies Greatly Between Sites. Test with Sil-Co-Sil 106 probably do not represent performance in the field

120 What is Next: 1.Start SOC process 2.Finish putting performance relationships in WinSLAMM for StormFilter and UpFlow Filter. 3.Verify WinSLAMM with our data. 4.Add more filters to WinSLAMM

121 Questions?