Performance of LID Technologies from the International Stormwater BMP Database

Transcription

1 Rice University 26 February 2013 Performance of LID Technologies from the International Stormwater BMP Database (and Making LID Work Smarter) Michael F. Bloom, P.E., ENV SP

2 TOPICS Background Database website features BMP monitoring guidance LID monitoring Selected BMP performance summaries Making LID work smarter using Opti RTC Summary

3 BACKGROUND

4 HISTORY Initial idea proposed by the Urban Water Resources Research Council (UWRRC) of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1994 EPA began funding in 1995 UWRRC established an oversight committee Developed standard monitoring and reporting protocols Created database and data dictionary Conducted literature review Initially found about 200 studies Populated database Now includes >500 studies Now includes >250,000 stormwater quality records Annual funding for analysis, maintenance, new data additions

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (HISTORIC) Jesse Pritts Eric Strassler Eric Strecker Marcus Quigley Ben Urbonas Jonathan Jones Jane Clary Tom Langan Jim Howell Marc Leisenring John Sansalone Robert Pitt Ed Herricks Eugene Driscoll Roger Bannerman Larry Roesner Charles Rowney Shaw Yu Betty Rushton Richard Field Michael Barrett Michael Cook

6 CURRENT PROJECT TEAM Project Manager Jeff Moeller, P.E., Water Environment Research Foundation Principal Investigators Jonathan Jones, PE, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Eric Strecker, PE, Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Project Steering Committee Susan Jones and Marcel Tchaou, Federal Highway Administration Brian Parsons, PE, American Society of Civil Engineers Christopher Kloss, Environmental Protection Agency Courtney Thompson, American Public Works Association WERF Technical Oversight Committee Michael Barrett, PhD, PE, University of Texas Bob Carr, PE, APWA David Graves, New York DOT Gregory Granato, USGS Jesse Pritts, PE, EPA

7 DATABASE WEBSITE FEATURES

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 BMP MONITORING GUIDANCE

15

16

17

18 FLOW MEASURING EQUIPMENT Source: Partridgeberry Place LID Monitoring, Ipswich, MA, Geosyntec Consultants, 2010.

19 FLOW MEASURING EQUIPMENT Flow monitoring at Jordan s Cove, CT study. Source: University of Connecticut, Source: University of Connecticut, Jordan s Cove Study, 2006.

20 DEPTH EQUIPMENT Methods Are Reviewed in Guidance Combined Accuracy of Primary and Secondary Devices Weighing Capital Versus Ongoing Field Costs Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

21 WATER QUALITY SAMPLING EQUIPMENT Grab Versus Composite Samples Manual Versus Automated Sampling Methods Cost Study Objectives Composite Sampling Approaches Constant volume time proportional to flow volume increment Constant time constant volume Constant time volume proportional to flow increment Constant time volume proportional to flow rate Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

22 AUTO SAMPLER SELECTION CRITERIA Interoperability Portability Volume Repeatability Refrigeration Flexibility/Ease of Use Volatile organic compound (VOC) sample collection Power Requirements Space Limitations Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

23 SAMPLE COMPOSITING CHOICES Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2001.

24 OTHER EQUIPMENT SECTIONS Data Loggers Velocity Based Methods Rain Gauges Support Equipment and Telemetry Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

25 CONE SPLITTER Source: United States Geological Survey

26 Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

27 NUMBER OF SAMPLES REQUIRED Hypothesis Testing of Mean or Geomean of Variable Dataset vs. Another Variable Dataset Source: Harris County Flood Control District, 2008.

28 LID MONITORING

29 SITE LEVEL LID MONITORING APPROACHES Before After (BA) approach Monitor conventional drainage area (before) Install/retrofit LID practices Monitor same drainage area with LID installation (after) Control Impact (CI) approach Identify two similar drainage areas Monitor conventional drainage area (control) Monitor LID drainage area (impact) Simultaneous monitoring Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

30 SITE LEVEL LID MONITORING APPROACHES New Development Testing Identify two similar undeveloped drainage areas Allow each to develop One using LID One using conventional drainage Monitor both watersheds Retrofit Testing Identify two similar developed drainage areas Retrofit one with LID Don t retrofit the other Monitor both watersheds Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

31 LID MONITORING CHALLENGES Hard to define site limits Hard to define extent of LID implementation Limited concentrated flows to sample Watershed boundary changes due to H&H factors Commingled flows Soil moisture and antecedent conditions influence results Evapotranspiration influences results Larger number of samples needed to achieve statistical significance (many variables) Groundwater and vadose zone monitoring may be required for water balance More qualitative and descriptive data needed Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

32 EXAMPLES OF SITE LEVEL LID STUDIES Study Location Study Overview Source Jordan Cove, CT One control and two treatment watersheds (conventional and LID). Low density single family residential. Evaluated constructionphase and post-construction runoff water quantity and quality. University of. /jordancove/ Cross Plains, WI Somerset, MD Burnsville, MN Before/After, Control/Impact study. Treatment watershed included LID practices on-site and detention and infiltration basin at outlet. Monitored several years of runoff water quantity and quality. One control and one treatment watershed. Limited LID in treatment watershed. Monitored in parallel for two years at time of publication. Monitored flowrate and water quality One control and one treatment watershed. Monitored in parallel without retrofit for calibration period, then retrofit treatment watershed with bioretention. Monitored flowrate and volume only. Selbig and Bannerman / Cheng et al ment/water/lid/pdf/somerset.pdf Barr Engineering vironmentroads/envirprotect/s tormwater/lid.htm Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2009.

33 BURNSVILLE, MN SITE LEVEL MONITORING Used retrofit testing approach Existing residential development (61 houses) Rain gardens installed on private property 25 storms monitored for flow/volume No water quality sampling Source: Barr Engineering, Inc. Burnsville Rain Garden Retrofit Study (Barr Engineering)

34 BURNSVILLE, MN SITE LEVEL MONITORING Source: Barr Engineering, Inc. Burnsville Rain Garden Retrofit Study (Barr Engineering)

35 BURNSVILLE, MN SITE LEVEL MONITORING Findings: 82% reduction in annual runoff volume Percent runoff reduced from 27% to 5% Source: Barr Engineering, Inc.

36 SELECTED BMP PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES

37

38

39 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2012.

40 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2012.

41 BACTERIA E. COLI Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2012.

42 BACTERIA E. COLI Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2012.

43 NUTRIENTS NITROGEN Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Eco-Region X, US EPA, 2001.

44 NUTRIENTS NITROGEN Source: Water Environment Research Foundation, 2012.

45 MAKING LID WORK SMARTER USING OPTI RTC

46 OPTIMIZED REAL TIME CONTROL (OPTI RTC)

47 NC STATE ADVANCED RAINWATER HARVESTING Internet Gateway (Powered by iobridge) Cisterns Overflows from Tanks Automatic Drain Valve Irrigation Pump

48 NC STATE ADVANCED RAINWATER HARVESTING

49 NC STATE ADVANCED RAINWATER HARVESTING

50 NC STATE PILOT: DASHBOARD (1 MIN REFRESH) SYSTEM BEHAVIOR WEEK OF 9/20/2011 Cistern Volume (gallons) Forecasted Rainfall Volume to Enter Cistern (gallons) Forecasted Cistern Capacity (gallons)

51 NC STATE PILOT ANALYSIS OF MONITORING RESULTS Study duration = 14 weeks Runoff volume = 10,678 gal Event count = 11 storms Precipitation = 4.8 in Captured runoff = 90.6% (advanced) Captured runoff = 48.7% (conventional)

52 TWIN OAKS LIBRARY CITY OF AUSTIN

53 ADD RTC TO RAINWATER HARVESTING SYSTEM AT TWIN OAKS LIBRARY CITY OF AUSTIN

54 GILLELAND CREEK TMDL STUDY ROUND ROCK, TEXAS

55 GILLELAND CREEK TMDL STUDY ROUND ROCK, TEXAS

56 SUMMARY Background Database website features BMP monitoring guidance LID monitoring Selected BMP performance summaries Making LID work smarter using Opti RTC

57 QUESTIONS? Michael F. Bloom, P.E., ENV SP