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

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

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

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

Relationship Between Hard Surface and Number of Fish Species

Number of species Wang, 2001 35 30 25 Y = 10 log10(x)*(-0.585)+1.775-1 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Connected imperviousness (%)

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%

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

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)

Example of Water Samples Collected From Residential Storm Sewers

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

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

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.

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

Pollutant Percent of Constituent That is in the Particulate Form for Milwaukee Streams Total Solids Bannerman 1996 Crunkilton, 1996 Bannerman, 1979 Bannerman, 1979 Masterson, 1994 28 NA 77 77 68 Total P 86 NA 81 88 86 Zinc 64 90 NA NA 95 Copper 76 78 NA NA 72 Lead 96 95 NA NA 98 PAH NA 51(1) NA NA NA 1) 86% PAH in particulate form in Milwaukee study (Greb, 2000)

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 HTTP://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/stormwate r/techstds.htm

Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard (1002) Bioretention Standard (1004) Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard HTTP://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/stor mwater/techstds.htm

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

Jeremy Balousek Failed Bioretention System Jeremy Balousek Clay Textured Topsoil Used

Soil Texture for Two Bioretention Systems in Madison Number 1 Had Failed Site Number 1 (John Q) % Organic Matter % Sand % Silt % Clay Soil Texture 3.5 53 33 14 Sandy Loam 2 (Omo) 3.0 59 28 13 Sandy Loam Prince George County, Maryland No more than 5% fines.

Linda and Mark Piotrowski 28020 El Dorado Place, Lathrup Village

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

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

Cumulative Percent Removal by Depth Allen Davis, University of Maryland (Lab & Field Results) Depth Cu Zn P TN 1 ft. 90 87 0-29 2 ft. 93 98 73 0 3 ft. 93 99 81 43

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

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

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

Soil Mix: 50% Sand and 50% Compost

Lodi Sampling Site

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

Rain Garden Manual on WDNR Web Site http://www.dnr.state.wi. us/org/water/wm/nps/r g/index.htm

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 0.19 0.15 0.08 Silty 0.34 0.25 0.16 Clayey 0.43 0.32 0.20 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

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

Breaking Ground

Adding Compost

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

Water Balance in Prairie and Turf Clay Rain Gardens Water Year 2007 (Prairie) Precip., inches Influent, inches Effluent, inches Evapo, inches Recharg e, inches 42 132 0 5 (3%) 169 (97%) 2007 (Turf) 42 176 0 23 (11%) 194 (89%)

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 4 6 8 10 12 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

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

Prairie Plant Roots in Clay Layer

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

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

Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard Bioretention Standard Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard Rain Garden Standard HTTP://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/stor mwater/techstds.htm

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 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 F e e t

Grass Swale Cedar Hills

Wet Detention Pond Pretreatment for Cedar Hills, WI

Infiltration Basin Cross Plains, WI

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

Level Spreader Cedar Hills, WI 2 Outlets for Wet Pond

Double Ring Infiltrometer

Infiltration Basin After Chisel Plowing Cedar Hills

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

Infiltration Basin Performance Overall Reduction in Runoff Volume for Infil. Basin = 51% Percent Reduction Precipitation Intensity (inches/hour) Statistic 0-0.5 0.5-1.0 > 1.0 Mean 69 43 32 Median 71 44 43

Technical Standards for Infiltration Site Evaluation Standard (1002) Bioretention Standard (1004) Infiltration Basin Standard (1003) Grass Swale Standard (1005) Rain Garden Standard HTTP://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/nps/stor mwater/techstds.htm

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 %

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Typical Samples For Study Site Inlet Samples Outlet Samples

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

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

Sum of the Loads for Downstream Defender Constituent Total Suspended Solids Suspended Sediment Reduction for Device, % Reduction for System, % 24 21 (7) 38 34 (17) Diss. Phosphorus 19 18 (11) Total Zinc -13-12 (-3) ( ) = efficiency ratio

Percent TSS Reduction TSS Reduction as a Function of Peak Discharge 100 80 60 40 20 0-20 -40-60 -80-100 Design Flow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Peak Discharge, cfs

TSS Sum of the Loads by Particle Size

Particle Size Distribution for Solids Trapped in Bottom of Device

Sum of the Loads for Three Hydrodynamic Separators Constituent Total Suspended Solids Suspended Sediment Vortechnics Downstream Defender Stormceptor 25 21 21 49 34 NA Total Phosphorus 10 Insignificant 17 Total Zinc 16-12 17 % Sand in Water 20 50 NA Inlet TSS mg/l 117 163 180 % Sand in Tank 89 97 95

Downstream Defender Vortechs Stormceptor What Have We Learned: 1. No Changes to Technical Standard 1006 2. 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

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

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

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).

Percentage of Annual Flow Treated Percentage of Annual Flows Treated for Different Treatment Flow Rates (Pitt, 2010) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 Treatment Flow Rate (gpm per acre of impervious)

Example Treatment Rates Needed for Different Treatment Objectives (Pitt, 2010) (gpm/acre pavement) Location 50% 70% 90% Seattle, WA 10 18 30 Portland, ME 18 30 53 Milwaukee, WI 20 35 65 Phoenix, AZ 20 35 90

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.

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)

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)

TSS Reduction with Sil-Co-Sil 106 20% 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)

NURP Particle Size Distribution

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

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

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

Percent Reduction Using Sum of the Loads for Arkal Filter (Horwatich, 2004) Constituent % Reduction EMC Inlet, mg/l EMC Outlet, mg/l TSS 83 72 15 Suspended Sediment 81 82 14 Total Rec. Zinc 62 68 ug/l 26 ug/l Total Phosphorus 54 0.107 0.050 Dissolved P 9 0.031 0.027

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

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

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

Storm Filter Installation -6 x 12-9 filter canisters - 0.29 cfs design -Perlite/Zeolite

EFFICIENCY FOR INDIVIDUAL EVENT, IN PERCEN 120 90 60 30 0 10 100 1,000 10,000-30 -60-90 -120-310 -150-308 SSC TSS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER (LOG SCALE)

OVERALL TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATI REMOVAL, IN PERCENT 120 0.29 cfs 90 60 30 0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2-30 -60-90 -310-120 308 SSC TSS PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Sum of the Loads for Stormfilter at Milwaukee Site (Horwatich, 2010) Constituent % Reduction EMC Inlet, mg/l EMC Outlet, mg/l TSS 50 60 36 Suspended Sediment 89 389 34 Total Rec. Zinc 68 226 ug/l 91 ug/l Total Phosphorus 38 0.152 0.098 Dissolved Zinc 20 59 ug/l 45 ug/l Dissolved P 5 0.041 0.037

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

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

Device Efficiency MGE 1 Design Flow 0.87 cfs 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2-0.5-1 -1.5 Inlet Peak Q (cfs) SSC TSS

Device Efficiency 1 0.5 0 1 10 100 1000-0.5-1 -1.5-2 SSC TSS -2.5-3 Concentration (m g/l)

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

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 24 14 39% TSS 23 16 25% VSS 10 7 25% Diss. P 0.034 0.029 18% Total P 0.12 0.054 36% Total Copper 5 ug/l 4 ug/l 22%

SSC Reduction, % SSC Reduction as a Function of Percent Sand in Inlet Water 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 Percent Sand

Distribution of SSC Trapped by Stormfilter at MG&E 22% Particle Size, um lbs % <32 32-63 <32 6.3 22% % 17% 63-500 32 63 4.7 17% 63-500 17.3 61% Total 28.3 100%

Percent Load Reductions for StormFilter Constituent CALTRAN WI - Madison WI Milw. TSS 40 25 50 SSC NA 39 92 Total P 17 36 38 Diss. P 9 18 5 Total Zinc 51 8 64 Diss. Zinc 18 NA 17

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% 83 72 82 StormFilter (Milwaukee) 76% 50 60 389 Stormfilter (Madison) 40% 25 23 24 MCTT 80 232 NA

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

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) 600 500 400 300 200 100 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) 3-12 18.7 6.4 66 30-60 26.7 6.8 75 60-120 4.6 1.8 63 120-250 19.8 4.3 78 250-425 11.5 0.0 100 sum 148.9 29.8 80 % reduction Effluent quality is relatively constant over broad range of influent concentrations and flows.

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

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

Questions?

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