Identifying opportunities and evaluating stormwater practices in ultra-urban catchments. Neely L. Law Sally Hoyt October, 2006

About the Center for Watershed Protection Non-profit 501(c)3, non-advocacy organization Work with watershed groups, local, state, and federal governments Provide tools communities need to protect streams, lakes, and rivers 20 staff in Ellicott City, MD

Watershed 263 Location MapWatershed 263 Catchments Catchment O Catchment F Watershed 263

I.Deriving Reliable Pollutant Removal Rates for Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program –Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) –UMBC (Engineering, CUERE) –City of Baltimore, DPW –Baltimore County, DEPRM –USDA Forest Service, Baltimore Ecosystem Study II.Watershed 263 BMP Theme Park Chesapeake Bay Trust Pioneer Grant City of Baltimore, DPW Maryland Department of Environment –Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) –EA Engineering

Stormwater Management Strategy for Catchment O in Watershed 263 Prepared for: Parks and People Foundation Prepared by: Center for Watershed Protection Through a grant from: Chesapeake Bay Trust April 2005

Assessment of Relative Dirtiness of Streets in Catchment O (CWP 2005)

Streets and Storm Drain Inlet Conditions The Bad The Ugly The Good

Storm EMCs for TSS, TN and TP (9/28/05 – 1/31/06) Median pretreatment water quality Parameter (mg/L) Catchment O Stormflow Catchment F stormflow National Storm EMC Suspended Solids Total P Total N Catchment O: Baltimore St; Catchment F: Lanvale St.

Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Study Purpose Need more reliable estimates of the potential nutrient and sediment reductions achieved by municipal street sweeping and storm drain cleanouts Municipalities are sweeping and cleaning storm drains – can it make a difference in reducing nutrient loads to Bay?

Project Study Tasks Task 1: Literature Review and Reference Tracking System Task 2: Basin-wide Municipal Practices Survey Field monitoring program Task 3: Paired Street Sweeping Treatment Task 4: Street Source Area Sampling Task 5: Characterization of Stormdrain Sediment

Study Design for Street Sweeping Treatments 2 yr. (10-05 thru 9-07) Paired watershed Catchment F –85% reduction in curb miles swept –1x/week Catchment O –48% increase in curb miles swept –2x/week Vacuum street sweeper Bedload samples CatchmentFO Area38.4 ac38.7 ac Impervious68%77% Pervious32%23%

Task 1: Literature Review Interim Pollutant Removal Rates for Sweeping Discounted for: –Solubility –Washoff & fugitive dust loss –Frequency –Technology –Parked cars –Street conditions –Runon Frequency TP removal Monthly4 % Twice a week8 %

Frequency of cleanout % TN Removal Annual5 Semi-annual10 Task 1: Literature Review Interim Rates for Catchbasin Cleanouts Discounted for –Frequency –Particle size distribution of dirt load –% catch basin or inlet full –Cleanout method

Task 2: CB Municipal Practice Survey 43 questions 4 section –Community condition –Street Sweeping practice –Stormdrain maintenance –Monitoring 73% response rate Distribution of 37 surveys Phase I communities and agencies (23, 16)  11 Maryland  11 Virginia  1 Pennsylvania Phase II permit communities (6, 4)  1 Maryland  3 Virginia  1 West Virginia Greater United States (8, 7)  Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida, Texas, California

Survey Key Findings $13 million/year sweeping and cleanouts 70% of Phase I and II communities sweep at least 1x/year 85% of Phase I and II communities sweep more frequently than annually $14.75 to $75/curb mile Aesthetics and residential demand

Key Findings: Storm drain cleanout Of 20 responses, – 8 regular schedule cleanouts –12 response to complaints or clogging $1.40/linear ft; $55/catchbasin What proportion of all storm drains, inlets or catch basins are cleaned out on an annual basis? (n=16) Proportion 100%75 < 100%50< 75% Up to 50% Response 06.3% (1)31.3% (5)62.5% (10)

Watershed 263 BMP Theme Park City of Baltimore, DPW – Environmental Services Division Center for Watershed Protection – Site and practice selection. Virtual Tour. EA Engineering – Final design and construction drawings.

Design and Construct 5-7 BMP’s to filter rainwater BMPs that are new/seldom used in the Chesapeake Bay region Create a website “tour” so others – citizens and engineers – can learn. BMP Theme Park - What

BMP Theme Park - Timeline COMPLETEStormwater Strategy (2005) – the universe of possible projects COMPLETEField work to find the projects that could work physically Fall 2006Local residents’ input on locations and types of practices Fall 2006Maintenance plans, concept designs Winter 2007Construction drawings Summer 2007Construction 2007Website “Tour”

Retrofit types –Biofiltration in ROW –Biofiltration in vacant lots –Catch basin inserts –Stormwater planters –Sand filters in ROW/underground Treatment of up to 26% of the 39-acre catchment with 7 retrofits.

Biofiltration in ROW- 15 Possible Locations (Drainage areas acres)

BMP Selection Criteria Biofiltration Roadway slope (max 4%) Utility locations Street width (>40 ft.) Downstream inlet with invert minimum 2’ below grade On-street parking Traffic volume

Virtual Tour Website for the constructed and non- structural practices. Resources for citizens and technical audience. Practice descriptions and technical spec downloads. Photos and a printable brochure.

Other CWP Work of Interest Small Watershed Restoration Manual Series Maryland Watershed Users Guide Smart Watershed Benchmarking Tool Urban Watershed Forestry Manuals Wetland and Watersheds Articles

Catchment F (38.43 acres) Monitoring Station

Catchment O (38.7 acres) Monitoring Station