Stormwater Management Annual Conference on Watershed Conservation 2002 September 20, 2002 Amherst, MA Stormwater Management Eric Winkler, Ph.D. and Susan Guswa, P.E. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy University of Massachusetts www.ceere.org

Presentation Outline Water Quantity and Quality Issues Rules Today and Tomorrow Structural and Non-Structural Controls Metrics and Measures Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Hydrologic Cycle http://www.mde.state.md.us/environment/wma/stormwatermanual/ Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Inland Natural Systems Natural system – can absorb most impacts of the hydrologic cycle Wetland buffering – storage, recharge/infiltration, attenuation Supports biological diversity Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quantity Effects Increased flooding potential Changes to streambed morphology http://www.forester.net, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quantity Effects Decrease in base flows Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quality Effects Increased pollutant load Habitat degradation Public health and recreation impacts Sean Chamberlain, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quality Effects Nutrient and Sediment Transport Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Stormwater Pollution Sources Urban runoff Construction Agriculture Forestry Grazing Septic systems Recreational boating Habitat degradation Physical changes to stream channels http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Flood Control /Conveyance Historical approach to stormwater management – flood control – dams and drainage systems – move it out of urban area http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/recreati/lvl, 2002 http://www.lawrenceks.org, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quality – Stormwater Constituents Sediment Nutrients: nitrogen and phosphorous Oil, grease, and organic chemicals Bacteria and viruses Salt Metals Now water quality impacts of stormwater are recognized as a major detriment to the environment. http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Stormwater Constituents Median Concentrations Units Urban Non-Urban Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/l 67-101 70 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 57-73 40 Total Phosphorous (P) 201-383 121 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1179-1900 965 Nitrate + Nitrite 558-736 543 Lead 104-144 30 Copper 27-33 -- Zinc 135-226 195 Between 1979 and 1983 EPA studied stormwater runoff characteristics in its Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. It was the most comprehensive study of urban stormwater. The program studied 81 specific sites and over 2,300 storm events across the United States. The concentrations of stormwater constituents were measured for various land uses as well as undeveloped areas. The median concentrations of the stormwater constituents is shown here. The range given for the urban runoff sources includes residential, mixed and commercial uses. Results of the NURP show that there is a significant increase in pollutant loads from urban areas compared to undeveloped areas. Source: U.S. EPA, Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, 1983. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Stormwater Management Challenges Variability of Flows (Duration, Frequency, Intensity) Difference between peak control and treatment objectives Different water quality constituents require different treatment mechanisms Site-to-site variability of quantity and quality Maintenance of non-centralized treatment units Monitoring and measurement Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Treatment Events Criteria for Storm Events Figure 6. Cumulative Rainfall record for Boston Logan 1920 - 1999. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Sizing Systems Intensity / Duration Frequency Relation Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Calculating Peak Runoff Rates Rainfall Runoff Analysis /Rational Method Qp = CiA C = constant runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity A = drainage area (tc = time of concentration < rainfall duration) Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Federal Regulations 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments (U.S. EPA) 1990 Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Program 1999 Phase II NPDES Storm Water Program 1990 Costal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, Section 6217 (U.S. EPA / NOAA) Costal Zone Management Program From EPA website http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swphase1.cfm: “In response to CWA Ammendments (1987) EPA developed Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program in 1990.” In December 1999, the final rule for Phase II of the NPDES program was adopted, which expands the scope of the program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

NPDES Permit Program Goal: reduce negative impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat Requirement: develop storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) or storm water management programs with minimum control measures Implementation: use best management practices (BMPs) From MA Stormwater Management Standards, Vol 1., p. 2-1 to 2-2 In MA, DEP administers the NPDES program. For new development and redevelopment, local conservation commissions or DEP can regulate storm water under the jurisdiction established under the Wetlands Protection Act…For existing development, regulations under the Clean Waters Act specify when state surface water discharge and groundwater discharge permits for storm water are required. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

NPDES Applicability Phase I "Medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located in incorporated places or counties with populations of 100,000 or more Eleven categories of industrial activity, one of which is construction activity that disturbs five or more acres of land Phase II Certain regulated small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) Construction activity disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land (i.e., small construction activities) From the EPA website http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swcats.cfm : The list provided below describes the types of industrial activities within each category. Click on the link below to obtain a complete listing of the 11 categories and the associated SIC codes. Category One (i): Facilities with effluent limitations Category Two (ii): Manufacturing Category Three (iii): Mineral, Metal, Oil and Gas Category Four (iv): Hazardous Waste, Treatment, or Disposal Facilities Category Five (v): Landfills Category Six (vi): Recycling Facilities Category Seven (vii): Steam Electric Plants Category Eight (viii): Transportation Facilities Category Nine (ix): Treatment Works Category Ten (x): Construction Activity * Category Eleven (xi): Light Industrial Activity Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Phase II Minimum Control Measures Public education and outreach on storm water impacts Public involvement/participation Illicit discharge detection and elimination Construction site storm water runoff control Post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations Website for EPA NPDES Phase II Fact Sheets: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Massachusetts Regulations Clean Waters Act Wetlands Protection Act Rivers Protection Act 1997 Stormwater Management Standards Developed jointly by CZM and DEP Federal permits need to meet Stormwater Management Standards Administered by DEP and Conservation Commissions From MA Stormwater Management Standards, Vol 1., p. 2-1 to 2-2 In MA, DEP administers the NPDES program. For new development and redevelopment, local conservation commissions or DEP can regulate storm water under the jurisdiction established under the Wetlands Protection Act…For existing development, regulations under the Clean Waters Act specify when state surface water discharge and groundwater discharge permits for storm water are required. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Stormwater Management Standards No new untreated storm water discharges allowed Post-development peak flow discharge rates < pre-development peak rates Minimize loss of recharge to groundwater Remove 80% of average annual total suspended solids (TSS) load (post development) Discharges from areas with higher potential pollutant loads require use of specific BMPs Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Stormwater Management Standards Storm water discharges to critical area require use of approved BMPs designed to treat 1 inch runoff volume (post development) Redevelopment sites must meet the Standards Construction sites must utilize sediment and erosion controls Storm water systems must have an operation and management plan Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Non-Structural BMPs Pollution prevention/source control Street sweeping Storm water collection system cleaning and maintenance Low impact development and land use planning Snow and snowmelt management Public Education http://www.tennatoco.com/stormwater, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Better Design Green roofs High Density Grassed/Porous Pavement http://www.lrcusace.army.ml, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Structural BMPs Detention/Retention and Vegetated Treatment: detention basins, wet retention ponds, constructed wetlands, water quality swales Filtration: sand and organic filters Advanced Sedimentation/Separation: hydrodynamic separators, oil and grit chamber Infiltration: infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, dry wells (rooftop infiltration) Pretreatment: water quality inlets, hooded and deep sump catch basins, sediment traps (forebays), and drainage channels Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Detention Basins TSS Removal Efficiency: 60-80% average 70% design Key Features: Large area Peak flow control Maintenance: low Cost: low to moderate Advantages: Least costly BMP that controls both quantity and quality Good retrofitting option for existing basins Removes TSS and sorbed pollutants Beneficial habitat Less hazards than permanent pools Disadvantages: Infiltration is negligible Removal of soluble pollutants minimal Moderate to high maintenance requirements Potential contributor to downstream warming Potential sediment resuspension after large storms Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Wet (Retention) Ponds Removal Efficiency: 60-80% average 70% design Key Features: Large area Peak flow control Maintenance: low to moderate Cost: low to high Advantages: Removes TSS and sorbed pollutants Aesthetically pleasing - can increase adjacent values if planned properly Pond sediment removal schedule is generally less frequent than for other BMPs Disadvantages: More costly than detention basins Infiltration is negligible Requires large land area Potential contributor to downstream warming http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002 Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Constructed Wetlands Removal Efficiency: 65-80% average 70% design Key Features: Large area Peak flow control Biological treatment Maintenance: low to moderate Cost: marginally higher than wet ponds Advantages: Relatively low maintenance costs High pollutant removal efficiency Enhance aesthetics Disadvantages: Large land requirements Until vegetation is established, lower pollutant removal efficiencies High construction costs http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002 Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quality Swales Removal Efficiency: 60-80% average 70% design Key Features: Higher pollutant removal rates than drainage channels Transport peak runoff and provide some infiltration Maintenance: low to moderate Cost: low to moderate Advantages: Control peak discharges by reducing runoff velocity and promoting infiltration Provides pretreatment by trapping sediments Generally less expensive than curve and gutter systems Disadvantages: Higher degree of maintenance than curb and gutter systems Subject to damage from off-street parking and snow removal http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002 Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Infiltration Trenches/Basins Removal Efficiency: 75-80% average 80% design Features: Preserves natural water balance on site Susceptible to clogging Reduces downstream impacts Maintenance: high Cost: moderate to high Advantages Promotes groundwater recharge Reduces downstream flooding and protects streambank integrity Preserves natural water balance on site High degree of runoff pollution control Reduces size and cost of downstream water control facilities Utilized where space is limited Disadvantages: High failure rate due to improper siting, design, construction and maintenance Generally restricted to small drainage areas Potential for groundwater contamination Requires frequent maintenance Susceptible to clogging StormTech, subsidiary to Infiltrator Systems, Inc, 2002 Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Dry Wells Removal Efficiency: 80% average 80% design On-site infiltration For untreated storm water from roofs only (copper excluded) Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Sand and Organic Filters Removal Efficiency: 80% average 80% design Design Features: Large area Peak flow control Maintenance: high Cost: high http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002 Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Inlets and Catch Basins Removal Efficiency: 15-35% average 25% design Design Features: Debris removal Pretreatment Maintenance: moderate to high Cost: low to high Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Sediment Traps/Forebays Removal Efficiency: 25% average 25% design Design Features: Pretreatment Retrofit expansion Larger space requirement than inlet. Maintenance: moderate Cost: low to moderate Source: MADEP/MACZM Massachusetts Stormwater Management, Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook, March 1997 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Innovative BMPs - Advanced Sedimentation Removal Efficiency: 50-80% average 80% design Design Features: small area Oil and Grease control Maintenance: moderate Cost: moderate Rinker Inc, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Innovative BMPs - Sand Filtration Removal Efficiency: 50-80% average 80% design Design Features: small area Nutrient and pathogen (potential) Maintenance: moderate Cost: moderate Stormtreat Inc, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Innovative BMPs - Hydrodynamic Removal Efficiency: 50-80% average 80% design Design Features: small area Oil and Grease control Maintenance: moderate Cost: moderate Vortechs Inc, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Innovative BMPs – Media Filtration Removal Efficiency: 50-80% average 80% design Design Features: small area Oil and Grease control Maintenance: moderate Cost: moderate Stormwater Management Inc, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Innovative BMPs – Inlet Inserts Removal Efficiency: To be determined Design Features: Retrofit Construction Oil and Grease control Maintenance: moderate Cost: moderate http://www.stormdrainsfilters.com, 2002 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Water Quality Monitoring TARP- Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Program Address technology review and approval barriers in policy and regulations; Accept the performance tests and data from partner’s review to reduce subsequent review and approval time; Use the Protocol for state-led initiatives, grants, and verification or certification programs; and Share technology information with potential users in the public and private sectors using existing state supported programs CA IL MA MD NJ NY PA VA TX Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Performance Verification - TARP Storm Event Criteria to Sample More than 0.1 inch of total rainfall. A minimum inter-event period of 6 hours, where cessation of flow from the system begins the inter-event period. Obtain flow-weighted composite samples covering a minimum of 70 % of the total storm flow, including as much of the first 20 % of the storm as possible. A minimum of 10 water quality samples (i.e., 10 influent and 10 effluent samples) should be collected per storm event. Determining a Representative Data Set At least 50 % of the total annual rainfall must be sampled, for a minimum of 15 inches of precipitation and at least 15, but preferably 20, storms. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Performance Verification - TARP Stormwater Sampling Locations Sampling locations for stormwater BMPs should be taken at inlet and outlet. Sampling Methods Programmable automatic flow samplers with continuous flow measurements should be used Grab samples used for: pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), E coli, total coliform, fecal coliform and streptococci, and enterococci. Stormwater Flow Measurement Methods Primary and secondary flow measurement devices are required. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Performance Verification - TARP Sample Data Quality Assurance and Control Equipment decontamination, Preservation, Holding time, Volume, QC samples (spikes, blanks, splits, and field and lab duplicates), QA on sampling equipment Packaging and shipping, Identification and labeling, and Chain-of-custody. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Performance Verification - TARP Calculating BMP Efficiencies (ASCE BMP Efficiencies Task 3.1) Process efficiencies or removal rates should be determined from influent and effluent contaminant concentration and flow data. Efficiency Ratio, Summation of Loads, Regression of Loads, Mean Concentration, and Efficiency of Individual Storm Loads. Note: The Efficiency Ratio method is preferred. Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Contacts www.ceere.org/ees Eric Winkler, Ph.D. Director, Technical Services (413) 545-2853 (Voice) winkler@ceere.org Susan Guswa, P.E. Environmental Analyst (413) 545-2165 (Voice) guswa@ceere.org www.ceere.org/ees Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy and Environmental Services 160 Governors Drive University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003-9265 Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002

Questions and Answers Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, UMass, Copyright, 2002