Tài liệu International low impact development conference 2016 mainstreaming green infrastructure

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Mainstreaming Green Infrastructure Proceedings of the International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Portland, Maine  August 29–31, 2016 Edited by Robert Roseen, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE Virginia Roach, P.E. James Houle, Ph.D. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. INTERNATIONAL LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE 2016 MAINSTREAMING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE 2016 August 29–31, 2016 Portland, Maine SPONSORED BY New England Water Environment Association Environmental and Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Robert Roseen, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE Virginia Roach, P.E. James Houle, Ph.D. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382 www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to [email protected] or by locating a title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480540 Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-8054-0 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Preface Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. The International Low Impact Development Conference was held in Portland, Maine in August of 2016. The Proceedings presented here represent a slice of the interesting and timely content that was presented at the conference. The conference this past year highlighted the mainstreaming of Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development in municipal programming as well as new and existing work and research in the United States and internationally. We are excited to announce that the 2016 LID conference led to a spin-off conference entitled Operations and Maintenance of Stormwater Control Measures that will be coming to Denver, Colorado in November 2016. We hope that these proceedings provide the in-depth information that you are looking for and we look forward to seeing you at the next LID conference in 2018! Acknowledgments Preparation and planning are the key to a successfully executed conference so we would like to recognize the hard work of the Conference Steering Committee and also others that are not mentioned here. Conference Chair Rob Roseen, PH.D., P.E., D.WRE Waterstone Engineering Conference Co-Chairs Virginia Roach CDM Smith James Houle UNH Stormwater Center Technical Program Chair James Houle UNH Stormwater Center Technical Program Vice Chairs Bethany Eisenberg Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc William Arcieri Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. © ASCE iii International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Local Host Chair Curtis Bohlen Casco Bay Estuary Program Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Rachel Rouillard Piscataqua Regions Estuary Partnership Workshop and Field Trip Coordinator Chair James Houle UNH Stormwater Center Workshop and Field Trip Coordinator Vice-Chair Jami Fitch Cumberland County Soil & Water Conservation District Past LID conference Member Scott Struck Geosyntec Finally, we acknowledge and thank the staff of the EWRI of ASCE, who, in the end, make it all happen. Director, EWRI Brian K. Parsons, M.ASCE Technical Manager, EWRI Barbara Whitten Senior Coordinator, EWRI Veronique Nguyen Conference Manager Cristina Charron Conference Coordinator Rachel Hobbs Sponsorship and Exhibit Sales Manager Sean Scully Registrar Nives McLarty © ASCE iv International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Contents Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Cistern Performance for Stormwater Management in Camden, NJ ........................................1 Farzana Ahmed, Michael Borst, and Thomas O’Connor Low Impact Development for Controlling Highway Stormwater Runoff—Performance Evaluation and Linkage to Cost Analysis ....................................................................................9 Azadeh Akhavan Bloorchian, Jianpeng Zhou, Abdolreza Osouli, Laurent Ahiablame, and Mark Grinter How the Implementation of Green City, Clean Waters in Philadelphia Advances Modeling Capabilities across the Program................................................................................16 Eileen Althouse, Edward Lennon Jr., and Julie Midgette Addressing Water Scarcity in South Africa through the Use of LID .....................................20 L. N. Fisher-Jeffes, N. P. Armitage, K. Carden, K. Winter, and J. Okedi Development of a Low Impact Development and Urban Water Balance Modeling Tool ................................................................................................................................................29 Steve Auger, Yuestas David, Wilfred Ho, Sakshi Sani, Amanjot Singh, Tim Van Seters, Chris Davidson, Melanie Kennedy, and Kevin MacKenzie Simulation of the Cumulative Hydrological Response to Green Infrastructure ...................43 Pedro M. Avellaneda, Anne J. Jefferson, and Jennifer M. Grieser Dual Opportunity for Education and Outreach to Evaluate Benefits of GI Implementation ............................................................................................................................52 Leslie Brunell and Elizabeth Fassman-Beck Examination of Empirical Evidence and Refining Maintenance Techniques for GI ............65 Amirhossein Ehsaei and Thomas D. Rockaway Comprehensive Benefits Assessment with as a Step toward Economic Valuations of Ancillary Benefits of Green Storm Water Infrastructure and Non-Structural Storm Water Quality Strategies in San Diego, California .......................................................78 Clem Brown, Richard Haimann, and Chris Behr A New Method for Sizing Flow-Based Treatment Systems to Meet Volume-Based Standards ......................................................................................................................................89 Kelly L. Havens, Zachary J. Kent, and Aaron Poresky Evaluating the Real Estate Development and Financial Impacts of the San Diego Region’s Post-Construction Standards and Alternative Compliance Program: A Multi-Disciplinary Effort ........................................................................................................98 Juli Beth Hinds © ASCE v International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Estimating Monetized Benefits of Groundwater Recharge from Stormwater Retention Practices ....................................................................................................................106 John Kosco, Lisa Hair, Jonathan Smith, and Heather Fisher Design Parameters for Manufactured Soils Used in Storm Water Treatment, Wetland Restorations, and LID Projects .................................................................................114 Geoffrey Kuter, David Harding, and Mike Carignan Performance Optimization of a Green Infrastructure Treatment Train Using Real-Time Controls ....................................................................................................................123 C. Lewellyn, B. M. Wadzuk, and R. G. Traver Greening Indiana—One Training at a Time ...........................................................................131 Sheila McKinley Update to Permeable Pavement Research at the Edison Environmental Center ................135 Thomas P. O’Connor and Michael Borst Full-Scale Structural Testing of Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement to Develop Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................143 David J. Jones, Hui Li, Rongzong Wu, John T. Harvey, and David R. Smith Developing Low Impact Development (LID)-Based District Planning (DP) Techniques and Simulating Effects of LID-DP .......................................................................155 C. H. Son, J. I. Baek, D. H. Kim, and Y. U. Ban Green Infrastructure Performance Model in the Real World: Modeling Natural and Simulated Runoff Events ...................................................................................................163 Stephen White, Tyler Krechmer, Taylor Heffernan, Nicholas Manna, Elizabeth Mannarino, Chris Bergerson, Mira Olson, and Jason Cruz Winter Road Salting in Parking Lots: Permeable Pavements vs. Conventional Asphalt Pavements .....................................................................................................................173 H. Zhu, J. Drake, and K. Sehgal © ASCE vi International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Cistern Performance for Stormwater Management in Camden, NJ Farzana Ahmed1; Michael Borst2; and Thomas O’Connor3 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 1 Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education (ORISE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., MS-104, Edison, NJ 08837. E-mail: [email protected] 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., MS-104, Edison, NJ 08837. Email: [email protected] 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., MS-104, Edison, NJ 08837. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority installed cisterns at locations around the city of Camden, NJ. Cisterns provide a cost effective approach to reduce stormwater runoff volume and peak discharge. The collected water can be substituted for potable water in some applications reducing the demand. This presentation focuses on five cisterns that were monitored as part of a capture-and-use system at community gardens. The cisterns capture water from existing rooftops or shade structures installed by CCMUA as part of the project. Cistern volumes varied from 305 gallons to 1,100 gallons. The design volume was based on the available roof drainage area. Water level was monitored at 10-minute intervals using pressure transducers and rainfall was recorded using tipping bucket rain gauges. Cisterns were sampled at 6 to 8 week intervals through the growing season for determination of concentration of microorganisms, nutrients, and metals. The analyses detected antimony, arsenic, barium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. Concentration of all these metals were below recommended water quality criteria for irrigation by EPA guidelines for water reuse. The total nitrogen, phosphate, and total organic carbon concentrations varied from 0.23 to 2.26 mg/L, 0.025 to 1.11 mg/L, and 0.55 to 4.06 mg/L, respectively. Large total coliform concentrations were observed in some samples. The presentation will summarize the data for first growing season giving the results from monitoring the water use and water quality of cisterns. INTRODUCTION The Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority (CCMUA) has installed several green infrastructure stormwater control measures (SCMs) throughout the City of Camden to reduce the volume of Combined Sewer Overflows. This presentation focuses on five cisterns installed at community gardens. The Rutgers Cooperative Extension Water Resources Program developed engineering plans and specifications for each of the sites. US EPA is monitoring these five installed cisterns for three consecutive growing seasons. This paper summarizes the findings from monitored cisterns for the first year growing season. Cisterns collect and store rainwater that can be used for household and other uses. A gutter and downspout system directs the collected rainwater to the storage cistern. Cisterns can be installed above or below ground. Roof harvested rain water has been considered to be one of the most cost effective sources for various non potable uses like irrigation, toilet flushing, and car washing (Ahmed, et al. 2011)). Cisterns can reduce stormwater runoff volume and peak discharge rates, and provide an alternative water supply during times of water restriction. Factors that influence the quality and quantity of captured rainwater include: roof geometry (size, © ASCE 1 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 exposure, and inclination), roof material (chemical characteristics, roughness, surface coating, age, and weatherability), location of the roof (proximity of pollution sources), maintenance history of the roof, rainfall events (wind speed, intensity, and pollutant concentration), other meteorological factors (seasons, weather characteristics, and antecedent dry period), and concentration of substances in the atmosphere (transport, emission, half-life, and phase distribution) (Abbasi and Abbasi 2011). The objectives of this study are to: 1) demonstrate the performance of cisterns, 2) determine how the performance of cistern changes during the first three years of operation, and 3) collect and analyze aqueous samples from cistern for presence of bacteria and other analytes. This paper only presents the quantity and quality analysis from the first growing season. SITE DESCRIPTION AND INSTRUMENTATION Camden is located in southwestern New Jersey, United States. The city is highly urbanized with an aging and overburdened combined sewer system which discharges to the Delaware River. As part of the effort to control combined sewer overflows, CCMUA installed the cisterns in 2014 and 2015, with capacities ranging from 300 to 1,100 gallons to provide capture-and-use for irrigating community gardens and existing landscaped areas. Since May 2015, US EPA monitored water collection-and-use at five cistern sites: the Vietnamese Community Garden, Kaighns Avenue Neighborhood Community Center, Respond Inc., Cooper Sprouts Community Garden, and St. Joan of Arc Church. Level loggers (Solinst 3001 LT Levelogger) placed at the bottom of each cistern record water level at 10-minute intervals. At five sites, standalone tipping bucket rain gauges (Onset model RGD-04) were installed. A layout of the location of the installed sensors are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Location of cisterns and rain gauges © ASCE 2 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Figure 2. Cistern at St. Joan of Arc Church site These cistern tanks as shown in Figure 2, are made of resins that meet FDA specification to ensure safe water storage. The black color limits light penetration to reduce the growth of water borne algae. The monitored cisterns are installed near vegetable gardens to provide irrigation water. These cisterns capture roof runoff through the downspout from adjacent buildings. At some sites no building existed, therefore, a shade structure was constructed to supply roof runoff to the cistern tank. If it rains while the cistern is full, the cistern overflows. Near the bottom of each tank a spigot and a hose was installed so that the water can be used. At two sites, a pump was installed with the spigot that helped to draw the water from the tank. Pressure transducer and rain gauge data were used to calculate the fraction of available water used from each cistern. Water samples were collected every 6 to 8 weeks after the sensor installation. The samples were analyzed for microorganisms, metals, and nutrients. AVAILABLE WATER USE For each cistern, the relative use of available water was calculated. To calculate the relative volume used, the total water use between consecutive rain events is divided by the available water volume in the tank. For example, in Figure 3, the green line shows the water level depth inside the cistern tank monitored by pressure transducer at the Kaighns Avenue site. The red dots show the cumulative rain depth from 07/31 to 08/12. Precipitation was recorded on 07/30, 08/07, and 08/11. Between 07/30 and 08/07 rain events the available water was 1.04 m and no water was used, so the water use between 07/30 and 08/07 is 0%. Between 08/07 and 08/11 rain event water use was 0.12m and available water was 1.04m. So L 0.12 100%  11% . After calculating the water use between each the water use is 2 100%  L1 1.04 consecutive rain event, the water use was averaged. Table 1 shows the water use for each cistern site for first growing season. The water use ranged from 8 to 34%. At St. Joan of Arc Church site, the gardeners did not use any captured water. Discussions with one of the gardeners suggested that the reason might be lack of pressure to help to transfer water from the tank to the garden. Since no water was used, the roof runoff overflowed from the cistern after it was full and it did not reduce stormwater runoff volume. At © ASCE 3 International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 4 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Respond Inc. site, the cistern water was also unused. The roof downspout was not connected to the cistern tank until end of September, so the cistern did not collect water until September. Among all five sites, the gardeners from Vietnamese Garden used the cistern water most frequently. 0% Figure 3. Water use calculation for Kaighns Avenue Site Site name St. Joan of Arc Church Respond Inc. Cooper Sprout Kaighns Avenue Vietnamese Garden Table 1. Percent of available water use % use of Roof type Drainage area available water (sq-ft) 0 Building 1,300 roof 0 Building 1,300 roof 8 Shade 192 structure 12 Building 1,300 roof 34 Shade 192 structure Operational July September May May May WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS For first growing season, five site visits were made between June and November to collect water samples from the cisterns. For some sites, only four samples were collected due to access difficulty or empty cisterns. A randomly selected site was sampled in duplicate for each round of sampling. The water samples were analyzed for total coliforms, E. coli and enterococci as Most Probable Number (MPN) estimates from the IDEXX Quanti-Tray / 2000 (IDEXX Laboratories, 2013). The water samples were also analyzed for metals by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer method (EPA 200.8), Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen by Automated Colorimetry (EPA © ASCE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 5 method 353.2), Phosphate by Semi-Automated Colorimetry (EPA method 365.1) and Total Organic Carbon (EPA method 415.3). Microbial and metal analysis were completed by EPA Region 2. Nutrient analyses were completed by EPA ORD laboratories in Cincinnati, OH. St. Joan of Arc Church site had the largest total coliform concentration. Figure 2 shows the picture of St. Joan of Arc Church, which shows a tree next to the tank. Feces from animals that inhabit in this tree may contribute to the microorganism concentration. Overall, the water in all cisterns exceed the drinking water and recreational water standards. Each cistern has a “Do not drink” sign attached. Table 2 shows the summary of microorganism concentration in the samples collected from cisterns. It shows that the total coliform concentration ranges from 60 to more than 242,000 MPN/100 mL. E. coli and enterococci are below detection limit for some samples. Studies from different researchers showed presence of microorganism in roof harvested rainwater (Lye 1987, Ruskin and Krishna 1990, Lye 2002). Within the United States, the number of fecal coliform varied between 0 - 4800 and the highest fecal coliform was reported at the rain water collection system in Hawaii (Fujioka, Inserra et al. 1991, Thomas and Greene 1993). At a site located in Australia the range was between 0 – 130 (Thomas and Greene 1993). The detection frequency for total coliform and E. Coli was reported as 93% and 3% respectively at some sites in US (Lye 1987, Ahmed, Gardner et al. 2011). Table 2. Summary of microorganism concentration data of aqueous samples from cisterns Site Microorganism concentration Statistical parameter (MPN/100 mL) Total E. coli Enterococci coliform Cooper Sprouts Kaighns Avenue St. Joan of Arc Church Vietnamese Respond, Inc. © ASCE Detection frequency Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean Detection frequency Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean Detection frequency Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean Detection frequency Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean Detection frequency Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean 5/5 24200 60 840 4/4 3870 110 520 4/4 24200 135 8920 4/4 7560 2000 4200 2/2 11200 2910 5710 2/5 360 10 30 0/4 Below detection limit 3/4 2140 10 230 1/4 40 10 10 1/2 70 10 30 3/5 2280 10 80 0/4 Below detection limit 3/4 4611 10 100 2/4 30 10 15 2/2 370 100 190 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 6 At each Camden site, there is a wide variation in microorganism concentration. For each type of microorganism, data for all five sites were combined to perform ANOVA test. Dependent variable was the microbial concentration and treatment variable was the site and date of event. The combined microorganism data were log normally distributed, so the analyses were performed on log-transformed data. ANOVA test showed that the microorganism concentration is independent of the location and time (p>0.05). Table 3 shows the average metal concentration that is above detection limit in aqueous samples from cisterns. The metal concentration was compared with the EPA irrigation water standard for long term use (Manual 1992) and the WHO drinking water standard (EPA 2009). The average metal concentration was less than the EPA long-term irrigation water standard and drinking water standard except for Pb in Kaighns Avenue. Pb concentration in Kaighns Avenue is above the drinking water standard. A study analyzed the runoff from roofs made of galvanized metal and reported 0.01 to 1.4 mg/L and 0.42 to 14.7 mg/L leaching of Cu and Pb respectively (Tobiason 2004, Clark, Steele et al. 2008). Whereas, another study reported 0.17 mg/L of Cu, 0.88 mg/L of Zn, and 0.011 mg/L of Pb leaching from roof made of Plywood (Good 1993). Table 3. Summary of metal concentration data of aqueous sample from cistern Site Statistical Ba Cu Pb Mn Ni Vn Zn name parameter (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Detection Limit Cooper Max. No. Sprouts Min. No. Geometric mean Kaighns Max. No. Avenue Min. No. Geometric mean St. Joan Max. No. of Arc Min. No. Church Geometric mean VietMax. No. namese Min. No. Geometric mean Respond, Max. No. Inc. Min. No. Geometric mean 1 1 1 1 4 1.4 2.4 2.7 1.3 2 3.6 1 1.3 37 13.5 22 52 14 24.3 190 59.5 97.2 41 7.7 15.7 21 3.8 7 190 58 91 21 1 2.1 19 4.5 8 20 2.2 4.2 7.8 3.3 5 13 3.3 6.5 1 1 2 Below detection limit 36 27 33.1 2.3 1 1.5 Below detection limit 250 120 183.1 23 2.6 7.2 Below detection limit 2.3 1 1.5 77 32 40.5 1.5 1 1.1 3 1 1.6 Below detection limit Below detection limit 88.5 52 61.9 5.4 1.2 2.5 2.5 1 1.6 Below detection limit 1.3 1 1.15 41 27 33.3 Below Below detection detection limit limit For our study the ANOVA test was performed on each set of metal concentrations looking at the effect of location and time on the metal concentration. The combined data for each metal © ASCE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 7 represents neither normal distribution nor log-normal distribution. The ANOVA test was performed on untransformed data. The test showed that Pb and Zn concentration at Kaighns Avenue site was significantly larger (p=0.001) than other sites and Cu concentration for St. Joan of Arc Church site was significantly larger (p=0.001) than other sites. A site inspection at Kaighns Avenue and St. Joan of Arc Church site revealed that the roof and gutter system is old and is not maintained. This might contribute to elevated Pb, Cu and Zn concentration. Table 4 shows the average nutrient concentration of the aqueous samples from cisterns. According to FAO guidelines, if nitrate concentration is < 5mg/L then there is no restriction on using the water for irrigation. For all sites the nitrate concentration is below 5 mg/L. Nitrate, phosphate and total organic carbon concentration is larger at St. Joan of Arc Church cistern water compared to other sites. Table 4. Summary of nutrient concentration data of aqueous sample from cistern Site name Statistical NH3 as N NO2 as N NO3 as N PO4 TN TOC parameter (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Detection limit Cooper Max. No. Sprouts Min. No. Geometric mean Kaighns Max. No. Avenue Min. No. Geometric mean St. Joan of Max. No. Arc Church Min. No. Geometric mean Vietnamese Max. No. Min. No. Geometric mean Respond, Max. No. Inc. Min. No. Geometric mean 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.025 0.02 0.2 0.20 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.03 0.23 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.55 0.23 0.35 0.80 0.41 0.56 0.20 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.45 0.21 0.28 Below detection limit 0.72 0.30 0.45 4.92 1.13 2.35 1.03 0.03 0.13 0.29 0.01 0.03 1.70 0.61 1.07 1.12 0.74 0.90 2.26 1.39 1.78 4.50 2.48 3.53 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.02 1.14 0.35 0.58 0.24 0.07 0.14 1.13 0.41 0.72 2.04 0.62 1.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 Below detection limit 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.94 1.94 1.94 CONCLUSION The water use from the cistern is below expectation. If the cistern’s water is not used then there will be overflow from the cistern during rain and the stormwater runoff volume will not be reduced. This may be resolved by ensuring there is adequate pressure at the spigot and improved education of the user as to the purpose of the cistern and appropriate timing of use. © ASCE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 From the first year analysis, it was found that the metal concentrations and nutrient concentrations were below the EPA long-term irrigation water standard and the FDA standard, respectively. The number of total coliform is larger than what was found from previous studies on rain water harvesting. The practice of attaching “Do not drink” sign to cistern should continue and additional signage advising gardeners to washing the fruits and vegetables before eating is recommended. This would reduce the risk of ingesting microorganisms. EPA plans to collect samples for two additional growing seasons which will help to make a firm conclusion about the water quality. REFERENCES Abbasi, T. and S. Abbasi (2011). “Sources of pollution in rooftop rainwater harvesting systems and their control.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 41(23): 2097– 2167. Ahmed, W., T. Gardner, S. Toze (2011). “Microbiological quality of roof-harvested rainwater and health risks: a review.” Journal of Environmental Quality 40(1): 13–21. Clark, S. E., K. A. Steele, J. Spicher, C. Y. S. Siu, M. M. Lalor, R. Pitt, J. T. Kirby (2008). “Roofing materials’ contributions to storm-water runoff pollution.” Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering 134(5): 638–645. EPA, U. (2009). National primary drinking water regulations. EPA 816-F-09-004. U. E. P. Agency. Fujioka, R., S. G. Inserra, R. D. Chinn (1991). The bacterial content of cistern waters in Hawaii. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Rain Water Cistern Systems, Keelung, Taiwan. Good, J. C. (1993). “Roof runoff as a diffuse source of metals and aquatic toxicity in storm water.” Water science and technology 28(3–5): 317–321. Lye, D. J. (1987). Bacterial levels in cistern water systems of northern Kentuky, Wiley Online Library. Lye, D. J. (2002). Health risk associated with consumption of untreated water from household roof catchment systems, Wiley Online Library. Manual, E. (1992). Guidelines for water reuse, EPA/625/R-92/004. Ruskin, R. H. and J. Krishna (1990). A preliminary assessment of cistern water quality in selected hotels and guest houses in the US Virgin Islands. Thomas, P. and G. Greene (1993). “Rainwater quality from different roof catchments.” Water science and technology 28(3–5): 291–299. Tobiason, S. (2004). “Stormwater metals removal by media filtration: Field assessment case study.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2004(4): 1431–1448. © ASCE 8 International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Low Impact Development for Controlling Highway Stormwater Runoff—Performance Evaluation and Linkage to Cost Analysis Azadeh Akhavan Bloorchian1; Jianpeng Zhou, Ph.D., P.E.2; Abdolreza Osouli, Ph.D., P.E.3; Laurent Ahiablame, Ph.D.4; and Mark Grinter5 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 1 Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville, IL 620261800. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville, IL 62026-1800. Email: [email protected] 3 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville, IL 620261800. E-mail: [email protected] 4 Assistant Professor/Grassland Hydrologist, Dept. of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, South Dakota State Univ., SD 57007. E-mail: [email protected] 5 Associate Professor, Dept. of Construction Management, Southern Illinois Univ. Edwardsville, IL 62026-1800. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Highways are major source of stormwater runoff due to their large foot print of paved areas. The runoff can lead to many environmental problems such as non-point source pollution, soil erosion, and flooding. The low impact development (LID) practice, through incorporating best management practice (BMP) elements in linear infrastructure projects such as highways, can provide a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution for on-site control and management of stormwater runoff. Because of the diversity and variety of site conditions across the country, an extensive number of factors have to be considered. For a given project, factors can include soil characteristics such as soil type and infiltration rate; site conditions such as surface vegetation cover, drainage area and pathway, slopes, imperviousness; meteorological conditions such as rainfall; available land space for BMPs, and costs associated with the installation and maintenance of BMPs. To develop a most cost-effective engineering solution for a given site, a large number of scenarios need to be analyzed to evaluate the impact of essential factors aforementioned on the performance of BMPs, which is to be linked to the cost analysis of a given scenario. For practical application, an approach that can be readily deployed for efficient evaluation of many scenarios in relatively short time is needed. Such an approach should be integrated with considerations for cost analysis. Information and reporting in the currently available LID design manuals and related technical documents about such an integrated approach linking extensive performance evaluation with cost analysis is limited. This paper discussed results from our study that takes a modeling approach to evaluate the impact of many aforementioned factors on performance of several BMPs for control of stormwater from highways, as well as the linkage with cost analysis. This study used an idealized catchment and Personal Computer Stormwater Management Model (PCSWMM) for analysis. The modeled BMPs included bioswale, infiltration trench and vegetated filter strip. The analysis results on newly constructed BMPs indicated an average runoff reduction of up to 100% from the infiltration trench, of 70-83% and 68-78% for bioswale and vegetated filter strip, respectively. The linkage between the performance and the costs of BMP installation and maintenance for linear projects were discussed. Findings from this study provides valuable information to support decision-making for selecting and placing cost-effective stormwater BMP for controlling stormwater runoff from highways and beyond. © ASCE 9 International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 KEYWORDS: Green infrastructure; LID; modeling; PCSWMM Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. INTRODUCTION Storm runoff from highways contain suspended solids and many other pollutants. Residuals from the use of deicing, salt, and antiskid materials can have negative impacts on vegetation and soil of surrounding areas, and the water environment receiving the runoff (DEP 2006). Therefore, on-site management of storm runoff for effective volume reduction and peak flow attenuation is important for the environmental protection. The primary approach to manage stormwater on-site is the Low impact development (LID). The purpose of LID is to maintain and restore the hydrologic functionality of a site through alternative urban design and adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USEPA 2008; PGC. 1999). The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) defines the best management practices (BMPs) as an engineered and constructed system that is designed to provide water quantity and quality control of stormwater (USEPA 1999a). The hydrologic performance of stormwater BMPs is an important factor in the overall effectiveness of BMPs in reducing potential adverse impacts of urbanization on receiving waters (Poresky et al. 2011). BMPs that are frequently used for roadway runoff control are linear BMPs which include grassed swales, vegetated filter strips, and infiltration trench. The performance and effectiveness of stormwater managemnt can be affected by many factors, which include site characteristics such as local climate, soil types and geologic conditions, groundwater conditions, site topography and grading; watershed characteristics, project location in watershed, and adjacent land uses. Moreover, project characteristics influencing runoff volume reduction include project type, highway type, the amount of open space in medians and shoulders, shoulder-width and usage, highway landscaping and vegetation, and maintenance access (Strecker et al. 2015). In order to install and maintain BMPs, factors including soil characteristics such as soil type and infiltration rate; site conditions such as surface vegetation cover, drainage area and pathway, slopes, imperviousness and meteorological conditions such as rainfall; available land space for BMPs, and costs need to be considered as well. Bioswales, infiltration trenches, and vegetated filter strips have been employed as appropriate BMPs for linear construction projects. Measured performance from previous studies show percentage runoff volume reduction for vegetated filter strips is about 40% to 85% and for bioswales is between 50% to 94% runoff volume reduction (Hunt et al. 2010; Poresky et al. 2011; Xiao and McPherson 2009). The difference in performances can be due to the sizes of the studied BMP, the size of the service area, and the local characteristics such as the site conditions. Studies demonstrated almost 100% mitigation capacity for infiltration trench (Geosyntec 2008; Caltrans 2004). Many guides and manuals have already been developed, but many of them might be locally relevant and for some areas there might be no guidance for LID design. Regionally, best design and practices can be accomplished by academics, the engineering corporation, or local municipalities. Due to similarities in climate in some locations, there may be lessons learned from limited areas that can be used in other areas. A comprehensive evaluation is required to implement and monitor locally relevant demonstrations and basic research resulting in a more effective stormwater management in long term. Considering potential pitfalls of the practices, the design team should include experts in engineering, hydrology, ecology, economics, policy, and/or education from both the public (academic and government) and the private sector. Also © ASCE 10 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 funding and financial resources are the inseparable part of these work (Vogel et al. 2015) The literature offer information about the performance of the linear BMPs; monitoring efforts are limited to short-term and as mentioned above they are localized evaluation. For practical application, an approach that can be readily deployed for efficient evaluation of many scenarios in relatively short time is needed. Such an approach should be integrated with considerations for cost analysis. Simulation modeling is one of the practice for evaluating BMPs at various spatial and temporal scales. In order to use simulation models, there are several tools available. Researchers used the Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) to the effects of various LID practices, land-use changes, and water-management activities on streamflow at multiple spatial scales (Zimmerman et al. 2010), and also to model the grass swale (Ackerman et al. 2008). The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (White et al. 2009) and the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment- Low Impact Development (L-THIA-LID) models (Ahiablame et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2015) have been used to analyze the vegetated filter strip at the watershed scale and to estimate hydrology and water quality, respectively. Other studies used the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), which is dynamic rainfall-runoff-routing model to simulate hydraulics and hydrology of the BMPs. These studies indicated that the algorithms used in LID control parameters provide satisfactory results for event-based and continuous simulations (Abi Aad et al. 2010; McCutcheon et al. 2013; Sun et al. 2014). Following the discussion above, objectives of this paper are (1) to present a readily deployed approach to evaluate the impact of selected linear BMPs for controlling storm runoff from highways, and (2) to estimate the cost for construction and maintenance of the BMPs. This approach can help to simulate various highway sites with different soil types, surface covers, and types of BMPs. APPROACH The approach used in this paper is the idealized catchment area including half of an eightlane interstate highway in an urban area and its right of way. This idealized catchment area consisting of four subcatchments such as highway (with 58 ft. width and slope of 1.5%), foreslope (with 21 ft. width and slope of 3H,1V), ground surface (with 25 ft. width and slope of 0), and backslope (with 14 ft. width and slope of 6H:1V). For each soil type, according to the condition of the foreslope, ground surface, and backslope there are several scenarios needed to simulate. Considered scenarios including pre-BMP, post-bioswale, post-infiltration trench, and post-VFS. Moreover, for each pre and post-BMP, depending on the soil cover, there would be three soil surface cover conditions: no vegetation cover, turf grass cover, and prairie grass cover. (Akhavan Bloorchian et al. 2016). Hence, for each soil type there will be 12 scenarios which much time and effort (besides the cost) would be devoted if performed in practice than simulation. In order to evaluate the performance of aforementioned BMPs with 11 soil type and three different soil cover, there are 132 scenarios to build the BMPs on site which considering the construction and maintenance cost and also seeking the linear locations for each 11 soil types and three soil surface cover, won’t be feasible; where simulating the models comes into play. PCSWMM, a GIS version of the EPA Storm Water Management Model (EPA SWMM) was used in this study. The Green-Ampt model was applied to stimulate the infiltration in the model. One-inch rainfall was used to model all scenarios for BMP performance. The evaporation was assumed to be negligible. Consequently, the runoff from the impervious area was either © ASCE 11 International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. infiltrated, stored on the surface, or flowed overland. For post-BMP scenarios, the BMP was applied at the ground surface subcatchment; The BMPs were modeled with very typical dimensions reported in the literature (Strecker et al. 2015; SEMCOG 2008; Emanuel et al. 2014; James et al. 2010; LLG, 2009; PGC 1999; USEPA 2000). The bioswale width is five ft. with 3:1 side slope and the total footprint of bioswale is 14 ft. The infiltration trench is three ft. wide; and the vegetated filter strip is 25 ft. wide. Figure 1: Idealized catchment area of half of an eight-lane interstate highway To evaluate the performance in each scenario, the runoff at the outfall of the catchment area for each of scenario was compared to the one-inch rainfall input to the area. At the result section, an example of this approach for one soil type (silt loam) is presented. Cost analysis plays a key role in planning highway projects. Estimated short-term and long term (depending on the policy) costs should be determined during the project planning stage to be compared with the benefits (USEPA, 1999b). Cost details based on Illinois prevailing wage, material, and equipment rates are broken down into discrete units, adjusted over a range of BMP geometry variations, and compiled into spreadsheet based cost calculators capable of generating BMP unit cost, based on a range of BMP dimensions. To support the processing, analysis, and examination of output data produced by the PCSWMM, a result analysis tool or post-processor module has been incorporated into the system. A Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with macros and interface perform the analysis. Depending on the cost of BMP construction and maintenance and their capacity in runoff volume reduction, and the goal of the design, engineers or decision makers can choose the type and size of the BMP. RESULTS Performance of Pre- and Post-BMP As Figure 2 demonstrates in the catchment area with silt loam, in pre-BMP condition even with no vegetation cover comparing with the 1-inch rainfall input to the system about 35% runoff reduction occurs. Adding BMPs to the catchment area will increase the runoff reduction depending on vegetation cover up to 88-92% in post-bioswale, to 100% in the post-infiltration trench, and up to 84-89% in post-vegetated filter strip. The result shows turf grass cover, and prairie grass are more efficiently in capturing 1- inch rainfall comparing to the site with no surface cover regardless of the pre- or post- BMP condition. Therefore, even without implementing BMPs and by just using more infiltration friendly grass types in the right of way an increase in runoff reduction can be achieved. Results of cost and performance The construction cost of the considered BMPs have been determined. Construction cost, for a bioswale, infiltration trench, and vegetative filter strip for the simulated sized for the idealized © ASCE 12 International Low Impact Development Conference 2016 13 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Performance runoff reduction (%) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/03/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. cross section (Figure 1) are $ 16,291 per 100 linear ft. for Bioswale, $ 4379 per 100 linear ft. for infiltration trench and $ 207 per 100 linear ft. for vegetated filter strip. Bioswale cost significantly exceeds the two other type of BMPs. Pre-BMP Post- Bioswale No surface cover Post- infiltration trench Turf grass Prairie grass Post- VFS Figure 2: Runoff reduction with BMP in an idealized catchment area (silt loam soil) A rate of $140 per mile for annual mowing costs for bioswale up to 8 ft. wide may be used for planning purposes. For bioswales between 9 ft. and 6 ft. wide mowing costs are estimated at $280 per mile. The cleanup task is estimated at $284 per 100 linear feet for bioswales up to 8 ft. wide and $426 for bioswales between 9 ft. and 16 ft. wide. For infiltration trench, routine maintenance should include herbicide applications to control vegetation and maintain the open nature of the infiltration trench surface. Herbicide application may be required three times annually to maintain a vegetation-free surface. Each herbicide application will cost approximately $55 per mile of infiltration trench or a total of $165 per year. Vegetative filter strips should be mown and inspected for rills and gullies annually to promote stand health, and exclude woody plants and sediment build-up. A side-mounted sickle type or spinning disc type mower is recommended for annual mowing operations. A rate of $55 per acre may reliably be used for planning purposes for a VFS with 25 ft. width. Estimated 10year maintenance cost, of bioswales, infiltration trenches, and vegetated filter strips are approximately 32%, 80%, and 3.4% of construction cost, respectively. CONCLUSION This study presented an approach for efficient evaluation of linear BMPs performance in reducing highway runoff from 1-inch rainfall, also the relative construction and maintenance cost for each of them. In spite of the on-site practices, this approach would take efficient time and cost to estimate the performance of linear BMPs for highway and road projects. The linear BMPs considered in this study include bioswale, infiltration trench, and vegetated filter strip. Three different cover conditions, i.e., no vegetative surface cover, turf grass and prairie grass cover, in the right-of-way, were also taken into account to evaluate the efficiency of vegetated cover in capturing stormwater runoff. Furthermore, using a bioswale with 5 ft. bottom width and 3:1 side slope lead to 88-92% performance runoff reduction would cost $ 16,291 per 100 linear ft. to construct. Employing an infiltration trench with 3 ft. width and 7 ft. depth resulted in 100% runoff reduction and would © ASCE