<
55
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
OF THE
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
LU
VOLUME li - APPENDICES
Water Planning Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
OF THE
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
March 1, 1982
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
Water Planning Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for release. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect any
policies or decisions of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency or any of its offices, grantees, contractors, or
subcontractors.
-------
VOLUME I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Foreword iii
Preface v
Acknowledgements vii
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 BACKGROUND 2-1
Early Perceptions 2-1
Conclusions From Section 208 Efforts 2-2
ORD Efforts 2-4
Other Prior/Ongoing Efforts 2-5
Discussion 2-5
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program 2-G
3 URBAN RUNOFF PERSPECTIVES 3-1
Water Quantity Concerns 3-1
Water Quality Concerns 3-2
Water Quantity and Quality Control 3-3
Problem Definition 3-4
4 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Urban Runoff Pollutant Loads 4-1
Water Quality Effects 4-4
Evaluation of Controls 4-13
Quality Assurance and Quality Control 4-15
5 FINDINGS 5-1
Introduction 5-1
Loadings 5-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Chapter
6
7
Figure
5-la
5-lb
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
Page
Receiving Water Effects 5-27
Evaluation of Controls 5-54
Project Findings 5-59
CONCLUSIONS TO DATE 6-1
REFERENCES 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Cumulative Probability Plots in Log-Space 5-5
Cumulative Probability Plots in Log-Space 5-6
Pollutant Concentration in Urban Runoff Event Means
(Preliminary NURP Data - 13 Projects) 5-7
Comparison of NURP Results with Other Studies 5-10
Urban Runoff Concentration Ranges for NURP
Pilot Data 5-12
Zonal Differences in Event Mean Concentrations 5-18
Contours of Long Term Storm Event Average Rainfall
Intensity for the Period June-September 5-29
Regional Value of Average Annual Stream Flow 5-30
Schematic of Rapid City Stream System 5-33
Distribution of Lead Concentrations in Rapid City
During Storm Runoff Periods (Preliminary
Projection) 5-36
Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm Event
Averaged Stream Concentration 5-37
Effect of Urban Runoff Control on Distribution of
Lead Concentration in Streams 5-40
Effects of Urban Runoff Control on Lead
Concentrations 5-41
Copper Concentration in Urban Runoff 5-43
Copper - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentrations - End-of-Pipe . . . 5-45
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
Figure Page
5-15 Copper - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentrations - DAR 10 5-46
5-16 Copper - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentrations - DAR 50 .... 5-47
5-17 Copper - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentrations - DAR-100 5-48
5-18 Lead - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentration 5-50
5-19 Zinc - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentration 5-51
5-20 Cadmium - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentration 5-52
5-21 Chromium - Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm
Event Averaged Stream Concentration 5-53
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1 Summary of Receiving Water Target Concentrations
Used in Screening Analysis - Toxic Substances 4-8
5-1 Sources of Data 5-4
5-2 Comparison of Preliminary NURP Data With
Prior Summaries 5-8
5-3 Duncan's Multiple Range Test (a = 0.5) 5-15
5-4 Data Set Attributes By Zone 5-16
5-5 Data as a Ratio of Total Population Median
by Zone 5-17
5-6 Data as a Ratio of Total Population Median
by Season 5-19
5-7 Data as a Ratio of Total Population Median
by Rainfall 5-21
5-8 Data as a Ratio of Total Population Median
by Land Use 5-22
-------
LIST OE TABLES (Cont'd)
Table
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
Average Storm and lime Between Storms for
Selected Locations in the U.S
Percent Removal Effectiveness for the
Iraver Creek Detention Basin
Overall Percent Removal Effectiveness for
Selected NURP Detention Basins
Percent Removal Effectiveness for Pooled Detention
Basin Data
Summary of Lead Statistics for Winston-Salem NURP
Project
Percent Removal Effectiveness for Pooled
Street Sweeping Data ...
Page
5-28
5-55
5-56
5-57
5-58
5-59
VOLUME II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix
A Selected Site Characteristics . .
B Selected Event Data
C Data Analysis Methodologies . . .
D Wet Weather Water Quality Criteria
E Project Summaries
E Priority Pollutant Report ....
G Project Descriptions
H ORD Report
A-l
B-l
C-l
0-1
E-l
E-l
G-l
H-l
VI
-------
APPENDIX A
SELECTED SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
FOREWORD
This appendix contains selected monitoring site characteristics data for those
projects that were included in the data analysis up to this point. Referred to as
Fixed Site Data, the information selected for inclusion in this appendix is
analyzed in columns as follows:
PROJECT
Code - A unique alphanumeric code number that identifies each of the 28 NURP
projects in the NURP STORET data base (see listing that follows).
Name - The urban area in which the NURP project is located.
CATCHMENT
Code - A unique alphanumeric code number assigned by individual NURP projects
to each monitoring site used, as entered in the NURP STORET data base.
Name - The name by which the monitoring site is known within each project.
AREA
The size of the contributing drainage area at the monitoring site;
expressed in acres (multiply by 0.4047 to obtain hectares).
LAND USE
The percentage of the total drainage area that is predominantely used
as residential, commercial, industrial, or parkland/open (see listing
that follows).
POPULATION DENSITY
SLOPE
The population density in the catchment calculated by dividing the
total population residing within the contributing drainage basin by
its area in acres; expressed as persons per acre (multiply by 2.471
to obtain persons per hectare).
A measure of the representative catchment slope; expressed in feet
per mile (multiply by 0.0001893 to obtain percent).
A-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROJECT LOCATIONS
NURP PROJECTS
1.DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE NH1
2.LAKE QUINSIGAMONO, MASSACHUSETTS MAI
3.MYSTIC RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS MA2
A.LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK . NY1
5.LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK . NY2
6.IRONOEQUQIT BAY, NEW YORK NY3
7.METRO WASHINGTON, O.C. OC1
8.BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. M01
9.MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA SCI
10.WINSTON-SALEH , NORTH CAROLINA NCI
11.TAMPA, FLORIDA FL1
12.KNOXYILLE, TENNESSEE TNI
13.LANSING. MICHIGAN Mil
14.OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN MI2
15.ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN MI3
16.CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILLINOIS I LI
17.CHICAGO, ILLINOIS IL2
18.MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN' WI1
19.AUSTIN, TEXAS TX1
20.LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AR1
21.KANSAS CITY, KANSAS KS1
22.DENVER, COLORADO C01
23.SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH UT1
24.RAPID CITY* SOUTH DAKOTA SD1
25.CASTRO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA CA1
26.FRESNO, CALIFORNIA CA2
27.BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON WAI
28.EUGENE, OREGON QRl
NON-NURP PROJECTS
29.MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA MN1
30.0ES MOINES, IOWA IA1
31.TOPEKA, KANSAS KS2
32.RENO, NEVADA NVl
33.SALEM, OREGON OR2
34.DALLAS, TEXAS .. TX2
A-3
-------
LAND USE COOES
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
URBAN COMMERCIAL
URBAN COMMERCIAL
URBAN COMMERCIAL
URBAN INDUSTRIAL
URBAN INDUSTRIAL
URBAN INDUSTRIAL
K.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
1.5 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
(2.5 TO B DUELLING UNITS/ACRE)
(>8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
(CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)
(LINEAR STRIP DEVELOPMENT)
(SHOPPING CENTER)
(LIGHT)
(MODERATE)
(HEAVY)
URBAN PARKLAND OR OPEN SPACE
URBAN INSTITUTIONAL
URBAN UNDER CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
RANGELANO
FOREST
WATER,
WATER,
STREAMS
LAKES
AND CANALS
HA I Cl\ , UAKC3
WATER, RESERVOIRS
WATER, BAYS AND ESTUARIES
WATER, OCEANS
WETLANDS
BARREN
1110
1120
1130
1100
1201
1202
1203
1301
1302
1303
1400
1401
1500
2000
3000
4000
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
6000
7000
}
}
1200
1300
1400
A-4
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FIXED-SITE DATA FOR FASTTRACK FILE
PROJECT
CODE
NH 1
MA 1
DC 1
NC 1
IL 1
IL 2
MI 1
NAME
Durham
Lake Q.
WASH COG
Win. Sim.
Champaign
6. Ellyn
Lansing
CATCHMENT
CODE
1 PKG
PI
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
001
002
003
004
006
007
008
009
010
on
103
106
107
110
NC1013
NC1023
B01
B02
B03
804
805
001
001
002
ORO
NAME
Parking Lot
Jordon P
Rte 9
Locust Ave.
Guua St.
Convent
Tilly Br.
St.W.O.
Ouf
Wen R.P.
F.R. Rd Se.
Stdw DP
Lake DP
Danrge I.T.
Rocky CCPP
Bulk Mail
Burke V.
Westly RP.
Sted. DP
Lake DP
Bulk Mail
C.B.D.
Ardmore
Matt is N
Mattis S.
J & D
John St. S.
John N.
Lake Ellyn
B.S.D.
B.S.D.
B.S.O.
AREA
AC
.9
110
338
154
601
100
1690
8.46
11.84
47.9
18.8
34.4
97.8
1.96
4.2
20.1
4.5
40.95
27.4
77.7
19
23
324
16.66
27.6
1.38
39.2
54
534
452.6
63
127.6
LANDUSE DISTRIBUTION (X OF TOTAL AREA)
1100
—
78
47
85
66
8
20
100
100
84
88
66
54
100
.
.
82
92
78
54
54
0
84
43
90
100
90
100
83
48
.
46
1200
100
16
24
1
2
63
7
_
.
.
.
-
.
-
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
100
2
57
10
-
-
-
5
5
.
14
1300
.
4
11
8
1
0
2
_
_
.
.
.
_
.
.
_
.
.
.
-
.
0
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
19
100
-
1400
2
18
5
31
29
58
_
.
16
12
34
46
-
100
100
18
8
22
46
46
0
12
.
_
-
10
.
12
28 .
.
40
Other
.
.
_
_
_
12 Wdland
_
.
_
_
_
_
.
_
..
_
_
_
.
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
.
_
_
-
POP/DEN
PER/ AC
0
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
3.0
21.74
21.7
18.37
18.38
7.87
4.97
0
4.31
CATCHMENT
SLOPE FT/MI
58.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
84.5
450
195
227
248
420
190
135
N.D.
85
195
248
420
N.O.
N.D.
N.O.
187
549
90.0
62
30.6
49
221
132
121
en
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FIXED-SITE DATA FOR FASTTRACK FILE (CONT'D)
PROJECT
CODE
MI 1
MI 3
WI 1
TX 1
CO 1
NAME
Lansing
(CONTINUED)
Ann Arbor
Milwaukee
Austin
Denver
CATCHMENT
CODE
OR I
GCO
GCI
UPI
UP2
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
001
002
003
001
002
003
004
NAME
B.S.D.
B.S.D.
B.S.D.
B.S.D.
B.S.O.
Pitt AA(1)S
Pitt AA(RB)N
Pitt AA(RB)0
Pitt S-AARO
SR Wetld INT.
SR Wetld OOT.
Swift Run ORD
Traver CKO
Traver CK RBI
Traver CK RBO
NCampus DOR
Allen OR OTR
St. Fair
Wood CTR.
N. Hastings
N. Burbank
Rustler
Post Off.
Lincbler Cr.
West Congress
Northwest
Rolling wd
Turkey Ck
50th & Den
19th & Den
Cherry Ck.
Lake Den
AREA
AC
112.7
67
30.3
163.9
74.9
2001
2871
4872
6363
1207
1227
3075
4402
2303
2327
1541
3800
29
44.9
32.84
62.6
12.44
12.08
36.1
33.04
377.71
60.21
1297
L 19900
.08329
15817
10440
LANDUSE DISTRIBUTION (X OF TOTAL AREA)
1100
38
30
67
55
48
31
55
45
48
53
53
50
15
8
8
46
58
26
31
100
100
100
-
97
93
99
100
4
43
42
42
55
1200
16
15
33
-
_
23
10
15
14
1
1
4
1
-
-
16
9
74
56
-
-
-
100
3
7
1
-
-
13
12
16
23
1300
_
.
.
10
22
7
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
-
2
-
13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
5
5
2
1400
46
55
.
35
40
24
21
23
25
15
15
33
35
.
1
38
31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
96
38
40
38
20
Other
_
. -
.
-
-
15
11
13
10
30
30
12
47
90
89
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
POP/DEN
PER/ AC
4.26
5.07
5.07
5.19
4.94
1.9
6.54
4.64
4.35
2.24
2.24
3.51
1.91
.07
.07
1.82
9.39
10.
.03
17.05
14.62
0
0
18.01
16.34
9.27
3.32
.05
4.85
4.29
6.22
4.83
CATCHMENT
SLOPE FT/MI
233
200
121
226
194
33.8
60.7
45.5
61.6
32.1
32.1
39.6
58.6
33.2
33.2
89.8
82.0
160.
160.
237.6
260
396.0
248.
261
183
316
01
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FIXED-SITE DATA FOR FASTTRACK FILE (CONT'D)
PROJECT
CODE
CO 1
MA 1
SD 1
NAME
Denver
(CONTINUED)
Bellevue
Rapid City
CATCHMENT
CODE
005
006
007
008
009
001
002
001
002
003
004
005
006
NAME
Weir Gulch
Sandrsn G
Hrvd G.
Bear Ck.
SoPlat Lit.
Lake Hills
Sorry Downs
RpdCk Abv CLake
RpdCk Abv WTP
RpdCk AtRpd Cty
RpdCk AtE MnSt
RpdCk BloHtnDh
MeideDnRpdCty
AREA
AC
4786
4715
2833
14603
N.D.
101.7
95.1
33574
20877
3872
3540
1606
1760
LANDUSE DISTRIBUTION (X OF TOTAL AREA)
1100
64
66
72
34
_
90
100
4
16
2
36
20
55
1200
10
13
16
9
_
_
_
.
_
13
14
26
7
1300
1
2
1
2
_
.
_
_
_
5
_
_
1400
25
19
11
10
10
_
5
20
15
35
14
Other
-
_
tonst. 45
_ •
_
96 Forest
79
60
35
19
24
POP/DEN
PER/ AC
7.64
9.57
7.72
2.91
N.D.
11.7
8.64
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
CATCHMENT
SLOPE FT/MI
240
168
143
444
N.D.
317
475
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.'
3=-
00
cr
(U
-------
APPENDIX B
SELECTED EVENT DATA
B-l
-------
FAST«TRACK OATA
PROJECT NCI
FASTTRACK LOAP P«TA
SITEIfi "2074550
16118 MONDAY! JANUARY a, 1982 52
EVENT
START
TIMF
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MULI"R»MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PEP LITER PER L'TFM PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
01/17/80
01/24/80
oa/08/80
04/24/80
04/24/80
05/io/eo
05/14/80
08/21/80
09/29/80
I0/2a/80
M/oo/80
M/17/80
12/09/80
oi/21/et
02/02/81
02/OT/8I
02/10/81
02/18/81
05/00/81
01/10/81
00/10/81
SITl MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT f!F VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENT* FOB THIS STATION
1. 01
1.11
0.2A
0.25
0.18
O.ST
0.25
00S!
0.78
1.21
0.8
0.71
0.24
0.19
O.S1
0.04
1.29
1.21
0,74
1.11
0.12
0.67881*9
0.980660?
9T
0
9
146
246
107
a
^
t
02
g
(
81
28
86
60
177
t IS. 178
0.9096254
€
25
la
182
11!
600
06
41
21«0
282
17
8!
18
110
212
70
77
5!
78
10?
110
229. 0«1
1. 61168!
B
0.11
0.25
0.55
0.21
1.95
0.70
0.20
0.0
0.21
0.22
0.17
0.17
0.70
o.«
0.06
0.1
0.2
0.26
0.10
0.90
0.0110559
0.7861550
^
0.05
0.111
0.258
0,275
1.687
0.211
0.181
0.118
0.119
0.111
0.150
0.146
0.722
0.751
l.Ot
0.75
0.274
0.279
0.68
1.070
0.4886075
1.110016
.
0.02
0.065 .
0.078
0.061
0.195
0.015
0.065
0.071
0.067
0.016
0.012
0.057
0.117
0.09
0.075
0,062
0.077
0.011
0.075
0.157
0.0701111*
0.586289*
FAST«TRACK DATA
PROJECT NCI
FASTTRACK LOAP f>ATA
3ITEIO "2385000
16118 MONOAV. JANUARY 4, 1982 11
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION CHO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS »ILLII-»»MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFH PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
01/17/80
00/20/80
01/29/80
05/10/80
06/29/80
07/09/80
07/10/80
07/12/80
07/12/80
08/21/80
08/22/80
09/20/80
09/24/80
10/20/80
10/28/80
11/00/80
11/15/80
11/17/80
11/20/80
12/04/80
01/21/81
01/00/81
01/10/81
00/10/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT Or VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOB THIS STATIC)*
1
0.28
0.18
0.56
0.14
1.25
0.60
0.0
1.05
0.42
0.75
0,11
0.88
1.16
0.11
0.70
0.12
1.01
0.84
0.2ft
0.14
0.78
2,11
0.21
0.8567582
1.050060
28
^
80
60 1028
581
566
155
188
051
564
782
500
ui
127
12
76
11
58
106
10
36
S8 06
i4 188
S22 64
-------
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT enI
FASTTRACK LOAn PATA
3ITEIO 06710225
1611* MONO". JANUARY 4, 1*82 54
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
05/15/80
05/17/80
OT/Ot/tO
05/03/81
OS/OJ/81
05/09/81
05/12/81
07/17/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.65
0.39
0.27
0.22
0.38
0.21
0.29
0.59
0.3784279
0.0426575
«2
59
170
300
340
86
68
78
151.2115
0.7671075
247
197
1070
256
988
205
135
243
417.2345
0.51
0.46
1
1.6
0.94
0.4
0.29
0.5
0.7218595
0.6145716
0.179
0.104
0.18
0.46
0.46
0.077
0.066
O.I
0.2079746
0.874869
0.018
0.014
0.05
0.08
0.1
0.02
0.016
0.025
0.04126308
0.8925941
FAST»TRACX DATA
PROJECT COI
FASTTRACK lOAr> TATA
SITEID "6710610
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1982 55
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
04/23/80 1,77
04/30/80 1.97
OS/08/80 0.2S
OS/15/80 0.59
05/16/80 0.08
05/17/80 0.91
SITE MEAN i.069648
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.9J92044
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION 6
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
71
71
66
52
4?
It
56.32011
0.3336561
TSS
"ILLI<'R»MS
PER L'TFR
063
562
190
256
?OA
85
309. 5'T*
0.767V9
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.53
0.15
0.085
0.27
0.21
0.14
0.2367029
0.6968631
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.04
0.025
0.15
0.022
0.017
0.008
0.04486426
1.276301
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.018
0,019
0.012
0.012
0.01
0,01
0.01357642
0.2887182
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT CHI
FASTTRACK LOAn P«TA
SITEIO "6711585
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 1912 5»
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
05/03/80
06/14/80
05/03/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOB THIS STATION
0.31
0.59
0.23
0.3905218
0.510731?
310
162
410
307.0165
0.504716
788
711
232
637.507"
0.7647471
1.2
1.28
2.6
1.739467
0.4495004
0.43
0.406
0.84
0.572228
0.4212895
0.09
0.042
0.13
0.09316719
0.627*217
B-3
-------
FAST-TRACK H«T»
PROJECT CO!
FASTTRACK LOAf> ''ATA
SITEIB A67H63S
16U8 MONDAY. JANUARY a, t»82 IT
EVENT
START
TIME
OS/08/80
OS/11/80
05/12/80
05/15/60
OS/lT/80
07/20/80
08/10/80
09/08/80
09/10/80
09/10/80
01/01/81
OS/01/81
OS/05/81
05/09/81
OS/16/81
05/17/81
OS/28/81
OS/28/81
07/02/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
0.24
0.07
0.0}
0.52
0.28
0.1}
0.05
0.70
0.08
0.15
0.17
0.22
0,08
0.58
0.10
0.78
0.00
0.22
0.12
0,2020100
1.170906
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
115
159
1 60
81
no
300
600
102
170
29}
310
280
0*0
100
200
79
200
160
300
230.9788
0.6181203
TSS
MILLI"R«*S
PER L1TFR
659
358
507
338
032
092
560
210
128
735
380
,
568
215
350
180
508
}92
000
027. 2W
0.50310X8
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.69
0.36
0.08
0.14
0.01
1,7
0.8
0.19
0.20
0,79
0.57
0,61
1.8
0.01
0.69
0.1
(1.66
0.51
0.51
0.6022148
O.SS021I
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.22
0.200
0.220
0.10ft
0.24
0.46
0.45
0.116
0.096
0.101
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.17
0.27
0.08
0.26
0.19
0.27
0.266499
11.5420350
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.5
0.01
0.041
0,028
0.01}
0.058
0,058
0.026
0.017
0.002
O.OS
0.16
0.09
0.011
0.06
0.020
0.085
0,055
0.056
0.06877S1I
0.89049
19
FAST-TRACK DATA
EVENT
START
TIME
08/10/80
OS/12/81
05/28/81
07/12/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
FASTTRACK LOAP TATA
PROJECT
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
0.69
0.28
0.18
0.62
0.0716985
0.7178299
16H8 MONDAY, JANUARY
C01 SITEIB "6711010
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
88
00
ISO
88
100.5621
0.6772068
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
90
10
508
148
219.2789
1.712*3'
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
O.o
0.23
0. 65
0.17
0.0221909
0.0453097
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.159
0.019
0.54
0.16
0.2709215
1.073016
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.014
0.008
0.04
0.016
0.02044296
0.7089*9
FASToTRACK DATA
PROJECT C01
FASTTRACK LOAP P»TA
SITEID 06720020
16H8 MONDAY. JANUARY o, l»82 S9
EVENT
START
TIME
05/07/80
07/01/80
07/02/80
08/15/80
08/25/80
08/26/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
0.81
0.19
0.38
0.37
0.20
0.30
0.3931602
0.5281268
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
60
17(1
255
100
116
104
136.75S7
0.5267523
TSS
MiLLitoR*Ms
PER L'TFR
158
200
613
123
lit
108
21T.O"2»
0.73S<>6«2
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.14
0.6}
0.96
0.71
0.61
0.52
0.6195516
0.1561129
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
O.Mt
A. 15
0.744
0.26
0.101
1). 19
0.2650751
0.7711025
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.01
0.018
0.040
0.015
0.016
0.02
0.02441411
0.5819626
B-4
-------
FAST-TRACK OATA
PROJECT COI
FASTTRACK LOAf f>»T«
SITEIO t9*236105042400
16119 MONDAY, J*NU«RY 4, 1«82 60
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
coo
MILLIGRAMS
PEP LITER
TSS
MILLI'-ROMS
PEP. HTFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
OT/OI/80
OT/ll/80
07/30/eo
oa/or/ao
08/10/80
08/10/60
08/25/80
09/08/80
09/08/80
09/10/80
SITE *EiN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENT* FOR THIS STATION
o.oa
O.IJ
0.06
0.07
0,04
1.99
0.34
0.05
0.72
0.08
0.4019668
2.I619S6
IS7
290
640
9S
470
68
96
440
81
110
212.1817
0.0994623
114
192
184
278
192
155
57
272
28
14
175.5*31
t.326'5!
0.3
0.43
1.3
1.15
0.71
0.22
0.27
0.77
0.19
0.15
0.567877
0.9011743
0.167
0.31
0.5
0.633
0.32
0.16
0.102
0.33
0.049
0.046
0.2890032
1.138593
0.021
0.03
0.075
0.055
0.04S
0.016
0.012
0.05
0.014
0.009
0. 03199(41
0.8417194
10
FAST-TRACK nATA
FASTTRACK LOA<> *ATA
PROJECT OC1 SITEID ''CISIUROS
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 19M 61
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PFR LITER
TSS
MlLLfR'MS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
11/04/80
11/09/80
11/25/80
11/29/80
12/09/80
12/23/80
02/20/81
02/21/81
02/22/81
02/22/81
03/04/81
03/16/81
03/30/81
03/31/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
,
,
0.63
0.31
0.2
0.13
0.33
0.06
0.15
1.3
0.4S
0.14
0.9R
0.14
0.4155559
1.149514
16
56
12
4
40
32
40
36
46
20
m
31
52
25
34.52076
0.8372978
13
154
8
1
21
6
39
23
17
18
22
102
II
36.2776
0.29
0.26
0.2
O.I
0.12
0.17
0,06
1,66
0.11
0,16
0.65
0.24
0.12
0.3043352
1.096979
14
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT OC1
FASTTRACK I0«f r>ATA
SITEIO nCIStUROS
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1982 62
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR Pfs LITER PER LITER PER LITER
09/17/80
09/25/80
11/04/80
11/09/80
11/16/80
11/27/80
12/09/80
02/02/81
02/06/81
02/10/81
02/19/81
02/20/61
02/22/81
03/04/81
03/16/61
03/30/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTJ FOH THIS STATION
0.31
•
B
0.9
0.21
0.2
0.84
0.31
0.85
0.49
0.2
1.14
0.59
0.28
0.38
0.5236732
0.6857102
41
36
20
60
60
19
46
56
56
55
52
54
54
t
as
72
49.1793
0.398802
12
6
12
152
9
3
22
44
24
43
20
23
19
6
10
37
27.31947
1.213»5°
0.14
0.27
1.38
0.36
0.24
O.J9
0.23
1.46
1.12
1.1
0.57
0.34
. 0.56
0.38
0.22
0.34
0.578409
0.7225627
16
B-5
-------
FAST.TRACK DATA
PROJECT OC1
FASTTRACK LOAP n»TA
PCI51UR06
US 18 MONDAY. JANUARY «, 1*92 »3
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILL
PER LITER PER
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
10/2S/80
It/17/80
11/24/80
11/2T/80
02/02/81
02/02/81
02/08/81
02/11/81
02/14/81
02/20/81
02/22/81
03/OS/81
SITE "EAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
,
1
I.I
0.3
0.85
0.82
0.26
0.9
O.TJ
o.or
o.sa
o.aa
0.7384666
1. 00302*
16
a?
12
10
96
71
62
60
as
50
.
51.15582
0. 8528895
08
61
52
IS
221
10
65
lit
49
31
72
25
67.0SATA
SITEIO PC1S1UR07
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, i««a »«
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLI»R«»S
PER L'TFB
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
07/22/80
07/23/80
07/29/80
08/01/80
08/03/80
08/00/80
08/18/80
08/19/80
09/10/80
10/02/80
10/25/80
10/28/80
11/04/80
11/24/80
11/27/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.32
0.11
0.1
0.67
0.21
0.66
0.42
0.17
0.11
0.51
2.25
0.00
0.28
0.78
0.57
0.08*3155
1.341025
36
47
61
•
74
140
33
132
t
10
22
28
60
12
59.11295
0.8101985
207
420
66
116
120
140
825
99
294
230
510
25
16
66
28
203.000"
1. 663*97
0.21
0.26
0.11
0.24
0.27
0.22
0.9«
0.14
0.5
e
0.7
0.08
0.29
0.23
0.12
0.3088217
0.7829968
15
LFILE (STORfT) DATA
LFTLE(STORET) LHAP DATA
PROJECT 220CCITY SITEIO
16U8 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1982 12
DC151UR09
EVENT
START
TIME
BOD
MILLIGRAMS
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
80116
TSS
MILLI»R«MS
PER L'TfH
530
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
665
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
1042
10/02/80
10/25/80
11/04/80
11/17/80
11/24/80
It/27/80
12/09/80
12/16/80
12/23/80
02/02/81
02/08/81
02/11/81
02/19/81
03/30/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT HF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FIR THIS STATION
t
3.249999
4
^
•
a
•
10
B
4.2
.
6.134019
0.636327t
92.59999
138
24
20
22.31007
36
60
68
a
48
07
61
52.01957
00
55.5930?
0.574268
1
21
0
0
6
3.5
9
11
72
50
13
13
10.53029
6
16.66C8"
1.176»21
. O.I 0.02
1.349949 0.12 0.02
0.35 0.
0.5599999 0.
0.4380716 0.
0.10 0.
0.09999996 0.
. o.
. o.
0.32 0.
0.3 0.
0.32 0.
0.08978614 0.
O.lt 0.
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0,065
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.3775807 0.1010313 0.02286345
0.9496051 0.04875641 0.32298T3
B-6
-------
FAST-TRACK nATA
PROJECT OC1
FASTTRACK LOAP
SITEIO
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY «, J98Z 65
EVENT
3T1PT
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLI^R'MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
to/18/80 . 62 as 0.13
10/25/80 . 26 19 0.6
10/21/80 . Sa 42 O.JI
11/17/80 1.25 22 18 0.48
11/24/80 1.5 8 68 0.44
12/09/80 0.2 60 33 .
02/02/81 1.21 60 145 1.55
02/08/81 0.29 72 49 0.93
02/19/81 0.55 80 37 0.65
02/20/81 0.37 40 34 0.17
02/22/81 0.87 56 21 0.17
03/16/81 0.22 18 44
SI7E MEAN 0.7579506 49.79799 45.96096 0.5715447
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 0.9244045 0.7881695 0.629A8M 0.7946728
NUMBER OF EVENT!) FOR THIS STATION 12
FAST»TRACK nATA
PROJECT OCI
FASTTRACK LOAP I»ATA
SITEIO I-C15IUP15
16118 MQNOAr. JANUARY 4, 1981 66
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS
CINCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLI<>R
-------
IFILE (STORfT) 04TI
LFILEfSTORET)
PROJECT 22ILCITV
0»T»
8ITEIO
16118 MO«IO«T, JANUARY «, 1962 IS
BASINI
EVENT
START
TIME
01/11/80
ot/u/eo
01/07/80
01/16/80
01/24/80
01/28/80
05/10/80
04/01/80
04/08/80
05/12/80
05/12/80
05/16/80
05/17/80
05/21/80
06/01/80
06/15/80
06/15/80
06/21/80
06/28/80
07/26/80
07/27/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR TMI3 STATION
BOO COO
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
. 140
287.1818
.
211.2115
477.7659
0
B
^
107.0111
^
219.1068
t
a
,
f
112.2691
216.1258
.
.
616.9002
128.2567
294.4682
0.5602676
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITFf) I
510
471.6771
aiS.8'74
181.8787
116.6*57
T0.14«OT
145.7061
40.88C2»
221. 7»1?
I02.172*
97.95041
80.77S91
221.275
194.1070
162.841''
95.6268'S
.
,
129.7*5»
116.9'21
e
«
159.177'
0.6111141
'M08PHORUS LEAR
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
•ER LITER PER LITER
1051
1.865788
4.166665
1.447552
0.809779
0.1724004
'
{. 097894
B
0.6646952
*
J
B
0.12A8717
0.7885989
^
0.6027911
0.418074
1.145414
0.89*7704
COPPt»
MILLI6RAMS
PER LITER
1042
0.0686842
0.1411111
0.05700216
0,01261464
0.01241249
t
0.01019871
B
0.05672818
.
0
0.01626562
0.01066791
,
.
0.0505901
0.01700577
0,04785276
0.8105187
21
LFILE (STORFT) 0«T»
LFILE(STORET) Ln«f B«T»
PROJECT 22!LCtTr SITEIB
16118 «ONO«T. J»»U»RY 4, 1982 1*
EVENT
ST»RT
TIME
01/11/80
01/16/80
01/07/80
01/16/80
01/24/80
01/28/80
04/01/80
05/12/80
05/12/80
05/17/80
05/17/80
05/21/80
05/10/80
06/01/80
06/15/80
06/15/80
06/21/80
06/28/80
SITE
SITE COEFFICIENT L'F ViRIiTION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR T«IS STtTION
BOO COD
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
140
112.1111
(
116.887
446.0501
(
B
216.6899
200.0104
171.2029
^
B
142.6512
B
118.6606
227.5171
•
222.7416
0.4547546
TSS '
MILLI"R«MS «
PER L'TFR p
510
155.7179
182.V71
208.5714
85,97*40
68.08>2«
112.4K6*
256.7460
70. 2941"
.
100.9«9«
79.1041'
129.0»6«
141.6511
99.0!»2K
,
.
71.5476'
152.670°
0,62!(>5ei
NOSPMOBU8
tLLICRAMS
ER LITER
»Et Ll*l»
t. 71^225
«Is79Z7l»
,
%
0.*56719I
J.1185815
0.5640911
0.7518844
0.4041906
5.rlll4594
»!9429»6«4
9.04420955
0.12179649
0.01880109
t
*
0.03379893
18
B-8
-------
DATA
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY *, 1982 IT
LFILE (STORFT) DATA
PROJECT 22ILCITY
SITEIn
HASINA
EVENT
START
TI"E
BOO
MILLIGRAMS
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
500
TSS
MILLIfc»"MS
PER HTFR
530
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER UITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
1002
01/16/80
03/16/80
os/12/ao
os/12/eo
05/17/90
OS/17/80
05/19/80
05/23/80
05/10/80
06/01/80
06/01/80
06/1S/80
06/21/80
06/28/80
OT/2T/80
SITE «E»N
SITE COEFFICIENT (IF vtRUTION
NUMBER OF EVENT* FOR THIS STATION
252. «16'
0.0«70
36.31613
60.10392
fO.8102
0.3192808
89.5739?
SI.07MO
5l.3««9«
a3.29-!57
S9.38»9?
a9.82l<0«
60,a937t
S1.53J7
40.85020
76.98«7*
0.636»aai
Q.I893661
,2606739
Q.208163
Q.137JJ11
0.2018036
0.3a3H632
0.009999947
.02(87791
0.01320915
0.01483731
0.01598058
0.3956SU
15
FIST.THICK n>Tt
FASTTRtCK
PROJECT IL1
16118 MONOtT. J»NU»BT «, 1982 »7
EVFNT
ST4RT
TIME
PRECIPITITION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LE*0 COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIU»»»S MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
03/16/80
Oa/03/80
06/15/80
06/23/80
06/28/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT (IF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.56
0,13
0.1
0.9
0.26
O.«32679g
1.182239
30
50
t
. 72
71
57.82062
0.3661807
167
120
119
•
1S7.3»9«
0.186fO*2
0.18
0.29
t
0.512
0.503
0.3858905
0.5332017
0.065
Q.ll
f
0.17
0.13
0.1217139
0.0220929
0.008
0.01
.
0.02
0.02
0.0109611
0.5012609
B-9
-------
LPILE (STORltT) DATA
LFILE(STORET) LPAP DATA
PROJECT 22ILCITY SITEID
16118 MONBAV, JANUARY 4| 1982 19
BASINS
EVENT
START
TIME
03/u/ao
03/16/80
01/28/80
01/28/80
01/10/80
01/10/80
04/01/80
00/05/80
00/06/80
01/08/80
OS/12/80
OS/12/80
OS/12/80
OS/12/80
05/16/80
OS/16/«0
OS/17/80
OS/1T/80
OS/10/80
OS/10/80
06/01/80
06/01/80
06/1S/80
06/IS/80
06/IS/80
06/1S/80
06/21/80
06/21/80
06/28/80
06/2A/80
07/26/80
07/27/80
SITE MFAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FIR THIS STATION
ROD
MILLIGRAMS
110
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
140
58.4125
58.4125
o
c
t
42.14572
42.10572
.
.
119.6711
119.671!
182.9102
182.9102
.
t
110.0102
110.0102
201,1527
201.1527
72.92587
72.92587
119.5901
119.5901
.
•
100.868!
0.7012707
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
510
78.1254*
78.12*4!
106.1140
106.1100
85.00007
85.00007
200. 7*96
200.7*96
115,718*
115.718*
iii.r»73
111 ,8*7*
70.2808
70.2808
258,9?8»
25«.9?*o
86,84*97
86.84*97
I6S.SOOJ
165,5003
116, 4*1^
117, 4»7?
117.4»7?
101. 5?!*
101. 5?1*
.
.
.
219.7*9*
82.66<>5
110.1101
0.!97'7«2
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
665
0.2590686
0.2590686
f
^
^
0.4022798
0.4022748
t
f
1.625831
t. 625831
0.8018U9
0.8018149
m
t -
o,57u|S69
0.57fl|569
1.551721
1.551721
'
t
.
e
B
0.5421657
0.5421657
1.195111
1.19511!
.
.
0.8909148
0.7066708
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
1051
0,1914925
0.. 1914925
*
0.1801088
Q. 1801088
B
0.5007062
0.5007062
0,4140929
0.4140929
4
0.2810106
0.2810106
0.2605287
0,. 2605287
0.1069285
0.10692*5
0.1701512
0.1701512
^
•
0.2690612
0.0009I9I
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
1042
0.0192807
0.019280?
|
0.02805741
0.028057(1
.
.
0.06555597
0,06555597
0.05617112
0.05617112
.
.
0.04141267
0.04141267
0.00702009
0.00702009
0.05955511
0.05955511
0.09888159
0.09888159
,
•
0.05281804
0.5252925
12
FAST-TRACK rtATl
PROJECT IL2
FASTTRACK LHAr r«TA
3ITEIB C
16H8 MONDAY, JANUARY o, 1982 68
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLI»I)«MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
00/01/80
05/17/80
05/28/80
07/09/80
07/20/80
08/00/80
08/19/80
09/22/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.25
0.17
0.91
0.2!
1. 11
0,19
0.68
0.52
0.599663
0.6*1986]
170
.
280
190
64
66
5!
,
143.6384
0.7942812
142
171
861
in
92
81
128
292.7To«
0.044
0.027
0.759
0.187
0.228
0.29
0.228
0.1981965
0.4481118
0.598
2.41
0.768
0.261
0..16
5.107
0.7990195
t.655541
0,052
0.052
0.108
0.049
0.011
0.028
0.026
0.04984587
0.5281887
B-10
-------
FAST-TRACK n>TI
PROJECT MA|
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
SIHIO P|
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 1, 1962 69
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
06/29/80
07/08/80
OT/1T/80
OT/29/80
08/02/80
08/01/80
09/10/80
09/18/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
2.U
o.ai
0.38
t.ei
o.t
0.11
0.12
0.76
0.8340111
1. 600796
ISO
an
85
62
60
26
too
96
81.20623
0.5736233
32
57
122
ft
26
02
39
320
85.69»1«
1.516?"
0.2
0.23
1.58
0.56
0,15
0.52
0.15
0.08
0.1896191
0.9716267
0.117
0.217
0.29
0.12
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.2
0.1699015
0.3103169
0.071
0.061
0.079
0.05
0.056
0.079
O.I
0.09
0.07353801
0.2119718
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT Mil
F»STTR»CK LOAP PATA
SITE1B *2
16H8 MONDAY. JANUARY 1, t9«2 70
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
OT/IT/80
07/29/80
08/02/80
08/03/80
08/ll/BO
09/10/80
09/18/80
11/28/80
12/03/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.38
1.81
0.1
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.76
1.51
0.16
0.6032991
1.715011
101
t
7»
33
67
ITS
150
.
«
106.6815
0.675132!
600
118
80
231
18
110
790
•
•
351. i»3*
2. 052«o;>
1.28
f
0.57
0.5
0.26
1.68
1.59
1.056937
0.8718956
0.33
0.1
0.07
0.35
0.15
0.69
0..7T
0.1391921
1.02221
0.11
0.12
0.01
0.11
0,08
0.13
0.17
0.1117818
0.0899871
FAST.THICK nATA
PROJECT MAI
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
SITEIO P3
I6HB MONDAY. JANUARY i, 1982 71
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PFR LITER PER L1TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
07/17/80 0.38 95 735 1,6 0.35 0,1
08/02/80 0.1 61 69 0.18 A.19 0.11
08/11/80 0.11 66 17 0.38 0.16 0.085
09/10/80 0.12 109 78 1.1 0.13 0.1
09/18/80 0.76 201 HI 2.3 0.63 0.16
09/26/80 0.31 81 53 1.1 0..15 0.086
11/28/80 1.51 ....'.
SITE MEAN 0.5081091 103.8298 257.0T7«i 1.227995 0.2711789 0.1071279
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.123653 0.1186623 1,706011 0.7850122 0.6720729 0.2319082
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION 7
B-ll
-------
FUST.THICK n*T»
PROJECT Mil
FASTTRACK LOAn f>ATA
SITEIO ft
16116 MONDAY. JANUARY a, 1482 71
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L1TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEtO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
06/16/80
06/24/80
OT/1T/80
08/02/80
08/01/80
08/11/80
04/10/80
04/18/80
SITE «E»N
SITE COEFFICIENT Of VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.2
2.10
0.38
0.1
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.76
0,0743688
1.504644
162
42
100
47
.
05
62
100
84.50644
0.4484723
168
07
320
SB
106
12
10
500
t45,l*3«
2.310?T«
0.56
0.66
1.61
0.2
•
0.1
0.31
0.8
0.671104
1.170516
•
0.3
0.42
Q.040
.
0.020
0. US
0
0.2381244
t. 540778
.
0.08
0.17
0.064
•
0.024
0.048
0.04
0.07306094
0.7074341
FAST.TRACK OATA
EVENT
START
TIME
FASTTRACK LOAP fATA
PROJECT
PRECIPITATION
(INCMES)
MAI
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
SITEID T5
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
16U8 MONDAY, JANUARY o, 1482 73
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER
06/20/80
06/24/80
07/08/80
07/17/80
07/24/80
08/02/80
08/03/80
OD/li/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.20
2.10
0.41
0.38
1.81
0.1
0.13
0.11
0.7046204
1.788182
06
148
54
08
77
115
25
05
71.74562
0.6186321
14
21
74
122
02
17
56
0
53.1T>6?
l.080'6t
0.07
0.13
0.25
1.41
0.56
0.03
0.020
0.026
0.368114
3.001112
;
0.20
0.20
0.38
0.23
0.06
0.072
0.05T
0.1464674
0.4382051
.
0.15
0,06
0.15
0.13
0.1
0,058
0.075
0,1008203
0.0322257
FAST-TRACK nATA
PROJECT MAI
FASTTRACK LOAr> PATA
SITEID "6
16MB MONDAY. JANUARY o, 1482 7*
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFH PER LITER
LEAR COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER
04/10/80 0.12 118 33 0.78 0.33 0.08
04/18/60 0.76 44 244 0.75 0.34 0.05
11/28/80 1.54 22 6 0.052 ,
12/03/80 0.16 15 3 I).036 . 0.017
12/10/80 0.04 15 1 0.024 . 0.004
SITE MEAN 0.723747? 60.17362 U2.5*2" 0,5172345 0.3612547 0.05531311
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 2.768308 1.360481 10.3674? . 4.144468 0.1185383 2.205485
NUMBER OF EVENTS FDR THIS STATION 5
B-12
-------
FAST-TRACK nATA
PROJECT MI J
FASTTRACK 101* "ATA
3ITEIO PITAASETBNNINLT
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY a, 1982
EVENT
START
TIME
06/30/79
10/22/79
08/10/80
08/10/80
04/09/80
09/09/80
09/17/80
09/17/80
10/24/80
10/20/80
02/17/81
SITE ME/IN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF V»HI«T!ON
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOB THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
2.25
0.25
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.67
0.67
0.45
0.45
•
0.7297964
0.6727471
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
,
42
4?
t
t
13
33
51
51
42
42.10252
0.1795844
TSS
MILLlbR'M9
PER LITFR
136
70
48
47
65
65
40
44
41
at
90
62.7252*
0.39554H7
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.26
0.5
0.16
0,16
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.16
0.33
0.33
0.23
0.2428575
0.3985752
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.11
0.07
0.041
Q.OO
f
0.04
0.033
0.02
0,047
0.05
.'
0.05054435 I
0.5018807 I
EOPPER
MILLIGRAMS
»ER LITER
1.01
).02
.01594706
.521092
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT "13
FASTTRACK LOA* r>4TA
SITEIO PITAARETBNSINLT
16118 "ONOAY. JANUARY 4, 19(2 76
EVENT
START
TIME
06/30/79
10/22/79
OB/10/90
08/10/60
09/09/80
09/09/80
09/17/80
09/17/80
10/24/ftO
10/24/80
02/17/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT nF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FnR THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION COO
CINCHES) MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
2.25
0.25
o.a
O.a
0,9
0.9
0.67
0.67
0.45
0.45
•
0.7297964
0.6727471
m
2*
2B
12
12
27
27
26
26
51
30.77205
0.2153033
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
52
22
40
ao
47
47
41
41
68
68
102
S1.98?6»
0,a08"0<»2
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.13
0.04
0.07
0.07
1.13
O.II
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.32
0.1247865
0.5541494
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITE*
0.01 0.005
0.003 0.001
0.001
0.01
0.009
0.09
0.006
0.005
0.011
q.oi
.
0.01488687 0.004272911
1.634308 1.62835
11
FAST-TRACK nATA
PROJECT- Ml 3
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
3ITEID »» METLANOS INT
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 1982 77
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIORAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L»TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
08/20/80
08/20/80
02/17/81
04/11/81
04/13/81
04/22/81
05/29/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT (IF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTj FOR THIS STATION
1.75
1.75
B
1.1
0,89
0.95
0.59
1.191277
0.4400687
37
^
42
28
26
13
26
32.09648
0.2011566
69
69
84
82
139
55
17
78.6570*
0.723'«5?7
0,17
0.17
f
0.14
0.18
0.1
0.05
0.1401844
0.5266365
0.012
0.02
a
0.01
0.012
0.006
•
0.01224952
0.4534759
B-13
-------
FAST-TRACK f»T>
PROJECT Mil
r«STTR«CK LOAP PATA
SITEID TR»v CK »f BN I
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY «, 19M TS
EVENT
START
TIMt
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
01/11/81
01/11/81
01/22/81
05/09/81
Ok/13/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
1.1
1
0.95
1.1
I.S
1.191721
0.2057117
26
18
21
28
29
21.41058
0.191692
14
12
19
9
22
11.15*79
0.706?119
0,08
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.1
0.090682H
0.2616188
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001118119
0.1917521
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT Mil
FASTTRACK LOAP "ATA
SITEIO 'O?
16H8 MONDAY. JANUARY i, I«M 7*
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PEP LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER
05/10/80
06/01/80
06/05/80
07/05/80
07/16/80
08/02/80
08/10/80
10/21/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.28
0.01
0.5
0.92
0.96
0.19
0.51
0.11
0.5591517
0.1101557
92
61
61
92
70
66
55
.
72.02281
0.196101
170
12
76
210
91
16
82
11
98.51«2«
0.891'«116
0.75 (
0.21 (
0.11 (
1.1
0.67
0.21
0.56
0.12
0,5171021 (
0.6119997 1
.25
.027
.11
.1705958 I
.596619 (
1.071
1.021
.05519105
.8918196
FAST-TRACK [>ATA
PROJECT MM
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
SITEIO CO*
16H8 MONDAY. JANUARY i, 1982 80
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFB
01/01/80
01/21/80
05/10/80
06/01/80
06/05/80
07/05/80
07/16/80
08/02/80
08/10/80
09/09/80
09/22/80
10/11/80
10/16/80
10/17/80
10/21/80
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.61
0.28
0.28
0.11
0.61
0.92
0.96
0.19
0.51
0.22
0.19
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.0933909
0.1196616
7T
81
150
16
89
09
17
61
19
.
0
t
6
51
49
70.11519
0.8971175
110
16
220
19
51
100
97
29
60
70
6
71
9
12
II
70.77?1»
PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
0.19 0.21 0
0.11 0.056 0
0.17 0.11 0
0,1 0.02 0
0,1 n.ii o
0,27
0.01
0.1?
0.15
0.26
0.12
0.2
0.08
(
0.11 0.065 0
0.25 0.016 0
0.1918971 0.1501599 0
1.051611 1
.156115 0
.016
.015
.01
.008
.012
.016
.051
.008
.01997651
.7196151
IS
B-14
-------
F»ST-TR»CK n«T«
PROJECT Mil
F»STTR»C«
SITEIO
CO"
16118 MQNO»Y. JANUARY a, 198Z SI
EVENT
ST»RT
TIME
PRECIPIT4TION COD TJS PHOSPHORUS LE«0 COPPER
(INCHES) MU.UGRIMS MILLI»R«MS MILLIGRtHS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
00/03/80
Ok/01/80
07/16/80
OS/02/80
08/10/80
09/22/80
10/U/80
10/17/80
10/21/80
SITE MEtN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF V4HMTIOM
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS ST»TION
0.63
0.03
0.96
0.39
0.53
O.a9
o.oo
0.05
0.03
0.5350051
0.28S7929
56
02
od
07
40
75
t
60
»7
S«. 03805
0.2308596
330
110
230
03
210
68
ISO
130
60
153. S'S*
0.763»0
-------
FAST-TRACK OATA
PROJECT 301
FA9TTRACK LOAP PATA
3ITEIO 06«16300
16119 MONO**. JANUARY 4, 1*82 84
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PEP LITER
TSS
"ILLItaR«MS
P£» L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
06/10/80
07/12/60
07/20/80
07/2S/80
08/20/80
10/15/60
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENT!! FDR THIS STATION
301
303
127
127
165
92
196.4154
0.5605369
10700
6120
1760
645
3700
1120
4578. »2S
1.450*4?
6.42
2.86
1.16
0.49
l.»3
0.72
2.434644
1.196099
2
0.46
0.21
0.23
0.28
0.13
0.5415241
1.224
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT TX1
FASTTRACK LOAf* "ATA
SITEIB "APT LANE
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1982 90
EVENT
START
TI«E
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MULIbR»MS
PER L»TFH
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
02/04/81
02/10/81
03/03/81
03/07/81
03/07/81
03/12/81
03/12/81
03/29/81
04/17/81
05/02/81
OS/16/81
05/23/81
05/23/81
06/01/81
06/02/81
06/03/81
0*/30/al
09/14/81
09/15/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.28
0.33
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.2
0.47
0.4
fl.94
.
0.04
0,25
0.36
0.19
*
0.3674517
0.7777799
16
137
34
34
53
96
210
29
63
82
»
34
97
4*
B
B
.
73.167J8
0.8116161
42
201
43
43
17
•
316
334
21
153
272
•
84
183
34
9
228
42
14S.S«6«
1.6SO?9?
^
0.24
0,192
0.19
0.112
0.882
0.995
0.253
0.31
0.445
0.145
0.327
0.168
0.09
0.35
0.25
0.3283534
0.7552314
19
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT TX1
FASTTRACK LOAr DATA
SITE10 "OILINGMOOD
16118 "ONOAT. JANUARY 4, 1982 9|
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MH.LIUR>MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L1TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
04/17/91
05/16/81
05/23/81
06/01/81
06/02/81
06/05/81
06/25/81
07/05/81
08/07/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENT* FOR THIS STATION
0.49
1.25
1.1
0.19
0.46
0.35
1.45
1.95
0.45
0.8995625
0.90«1327
102
S3
133
59
36
39
104
57
145
85.999B2
0.5439013
a
,
.
19T
371
37
165
180
131
19810B9?
0.88924C7
>
t
,
0.267
0.168
0.144
0.245
0.34
0.168
0.2239391
0.3426537
B-16
-------
FAST.TBAC" nATA
PROJECT NA1
FASTTRACK LOAr r»T»
SITEID ?0»»ELL0566
16116 MONDAY. JANUARY a, 1962 92
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD T3J PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITIR
00/10/80
00/18/80
OS/21/60
05/20/80
05/27/80
06/01/60
06/OS/60
06/16/60
06/20/60
06/25/80
07/11/80
07/1U/80
OS/26/80
06/27/60
09/01/60
04/06/80
04/12/80
04/11/80
04/20/80
04/29/80
04/29/60
10/08/80
10/12/80
10/21/80
10/11/60
11/01/80
11/01/80
11/08/60
11/10/80
11/19/80
11/20/80
11/25/80
11/27/60
11/28/60
12/02/80
12/OJ/60
12/00/80
12/ta/eo
12/20/60
12/21/80
12/20/60
12/20/60
12/26/60
12/29/80
01/17/81
01/23/81
01/26/81
01/28/81
0.15
I.I!
0.14
0.64
0.04
0.14
0.18
0.2
0.72
0.08
0.28
0.10
0.00
O.OJ
0.57
0.21
0.12
0.16
0.25
0.14
0.04
0.11
0.16
0.17
0.70
0.56
0.51
0.0|
0.15
0.19
1.55
0.22
0.7
0.63
0.69
0.12
0,00
0.17
0.28
0.00
0.26
0.07
0.32
0.72
0.15
0.08
0.16
0.6
67
13
08
16
31
76
26
110
01
57
09
03
85
75
30
07
3?
J4
80
30
22
78
22
80
01
63
35
36
83
38
32
22
26
23
30
28
27
77
36
33
OS
55
23
22
05
57
20
13
87
61
114
66
92
222
59
259
95
110
85
137
80
140
SO
60
20
156
149
2680
102
168
27
138
106
188
85
68
125
042
42
72
83
66
78
66
62
152
104
113
120
91
68
60
102
161
81
69
0.27
0.1A7
0.368
0.15
0.116
0.023
0.1
0.56
0.275
0.256
0.257
0.172
0.57
3.61
0.076
0.271
0.149
0.1
0.3*3
0.306
0.39
0.256
0.202
0.375
0.212
0.303
0.155
0.135
0.17
0.92
0.29}
0.52
0.151
0.126
0.201
0.049
0.123
0.307
0.236
0.211
0.221
0.101
0.120
0.103
0.51
0.283
0.272
0.087
0.53
O.I
0.16
0.15
0.12
0.06
0.12
1.02
0.14
0.16
0.21
0.2
8.14
0.53
0.1
0.26
0.1
0.1
0.185
0.78
0.24
0.26
0.1
0.29
0.16
0.11
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.1
0.15
fl.l
O.I
(1.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1'
0.1
FA3T»TRACK DATA
PROJECT HA1
FASTTRACK LDAn r>»TA
SITFID 7006ELLOS86
16U8 MONDAY. JANUARY a, i»82 41
EVENT
START
TIME
02/11/61
02/11/61
02/11/61
02/10/61
02/17/81
02/18/81
02/14/61
03/20/81
03/24/61
00/05/81
00/06/81
00/07/61
00/10/61
00/12/61
00/20/61
00/22/61
00/23/61
00/27/61
05/07/61
05/11/81
05/10/61
05/10/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
I
0.20
0.22
0.78
0.16
0.55
0.03
0.21
o.la
0.18
0.30
0.26
0.36
0.12
0.19
0.2S
0.07
0.53
0.21
0.36
0.18
0.08
0.3453"!
1.006670
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
01
27
71
66
11
58
19
32
39
02
02
27
32
29
50
16
36
55
03
67
62
70
00.1662
0.0960426
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
90
66
too
242
70
2625
105
71
66
67
115
02
117
157
78
76
01
80
121
219
161
190
|OS,l»9t
0.872'1"1
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.218
0.130
0.171
0.069
0.146
0.359
0.136
0.163
0.115
0.27S
0.088
0.105
0.226
0.51
0.21
0.16
0.117
0.254
0.261
0.256
0.221
0.366
0.2806S22
0.6660403
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITE*
0.117
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 •
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5
0.2060086
0.6505185
70
B-17
-------
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT *AI
FASTTR1CK
SITEIO
BATA
?0»8ELL0588
16111 MONDAY, JANUARY «, 1962 «l
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LE»0 COMER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS M1LLI"I>»MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LUFR PER LITER «R LITER PER LITER
03/12/80
01/26/60
00/05/80
oa/os/eo
04/09/80
00/10/80
00/18/80
07/11/80
07/10/80
08/26/80
08/27/80
08/28/60
04/01/80
09/06/80
04/12/80
09/11/60
09/19/60
09/20/80
09/29/80
10/08/80
10/20/80
10/11/60
11/01/60
11/03/80
11/06/80
11/06/60
11/U/80
11/19/80
11/20/80
11/35/80
11/27/80
11/28/60
12/02/80
12/01/80
12/10/80
12/20/80
12/20/60
12/20/80
12/25/80
12/26/80
12/29/60
01/17/81
01/28/81
02/11/61
02/11/81
02/11/81
02/17/61
02/18/81
0.1]
0.57
0.2
0.18
1.19
0.22
0.15
0.08
0.16
0.17
0.5
0.27
O.OR
0.10
0.09
0,16
0.01
0.19
0.16
0.70
0.29
0.6
1.18
0.01
0.12
0.21
1.66
0.15
0.71
0.86
0.97
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.26
0.51
1.28
0.14
1.10
0.22
0.61
0.91
0.2
0.1
0.16
0.71
21
79
50
18
00
69
IT
126
102
15
29
07
JO
0!
56
76
02
19
10?
51
06
12
51
15
50
Ot
10
11
29
50
02
26
69
58
62
20
27
20
19
07
20
52
10
60
0]
10
70
210
112
108
40
196
41
142
127
106
266
144
56
90
72
90
62
166
115
174
140
57
100
95
91
64
250
71
60
29
49
51
68
71
100
95
98
60
76
81
41
125
66
80
62
104
90
154
0.11
0.11
0.25
0,26 .
0.19
0.54
0.097
0.29
0.149
0.95
LIT
0.091
0.121
0.105
0.11
0.117
0.207
0.157
0.177
0.16
0.206
0.109
0.18
0.155
0.081
0.142
0.227
0,165
0.15
0,261
0.112
0.101
0.17
0.061
0.219
0.178
0.161
0.084
0.114
0.21
0.092
0.17
0.005
0.161
0.21!
0.227
0.07
0.254
O.I
0.15
0.27
0.2
0.2
0.11
0.1
0.21
0.1
0.51
0.49
0.2
0.1
0.22
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.24
0.116
0.25
0.15
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
A.
0.2
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0.2
O.I
0.2
FAST-TRACK DATA
PBOJECT
FA8TTRACK LOAr PATA
Kit SITEIO ?0*BELL0588
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY 4. 1962 95
EVENT
START
TIME
02/19/81
01/24/81
01/28/81
04/02/81
04/05/81
04/06/81
04/07/81
04/10/81
04/12/81
04/22/61
04/27/81
05/01/81
05/07/81
05/07/81
05/10/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VACATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
0.02
0.26
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.1
0.1!
0.08
0.07
0.21
0.16
0.11
0.29
0.0156407
1.001046
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PFB LITER
12
72
11
100
OS
05
21
27
06
06
11
95
82
61
00
06.87826
0.5212600
TSS
MILL1"R«MS
PER L1TFB
116
76
62
191
56
147
04
67
117
128
72
104
116
166
87
100.9011
0.07110"
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.046
0.22
0,122
0.505
0.172
0.545
0.068
0.2
0.255
0.145
0.186
0.291
0.108
0.1S7
0.202
0.2196841
0.879827!
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
O.I
0.2
0.1
O.I
0.2
O.I-
0.2
O.I
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1544166
0.4612612
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
>ER LITER
B-18
-------
FAST-TRACK o»T4
PROJECT Wit
FASTTRACK LOAP "ATA
SITEIO
1*118 MONf)A», JANUARY 4.
f6
EVENT
ST»BT
TI«E
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L»TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
05/28/80
09/09/80
09/22/80
09/22/80
OS/21/81
05/29/81
06/08/81
06/11/81
06/20/81
08/26/81
08/29/81
SITE MEIN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.86
1.2a
0.58
0.24
O.OS
0.27
0.27
O.S8
0.18
.
O.S360208
1.2J5IT
9
160
7!
46
ISO
ISO
130
110
92
120
120
119.1616
0.4044821
194
72
82
92
479
272
144
SI
157
202
70
166. 8CS"
0.762*SM
0.11
0.1
0,14
0.16
0.72
0.18
0.64
0.16
0.97
0.29
0.14
0.1728127
0.8917225
0.4
0.15
0.15
0.2
0.9S
0.46
0.6
O.I
O.S
0.4
0.2
0.1857911
0.7966797
FAST.TRACK DATA
PROJECT Mil
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
STTEID «l*63l
16118 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 1982 9T
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS
CINCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLI>>R'MS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LUFR PER LITER
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER
01/15/80
04/01/80
04/04/80
04/06/110
04/09/80
OS/11/80
05/18/80
05/28/80
06/01/80
06/02/80
06/05/80
06/06/80
06/07/80
06/19/80
07/05/80
07/09/80
07/15/80
07/16/80
07/25/80
08/02/80
08/02/80
08/04/80
08/07/80
08/07/80
08/11/80
08/16/80
02/22/81
04/08/81
04/13/81
04/23/81
05/29/81
06/08/81
06/13/81
06/15/81
06/20/81
07/12/81
07/17/81
07/20/81
08/14/81
08/15/81
08/26/81
08/29/81
08/31/81
09/07/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
•
m
f
t
B
0.21
0.3
t
t
B
t
t
0.21
0,71
0.72
0.28
0.55
0.18
0.19
0.17
1.20
0,">7
0.17
0.05
0.73
0.05
1.08
1.42
f
0.27
0.3
0.59
0.11
0.16
0.71
0.18
0.5617392
1,297878
81
81
150
71
140
45
250
55
230
78
92
78
80
76
73
120
92
110
74
11(1
140
55
76
43
64
130
170
63
63
63
46
180
180
76
82
82
170
170
92
92
83
83
61
27
99.50628
0.4954272
98
132
44
210
38
472
90
512
38
161
270
438
348
158
438
206
188
14|
64
244
72
246
180
58
68
45
112
280
34?
82
186
336
56
21
390
290
143
442
49
283
120
236
61
4U
JO?, 001"
1.020?2«
0.28
0,28
0.12
0.1
0.09.
0.8
0.15
0.79
0.16
0.22
0.17
0,17
0.41
0.26
0.44
0.27
0,29
0.2
0.17
0.19
. 0.14
0.29
0.2
0,12
0.14
0.16
0.26
0.18
0.43
0.18
0.38
0.49
0.15
0.14
0.6
O.SI
0.25
0.34
0.14
0.29
0.18
0.24
0.12
0.1
0.2913495
0.5767536
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.16
2
0.35
2.4
0.19
0.49
0.67
1.2
1.5
0.47
0.95
0.46
0.61
0.52
0.22
0.58
0.215
1.6
0.45
0.2
0.1
0.33
0.3
O.SI
1
0.3
0.16
0.9
0.2
O.I
1.2
0.9
0.35
0.6
n.2
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.05
0.6064536
0.9409928
B-19
-------
FAST-TRACK nATA
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
PROJECT »tl
16118 MONDAY, JANUARY «, 1962 *•
EVENT
STAPT
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIONS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
PAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT KII
FASTTRACK LOAP PATA
StTEIO
I6iie HONDAV. JANUARY «, 198Z ««
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MlLLIbR«MS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PF.R LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
06/02/80 . ?6 02 0.1S 0.11
06/06/80 0.67 55 44 0.24 0.14
06/07/80 0.6 16 27 0.28 0.025
06/28/80 0.44 4t 21 0.14 0.08S
09/12/80 0.95 18 18 0.1* O.OS
09/16/80 O.S5 ?S 28 0.15 0.1
09/20/80 0.7S 22 27 0.24 O.OS
09/25/80 0.15 27 60 0.22 0.05
05/10/81 0.67 16 49 0.27 0.05
05/24/81 0.05 55 96 0.34 0.1
05/29/81 0.08 55 140 0.48 0.24
06/08/81 0.1J 160 394 0.88 0.5
06/13/81 0.53 160 28 0,15 0.05
06/15/81 . 27 72 0.23 0.1
06/20/81 0.26 32 32 0.13 0.095
SITE MEAN 0.5460049 48.96661 66.3664 0.270388 0.1133655
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 1.264S19 0.7861794 0.974*7^6 0.5399149 0.843580!
NUMBER OF EVENT* FOR THIS STATION 15
B-20
-------
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT Mil
F»STTR»CK LOAH PATA
SITEIO "H611
161 IS MONDAY. JANUARY «, I9SZ 100
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
06/06/80
06/07/80
06/28/80
or/os/so
07/09/80
07/16/80
08/02/80
08/04/80
08/07/80
08/07/80
08/11/80
09/16/80
09/20/80
09/25/80
10/05/80
11/29/80
12/06/80
12/08/80
02/22/81
00/00/61
04/08/81
00/10/81
04/11/81
04/21/81
05/10/81
06/08/81
06/08/81
06/11/81
06/22/81
07/12/81
07/12/81
OT/U/81
07/18/81
07/20/81
07/25/81
OR/07/81
08/10/01
08/15/81
08/28/81
08/29/81
08/31/81
09/07/81
SITE ME»N
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.71
0.65
0.48
0.94
•
•
0.25
•
1.2
0.07
0.85
0.81
0.67
0.13
t
.
0.59
0.27
0.76
0.74
0.74
t.2
0.52
•
0.59
0.11
0.14
0.5
0.41
O.J8
0.11
0.60)5121
0.882(1422
32
58
52 .
19
39
39
28
28
56
26
26
26
24
14
40
40
34
55
20
20
67
67
67
17
17
24
56
56
54
54
70
70
2
2
11
11
11
31
33
13
13
33
42.17976
0.8528U13
216
106
31
111
41
75
144
144
6
8
57
59
76
79
60
2
126
19
SI
116
106
118
65
56
11
61
172
32
58
158
94
110
311
86
57
270
119
158
14
57
41
124
114.6«0?
1.4467)7
0.12
0.34
0.17
0.25
0.16.
0.17
0,34
0.31
0.16
0.16
0.27
0,2
0.26
0.22
0.29
0,12
0.74
0,11
0.1
0.44
0.19
0.3
0.16
0.16
0.14
0.27
0.58
0.21
0.18
0.32
0.22
0.2
0.18
0.2
0.17
0.18
0.26
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.16
0.21
0.2491974
0.4461515
0.1!
0.06
0.1
0.09
o.oa
0,06
0.22
0.17 f
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.125
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.22
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
O.t
0.26
0.1
0.12
0.25
0.1
0.05
0.22
0.05
O.I
0.1
0.2
O.I
0.05
1.1
0.05
0.05
0.1126706
0.6908119
42
FAST»TRACK DATA
PROJECT nil
FASTTRACK LOAO TATA
SITEIO 417614
I6H8 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 1982 101
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO T3S PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER HTFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
06/05/80
06/28/80
09/16/80
09/20/80
09/22/80
09/22/80
09/25/80
10/01/80
05/10/81
05/21/81
05/29/81
05/29/81
06/08/81
06/15/81
06/20/81
08/26/81
08/27/81
08/29/81
08/11/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
t
^
0.55
0.75
0.18
0.77
0.08
0.56
0.12
0.14
0.18
0.1
0.2
B
B
.
0.1412121
1.007451
16
19
51
29
21
14
14
52
65
65
65
97
120
120
96
98
98
27
27
62.6142
0.6004044
144
12
17
14
1
46
22
12
5
142
212
122
48
71
20
12
11
to
100
67.4519
2.145?0«
0.14
0.17
0.06
0.05
0.67
0.07
0.09
0.1
0.05
0.52
0.41
0.16
O.U
0.17
0.06
0.06
0.01
0,01
0.17
0.1680618
1.111142
0.11
0.1
0.12
0.05
0.05
O.I
0.05
1.05
0.05
0.45
0.51
0.12
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.2
0.149011
0.9148115
19
B-21
-------
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJtCT Mil
FASTTRACX LOAf f«ATA
SITEIO "15635
1611* MONDAY. JANUARY «, 1*62 102
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COO TSS PHOSPHORUS LEAD COPPER
CINCHES) MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L'TFR PER LITER PER LITER PER LITER
04/03/80
04/06/80
00/08/80
04/09/60
oa/ia/eo
04/26/eo
04/28/80
05/13/80
05/18/80
06/01/80
06/02/80
06/05/60
06/06/80
06/OT/80
06/19/80
07/16/80
08/02/80
08/02/80
08/00/80
08/11/80
08/11/80
08/10/80
09/07/80
01/09/80
09/12/80
09/16/80
09/20/80
09/2S/80
10/01/80
10/16/80
10/16/80
10/21/80
11/10/80
11/20/80
12/02/80
12/06/80
02/16/81
02/22/81
00/00/81
00/07/81
00/08/81
00/10/81
00/10/81
00/13/81
OS/29/81
05/29/81
06/20/81
07/12/81
0.08
0.52
0.57
0.23
0.as
0.21
0.13
0.25
0.89
0.72
0.53
0.26
0.24
2.79
0.57
0.05
0.58
0.4
1.26
1.37
0.77
0.72
0.09
0.24
0.29
0.2
0.55
0.60
1.28
0.32
1.21
0.16
0.22
0.21
1.21
60
18
81
100
27
45
65
30
30
35
73
69
58
40
39
140
140
140
too
65
28
28
28
28
28
03
35
30
09
49
50
50
76
76
54
54
98
114
69
160
160
160
160
160
22
120
110
110
14
SI
278
15
53
06
20
240
27
53
63
192
129
90
58
25
162
06
100
27
20
30
9
75
26
25
60
28
08
6
17
29
18
8
72
68
108
70
564
109
199
198
I9»
13R
160
104
07
108
0.04
0.12
0.2
0.0<
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.31
0.07
0,13
0.12
0.16
0,14
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.2
0.08
0.14
0.11
0.5
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.15
0,05
0.06
0,13
0.06
0.1
0.14
0.12
11.16
0.1
0.38
0.14
0.11
o.ie
0.14
0.06
0.23
0.12
0.07
0.34
0.85
0.32
0.5
0.1
0.22
0.6
0.1
0.75
O.I
0.19
0.22
0.35
A.22
0.22
0.23
0.1
0.335
0.14
0.26
0.075
0.19
0.1
0.05
0.175
0.05
0.15
0.13
0.1
0.2
0.05
O.I
0.15
0.12
0.12
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.4
0.9
0.24
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.32
0.2"!
0.16
0.25
FAST-TRACK OATA
PROJECT Nil
FASTTRACK LOA" "ATA
SITEIO 0|i63S
t6ii8 MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 19»2 10J
EVENT
START
Tine
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
cno
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TSS
MILL
PER L'TFR
PHOSPHORUS
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
07/12/81
07/13/81
07/18/81
07/20/81
08/10/81
08/15/81
08/26/61
08/27/81
08/29/81
08/31/81
09/07/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVfNTs FPR THIS STATION
0.64
3.56
0.27
0.658003
1.182169
100
100
17
17
63
65
65
65
42
42
26
71.12706
0.7010690
ion
40
130
60
81
137
43
25
42
45
23
87.70>»5?
1. 200*57
0.1
0.05
0.13
0.1
0,12
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.1191022
O.S698431
0.15
0.05
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.2212952
0.8279833
59
B-22
-------
FAST-TRACK DATA
PROJECT mi
FASTTRACX LOAC fATA
SITEIO
161 IB MONDAY. JANUARY 4, 1*62 104
EVENT
START
TINE
PRECIPITATION
(INCHES)
COO
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
TS9
MILLIGRAMS
PER L'TFD
PN08PMORU8
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
LEAD
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
COPPER
MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER
00/00/81
00/07/91
04/08/81
o4/io/8i
00/11/41
04/23/st
05/10/81
aS/24/81
05/29/81
06/08/81
06/08/81
06/11/81
06/20/81
OT/12/81
07/12/81
07/13/81
07/18/81
07/20/81
On/10/81
08/1S/81
08/29/81
08/31/81
09/07/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS FOR THIS STATION
0.61
0.2
0.86
B
1.29
0.77
B
,
0.13
0.16
0.55
0.19
,
m
2.)t
0.52
0.1
f
•
t
•
0.6809089
1.087556
10
240
200
72
72
60
60
78
490
580
580
580
54
54
120
120
53
82
16
J»
48
48
45
156.2122
1.246966
1152
97?
208
242
162
100
26
692
106
18
602
52
98
25S
205
118
221
1!
167
2J9
33
128
30
280.3156
1.562»2?
1.28
1.02
0.31
0.82
0.2
0.9
0.6
2.9
1.2
0.46
2.S
0.4
0.33
0.68
0.44
0.25
0.44
0.22
0.5
0.34
0.19
0.3
0.18
0.6989971
0.9162922
I.I
0.96
O.I*
0.32
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.78
0.42
0.1
0.75
O.I
0.2
0.5
0.35
0.3
0.35
0.15
1.7
0.3
O.I
0.2
0.05
0.4158159
1.205293
23
FAST.TRACK DATA
FASTTRACK LOAI" r>»TA
PROJECT wtt SITEIO »U»37
I6H8 MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 198« 105
EVENT
START
TIME
PRECIPITATION COD T33 PHOSPHORUS
(INCHES) MILLIGRAMS MH.L!bRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER L1TFR PER LITER
LEAD COPPER
MILLIGRAMS MILLIGRAMS
PER LITER PER LITER
06/08/81
06/08/81
06/13/81
06/15/81
06/20/81
08/26/81
08/27/81
08/29/81
08/31/81
SITE MEAN
SITE COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
NUMBER OF EVENTS F(1R THIS STATION
0.11
0.17
0.52
0,09
0.19
t
u
.
0.2211429
0.767188
31
31
31
74
31
31
31
19
19
33.08437
O.OA85739
12
280
16
12
48
21
8
12
10
37.9t«7<»
1.56177
0.16
1.06
0.18
0.12
0.2
0.12
0,06
0.08
0.1
0.2129575
0.987036
0.05
0.46
0.05
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.09133647
0.8642529
TOTAL NUMBER OF EVENTS
755
B-23/B-24 blank
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C
DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES
In order to assemble and analyze the data being developed by the NURP
projects and determine and interpret results, it was necessary for NURP to
use a set of consistent analytical methodologies. By and large, the metho-
dologies that were selected were developed under different EPA efforts, many
under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Development. Following
the areas of project emphasis, Appendix C-l presents for urban runoff loads,
C-2 for receiving water impacts, and C-3 for effectiveness of controls, the
adopted methodologies and their supporting logic.
C-l. URBAN RUNOFF LOADS
The constituents found in urban runoff are highly variable, both during
an event, as well as from event to event at a given site and from site to
site within a given city and across the country. This is the natural result
of high variations in rainfall intensity and occurrence, geographic features
that affect runoff quantity and quality, and so on. Therefore, a method of
expressing the size of an urban runoff load and its variability was needed.
The event mean concentration, defined as the total constituent mass discharge
divided by the total runoff volume, was chosen as the primary statistic for
this purpose, and event mean concentrations were calculated for each event at
each site in the accessible data base. If a flow-weighted composite sample
was taken, its concentration was used to represent the event mean concentra-
tion. On the other hand, if sequential discrete samples were taken over the
hydrograph, the event mean concentration was determined by calculating the
area under the loadograph (the curve of concentration times discharge rate
over time) and dividing it by the area under the hydrograph (the curve of
runoff volume over time). For the purpose of determining event mean concen-
trations, rainfall events were defined to be separate precipitation events
when there was an intervening time period of at least six hours without rain.
Given this data base of Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs), there are a number
of questions that must be answered in order to extract information that will
be useful for water quality planning purposes, including: What is the underly-
ing population distribution and what are the appropriate measure of its attri-
butes, e.g., central tendency, variability, etc.? Do distinct subpopulations
exist and what are their characteristics? Are there significant differences
in data sets grouped according to locations around the county (geographic
zones), land use, season, rainfall amount, etc.? How may these variations be
recognized? What is the most appropriate manner in which to extrapolate the
existing data base to locations for which there are no measurements?
These questions have not all been answered as of this preliminary report.
This appendix will outline the procedures used to analyze the problem to date
and projected future work during the remainder of the project. There will
be no attempt to explain standard statistical procedures since these are
C-2
-------
readily available in the literature. Nor will the operation of the SAS com-
puter statistical routines be explained since they are available almost uni-
versally at computer centers. However, the relevant procedures used by the
NURP team will be described.
LOG-NORMALITY
When working with highly variable data, it is very important to know, at
a prescribed confidence level, what the underlying probability distribution is
(as opposed to assuming or guessing). Based upon natural expectations and
prior experience, it was decided to test whether or not the event mean con-
centration data had a log-normal distribution for each water quality con-
stituent to be examined. The event mean concentration data from all NURP
projects' loading sites were collected into one data set and transformed into
natural logarithm space. Four separate procedures were used to judge log-
normality and to indicate that the data, in fact, will fit a log-normal
distribution. They are:
1. Inspection of basic statistical measures
2. Inspection of graphical data displays
3. Kolomogorov-Smirnov test
4. Chi-square test
The first two procedures are qualitative in nature and rely upon experienced
professional judgement. For inspection of basic statistical measures, one
transforms the data into the logarithmic domain and examines the calculated
values of mean, median, mode, kurtosis, etc. with what would be expected from
a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Graphical data displays used include
cumulative probability distribution plots, stem-leaf plots, box plots,
hanging-root plots, and the like. Examples of cumulative probability dis-
tribution in log space were given in Chapter 5. Examples of stem-leaf, box
and hanging root plots are given in Figure C-l.
The latter two tests are quantitative in nature and were run at the
95 percent confidence level (i.e., a = 0.05). The Kolmorogov-Smirnov test
is based upon the maximum deviation of the test data from the expected dis-
tribution, while the Chi-square test is based upon the cumulative deviation
of the actual test data distribution from that of the expected distribution.
The importance of the log-normal determination cannot be overemphasized.
Among its many implications is the fact that determinations made in simple
arithmetic space with Gaussian assumptions will be invalid, the geometric
mean of the data is a more appropriate measure of central tendency than the
arithmetic mean, etc. (Aitchison and Brown, 1969). With regard to the lat-
ter, it is fairly standard practice to use the geometric mean when dealing
with bacterial data (e.g., coliforms); it has not been so universally applied
to other types of water quality constituents to date.
C-3
-------
-p-
STEM AND LEAF
* »
• *
t
, * * * *
• *
, * * A
.*****
•
• *
•
*
* *
* ft
*
4 *
9 BOXPLOT
2 0
6 0
4
11
5
g
21
10
26
27 + - -
22
17
4
5
6
2
1
— ~ *
1
1
1 0
1 0
1 0
....t-..-f_.-.f....«.-.-t-
« MAY REPRESENT UP TO 2 COUNTS
(a) Stem-Leaf and Box Plots
02 04 .06 08 1.0 102 104
HANGING ROOT PLOT
(b) Hanging Root Plot
Figure C-l. Steam and Leaf, Box, and Hanging Root Plots
-------
DETECTION OF SUB-POPULATION DIFFERENCES
Although a data set may strongly exhibit a log-normal distribution, it
still may be made up of a number of sub-populations, and identification of
those might help to explain some of the variance present in the data. The
key question to be answered is: Do different log-normal populations (i.e.,
different mean and/or variance) exist within the pooled population, and if
so, how may homogeneous sub-populations be determined (e.g., how may the
data be grouped into subsets)? Even if they are log-normal, sub-populations
of data may differ because of; (1) differing means, (2) differing variances,
or (3) both, as suggested in Figure C-2. For each parameter, the NURP data
set consists of up to 100 sites ("treatments" in statistic parlance) with a
varying number of observations (storms), on the order of 5 - 20, at each
site. Even with the considerable advantage of normality of the logarithms
of the EMC's, the general question of how to test the hypothesis of
homogeneity of sample means and variances is unresolved in statistics. The
procedure used for this draft report is outlined below, along with proposed
future analysis.
xb
X,.
0.5
F(x) = Prob (XSx)
Figure C-2. Populations a and b have different variances.
Populations b and c have different means. Populations a and c
differ in both mean and variance.
C-5
-------
The standard procedure for testing of homogeneity of sample means is
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and its resulting F-test. Three basic assump-
tions are inherent in the ANOVA procedure:
1. Each sub-population (treatment) is normally distributed,
2. Each sub-population (treatment) has the same variance, and
3. All samples are independent.
Strictly speaking, the assumptions refer to the error term in the ANOVA
model, but they are commonly applied to the data themselves. The NURP data
generally fulfill assumptions (1) and (3) quite well, but assumption (2),
equality of variances, is not necessarily true. In fact, it is one of the
conditions upon which to test the hypothesis of homogeneity of population
distributions.
Fortunately, ANOVA is not highly sensitive to deviations from assump-
tions (1) and (2) as long as the sample size is "relatively large" and the
number of samples in each sub-population is "approximately the same". These
conditions are met in a quantitative sense for most comparisons, although un-
equal sample sizes are a problem for some, notably sub-populations based on
land use. However, the fact of insensitivity is the basic justification for
ANOVA procedures used for this preliminary report. Fortunately, there is no
question of the validity of independence of EMC values since they are all de-
rived from independent storm events. (Violation of the assumption of indepen-
dence may result in serious errors in inference of the results.) A discussion
of the ANOVA assumptions and their consequences may be found in many standard
statistics books, e.g., Hays (1981).
The assumption of homogeneous variance is the most troublesome of the
three since there undoubtedly are sub-populations with differing variances.
Indeed, the Bartlett test was run on several variables (logarithms of EMC's)
using the DISCRIM procedure of SAS. The hypothesis of equal variances was
rejected at a significance level of 0.0001. However, because of the robust-
ness of the ANOVA procedure, it is seldom recommended that it not be per-
formed just on the basis of the Bartlett or similar tests (e.g., Hays, 1981;
Lindman, 1974). Rather, the unequal variances may be accounted for by a
change in the apparent significance level of the F-test. For instance,
Scheffe (1959) illustrates this effect when an ANOVA is performed at an
apparent level of significance of 0.05. For different ratios of sample
variance and differing sample sizes, actual significance levels may range
from 0.025 - 0.17 (Table 10.4.2 in Scheffe). Hence, an adjustment in the
assumed level of significance from 0.05 to, say, 0.10 would cover most situ-
ations. The NURP data rarely exhibit ratios of variances greater than 2:1
and ratios of sample sizes greater than 3:1.
In other words, there are several reasons to expect that the classical
robustness of the ANOVA procedure will accomodate the NURP data set. How-
ever, there are other theoretical options, albeit, inconvenient.
When sub-populations (treatments) are compared pair-wise, an inference
may be attempted on the equality of means, given that their variances are
unequal. This is known in the statistics literature as the Behrens-Fisher
C-6
-------
problem (Winer, 1971) for which a completely satisfactory sampling distribu-
tion is not yet agreed upon. A common approach is to compute an approximate
t-statistic whose degrees of freedom are obtained by the Satterthwaite approx-
imation technique. This can be done in SAS using the TTEST procedure. Un-
fortunately, for a pairwise comparison of all combinations of, say, 100 sites,
( o ) = 4950 separate runs would need to be made, infeasible as of this first
report. In order to achieve a significance level of 5 percent for the entire
family of 4950 tests, Bonferroni (Neter and Wasserman, 1974) specifies that
the significance level, a , of each test should be determined as
« = 0.05 -r 4050 = 0.000010101. Clearly, a disadvantage of this procedure is
that the individual tests become so conservative that any differences that
actually exist would frequently fail to be detected. A variation on this
procedure may be possible in the future if sub-groupings of fewer than all the
individual sites can be determined satisfactorily.
SUB-GROUPINGS
To date, sub-groupings of site data have been made a priori on the basis
of fundamental hydrologic and water quality considerations. These attributes
have been: geographical location or zone, land use, season, and magnitude
of rainfall event. At least two questions will be addressed in this sub-
section: (1) Can groupings be proposed on another basis, and (2) how can
these sub-groups themselves be grouped into similar sub-populations.
Concerning the former question, it is a legitimate part of an experi-
mental design to group "treatments" into like categories on a rational,
physical basis. In part, for this first report, this was the only option
available, and reflects conventional engineering wisdom. Previous studies
have shown differences on the basis of region and land use. The NURP efforts
to date are the first to investigate the effect, on a large scale, of season
and storm magnitude.
In the future, it will be useful to perform a grouping in an "unbiased"
manner, in which preconceived notions of groupings may be avoided. These
groupings may then be compared with those enumerated above to see if they
agree with physical reasoning. One method for this is cluster analysis, in
which sub-groups with similar attributes (e.g., mean and variance) may be
grouped together into "clusters". These clusters may be examined for similar
physical attributes (e.g., region, land use) and a regular ANOVA performed
to detect differences in means. Additional future work will include regres-
sion and correlation procedures utilizing the NURP fixed-site data base for
additional physical insight into cause and effect relationship among EMC's
and independent variables. Ultimately, selection of the appropriate log-
normal distribution for a study area can be done on a causative basis,
rather than a priori on purely statistical groupings.
Once again, there is not statistical consensus on a method for selecting
groups of sub-populations when their variances as well as their means may
differ. However, several procedures are available for multiple comparisons
of means, usually under the assumption of equal variances. These are de-
scribed, for instance, by Winer (1971) and Chew (1977). The most common pro-
cedure is that of Duncan, in which means are ranked and placed into one or
C-7
-------
more groups with other means. The Duncan test (available on SAS) is among
the more discriminating multiple comparisons procedures in terms of finding
differences (Winer, 1971). That is, compared to certain other available tests,
it will tend to provide more separate groupings. Because of its wide accep-
tance and because it can be modified to handle unequal sample sizes, it has
been used to date for grouping of subpopulations. In the future, alternative
procedures may also be used for comparison.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. and J. A. C. Brown, The Log-Normal Distribution, Cambridge at
the University Press, 1969.
Chew, V., "Comparisons Among Treatment Means in an Analysis of Variance",
Publication ARS/H/6, USDA, Hyattsville, MD, 1977.
Hays, W. L., Statistics, Third Edition, Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1981.
Lindman, H. R., Analysis of Variance in Complex Experimental Design,
W. H. Freeman, 1974.
Neter, J. and W. Wasserman, Applied Linear Statistical Models,
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1974.
Scheffe, H. A., The Analysis of Variance, Wiley, 1959.
Winer, B. J., Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, Second Edition,
McGraw Hill, 1971.
C-8
-------
C-2. RECEIVING WATER IMPACTS
This section presents a description of the methods used to evaluate the
receiving water quality impacts of urban runoff. Because of the important
differences in behavior, separate methods have been adopted for rivers and
streams and for lakes. It is anticipated that a technique for evaluating
estuaries as a third class of receiving waters will be developed. However,
this preliminary NURP report does not include the estuary analysis methods.
RIVERS AND STREAMS
The approach adopted to quantify the water quality effects of urban run-
off for rivers and streams focuses on the inherent variability of the runoff
process. What occurs during an individual storm event is considered secon-
dary to the overall effect of a continuous spectrum of storms from very small
to very large. Of basic concern is the probability of occurrence of water
quality effects of some relevant magnitude.
Urban runoff is characterized by relatively short duration events with
relatively large time periods between events. On a national average basis,
the median rainstorm duration is about 4.5 hours with a time between storm
midpoints of about 60 hours. In addition to this temporal intermittance,
urban runoff events are highly variable in magnitude.
To consider the intermittent and variable nature of urban runoff, a
stochastic approach was adopted. The method involves a direct calculation of
receiving water quality statistics using the statistical properties of the
urban runoff quality and other relevant variables. The approach uses a rela-
tively simple model of the physical behavior of the stream or river (as com-
pared to many of the deterministic simulation models). The results are
therefore approximations.
The theoretical basis of the technique is quite powerful as it permits
the stochastic nature of runoff process to be explicitly considered. (Simu-
lation is in many cases costly or cumbersome in this regard.) Application is
relatively straightforward, and the procedure is relevant to a wide variety
of cases. These attributes are particularly advantageous given the national
scope of the NURP Project. The details of the stochastic method are pre-
sented below.
Basic Approach
Figure 1 contains an idealized representation of urban runoff discharges
entering a stream. The discharges usually enter the stream at several loca-
tions but can be aggregated into an equivalent discharge flow which enters
the system at a single point. The equivalent discharge flow (QR) is the sum
of the individual discharges, and the equivalent concentration (CR) is the
slow-weighted mean concentration for the constituent of concern. If the mass
discharged from each individual site is known for a storm event, the mean con-
centration is the total mass divided by total flow.
C-9
-------
CM
8
o
C\l
CO
URBAN RUNOFF
QR =FLOW
CR •= CONCENTRATION
/
URBAN \
AREA /
STREAM FLOW
UPSTREAM
QS^FLOW
CS = CONCENTRATION
DOWNSTREAM
(AFTER MIXING)
Q O = FLOW
CO = CONCENTRATION
Figure 1. Idealized Representation of Urban Runoff Discharges
Entering a Stream
C-10
-------
Receiving water concentration (CO) is the resulting concentration after
complete mixing of the runoff and stream flows, and should be interpreted as
the storm-event mean concentration just downstream of all of the discharges as
shown in Figure 1. The four variables that determine the stream concentration
(CO) are:
• Urban runoff flow (QR)
• Urban runoff concentration (CR)
• Stream flow (QS)
• Stream concentration (CS)
For an individual rainfall/runoff event, it is possible, in principle, to
measure each of the relevant variables independently. From those, the average
stream concentration (CO) is calculated:
.rn _ (QR CR) + (QS CS)
LU ~ QR + QS ..
If a dilution factor, <|>, is defined as:
CO may be defined in terms of <|> by:
CO = [
-------
The basic approach adopted for the NURP project employs Equations (1)
through (3) and the statistical properties of the four random variables (QR,
CR, QS, and CS) to calculate the cumulative probability distribution of the
downstream concentration (CO) during runoff events. From this, the probabil-
ity of occurrence or frequency of any target concentration being equaled or
exceeded can be computed.
An essential condition to the use of the approach is that each of the four
variables which contribute to downstream receiving water quality can be ade-
quately represented by a log-normal probability distribution. Examination of
a reasonably broad cross-section of data indicates that log-normal probability
distributions can adequately represent discharges from the rainfall/runoff
process, the concentration of contaminants in the discharge, and the daily
flow record of many rivers and streams. Further discussion of the use of log-
normal distributions was presented earlier in this Appendix.
The approach developed can be applied on a site specific basis, or can
be generalized and applied to a river system, region of the country, or a
series of locations which are characterized by similar rainfall and stream
flow distributions. The ratio of the stream drainage area (above the urban
area) to the drainage area of the urban area is one of the useful factors
which allows this generalization. The calculations discussed below consider
a site specific application to illustrate the approach.
Statistical Calculations
The calculation procedure consists of a number of specific steps as pre-
sented in Table 1. The theoretical basis for the calculations is described
below and consists of four components as follows:
a. Statistical equations of normal and log-normal random variables
b. Statistical properties of the dilution factor
c. Statistical properties of the downstream concentration
d. Probability of occurrence of selected stream concentrations
C-12
-------
TABLE 1. CALCULATION PROCEDURE FOR STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF
STREAM CONCENTRATION
1. Calculate the estimated mean and variance of the logarithmic transforms
of each of the four variables (QR, QS, CR, and CS).
2. Calculate the arithmetic mean and variance of the four variables. This
calculation employes formulas that relate the arithmetic mean and vari-
ance to the mean and variance of the log transformations.
3. Calculate the mean and variance of the dilution factor (<)>) employing the
mean and variance of the logarithmic transforms of QR and QS. The cal-
culation considers:
- Possible correlations between upstream flow (QS) and runoff flow (QR).
- Adjustments of the mean and variance of <)> due to the upper bound of
1.0 on 0.
4. Calculate the arithmetic mean and variance of <|> as in Step 2.
5. Calculate the mean and variance of CO using the estimates of the arith-
metic mean and variance of CR, CS, and <|>.
6. Plot the log-normal cumulative probability distribution of stream con-
centration, CO. The mean and variance of the logarithmic transforms are
used in developing the plot.
7. Define CL from a water quality standard or use other criteria to define a
target concentration limit which will provide protection of beneficial
water use.
8. From the log-normal cumulative probability plot for CO, determine the
probability corresponding to the selected value of CL.
9. Based on the basic probability value, compute the frequency or recurrence
interval of water quality problems.
C-13
-------
Statistical Equations for Normal and Log-Normal Random Variables
Using the pollutant concentration in the stormwater runoff as an example
of the four basic random variables (QR, QS, CS being the other three), the
following notation is used:
CR is the random variable itself (runoff concentration).
CR' is the log (base e) transformed random variable (£n runoff
concentration).
CR is the arithmetic median of CR.
u refers to the mean (e.g., uCR, uCR').
a2 refers to the variance (e.g., cr2CR, cr2CR') (cr refers to the stand-
ard deviation).
v refers to the coefficient of variation of the arithmetic random
variable (e.g., vCR).
Rationships between the arithmetic projections and the properties of a
log-normal distribution are defined by:
CR = exp (uCR') (4)
vCR = Vexp(a2CR') - 1 (5)
uCR = CR exp(l/2 a2CR') (6)
aCR = vCR uCR (7)
For a random variable such as CR which is distributed log normally, the
value at the a percentile (CR ) is defined as:
P[CR < CR ] = a
CR = exp (uCR' + Z aCR') (8)
where Z is the value of the standardized normal cumulative distribution,
given in Table 2.
Statistical Properties of Dilution
For the dilution factor () as defined in Equation (2), the value for
any cumulative probability percentile is given by:
0 QR + QS exp(Za aRS')
C-14
-------
TABLE 2. CUMULATIVE STANDARD NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Probabilities for Values of z
z1
-4.0
-3.9
-3.8
-3.7
-3.6
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.2
-3.1
-3.0
-2.9
-2.8
-2.7
-2.6
-2.5
-2. A
-2.3
-2.2
-2.1
P(z < z1)
.0000
.0000
.0001
.0001
.0002
.0002
.0003
.0005
.0007
.0010
.0013
.0019
.0026
.0035
.0047
.0062
.0082
.0107
.0139
.0179
z1
-2.0
-1.9
-1.8
-1.7
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1.0
- .9
- .8
- .7
- .6
- .5
- .4
- .3
- .2
- .1
Values
z1
-3.090
-2.576
-2.326
-1.960
-1.645
-1.282
-0.6745
P(z < z'
.0228
.0287
.0359
.0446
.0548
.0668
.0808
.0968
.1151
.1357
.1587
.1841
.2119
.2420
.2743
.3085
.3446
.3821
.4207
.4602
of z for
P(z < z'
.001
.005
.010
.025
.050
.100
.250
) z1
0
.1
_ 2
.3
. 4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Selected
) z'
0.6745
1.282
1.645
1.960
2.326
2.576
3.090
*P(z < z')
.5000
.5398
.5793
.6179
.6554
.6915
.7257
.7580
.7881
.8159
.8413
.8643
.8849
.9032
.9192
.9332
.9452
.9554
.9641
.9713
Probabilities
?(z' < z1)
.750
.900
.950
.975
.990
.995
.999
z1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2 '.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
P(z < z')
.9772
.9821
.9861
.9893
.9918
.9938
.9953
:9965
.9974
.9981
.9967
.9990
.9993
.9995
.9997
.9998
.9998
.9999
.9999
1.0000
C-15
-------
where the variables are defined as before and in addition a2RS' is the co-
variance between QR' and QS'. The covariance is computed as follows:
oRS' = Vo-2QS' + a2QR' - 2pRS' aQS' aQR' (10)
PRS- = 1 . This permits CO to follow a log-normal distribution,
which has a number of useful properties.
An estimate of the log-mean dilution may be obtained by interpolating
between selected a and (1 - a) percent! le values using Equation (9) and the
following:
Mt>' = \ ('U-cO) (12)
The log standard deviation of dilution may be estimated by the following
formula, which, in effect, determines the slope of the straight line on the
log probability plot:
a
Note that Equations (11) and (12) are valid for a > 50 percent. To insure
that the estimated dilution falls between 0 and 1.0 somewhat beyond the
95 percent! le, the 90 percent interval bounded by a equal to 90 and 1- equal
to 5 percent was selected. While the errors introduced by this approximation
will not change the general outcome of the probability estimates, they may be
important in certain cases and are currently being investigated. Having esti-
mated the log statistics of dilution, Equations (4) through (7) can be used to
compute the arithmetic statistics.
C-16
-------
Statistical Properties of Stream Concentration
The statistics of upstream concentration (CS), urban runoff concentration
(CR), and dilution (] + CMCS (i - M403 (14)
The arithmetic standard deviation of the stream concentration is defined by:
aCO = Vo-z (NCR - uCS)2 + a2CR (a2<|> + (jz) + azCS (az(j) + (1 - u<|>)z) (14)
The coefficient of variation is calculated by:
CO * 2 (16)
Based on Equations (4) through (7), the arithmetic statistics may be used to
derive the log statistics as follows:
log mean: M' = V^n (1 + V*CO) (18)
From the log-statistics information on probability may be developed.
The Recurrence of Selected Stream Concentrations
The fundamental result of the statistical analysis is the derived cumu-
lative probability distribution of stream event mean concentration; that is,
the cumulative probability function F(CO). Graphically, this is shown in
Figure 2. For a given concentration of interest (CL), the corresponding
probability may be read directly from the plot (see Figure 2). Alternately,
the value of CO at the a percentile is defined as
P = 1 - P[CO < C0a] = l-d (19)
CO^ = exp(pCO' + Za aCO1) (20)
One way of properly interpreting the probability (P) corresponding to a
given concentration level is the long term average fraction of events with a
stream event mean concentration equal to or exceeding the specified level.
For example, a probability of 0.10 would specify that on average one in ten
events have a stream event mean concentration equal to or greater than the
specified value.
For the purposes of evaluation and interpretation, it would be useful to
transform the basic probability statistic into a more meaningful or intuitive
form. By combining the percent of storms which cause various concentrations
to be exceeded with the average number of storms per year, a time-based reoc-
currence relationship may be established as described below.
C-17
-------
C/D O
CL
UJ
S8
00
NOTE: LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
i
F(CL)
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY P [ CO < CL ]
Figure 2. Example Cumulative Probability Distribution Function of
Event Mean Stream Concentrations
C-18
-------
Reccurrence is a definition based (generally) on the marginal distribu-
tion of random variables. Basically, if P is the probability of a value of
magnitude CL being equaled or exceeded in a given time period, then the re-
currence interval (R) defined as 1/P is the average number of time periods
between exceedances.
Assuming as discussed above, we have the cumulative probability distri-
bution function of event mean stream concentrations (i.e., F(CO)). Then:
P[CO < CL] = F(CL) (21)
If we want annual recurrence, we need to find the probability that an event
concentration of a given magnitude (CL) is equalled or exceeded in a year.
The statement of the problem is:
P = 1 - P[COm < CL] = 1 - P[max(C01 . . . CON) < CL] (22)
where CO is the maximum event concentration in a year, and N is the number
of events in a year. Assuming that event concentrations are independent and
identically distributed with a known distribution such as log-normal, equa-
tion (22) becomes:
P = P[CO > CL] = 1 - FN(CL)
(23)
(1 - F(CL))
A first order approximation to this is given by:
R = (1 - F(CL)) N (24)
As a convenient and meaningful way to interpret the basic probability results,
the average recurrence interval as defined in Equation (24) was adopted. A
schematic example of the relationship is shown in Figure 3.
LAKES
The impact of urban runoff on lakes may be determined by calculating
eutrpphication parameters in the lake (i.e., total phosphorus concentration,
chlorophyll a concentration, and secchi depth) due to the urban runoff and
comparing these values to desired levels. Total phosphorus is the prime
variable of interest, with in-lake concentrations calculated using the
Vollenweider method. Chlorophyll -a and secchi depth, as well as sediment
oxygen demands, are estimated based on available regression equations
relating these variables to total phosphorus. For ease of classification,
the area ratio (a) defined as the ratio of the urban drainage area to the
lake surface area, will be expressed in terms of the eutrophi cation
parameters.
C-19
-------
o
9
CO
CO
2 O
< O
UJ .
DC Z
\
Qj O
NOTE: LOG-LOG PLOT
AVERAGE RECURRENCE INTERVAL OF STREAM CONCENTRATION
BEING EQUALED OR EXCEEDED IN YEARS
Figure 3. Example of the Average Recurrence Interval as a
Function of Event Mean Stream Concentration
C-20
-------
Relationship Between Area Ratio (a) and Lake Total Phosphorus Concentration
The relationship between the area ratio and the in-lake total phosphorus
concentration may be derived for the case where the urban runoff represents
the sole source of the total phosphorus loading into the lake. The method
proposed by Vollenweider is as follows (1, 2, 3, 4):
- W
K (H/i) + vs
where,
p = total phosphorus concentration (g/m = mg/1)
2
W = annual area loading rate (g/m per yr)
H = average lake depth (m)
T = hydraulic detention time (yr)
v = net settling velocity of TP (m/yr)
Rearranging Equation (1) yields:
where,
W = loading rate of TP (g/yr)
2
A = lake surface area (m )
p = lake TP concentration (ug/1)
For the case where total phosphorus loading is generated by the runoff
from the urban area:
W = QR CR 3.15 x 107 (3)
where,
QR = average annual urban runoff flow (m /sec)
CD = average annual total phosphorus concentration (mg/£)
K
and 3.15 x 10 is the factor to convert W to the units of (g/yr).
A runoff coefficient method may be used to relate the flow (QR) to
rainfall as follows:
QR = Cv I Ad 3.17 x 10"10. (4)
C-21
-------
where,
3
QR = average flow as above (m /sec)
C = average annual runoff to rainfall ratio
I = average annual precipitation (cm/yr)
2
A. = urban drainage area (m )
Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (3) yields:
W=0.1CvIAdCR (5)
Substituting Equation (5) in Equation (2) yields:
— = 01 C I C ^d = — 2- H +
A. 'Ui Lv L LR •£ 1000 T
a A£
A.
Rearranging and defining the area ratio a = T- ,. .
a = P p(" + vs) (6)
where,
c - 1
p
10 cv i
CR
(7)
Thus for given rainfall (I), runoff /rainfall ratio (C ), and runoff quality
(CR) data, the quantity p is calculated from Equation (7). Using this value
in Equation (6), the area ratio (a) is calculated directly as a function of
the in- lake TP concentration (p, in ug/1) for a given lake geometry and resi-
dence time (H, t). Alternately, for a desired maximum total phosphorus con-
centration, the maximum value of the ratio of the urban area to the lake
surface area can be determined.
Graphs of Area Ratio (a) for Selected Rainfall and Runoff Conditions
Based on Equations (6) and (7), graphs of the area ratio versus the lake
characteristic (H/t) are presented in Figure 4 for commensurate ranges of
the values of total phosphorus. Graphs are shown for two values of the net
settling velocity of total phosphorus (v ) = 10 m/yr used by Vollenweider (3)
and 5 m/yr. As discussed by Thomann (7), the latter value may be more re-
presentative of shallow lakes (depths less than 3 meters) where resuspension
may be significant. Three annual rainfalls of 12, 24, and 36 inches (30, 61
and 91 centimeters, respectively) are used to allow for regional variations.
For all graphs, values of the average concentration of total phosphorus in
the urban runoff is equal to 0.35 mg/£, and the volumetric runoff to rainfall
ratio is equal to 0.3.
C-22
-------
1000 •=
55
DC
<
LU
O
£
DC
CO
LU
*
cc
<
LU
O
CC
Q
<
CD
DC
D
u_
O
O
*
100 -.
-*
0
l
1.0 -
0.1
100
-50
30
-20
10
T.PHOS.
FIT) i I I 1 I II Ij I
1.0 10
1000 -g
100 -
0.
100 1000 1.0 10 100 1000
(a) RAINFALL OF 12 IN/YR AND vs OF 10 M/YR (c) RAINFALL OF~ 36 IN/YR AND vs OF 10 M/YR
1000 .q
100 -
1.0 10 100 1000
(b) RAINFALL OF 24 IN/YR AND vs OF 10 M/YR
H/T - LAKE DEPTH HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME (M/YR)
Figure 4. Graphs of Area Ratio Versus Lake Characteristics (H/t)
C-23
-------
55
DC
<
UJ
DC
CO
LLJ
*
<
O
<
CD
DC
Li.
O
O
t-
DC
v
1000
100
1000-g
0.1
0.
1.0 10 100 1000 1.0 10 100 1000
(d) RAINFALL OF 12 IN/YR AND vs OF 5 M/YR (f) RAINFALL OF 36 IN/YR AND vs OF 5 M/YR
1000^
100-
0.1
1.0 10 100 1000
(e) RAINFALL OF 24 IN/YR AND vs OF 5 M/YR
H/T - LAKE DEPTH HYDRAULIC DETECTION TIME (m/yr)
Figure 4. Graphs of Area Ratio Versus Lake Characteristics (H/i) (Cont'd)
C-24
-------
The average total phosphorus concentration was derived from data gathered in
NURP projects nationwide. Based on pooled data from the current NURP data
base (i.e., 13 cities, 51 sites, 737 events) the average total phosphorus con-
centration was calculated to be 0.35 mg/I.
The parameters for each graft in Figure 4 are as follows:
I Cv CR
Fig (m/yr) (in/yr) (in/in) (mg/1)
a 10 12 0.3 0.35
b 10 24 0.3 0.35
c 10 36 0.3 0.35
d 5 12 0.3 0.35
e 5 24 0.3 0.35
f 5 36 0.3 0.35
For these parameters, p as defined by Equation (7), is only a function of the
rainfall and equals 0.0315, 0.0157 and 0.0105 for annual rainfalls of 12, 24
and 36 inches, respectively.
For any specific lake where data are available, local rainfall and run-
off (volumetric runoff coefficient and runoff quality) data should be used to
calculate p according to Equation (7). In addition, in-lake TP concentrations
and TP mass inputs should be used to select the net settling velocity of total
phosphorus for the lake.
Area Ratio (a) vs. Chlorophyll, Secchi Depth, and Sediment Oxygen Demand
In order that eutrophication measures other than total phosphorus may
be used to establish limiting urban area ratios, regression equations between
total phosphorus and the additional variables are used.
For chlorophyll-a, the regression equation according to Dillon and
Rigler (5) is used since it is based on a wide range of chlorophyll a and
total phosphorus data (TP < 200 ug/1, Chl-a < 260 ug/1);
log1Q Chl-a = 1.449 Iog1()ps - 1.136 (8)
where,
Chi a = chlorophyll-a concentration (ug/1)
p = average total phosphorus concentration for the spring
s period (mg/1)
C-25
-------
Letting p = 0.9p, where p is the average concentration for the summer period,
and rearranging, p is expressed as:
0.690 loginCHl-a
p = 6.76 x 10 iu (9)
Substituting Equation (9) into Equation (6) results in an expression for the
area ratio (a) as a function of the chlorophyll-a concentration:
0.690 loginChl-a
a = 3 (6.76 x 10 iu ) ((HA) + vs) (10)
The expression relating secchi depth to total phosphorus concentration
is from Rast and Lee (6):
log1QZ = -0.359 Iog10p + 0.925 (11)
where,
Z = the secchi depth (m)
Solving Equation (11) for p and substituting into Equation (6) yields
-2.79 log Z
a = p (380 x 10 1U ) ((H/T) + vg) (12)
For sediment oxygen demand Rast and Lee (6) report:
1og10Sb = °'467 log!0p " 1-07 (13^
where,
S. = the sediment oxygen demand (g/m2 per day)
Solving Equation (13) for p and substituting into Equation (6) yields:
2.14 log,nS.
a = p • (195 x 10 1U D) ((HA) + vg) (14)
Although the sediment oxygen demand is not a direct measure of eutrophica-
tion, it can be used to calculate dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
hypolimnion when reaeration rates and vertical transport coefficients are
available or may be estimated. Equations (11) and (13) are valid up to a
maximum total phosphorus concentration of approximately 100 ug/1.
Graphs of the area ratio versus the lake characteristic (H/i) may be
developed for chlorophyll-a, secchi depth, and sediment oxygen demand using
Equations (10), (12), and (14), respectively (see Figure 4 for the total
phosphorus graphs).
C-26
-------
References
1. Vollenweider, R. A., "The Scientific Basis of Lake and Stream Eutrophica-
tion, With Particular Reference to Phosphorus and Nitrogen as Eutrophica-
tion Factors," Tech. Rep. OECD, Paris, DAS/CSI/68, 27, 1968.
2. Vollenweider, R. A., "Moglichkeiten und Grenzen elementarer Modelle der
Stoffbilanz von Seen" (Possibilities and Limits of Elementary Models
Concerning the Budget of Substances in Lakes), Arch. Hydrobiol. 66, 1969.
3. Vollenweider, R. A., "Input-Output Models with Special Reference to the
Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology," Schweiz. J. Hydrol. 37, 1975.
4. Vollenweider, R. A., "Advances in Defining Critical Loading Levels for
Phosphorus in Lake Eutrophication," Mem. Inst. Ital. Idrobiol., 33, 1976.
5. Dillon, P. J., and Rigler, F. H., "The Phosphorus-Chlorophyll Relation-
ship in Lakes," Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 19 (5), September, 1974.
6. Rast, W., and Lee, G. F., "Summary Analysis of the North American (US
Portion) OECD Eutrophication Project: Nutrient Loading-Lake Response
Relationship and Trophic State Indices," for USEPA, ORD, Corvallis,
Oregon ERL, EPA-600/3-78-008, January 1978.
7. Thomann, R. V., "The Eutrophication Problem", in Waste Load Allocation
Seminar Notes, prepared by Manhattan College for USEPA, Washington, D.C. ;
August, 1981.
8. Hydroscience, Inc. , "A Statistical Method for the Assessment of Urban
Stormwater," for USEPA, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, D.C. EPA 440/3-79-023, May, 1979.
9. Di Toro, D. M., Mueller, J. A., and Small, M. J., "Rainfall-Runoff and
Statistical Receiving Water Models," Task Report 225 of NYC 208 Study
prepared by Hydroscience, Inc., for Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers and the
New York City Department of Water Resources, March 1978.
10. Hazen and Sawyer, Engineers, "Storm/CSO Laboratory Analyses", Task
Report 223, Volume I and II of NYC 208 Study, prepared for the New York
City Department of Water Resources, 1978.
C-27
-------
C-3. EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLS
EFFECTIVENESS OF STREET SWEEPERS
Precipitation Statistics and Sweeping Intervals
Street sweeping operations are set up for a fixed interval, e.g., sweep
once per week. If the average time between rainfall events is much less than
the sweeping interval, then much of the material would be washed away by the
rain. Hence, the street sweepers would be relatively ineffective. It helps
to examine the rainfall statistics in the study area. Table 1 summarizes
runoff statistics for four U.S. cities for which these data are available.
The national average values, used in this interim report, provide rough esti-
mates of the size of runoff events, the time between storms and the number of
events per year. These numbers will be refined as the study progresses.
The results indicate a mean runoff per event of 0.12 inches. The time
between storms is about three to four days. Correspondingly, about 100 storm
events per year can be anticipated.
The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation divided by the
mean. If the probability distribution is assumed to be a log normal, then
the cumulative probability distribution can be estimated directly. The solu-
tions for coefficients of variation of 1.0 and 1.5 are shown in Figure 1. This
figure can be used to estimate, say, the percent of runoff events larger than
0.24 inches. From Table 1, the mean runoff event is 0.12 inches. Thus, the
events of interest are those which are at least twice the mean runoff. From
Figure 1, for y/y =2.0 and a coefficient of variation = 1.5. (from Table 1),
12% of the runoff events are greater than or equal to 0.24.inches.
Table 2 summarizes the statistics on the expected frequency of times be-
tween rainfall events for these four U.S. cities. On a national average, over
C-28
-------
Table 1. Twenty-Five Year Rainfall Statistics For
Four U.S. Cities; Source: Driscoll and Assoc., 1981
City
Boston, MA
Atlanta, GA
Davenport , IA
Oakland, CA
Average
Runoff Volume, In/Event
Mean
0.11
0.17
0.13
0.06
0.12
Cost of
Variation
1.67
1.37
1.37
1.62
1.51
Time Between Storms, Days
Mean
2.81
3.75
4.08
3.98
3.66
Cost of
Variation
1.06
0.93
1.01
1.60
1.15
Events
Per
Year*
130
97
89
92
100
* Events per year equals 365 days divided by mean time between storms,
C-29
-------
VV u ftv
p
m
01
B
ID
o
M
C"i -i
I r*i
OJ •«»•
0 ,-1
1
y
- i Sis: :.
J! j
ii
u ii ;. .,
; ; \
.... 1
-":-• :'• -' :. ' [:
Z. "T
- -
._.. .
j -.
- j -
—'... ": _'. ' '." . ~
- - ...
-/.~ / •'•':-. -
;::: | . r
.....
— - i
-.- . .^ ~ ~~
". . ; " -i i : i
n ii 1 i;: j 11 i
i i ii r • ' M
ii j ip^rl
'[ :.--.'.--. \. "'•': '•':'.':
•— — r - [• • |-
ml"- .r
;;-:^--J:: :: :
-:• "^:- ^ I
... ....
-: _:^-:; :
••-•'•• !
. . — — .. -
-:--fj- .......-::::• • j:: f
:.-. 4- -,.r:::: :| f
" ---::-:•::;: , ;-;:|
-.::•: ~r ~ - - ~ ~ : - ;r ; |
:: . . _-: ~ r r . r . _ ..
" f "; : r I
._ .. _ ^ - •
— ------ ^ t ' ' . '.
V *
VI ... . . ^
.i /
n r i r i i
r i n "~ IT
" M • '- '--- I -
i it i ; iL^I i
- f F 5< y .
1 .. .. — t- ..
" - / r
t - .. r
L t 2. [
BrnBH'if®llfilIiTOi^&S^I![mi
111 rfr liffiffrm^nffl
I i
:: .'•.;; |lf i::^!:™ :
• <•'•
I y(\ M h 1
? - - 1 j — — - -
P F — —
r - - i
• , • [:"•':! f i r r r = EE :. [
nliFIIiTil riTl Illlilllii 1 1 rri l~"! — [~~l rl'H'' i I
i. ... - — — — . .
T- :•••-. -----: ~ :
• : : :E"~ :
I " 1
I , _
- - • * — - — — —
---- - - —
. : : . • : :.': ~ zr. :
- — .-— •
i 1 ::: ; ;
: P^
* i :--'"
' |f-
T-
r
•£
- . _ ....
- . . ._
p:EE
l'^
. 1. _
1 f r
: :"-
::i~
----
I-Eii-
•
I I H
- — —
- .— _
"*-
: - ~ ~'
-
—11
r:-
tr:
—
—
— •
~ ;
r
•-_
—
- \
H
^ I
!= 1
!l
- ^
.•:••
1. _1 _.
r -: =7
|: ;~ E
r. i: Er
.. —
- - —
— —
..
..__._
., ...
- — —
|. .j. uu
f
^:
". ^".
: " i: "Ez
. ~ ~. "'-
. . — . —
. __
_ _ . ._-
• • — • —
- . .. —
: : :~:: ™
. .. —
in
7
6
3
4
3
3
1
• 7
.6
.1
.1
>•!•* wv -tit $9 va »i VQ aa 70- AO jo 40 10 20 10 j 21 03 02 01 a at 001
Ivijiure 1. Graphical Solution lit c Log-Normal Distribution for Coefficient of Variation » 1.0 and 1.5.
-------
TABLE 2. Expected Time Between Rainfall Events for Four U.S. Cities Based on 25 years of Hourly Rainfall Data.
Data from Driscoll and Assoc.,1981.
INTERVAL,
DAYS
0 to 1
1 to 3
3 to 7
7 to 14
14 to 21
> 21
TOTAL
NUMBER OF EVENTS /YEAR
BOSTON,
MA
27
64
30
8
1
0
130
ATLANTA,
GA
12
43
30
11
2
0
98
DAVENPORT ,
IA
8
38
29
11
2
2
90
OAKLAND,
CA
22
33
24
8
3
2
92
TOTAL
69
178
113
38
8
4
410
% OF
TOTAL
16.8
43.4
27.6
9.2
2.0
1.0
100.0
CUMULATIVE
% OF
TOTAL
16.8
60.2
87.8
97. On
99.0
100.0
100.0
?
-------
60% of the storm events occur within three days while 97% of the time rains
within two weeks. These patterns vary seasonally. The most notable seasonal
variation is along the West Coast due to the dry summers. Of course, sweeping
is not practical during months when snow and/or freezing weather occurs.
Characteristics of Street Solids
The results of street dirt characterization studies for 27 water quality
constituents are shown in Table 3. The nationwide average is the median of
the cities for which data are presented.. The median is used because of the
high variability in some of the data.
Street contaminants comprise only a fraction of the materials washed from
urban areas. The balance comes from other impervious and pervious areas,
and the atmosphere (Castro Valley, 1979).
Table 4 presents various sources for major pollutant groups in the
runoff. The only pollutant group shown to be significantly related to street
surface wear and use are heavy metals. Bacteria are thought to originate
mainly with animal fecal matter indirectly deposited on the street or on
adjacent land. Most of the nutrients are thought to originate from vegeta-
tion litter in landscaped areas, undeveloped lands and directly on the street
surface. Oxygen demanding materials (BOD and COD) in the runoff are mostly
associated with litter and landscaped areas, while sediment sources are
mostly thought to be vacant lands and construction sites.
Table 5 summarizes suitable control measures for different types of
source areas. As an example, street cleaning can only be utilized on streets
and parking lots to control street surface participates and litter. Street
cleaning can therefore not be expected to significantly change the runoff
yields of the pollutants that are not significantly associated with the street
surface (such as organics and nutrients).
C-32
-------
Table 3. Average Chemical Quality of Street Dirt (Pitt, 1981)
Constituent:
Volatile Solids
COD
BOD5
Total P
Ortho PO,
Total Kjeldahl N
Sulfur
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
"Nationwide"
Average*
75,000
80,000
10,000
500
100
1,600
1,100
15
3
200
100
22,000
1,000
500
Constituent:
Mercury
Nickel
Strontium
Zinc
Total Colif. bact.
Fecal Colif. bact.
Fecal Strps. bact.
Asbestos
Bis (2-ethylhexyl
phthalade)
Dieldrin
Methoxychlor
PCB's
PGP's
"Nationwide"
Average*
.08
20
15
300
4 x 10 org/gm
3,000 org/gm
175,000 fibers/gm
25
0.03
1
0.7
3
All units are in rag/kg of street dirt, unless otherwise noted.
C-33
-------
Table 4. Sources of Contaminants (Pitt ?, 1979)
Common
Urban Runoff
Pollutants
Sediment
Oxygen
Demand
Nutrients
Bacteria
Heavy
Metals
Street
Surface
Wear
X
Automobile
Wear and
Emissions
X
X
Parking
Lots
X
Litter
X
X
X
Vacant
Land
X
X
X
-
Landscaped
Areas
X
X
Con-
struction
Sites
X
Table 5. Applicability of Control Measures (Pitt ?, 1979)
Suitable
Control
Measures
Street
Cleaning
Leaf
Removal
Repair
Streets
Control
Litter
Clean Catch
Basins
Control . j
Construc-
tion Site
Erosion 1
Street
Surface
Wear
'. X
X
X
Automobile
Wear and
Emissions
X
X
Parking
Lots
X
X
X
Litter
X
X
X
Vacant
Land
X
Landscaped
Areas
X
Con-(
struction
Sites '
X
.
X
C-34
-------
Table 6 presents the Castro Valley study area runoff yields of various
parameters for the street surface, non-street urban and undeveloped areas
of the watershed. This information was obtained from studies conducted in
Castro Valley during the recent 208 study and from the literature. Also
shown in Table 6 are the percentages of the source area contributions for
each parameter compared to the total runoff loads. Most of the lead is
associated with street surface particulates, with very little lead ori-
ginating from non-street urban and undeveloped areas of the watershed.
Most of the total solids yields for the study area are associated with
the undeveloped area. Non-street surface developed areas are thought
to contribute most of the oxygen demand, nutrient and bacteria yields.
Effect of Rain on Street Loads
Precipitation has two effects on street loads:
1) washoff of some or all of the material on the streets; and
2) buildup of residual material on the streets after the storm due
erosion and other sources.
Erosion occurs as a result of relatively large storm events. Smaller
storms would be expected to flush the atmosphere, and the directly connected
impervious areas. Thus, we would like to know the size of storm events which
cause street washoff without significant erosion.
Pitt (1981) has developed a summary table relating runoff volume to the
ratio of initial street load to the load removal by the storm event. The
results are shown in Table 7.
For example, the ratio for arsenic is 0.16 for a runoff volume of 1.3
inches. The arsenic leaving the area comes from the street and elsewhere,
e.g., atmosphere, rooftops, lawns. The ratio of 0.16 indicates that the ini-
tial load on the street was 1/6 of the total load leaving the area. It is
C-35
-------
Table 6. Castro Valley Creek Runoff Yields (Pitt ?, 1979)
1 Parameter
Total Solids
Sus. Solids
, COD
i BODs '
; Total N
: OPO,*
; Pb
i *n
Total Colif.(org)
Fecal Colif.(org)
Street Surface1
Tons/Yr %"
160
80
2.1
1.1
0.1
0.013
1.0
0.072
SxlO10
8xl09
33
32
2
7
2
9
100
24
« 1
« 1
No n- Street2
Urban
Tons/Yr %
10 2
60 27
69 72
12 76
2.4 51
0.12 84
0 0
0.23 76
6x1Qi" 100
3xlQi" 100
Undeveloped3
Tons/Yr X
320 65
.95 41
25 26
2.5 17
2.2 47
0.01 7
0 0
0 0
? ?
? ?
Total
Tons/Yr
490
235
96
16
4.7
0.14
1.0
0.3
6xlQi"
3xlQl"
1 From Alameda County measurements in Castro Valley during 208 Study
2 Alameda County 208 SWMM calculations minus street loadings
3 Data from "the literature" (estimates)
" Percentage contribution of source related to total annual runoff yield
C-36
-------
Table 7 . Street Loading Sensitivity to Rxmoff Yield (Pitt , 1981)
Runoff
Volume
(in)
4.3
3.3
2.0
1.3
0.66
0.33
0.13
0.05
0.01
Total
Solids
0.080
0.085
0.13
0.22
0.50
1.2
15
50
500
COD
0.020
0.024
0.054
0.095
0.20
0.45
3
10
100
Total
P
0.020
0.024
0.044
0.080
0.20
0.50
3
10
100
Ortho
P04
<0.001
0.001
0.0017
0.0026
0.0080
0.020
0.2
1
10
Total
Kjeldahl
• N
0.020
0.020
0.034
0.045
0.075
0.20
2
10
100
Arsenic
0.044
0.054
0.095
0.16
0.50
2.0
15
50
500
Copper
<0.06
<0.06
0.06
0.09
0.16
1
10
25
250
Lead
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.35
0.90
2.0
20
50
500
Zinc
0.020
0.025
0.044
0.062
0.13
0.36
3
10
100
C-37
-------
impossible to tell from this table alone the exact origin of the material or
what portion came off the street. For example, arsenic in the atmosphere
would wash out with the arsenic in the street. Arsenic in the soil would
probably wash out later. However, in order to obtain a rough estimate of
the type of storms that flush the streets, assume that some or all of the
street contamination is removed first then, the remaining removals are assumed
to come from other sources. Thus, for arsenic, a ratio of 2.0 means that 50%
of the arsenic in the street was removed while none of the other sources of
arsenic left the study area. Figure 2 shows the percent washoff vs. runoff
rate for the eight constituents shown in Table 7. It is evident from Figure 2
that the primary area of interest is runoff volumes from 0.1 to 0.4 inches.
Lighter storms (< 0.1 in.) do not cause much street washoff whereas larger
storms (> 0.4 in.) contribute much more contaminants from sources other than
street runoff.
Given that the main area of interest is runoff values ranging from 0.1
to 0.4 inches, the results of Table 7 and Figure 2 can be used to estimate
the percent of storm events falling in this range. The lower bound of
0.1 in. of runoff corresponds to the 50% level whereas the 0.4 in. values
corresponds to the 90 to 95% level (from Figure 1). Thus, the main area of
interest is in the larger storm events up to the 90 to 95% level. Alterna-
tively, only about one half of the storm events flush the streets clean.
Thus, the approximate time between these rainfall events is about one week,
twice the average time between storms.
Street Pollutant Build-up Rates
Pitt (1981) has summarized the results of work to date on the rate of
accumulation of street solids based on five catchments in California and one
in Belleview, Washington—all west coast stations for which it is possible to
obtain information on long-term accumulation due to the dry summers. The
C-38
-------
CO
u
c
ta
e
•H
TO
4J
C
o
CJ
cu
0)
U-l
O
co
fl
25 -
.1
.'2
.3
.4
.5
.6
Runoff Volume, in./event
Figure 2 . Washoff of Street Contaminants for Residential Areas in Western U.S.
(Pitt, 1931)
C-39
-------
national estimates, shown in Table 8, are based on calculated values using
the curve of best fit for the original data. These national estimates are
plotted in Figure 3. All of the data plot as straight lines with positive
intercepts representing a base loading and constant growth rates (Ib/curb
mile/day) of 38.7 (industrial), 20.0 (residential), and 15.0 (commercial).
From the previous section, the average time between storm events that
flush the streets is about one week. Thus, the expected accumulations can
be taken directly from Table 8. The numbers in Table 8 and the lines in
Figure 3 are based on fitting functions to the available data. However, the
actual data exhibit quite a bit of variability as is evident in the street
loadings reported for the Surrey Downs catchment in Belleview, Washington (see
Figure 4). No trends are evident for this data set. About all one could say
is that the expected load is about 366 Ibs/curb mile independent of the days
of accumulation.
Street Sweeping Effectiveness; Single Site With and Without Cleaning
Figure 5 shows performance data (based on a two-day sweeping interval) for
the Surrey Downs study area. Two lines are drawn: a 45° line indicating zero
removal, and a regression line relating load in to load out. The regression
line for a sweeping interval of 2.0 days, is
L_ = 180 + 0.45 LT (1)
r L
where L = residual load (after sweeping), Ibs/curb mile, and
L = inital load, Ibs/curb mile.
The intersection of these two lines is the graphical solution to the problem of
finding the minimum inital load for which sweeping has a positive effect. It
is counterproductive to sweep where the streets are cleaner than this minimum
initial load since the solids generation form street abrasion exceeds the
removal by the sweepers. Thus, the origin of the axes can be translated along
the 45° line to (327,327) as indicated on the figure. With the transformation,
C-40
-------
the gross removal efficiency, e, is
e = 1 - LF'/Ll' = l ~ °*45 = °'55
where L ' = translated value of L (i.e., L -327), Ibs/curb mile, and
r r r
L ' = translated value of L (i.e., L -327), Ibs/curb mile.
The data set shown in Table 9 indicates negative removals for 13 out of
the 27 sweepings. The physical reason for negative removals is that the clean-
ing process itself erodes the street surface especially when the streets are
relatively clean as they would be in this case with only a two-day interval
between sweeping events. Thus, the overall net efficiency, e.,, for a two-day
interval is
e = 1 - LP/L.J. = 1 - 24.7/376.1 = 6.6% (3)
where L_ = mean residual load, Ibs/curb mile,
r
LT = mean initial load, and Ibs/curb mile.
Higher efficiencies can be acheived by not sweeping when the initial loads are
relatively light. If the general regression equation is
LF » a + bLz (4)
then sweeping should begin when L^ = LT< Combining these two equations yields
(L,). - a + b(L ) (5)
1 mm I mm
or (LT)m-n » T^K (6)
I mm 1 - b
For Surrey Downs, a = 180, b = 0.45. Thus, (LT) . = 327 Ibs/curb mile. How-
I nun
ever, this information is not very useful since the operator of the sweeper has
no simple way of measuring LT. Thus, the appropriate estimate of overall effi-
ciency is e,.. For this example, the data indicated that sweeping every other
day is relatively nonproductive.
Pitt (1981) has summarized the regression relationships for four types
of parking conditions and three types of street surfaces. The results are
shown in Table 10. In all cases, a simple linear relationship exists between the
C-41
-------
Table 8. Total Solids Accumulation on U.S. Streets (Pitt, 1981)
DAYS OF
ACCUMULATION
0
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
15
TOTAL SOLIDS, Ib./curb mile
RESIDENTIAL
400
420
440
470
490
510
530
600
700
INDUSTRIAL
670
710
750
790
830
870
940
1050
1250
COMMERCIAL
300
315
330
345
360
375
405
450
525
1000
= 670 +38.7 t
INDUSTRIAL
01
1—I
•H
e
M
3
u
CO
Q
O
CO
H
W
Cd
750
500
L = 400 + 20.0 t RESIDENTIAL
250
L = 300 + 15.0 t COMMERCIAL
c
10
15
DAYS OF ACCUMULATION, t
Figure 3. Street Loading vs. Days of Accumulation (Pitt, 1981)
C-42
-------
Table 9. Solids Removal Efficiencies of Street Sweepers,
Surrey Downs and Lake Hills -
Twenty-Seven Sweepings
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I
Mean
Surrey Downs
Loadings (Ib/curb mile)
Before, L
529
538
695
713
326
303
295
371
424
333
406
472
437
384
290
305
235
237
281
336
352
•>S1
328
302
363
296
353
10,155
376.1
After, LF
496
545
442
412
265
317
386
323
332
353
315
423
427
444
304
375
252
245
295
352
320
249
315
306
364
285
345
9,487
351.4
Difference
33
-7
253
301
61
-14
-91
48
92
-20
91
49
10
-60
-14
-70
-17
-8
-14
-16
32
7.
13
-4
-1
11
8
688
24.7
Lake Hills
Loadings (Ib/curb mile)
Before, L
380
238
295
292
265
228
229
244
216
124
182
198
250
167
150
161
no •
108
159
261
144
27"
242
194
109
185
190
5,591
207. 1
After, Lp
330
240
267
270
311
239
200
250
214
148
199
211
235
123
148
147
112
121
145
210
179
197
214
191
310
300
215
5,726
212. 1
Difference
50
-2
28
22
-46
-11
29
-6
2
-24
-17
-13
15
44
2
14
-2
-13
14
51
-35
73
28
3
-201
-115
-25
-135
-5.0
C-43
-------
Table 10. Estimated Street Cleaner Productivity (Pitt, 1981)
Parking
Condic ions
Light
Moderate
Extensive
Short
Term
Extensive
Long
Term
Smooth Asphalt
Range
for
L,
100-250
100-230
~
100-230
Equation
L = 150+
0.36 1.
L = 110+
0.54 L
~
LF = 55+
0.75 LT
»in
1310
1290
1330
1330
Removal
Efficiency
at
(LX)A
max
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
(L ) = a/(l-b) from equation L = a + bL
I min r l
Efficiency = l-(a+b(L ) )/(L )
-------
UJ
i
CO
(Tt
SURREY DOWNS STREET LOnDINGS-TOTflL SOLIDS
800
70Q_
60£L
50fl_
CD
- 40£L
LO
z
g 30fl_
o
20£L
10D_
0
"*— * « * 4
y« 4
01234567891
n213141516171Bi'9
129232425752/2825303]32333435
DRYS OK RCCUKULRTION (FOR 04/02/80 TO 07/132/81)
Figure 4. Surry Downs Street Loadings - Total Solids (Pitt, 1981)
-------
SURREY DOWNS TOTflL SOLIDS PRODUCTIVITY
60Q
0
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
INITIRL LORD (LB5/CURB-MILE) - LT
Figure 5. Surrey Downs Total Solids Productivity (ritt, 1<">8])
-------
initial and final loads. The user only needs to know the mean initial load,
LT, to estimate overall net efficiency, i.e.,
eN = 1 - LJ./LJ = 1 - (a + bL-^/Lj (7)
For example, the regression equation for rough asphalt with moderate parking
conditions is
LF - 360 + 0.44 LZ (8)
Assume LT = 600. Using equation (6), efficiency is
e = i . 360 + 0.44 (600) = _
£N L 600 U'U4'
a negative number. If LT = 650, the upper limit on the range of L , then e^ =
0.01. Using equation (6), the minimum L to obtain a non-negative efficiency
is
360
(LT)
I'min 1 - 0.44
=643 Ib/curb mile
Consequently, it would be unwise to sweep in this case. Table 10 shows (L )
I mln
for those ten equations. In two of the ten cases efficiencies are negative for
the entire range of L . The maximum attainable efficiency in the specified
range of L is only 4%. Thus, these results indicated very poor performance
for street sweepers.
Effectiveness of Street Sweeping Programs
If the street accumulation data do not show a trend over a time, (e.g.,
the Surrey Downs data in Figure 4) then the effectiveness of the street
sweeping program can be evaluated simply by determining the average street
loading with and without a street cleaning program. The Surrey Downs data
are summarized in Table 11.
Table 11. Results of Surrey Downs Sweeping Studies (Pitt, 1981)
Condition
No sweeping
Sweep 3 times /week
Immediately after
sweeping
Average Street Loads,
Lb/curb mile
366
333
330
% Reduction
— r
9.0
9.8
C-47
-------
These results indicate that frequent sweeping reduces total solids only by
9 or 10 percent. Thus, if 70% of a heavy metal such as lead originates in
the street, then the expected impact of sweeping three times per week is only
(9%) (.7) = 6.3% reduction in the total (street and non-street) lead load.
The effectiveness of street sweeping can be estimated by selecting
two similar areas, sweep one of these areas, and compare the loads leaving
the two areas. Results of this procedure as applied to Surrey Downs and
Lake Hills are described below.
Figures 6 and 7 are plots of storm runoff yields for both basins for
total solids and lead. Most of the available data are only for the period
when Lake Hills was cleaned and Surrey Downs was not cleaned. Therefore,
basin calibrations are not available, even though the basins were selected
with similarities in mind. These examples, along with the above discussion
of the effects of street cleaning on street dirt loads, demonstrate how poor
this method of analysis is. The first problem is selecting the appropriate
runoff data for comparisons. Eellevue has more available data than any other
NURP project: 116 storms. Only about 50 of these 116 storms include complete
monitoring simultaneously from both the control and test basins. If STORET
data are used, then there is no way of knowing which storms were completely
monitored, and which storms need to be combined. Another serious problem
is the differences in rainfall observed at both sites during the same storms.
Correlations in rain quantities were made between the Lake Hills and Surrey
Downs sites to a relatively high degree of significance, but individual rains
did vary substantially. Therefore, of the 50 complete monitoring sets, only
26 storms resulted in total rain quantities within 25% of each other. Previous
correlations showed a very "strong" relationship between rain quantity and
runoff pollutant yield (almost 1 to 1 for rain quantities up to 0.5 inch).
C-48
-------
n
RUNOFF CONTROL BY STREET CLERNING-TOT.SOL.
10.
0
1
12 13 14 15
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Lfl£E HILLS (CLEPNE3) LBS/8CRE/5TORM
Figure 6. Runoff Control By Street Cleaning-Total Solids (Pitt, 1981)
-------
RUNOFF CONTROL BY STREET CLERNING-LEFID
n
Ln
O
32E-C33E-Q34E-035E-C
36E-037E-038E-039E-03.01 .01
.015
LRK.E HILLS (CLEflNED) LB5/HCRE/5TCRM
Figure 7. Runoff Control by Street Cleaning-Lead (Pitt, 1981)
-------
Therefore, a 25% difference in total rain at the two sites can be expected
to produce nearly a 25% difference in runoff pollutant yield. As noted
above, extensive street cleaning compared to no street cleaning reduces
street loads by less than 10%, and the resultant runoff yields for most pol-
lutants could be expected to be much less. Therefore, even with "perfect"
basin calibrations, the noise in the system due to rain differences can be
easily greater than twice the expected difference due to street cleaning. If
rains within, say 10%, were selected, only a very few events would be avail-
able for study. Belleview probably has more consistent rains over the city
than many other NURP cities. Fortunately, the "information component" (street
cleaning effects) is expected to be greater in the other NURP cities.
Regression lines in Figures 6 and 7 show that the Surrey Downs catchment
(the "control") produces lower total solids and lead loads than the
"cleaned" Lake Hills basin. In fact, only 25% of the storms had smaller unit
area yields in the "cleaned" basin when compared to the "control" basin.
Again, the basins have not yet been "calibrated". The ongoing sampling scheme
will allow these direct comparisons to be made, along with basin calibrations,
but other data will also be collected allowing alternative analytical method-
ologies. This direct comparison appears to be the simplest procedure, but
without intimate knowledge of the data set (for completeness and compacta-
bility) and without adequate calibration periods, it can be extremely mis-
leading. Thus, the analysis of the sensitivity of street loads to runoff
yields and simple productivity relationships to identify the cleaning effort
needed to obtain specific street loads should be the primary methodology.
Comparisons between control and test basins should also be made, but only
after careful review of the data.
Cost-Effectiveness of Street Sweeping Programs
Unit costs for sweeping streets in Alameda County, California were found
C-51
-------
to be $15.00/curb mile (Pitt, 1981). Heaney et al. (1977) used a value of
$7.00/curb mile based on 1976 survey data of the American Public Works Asso-
ciation. For this inital assessment of control effectiveness a unit cost of
$12.00 per curb mile is assumed.
Heaney and Nix (1977) developed a procedure for evaluating the relative
cost effectiveness of street sweepers as compared to detention basins and
other controls. The performance of the system was simulated using a simple
model which assumes:
a) zero base load and a constant buildup rate per day,
b) an exponential washoff relationship based on the assumption that
one-half inch of runoff per hour removes 90% of the remaining
street contaminants.,
c) a constant percent of the load is available to be swept,
d) rainfall does not act as a source of contaminants, and
e) removal efficiencies are independent of loadings.
Information presented earlier in this section indicates that several of these
assumptions are untenable. A given level of control applied over several
months results in a known average loading on the street. Insufficient data
exist to support the assumptions of a positive linear or nonlinear accumulation
of solids with time. Unfortunately, it is very expensive and time consuming
to sweep for several months or a year at a fixed interval to obtain a single
estimate of removal efficiency. The type of curve we hope to get looks like
Figure 8. However in this case, each data point is based on several months
of sampled data. Figure 8 shows additional removals as street sweeping in-
tensifies. However, we are limited by two primary factors: only a portion
of the total load is sweepable; and relatively intensive sweeping generates
added loads through street abrasion.
C-52
-------
100
eg
-------
Given Figure 8, the total and marginal cost curves as a function of
pounds removed can be developed. For this hypothetical production function
(Figure 8) and assuming a unit cost of $12.00/curb mile, the total and mar-
ginal cost curves shown in Figure 9 can be developed. For this hypothetical
case, marginal costs are in the range of $ 0.50 to 3.00/lb removed. These
unit costs can then be compared to the unit costs of other control options.
Summary and Conclusions—Street Sweepers
Analysis of the available NURP data and earlier studies indicates the
following:
1) Street sweepers can remove suspended solids (up to 30-40%) and
metals (up to 90%) since significant portions of the urban wash-
off from these two categories of contaminants originate on the
streets. Sweeping will not be effective in removing organic
contaminants, nutrients, and/or coliforms since these constitu-
ents wash off from non-street areas.
2) Street loadings may or may not increase with time since the last
storm. Limited NURP data do not show any trends.
3) Streets are washed by runoff events in the range from 0.1 inch to
0.4 inch. This range of events accounts for about 40% of the
total events per year. About 50% of the events do not cause
significant washoff (< 0.1 in) while 10% of the events are large
enough (> 0.4 in) such that non-street loads dominate.
4) The expected time between runoff events which wash the streets
is about one week.
5) The expected total solids load after a week in Ibs/curb mile is
530 (residential), 940 (industrial), and 405 (commercial).
6) The reported removal efficiencies for single or paired basins are
quite low, i.e., < 10%. If available data are a representative
C-54
-------
3000 -
500 1000 1500
Lbs. Removed, x
2000
$3.00
$2.50
- $2.00
$1.50
U
H
•0
0)
>
o
CU
1-1
$1.00
en
o
u
CO
c
$0.50
2500
Figure 9. Hypothetical Cost Function for Street Sweeping
C-55
-------
range, then street sweeping does not appear to be a very cost
effective control option.
7) A procedure for doing cost-effectiveness is available. However,
more performance data are needed before doing the analysis.
C-56
-------
References
1. Castro Valley First Year Work Plan, 1979.
2. Driscoll, E.D. and Assoc., "Combined Sewer Overflow Analysis Handbook
for Use in 201 Facility Planning, Volume II: Appendices". Draft
Report to USEPA, July 1981.
3. Heaney, J.P. et al., "Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows
and Urban Stormwater Discharges, Volume II: Cost Assessment and Impacts",
EPA-600/2-77-064, Cincinnati, OH, 1977.
4. Heaney, J.P. and S.J. Nix, "Storm Water Management Model Level I—Compara-
tive Evaluation of Storage-Treatment and Other Management Practices",
EPA-600/2-77-083, Cincinnati, OH, 1977.
5. Pitt, R., Unpublished Data, 1981.
C-57
-------
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS BY STORMWATER DETENTION
Introduction
Detention is widely used in sanitary sewage treatment plants and
is particularly important in the field of stormwater flow and pollution
19 20
control ' . This section describes the role of urban stormwater detention
facilities in water quality management, and the various methods to eval-
uate the pollutant control performance of the facility. Most of the
material is taken directly from a synopsis of evaluation methods by Nix
et al23.
A detention facility retains stormwater and attenuates peak
discharges. In addition to these roles, detention provides some measure
of stormwater quality improvement. However, because of the variable
nature of stormwater flows and pollutant loads, the mechanisms governing
the performance of detention facilities as pollution control devices are
not well understood. The picture is further clouded by the lack of
useful performance data. The poor condition of the data base is attribut-
able to the expense and time involved in collecting any type of stormwater
data.
20
At present, most detention basins are sized using a design storm
This concept has served well for many decades in the design of flow con-
trol structures. However, design storms are difficult, if not impossible,
to determine for stormwater pollution control. This difficulty is directly
related to the lack of historical data, the inability to measure benefits,
the unreliability of pollutant measurements, and the unclear relationship
between stormwater flows and pollutant loads. A design storm must also be
accompanied by design "conditions" for the receiving water (and the addition-
al uncertainties and data requirements). In general, the design storm is not
C-58
-------
very useful when investigating pollution control capabilities.
An alternative approach, advocated here, is to analyze the long-
term average or, in more detailed studies, a time series response.
Average performance is a useful preliminary indicator of a detention
basin's contribution to the abatement of total pollutant loads and to
provide initial design estimates. The analysis of a time series of
facility performance parameters (e.g., suspended solids removal) provides
useful information lacking from a preliminary analysis; namely, the
abatement of extreme events (e.g., standards violations). This information
is vital if the primary function of detention is to prevent "catastrophic"
events. Unfortunately, such a time series analysis requires an extensive
pilot plant study and/or computer simulation. Pilot plant studies are time
consuming and expensive. Computer simulation is less expensive in terms
of dollars and time but the simulation techniques are invariably open to
questions concerning their validity.
Ideally, a problem should be approachable from several levels of
sophistication. This philosophy is carried through the rest of the
section. The evaluation techniques presented here range from simple
hand calculations for estimating average performance to sophisticated
computer models for time series analyses (see appendices). Before discussing
the performance evaluation methods, a brief overview of the role and theory
of detention in stormwater quality management is in order.
Role of Detention in Stormwater Quality Control
Detention is probably the most effective stormwater management
19
tool available to the design engineer . Additionally, several states
and localities require detention.to manage stormwater flows from new develop-
ments. This combination of technical/economic desirability and regulatory
C-59
-------
pressure necessitates the development of analytical tools to determine the
pollution control capability of stormwater detention.
Detention facilities provide flow or flood control by retaining,
buffering and attenuating flows. These attributes also provide some
level of pollution control by detaining the flow long enough for removal
by physical and/or biochemical processes to occur. Detention facilities
are often designed to serve the needs of flow control with pollution
control as a "side" benefit. This approach seems reasonable because of
the more obvious destructive power of uncontrolled stormwater flows.
However, there are cases in which detention is provided primarily for
pollution control, e.g., Ottawa, Ontario, or to perform both functions,
e.g., throughout Florida. In the case of a true dual-purpose facility,
the proper mixture of flow and pollution control is a complex economic
problem in which the benefits of each function must be evaluated and
balanced against each other. This question will remain unanswered here
as the emphasis is on the evaluation of pollution control performance
and not the level of control desired.
The mechanisms controlling pollutant removal in detention
facilities are complex and numerous. Figure 1 summarizes the more
significant mechanisms. Most of these factors can be related to the
concept of detention time. Simply defined, detention time is the time a
parcel of water spends in the basin or pond. More precise definitions are
presented in a later discussion. The mechanisms shown in Figure 1 are each
affected by or affect detention time. Particle settling is affected by
detention time as is biological stabilization. Outlet structures can be
designed to achieve various detention times. The inflow rates have a di-
rect bearing on detention times. In short, detention time is the primary
C-60
-------
n
bypass
inflow rote
precipitation
outflow rate/
outlet structure
pollutant
characteristics.
artificial
drawdown
or cleaning
basin geometry _>
Istabilizaji
i r»c:iicr>DricInn / ^» s
minimum
pool
infiltration
Figure 1. Mechanisms Affecting Pollutant Removal in Detention Facilities (source: ref. 23)
-------
indicator of pollution control capability. However, some problems are
encountered in precisely defining detention time in the case of in-
termittent stormwater flows (see later discussion).
Predicting Stormwater Detention Pond Performance
There are many methods for estimating the pollution control
capability of detention basins and ponds. The range of sophistication
is wide but necessary to fit the various scenarios that might confront
an engineer. Several methods are described in Appendix I.
The primary indicator of pollution used throughout much of this
section is total suspended solids (TSS). This constitutent is one of
the most commonly and reliably measured stormwater contaminants. Addi-
tionally, many of the techniques only address suspended solids. Five-
day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD-) is also a commonly, but much less
reliably, measured pollutant and is included where possible. Many other
pollutants are measured but, because of the lack of data availability or
reliable test procedures, are omitted. However, it may be possible to esti-
mate the effect on other pollutants by relating them to commonly measured
constituents (e.g., suspended solids).
Detention Time
Detention time is the most important single determinant of pollu-
tant control potential. The concept of detention time is generally understood,
but its computation, especially in stormwater detention, is not always so clear.
The basic definition is simple; detention time is the length of time a parcel
of water spends in the basin or pond. Detention time is easy to compute under
steady state conditions, i.e.,
td = S/i (1)
where t, = detention time, sec,
a
3
S = detention volume, ft , and
_ 3
q = constant flow rate, ft /sec.
C-62
-------
In completely-mixed units, t, represents the average detention time. In plug-
flow units, t, is the actual time all parcels spend in the detention basin.
Unfortunately, a steady state condition is rarely found in a sanitary sewage
plant and is certainly improbable in stormwater detention facilities. There-
fore, such a computational definition is of limited value. Several analysts
have applied this definition to a design storm but this concept was discounted
earlier.
For stormwater flows, the theoretically ideal method is to
calculate the length of time each parcel of water spends in detention.
Obviously, this is not practical in real-world situations. This problem
can be circumscribed by recognizing that factors such as outlet structure and
basin geometry control detention time and, fortunately, they are much easier
to measure or compute. Varying these factors will produce different overall
control levels which can be measured directly. However, it may be necessary
to compute detention time in a computer simulation model because of its pre-
dictive value. These simulators allow the user to vary the factors control-
8 15 27
ling detention time ' ' . This is often accomplished by modeling the de-
tention basin or pond as a plug-flow reactor. Such a model simply queues
relatively small parcels or plugs (ideally, the parcel is infinitely small)
24
through the basin . In other words, the first parcel of water entering
the basin is the first parcel to leave. Pollutants entering a basin
with a plug are assumed to remain with that plug. The detention time
can be calculated for each plug by
t, = t, (2) - t, (1) (2)
di di di
where t, = detention time for plug or parcel i,
t, (1) = point in time that plug i entered the basin, and
t, (2) = point in time that plug i left the basin.
C-63
-------
Detention facilities may also be viewed as completely-mixed or
24
arbitrary-flow reactors . True values of detention time are difficult to
calculate under these assumptions. In completely-mixed reactors the inflow
parcels and associated pollutants are completely intermixed with all other
parcels in the unit and, thus, lose their identity. Arbitrary-flow reactors
are a blend of plug-flow and completely-mixed reactors. Most detention units
can be thought of as plug flow or arbitrary flow reactors. This is a realistic
assumption for stormwater detention facilities experiencing little or no turbu-
lence. Completely-mixed stormwater detention is an anomaly when one consid-
ers that a major pollutant removal mechanism is particle settling.
The purpose of this discussion is to provide some insight of the
role of detention time in the evaluation of detention basins and to serve as
a preface to a cautionary note. It is often tempting to take the volume
of a detention basin or pond and divide it by some measure of flow and
call it "detention time". This is probably due to the traditional
desire to define a. detention time. But this is essentially impossible
in stormwater detention — there is no single value of detention time.
However, several variables are used in this section that appear to be
detention time (i.e., volume/annual flow) but, conceptually, they are
not. They are only indicators of the relative detention capability
(and, in turn, pollution control capability).
Summary and Conclusions
This section described the water quality aspects of stormwater de-
tention facilities and presented several methods for predicting removal
rates (see appendices). Detention time is the primary determinant of pollu-
tant removal efficiency but its use is sometimes misunderstood. Various
methods of estimating removal efficiency are presented. Unfortunately, very
few field data are available at this time. Thus, it is essential to perform
C-64
-------
waste characterization and treatability studies on the local urban stormwater,
to aid the analysis. These data can be used with the preliminary estimates
to guide the use of computer simulation in the evaluation of the continuous
operation of the detention facility.
C-65
-------
Appendix I; Basin Evaluation Methods
This appendix describes various methods to estimate or evaluate
detention basin performance. Examples are presented to illuminate the
procedures.
The following information is common to all of the examples presented
in the detention basin performance summaries. Data particular to a speci-
fic example are given in that example.
A 600-acre (243 ha) drainage basin, located in a primarily resi-
dential area near Minneapolis, Minnesota has an average annual precipita-
tion of 26.0 in. (66.0 cm.). The area has the following land use breakdown:
Land Use Area, acres (ha) Percent of Total
Residential 420 (170) 70.0
Commercial 30 (12) 5.0
Industrial —
Other (parks, 150 (61) 25.0
schools, etc.)
Total 600 (243) 100.0
The precipitation statistics for Minneapolis are given below.
Coefficient
Parameter Mean of Variation
Duration D =6.30 hr/event v, = 1.14
P d
Intensity I =0.047 in/hr (0.119 cm/hr) v = 1.73
Volume V =0.25 in/event (0.64 cm/event) v =1.56
P r
Intervent
time A = 84 hr v = 1.02
p
-------
variation, v and v , are assumed to equal v. and v , respectively. The aver-
age annual runoff is (0.081 in/event)(104 events) or 8.42 in/yr (21.39 cm/yr).
A rectangular detention pond with a capacity of 10 acre-ft (12335 m )
is proposed to provide stonnwater quality control. The pond's capacity is
measured to the bottom of a broad-crested weir (at a depth of 12 ft (3.66 m).
The weir is 20 ft (6.10 m) long and rapidly discharges large flows. The
total pond depth is 16 ft (4.88 m). The length and width are 300 ft (91.4 m)
and 121 ft (36.9 m), respectively. A 6-inch (15.24 cm) orifice is located at
6 ft (1.83 m) for the slow release (over approximately one day) of the volume
between 6 ft (1.83 m) and 12 ft (3.66 m). The volume held below the orifice
is discharged by evaporation and infiltration (over 6 days). For simplicity,
the sides of the pond are assumed to be vertical. The outflow is routed to
a nearby stream.
C-67
-------
Method; Brown's Trap Efficiency Curve (Source; ref. 23)
Data Requirements: 1) Basin volume
2) Drainage area
Description; An estimate of annual suspended solids removal can be taken from
2 27
an equation developed by Brown ' . This equation relates sediment
trap efficiency to the detention pond volume-drainage area ratio. Brown
based his equation on data collected from over 25 normally-ponded reservoirs.
The equation is
R = 100
1 -
(I-A1)
11 + 0.1(S/A)
\ >
where R = annual suspended solids removal, percent,
S = pond volume, acre-ft, and
A = drainage area, mi .
The resulting curve is shown in Figure I-A1. The data used to develop
equation I-A1 are scattered; thus, the relationship is weak. Also, the
S/A ratio provides little measure of the different hydrologic and soil
conditions found around the country. Additionally, this equation applies
only to reservoirs where some water is held between storms. Nevertheless,
with a minimal amount of information, a preliminary estimate is possible.
An example application is given below. The same scenario presented earlier
is used.
Brown's curve represents the crudest model of sediment removal.
It does not distinguish between the removal efficiencies of sands,
silts, or clays even though their detention times vary from minutes to
months.
Example; The basin capacity and the drainage area are needed to use
Brown's equation. The relationship is best used for ponded reservoirs with
relatively continuous inflows. The estimated sediment or total suspended
solids removal is calculated below. The 600-acre (243 ha) area comprises
C-68
-------
200
CAPACITY WATERSHED RATIO, S/A, a ere-ft/mi
Figure I-A1. Brown's Trap Efficiency Curve (source: ref. 27)
C-69
-------
0.938 mi . Using equation 14, the removal efficiency is
1
R = 100
1 -
1 + 0.1(10 acre-ft/0.938 mi'
= 51.6%
C-70
-------
Method; Brune's Trap Efficiency Curves (Source: ref. 23)
Data Requirements; 1) Basin volume
2) Basic knowledge physical characteristics of the
suspended solids
3) Annual inflow to the basin
Description; A more refined (relative to Brown's curve) set of curves was
36 77
developed by Brune ' ' . These curves were based on data collected from
44 normally-ponded reservoirs and semi-dry reservoirs located in twenty
different states. The curves are shown in Figure I-B1. Rather than
basing sediment removal on the volume-drainage area ratio, Brune based
his curves on the volume-annual inflow ratio. This ratio provides a
rough indicator of detention capability but cannot be defined as an aver-
age annual residence time.
Brune's curves provide additional dimensions to the analysis;
i.e., a crude accounting of hydrologic conditions (annual inflow) and the
physical characteristics of the suspended solids load. The upper curve in
Figure I-B1 represents a flow laden with coarse solids (i.e., sand). The
lower curve represents a flow in which fine solids (i.e., clay) predominate.
The central curve represents a median of the two extremes. Brune's curves
have been widely used in sediment basin design, but one caveat is necessary.
The data from semi-dry reservoirs did not correlate well with the curves
in Figure I-B1; hence, their usefulness is restricted to detention ponds.
However, Brune noted in his work that semi-dry reservoirs are likely to
achieve much lower removal efficiencies normally-ponded reservoirs.
Example; Brune's curves (like Brown's curve) apply only to
normally-ponded reservoirs. Again, for illustrative purposes, the
sediment or total suspended solids removal is estimated. Assume that
the sediment is characterized by Brune's median curve.
C-71
-------
o
I
NJ
0.001 0.002
0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 O.I 02 0.5
CAPACITY-INFLOW RATIO, acre~ft/acre-f1/yr
i.o
5.0 10
Figure I-B1. Brune's Trap Efficiency Curves (source: ref. 27)
-------
To use Brune's curves, the capacity-annual inflow ratio must be
estimated. The capacity is 10 acre-ft (1235 m ) and the annual inflow
is 8.42 in./yr (21.39 cm/yr) or 421.0 acre-ft (519354 m3/yr). The
capacity-annual inflow ratio is —/01 n j—, or 0.024 years. From
f } 421.0 acre-ft/yr '
Figure I-B1 the corresponding annual removal percentage is approximately
65%.
C-73
-------
Method; Churchill's Trap Efficiency Curve (Source: ref. 23)
Data' Requirements; 1) Average cross-sectional area
2) Basin volume
3) Average runoff event flow rate
r -j f\-t
Description; The method proposed by Churchill ' * relates the per-
centage of sediment passing through a reservoir to the "sedimentation
index" of the reservoir. The sedimentation index is defined as
2
where SI = sedimentation index, sec /ft,
S = reservoir volume, ft ,
0_ = average runoff event flow rate, ft /sec, and
K
2
A = average cross-sectional area of the reservoir, ft .
The average cross-sectional area is computed by dividing the reservoir
volume by the length of the reservoir (parallel to the flow). If the
reservoir has an irregular shape an average length should be used.
Churchill's curve is shown in Figure I-C1.
Example: To find the sedimentation index, SI, the average cross-sectional
area, A , of the basin is required. The length of the basin is 300 feet
(91.4 m) and the width is 121 feet (36.9 m). The assumption of a rectangular
basin eases the computation of A .
\ / c
10 acre-ftV / 43560 ft'
Ac \ 300 ft I' \ acre
1452 ft2 (135 m2)
The average runoff event flow rate is 0.0.46 in/hr. Converting this value
3
to ft /sec yields
/ \ //OC£C\ C ^ \ / U \
QD = (0.0146 in./hr) (T|^-| (600 acres) ' 4356° ft " hr '
w.wj-tu j.u.,11.., , 12 , w«w «^*.CB/ , acre ;i 3600 sec
\ / \ / \
= 8.8 ft3/sec (0.25 m3/sec)
3
The capacity is 10 acre-feet or 435600 ft . Thus, the sedimentation
index is
C-74
-------
n
i
PERCENT OF INCOMING SEDIMENT
PASSING THROUGH RESERVOIR, 100-F
_ 6
-oo
— «
1 II Mil
| 1 1 Illl
III Mil
| 1 1 I t III
1 i. i Inn
I i i | nil
1 i i hin
—
! i 1 1 nK
I04 I05 10s 107 I08 I09
QFHIMFMTATinM IMHFY HF RFC:FRV/niR QT c,^^2/^
Figure I-C1. Churchill's Trap Efficiency Curve (source: ref. 27)
-------
CT - . 435600 ft3 \ . / 8.8 ft3/sec
SI - I r I • I 2
8.8 ft /sec/ \ 1452 ft
= 8.2 x 106 sec2/ft (2.7 x 107 sec2/m)
From Figure I-C1 the corresponding total suspended solids removal is 100-
18% or 82%.
C-76
-------
Method; Statistical Moments Method, Sedimentation Tank (Source: ref. 23)
Data Requirements; 1) Surface area of the sedimentation tank
2) Average runoff event flow rate
3) Coefficient of variation for runoff event flow rate
25 17
Description; Small and DiToro and Hydroscience have developed a long-
term removal equation for stormwater treatment devices based on
assumed stochastic distributions of average event flow and pollutant
concentrations. These distributions are based on storm relationships
shown in Figure I-D1. Sedimentation tanks are viewed differently from
other detention facilities as they are not normally designed to provide
a significant level of storage. However, this approach may be useful in
some cases. The pertinent equation is given as
100-R = ^ J"J"[100-r(c,q)] c q p (c) p (q) dc dq (I-D1)
qc C q
where R = long-term average pollutant removal, percent,
c = runoff event concentration, Ib/acre-in.,
q = runoff event flow rate, acre-in/hr,
r(c,q) = percentage pollutant removal by treatment device as a function
of c and q,
p (c) = probability distribution function of average runoff event
pollutant concentration,
p (q) = probability distribution function of average event flow, and
W = average pollutant loading to treatment device for all events,
Ib/hr.
The average flow for each runoff event, q, is assumed to be independent
of the average concentration and to have a mean of QR, a coefficient of
variation v , and a gamma probability distribution function. The probabil-
ity distribution function of flow is given as
1C —1
* \
~
Q/
(I-D2)
QR/ \r(K)
C-77
-------
Ul
£E
O
r VARIATION WITHIN EVENTS
n
TIME
VARIATION BETWEEN EVENTS
TIME
h-
cc.
s
n n
v
n
Figure I-D1. Representation of Storm Runoff Process (source: ref. 17)
C-78
-------
where K = 1/v , and
q
F(K) = the gamma function with argument K.
The average event concentration, c, with mean C and coefficient of
variation v , is also assumed to be distributed according to the gamma
distribution function.
If pollution removal is assumed to be a function of flow alone,
then equation I-D2 may be simplified to
100-R = -f[100-r(q)] q p (q) dq (I-D3)
T t *^ *J
The usefulness of equation I-D3 for sedimentation tanks is enhanced by re-
quiring the average removal for each event to be described by
/ x -bq/A
r(q) = * * ^ s (I_D4)
where a = coefficient, a <^ 100,
b = coefficient, hr/in., and
A = surface area of sedimentation tank, acres.
The term q/A can be viewed as an indicator of the "average" overflow
s
rate or detention time for each event (recall earlier discussion).
Equation I-D4 requires that depth be relatively constant over the length
and width of the facility. Several removal equations for suspended solids
are shown in Figure I-D2.
Substituting equations I-D2 and I-D4 into equation I-D3, integrating
and solving for R, yields
R = a
bQ
1 + —
s J
K+l
(I-D5)
Equation I-D5 represents a long-term removal function relating pollutant
removal, R, to the average runoff event flow rate. However, the value of R
C-79
-------
n
oo
o
100
90
- 80
< 7°
1 60
UJ
cc
CO 5°
g
d 40
CO
S 30
Q
I 20
CO
co 10
0
0
THE CURVES REPORTED BY IMHOFF AND FAIR^ASCE;1 AND SMITH 2(ftRE
FOR SANITARY SEWAGE.
THE CURVE BY LAGER etal.20IS FOR COMBINED SEWAGE.
THE COMPOSITE CURVE HAS THE FOLLOWING FUCTIONAL FORM'
IMHOFF AND FAIR
18
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
OVERFLOW RATE, q/A,_, gal/ft-day
s>
Figure I-D2. Suspended Solids Removal by Detention/Sedimentation (source: ref, 9)
-------
estimated by equation I-D5 is probably conservative because of the additional
removal occuring between events. Equations I-D3 through I-D5 assume that the
water level in the facility is constant during each storm and that the
detention facility remains full between storms (i.e., the level remains
at the bottom of an elevated outlet structure between storms). In other
words, the basin is essentially a flow-through sedimentation tank and does
not provide any significant amount of storage. Thus, this procedure is
probably only applicable to basins where the capacity is relatively small
when compared to most storm volumes.
The advantage of such an approach is that local hydrologic factors
are included in the analysis. Additionally, any pollutant may be investi-
gated. The major drawbacks are obtaining the necessary statistics (i.e.,
v and Q_.) and the size/flow restriction noted above.
q K
Example; The average event runoff flow rate and the coefficient of
variation for the hypothetical drainage area are 0.0146 in/hr or 0.0371 cm/hr
and 1.73, respectively (see earlier discussion). Using the composite suspended
solids removal function given in Figure I-D2, the long-term average removal
percentage is computed as follows:
QD = (0.0146 in/hr) (ft/12 in) (600 acres) (43560 ft2/acre)
K
(24 hr/d) (7.48 gal/ft3)
= 57100000 gal/d
K = 1/v = 1/1.73 = 0.578
q
a = 80.0
b = 0.000373 ft2-d/gal
A = 36300 ft2
s
C-81
-------
0.578 + 1
R = 80
1 +
(0.000373 ft -d/gal) (57100000 gal/d)
(0.578) (36300 ft2)
- 68.7%
C-82
-------
Method: Statistical Moments Method, Storage
Data Requirements: 1) Set of runoff statistics (mean and coefficient of
variation of runoff event flow, volume, duration
and the time between storms)
2) Basin volume
3) Release rate
Description; Hydroscience, Inc. has developed a set of long-term per-
formance curves for storage basins operated with interevent drawdown
pumping. A conceptual view of how such a storage/release configuration
operates is shown in Figure I-El. From this figure and several assump-
tions, a set of curves relating the mean effective storage capacity, Vp,
to the maximum storage capacity, V_, and the interevent drawdown rate, ft,
D
was developed. These curves are shown in Figure I-E2. Among the assump-
tions used to develop this relationship are the following:
1) The runoff flows, q, duration, d, and time between storms, is calculated
C-83
-------
as the by-passed load, divided by the total load:
00 00
fy - C I / q(J - VE/q) pd(d) Pq(q) dd dq (I-E1)
q = 0 d = V_/q
where fv = long-term fraction of pollutant load not captured,
C = mean runoff pollutant concentration for all events, mass/volume
P, (d) = probability distribution for runoff event duration, d,
p (q) = probability distribution for runoff event flow, q,
QD = mean runoff flow for all events, volume/time, and
K
D_. = mean runoff event duration, time.
K
Equation I-E1 was numerically integrated to obtain the curves shown in
Figure I-E3. The fraction not captured, fv, is a function of the mean
effective storage capacity, V , and the coefficient of variation of the
E*
runoff volumes, v . Again the mean effective storage capacity, V , is
VK c.
normalized over V to enhance the applicability of the curves. Note
K
that the runoff concentration is assumed to be independent of runoff
flow. This creates a situation in which the runoff concentration is a
constant value, C, for all flows and, thus, first-flush effects are
ignored. However, Hydroscience developed a set of curves to account
for the first-flush effect.
Unfortunately, this method only calculates the fraction of the
pollutant load "captured" by the basin, i.e., the load that is not by-
passed for some period of time. In order to account for the removal of
pollutants a relationship between long-term efficiency and an indicator
of detention ability is required. The long-term efficiency is multiplied
by the fraction "captured" by the basin to determine the actual level of
pollution control.
C-84
-------
VOLUME
T
!"•-
Ve
STORM
I
STORM
2
TIME
Legend
V = maximum storage capacity
B
V = mean effective storage capacity
£j
V = storm 1 volume
ft = drawdown rate between'Storms
V = available storage at the start of a storm
6 = time between storm midpoints
Figure I-E1. Conceptualization of Storage Operation (source: ref. 17)
C-85
-------
14
An approach similar to that used by Howard et al. can be used with
this method to account for pollution reduction in storage, i.e.,
R = a log (DT) + b (I-E2)
where R = long-term pollutant removal efficiency, 0 £ R £ 1.0
a, b = coefficients, and
DT = detention parameter, hr
14
The definition of DT is purposely left unspecified. Howard et al recom-
mend letting DT = S/2ft where S is the basin volume in inches and ft is the
release or treatment rate in inches/hour. However, other indicators of
detention ability are probably equally as valid (e.g., basin volume/average
inflow, basin volume/ total annual inflow, etc.). The coefficients a and b
must be determined from an applicable data base such as a cross section of
basin data, by calibration against on-site data, or by calibration to the
results of a simulator that directly models pollutant removal (e.g. SWMM S/T
Block15) .
Pollutant removal equations need not be limited to the type given by
equation I-E2. Other forms are equally permissible as long as they can
be used to relate some indicator of detention time and long-term pollutant
removal. One possible (and perhaps preferrable) alternative is
where R = long-term pollutant removal efficiency, 0 ^ R >_ R
R = maximum efficiency, 0 > R > 1,
max — max —
K = coefficient, 1/hr, and
DT = detention parameter, hr.
The reader is cautioned that the results from batch settling tests are not
directly suitable to find values for the coefficients in equations I-E2 or
I-E3. In these applications, the critical variable is the elapsed settling
time, t ,. The parameter DT is only an indicator of the detention ability
C-86
-------
UJ
UJ
UJ
i.O
2.0
3.0
4.0
.[STORAGE. VOLUME (EMPTY)
MEAN RUNOFF VOLUME
Figure I-E2. Determination of the Mean Effective Storage Capacity, V
(source: ref. 17)
C-87
-------
0.5
1.0
VR
1,5 ' . 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
EFFECTIVE STORAGE CAPACITY
MEAN RUNOFF VOLUME
4.3
5.0
Figure I-E3. Determination of the Long-Term Fraction of the Pollutant
Load Not Captured by Storage, f (source: ref. 17)
C-88
-------
of the basin. On the other hand, t, is a real-time measure limited to ex-
perimental work and simulators capable of tracking the detention time of
each water parcel as it passes through a detention basin.
Example: None
C-89
-------
Method: Statistical Analysis Method (Source: ref. 14)
Data Requirements: 1) Set of runoff statistics
2) Basin capacity
3) Treatment plant or release rate
Description; The purpose of the statistical analysis method is to obtain
closed form expressions for the probability distributions of runoff, overflow
and pollution events - expressions which reflect the natural physical proc-
cesses in the watershed and the effect of man-made facilities and operations.
These results can then be used in planning control strategies.
To accomplish this, the watershed has to be represented by a very
simple model. Storm events are defined, and the rainfall data are analyzed
to obtain the statistics of rainfall probability distributions. Using
these distributions and a watershed model, probability distributions of
runoff and pollution events are then derived. These distributions form the
basis for determining the runoff and pollution control provided by combina-
tions of storage and treatment capacities.
The watershed and facilities are shown schematically in Figure I-El.
Rainfall is the input to the watershed. This input is transformed into run-
off, whose temporal behavior depends on that of the rainfall and on the stor-
age and conveyance characteristics of the watershed. The runoff picks up
pollution from the watershed and flows into the man-made reservoir. Water
is released from the reservoir to the treatment plant, and the treated outflow
is discharged into the receiving waters. When the reservoir cannot contain
all the runoff, the remainder spills into the receiving waters without going
through the treatment plant. Water can also be released after detention in
storage into the receiving waters without passing through treatment. This
allows the operator to prepare some empty storage when he expects the next
storm, releasing into the receiving waters runoff which was already allowed
to settle in the reservoir and trapping the first flush of the next storm.
C-90
-------
The mathematical method is based on the following propositions and
assumptions:
(1) Runoff is generated from the rainfall by first subtracting the
depression storage, s,, and then multiplying the remaining
effective precipitation by the runoff coefficient, .
(2) The concentration of pollution in the runoff waters is constant,
independent of the time between storms, rainfall intensity, or
time during the storm. Any specified single pollutant (e.g.
suspended solids) can be considered.
(3) The treatment plant operates at a constant rate, ft (in inches/
hr), as long as water is in the reservoir. This treatment rate
is assigned to storm runoff only, i.e., it is the capacity of
the sewage treatment plant above that needed to treat dry weath-
er flows as it is a separate wet-weather plant.
(4) The efficiency of the treatment plant, n0, is constant.
uu
(5) The storage reservoir has a treatment efficiency, n , which is
O
due to the residence time of water in it. This efficiency is
estimated as
n = a log (DT) + b, RT <_ RTMIN (I-F1)
s
where (a) and (b) are empirically determined coefficients and
RTMIN is some reasonable minimum value of DT above which
equation I-F1 is valid. The value of DT, the detention
parameter, is estimated as S/2ft where S is the basin
capacity (in inches).
(6) The bypass overflow receives no treatment, and therefore enters
into the receiving waters with the original pollutant concentra-
tion.
(7) Runoff enters the reservoir at a constant rate for the approxi-
C-91
-------
RAIHFAU,
WATERSHED
RUNOFF
TREATMENT
PLANT
STORAGE
OVEHFLOW
BYPASS
OVERFLOW
RECEIVING HATERS
.Figure I-F1.
Schematic Representation of the System Used by the
Statistical Analysis Method (source: ref. 14)
C-92
-------
mate duration of the rainfall, i.e. the temporal distribution of
inflow to the reservoir is not affected by routing on the water-
shed or in the pipes.
(8) The reservoir is assumed to be full at the end of the previous
storm.
Example; None
C-93
-------
Method; Corps of Engineer's STORM model (Source : ref. 16)
Data Requirements; 1) Long-term hourly rainfall record
2) Drainage area characteristics (imperviousness,
depression storage)
3) Basin volume
4) Treatment plant or release rate
Description; Figure I-G1 shows a schematic representation of the seven
storm water elements modeled by STORM. In this approach, rainfall washes
dust and dirt and the associated pollutants off the watershed. The re-
sulting runoff is routed to the treatment-storage facilities where
runoff less than or equal to the treatment rate is treated and released.
Runoff exceeding the capacity of the treatment plant is stored for treatment
at a later time. If storage.is exceeded, the untreated excess is wasted
through overflow directly into the receiving waters. The magnitude and
frequency of these overflows are often important in a storm water study.
STORM provides statistical information on washoff, as well as overflows.
The quantity, quality, and number of overflows are functions of hydrologic
characteristics, land use, treatment rate, and storage capacity.
Computations of treatment, storage, and overflow are accomplished on
an hourly basis throughout the rainfall/snowmelt record. Periods of no
rain are skipped. The number of dry hours is used for various purposes
including recovery of soil moisture storage capability. Every hour in
which runoff (may include dry-weather flow) occurs, the treatment facili-
ties are utilized to treat as much runoff as possible. When the runoff
rate exceeds the treatment rate, storage is utilized to contain the
runoff. When runoff is less than the treatment rate, the excess treatment
rate is utilized to diminish the storage level. If the storage capacity
is exceeded, all excess runoff is considered overflow and does not pass through
the storage facility. This overflow is lost from the system and cannot be
treated later. While the storm runoff is in storage its age is increasing.
C-94
-------
Various methods of aging are used including average, first-in: last-out,
first-in: first out, or others, depending on the inlet and outlet configurations
of the storage reservoir. STORM does not compute the amount of pollutant
reductions due to settlement of solids while in storage.
14
An approach similar to that used by Howard et al. can be used with
STORM to account for pollution reduction in storage, i.e.,
R = a log (DT) + b (I-G1)
where R = long-term pollutant removal efficiency, 0 >_ R >_ 1.0
a, b = coefficients, and
DT = detention parameter, hr
14
The definition of DT is purposely left unspecified. Howard et al. recom-
mend letting DT = S/2T where S is the basin volume in inches and T is the
release or treatment rate in inches/hour. However, other indicators of
detention ability are probably equally valid (e.g., basin volume/average
inflow, basin volume/total annual inflow, etc.). The coefficients s. and b
must be determined from an applicable data base such as a cross section
of basin data, by calibration against on-site data, or by calibration to
the results of a simulator that directly models pollutant removal (e.g.,
SWMM S/T Block15).
Pollutant removal equations need not be limited to the type given by
equation I-G1. Other forms are equally permissible as long as they can be
used to relate some indicator of detention time to long-term pollutant
removal. One possible (and perhaps preferable) alternative is
R = R (1 - e"k(DT)) (I-G2)
max
where R = long-term pollutant removal efficiency, 0 <_ R <_ R
~~*
R = maximum efficiency, 0 < R < 1,
max — max —
K = coefficient, 1/hr, and
DT = detention parameter, hr.
C-95
-------
n
VO
// ' ' ' / ' ' '
'II ' / /
/'/'/ / / ' / ' / RAINFALL/SNOWMELT
STORAGE
DRY WEATHER
FLOW
SURFACE
RUNOFF
POLLUTANT
ACCUMULATION
POLLUTANT
WASHOFF AND
SOIL EROSION
OVERFLOW
TREATMENT
Figure I-G1. Major Processes Modeled by STORM (source: ref. 16)
-------
The reader is cautioned that the results from batch settling tests are
not directly suitable to find values for the coefficients in equations
I-G1 and I-G2. In these applications, the critical variable is the
elasped settling time, t,. The parameter DT is only an indicator of the
detention ability of the basin. On the other hand, t, is a real-time
measure limited to experimental work and simulators capable of tracking
the detention time of each water parcel as it passes through a detention
basin.
The long-term pollutant removal efficiency is multiplied by the
estimate of pollutant "capture" provided by the model to determine the
overall level of pollution control. Pollutant capture is defined as the
fraction (on an annual basis) of the pollutant load passing through the
storage-treatment system.
Example; None
C-97
-------
Method: SWMM Storage/Treatment Block (Source: ref. 23 and ref. 15)
Data Requirements; 1) Basin geometry and outlet hydraulics
2) Pollutant removal equation or particle size distribution
3) Flow and pollutant concentration time series
(from measurements and/or another simulator)
4) Evaporation rates
Description: The University of Florida has developed the Storage/Treatment
(S/T) Block as part of the extensive EPA Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM). The S/T Block is a flexible simulator capable of modeling
several storage/treatment units, including detention facilities. The
model has several advantages, among them:
1) the ability to model a wide variety of detention facility
geometries and outlet structures;
2) sludge accounting;
3) the capability for dry-weather drawdown;
4) it is readily interfaced with the other blocks of SWMM
(which have the ability to simulate stormwater discharges
from a variety of drainage areas) ;
5) pollutants may be characterized by particle size/specific
gravity distributions;
6) a wide variety of time-varying pollutant removal equations
may be used;
7) any pollutant may be simulated; and
8) it is the most versatile model available.
The model lacks the ability, however, to model the resuspension of
settled particles. Basins may be modeled as completely-mixed or plug
flow reactors: intermediate (arbitrary flow) modes are not available.
A detailed description of the SWMM Storage/Treatment Block is given by
Huber et al.
C-98
-------
For complete mixing, the concentration of the pollutant in the unit
is assumed to be equal to the effluent concentration. The mass balance
equation for the assumed well-mixed, variable-volume reservoir shown in
Figure I-H1 is 22:
^T^-- Kt) CX(t) - 0(t) C(t) - K C(t) V(t) (
where V = reservoir volume, ft ,
C = influent pollutant concentration, mg/1,
C = effluent and reservoir pollutant concentration, mg/1,
3
I = inflow rate, ft /sec,
3
0 = outflow rate, ft /sec,
t = time, sec, and
K = decay coefficient, sec
Equation I-H1 is very difficult to work with directly. It may be approxi-
mated by writing the mass balance equation for the pollutant over the in-
terval, At:
Change in Mass entering Mass leaving Decay during
mass in basin = during At - during At - At
Cl h + C2 Z2 Cl°l + C2°2 C1V1 + C2V2
C2V2 - C^ = L L 2 L At - ± ± 2 2 2 At - K L L 2 Z 2 At (I
where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the beginning and end of the time step,
respectively.
27
From a separate flow-routing procedure (the Puls method ), I.. , I_, 0.. ,
0?, V1, and V_ are known. The concentration in the reservoir at the beginning
of the time step, C.. , and the influent concentrations, C^ and C_ are also
known as are the decay rate, K, and the time step, At. Thus, the only
unknown, the concentration at the end of the time step, C_, can be found di-
C-99
-------
I(t),(T(tJ
0(t),C (t)
/\
V
V(t),C(t)
Figure I-H1. Well-Mixed, Variable-Volume Reservoir (source: ref. 24)
C-100
-------
Table I-H1. Detention Facility Performance, S/T Block (source: ref. 23)
UNIT PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES FOR YEAR 1971
******** SUMMARY FOR UNIT « I.
DETENTION DASIN
********
INFLOW, TOT
BYPASS
INFLOW, TRT
OUTFLOW
RESIDUALS
REMAINING
EVAP. LOSS 0. 3193E+05
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
FLOW
(CF)
1675£+0a
0
1675E+OQ
16DOE+03
0
2189E+06
FLOW
'•/.- TOT y. TRT
0.
100.
98.
0.
1.
scoomoo
98.
O.
1.
inonc
SUS. SOLIDS
(LBS)
oooooo
3571E+06
0
3571E+06
1475E+06
0
2094E+06
SUS. SOLIDS
•/: TOT •/. TRT
0.
10O.
41.
O.
58.
0
0
3
0
6
41. 3
0. 0
«O L.
W_r. O
OOOOOO
BOD
(LOS)
54Q4E+05
O
5404E+05
36OOE+O5
0
1BO2E+05
BOD
V: TOT •/: TRT
O.
10O.
66.
0.
33.
0
0
6
0
3
66.
O.
33.
6
O
3
o. a
0. 2
-------
o
NJ
O
Ijj
<
o:
3
50
40
20
10
0
HYPOTHETICAL DETENTION BASIN
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
STORM OF AUGUST 31, 1971
DEPTH
INFLOW
-OUTFLOW
15
10
X
uj
Q
O
I2:00om 6:00am I2=00pm GOOpm
K AUGUST 31,1971
12'00am
&00am !2OOpm 6:00pm
-SEPTEMBER 1,197!
I2=00om
Figure 1-112. Detention Facility Quantity Performance, Storm of August 31, 1971, S/T Block (source: ref. 23)
-------
rectly by rearranging equation I-H2 to yield
(C1 h + C2 V Cl°l K C1V1
C^ + At - At - At
1 L 2 2 2
C = :r— 5 (I-H3)
2 V,(l+^) + ^2 At
2
Equation I-H3 is the basis for the complete mixing model of pollutant
routing through a detention unit.
Equations I-H1, I-H2, and I-H3 assume that pollutants are removed at
a rate proportional to the concentration present in the unit. In other
words, a first-order reaction is assumed. The coefficient K is the rate
constant — it represents the fraction of pollutant removed per unit of
time. Thus, the product of K and At represents the fraction removed
during a time step, R. The user controls the value of R through the use
of a user-supplied removal equation (see Equation I-H6 and accompanying
discussion).
Removed pollutant quantities are not allowed to accumulate in a
completely-mixed detention unit. Strictly, pollutants cannot settle
under such conditions. All pollutant removal is assumed to occur by
other means, such as biological decomposition. Several processes such as
flocculation and rapid-mix chlorination are essentially completely-mixed
detention units.
If the user selects the plug flow option, the inflow during each
time step, herein called a plug, is labeled and queued through the
detention unit. Transfer of pollutants between plugs is not permitted.
The outflow for any time step is comprised of the oldest plugs, and/or
fractions thereof, present in the unit. This is accomplished by satisfying
continuity for the present outflow volume (calculated by the Puls flow-
27
routing procedure ):
C-103
-------
10,000
Q 8,OOO
O
_J
CO
9 6,000
-I
o
CO
Q
LU
Q-
CO
ID
CO
4,000
2,000
HYPOTHETICAL DETENTION BASIN
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
STORM OF AUGUST 31, 1971
INFLOW
OUTFLOW
"* *** ~ ~t ^ *"•-•- *f - -, _ ' | ^^ |
12^00 orn G^OOom !2'-OOpm 6=00 pm
-AUGUST 31, 1971
6--OOom 1200pm &00pm
-SEPTEMBER 1,1971
Figure 1-113. Detention Facility Quality Performance, Storm of August 31, 1971, S/T Block (source; ref. 23)
-------
V ' £ " v
°
3
where V = volume leaving unit during the present time step, ft ,
V. = volume entering unit during the j time step (plug j),
ft3,
f. = fraction of plug k that must leave the unit to satisfy
continuity with V , 0 4 f. 4 1,
JP = time step number of the oldest plug in the unit, and
LP = time step number of the youngest plug required to
satisfy continuity with V .
Removal equations are specified by the user (see later discussion) and, in most
cases, should be written as a function of detention time (along with other
possible parameters). The detention time for each plug j is calculated as
(td). = (KKDT - j) At (I-H5)
where KKDT = present time step number.
Removal of any pollutant may be simulated as a function of detention
time, the time step size, its influent concentration, the removal fractions
of pollutants, and/or the influent concentrations of other pollutants. This
selection is left to the user but there are some restrictions (depending
on the basin type). A single, flexible equation is provided by the
program to construct the desired removal equation:
R__I r i ^ i _ _ r_i ^ i _ r_i O
— I
S9 a!0
where x. = removal equation variables,
a . = coefficients , and
R = removal fraction, 0 <_ R <_ 1.0.
C-105
-------
The user assigns the removal equation variables, x., to specific
program variables (detention time, flow rate, etc.). If an equation
variable is not assigned it is set equal to 1.0 for the duration of the
simulation. The values of the coefficients, a., are directly specified
by the users. There is considerable flexibility contained in equation
I-H6 and, with a judicious selection of coefficients and assignment of
variables, the user probably can create the desired equation. An example
is given below.
An earlier version of the Storage/Treatment Block employed the
12
following removal equation for suspended solids in a sedimentation tank :
RSS = Rmax(1 - e"Ktd) (I'H7)
where Rc = suspended solids removal fraction, 0 4 Rcc 4 R ,
o o bo max
R = maximum removal fraction,
max
t, = detention time, sec, and
K = decay coefficient, sec
This same equation could be built from equation I-H6 by setting a.. 9 = R ,
j_^ Tnflx
a.., = -R , a, = -K, a., = 1.0, and letting x, = detention time, t,.
All other coefficients, a., would equal zero.
Treatability studies can help determine the value of decay coeffi-
cients (See Appendix II). Ideally, there would also be some flow and
pollutant concentration measurements (for the influent and effluent,
concurrently) for an adequate calibration. However, if treatability data
are the only source of performance data, the model could probably generate
a reasonable estimate of long-term performance.
Example: The Storage/Treatment (S/T) Block of the Storm Water
Management Model was used to simulate the hypothetical detention facility
described earlier. A year of flow and pollutant concentration data were
generated using the Corps of Engineers' STORM model and linked to the S/T
C-106
-------
Block through an interfacing program. These data were generated from the
land use information provided in the general example description and the
Minneapolis precipitation record for 1971. Based on a frequency analysis of
25 years of precipitation records, Heaney et al. selected 1971 as a fairly
typical year for Minneapolis. The basin was modeled as a plug-flow unit and
a relationship identical to equation I-H7 was used to remove suspended solids
and BODC. The value of R was set at 0.65 and 0.35 for suspended solids
5 max r
and BOD,., respectively, and the value of K equalled 0.0003 sec in both
cases. The results are summarized in Table I-H1. The suspended solids
removal is 58.7 percent and the BOD,- removal is 33.4 percent.
A simulator provides an extra benefit in that specific periods can be
investigated in more detail. The behavior of the facility during the storm
of August 31, 1971 is shown in Figure I-H2. The total rainfall for this
storm was 1.19 in. (3.02 cm). A scan of the results shows the expected re-
sponse. The peak flows are substantially reduced and discharged over a
significantly longer period than that of the inflows. In this particular
case, the discharges are very high when the water depth in the basin ex-
ceeds 12 ft (the depth at the bottom of the weir) and very low between
6 ft and 12 ft (orifice discharge). A substantial reduction in the
suspended solids loading is also evident.
C-107
-------
Method: Other Simulation Methods (Source: ref. 23)
Data Requirements; Variable; generally requires basin geometry, outlet
structure, pollutant removal coefficients and inflow
time series.
8
Description; In a report by the City of Milwaukee concerning the design of
the Humboldt Avenue detention basin, a simple model was developed to aid
in the analysis. In this model, the basin is treated as a constant-
volume, plug-flow reactor and pollutants are removed as a function of
detention time (i.e., the length of time a plug of water remains in the
basin). No provisions are made for solids characteristics (i.e., particle
size distribution), resuspension of settled material, sludge build-up or
varying outlet structures. Despite its simplicity, the model admirably
performed the required tasks.
28
A more advanced model developed by Ward et al. was given the
acronym DEPOSITS. It is designed to simulate sediment detention basins
but is readily adaptable to urban stormwater detention facilities.
Again, the detention facility is modeled as a plug-flow reactor. In
this case, sediment is removed by simulating the settling of
particles and a particle size/specific gravity distribution is required.
In contrast to the Milwaukee model, DEPOSITS is capable of simulating
the facility as a variable surface area and volume unit. The model also
accounts for the effects of sediment (sludge) build-up. It is not in-
tended for long-term simulations.
22
Medina constructed a detention facility model by solving the
differential equations governing the movement of flow and pollutants
through well-mixed detention basins. The solutions, containing complex
integrals, are directly useable if simple forcing functions (inflow
hydrographs and pollutographs) are assumed. However, these forcing
functions are rarely simple and, in fact, contain a substantial random
C-108
-------
element. Thus, direct solutions are nearly impossible to achieve. This
difficulty is overcome by evaluating the solution at discrete intervals
and assuming a constant forcing function over each interval. This method
is applicable to constant and variable volume facilities. Unfortunately,
the model is limited to a linear relationship between volume and outflow.
C-109
-------
Appendix II; Treatability Studies for Detention Basins
Several NURP studies are evaluating the removal efficiencies of
stormwater detention ponds. Data on the performance of these ponds are
29
very scarce. Whipple and Hunter have examined the settleability
of urban runoff pollution. Their data will be used to describe a rela-
tively general procedure for summarizing the results of a treatability
study. Figure II-l shows their settleability data for hydrocarbons. The
usual assumption in environmental engineering is that pollutant removal
follows first-order kinetics. If this is the case then the equation for
hydrocarbon removal can be represented by
C/CQ - e"kt (II-l)
where c = hydrocarbon concentration at- any time t, mg/1,
c = initial hydrocarbon concentration, mg/1,
t = detention time, hr, and
k = rate constant, hr
Taking the logarithm of equation (1) yields
ln(c/cQ) = -kt (II-2)
Thus, a plot of the data on semi-log paper should yield a straight line
with a slope of -k. Unfortunately, the data do not plot as a straight
line on semi-log paper (see Figure II-2) indicating that the assumption of
first-order kinetics, in this case, is inappropriate. A primary reason for
the popularity of assuming first-order kinetics is that the resulting solution
is so simple. Removal efficiencies are independent of initial concentrations.
However, first-order kinetics may provide a reasonable approximation if the
range of times is relatively short. For example, first-order kinetics
can be assumed to hold for the hydrocarbon data as long as the detention
times are less than about eight hours (see Figure II-2). One could next
try second-order kinetics, or third order, or zero order. Fortunately,
C-110
-------
mg/ /
3.0,-
2.0
1.0-
20 25
TIME (Hours)
j
30
:!
35
40
Figure II-l. Settleability of Hydrocarbons, Lawrcnccville Shopping Center (source: ref. 28)
-------
iff 10,0
Figure II-2. Plot of Hydrocarbon Data on
on Semi-Log Paper
.'I ..
-14-fl-
I r I
o " "~ "
10 20
Detention t'ime, hours
e-ii2
-------
a more general approach exists wherein the order can assume non-integer
values.
The rate of reaction and concentration of reactant can be related
as follows:
- £ = r = k cn (H-3)
where r = reaction rate,
k = rate constant,
c = concentration of reactant, and
n = reaction order.
Using equation II-3, the reaction order can be found by plotting reaction
rate, r = dc/dt, versus concentration, c, as shown in Figure II-3. Techni-
cally, the above procedure is called the differential method for deter-
mining the reaction order for isothermal irreversible reactions in a
21 12
perfectly mixed, constant volume reactor (see Levenspiel , Hill ,
13 4
Holland and Anthony , and/or Butt for details). The expression for the
proportion remaining can be found for any n by solving
r = -dc/dt = k cn (II-4)
Integrating equation I1-4 yields
C/CQ = [1 + (n-Dc^"1 kt]1'11 n j -1 (II-5)
For the hydrocarbon data, k = 0.037, n = 1.90 (see Figure II-3), and CQ
2.8 mg/1. Substituting into equation II-5 yields
simplifying,
c/c - [1 + (1.90-1)2.8(1-9°"1) (.037)t]1'1'90, or
o
c/c = [1 + .0842t]~1'11 (II-6)
o
Equation II-6 can be spot checked by trying a few trial values of t.
t.-hr.
5 0.62 0.68
15 0.36 0.40
25 0.30 0.28
C-113
-------
1.0
Si
I-
5
-FTI-TTrlT
m
ffn
55rffi
Hr:
t ~H~rh'i' T!
-r-b-H-l
n
r-i-i-Fr
—i- -rr
qq-FF
ti-T
0.1
h
i
r
TFL-r
-R:H:
•--
TIT
_ .p.
-
iiTr
irr
-Hi
R^rT-i-
tH-i
H-H
H-F-F
H-i+!-
1
-
•H-H
..u
^
==^S
-i-R*
in;
1
r F
-
-T
r.qdzp
rridqr
WR
-RTl-
--
:FF-h
C
O
4J
o
fO
01
o. 01
"f
TT
H-n-
4_!_
tlnr
~mT
T
Ti
•IT !
' '
ff
.t,T|T
'irnrr
p
TP-P
l---i.
S-
Tfl
+H
-j-l- -j- •
I
-h
-H-H
-1-riT
f-rfl
r +
h
T
-F
-h—
•;-)-!-
.rn:-;'
--.il-
r! I
33Epf
tEEf
TtT"
-H-
fl
-f-
-j-
i i
s
^IH-!;
TIT
1- r
rrrr
rti I-
ITI-I
-TIT;.
:rrj-.r.|--pp
.! J
^i^-i-!--
=l:
0.001
TTiT
•rrrr
~n"l"
-rhT
TrFT
rrrr
'TIT
I
Tl"
.J
fflffi
ffl
x
.-i-H ii.
r^m
-H-t-r
-rnT
Hi'
r
•M-rT|ifEt
rrrnTrii uji nn
TTTrniTr THThni
-rrn
TIT1
-r-
0.1
45678
9
1.0
3 45670
0
5 ii 7 b 'j \f
Concentration, c, mg/1
Figure II-3. Determination of Reaction Order for Hydrocarbons
C-114
-------
The equation is on the high side in the lower range of time and is a
• ; . ••-'.
little high for larger times.
Using equation II-5 as a general equation, the results from treata-
bility studies can be expressed in terms of three parameters, initial
concentration, c , the reaction order, n, and the reaction coefficient,
k. Admittedly, equation II-5 only applies for a relatively restrictive
case of a constant volume, isothermal, completely mixed batch reactor in
which all constituents are assumed to react independently. Nevertheless,
it is much better than making the potentially unrealistic assumption that
first-order kinetics apply.
C-115
-------
References
1. American Society of Civil Engineers, "Sewage Treatment Plant Design,"
Manual of Practice No. 8, ASCE, 1960.
2. Brown, C.B., "The Control of Reservoir Silting," Misc. Pub. 521, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1943.
3. Brune, G.M., "Trap Efficiency of Reservoirs," Trans. American
Geophysical Union, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1953, pp. 407-418.
4. Butt, J.B., Reaction Kinetics and Reactor Design, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliff, New Jersey, 1980.
5. Camp, T.R., "Sedimentation and the Design of Settling Tanks," Proc.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. Ill, 1946, pp. 895-936.
6. Chen, C., "Design of Sediment Retention Basins," Proc. of the National
Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, July 28-31, 1975.
7. Churchill, M.A., "Analysis and Use of Reservoir Sedimentation Data"
by L.C. Gottschalk, Proc. Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation
Conference, Washington, D.C., 1948.
8. Consoer, Townsend, and Associates for the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
"Detention Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow - Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Demonstration Project," EPA-600/2-75-071, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, December 1975.
9. Drehwing, F.J. et al., "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program,
Rochester, N.Y. - Volume II. Pilot Plant Evaluations,"
EPA-600/2-79-031b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, July 1979.
10. Fair, M.F., Geyer, J.C., and Okun, D.A., Water And Wastewater
Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York,
1968.
11. Heaney, J.P. et al., "Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer
Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges: Volume II, Cost
Assessment," EPA-600/2-77-064, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1977.
12. Hill, C.G., An Introduction to Chemical Engineering Kinetics and
Reactor Design, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York,
1977.
13. Holland, C.D., and R.G. Anthony, Fundamentals of Chemical Reaction
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1979.
C-116
-------
14. Howard, C.D.D., Flatt, P.E., and Shamir, U., "Storm and Combined
Sewer Storage Treatment Theory Compared to Computer Simulation",
Grant No. R-805019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cinnci-
nati, Ohio, October 1979.
15. Huber, W.C., Heaney, J.P., Nix, S.J., Dickinson, R.E., and Polmann, D.J.,
"Stormwater Management Model User's Manual—Version III", Project
No. CR-805664, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, November 1981.
16. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps of Engineers, "Urban Storm-
water Runoff: STORM," Generalized Computer Program
723-S8-L2520, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps of Engineers,
Davis, California, August 1977.
17. Hydroscience, Inc., "A Statistical Method for the Assessment of
Urban Stormwater," EPA-440/3-79-023, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1979.
18. Imhoff, K. and Fair, G.M., Sewage Treatment, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1941.
19. Kamedulski, G.E. and McCuen, R.H.. "Evaluation of Alternative
Stormwater Detention Policies," Journal of the Water Resources
Planning and Management Division, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. WR2,
September 1979, pp. 171-186.
20. Lager, J.A. et al., "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology:
Update and Users' Guide," EPA-600/8-77-014, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1977.
21. Levenspiel, 0., Chemical Reaction Engineering, Second Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1972.
22. Medina, M.A., "interaction of Urban Stormwater Runoff, Control Measures
and Receiving Water Response," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, 1976.
23. Nix, S.J., Heaney, J.P., and Huber, W.C., "Water Quality Benefits
of Detention", Chapter 12 of "Urban Stormwater Management",
Special Report No. 49, American Public Works Association,
Chicago, Illinois, 1981.
24. Rich, L.G., Environmental Systems Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, 1973.
25. Small, M.J. and DiToro, D.M., "Stormwater Treatment Systems,"
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 105,
No. EE3, June 1979, pp. 557-569.
C-117
-------
26. Smith, R., "Preliminary Design and Simulation of Conventional Waste
Renovation Systems Using the Digital Computer," Report No. WP-20-9,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1968.
27. Viessman, W., Jr., Knapp, J.W., Lewis, G.L., and Harbaugh, I.E.,
Introduction to Hydrology, 2nd edition., IEP, New York, New York,
1977.
28. Ward, A.J., Haan, C.T., and Barfield, B.J. , "Simulation of the
Sedimentology of Sediment Detention Basins," Research Report No. 103,
University of Kentucky, Water Resources Research Institute,
Lexington, Kentucky, June 1977.
29. Whipple, W., and J.V. Hunter, "Settleability of Urban Runoff Pollution",
Water Resources Research Institute, Rutgers U., New Brunswick, New
Jersey, 1980.
C-118
-------
Addendum I - Review of Basin Data -. Met. Washington, D.C. COG
The use of event quantity and quality data for two basins in the
Washington, D.C. area for the purposes of estimating basin performance
proved fruitless. A quick review of the data reveals a lack of any rela-
tionship between inflow and outflow events. In many cases, the outflow
volume is greater than the inflow volume. This is possible only if flows
from earlier storms are also being released. Without more knowledge of
the operation of these basins, a statement about performance is impossible.
However, it may be possible to use these data, with complete knowledge of
the basin design and operation, to calibrate a simulator such as the SWMM
Storage/Treatment Block.
C-119/120 blank
-------
APPENDIX D
WET WEATHER WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR URBAN RUNOFF
The section that follows provides the information and methods developed to
date for the selection of receiving water quality criteria appropriate for
urban runoff. The issue here centers around the difference between the ex-
posure regime used in toxicity tests to develop general water quality cri-
teria (48 to 96 hours or longer) and the exposure regime organisms inhabiting
runoff receiving waters could encounter (4.5 to 15 hours). The criteria
based on 48 or 96 hour toxicity tests are postulated to be overly restrictive
for urban runoff exposures. For the priority pollutants, the EPA published
criteria are described; the limitations of the EPA criteria for urban runoff
are discussed; and methods to adjust the EPA criteria for short-term urban
runoff exposures are presented. Dissolved oxygen and suspended solids cri-
teria are also considered.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS CRITERIA
EPA Criteria.
In developing the proposed priority pollutant criteria, EPA performed three
steps as follows: (1) guidelines were established for use in deriving the
criteria, (2) criteria were computed for the protection of human health and
aquatic life, and (3) a two-value criterion for each substance was considered
for protection of aquatic life. The two values are a maximum, which protects
against acute toxicity, and a 24-hour average, which protects against chronic
toxicity.
Using their guidelines, EPA derived and published (in three issues of the
Federal Register, the last being 28 November 1980) aquatic life and human
health criteria for all of the priority pollutants. Criticism of the guide-
lines resulted in the development of a second set of guidelines which, unlike
the first set, specified certain minimum data requirements for deriving
aquatic life criteria. These minimum requirements severly limited the num-
ber of substances for which criteria could be developed. Hence, although
criteria documents were published for all of the priority pollutants, aquatic
life criteria were developed for only 20 of them. These are arsenic, cad-
mium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, aldrin,
chlordane, cyanide, DDT and metabolites, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, lin-
dane, polychlorinated biphenyls, and toxaphene.
To obtain the final acute value for protection of aquatic life the following
procedure based on LC50 concentrations was used. Note that a LC50 is defined
as the concentration that will kill 50 percent of the exposed population of
organisms during a specific period of time.
1. The geometric means of LC50 toxicity tests for a pollutant were
computed by species. The 48 hour exposure time was taken as
D-2
-------
the end-point of the test for most invertebrates and 96 hours for
fish and some invertebrates.
2. LCSO's for the species were numerically ranked and the numbers
transformed to cumulative probability values.
3. A least square regression line, defining the relationship between
species-probability values and the mean LCSOs was computed.
4. The mean LC50 corresponding to a probability of .05 was identified
by interpolation or extrapolation.
The mean LC50 corresponding to a species probability of .05 was defined as
the maximum criterion value. Computed in this fashion, the maximum value
corresponds to the concentration above which lie the LC50s of 95 percent of
the tested species. For pollutants whose toxicity was determined to be af-
fected by some natural property of water, the final acute equation was speci-
fied as the means for computing the maximum criterion value. Hardness was
the only natural property of water considered.
The final chronic values were computed by much the same method as described
above; however, the important differences are:
1. The exposure times for chronic tests were at least 28 days.
2. The test end-point was not the LC50 concentration; rather the
concentration values were the geometric means of the lowest
tested concentration that caused a statistically significant
adverse effect and the concentration immediately below it in
the test series were used. When there were insufficient data
to compute a final chronic value from chronic data alone, the
final acute-chronic ratio (defined as the ratio between the
LC50 and final chronic value) was employed.
Generally, the 24 hour average criterion corresponded to the final chronic
value. In some cases, however, a final residue value, designed to prevent
unacceptable tissue concentrations of pollutants determined the appropriate
24-hour criterion.
Application of the EPA Criteria to Urban Runoff.
A limitation of the EPA criteria centers around differences in the exposure
regimen commonly used in toxicity tests (data from which the criteria were
derived) and the exposure regimen that organisms inhabiting runoff receiving
streams could encounter.
The temporal features of urban runoff events consist of relatively short dur-
ation exposures with relatively large time periods, between episodes. For
D-3
-------
sites located in much of the eastern portion of the country, rainstorm sta-
tistics (or average) are as follows:
Storm Time Between Storm
Duration Midpoints
(hours) (hours)
/
Median (50 percent!le) 4.5 60
Mean 6.0 80
90 percentile 15.0 200
For the semi-arid region of the western part of the country, storm durations
are generally the same as for the eastern U.S., but the period between storms
is about twice as long. Runoff discharge times are somewhat longer but gen-
erally similar to storm duration times.
The above characteristic time scales are very different from those considered
in developing the EPA water quality criteria. Therefore, a question exists
as to: what are appropriate water quality criteria for highly time variable
discharges such as urban runoff? That is, are the EPA criteria overly re-
strictive for urban runoff exposures?
It is well known that with the kinds of biological responses measured in
toxicity tests (with aquatic organisms), the concentration of a chemical
substance required to elicit a response of a given magnitude, be it some
percentage of mortality, reduction in growth rate, reduction in fecundity,
etc., is usually inversely proportional to the time of exposure. For the
priority pollutants, data used to derive the maximum criterion value were
chosen only from 48- and 96-hour tests. Data used to derive the 24-hour
average criterion value were chosen from tests with exposure times of at
least 28 days.
Because the duration of storms is much shorter than the exposure times used
in toxicity tests, it is quite likely that use of the criteria to assess the
hazard of urban runoff will overestimate the hazard.
Time is not the only factor of difference. In toxicity tests, the test or-
ganisms are exposed to constant concentrations and exposure is continuous
throughout the test. In urban runoff receiving waters, the concentrations of
potentially toxic constituents change continuously during events as well as
from event to event. Runoff events are episodic, occurring on the average of
every 60 hours. Although repeated exposure to chemical substances in the
runoff could cause chronic effects in organisms, little is known about the
effects of such repeated exposures. The occurence of adverse effects
probably is greater when exposure to a given concentration is continuous
rather than intermittent.
The maximum criteria values proposed by EPA are LC50s (EPA used 48 and 96 hour
LC50s). Because of differences in individual sensitivity, it is not necessar-
ily true that a population must be exposed to a 48 or 96 hour LC50-for 48 or
96 hours for 50 percent mortality to occur. Figure la, b and c show a set of
hypothetical time-mortality curves for populations exposed to a 96-hour LC50
of a chemical.
D-4
-------
100
100
100
so
50
50
O £
24
48
72
96
24
48
72
96
24
48 72 96
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. Time Mortality Curves
Figure la represents a case where only during the last few hours of the test
does any mortality occur. During those hours, 50 percent of the organisms
die. Such a time-mortality pattern is extremely rare. Figure Ib illustrates
a case where mortality occurs gradually and reaches 50 percent around the
96th hour. Figure Ic shows a case where 50 percent of the population dies
during the first 24 hours. Figures Ib and Ic represent the most commonly
observed kinds of time-mortality patterns and indicate that exceedance of a
maximum criterion value for very short periods could cause death or adverse
sublethal effects in some sensitive species. These types of responses par-
tially illustrate the complexity of the situation. The procedure presented
below could be used to differentiate these types of responses and provide
information directly usable to assess the impacts of urban runoff.
The runoff discharge duration may not always be an accurate measure of expo-
sure time. In some instances, exposure time can be much longer than the
storm duration. Certain kinds of organisms could be exposed to runoff con-
stituents long after discharge ceases. Such organisms include phytoplankton
and zooplankton (including fish eggs and larvae), each of which could become
entrained in the runoff plume. The net effect is that a percentage of cer-
tain populations may experience longer exposure times.
Even for situations where the organism exposure time is longer than the ac-
tual discharge period, the differences in exposure regime for organisms in
runoff receiving waters and for organisms in toxicity tests are very large.
For example, to derive the 24 hour average criterion values, an exposure time
of at least 28 days was used. It is quite possible that for urban runoff, a
24-hour criterion value is not appropriate. For the same reasons, the pro-
posed maximum criterion values may also be inappropriate for urban runoff.
For the NURP project, procedures to explicitly consider the short duration
exposures characteristic of urban runoff were investigated as described below.
Impairment of Beneficial Use Criteria.
Impairment of beneficial use will, for the following discussion, be consid-
ered concentrations that result in mortality of 50 percent of the population
D-5
-------
(i.e., LCSO's). Other criteria, such as no mortality, could also be devel-
oped and employ similar calculation procedures. It is evident from the pre-
vious discussion that use of the EPA criteria will probably overestimate the
hazard of urban runoff to aquatic life in terms of impairment of beneficial
use. This section addresses modifications to the criteria that would make
them more appropriate for assessing water quality problems associated with
urban runoff defined in terms of beneficial use.
Two methods are presented to establish criterion levels. The first proce-
dure involves adjusting the maximum criteria value to explicitly consider
the expected exposure times (LIU, 1979).
The second approach employs the data on equivalent mortality dosage, detoxi-
fication rates, and expected mean concentrations in urban runoff (MANCINI, 1982)
The first procedure adjusts the maximum criterion values so that they relate
more closely to expected exposure times in runoff receiving streams. This
entails computing a value that when divided into the maximum criterion value
of a pollutant will provide an estimate of the LC50 corresponding to the
exposure time of interest. This LC50 is called the time-adjusted LC50, and
is computed as described below. The assumption is that meeting the adjusted
criteria for intermittent exposures, provides the same degree of protection
implied by the base criteria value, that is, that a generally healthy
aquatic life population will be maintained.
A set of factors for converting 24-, 48-, and 72-hour LCSO's to 96-hour
LCSO's were presented in the 18 May 1979 issue of the Federal Register
(40 FR 21506). The factors are 0.66, 0.81, and 0.92 and are the respective
geometric means of all 96:24, 96:48, and 96:72 hour LC50 ratios computed for
individual chemicals on a test-by-test basis using LC50 estimates available
at that time. The relationship between the 24, 48, and 72 hour exposure
times and the factors for converting the LCSO's associated with these expo-
sure times to 96-hour LCSO's is described by the linear equation:
y = (0.563 log1Q x) - 0.123. (1)
Where x is the exposure time in hours and y is the 96:x LC50 ratio. The
correlation coefficient for this relationship is 0.998.
To extend the range below 24 hours, geometric means of the 96:1, 96:2, 96:4,
96:8, and 96:16 hour LC50 ratios were computed using experimental 1, 2, 4, 8
and 16 hour LC50 estimates for 10 chemicals (June, 1979). These short expo-
sure means and the above values obtained by EPA were included in a least
squares regression. The analysis indicated that the relationship can be
described by the linear equation:
y = (0.35 log1Q x) + 0.27 (2)
The correlation coefficient for this relationship is 0.994. Clearly,
Equation (2) can be used to convert a LC50 for an exposure time less than
96 hours to the 96 hour LC50 value, or to convert a 96 hour LC50 to a LC50
for a smaller exposure time.
D-6
-------
Equation (2) was used to convert 96 hour LCSO's obtained by Liu for the
10 chemicals considered to LCSO's for exposure times of 1, 2, 4, 8, and
16 hours. The computed short exposure LCSO's were compared to measured
values with reasonably good agreement.
The time-adjusted maximum criterion value (CV.) is computed from the maximum
criterion value (MCV) using the equation:
CVt • (3)
Applying the conversion method to the maximum criterion value instead of to
some specific 96-hour LC50 is valid because the maximum criterion value could
be considered a 96-hour LC50. It was derived from 48-hour LCSO's from tests
with certain invertebrates and 96-hour LCSO's from tests with fish and cer-
tain invertebrates. The 48- and 96- hour LCSO's were considered equivalent
end-points. As indicated by Equation (3), the adjustment ratio y is assumed
to be the same for all chemicals.
Table 1 presents the maximum criterion values and time-adjusted criterion
values for all of the priority pollutants for which maximum criterion values
are available. The time-adjusted values correspond to exposure times of 4.5,
6.0, 15 hours, which for at least the eastern portion of U.S. are the median,
mean, and 90th percentile duration of storms.
The second approach which has been used to estimate concentration levels
against which intermittent exposure concentrations due to urban runoff can be
compared, and employs data on equivalent mortality dosage, detoxification
rates, and mean concentrations in urban runoff.
The framework considers uptake and depuration of toxics by organisms and cal-
culates an equivalent toxic dosage. The calculation results provide a method
of obtaining a dose response relationship for organisms which are subjected
to time variable toxic concentrations. The framework employs data collected
from standard bioassay test procedures to evaluate the coefficients required
in the analysis. The procedures have been tested under four sets of condi-
tions which employed constant concentration bioassay results to predict or-
ganism mortality as a result of exposure to time variable concentrations.
A series of calculations were developed which considered exposure of the more
sensitive fish (in a limited data base that had been analyzed) to a series of
average duration storm events having the mean concentration of each contami-
nant. The interval between storms was 60 hours (the median). The calculated
equivalent dosage was allowed to stabilize, and the concentration required to
produce mortality at the 50 percent level of population sensitivity was cal-
culated. The results are summarized in Table 2. These results include the
effects of carryover between average storm conditions. The calculated con-
centrations for mortality are presented for 4.5 and 12-hour duration storms
(the 50 and 85 percentile, respectively).
While the concentrations provided by the first procedure are essentially es-
timates of "safe" levels, those provided by the second procedure provide es-
timates of intermittent concentration levels which would result in a serious
D-7
-------
TABLE 1. MAXIMUM AND TIME-ADJUSTED CRITERION VALUES FOR SELECTED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
POLLUTANT
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (+3)
Chromium (+6)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium (Selenite)
Silver
Zinc
Aldrin
Chlordane
Cyanide
DDT (p,p)
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Lindane (gamma HCB)
Toxaphene
EPA MAXIMUM
CRITERION VALUES
(yg/*)1'2
440
3.0
4,700
21
22
170
4.1
1,800
260
4.1
320
3.0
2.4
52.0
1.1
2.5
0.18
0.52
2.0
1.6
TIME-ADJUSTED MAXIMUM CRITERION VALUES (jag/H)
4.5 HOURS
880
6
9,400
42
44
340
8.4
3,600
520
8.2
640
6.0
4.8
104
2.2
5.0
0.36
1.04
4.0
3.2
6.0 HOURS
810
5.5
8,650
39
40
313
7.7
3,300
480
7.5
590
5.5
4.4
96
2.0
4.6
0.33
0:96
3.7
2.9
15 HOURS
650
4.4
6,900
31
32
250
6.2
2,650
380
6.0
470
4.4
3.5
76
1.6
3.7
0.26
0.76
2.9
2.4
CO
1 Values specified for "total recoverable" metals
2 Values based on a hardness of 100 mg/£ as CaC03
-------
TABLE 2. CALCULATED CONCENTRATIONS REQUIRED FOR MORTALITY
OF SOME FISH SPECIES AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO
URBAN RUNOFF
Event Mean ,,v
Concentration^'
ygA
Chemical
Zinc
Copper
Lead
Cadmium
Urban
Runoff
160
30
330
3
(2\
Concentration (ug/£) for 50% Mortality1 '
Urban Runoff
Storm
4.5 HR
1800
600
11,000
11
12 HR
800
200
4300
5
NOTES: (1) Event mean concentration was not obtained from the NURP
data base.
(2) Effects of carry-over of expected mean concentrations and
other average storm conditions are included.
adverse impact (50 percent kill of the selected species). The assumption
utilized in the screening calculations which evaluate impact levels, is
that such events, while they would, constitute a severe insult to the
biological population, would not totally deny that use if they were to
recur at sufficiently infrequent intervals.
A comparison of the "safe" concentrations in Table 1 and the calculated
concentrations for 50 percent mortality in Table 2 indicate that there are
substantial differences. In addition to the fact that they represent
different levels of effect, these differences are in part a result of the
differences in data base used to define sensitive species. Another equally
important source of this difference, is the manner in which the duration
of exposure has been included in the analysis.
Neither set of concentrations are completely satisfactory criteria for
storm event related exposures. The published criteria do not explicitly
account for the time scale of exposures associated with storm events.
These criteria tend to be over protective of the environment by restricting
allowable concentrations during the short exposure periods characteristic
of runoff events. By contrast, the adjusted criteria presented in Tables 1
and 2 tend to overestimate allowable concentrations since the data base
analyzed may not include representative sensitive species which require
protection.
Assuming little or no exposure under non-storm ambient conditions, concen-
tration criteria which are appropriate for storm related phenomena would
be between the two sets of values. Methods have been developed which would
employ the existing data base to calculate criteria which consider time
D-9
-------
variable concentrations and exposure periods which are consistent with
storm event exposure durations and the interval between storms.
Chronic Effects
The usual approach to establishment of water quality criteria considers
acute effects such as mortality and chronic effects such as inhibited
reproduction, etc.
The EPA criteria derive the maximum value from acute effects protection
limits and the 24-hour value from chronic effects protection limits (as
derived by an acute/chronic ratio times the maximum). A method is avail-
able to calculate the time history of stress on the organism ("equivalent
exposure"). The equivalent mortality dose producing mortality of 50 per-
cent of the population is obtained from the analysis of bioassay data.
The calculated equivalent dose at any time which results from some sequence
of exposures can be divided by the equivalent mortality dose. This ratio
(as % of equivalent mortality dose) could be considered as a measure of
the chronic stress to which the organism is subjected.
Table 3 presents the calculated percent equivalent mortality dose carried
over (on average) from a sequence of storms. This is the calculated equi-
valent mortality dose at the start of a storm event. Table 3 also presents
information on the calculated percent equivalent mortality dose at the end of
4.5 and 23 hour storms whose concentrations are at the mean expected value.
These results suggest that, for some of the toxics analyzed, a variable but
moderately high level of stress may result from exposure to the undiluted
contaminants in urban runoff. Stresses on the order of 2 to 25 percent of
the equivalent mortality dose could produce some chronic effects (and pos-
sibly some acute effects as well). The calculations presented in Table 3
are for undiluted urban runoff. Computations could be developed consider-
ing various dilutions of the runoff.
TABLE 3. CARRYOVER EFFECTS BETWEEN URBAN RUNOFF STORMS
Chemical
Zinc
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Chromium
Cadmium
Expected Mean
Concentration
(mg/£)
.163
.05
.03
.325
.018
.003
% Mortality Stress
Average
Carryover
8.6
-
2.6
8.3
-
2.3
@ 4.5 hr.
Storm
15.7
-
6.4
8.8
-
3.1
@ 12 hr.
Storm
26.8
-
12.2
9.7
-
4.4
D-10
-------
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria.
Water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (D.O.), which are specifically
designed for exposures associated with urban runoff, have not been examined
in detail. EPA promulgated criteria set a minimum D.O. of 5 mg/&. D.O.
standards such as those proposed by the State of Ohio (Federal Register
Vol. 45, 231, 11/28/80, 79054) for warm water fisheries on some water bodies
specifying 5 mg/A for 16 hours of any 24 hour period and not less than 4 mg/SL
at any time were denied by EPA. There is strong historical precedence for
maintaining D.O. standards on most water bodies at a minimum of 5 mg/£. This
is usually based on information similar to that summarized in Table 4.
An approach to dissolved oxygen water quality criteria similar to that used
for priority pollutants can be considered. Based on the information summarized
in Table 4, criteria for D.O. during storm event time scales could be set at
2.5 mg/t.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE
EFFECTS OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION
ON FISH
Dissolved Oxygen
Effects Reported
Reference
Saturation to
5
5 mg/A to 2.5 mg/i.
2.5 mg/fc to
1.5 mg/SL
1.5 mg/H to zero
Generally considered
adequate for a healty
population.
Sublethal effects on
adults observed in
laboratories.
Reduced growth rate
associated with con-
stant exposure of
adults.
Some increased morta-
lity of early life
stages (no direct data
on population effects).
Time variable exposures
(8 to 12 hours every 24
hours) appeared to
result in reduced
growth rates.
Possible mortality of
adult and/or smaller
fish due to combina-
tion of stresses with.
significant D.O. con-
tribution to mortality.
Fish mortality (short
exposure).
USEPA (7)
(Abernathy) (28)
(Siefert et al.) (29)
(Moss) (26)
(Warren) (30)
(Whiteworth) (31)
(Moss) (26)
(Abernathy) (28)
(Warren) (30)
(Moss) (26)
(Warren) (30)
D-ll
-------
Total Suspended Solids Criteria.
The link between total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations and impairment of
beneficial use is not well defined. Except at very high levels, the primary
aquatic life effects of TSS are indirect. These include such problems as
benthic impacts due to deposition and scour which cause habitat damage, espe-
cially in areas subject to lower stream flow velocities. To estimate some
measure of TSS levels for urban runoff, the findings of a 1965 study of suspended
solids effect by the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission was adopted.
The Commission's study resulted in the following conclusions relating to
inert solids concentrations and satisfactory water quality for fish life:
1. There is no evidence that concentrations of suspended solids less than
25 mg/Ji have any harmful effects on fisheries.
2. It should usually be possible to maintain good or moderate fisheries
in waters which normally contain 25 to 80 mg/£ suspended solids. Other
factors being equal, however, the yield of fish from such waters might
be somewhat lower than with less than 25 mg/&.
3. Waters normally containing from 80 to 400 mg/£ suspended solids are
unlikely to support good freshwater fisheries, although fisheries may
sometimes be found at the lower concentrations within this range.
4. At best, only poor fisheries are likely to be found in waters which
normally contain more than 400 mg/& suspended solids.
The Commission report also stated that exposure to several thousand mg/& for
several hours or days may not kill fish and that other inert or organic solids
may be substantially more toxic.
Summary of the Criteria Used.
There are clearly limitations and problems with the various criteria as
discussed above. Considering this situation, the NURP project has adopted a
number of criteria for use in the study. The EPA criterion values for prior-
ity pollutants were employed to represent water quality problems defined in
terms of numerical standards. In addition, values based on the results of
the procedures to establish criterion which explicitly consider the short-term
exposures of urban runoff were selected to represent water quality problems
defined in terms of beneficial use protection.
For beneficial use protection, two numerical criterion values representing
"effects levels" were selected - one for mortality at approximately the 50
percent level of population sensitivity and a second which is the 50 percent
mortality value reduced by a factor of two. This second value was taken to
represent no substantial mortality which would effect the overall population
and therefore beneficial water usage.
A summary of the water quality criterion values used in the screening analyses
performed by NURP is presented in Table 5. For the heavy metals, the EPA
criteria are specified for "total recoverable metals." The effects level
criteria were developed from bioassay data in which the tests used soluble
salts of the metal. The criteria thus reflect only the toxic species of
the heavy metals. In applying these criteria, the solids content of the
runoff and the tendency for metals and other priority pollutants to absorb
to this material must be considered.
D-12
-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERION VALUES USED IN NURP STUDY
CONCENTRATIONS -
CONTAMINANT
Zinc
Chromium (Total )
Copper
Lead
Cadmium
Arsenic
TSS4
BOD4
EPA CRITERIA1
24 HOUR
47
(40 )3
5.6
3.3
.025
(40 )3
25
5
MAX
320
4,700
22
170
3
440
250
15
EFFECTS LEVELS
ESTIMATED 5
THRESHOLD
600
8,650
40
313
5.5
810
2,500
50
50% b
MORTALITY
1,600
—
500
4,500
10
—
1 Based on a hardness of 100 mg/£ as CaC03.
2 Hardness not explicitly considered, but values developed from data in
relatively soft water.
3 No criteria proposed - value shown is lowest observed chrome concen-
tration reported in EPA documents.
k No criteria for these pollutants - values shown represent levels
estimated to represent equivalent criteria effects (for use in
screening analysis activities).
5 Based on Procedure #1 estimates of "safe" levels for intermittent
exposures (average duration 6 hr).
6 Based on Procedure #2 estimates of serious impact from intermittent
exposures (average duration 6 hr).
D-13
-------
REFERENCES
Liu D. H. W., H. C. Carley, B. E. Suta, Static, Flow Through and Plug Flow
Bioassay Study with the Bluegill Sunfish Exposed to 10 Chemical Toxicants, by
SRI International, For EPA, contract 68-01-4108, 1979.
European Inland Fisheries Commission. "Water Quality Criteria for European
Freshwater Fish Report on Finely Divided Solids and Inland Fisheries."
International Journal of Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 9. 1965.
Mancini, J. L. "Development of Methods to Define Water Quality Effects of
Urban Runoff;" EPA Cooperative Agreement No. 806828, (1982, in press).
D-14
-------
• APPENDIX E
INDIVIDUAL PROJECT SUMMARIES
E-l
-------
Appendix E
Summaries of conclusions for selected NURP projects are presented in this ap-
pendix. The projects are presented in order by EPA Region number from I through X
as follows:
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Lake Quinsigamond, MA
Durham, NH
Irondequoit Bay, NY
Long Island, NY
Baltimore, MD
Winston-Salem, NC
Lansing, MI
Ann Arbor, MI
Oakland County* MI
Glenn Ellyn, IL
Champaign, IL
Milwaukee, WI
Little Rock, AK
Austin, TX
Denver, CO
Castro Valley, CA
Bellevue, WA
E-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
LAKE QUINSIGAMOND, MA
REGION I, EPA
El-1
-------
Lake Quinsigamond NURP.
A major component of the work plan for the Lake Quinsigamond NURP project
was to evaluate the response of the receiving water to stormwater inputs. A
detailed evaluation of the response of Lake Quinsigamond and Flint Pond to pollu-
tant loadings was conducted. The evaluation was based on intensive lake and
tributary monitoring data collected under the 314 Clean Lakes Diagnostic study,
together with tributary and stormwater sampling data collected by the NURP project.
The analysis utilized a batch phosphorus model to simulate the most important
interactions affecting dissolved oxygen and algal populations in the lake. Based
on this analysis, the major findings can be summarized as follows:
. Water quality conditions in Lake Quinsigamond and Flint Pond have remained
relatively stable between 1971 and 1980. This can be largely attributed
to the lake's morphology and self-limiting chemical characteristics.
. Chlorophyll, transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rated indi-
cate that Lake Quinsigamond is in a late mesotrophic stage. Despite its
similar water quality conditions, Flint Pond is classified as eutrophic
due to its aquatic weed densities. The differences between Lake Quinsig-
amond and Flint Pond can be attributed to differences in morphological
characteristics.
•
. Major water quality problems identified in the lake include hypolimnetic
oxygen depletion, heavy metals build-up in sediments, near-shore solids
deposition, and tributary bacterial levels. Reduction of cold-water
fisheries habitat is the major use-related impairment identified in the
lake. Bacterial levels in the tributaries have resulted in the closing
of one secondary water supply well (Coalmine Brook). It is important
to note that, in this case, urban runoff is not, per se, the source of
the problem. Misconnections, leaky sewers, and direct discharges have
been identified as the primary source of this problem.
. Excessive weed growth and heavy metals in sediments have been identified
as the major water quality problems in Flint Pond. These have resulted
in significant impairment of recreational use of the pond in terms of
swimming, boating and fishing.
. Dissolved phosphorus has been identified as the major limiting nutrient
and most important from a control standpoint. Lake mass balances and
literature studies suggest that between 0 and 20 percent of the particu-
late phosphorus loads entering the lake are eventually able to support
algal growth.
. Nutrient balance calculations indicate that surface runoff accounts for
87 percent of the total phosphorus, 67 percent of the dissolved phosphorus,
96 percent of the suspended solids, and 49 percent of the total nitrogen
input to the lakes. Tributary base flow and atmospheric inputs account
for the remaining loadings. Dissolved phosphorus inputs to Flint Pond
from unsewered areas is nominally estimated at 18 percent.
El-2
-------
Lake Quinsigamond (Cont'd)
. Analysis of lake data in relation to antecedent rainfall periods indicate
significantly higher concentrations of total phosphorus, dissolved phos-
phorus, and coliform bacteria on wet days as compared with dry days.
More intensive sampling is required to more adequately assess the extent
and significance of short-term bacterial standards violations in specific
areas of the lake.
. Future land uses are estimated to result in a 12-14 percent degradation
in average water quality conditions, as measured by suspended solids,
available phosphorus, and other eutrophication-related variables. There-
fore, control of 12-14 percent of future available phosphorus and suspended
solids loadings would be needed to maintain existing water quality.
. Reduction of phosphorus loadings to insure 200 days of hypolimnetic oxygen
supply at spring turnover is suggested as a potential water quality manage-
ment objective. This would reduce the potential for internal metals and
nutrient cycling, improve fish habitat, and provide proportionate reduc-
tions in chlorophyll and increases in transparency.
. Under projected future land uses, the above objective would require about
a 50 percent reduction in loadings of available phosphorus in surface run-
off during an average hydrologic year. Control requirements during a wet
hydrologic year would be more stringent (78%).
Because of the importance of dissolved phosphorus loadings, watershed
management strategies for reducing runoff volumes by "encouraging water
infiltration should be examined along with runoff treatment schemes as
means of achieving water quality objectives.
Based on the findings enumerated above, a comprehensive water quality manage-
ment plan is being developed of which the urban runoff component is a major element.
Watershed management plans are being developed for each major tributary. Natural
detention/storage mechanisms are being utilized as in-system filters for solids
and nutrient controls to the maximum extent possible. Wherever possible, ground-
water recharge options for stormwater are being considered. End-of-pipe and in-
line solids treatment systems are being considered for major stormwater systems
discharging directly to the lake (e.g., Route 9 drain, medical school drain,
1-290 drainage system). Combinations of Best Management Practices, including
street-sweeping and catch basin-cleaning, among others, are also being considered
as appropriate in developing an overall stormwater management strategy for the
watershed.
Finally, it is extremely important to recognize that stormwater management is
one component of the water quality management plan under development. Other
major components of this program are the control of sanitary sewage discharges
via leaks, misconnections and other sources, and septic system leachate inputs
from unsewered areas.
E1-3/E1-4 (blank)
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND
POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISION
DURHAM, NH
REGION I, EPA
E2-1
-------
Durham, New Hampshire
Two streams were monitored at stations upstream of the urban area for back-
ground conditions, and at downstream locations where the effect of urban runoff
could be observed. At one location; the Oyster River, monitoring results from
three storm events show no detectable increase in concentrations at downstream
stations compared with upstream boundary levels during storms. (Not surprising
since "urban area" constitutes only about 6 percent of the contributing catchment,
and 1/3 of this is Institutional giving a Drainage Area Ratio of 15.6.) Pette
Brook, with 23 percent of the catchment above the downstream monitoring station
(DAR 3.3) shows a "trend of increased concentration" observed during storms. Data
are insufficient at this time for assessing whether the fishable/swimmable use
classification is impaired.
Mass loads discharged into the estuary during storms appear to be significant
in magnitude when all sources (urban and non-urban) are considered. The impact of
such loads on important downstream water bodies (the estuary), whether a significant
effect on beneficial use is probable, and whether the contaminant loads which origi-
nate from urban areas are an important contributor to any detrimental effect, have
not yet been determined.
Control techniques for reducing urban runoff loads will be evaluated for their
ability to control any potential problems that are anticipated and will provide
important information for statewide programs.
E2-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IRONDEQUOIT BAY, NY
REGION II, EPA
E3-1
-------
IBNURP
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Irondequoit Bay is the receiving water body for a 153-square-mile watershed
in western New York. The Bay is a prime water resource for the urbanized area
surrounding the City of Rochester. However, much of the recreational potential
of the Bay is restricted by its advanced state of eutrophication. The problems
associated with Irondequoit Bay - hypolimnetic oxygen depletion, turbidity,
and adverse fishery impacts - all result from the phosphorus-enriched status of
the Bay. Local government has implemented a plan to eliminate all point source
discharges to the Bay and its watershed. It is the intent of the urban runoff
project to examine the role of diffuse urban runoff pollution in the progres-
sive eutrophication of Irondequoit Bay.
Seventy-five percent (75%), or 115 square miles, of the total watershed
is being studied under the urban runoff project. The remaining twenty-five
percent (25%), or 38 square miles, at the upstream end of the watershed will
be part of a rural non-point sourge assessment study. Preliminary land
use figures indicate that the NURP study area contains 36 square miles of
residentially developed lands (i.e., 31%), 12 miles square miles of commercial/
industrial development (11%) and 67 square miles of parkland/undeveloped land
(52%). These figures typify the area which is undergoing intensive suburban
development with a major shift from active and inactive agricultural use to
residential use.
A scan of the water quality parameters monitored during 1980 shows that
the event mean concentrations all fall within the range reported in the USEPA
Preliminary Report dated 9/30/81. Detailed loadings from the individual land
use monitoring sites and the watershed as a whole are being developed for phos-
phorous, lead and suspended solids. Preliminary results suggest that 55% of
the total phosphorous load comes from the urban study area which comprises 75%
of the total watershed area. Conversely, the agricultural area, which com-
prises only 25% of the land area, produces 45% of the total phosphorous load.
The lead loading in the watershed appears to be directly proportional to the
land area: the agricultural area produced 25% of the load and the urban area
produced 75% of the load. A more detailed breakdown of loadings within the
urban study area is underway.
The project is considering several treatment and management options to
control urban runoff pollution including detention/retention facilities, street
sweeping, porous pavement, and decreased road salting. One of the most prom-
ising proposals is to utilize an existing 100-acre wetland located at the
south end of the Bay to remove nutrients and suspended solids. If managed
properly, this wetland would renovate the runoff from both the urban and rural
areas just prior to its entry into the Bay. Monitoring sites have been con-
structed at the influent and effluent ends of the wetlands and they will provide
the basic information necessary for developing a phosphorous budget and esti-
mating sediment loss within the wetland unit. The expected output from this
study will include recommendations for developing a demonstration project
in the wetland.
E3-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
REGION II, EPA
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
Long Island, N.Y.
December 10, 1981
PROJECT SUMMARY
Long Island Regional Planning Board
in cooperation with
U.S. Geological Survey
Nassau County Department of Health
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
E4-2
-------
I. PROJECT LOCATION
The Long Island component of the NURP deals with the urban runoff problems
affecting the ground and surface waters of two New York Metropolitan Area
Counties: Nassau and Suffolk. The receiving waters of principal interest to the
counties of Nassau and Suffolk in the L.I. NURP program are the groundwater
reservoir and the south shore marine embayments. The groundwater recharge basin
project sites are located at Laurel Hollow, Syosset and Plainview in the Nassau
Town of Oyster Bay and at South Huntington and Centereach, in the Suffolk Towns
of Huntington and Brookhaven, respectively. The surface water project sites are
located at Unqua Pond and Bayville in the Town of Oyster Bay; on the Carll's
River in the Town of Babylon; and on Orowoc Creek in the Town of Islip.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Urban Runoff Related Problems
The quantity and quality of available groundwater and the-quality of surface
waters have long been concerns of Long Island officials and residents, who recog-
nized their dependence on the groundwater for potable supplies and on the surface
waters for recreation and for the economically important shellfish industry. The
208 Study, which addressed these concerns, found that stormwater runoff is a major,
and in many cases, the major non-point source of pollution in the bi-county region.
The 208 investigations indicated that runoff from highways, medium and high density
residential areas, and commercial and industrial areas was contributing varying
amounts of coliform bacteria, organic chemicals, sediment, heavy metals, and
nitrogen to both ground and surface waters.
A question was raised as to whether the more than 3000 recharge basins or
sumps used throughout the island as outlets for local drainage systems and as
devices for replenishing the aquifers were contributing to the areawide contam-
ination of the drinking water. Did the basins function as conduits facilitating
the entry of water borne pollutants or did they function as control devices fil-
tering out some or all of the pollutants?
Stormwater runoff was identified as the major source of bacterial loading
to marine waters and, thus, the indirect cause of the denial of certification by
the New York State Department of Conservation for about one fourth of the shell-
fishing area, an area containing an estimated one third of the clams. Much
of this area is along the south shore, where the annual commercial shellfish
harvest is valued at approximately $17.5 million. Figure 1 shows the location
of areas closed to shellfishing as of June 1981. Deep embayments along the
north shore provide an important recreational resource and, to a lesser extent,
shellfish beds. Runoff-related closure of bathing beaches in response to ele-
vated coliform counts is a minor problem since such incidents tend to be rela-
tively infrequent and of short duration.
B. Legal/Political Implications, Public Attitudes
There are local legal implications of Long Island's runoff prob-•
lems; however, they do not appear to be as significant as in many areas
Inasmuch as the drainage basins contributing runoff, and the receiving
waters, are generally located within the same political jurisdiction
E4-3
-------
there Is no question of municipal liability for the diminution of the rights of
the downstream user as is often the case in a riverine situation. There is a
legally established long term denial of a beneficial use —the taking of shellfish —
in portions of the bay in response to the presence of coliform bacteria at levels
in excess of the prescribed New York State standard 70mpn/100ml for the certification
of shellfishing areas. In addition there is a similar relatively infrequent, short
term denial of the beneficial use of certain beaches, based upon the existence of
coliform levels that contravene the standards for bathing or contact recreation,
2400mpn/100ml.
The legal implications of the proposed control measures vary from measure to
measure. In the case of stream corridor storage and stream bed infiltration legal
difficulties appear unlikely so long as the area subject to inundation is not in-
creased beyond the historical limits of the floodplain and so long as groundwater
elevations and impoundment levels do not exceed those that prevailed during wet
years prior to sewering and the consequent drop in water table elevations.
Any modification of the stream beds to provide stonnwater flow to maintain
freshwater wetlands or to improve percolation could involve questions of owner-
ship and on occasion the need for temporary or permanent easements.
Police power intervention may be required to protect the beds of streams and
ponds that are drying up from the type of encroachment that would impair their
usefulness in retaining or detaining runoff.
In the case of pond modifications such as dredging, the construction of
weirs, or the installation of baffles to avoid short circuiting and increase
detention time, not only the ownership of the bottom, but also the rights of ad-
jacent and nearby residents to recreational use of the waters would have to be
considered.
The reliance on land use controls, such as zoning, subdivision regulations
and the acquisition of the fee or lesser interests in land in order to preserve
or protect stream corridor areas not already dedicated for open space or con-
servation purposes,raises political and fiscal rather than legal questions.
Similarly, changes in drainage system requirements to foster use of the Bayville
type leaching system; the prohibition of duck feeding; and the enforcement of
existing wetlands protection and dog controls involves problems of costs and pub-
lic acceptance rather than legal authority.
Both the problems and the proposed controls have political implications.
There is political dissatisfaction resulting from the denial of beneficial uses
of marine waters. This has been manifested in the growth of baymen's, sportsmen's
and conservation organizations that have lobbied for improved water quality in
nearshore areas and/or changes in the New York State standards for certification.
seeding of open shellfishing areas and habitat creation or restoration.
As for the control measures, there appears to be little or no political
opposition to storage and stream bed infiltration and freshwater wetlands pre-
servation. In fact, to the extent that NURP control measures obviate the need for
remedial action to offset groundwater losses attributable to sewering, they may
generate considerable political support.
E4-4
-------
There Is likely to be moderate to significant opposition to other proposed
measures because of the Relatively minor) capital outlays required for pond modi-
fications and the Installation of leaching systems, the major capital outlays
for the acquisition of lands or development rights, and the potential loss of
rateables.
Opposition to the enactment of a ban on the feeding of waterfowl and to the
enforcement of dog control and tidal wetlands laws arises not so much from fiscal
concerns as from the view that such actions constitute an unwarranted infringe-
ment of personal and property rights.
Public attitudes affect both the perception of the problem and the willing-
ness to support mitigating measures. Many Long Island residents have little
understanding of causal relationships, particularly in the case of stormwater
runoff. Public concerns in respect to recharge basins have focused on issues of
safety and appearance rather than water quality. As for marine waters, the at-
titude has generally been one of annoyance with the inconvenience of beach
closures and a tendency to regard them either as the result of an "act of God"
or the fault of New York City. Recreational and commercial shellfishermen,
although frequently at odds with one another, share a common desire for im-
provements in water quality and for changes in what they regard as unnecessarily
stringent certification requirements.
The need for strong public support for proposed control measures, especiallj
those such as a ban on waterfowl feeding and pooper-scooper laws that must rely
on voluntary compliance, indicates the need for a well designed, well-funded
public education program.
C. BMP's Investigated
1. Nassau County Department of Health
a. Natural Impoundment - Unqua Pond, Massapequa
1) Location; Southest corner of Nassau County, New York
2) Drainage Area; 298.5 acres, consisting of
253 acres (85%) medium density residential
15 acres (5%) commercial
30 acres (10%) open space
3) Description: 5.5 acres "natural" impoundment with a depth of 3-5
feet having a baseflow volume of approximately 900,000 cu. ft.
Rectangular in shape, north, east, south shore lines - parklancs;
west shore - residential.
4) Effectiveness; 75-95% removal of bacteriological loading (total
coliform, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci) from surface runoff
to south shore embayments during low to medium storm events (i.e.,
1 inch/24 hrs. or less). This type of storm event comprises the
majority of the annual precipitation events.
Suspended solids removals by the impoundment are in the range
of 43-75% for low/medium storm events and 40-56% for larger stcrm
events (i.e., more than I"/24 hrs.).
5) Cost; Negligible - possible dredging costs as impoundment becomes
filled with sediment.
E4-5
-------
6) Problems: The impoundment does not appear to effect significant
removals during larger storm events (i.e., more than l"/24 hrs.).
What appears to happen is a short circuiting of storm flow through
the pond, allowing entering runoff to pass rapidly through or
over the resident pond water. An example of such an occurrence
was a storm event on September 15-16, 1981. A total rainfall of
2.44" was recorded during a 24-hour period. A comparison of EKC's
of influent and effluent bacteriological parameters indicate no
removal of total or fecal coliform bacteria, there was a cor-
responding 75% removal of fecal streptococci.
b. In-line stonnwater storage drainage system
1) Location: Northeast Nassau County, Inc. Village of Bayville
2) Drainage Area: 65.6 acres of which 100% is medium density residential
with 15% impervious land surface (9.8 acres).
3) Description; Separate storm sewer system consisting of a series of
interconnected leaching pools (10 * diameter reinforced concrete
perforated rings - 3 rings deep - 18') located below the street
right of way into which stormwater flows from 6' diameter leaching
type catch basins (12' deep). Interconnecting piping is perforated
to facilitate recharge to groundwater. Stormwater runoff first
enters the leaching catch basins. Once these basins are full and
the influent of runoff exceeds the leaching rate, the basins over-
flow to the larger leaching pools located in series along the main
storm sewer line. As each pool fills to maximum capacity and if the
rate of influent exceeds the leaching rate of the pool, the effluent
will overflow to the next pool downstream. The entire system
produces a discharge to the estuarine receiving water (Mill Neck
Creek) only when the storage and leaching capacity of the systez
are exceeded.
4) Effectiveness: Since construction of the system was completed in the
fall of 1979, there has been evidence of system overflow to the
receiving water on two or three occasions. These occurrences were
during storm events with rainfall intensities of five inches/hour
or more (e.g., intense thunderstorm activity). The majority of
storm events for this locale are much less intense and permit
retention and recharge of the runoff to groundwater.
5) Cost: Construction costs for the installation of the Perry Avenue v
In-Line Storage Sewer System was $836,855 (1979). Cost covered
all phases of construction including installation of leaching
basins, pools and drainage pipe, sidewalk and curb reconstruction
and roadway regrading and resurfacing.
The system includes 31 recharge-leaching pools, each consisting of
10' diameter reinforced concrete rings with concrete slab cover,
28 leaching catch basins, each consisting of 61 diameter reinforced
concrete rings with concrete slab covers, curb inlets and road
grates and interconnecting reinforced, perforated concrete pipes
ranging from 15" to 42" diameter.
6) Problems; There have been some problems with subsidence of soils
surrounding the mainline leaching pools. This problem is seen zore
as a problem with installation of the leaching rings and proper
backfilling than with the design of the system.
The effectiveness of the system may decrease with age as cloggirg
of soil pores continues. Sediment and leaf removal from the leaching
catch basins is necessary on at least an annual basis to maintain
proper functioning of structures.
E4-6
-------
2. Suffolk County Department of Health Services
a.
Orowoc Creek - Dry stream channel, energy dissipation/wetlands
1) Location; South Brentvood, New York
2) Drainage Area; tfQ acres, all medium density residential
3) Description; The site is at a trapezoidal shaped recharge basin
just to the north of the Southern State Parkway in
South Brentwood, Islip town, located on the service
road to the parkway. The basin is approximately
450' long and 300' wide at its longest and widest
points. There is a storm drain draining a small
residential area that discharges into the east
side of the basin, roughly 200* downstream from
the stream influent point at the northern end of
the basin. A low (8"-10" high) concrete wall at
the end of the 10' long concrete apron to the
storm drain, which has been in place for at least
15 years, acts as a working, effective energy
dissipator; The basin and stream channel upstream
are heavily overgrown with wetlands vegetation and,
hence, provide an effective site for wetlands treat-
ment. Upstream of the recharge basin, the channel
is dry for much of the year and resembles the
conditions predicted in the Suffolk County Flow
Augmentation Needs Study (FANS) for streams
without augmentation.
4) Effectiveness; Unknown (as yet untested). SCDHS has been
looking for a site that may be monitored to
assess the stormwater runoff treatment benefits
that may be derived from the drying up of portions
of streams due to the effect of sewering. SCDHS
proposes to (a) establish a monitoring station at
the basin influent to evaluate the treatment pro-
vided by the dry stream channel, (b) have a
monitoring station at the storm drain discharge
to the basin, to sample runoff from the small
residential area and (c) sample at the basin effluent
to evaluate the treatment provided by the wetlands
vegetation and from recharge in the basin.
Because of the existence of heavy vegetation in
the channel up-stream and also in the recharge
basin, it is anticipated that there would be several
storms for which there may not be any flow measured
at the basin's influent or effluent points. If
conditions of no flow do occur as expected, then a
consequent total removal of pollutants to surface
water will have been achieved as a result of energy,
dissipation, retention, and percolation.
5) Cost: Negligible - no routine maintenance costs.
E4-7
-------
6) Note: SCDHS la dropping the energy dissipation construction at
Westvlew from the study for three (3) reasons:
(1) the low bid for constructing the facility was $41,000,
which was approximately $20,000 more than the IMS es-
timate;
(2) although SCDHS' field crew had identified 40 to 50
potential sites where energy dissipation could be im-
plemented, the total contributory drainage area to
these sites is not as significant as originally en-
visioned before the site inspections were done; and,
(3). energy dissipation/wetlands treatment can be evaluated
at the storm drain discharge to the Orowoc Creek site.
The Westview Avenue site would be retained in the moni-
toring program as a control for evaluating the impact
of modifying the street cleaning practices at Central
Avenue. It is intended to sample both sites during
the same storm events.
b. Carlls River - Street sweeping
1) Location: Deer Park, New York
2) Drainage Area; 73 acres, all medium density residential
3) Description: An area of 73 acres draining to Central Avenue is
being used to investigate the impacts of varying
frequencies of street sweeping on stormwater runoff
quality. Sampling will be conducted at a manhole at
Central Avenue and W. 42nd Street which discharges
to a 45" x 72" oval drain.
4) Effectiveness; Unknown (as yet untested).
Monitoring will be conducted from March 1982 through
the Fall of 1982. This work should be done because
street sweeping appears to be one of the few control
options for addressing the contamination attributable
to direct runoff to the bay.
5) Cost; Approximately $600 per sweep (both sides of street).
Frequency of sweeping is anticipated to be weekly,
thus the total cost (capital plus 0 & M) for the
program is approximately $15,000-$20,000.
3. U. S. Geological Survey
a. Stormwater recharge basins
(All basins are approximately 1-3 acres in size and 14-40 feet deep).
(1) Basins:
(a) Plainview, N. Y.
-land use - major highway
-drainage area - 190 acres
-Z impervious - 6.3
(b) Syosset, N. Y.
-land use - medium density residential (1/4-acre zoning)
-drainage area - 28.2 acres
-% impervious - 16
E4-8
-------
(c) Laurel Hollow, N. Y.
-land use - low density residential (2-acre zoning)
-drainage area - 100 acres
-2 Impervious -4.7
(d) Huntington, N. Y.
-land use - parking lot and shopping mall
-drainage area - 39.2 acres
-% impervious - 100
(e) Centereach, N. Y. (N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation Ecological
Recharge Basin: lined with plastic; holds water permanently
up to predetermined level, above which exfiltration occurs
through basin walls)
-land use - strip commercial
-drainage area - 68 acres
-2 impervious - 6
(2) Effectiveness;
(a) Bacteria: virtually 100% removal of total coliform, fecal
coliform, and fecal streptococci after infiltration to the
water table.
(b) Heavy metals: high concentrations in stormwater (up to 3 ppm
Pb, for example) reduced by 1-2 orders of magnitude.
(c) Nitrogen: low concentrations of total nitrogen in stormwater
(median values of 1-3 mg/1) indicate that stormwater is not
a significant contributor of nitrogen to groundwater.
(d) Chlorides: these ions tend to be conservative and are not re-
moved during infiltration. Median concentrations are low
( <_ 20 mg/1) except in the parking lot area, where the median
concentration is 78 mg/1.
(e) Priority pollutants: an extremely limited number of analyses
indicates that priority pollutants in stormwater and ground-
water are below the recommended limit of 10 ug/1 with two
exceptions: 1,1,1 trichloroethane in Huntington groundwater is
23 ug/1, and 4,4-DDT in Plainview stormwater is 30 ug/1 (based
on one analysis only).
(3) Costs;
The only costs associated with recharge basins on Long Island
are the initial costs of construction, implacement of security
features such as fences, and landscaping. No maintenance is re-
quired due- to the sandy, porous nature of the soil.
(4) Recharge basins-located in sfiopptng^ceirter-areas tend tO'"be>
come clogged with oil debris, reducing their effectiveness and
causing them to hold water at all times. However, all recharge
basins on Long Island are large enough so that this does not pre-
sent any serious problems.
E4-9
-------
III. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS REACHED
A. SURFACE WATERS
1. The significance of urban runoff as a contributor of coliform loadings
to surface waters, indicated in the L.I. 208 and ongoing .monitoring studies, has
been confirmed by extensive baseline sampling. When load contributions from
point sources are factored out of the total loadings to the bays, it is found that
coliform contamination levels remain high enough to keep shellfish beds closed.
2. Nassau and Suffolk Counties represent two entirely ditterent situations
in terms of runoff effects and control. The western south shore bays of
Nassau are subject to much greater tidal flushing, which distributes loadings
throughout the Nassau Bay System. The Suffolk portion of the bay is much more
stable and, hence, tends to concentrate loadings close to their discharge points.
To achieve load reductions in Nassau, controls must be instituted on a global
scale, while in Suffolk reductions can be achieved using localized controls.
3. An extensive stormwater runoff modeling effort developed for the
study has indicated that a reduction of total coliform loads of one to two
orders of magnitude (90 - 99%) will lead to surface waters that meet current
water quality standards in many areas.
A. Land uses within stream drainage basins have been disaggregated in an
attempt to quantify the proportion of runoff from streams versus the prop-
ortion attributable to direct overland runoff to tidal waters. It appears
that approximately 45% of the total coliform load from runoff in Nassau and
25% of the total in Suffolk can be attributed to overland runoff.
5. Coliform removals from runoff of 75 - 95% have been observed in Uncua
Pond. This is probably attributable to natural processes (settling, filtration)
acting on runoff. The removals observed appear to be inversely related to
rainfall magnitude (volume and intensity). High removals have been observed
for low volume, low intensity storms, which comprise the majority of Long Island
precipitation events. Poorer removals have been observed for high volume, high
intensity storms.
6. The in-line storage system with leaching pools performs very effectively,
but appears to be hydraulically over-designed.
7. The use of stream corridors to replicate the natural processes
observed in ponds (detention, settling, filtration) offers a promising means
of achieving a significant degree of runoff control. However, to achieve
the further reductions needed to meet bay water quality standards, overland
runoff from shoreline areas draining directly to tidal waters must also
be controlled.
8. Extensive sewering, with resultant lowering of water levels, and a
reduction in the pace of development in Nassau County will tend to reduce
runoff pollution without further planning and control, and may help to solve
Nassau's runoff problems. However, active planning and control is needed in
Suffolk, because increasing development in the eastern portion of the county
will increase pollutant loadings to runoff and the bays.
E4-10
-------
9. Direct overland runoff, which appears to contribute approximately
40% of the bacterial loading to the bays in Nassau County and 25% In Suffolk
County, is generally not amenable to the same type of control that is effective
in a stream corridor.
10. The original 208 surveys and stormwater sampling implicates dogs as
the primary contributors of coliform bacteria to surface waters. Preliminary
examination of NURP fecal coliform-fecal streptococci ratios support this
finding.
11. There is evidence that large waterfowl populations on ponds contribute
a significant portion of the total colifonn load to the ponds; small populations
do not. Opportunities for control are limited.
12. With little remaining vacant land and, hence, few opportunities for
additional development, changes in land use in Nassau County over the next
twenty to thirty years will not have a significant impact on pollutant load-
ings in runoff. Similarly, there is expected to be little if any change in
western Suffolk. Loadings from land in Brookhaven and points east, how-
ever, are expected to increase with projected increases in development.
B. GROUNDWATERS
1. The practice of collecting urban stormwater runoff in recharge basins
and allowing it to infiltrate to the groundwater does not appear to constitute
a threat to the quality of the groundwater resource on Long Island.
2. Bacteria carried by runoff do not seem to reach the water table via
infiltration. Removal of total coliform, fecal colifonn and fecal streptococci,
during infiltration to the water table, is virtually 100%.
3. Heavy metals are reduced by infiltration by several orders of mag-
nitude, down to detection limits.
4. There seems to be no adverse impact on groundwater from nitrogen
in runoff, but it is difficult to tell since nitrogen from other sources
is almost always found in groundwater.
5. Chlorides seem to be totally unaffected by filtration and seem to .
pass freely through the unsaturated zone. Low median concentrations were
found at all sites except the Huntington parking lot.
6. A limited number of priority pollutant analyses indicates that
priority pollutants in stormwater and groundwater are below the recommended
limit of 10ug/l with 2 exceptions: 1,1,1-trichloroethane in Huntington,
and 4.4-DDT in Plainview.
7. Most basins appear to be functioning satisfactorily, and in fact
most seem to be over-designed. No special maintenance seems to be required.
E4-11
-------
IV. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS
Useful further Investigations would Include the Instrumentation and evalu-
ation of recharge basins draining other land-use types, more extensive analysis
of stonnwater and groundwater for priority pollutants, and analysis of water
and/or sediment in the unsaturated zone beneath the recharge basins to determine
how and where the removal of certain stormvater constituents occurs. Addi-
tional computer modeling of rainfall-runoff relationships would be extremely
useful in the prediction and evaluation of direct runoff constituent loadings
to Great South Bay.
Investigations to permit the refinement of pond modification designs for
increased detention of runoff and enhanced bacterial dieoff appear likely to
yield significant benefits.
Continuation and possible expansion of the NURP salmonella study should
be helpful in addressing the question of an appropriate standard for the cer-
tification of shellfishing areas. Inasmuch as Long Island runoff sampling
suggests that a large part of the coliform loading is of non-human origin, it
would seem useful to look for the presence of human pathogens rather than in-
dicator organisms before closing shellfishing areas. The.salmonella study is
expected to complement an on-going Suffolk County study of the concentrations
of bacteria and other pathogenic organisms in the water column and in the meat
of shellfish.
E4-12
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
BALTIMORE REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
BALTIMORE, MD
REGION III, EPA
E5-1
-------
I. Project Location:
Baltimore City/County, Maryland
II. Project Description:
A. Urban Runoff-related Problems Observed
The Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project (JFURP) has observed a range
of possible problems through both its receiving waters and small
catchment sampling. If a water quality "problem" is described by
EPA's three level definition, the observations may be interpreted
as follows:
Violation of State Standards - During storm runoff, receiving waters
stations have exhibited violations in turbidity and fecal coliform
bacterial indicators. Dry weather, base-flow conditions have also
shown periodic bacterial violations. Priority pollutant sampling
has not been implemented for comparison with new state pesticide-
• standards. Small homogeneous catchments., as well as receiving water
stations downstream of more urbanized areas have exhibited some
heavy metals event mean concentration levels that exceed EPA cri-
teria; lead concentrations, for example. No state standards pre-
sently exist for nutrients, although event mean concentration values
for total phosphorus seem to be significant.
Denial or Impairment of Beneficial Use - Data collected to date (11/81)
has not identified a direct denial or impairment of beneficial uses.
For example, children are periodically seen playing and wading in the
Stony Run stream, where fecal coliform levels have been documented at
levels greater than 10 MPN/100 ml_, with no apparent ill effects.
Public Perception of a Problem - Communications with various publics
in the watershed have not yet revealed a true perception of a pro-
blem in the Jones Falls. However, two problems related to urban runoff
have been identified by the public: localized flooding and rapidly
eroding streambanks. In the past, private citizens have been suf-
ficiently concerned about the aesthetics of the Jones Falls and its
tributaries to sponsor massive one-day clean-up campaigns.
B. Where
Bacterial violations have been observed at all three receiving stream
stations - both up and downstream of the urban area. The five small
homogeneous catchments, ranging in land use from low to high density
residential and mixed residential-commercial, have all exhibited vio-
lations.
Severe streambank erosion has occurred along both the Western Run and
Stony Run tributaries and the Jones Falls mainstream. Most noticeable,
however, is the Western Run which was subjected to intensive rainfall
and resultant flooding in 1977 from Hurricane David.
E5-2
-------
C. How Often
Analysis of data is not complete at this time.
D. How Severe
Analysis of data is not complete at this time.
E. Under What Circumstances
Analysis of data is not complete at this time.
F. Local Legal and Political Implications and Public Attitudes
Through the past 208 Water Quality Management Planning process,
member jurisdictions and the private sector have become more aware
of problems in the region's waters and that nonpoint sources
(including urban runoff) may be a major contributing factor. As the
emphasis has shifted from planning to implementation, certain pro-
• grams are being changed or initiated to better reflect water quality
objectives. However, the earlier 208 studies only identified the pre-
sence of nonpoint sources and a possible relationship to resulting
problems. A definitive quantification and description of urban runoff
quality and its effects in receiving waters has not been determined.
In the highly developed urban areas where urban housekeeping manage-
ment practices seem to be more feasible then structural controls,
local governments believe their present levels and types of practices
are adequate. Also, with present economic limitations, an increase
in practice applications may not be justified when compared to other
governmental needs. Perhaps the "best" management strategy achievable
will be one in which the application of current management practices
will be optimized with some attendant positive results in water quality.
JFURP results, both in pollutant contributions, effects and "best"
methods of control, should better define the balance needed in water
quality objectives achievement and increased or modified costs.
G. BMP's Investigated
During the JFURP Study, a range of BMPs are being investigated. These
include an old water supply impoundment (60 acres), now a recreational
lake, and a range of non-structural urban housekeeping practices.
Inputs, outputs, and lake quality are being monitored to determine its
effectiveness as a detention structure. Housekeeping practices under
study include manual and mechanical street/alley cleaning, storm inlet
maintenance, domestic animal litter control, and general sanitation
practices.
1. Effectiveness of BMPs - not available at this time
2. Costs of BMPs - not available at this time
E. Problems - none so far
III. Preliminary Conclusions Reached, Trends Indicated
The level of data analysis completed at this time does not allow preliminary
conclusions or trends to be reached.
E5-3
-------
IV. Further Investigations Indicated - none at this time. Additional data
collection and analysis may reveal the need for further investigations.
E5-4
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM, NC
REGION IV, EPA
E6-1
-------
I. Project Location
The Winston-Sal em NURP project is located in Winston-Sal em, North Carolina,
in the county of Forsyth.
II. Urban runoff related problems observed
There are two major tributaries draining the county, Muddy Creek and
Abbott's Creek; both streams drain into the Yadkin River, a major source
of drinking water for many communities downstream. Both Winston-Salem
study watersheds are in headwater areas of Muddy Creek. A major portion
of the urban area drains into Salem Creek, a tributary of Muddy Creek,
upstream of High Rock Lake.
The Muddy Creek watershed was monitored to determine its importance to
water quality in High Rock Lake, a lake downstream of the confluence of
Muddy Creek and the Yakdin River (High Rock Lake Study, Weiss). Between
October 1977, and September, 1978, seventeen (17) river sampling points,
which defined fifteen (15) discrete subbasins and twelve (12) lake lo-
cations were systematically sampled at a three week interval. Thirty
(30) different water quality parameters were analyzed and defined in each
sample.
Utilizing the total area for each subbasin as derived from a land use
analysis (6IRAS maps), the average daily yield of the principal water
quality parameters was calculated for each of the Yadkin subbasins. The
relative magnitude of these yields can be assessed by comparing the
Upper Yadkin (Station 1) draining approximately 4900 Km with that of
Muddy Creek (Station 2) draining 684 Km . In the seasonal period of April-
Noyember the Kjel-Nitrogen yield of the Upper Yadkin was 2596 grams/day/
Km whereas 684 Km of the Muddy Creek subbasin produced 10,610 grams/
day/km . Maximum seasonal yields for phosphorus were generated from the
Muddy Creek subbasin. Of the heavy metals zinc has the highest yield at
stations 2 and 1 (320 and 209 g/d/Km , respectively). Mercury wasJiighest
(3.6 g/d/Km ) at Abbotts Creek followed by Muddy Creek (2.1 g/d/KnT),
Chromium in Muddy Creek (484 g/d/Km ) and the main river (238 g/d/Km ),
were highest as was arsenic (289 g/d/Km ) in Muddy Creek and the main
river (176 g/d/KnT).
The effect of changes in river flow on yield was further examined by
comparing the ratio between maximum and minimum mean yields at the same
station for each of river flow categories. From further analysis it was
clear that Muddy Creek was exporting water degrading parameters at a
rate several times or even orders of magnitude greater than the next
largest exporter.
III. How often and how severe
Information on how often and how severe urban runoff problems are has
not been developed at this time.
E6-2
-------
-2-
IV. Under what circumstances
Although within the NURP project this has not yet been determined, some
inferences can be made from the 208 Urban Water Quality Management Plan.
The N.C. 208 Program collected and analyzed limited data in Winston-Salem.
For instance, mercury concentrations considered "problematic" (problematic
is defined here as a concentration above the state water quality standards)
occured more during low flow conditions than high flow (45% of samples
taken during low flow versus 13% of samples taken during high flow). Lead
and iron "problem" concentrations occurred in 100% and 92% respectively of
the samples taken during high flow and 13% and 15% respectively of the
samples taken during low flow. Pollutant concentrations were generally
higher in the CBD than in the residential watersheds monitored.
V. Local, legal and political implications and public attitudes
Public attitudes toward urban runoff and/or the NURP project have been
mixed. The project has received quite a bit of support from a segment
of the area public; however, it has been a controversial issue also. It
seems, even though there have been numerous efforts at public involvement,
the general public remains unaware of stormwater runoff's environmental
impacts.
VI. BMP's investigated
Street sweeping and catch basin cleaning are the BMP's being tested in the
Winston-Salem study. Much of the data is still to be collected or stored
on computer, therefore, the following BMP discussion is preliminary.
Effectiveness of BMPs
Street sweeping activities have been monitored in both residential and CBD
land uses for sweeper efficiency as well as water quality. Also, street
solids accumulation studies and sweeping program effectiveness have been
investigated. One preliminary observation is that the sweeper can
actually add solids to an area being swept if the initial street solids
loading is small enough. This may be by breaking up larger particles
into smaller ones, or by brush wear or by dropping solids picked up
elsewhere. The trend that seems to be developing is the larger the
initial load the better the removal of total street solids. Removals
have been seen up to 40%. As expected, sweeping seems to be less
efficient at the smaller particle sizes.
Cost of BMP's
Cost documentation is being prepared for both BMP's tested. During the
cost document formulation we found various factors that influence cost
and should be acknowledged in street sweeping program review. Among these
are: (1) distance to dump area, (2) age and type of equipment, (3) age and
type of road surface, (4) seasonal influences (leaf, snow, etc.), (5)
distance to site. These and other factors (unless adequately identified)
can make cost and program comparisons extremely difficult. Average total
E6-3
-------
-3-
costs for residential street sweeping were determined to be $10.30/curb
mile, and for CBD total cost was $6.41/curb mile (MRI Document, K. Rife).
Average operating speed for the CBD is 4.7 curb miles/hour. For the
residential average speed is 3.00 curb miles/hour.- Cost effectiveness
analyses will be included in the final report.
Problems
A complete problem description concerning street sweeping will be included
in the final report. Presently the only problems noticed are: (1) initial
data indicates that sweepers are not that effective on the small particle
sizes, (2) regenerative air vacuum sweepers use water sprayers to control
dust; however, vacuum sweepers freeze up when air temperature falls below
40°F. Catch basin cleaning has not proven to be an effective BMP for
several, reasons. First, most cities in N.C. have no catch basins they
have drop inlets or junction boxes. This eliminates the detention treat-
ment techniques. Since the outlet pipe is at the bottom of the tank, no
settling occurs. These devices serve the purpose the city needs by elimi-
nating clogging of drainage pipe. Quite a bit of manpower and resources
go into cleaning of catch basins in Winston-Sal em. They are cleaned on
two schedules once per year and/or emergency stoppage. Therefore,
problem catch basins are cleaned more frequently than the average ones.
Problems occur when the catch basins are cleaned and the cleaning equipment
takes a lot of water into a holding tank which has to be emptied period-
ically. Emptying it in a sanitary sewer instead of a storm drain or
creek bed would be more suitable.
Analysis of actual catch basin data has not begun.
E6-4
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
LANSING, MI
REGION V, EPA
E7-1
-------
I. Project Location
Michigan, Ingham County, Lansing
II. Project Description
Recent monitoring efforts along the Grand River have documented the
existing water quality, and identified nonpoint source pollution as a
major contributor to biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen and suspended
solids. Fish ladders have been installed downstream at barriers which
now permit salmon migration upstream into the Lansing area. With this
potential recreational opportunity being realized presently, the public
attitude, and that of the local governing bodies is strongly in favor
of reducing pollution from urban nonpoint sources.
The Bogus Swamp Drain Drainage District was selected as a location where
three alternative types of best management practices could be implemented,
and their effectiveness evaluated. They include an in-line wet retention
basin, two in-line up-sized (increased volume) lengths of storm drain,
and an in-line dry detention basin.
Estimated cost of the wet retention basin with a runoff storage capacity
above normal level of 83,000 cubic feet, is approximately $173,000.
The. incremental costs for the increased diameter sections of storm drains
(above that of the normally sized drains) totalled approximately $36,000.
Pipes were 96 inch diameter, instead of 54 inch (needed for flow), and
were 144 ft. and 85 ft. in length.
The remaining BMP is an existing depression comprised of several back
yards, which floods on occasions when the existing drains prove inade-
quate to handle the total flow, which subsequently discharges the
excess back into the storm drains, as the flows decrease. No costs have
been developed for this existing condition.
Problems were encountered in scheduling the project in conjunction with
the construction efforts required. Also, when sampling and monitoring
were initiated, sanitary flows from illicit connections had to be
corrected, along with improperly discharged industrial wastes.
III. Preliminary Conclusions Reached; Trends Indicated
Evaluation of the in-line wet retention basin has proved that it is very
effective in retaining suspended sediment, total phosphorus, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, biochemical oxygen demand and lead. Efficiency of
retention increases with an increase in storm size, based on data for
the sizes of storm evaluated.
Results of evaluation of the in-line upsized storm drain sections have
shown highly variable performance. One tentative conclusion is that
the shorter section is probably too short for suitable settling times,
given the small particle sizes encountered. The longer section has
proved to be more effective in reducing sediment loads, and pollutants
associated with them, although less effective than the wet retention
basin.
£7-2
-------
The results obtained from the normally dry detention basin are still
being evaluated, as event sampling was initiated later for this BMP.
A very preliminary look at early results indicates that while it operates
effectively for flood control, its effectiveness in reducing pollutants
is poor.
IV. Further Investigations Indicated, In Pursuit of Answers to Original
questions and Concerns'
Given the difficulty of locating space in urban settings for in-line wet
retention basins like that investigated, the use of up-sized in-line
storm drains to serve a similar purpose needs further evaluation. A
longer length than either of those evaluated, and locations providing
opportunities to evaluate different loading conditions, and over a range
of storm events for all seasons, is suggested by evaluation to date.
E7-3/E7-4 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN .
REGION V, EPA
E8-1
-------
I. Project Location
Michigan, Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor
11• Brief Project Description
A. Urban Runoff Related Problems Observed
Earlier water quality surveys disclosed relatively good water quality
conditions during dry weather flow, with dramatic increases in pollu-
tant levels being experienced during stormwater runoff periods. Water
quality standards violations have resulted.
B. Where, etc.
Studies identified the reach of the Huron River between the Argo and
Geddes Dams as one of three problem areas. Nonpoint sources would be
the primary source, since point source discharges do not exist in this
reach.
Both the community and the State consider the river to be a recreational
resource. Many past studies have been conducted by the University of
Michigan, located in Ann Arbor. As a result, there has been consider-
able public awareness concerning the quality of water in the Huron
River.
C. BMP's Investigated
Three BMP's have been investigated in this project. One was the
Swift Run wetlands. This BMP has proved to be very effective for the
range of storm event sizes sampled, for removal of solids and heavy
metals. The effectiveness of nutrients removal appears to vary,
depending on seasonal conditions.
The second BMP evaluated was the existing Pittsfield-Ann Arbor
retention basin, designed to function as a flood control structure.
It has proven to be quite effective in removal of solids, and pollu-
tants associated with them. Appropriate modifications of the basin
outlet structure, oriented towards water pollution control, would be
expected to improve the functioning of this BMP in control of runoff
pollutants.
The third BMP was an on-line detention basin constructed adjacent to
Traver Creek. Although it will function as an off-line basin,
while it was being monitored, it was operating as an on-line BMP.
It demonstrated only minimal removal of pollutants, as tested.
Construction delayed monitoring this project, and not as many events
were sampled, as a result.
Costs are being developed for these BMP's, to be extent possible,
but are not yet available.
E8-2
-------
-2-
III. Preliminary Conclusions Reached and Trends Indicated
The flood control wet retention basin in the Pittsfield-Ann Arbor
Drain has demonstrated, for the range of events sampled and the seasonal
coverage included, that water quality benefits are produced, also. The
Swift Run Wetlands are also effective in the removal of pollutants,
subject (in the case of nutrients) to seasonal variations. The Traver
Creek Drain BMP has proven less effective, in part, it seems, due to
the upstream sources of contributions (from a largely agricultural, less
intensively developed area).
IV. Further Investigations Indicated in Pursuit of Answers to Original Concerns
Areas where further investigations would appear to be fruitful include
the following:
1. For Traver Creek Drain, the BMP needs to be evaluated as an off-line
structure, with further testing as urban-development occurs.
2. For Pittsfield-Ann Arbor Drain, the BMP should be evaluated after
specific outlet structure modifications designed to improve pollu-
tion control, are implemented.
3. The results obtained during the evaluations described above
should cover a wider range of storm events, and be conducted during
all seasons to better understand the effectiveness variability that
may result from different levels of runoff, during the different
seasons.
E8-3/E8-4 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN
DETROIT, MI
REGION V, EPA
E9-1
-------
I. Project Location
Michigan, Oakland County, Troy
II. Brief Project Description
The project was located in a relatively flat, poorly drained and highly
urbanized area in southeast Michigan. Experience had demonstrated
evidence of poor storm-induced water quality. In addition, a network
of rain gages was in place in close proximity. Southeast Michigan Council
of Governments studies have identified urban stormwater as an important
factor in water quality degradation. This has become increasingly ob-
vious as treatment of municipal and industrial sources has been imple-
mented in the area. Given the poor drainage conditions, developers
have been required to provide normally dry detention basins adequate
for flood control purposes. Their design is such that they do not reduce
pollutants included in urban storm runoff.
Three of these on-line basins have been selected for modification to
provide pollutant removal. The project to date, has evaluated the pollu-
tants and concentrations prior to actual modifications to determine a
base against which to compare results following the basin modifications.
Sampling for this purpose will be accomplished in the spring of 1982,
now that modifications have been accomplished. A problem of keeping all
the monitoring and sampling equipment operating during any given event
has limited the usable data obtained during the initial phase.
Legal and institutional aspects of an implementation program are under
review as well, and recommendations concerning needs in these areas will
be another end product of this project.
III. Preliminary conclusions reached
Until the event monitoring and sampling of the modified basins has been
completed, and evaluation of results obtained can be done, no conclu-
sions can be drawn.
IV. Further Investigations Indicated in Pursuit of the Answer to the
Original Question
Other than a need to establish a much larger data base, followed by a
much increased sampling and monitoring program of modified structures,
to include a wide range of storm events for all seasons, it is too soon
to determine other potential investigative needs.
E9-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS PLANNING COMMISSION
CHICAGO; IL
REGION V, EPA
E10-1
-------
I. Project Location;
Glen Ellyn, DuPage County, Illinois
II. Project Description;
A. Urban runoff-related problem observed
Algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels.
8. Where
Detention Basin
C. How Often
Algae - Spring, Summer and Fall.
Low dissolved oxygen - Summer, occasionally.
D. How Severe
Algae - blooms quite visible.
DO - < 5 near the lake bottom.
E. Under What Circumstances
Algae - almost any time.
DO - quiet days, warm temperatures.
F. Local, Legal and Political Implications and Public Attitudes.
No legal or political implications at present. Public unconcerned,
since principal recreational uses (ice skating, aesthetics and
fishing) are not yet seriously impaired.
G. BMP's Investigated
Wet bottom detention - effectiveness not yet calculated but thought
to be about 90% for suspended constituents. No costs have been
assembled yet. No problems related to the evaluation have been
experienced.
III. Preliminary conclusions reached, trends indicated
Wet bottom detention is very effective in removing suspended
constituents for this particular case. There have been no con-
clusions drawn yet concerning pollutant sources. It appears that
about 75% of the load to the detention basin is less than 63 microns
in size. Little or no material is being retained in most catchbasins.
E10-2
-------
-2-
IV. Further investigations indicated in pursuit of answer to original
questions/concernsT
Further investigation is needed on the availability of constituent
pollutants for uptake by benthic organisms. There is concern that
pollutant constituents in detention basin sediments may become mobile
and available to the water column under changing conditions of pH, DO
or chloride, as well as uptake by lake bottom benthic organisms, and
the potential for bio-accumulation in fish. An additional concern
relates to the question of habitat, and whether the limiting
constraint on aquatic organisms is pollutant related or habitat
related.
E10-3/E10-4 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY DIVISION
CHAMPAIGN, IL
REGION V, EPA
E11-1
-------
Project Location
Illinois, Champaign County, City of Champaign.
Project Description
History of Urban Runoff Related Problems .
Champaign was one of eight SMA's studied in the 1978 208 urban stormwater
assessment. The urban assessment for Champaign indicated that general
water use standards are exceeded between 20-30 times a year for lead,
copper and iron. The once a year maximum for these concentrations could
be 15-20 times higher than the standard. Mercury was regularly observed
in stormwater samples and could be expected to exceed the standard 10
times a year. Total suspended solids and total dissolved solids were
also frequently high.
Public Attitudes
During the 208 urban stormwater assessment an Urban Stormwater Task Force
composed of 8 local steering committees assessed the lEPA's study. The
Champaign local steering committee concurred that there was an urban
runoff pollution problem but felt additional data was necessary to
determine whether urban stormwater runoff was a detriment to fishable and
swimable water quality, whether current general use standards were
applicable to urban stormwater pollution, and the relative impact of
urban runoff in relation to other pollution sources.
The local s-teering committee strongly supported intensive monitoring of a
local basin to clarify the above issues. In addition, the committee
supported less expensive BMP's such as optimized street sweeping,
monitored road salting and on-site runoff control ordinances.
El 1-2
-------
Project Description
The Illinois NURP is evaluating the use of municipal street sweeping as a
BMP for the improvement of urban stormwater quality. Eight major project
objectives are:
1. To relate the accumulation of street dirt to land use, traffic count,
time, and type and conditions of street surface.
2. To define the washoff of street dirt in terms of rainfall rate, flow
rate, available material, particle size, slope and surface roughness.
3. To determine what fraction of pollutants occurring in stormwater
runoff may be attributed to atmospheric fallout.
4. Modify the ILLUDAS model (1) to permit examination of the functions
determined in objectives 1 through 3.
5. To calibrate the modified model on all instrumented basins.
6. To identify sources of pollutants in the urban environment.
7. To determine, if possible, the influence of deposition and scour in
the pipe system on runoff quality.
8. To develop accurate production functions and corresponding cost
functions for various levels of municipal street sweeping. (Bender
et al. 1981)
Four basins have been monitored since 1979: 2 paired single family
residential land use basins and 2 paired commercial land use basins. In
addition, a microbasin with a single curb inlet and no pipe flow is being
examined for the washout characteristics of surface flow.
All four basins are being measured for rainfall and runoff quantity and
quality, contribution by atmospheric deposition, street dirt load,
accumulation rates and particle distribution. Concentration analysis is
being completed for lead, iron, copper, total suspended solids, chemical
oxygen demand, phosphorous, K-Nitrogen, nitrite, ammonia, chloride and
sulfate. Eighty-three events have been monitored and 1663 samples
collected between November 1979 and July 1981.
Ell-3
-------
BMP Investigated
Street sweeping in one of each paired basin occurred while the other
remained unswept. In the summer of 1980 each experimental basin was
swept twice weekly. As the study progressed, the frequency was switched
to once a week and the basin treatments were reversed so the original
control basins were swept and sweeping in the original experimental
basins terminated. A three wheel mechanical sweeper was used for
sweeping. Preliminary results for sweeper efficiency are presented below.
Removal Efficiency by Particle Size
PERCENT
Portion of Load
TOTAL
Mattis South
(Commercial)
23
REMOVED
John
North
(Residential)
36
>3350 microns
3350-2000 microns
2000-1000 microns
1000-500 microns
500-250 microns
250-125 microns
125-63 microns
<63 microns
24
24
25
26
25
18
6
6
61
36 .
39
36
25
15
10
-5
(Table from Bender et al. 1981)
Based on 1980 figures, it has been estimated that sweeping costs $13.89
per curb mile. Proper percentages for parts replacement, major repairs,
fringe benefits and overhead were not calculated into the cost per curb
mile which has resulted in a curb mile cost which may be lower than
actual cost. This information is currently being analyzed and a new
estimate of cost per curb mile is being calculated. In a survey of 15
Illinois Municipalities, Public Work Departments estimated sweeping costs
of between $4.98 - 220.60 per curb mile.
Ell-4
-------
• Preliminary Conclusions and Trends
An analysis of the 1980 basin load data indicates that sweeping twice a
week has a large impact on measured street, load. Load was reduced
approximately 63% in the residential basin and 24% in the commercial
basin.
Limited analysis has been made on water quality data so no conclusions
about sweeper effect on pollution concentration can be made. However,
there is an indication that sweeping in the residential basin may have a
negative effect on water quality because more material is washed off the
swept basin versus an unswept basin. Additional analysis on the other
basins must be made before conclusions can be made.
Future Investigations
Further analysis will be made to determine the effect of sweeping on
water qulaity by: additional comparisons of runoff quality from swept .
and unswept basins, from experimental basins before and after the
sweeping program was initiated and simulation with the Q-Illudas water
quality model.
The next phase of NURP will examine the effects of urban runoff on
receiving streams. Water quality upstream and downstream of the City of
Champaign will be monitored.
Reference
Bender, Michael G., Michael L. Terstriep, and Douglas C. Noel. 1981.
Second Annual Report. Nationwide Urban Runoff Project, Champaign,
Illinois. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Municipal Street Sweeping
in the Control of Urban Storm Runoff Pollution. Illinois State Water
Survey, Urbana, Illinois. 82 pp.
WBC:jk/sp/2377c,l-6
E11-5/E11-6 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MADISON, WI
REGION V, EPA
E12-1
-------
SUMMARY OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY NURP PROJECT
I. Project Location
Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
II. Summary of Findings:
The purpose of this project is to characterize urban runoff, to identify
urban runoff contaminant problems, and to evaluate street sweeping as an
urban runoff control practice.
A. Urban Runoff Water Quality:
Several urban runoff contaminants have been observed at
concentrations above that considered to be serious. These include
metals (lead, zinc, cadmium and copper), suspended solids, and fecal
coliform. Nutrients and BOD were not found at excessive
concentrations and were generally much lower than Wisconsin's
guidelines for sewage treatment plants.
The detemination of 'problem' metal concentrations is based on the
proposed 'White Book' criteria published in the Federal Register
(V45, N231, November, 1900). 'Problem' concentrations were deemed
to be the acute toxicity concentrations for freshwater aquatic life,
"not to be exceeded at any time." These maxima concentrations are
locally dependent upon the hardness of the receiving waters (for the
Milwaukee area, 250 ng/1 is a representative value for average event
flow hardness concentration). The analyses to date have been able
to identify the location, frequency and extent of urban runoff
problems. Circumstances under which these problems occur, however,
have not been identified, i.e., the effects of antecedent conditions
and rainfall characteristics on concentrations remains unknown.
Lead:
Acute toxicity concentration: 526 ug/1. Thirty-six (36) and
eighteen (10) percent of the event mean concentrations at the
commercial and high density residential areas respectively
exceeded this concentration. Small percentages (one (1) and
four (4)) of the events at the medium density residential areas
and the parking lots also exceeded this concentration.
Zi nc:
Acute toxicity concentration: 687 ug/1. Sixteen (16) percent
of the events at the commercial areas exceeded this
concentration, as did one (1) and two (2) percent of the medium
density residential areas and the parking lots respectively.
There is presently insufficient data at the high density
residential areas to make an evaluation of this contaminant.
E12-2
-------
Cadmium:
Acute toxicity concentration: 0 ug/1. This concentration is
frequently exceeded at the commercial areas and at Rustler (a
parking lot), but not at the other areas.
Copper:
, Acute toxicity concentration: 52 ug/1. This concentration is
frequently exceeded at Wood Center (a commercial area) but not
at the other areas.
Suspended Solids:
Wisconsin does not have an ambient stream standard for suspended
solids. The State's guidelines for sewage treatment plant
effluent however specify a maximum 30 day average of 30 nig/1,
and a maximum 7 day average of 45 mg/1. Seventy-five percent of
all suspended solids event mean concentrations exceeded 30 mg/1,
50 percent exceeded 67 mg/1, 25 percent exceeded 150 mg/1, and
10 percent exceeded 300 rng/1. Concentrations at the commercial
areas and at Lincoln Creek (a high density residential area)
greatly exceeded concentrations at the other areas.
Fecal Col iform:
Wisconsin has a fecal coliform ambient stream standard such that
not more than 10 percent of the samples taken over a 30 day
period can have fecal coliform counts that exceed 400 mpn/100
ml. Ninety percent of all of the urban runoff samples collected
exceeded this level, and twenty (20) percent exceeded 50,000
mpn/100 ml.
Based on a recent survey of 1,000 people in the Milwaukee area,
95 percent of the respondents believe that there are significant
water quality problems, but only 23 percent believe that urban
runoff is a significant pollutant source. Less than 10 percent of
the respondents objected to increased expenditures for nonpoint
source pollution control.
B. Street sweeping as an urban runoff control practice:
The experimental design of the project incorporated traditional test
and control design concepts, i.e., test areas, where the sweeping
frequencies varied between baseline and accelerated levels, and
control areas where the frequencies were held constant at baseline
levels. There is considerable unexplained variability in urban
runoff concentrations however. Even under the control situation
there exists extreme fluctuations in the data base, i.e., when
paired test and control areas were swept at the same frequency,
E12-3
-------
there were very inconsistent relationships between their respective
event mean concentrations. Given this poor signal to noise ratio,
it is very difficult to extract meaningful information. There was
found to be no demonstrable, statistically significant impact of
accelerated street sweeping on any water quality parameter. Whether
there was in fact no impact, or the impact was minor relative to
the noise, is indeterminable.
III. Preliminary Conclusion Reached:
* •
The degraded condition of urban runoff poses serious threats to
freshwater aquatic life and to human body contact recreation. These
threats arise from high levels of suspended solids and fecal coliform
draining from most urban areas, and of toxic metals from heavily
developed commercial and (to a lessor degree) high density residential
areas. Frequent street sweeping was not found to be effective in
reducing these contaminants.
IV. Further Investigations Indicated:
A major weakness in interpreting the impacts of high concentrations of
contaminants lies in the inadequate understanding of on-site and
synergistic impacts of high event-flow concentrations on aquatic
organisms. Although event concentrations can be compared to established
or promulgated criteria, (generally set for low-flow conditions),
extrapolating from those criteria to actual in-stream impacts is a far
more nebulous and uncertain affair. Further research is needed to
ascertain the actual in-stream impacts of high event-flow concentrations.
0948A
E12-4
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
METROPLAN
LITTLE ROCK, AR
REGION VI, EPA
E13-1
-------
I. Project Location:
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas
II. Project Description:
A. Urban runoff-related problems observed
Pollutants identified as contributing to water quality problems are
excessive coliform concentration, low pH and dissolved oxygen levels,
high phosphorous and heavy metals concentrations, and violation of
the water quality standards for BOD and suspended solids.
B. Where, etc.
Water quality problems related to urban runoff were observed in the
Fourche drainage system, which includes a proposed public use area
in Fourche Bottoms, where present poor water quality (high bacterial
counts) precludes water based recreation. The city, the county, the
health department and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock are
actively cooperating to control flooding and upgrade water quality
in the Fourche system.
Water quality problems were identified during the first year sampling
program, conducted to discover background conditions. The second
phase of the investigation will include sampling to evaluate the ef-
fectiveness of BMP's that are now in place or being installed. The
BMP's being checked are sodding and rip rap along stream banks,
gabions, channel clearing, vegetation, and low water check dams.
III. Preliminary conclusions reached, trends indicated
BMP evaluation has not resulted in any conclusions being reached or trends
indicated, at this early time in the project.
IV. Further investigations indicated, etc.
The project has not yet progressed to the stage where further investiga-
tions can be identified.
E13-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM .
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
REGION VI, EPA
E14-1
-------
I. Project Location:
Austin, Travis County, Texas
II. Project Description:
A. Urban runoff-related problems observed
The results obtained so far indicate that high fecal coliform counts
were the most distinct characteristic of the runoff loadings from
both stormwater runoff and receiving water stations. Other runoff-
related receiving water impacts were elevated levels of alkalinity,
TSS, ammonia, total phosphorus, BOD, and bacteria in the lake
waters. Ammonia concentrations were found to exceed .5 mg/L during
several runoff events. There was an increase in water treatment
cost for the production of drinking water which correlated with run-
off events when the cumulative rainfall volume was greater than one
inch. Town Lake (the most urbanized receiving water) generally has
bacteria levels 5 to 6 times greater than that of Lake Austin. Dur-
ing storm events, this variation is greater. Also, some heavy met-
als (lead, zinc) and pesticides (DDT and metabolites) have been
found in significant levels in the sediments.
B. Where - N/A
C. How Often - N/A
. D. How Severe - N/A
E. Under What Circumstances - N/A
F. Local Legal and Political Implications and Public Attitudes
The local populace is very concerned with environmental issues.
These attitudes are concerned with aesthetic and environmental
issues relating to development in the Austin area. Accordingly,
the results of this NURP project will receive close scrutiny from
the Council, economic interests, and the populace as a whole.
G. BMP's Investigated
As part of the local NURP study we have investigated a stormwater
detention basin as well as non-structural controls in the form of
three levels of impervious cover.
1. Effectiveness of BMP's
a. Stormwater Detention Basin - The basin under investigation
seems to be somewhat effective in removing TSS (67%), and mar-
ginally effective in removing ammonia (27%) and TKN (26%). It
is felt at this time that insufficient data exists to draw
broad conclusions.
E14-2
-------
b. Non-structural controls. At the present time data indicate that
the storm average concentrations of most pollutants seem to be about
the same for each of the two test watersheds given similar physical
conditions. However, data has shown that the total runoff volume
(on a per acre basis) is significantly lower for the Rollingwood
(low impervious cover -- 21%) watershed than for the Northwest
Austin (high impervious cover -- 39%) watershed, hence the
Rollingwood watershed contributes significantly less pollutant mass
(Ibs/acre) than does the Northwest Austin watershed under similar
physical conditions.
2. Cost of BMP's - not available at this time
3. Problems - The study ran for only 7 months of data gathering (March-
September), due to unexpected flood damage and equipment malfunc-
tions, where it was originally designed to collect one year's data.
As a result, seasonal variations cannot be accurately shown. Also,
inflow/outflow data at Woodhollow Dam.is rather sparse.
III. Preliminary Conclusions Reached, Trends Indicated
Characteristic runoff-related receiving water impacts were elevated levels of
alkalinity, TSS, ammonia, total phosphorous, BOD and bacteria in the lake
waters. During the course of the receiving water study, it has been observed
that the short-term impact of the "conventional" pollutants on the Town Lake-
Lake Austin receiving waters has been limited both spatially and temporally.
The impact of the discharge plume from the tributaries to the lakes has been
limited to those areas immediately downstream of the tributary confluence with
the receiving water and in near-shore areas of the lake nearest the tributary.
These effects also are limited from only a few hours to several days after the
storm event, depending on the parameter being examined and the strength of the
storm (intensity and duration). Unfortunately, comparison with upstream dam
releases is not complete. Native biota do not seem to be negatively impacted
by these discharge plumes. Long term effects of runoff on the receiving
waters are still under investigation, and trends and conclusions cannot be
meaningfully determined at this time.
Conclusions may be reached regarding the stormwater monitoring program from
the data now available to the project. It has been seen that the storm-
averaged concentration of most pollutants may be correlated rather well with
dry days between runoff events, as well as total volume of runoff and storm
intensity, in addition to other parameters. In many cases this correlation
is quite good. Equations are presently being developed to describe the storm-
averaged concentrations in terms of some of these parameters. In addition,
runoff co-efficients also correlate very well with dry days between storm
events. Peak fluxes (Ibs/hour) of COD, TOC, NH3~N, and Total P correlate well
with peak flows at the monitoring sites and the flux curves for most pollutants
tend to closely follow the general shape of their associated hydrographs.
There is a definite trend toward higher runoff coefficients with an increase
in impervious cover. Medium density residential land use (39% impervious)
does produce a larger runoff pollutant load than a low-density residential
E14-3
-------
land use (21% impervious). Neither developed watershed demonstrated signifi-
cantly higher concentrations of detected parameters upon comparison, but were
significantly higher than the undeveloped control watershed at Turkey Creek.
IV. Further Investigations Indicated -
A. Continuation of sampling at the Woodhollow Dam site to get suffi-
cient data for a statistically significant determination of its
efficiency in removal of pollutants.
B. A seasonal study of the lake that takes in fall and winter
conditions.
C. A study of the bacterial levels from the tributaries and the
sources and types of contamination.
E14-4
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUN-OFF PROGRAM •
DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
DENVER, CO
REGION VIII, EPA
El 5-1
-------
DENVER REGIONAL URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties
The Denver region, situated at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, receives only
about 14 to 15 inches of precipitation each year. About one-third of this total
occurs as snowfall in the winter months. The snows usually melt rapidly within
three to four days. However, there may be one or two periods where the snow
remains on the ground for more than a week at a time. Lead and other airborne
particulate matter will accumulate in this pack but generally the snowfall will be
of significant water equivalent to provide enough water during snowmelt runoff
to dilute the concentrations of most chemical constituents so as not to pose a
problem in the receiving waters. Salt loadings are higher during these periods,
as one might expect from street sanding and salting operations, but measured
chloride concentrations are considered not to approach problem levels for aquatic
life in the streams.
During the remainder of the year approximately eight or nine inches of rain will
fall. Two rainfall regimes are apparent: 1) frontal systems in early spring and
fall which produce long, gradual, light rains; and 2) convectional systems,
summer thunderstorms characterized by localized heavy rainfall of short duration.
It is these high intensity rains in the late summer during low flow conditions
that produce the greatest loads of contaminants. Atmospheric deposition during
long intervals between rains, oftentimes for weeks at a time, has a chance to
build up large loads on the land surface. This is exacerbated by dry soil con-
ditions , general windy conditions, and the agricultural and construction-related
activities occurring at the outskirts of the Denver region.
When the thunderstorms do occur, the high kinetic energy associated with rain-
drop impact and overland flow carry the accumulated loads to the receiving waters
Data collected to date have shown that quantifiable relationships exist between
the total amounts of rainfall, effective impervious areas, and storm loads for
selected constituents. Unit area loading rates are greater for basins with a
large extent of imperviousness which in general is related to more intense urban
land use activities. The Cherry Creek basin, which encompasses the greater
part of the rapidly developing downtown central business district, produces the
most nonpoint pollution compared to other tributary basins on a per area basis.
A good part of this basin is storm-sewered with direct hydraulic connections to
the creek, which has a minimal base flow to begin with. The Cherry Creek
basin can produce up to 25 percent of the total storm loads measured at a down-
stream location on the Platte even though it encompasses only 13 percent of the
entire monitored area.
During late summer when streamflows are low and temperatures are high, there
is not enough base flow in the South Platte to dilute the incoming storm loads.
An order of magnitude increase, from around 300 to 3,000 cfs, will occur in the
Platte and the runoff response of the basin to rainfall is rapid. It takes about
E15-2
-------
two-tenths of an inch of rain to wet all the street and vegetated surfaces before
runoff will occur. This is important because a large proportion of the total
annual rainfall occurs as a number of these small rainfall amounts, or cloud-
bursts , added up together over the course of a year. Another consideration occurs
during the month of May when the heaviest rainfall occurs (two to three inches
of rain). This coincides with high streamflow in the South Platte River due to
the snowpack in the mountains which is melting at this time of the year. A dilu-
tion effect can occur during this period. This does not occur during drought
conditions as are prone to occur from time to time and which the region is now
experiencing. Most of the urban runoff related problems can be considered to
occur under conditions of low flow, high temperature and low dissolved oxygen
observed during late summer which are critical periods for the survival of fish.
When discussing the urban runoff "problem" it is important to define what actually
is meant by this term. It is not difficult to describe the "effect": that quantifiable
loads of chemical constituents are generated during runoff events and that they
move to receiving waters. Defining the "impact" is a much more difficult task.
Intuitively the word impact refers to a condition adversely affecting public health
or the health of aquatic biota, if the latter is determined to be a desirable amenity
to preserve. Another consideration is that the magnitude of a water quality
problem is defined in terms of how "clean" we choose a desirable level of water
quality to be. Clearly, a "problem" occurs only when the criteria we have
established has been exceeded more often than a predetermined "acceptable"
number of times in a-given period.
The duration of the exceedance is also important. The potential exists for a
problem to occur when considering the fishery potential of a stream. The major
contaminants of concern are potentially toxic substances. Besides the synthetic
organic compounds, the dissolved forms of certain heavy metals, such as lead,
zinc, and cadmium could pose a problem for stream life and also public water
supply. This is because the dissolved metals are the biologically available form
of the metal, the one which is easily incorporated into body tissues. Shock
loading of water supply intakes from urban runoff is a potential concern and a
management strategy designed to avoid using intake water with high dissolved
metals would be advisable. At this point in our investigation, it would be
difficult to assess the impact on stream organisms without an extensive literature
review of toxicity levels impacting sensitive endemic fish species present. As
the dissolved metal loads occur during the first part of storms and move as slug
loads downstream, and considering durations on the order of a few hours of
exposure and the tendency for fish to avoid plumes of toxic concentrations of
dissolved substances, no conclusions can be drawn from the available data at
this time on the extent or severity of the urban runoff impact on the South Platte
River.
Even though it cannot be specified at this time if there is a chemical pollutant
problem associated with urban runoff in Denver, another interpretation might
connote that there is a physical problem. The effect of sedimentation in the
stream channel must also be considered. Much of the sediment transported during
runoff periods is clay-sized and remains suspended in the flow. This component
E15-3
-------
merely moves through the system, whereas sand and silt are deposited in the
river channel during storm periods, although scour of the bottom materials is
also occurring. The impervious areas accumulate dry depositional materials
which eventually are worked into the streams. Since major flood control structures
have been built on the mainstem of the Platte and also on its major tributaries
at the periphery of the urbanized Denver area, no large events are allowed to
really scour the channel and both point source and nonpoint source sediments
accumulate over time. These sediments have the potential to continually inter-
act with the overlying water column depending on physical conditions of temper-
ature, pH and redox which control mobilization of heavy metals, for instance.
Current thoughts are that keeping these materials out of the river might be
beneficial in that the channel substrate would be improved, and thus, fish
habitat. If the sediments are inactive then no chemical problem can be ascertained,
however, a physical problem might still exist.
Other potential problems are evident from the storm data collected to date.
Relatively high nutrient loads, mainly phosphorus and nitrogen compounds, have
been observed to occur. The interpretation is that accelerated eutrophication of
reservoirs, and other impoundments characteristic of water supply management
in the semi-arid west, can and will occur in waterbodies receiving this nutrient-
laden runoff. If the reservoir is used for agricultural irrigation purposes, then
the nutrients might be considered beneficial, although the water-borne metals
could be detrimental, especially when they accumulate in the soil over the years.
If the reservoir is used for recreational purposes, then bacterial pollution might
pose a problem as fecal material usually associated with the suspended matter
can reach into the hundreds of thousands of colonies per 100 milliliters, far in
excess of the suggested maximum of 2000 colonies/100 ml for secondary contact
recreation. However, duration of exposure by humans could be effectively
managed to minimize recreational disturbances.
The Best Management Practices, or BMPs, which were investigated in the Denver
project include detention ponds and runoff ordinances. Although street sweeping
with vacuum-type sweepers is a possible BMP, it was considered that this
management practice would be very expensive. Other studies have shown negligible
effect, negative effect, or beneficial effects from street sweeping. High sweeping
frequency would probably preclude a cost-effective, energy-efficient approach.
Sediment control, by detaining storm flows, has promise although maintenance of
facilities is a continuing cost. Detention ponds built from scratch, retrofitted
flood retention ponds already in place, and rock-filled percolation pits seem to
hold promise as BMPs for the Denver region. Another alternative is the creation
of wetlands in low-lying areas. The wildlife and aesthetic amenities, as well as
natural high contaminant-removal efficiencies of wetlands should be seriously
considered as well as negative impacts such as pest control. Results from mon-
itoring a detention pond's effect on water quality are still being evaluated at the
present time. As the water quality problem is merely changed into a solid waste
problem, disposal of pond sediments in an appropriate manner must also be
considered. Other considerations are the possible injuries which could be
associated with these structures, and the delegation of maintenance responsibilities.
E15-4
-------
This brings'us to the final considerations, those being the political and legal
implications. There exists an intrinsic value to having a waterbody close by
that people can enjoy, but assessing the dollar value ascribed to this is a
difficult matter. Fish in the river are desirable, but at what replacement cost?
What are the relative point and nonpoint effects on water quality, how can these
be differentiated, how can available funding for control measure spending be '
determined on a cost-benefit basis? What flexibility exists for local governments
to spend federal funds on nonpoint control? How is local financing generated?
What political entities should be responsible for implementing a control program
should one be established? Ultimately, what are the benefits to be accrued at
what costs? Unfortunately, answers to these questions cannot be determined at
this time for the Denver region, although they are being pursued and will be
addressed in further analyses and deliberations on the matter.
E15-5/E15-6 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
CASTRO VALLEY, CA
REGION IX, EPA
E16-1
-------
SUMMARY
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
NATIONAL URBAN RUNOFF PROJECT
by
Gary Shawley, Project Manager
I. PROJECT LOCATION
Castro Valley is a small, unincorporated community in Alameda County,
California, within the metropolitan San Francisco Bay region. It is located
on the east side of San Francisco Bay, south of Oakland and north of San
Jose. The project's primary test area is a natural, 2.4 square mile water-
shed which is considered typical of residential basins in the San Francisco
Bay region.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Runoff Related Problems
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is the single, most important
water body in California. More than half of California's fishery resources
either live in or directly depend on the estuary for their survival. It
also provides recreation to over five million people who live near its
shore.
Stormwater-borne pollutants are thought to adversely effect the
water quality of San Francisco Bay, but a formal assessment of impacts is
difficult because the Bay drainage area is so large (about 3200 square
miles). Although runoff contributes large amounts of pollutants, its
relationship to observed water quality problems remains uncertain. The
primary use of many creeks in the Bay area is to convey stormwater runoff
to the Bay. Castro Valley's creek's contribution of toxic pollutants
into the Bay is seen as a potential water quality problem.
To determine whether improvements in water quality are necessary,
requires one to consider the beneficial uses of the receiving water. In
Castro Valley Creek, the support of aquatic habitat is an established
beneficial use. Table 1 compares EPA's aquatic life criteria with the
observed conditions in Castro Valley Creek for selected total and dissolved
metals. The table reports concentrations but does not consider the annual
loads delivered to the Bay. Note that the maximum dissolved concentrations
are higher than the standards and that the total'concentrations also exceed
the maximum allowable concentrations.
E16-2
-------
TABLE 1
Concentrations* of Selected Metals in Castro Valley Creek Storm-
water Compared to Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life
Constituent Aquatic Life Criteria Castro Valley Creek
Total Dissolved
Maximum Average Max. Average Max. Average
Copper 0.04 0.006 0.7 0.1 0.35 0.05
Lead 0.04 0.02 3.3 0.5 0.7 0.01
Zinc 0.6 0.05 2.2 0.3 0.7 0.1
*Units are mg/1, Castro Valley Creek water hardness = about 200 mg/1
Two additional problems in the Bay are thought to be linked to storm-
water runoff:
o Commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting is prohibited
because of contamination from bacteria and heavy metals
o Fish kill incidents can be traced to specific pollution causes
(although many fish kills in the Bay occur for unknown reasons).
The state is investigating the causes of death of striped bass. The
state may also initiate an aquatic habitat institute which will monitor the
effects of point and non-point discharges on the bay biota.
The public's awareness of and concern for Castro Valley Creek's'water
quality is not high because its primary use (and that of most other creeks
in the Bay area) is to convey stormwater runoff into San Francisco Bay. To
the extent that it exists, public perception of a water quality problem
focuses on the Bay as a scenic, recreational and commercial water resource
for all communities within the Bay Area. There is widespread (and at times
vocal) citizen concern over water quality of the Bay itself. The Bay area
208 Study drew heavily upon public support and active citizen participation
in carrying out its problem identification tasks. 'However, the magnitude and
technical/institutional complexity of Bay water quality problems tend to
discourage remedial action by any one community.
B. Best Management Practice Investigated
This project was conducted to develop information on the control of
urban stormwater runoff and the potential impacts on water quality. This
was the first project to be part of EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) and was designed to develop an understanding of the relationship
between street cleaning and urban stormwater runoff quality, using Castro
Valley Creek as the focus. The scope of this project did not include an
investigation of the effects of street cleaning on the water quality of San
Francisco Bay. However, the project was based on the assumption that, if
street cleaning would improve water quality in Castro Valley Creek, then
street cleaning on a larger scale might improve water quality in the Bay.
El 6-3
-------
1. Effectiveness
Information on the urban runoff mass loading was compared
to the initial street surface loading values for each constituent. This
analysis showed that up to 20 percent of the total solids and about 35
percent of the lead could have been prevented from reaching the creek.
Figure 1 illustrates this relationship and further shows that, after about
three passes per week, additional street cleaning effort is unproductive.
If maximum urban stormwater runoff improvements are to result from street
cleaning, then the streets should be cleaned during the winter months
between adjacent storm periods in the Bay area.
2. Costs
Figure 2 shows that, after an initial steep rise in unit
cost (i.e., from zero to twice-a-month street cleaning), the unit costs
actually decrease. That is, the cost required to prevent a pound of
material from reaching the receiving water decreases. After the frequency
exceeds about three times per week, however, the unit costs increase again.
If the program costs can be justified in terms of water quality, then
cleaning three times a week between the winter storms may give the best
return for the money for total solids.
3. Special Asbestos Study
As part of this project, a special study of asbestos was
conducted and it yielded some interesting results. It was confirmed that
optical techniques are inadequate to identify asbestos in small quantities,
especially for small fiber sizes. Also, about 10 percent of the runoff
monitored had detectable asbestos. The asbestos fiber concentration in
urban runoff was about 30 million fibers per liter. This corresponds
to 3 x 10 fibers per acre per year for an area without asbestos in
the natural soils. Eighty percent of the street surface samples had
detectable asbestos fibers. Street cleaning was found capable of removing
10% of the asbestos on street surfaces with weekly cleaning and up to 50%
with cleaning three times per week.
III. DESIGN OF STREET CLEANING PROGRAMS FOR WATER QUALITY
Procedures were developed to calculate the effectiveness of street
cleaning operations in improving urban runoff quality. Simple tables and
figures were prepared in the project report to supplement this discussion.
These procedures can be used to develop street cleaning programs necessary
to meet runoff allocation goals, the most cost-effective unit removal costs
or just the appropriation of available street cleaning dollars in the
service area.. They can also be used to determine when and where service
reductions should be made as decreasing budgets warrant.
E16-4
-------
Hi
S3S
B W U4
WO &
0 12
Monthly
52
104
Met
Motkly
156
Hint
Tfvs
tetkly
208
Foul*
T1m
Mwkly
220
260
WMBH OF SHEET aEANING PASSES K» TEAR
FIGURE 1. IMPROVEMENT IN URBAN RUNOFF QUALITY AS
A FUNCTION OF STREET CLEANING EFFORT
g *4gs"«4
*»4- I300**!2-40
U. S"0*
=i 1500.
Kg
gE iMo..
PS
_,« „.
IE
0..
4000.
I tf J 9"
20004. 8 200o||«l.
1 isolSgi
3-20—
X -Pounds Ptr Curb Rile Savtd Fron Rectlxlnq U«ttr
0 - OoUtr Ptr Pound Stvtd Fro* R»ct1»1ng toter
—AniuMl Cost
*E
u&ti5o.
'as
5o.
r
(ton Oily
Quarttrly
OEANIN6 FREQUENCT (PASSES PER TEAR)
FIGURE 2. UNIT COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLLING
URBAN RUNOFF TOTAL SOLIDS BY STREET
CLEANING
E16-5/E16-6 blank
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
BELLEVUE, WA
REGION X, EPA
E17-1
-------
The Bellevue NURP project is located totally within the limits of the City of
Bellevue, King County, Washington.
Project Description
The Bellevue drainage system relies on an extensive network of small streams
as a "trunk system" to convey Storm and Surface Water to the two large lakes,
Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish, bordering Bellevue to the west and east
respectively. Major problems are solids and pollutant delivery into this
natural conveyance system and erosion and flooding within the conveyance
system. These problems occur at some level almost continuously during our
seven-month winter rain season, with as many as half-a-dozen serious, signi-
ficantly damaging events per year. There also have been sporadic fish kills
due to accidental spills and some indiscriminant dumping. These problems have
been documented as largely responsible for serious deterioration in fish habitat
in the stream system.
Since the City's objective to manage the Storm and Surface Water System to
operate naturally (according to natural principles), the City relies on pollu-
tant source controls and regional and on-site detention as major controls.
The management practices being evaluated in Bellevue are street sweeping,
catchbasins and line maintenance, and detention. Surrey Downs and Lake Hills
are two residential basins under study for street sweeping and conveyance
maintenance. An urban arterial basin is being studied for detention as a
water quality control.
Since the 1960's Bellevue has been very interested in water quantity and
quality controls for its Storm and Surface Water System. Several public
referenda have been held which resulted in the foundation of a Drainage
Utility in the mid-19701s and the sale of $10 million in revenue bonds in the
1980's for major capital improvements. Strong public support has also
resulted in stringent erosion control regulations and enforcement, a salmon
enhancement program for Bellevue1s streams, and participation in NURP.
Bellevue volunteered, as part of a pilot program, to receive the first general
NPDES permit in the State for stormwater discharges. Strong public and
political backing have been an essential part of Bellevue's progress in storm-
water management. Bellevue plans to develop a comprehensive storm water
quality management program based on information generated through NURP.
Preliminary Results
Preliminary results indicate that street sweeping is not a effective measure
for stormwater runoff pollution abatement in Bellevue. The best removals
seen to date have been 30%-40% and these are rarely achieved. Even without
street sweeping for a 5-7 month period, accumulation is usually no more than
500-800 Ibs. solids/curb-mile in our experimental basins which is signifi-
cantly cleaner than other areas monitored in the country. An intensive street
sweeping program of three times a week using a standard mobil sweeper rarely
reduces this load beyond 300-350 Ibs. solids/curb-mile. During periods of
low loading, negative removals have been frequently observed. This is
probably due to erosion of the street surface and/or broom, or possibly to
tracking in of material on the bottom of the sweeper from dirty areas.
E17-2
-------
One reason for the low loadings is probably climate. Rainfall in Bellevue
occurs so frequently (approximately every two days in winter and every 4-7
days in summer) that before accumulation reaches a level where sweeping could
be effective, rain effectively washes off the streets. In addition, the street
sweepers do not operate well under continually damp street surface conditions.
Comparing street surface loads to storm loads, we have found that most of the
sediment material is not coming from the streets. The only time street surface
material contributes significantly to storm loads is for small storms (short
duration, low intensity). For the larger storms, more off-street contri-
bution and more conveyance-system bedload movement is indicated. We have
also found that solids loads are seasonal, with up to 50% of the total annual
solids loadings delivered in the months of November and December. These loads
may be coming from erosion and/or washout of the systems bedload with the first
heavy seasonal rains.
Investigation of catchbasins revealed sediment loads ranging from 0.5-2.5 ft.
catchbasin. This is greater than the street area contributary to these catch-
basins but apparently little of this bedload moves once an "equilibrium" bed-
load has been established. It was also found that street surface and catch-
basin sediment is comprised of similar constituents, possibly implying a
similar source. The constituents observed in the runoff, however, are signi-
ficantly different, possibly indicating different significant sources.
Preliminary Conclusions
In residential basins at least, street sweeping is probably of little value
as a water quality control measure. Since this appears to be based primarily
on area hydrology, street sweeping may be of little value in most areas (land
uses) in Bellevue except where these are extremely, high, instantaneous loads.
We hope to evauate other land use areas to test this preliminary conclusion
during the last phase of the project. If sweeping is useful at all, it probably
would be in late summer and fall before the winter rains and before the salmon
return to spawn in Bellevue's streams.
Catchbasin and sewer cleaning may have some impact but more data and modeling
are needed. Specifically it's necessary to investigate whether, if bedloads
were removed on a more frequent basis (just before when they reach equilibrium
allowing re-accumulation), significant improvements in runoff quality would
follow. The City hopes to test this hypothesis during the last phase of the
project. The data to date have clearly shown that sediment should be target
pollutant for control since most of the polluting material is associated with
solids.
In the last stage of the study, Bellevue will be looking more closely for
pollutant sources and controls not associated with streets. That portion of
the study focussed on detention did not yield enough data to draw even preli-
minary conclusions at this time. However, detention has the potential for
controlling both street and non-street pollutant sources, as well as water
quantitiy problems. Several hundred of these systems are already installed
in Bellevue. Therefore, Bellevue is very interested in the outcome of these
studies.
E17-3/E17-4 blank
-------
APPENDIX F
PRIORITY POLLUTANT REPORT
F-l
-------
APPENDIX F
FOREWORD
This appendix was prepared by the Monitoring and Data Support Division
of the EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Supporting contractors
were Dal ton-Dai ton-Newport, Cleveland Ohio and Versar, Springfield, Virginia.
Their preliminary findings of the NURP priority pollutant monitoring program
and special metals sampling project are presented.
F-2
-------
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE NURP
PRIORITY POLLUTANT MONITORING PROGRAM
December 24, 1981
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monitoring and Data Support Division
Mr. Rod Frederick, Project Officer
Dr. Richard Healy, Work Assignment Manager
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures ii
List of Tables iii
Preface iv
Section
1. Introduction 1
2. Methodology 3
3. Findings 10
4. Conclusions 23
Potential Risk to Human Health 26
Potential Risk to Aquatic, Life 29
5. Special Metals Sampling Project 31
References
Appendix
^
Appendix A - Land Use Characteristics of NURP
Priority Pollutant Sites
Appendix B - Summary of EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria
Appendix C - Pollutant Concentrations Reported in
NURP Runoff Samples
Appendix D - EPA Water Quality Criteria and Standards
for Toxic Metals
Appendix E - Special Metals Analytical Results
Appendix F - Special Metals Quality Control Data
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 NURP Priority Pollutant City Locations ... 5
2 NURP Special Metals City Location 36
TABLES
1 NURP Cities Collecting Priority Pollutant
Samples 4
2 Summary of Analytical Chemistry Findings
From NURP Priority Pollutant Samples .... 11
3 Priority Pollutants Not Detected in NURP
Urban Runoff Samples 14
4 Most Frequently Detected Pollutants in
NURP Urban Runoff Samples 17
5 Summary of Water Quality Criteria Exceedances
for Pollutants Detected in at Least 10 Per-
cent of NURP Samples: Number of Individual
Samples in Which Pollutant Concentrations
Exceed Criteria 18
5a Summary of Water Quality Criteria Exceedances
for Pollutants Detected in at Least 10 Per-
cent of NURP Samples: Percentage of Samples
in Which Pollutant Concentrations Exceed
Criteria 19
-------
Number Page
6 Non-Priority Pollutants Reported in NURP
Urban Runoff Samples 22
7 Predominant Sources of Priority Pollutants
Which Have Been Detected in at Least 10 Per-
cent of Urban Runoff Samples 24
8 Special Metals Project: Parameter List. . . 32
9 NURP Cities Participating in the Special
Metals Sampling Project. ... 35
10 Summary of Analytical Procedures Used in
the Special Metals Sampling Program 37
11 Summary of Number of Detections, Mean
Concentrations, Range and Detection Limits
for Special Metals Data Collected as of
October 1981 41
12 Summary of Water Quality Criteria Viola-
tions 45
13a Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals
Concentration as a Percent of Total
Metals Concentration: Priority Pollutant
Metals 46
13b Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals
Concentration as a Percent of Total Metals
Concentration: Non-Priority Pollutant
Metals 47
14 Summary of Violations of EPA's "Red Book"
Criteria for Non-Priority Pollutant
Metals 49
iii
-------
PREFACE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), is conducting pro-
grams to evaluate the environmental hazards posed by pri-
ority pollutants in our nation's waters. The Monitoring
and Data Support Division of OWRS is coordinating a pro-
gram to determine the significance of urban runoff as one
source of toxic pollutants to receiving waters. Specif-
ically, the objective of this program, the Nationwide Ur-
ban Runoff Program (NURP) priority pollutant monitoring
effort, is to make a preliminary assessment of which pri-
ority pollutants are found in urban stormwater runoff, how
often, at what concentrations, and with what potential
impacts.
The special metals sampling project is an additional
effort designed to enhance the usefulness of the NURP pri-
ority pollutant data base for metals, which are the pollu-
tants most frequently associated with urban stormwater
runoff. The primary objective of the special metals proj-
ect is to determine the relationships among dissolved,
total, and total recoverable concentrations of selected
metals in runoff waters.
The information developed through these efforts will
permit identification of problem areas nationwide and the
IV
-------
subsequent development of the most effective mitigation
strategies to correct urban runoff related problems where
necessary. This report documents the preliminary findings
and results of the NURP priority pollutant and special
metals monitoring projects as of October 1981.
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) priority
pollutant monitoring effort was initiated to evaluate the
significance of priority pollutants in urban stormwater
runoff. The principal objectives of the program are (1)
to determine which priority pollutants are found in urban
stormwater runoff, how frequently,- and at what concentra-
tions, and (2) to evaluate the potential impacts of prior-
ity pollutants carried by urban runoff on aquatic life and
water supplies. The information generated by this program
will .allow the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Water Regulation and Standards (OWRS) to assess
the significance of urban runoff relative to other point
and non-point sources of toxic pollutants, in order to
develop the most efficient and cost-effective control
strategies.
The priority pollutants are a group of toxic chemicals
or classes of chemicals listed under Section 307(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217, U.S.C. 466 et
seq.). There are ten major groups of priority pollutants
including 129 specific compounds or classes of compounds.
The NURP priority pollutant monitoring program was
developed by EPA's Water Planning Division which provided
-------
grants to various urban localities for sample collection
and laboratory analysis. EPA's Monitoring and Data Sup-
port Division (MDSD) is providing technical guidance con-
cerning sampling and analysis procedures, quality assur-
ance and quality control, processing of data, and inter-
pretation of results. The NURP priority pollutant program
was developed as a logical extension of the NURP conven-
tional pollutant program, which is primarily concerned
with measuring concentrations of conventional pollutants
such as solids, phosphorus, nitrogen, and nitrates in ur-
ban runoff.
With priority pollutant sampling activities now well
underway nationwide, this report presents preliminary re-
sults to date based on data which were available as of
October 31, 1981, and offers some tentative conclusions
regarding program objectives. Results are presented in
such a way as to be usable by individuals whose concerns
are national, regional, or local in scope. Obviously,
these are not final conclusions, but observed trends in
the data. Final conclusions must await completion, veri-
fication, and analysis of the final data base.
This report is organized as follows:
Section 2 - Methodology
Section 3 - Findings
Section 4 - Conclusions
Section 5 - Special metals project
-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
Nineteen cities and metropolitan governmental councils
(henceforth all will be referred to simply as "cities")
are participating in the NURP priority pollutant monitor-
ing program (Table 1). The geographical distribution of
these cities includes 11 of the 18 major river basins in
the continental United States (Figure 1), and ensures that
a variety of climatic regimes and soil types are repre-
sented in the sample population. MDSD provided cities
with the following general guidelines:
1. Use NURP sampling sites which are also being used
for conventional pollutant sampling.
2. Use sites which have flow only when it rains. .
3. Take a flow composite sample for the entire storm
event. Discrete samples can also be taken to de-
termine concentration variations during the storm
event.
Early in the program, participating cities attended an
MDSD-sponsored workshop in Springfield, Virginia. Using
the sampling guidance manual as a guide ("Monitoring of
-------
TABLE 1.
NURP CITIES
COLLECTING PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES3
1. Durham, New Hampshire
*2. Lake Quinsigamond, Massachusetts
3. Mystic River, Massachusetts
*4. Long Island, New York
5. Lake George, New York
6. Irondequoit Bay, New York
7. Metro Washington, D.C.
8. Baltimore, Maryland
11. Tampa, Florida
12. Knoxville, Tennessee
*17. Glen Ellyn, Illinois
*19. Austin, Texas
*20. Little Rock, Arkansas
21. Kansas City, Missouri
*22. Denver, Colorado
23. Salt Lake City, Utah
*24. Rapid City, South Dakota
*27. Bellevue, Washington
*28. Eugene, Oregon
* Asterisk indicates cities from which priority pollutant
analytical data were available as of 10/31/81 in time to
be included in this report.
a Numbering system conforms to NURP convention; some num-
bers are omitted as not all NURP cities are collecting
priority pollutant samples.
Toxic Pollutants in Urban Runoff: A Guidance Manual"
[Versar, 1980a]), a number of issues were covered, e.g.,
sample collection procedures such as container selection,
container preparation, sample preservation, and shipping
procedures; and modification of conventional sampling
equipment for the collection of priority pollutant sam-
ples. Extensive information on NURP guidance regarding
these and other relevant topics can be obtained from the
many sources which are listed in the References section of
this report.
-------
Ul
0 SO 100 200 3OO
H
MILES
Numbers identify major river basins
delineated by the United States
Geological Survey, 1980.
: Priority Pollutant City
Figure 1. NURP Priority Pollutant City Locations.
-------
Samples are being collected from approximately 70
catchments which include a varied range of sizes/ popula-
tions, and land use types (Appendix A). The largest
catchment, for example, collects runoff from 33,544 acres,
the smallest from but a single acre. The most common land
use types are low-density residential, medium-density res-
idential, and commercial. Land use characteristics of the
sampling sites were obtained and recorded for use in fu-
ture analyses, which will attempt to relate toxics concen-
trations and loadings to site-specific land use and topo-
graphic characteristics.
Each participating city has made appropriate labora-
tory contracts for analytical services. Six cities ar-
ranged for such services through a central EPA office,
while the remaining 13 cities contracted directly with
independent laboratories. Quality assurance (QA) proce-
dures were established to ensure that the data developed
from these many cities and laboratories would be of high
quality. QA procedures are detailed in "Quality Assurance
for Laboratory Analysis of 129 Priority Pollutants," (Ver-
sar, 1980b), and other NURP program documents. Inasmuch
as final QA/QC activities have not been completed, all
data reported here must be considered preliminary.
At the time of preparation of this report, priority
pollutant analytical data were available from nine
cities: Lake Quinsigamond, Massachusetts; Long island,
New York; Glen Ellyn, Illinois; Austin, Texas; Little
Rock, Arkansas; Denver, Colorado; Rapid City, South
Dakota; Bellevue, Washington; and Eugene, Oregon. A maxi-
mum of 68 sample results were available for the organic
priority pollutants and 46 sample results for the inorgan-
ics. For some pollutants, the number of samples is less
than the maximum because a pollutant may not have been
-------
analyzed for in a particular sample or because some 're-
sults were withdrawn for quality control reasons. The
data available for this report represent approximately one
half of the final data base expected.
For the purposes of this program, asbestos was not
analyzed due to high associated costs. Dioxin was not
specifically analyzed for because of the health risk to
laboratory personnel involved. Gas chromatograms were
scanned for the possible presence of dioxin, however.
The approach used to summarize and analyze the NURP
priority pollutant data is outlined below:
1. A complete listing of the data was compiled for
each pollutant which was detected, and identifies
city, site, date of sample collection, whether
the sample was discrete or composite, pH, and
measured pollutant concentration (Appendix C).
Important qualifying information concerning the
analytical results was also noted.
2. Summaries of the data were prepared for each de-
tected pollutant including range of detected con-
centrations, mean, number of samples,, frequency
of detection, and concentrations of that pollu-
tant reported in other urban runoff studies.
3. For those priority pollutants detected in 10 per-
cent or more of the samples, pollutant concentra-
tions in each undiluted runoff sample were compared
to EPA water quality criteria and drinking water
standards (Appendix B). Such a comparison provided
an initial identification of pollutants whose
-------
concentrations in runoff could lead to potential
violations of criteria or standards or adversely
impact aquatic life or water supplies.
4. In a limited number of NURP samples, non-priority
pollutants were also analyzed for and these re-
sults are reported. These non-priority pollu-
tants are somewhat similar to priority pollutants
in chemical form and should be considered for
future work; however, specific analysis is beyond
the scope of the current program.
With reference to the above, some clarification is
worth noting. In Step 2, the geometric mean rather than
the arithmetic mean is used, as this is the appropriate
measure of central tendency when data are log-normally
distributed. Such a distribution of NURP and similar data
has been demonstrated in the draft EPA Water Planning
Division report "Preliminary Results of the NURP Program"
(Athayde et al., 1981), and other runoff studies.
Calculating an exact value for the mean (geometric or
arithmetic) is impossible, however, when some results are
"not detected" and therefore unquantified. What can be
done in this case is to calculate two geometric means,
which determine a range within which the actual mean
should fall. The upper end of this range is calculated by
substituting the reported (or nominal) detection limit in
the case of an "undetected" result. The lower end is cal-
culated by substituting one tenth of the detection limit
(although in no case a value less than 0.001) for an unde-
tectable result as a substitute for zero, which cannot be
accommodated in geometric mean calculations. This range
bracketing the geometric mean was not calculated if more
-------
than 85 percent of the sample results were "not detected,"
due to the preponderance of unknown values.
With regard to Step 3, several EPA water quality cri-
teria were used. Criteria for the protection of aquatic
life are of two types: (1) the freshwater "acute" crite-
rion, the maximum concentration of a pollutant permitted
at any time; and (2) the freshwater "chronic" criterion,
the maximum 24-hour average concentration allowed. If
either the acute or chronic criterion has not been estab-
lished for a pollutant, then the lowest reported fresh-
water acute concentration or the lowest reported fresh-
water chronic concentration was substituted. Human health
criteria include both a non-carcinogenic health criterion
for the ingestion of contaminated water and organisms, and
a carcinogenic effects criterion at the 10~ , 10~ ,
and 10 risk levels for ingestion of contaminated water
and organisms. Human health criteria based on the inges-
tion of contaminated organisms only were not used, in
order to apply the more stringent water and organisms
standards. EPA also has criteria associated with taste
and odor problems (organoleptic criteria) as well as
drinking water standards under the. Safe Drinking Water Act.
-------
SECTION 3
FINDINGS
Detailed NURP priority pollutant analytical results
including city and site where sample was collected, date
of collection, discrete or composite sample, pH, and pol-
lutant concentration can be found in Appendix C. Appen-
dix C also lists, for each detected pollutant, the range
of concentrations, geometric mean (if calculated), number
of samples, frequency of detection, and reported concen-
trations in other studies. A concise summary of the cur-
rently available data base is presented in Table 2.
The findings derived from this preliminary NURP prior-
ity pollutant data base are:
1. Sixty-two priority pollutants were detected in
urban runoff (Table 2); 65 were not found in any
urban runoff samples (Table 3). (Asbestos is not
included in the NURP program and results for di-
chloromethane are not yet available.)
2. Thirteen of the 14 inorganic priority pollutants
were found in urban runoff. Most frequently de-
tected were zinc, lead, copper, and arsenic which
were found in 100, 93, 91, and 58 percent of the
10
-------
TABLE 2.
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY FINDINGS
FROM NURP PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES a
(includes information received through 10/31/81)
Pollutant
Frequency of Range of detected
Cities where detected*3 detection (%) concentrations (vg/1)
I. PESTICIDES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
e.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Acrolein
Aldrin
o-Hexachlorocyclohexane ( o-BHC) (Alpha)
0-Hexachlorocyclohexane ( fr-BHC) (Beta)
Y-Hexachlorocyclohexane ( T-BHC) (Gamma)
(Lindane)
6-Hexachlorocyclohexane ( 6-BHC) (Delta)
Chlordane
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
o-Endosulfan (Alpha)
8-Endosulfan (Beta)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isophorone
TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
Toxaphene
Not detected
Not detected
22, 27 25 0.0027-0.9
Not detected
22,27 11 0.002-0.9
27 3 0.006-0.007
2 2 0.01
Not detected
Not detected
27 2 0.35
27 3 0.008-0.1
27 2 0.2
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
II. METALS AND INORGANICS
22. Antimony
23. Arsenic
24. Asbestos
25. Beryllium
26. Cadmium
27. Chromium
28. Copper
29. Cyanides
30. Lead
31. Mercury
32. Nickel
33. Selenium
34. Silver • '
35. Thallium
36. Zinc
III. PCBs AND RELATED COMPOUNDS
37. PCB-1016 (Aroclor 1016)
38. PCB-1221 (Aroclor 1221)
39. PCB-1232 (Aroclor 1232)
40. PCB-1242 (Aroclor 1242)
41. PCB-1248 (Aroclor 1248)
42. PCB-12S4 (Aroclor 1254)
43. PCB-1260 (Aroclor 1260)
44. 2-Chloronaphthalene
IV. HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
45. Methane, bromo- (methyl bromide)
46. Methane, chloro- (methyl chloride)
47. Methane, dichloro- (methylene chloride)
d)
22
2,19,20,22,27
Not included in NURP program
20
2,20,22,27
2,17,20,27,28
2,17,19,20,22,27,28
4,19,22,27
2,17,19,20,22,27,28
20,28
2,20,22,27
19,22
17,27
Not detected
2,17,19,20,22,27,28
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
2
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Data not available
2
58
9
38
45
91
31
93
7
44
20
4
100
2
2-35
1-4
0.2-17
2-61
11-110
2-33
37.6-445
0.6-1.2
5-270
2-25
0.6-0.8
10-546
0.03
11
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Pollutant
Cities where detected15
Frequency of
detection (%)
Range of detected
concentrations (ug/1)
IV.
HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
(Continued)
V.
VI.
VII.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Methane, chlorodibromo-
Methane, dichlorobromo-
Me thane, tribromo- (bromoform)
Methane, trichloro- (chloroform)
Methane, tetrachloro- (carbon tetrachloride)
Methane, trichlorofluoro-c
Methane, dichlorodifluoro-c (Freon-12)
Ethane, chloro-
Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-
Ethane, 1,2-dichloro-
Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
Ethane, 1,1,2-trichloro-
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-
Ethane, hexachloro-
Ethene, chloro- (vinyl chloride)
Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-
Ethene, 1,2-trans-dichloro-
Ethene, trichloro-
Ethene , tetrachloro-
Propane, 1,2-dichloro-
Propene, 1,3-dichloro-
Butadiene, hexachloro-
Cyclopentadiene, hexachloro-
28
28
28
4,17,20,27,28
4,20,28
2,4,24,28
Not detected
Not detected
4,20,28
28
4,17,20,22,24,26
4,20,28
4,20
Not detected
Not detected
28
20,28
4,20,28
4,17,20,22,28
28
28
Not detected
Not detected
ETHERS
71. Ether, bis(choromethyl)
72. Ether, bia(2-chloroethyl)
73. Ether, bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
74. Ether, 2-chloroethyl vinyl
75. Ether, 4-bromophenyl phenyl
76. Ether, 4-chlorophenyl phenyl
77. Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
MONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS, CRESOLS,
PHTHALATES)
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Benzene
Benzene, chloro-
Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-
Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-
Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-
Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-
Benzene, hexechloro-
Benzene, ethyl-
Benzene, nitro-
Toluene
Toluene, 2,4-dinitro-
Toluene, 2,6— ainitro
PHENOLS AND CRESOLS
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Phenol
Phenol, 2-chloro-
Phenol, 2,4-aichloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-trlchloro-
Phenol, pentachloco-
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
4,17,20,27,28
20,28
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
4,17,20,28
Not detected
4,17,20,
Not detected
Not detected
20,27
20,28
22
Not detected
4,19,20,22,27,28
1
1.
1
24
6
9
9
2
35
8
9
3
12
1?
10
1
3
34
7
12
24
3
3
1
18
2
2
1
0.2-8
1-2
0.58-27
1-5
4
1-23
1-3
1-3
1.5-4
1-3
1-3
1-43
3
1-2
1-13
1-3
1-3
3-9
2-3
2-22
10
1-115
(continued)
12
-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Pollutant
Cities where detectedb
Frequency of Range of detected
detection (%) concentrations (vg/1)
VII. PHENOLS AND CRESOLS (Continued)
95. Phenol, 2-nitro-
96. Phenol, 4-nitro-
97. Phenol, 2,4-Hnitro-
98. Phenol, 2,4-diraethyl-
99. m-Cresol, p-chloro-
100. o-Cresol, 4,6-dinitro-
VIII. PHTHALATE ESTERS
101. Phthalate, dimethyl
102. Phthalate, diethyl
103. Phthalate, di-n-butyl
104. Phthalate, di-n-octyl
105. Phthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
106. Phthalate, butyl benzyl
IX. POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
107. Acenaphthene
108. Acenaphthvlene
109. Anthracene
110. Benzo(a)anthracene
111. Benzo(b)fluoranthene
117. Benzo(k)fluoranthene
113. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
114. Benzo(a)pyrene
115. Chrysene
116. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
117. Fluoranthene
118. Fluorene
119. Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
120. Naphthalene
121. Phenanthrene
122. Pyrene
X. NITROSAMINES AND OTHER NITROGEN-CONTAINING
COMPOUNDS
123. Nitrosaraine, dimethyl (DMN)
124. Nitrosamine, diphenyl
125. Nitrosamine, di-n-propyl
126. Benzidi'ne
127. Benzidine, 3,3'-dichloro-
128. Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-
129. Acrylonitrile
Not detected
4,20,28
Not detected
Not detected
4
Not detected
Not detected
17,20
4,20,22,24,28
20
4,17,19,20,22,28
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
17,20,27
27
27
27
Not detected
27
17,27
Not detected
17,27
Not detected
Not detected
4,20,28
17,20,27
17,27
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
10
5
11
2
24
6
10
7
1-19
1-2
1-5
2.8-11
1
1-41.5
1-S
1-3
2
4
1-2
0.6-4.5
0.3-12
1-13
0.3-7
0.3-10
8 Based on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of 10/31/81,
review. Nine cities reporting.
D Citiee from which data are available:
2. Lake Quinsigamond, MA
4. Long Island, NY
17. Glen Ellyn, IL
19. Austin, TX
20. Little Rock, AR
22. Denver, CO
24. Rapid City, SD
27. Bellevue, WA
28. Eugene, OR
Numbering of cities conforms to NURP convention.
c Recently removed from priority pollutant list.
adjusted for preliminary quality control
13
-------
TABLE 3.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED
IN NURP URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES3
(includes information received through 10/31/81)
Pollutant
Reported limits
of detection13
I.
PESTICIDES
II.
III.
V.
VI.
1.
2.
4.
8.
9.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Acrolein
Aid r in
6- He xachlor ocyc lohexane
ODD
DDE
S-Endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isophorone
TCDD
Toxaphene
METALS AND INORGANICS
35.
PCBs
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
44.
Thallium
AND RELATED COMPOUNDS
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
2-Chloronaphthalene
IV. HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
100
0.003-10
0.004-10
0.012-10
0.006-10
0.01-10
0.03-10
0.009-10
0.023-10
0.002-10
0.004-10
10
0.5
0.4-10
1-63
0.04-10
0.04-10
0.04-10
0.04-10
0.05-10
0.5-10
10
45. Bromoraethane
46. Chloromethane
54. Dichlorodifluoromethanec
55. Chloroethane
61. Hexaehloroethane
62. Chloroethene
69. Hexachlorobutadiene
70. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ETHERS
71. Bis(chloromethyl) ether
72. Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
73. Bis(Z-chloroisopropyl) ether
74. 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
75. 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
76. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
77. Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
MONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS,
80. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene
81. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene
82. 1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene
83. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1-10
10
10
10
CRESOLS, PHTHALATES)
10
10
10
10
(continued)
14
-------
TABLE 3. (Continued)
Reported limits
of detection13
Pollutant
VI. MONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS,
(Continued)
84. Hexachlorobenzene
86. Nitrobenzene
88. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
84. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
VII. PHENOLS AND CRESOLS
93. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
95. 2-Nitrophenol
97. 2,4-Dinitrophenol
98. 2,4-Dimethylphenol
100. 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
VII. PHTHALATE ESTERS
101. Dimethyl phthalate
106. Butyl benzyl phthalate
IX. POLYCYCLIC AROMATICS
107. Acenaphthene
108. Acenaphthylene
113. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
116. Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
118. Fluocene
119. Indenod.2,3-c,d)pyrene
X.
CRESOLS, PHTHALATES)
10
10
10
10
10-25
10-25
25-250
10-25
25-250
10
10
10
10
10-25
10-25
10
10-25
NITROSAMINES AND OTHER NITROGEN-CONTAINING COMPOUNDS
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
Dimethyl nitrosamine
Diphenyl nitrosamine
Di-n-propyl nitrosamine
Benzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Acrylonitrile
10
10
10
100
10
10
100
8 Based on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of
10/31/81, adjusted for preliminary quality control review. Nine
cities reporting.
b Where more than one detection limit is applicable because labora-
tory methodologies differed, a range is given.
c Recently removed from the priority pollutant list.
15
-------
samples, respectively (Table 4). The maximum
zinc concentration was 540 ug/1 and the maximum
lead concentration was 445 ug/1. Cadmium, chrom-
ium, cyanides, nickel, and selenium were detected
in from 20 to 50 percent of the samples. Four
metals (antimony, beryllium, mercury, and silver)
were found in less than 10 percent of the sam-
ples. Thallium was the only priority pollutant
metal never found.
3. Of the 113 priority pollutant organics (dichloro-
methane excluded), 49 were found in urban run-
off. Of these, six were found in 20 percent or
more of the NURP samples: o-hexachlorocyclo-
hexane; trichloromethane (chloroform); 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane; benzene; toluene; and bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate. The maximum reported concen-
trations among these pollutants are 41.5 ug/1 for
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 23 ug/1 for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and 13 ug/1 for benzene. An ad- .
ditional nine organics were found in 10 to 19
percent of the samples (Table 4).
4. A comparison of individual sample pollutant concen-
trations undiluted by stream flow with EPA water
quality criteria and drinking water standards re-
veals numerous exceedances of these levels, as shown
in Tables 5 and 5a. Table 5 displays the exceed-
ances on a number of samples basis, while Table 5a
converts this information to a percentage basis.
This analysis was conducted only for those pollut-
ants detected in at least 10 percent of the samples.
Among the metals, copper exceeded its freshwater
acute criterion in 69 percent of the samples, while
cadmium and lead each exceeded this criterion at least
16
-------
TABLE 4.
MOST FREQUENTLY DETECTED POLLUTANTS
IN NURP URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES3
(includes information received through 10/31/81)
Pollutants Detected in 50% or More of the NURP Samples
Inorganics
Organics
None
23. Arsenic (58%)
28. Copper (91%)
30. Lead (93%)
36. Zinc (100%)
Pollutants Detected in 20% to 49% of the NURP Samples
Inorganics
26. Cadmium (38%)
27. Chromium (45%)
29. Cyanides (31%)
32. Nickel (44%)
33. Selenium (20%)
Organics
3. o>-Hexachlorocyclohexane (25%)
51. Trichloromethane (Chloroform) (24%)
58. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (35%)
78. Benzene (34%)
87. Toluene (24%)
105. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (24%)
Pollutants Detected in 10% to 19% of the NURP Samples
Inorganics Organics
None
5. Y-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) (11%)
64. 1,2-trans-Dichloroethene (12%)
65. Trichloroethene (12%)
66. Tetrachloroethene (10%)
85. Ethylbenzene (12%)
94. Pentachlorophenol (18%)
96. 4-Nitrophenol (10%)
103. Di-n-butyl phthalate (11%)
121. Phenanthrene (10%)
a Based on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of
10/31/81, adjusted for preliminary quality control review. Nine cities
reporting. Does not include special metals samples.
17
-------
TABLE 5.
SUMMARY OP WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES FOR POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT
OF NURP SAMPLES: NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES IN WHICH POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITERIA8
I.
II.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Pollutant
PESTICIDES
3. o-Hexachlorocyclohexane
5. Y-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)
METALS AND INORGANICS
23. Arsenic
26. Cadmiun'3
27. Chromiuirf3'6
28. Copper*3
29. Cyanides
30. Lead1*
32. Nickel"3
33. Selenium
36. Zincd
HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
51. Methane, trichloro- (chloroform)
58. Ethane, 1,1, 1-trichloro-
64. Ethene, 1 , 2-t rana-d ichloro-
65. Ethene, trichloro-
66. Ethene, tetrachloro-
MONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS,
78. Benzene
85. Benxene, ethyl-
67. Toluene
PHENOLS AND CRESOLS
94. Phenol, pentachloro-
96. Phenol, 4-nitro-
PHTHALATE ESTERS
103. Phthalate, di-n-butyl
105.. Phthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Number of times
detected /Number
of samples
16/64
7/64
26/45
17/45
20/44
41/45
10/32
40/43
20/45
9/45
45/45
16/66
23/66
8/66
8/68
7/68
CRESOLS, PHTHALATES)
22/65
8/67
13/55
12/67
7/67
7/61
14/59
Criteria exceedancesb
None FA PC OL HH HCC DW
1,13,16
1 1,2,7
26,26,26
9 17 2 2
1* 1
31 41 -
9
16 40 37 37
8 18
7 7
6 40
8,16,16
X
X
0,1,8
4,7,7
2,22,22
X
X
1* 7« 1
X
6*
13«
IX. POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
121. Phenanthrene 7/67 7,7,7
* Indicates PTA or PTC value substituted where FA or PC criterion not available (see below).
* Based on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of 10/31/81, adjusted for preliminary
quality control review. Nine cities reporting.
FA
PC
FTA
FTC
OL
RH
HC
Freshwater ambient 24-hour instantaneous maximum criterion ('acute* criterion).
Freshwater ambient 24-hour average criterion ('chronic* criterion).
Lowest reported freshwater acute toxic concentration. (Used only when FA is not available.)
Lowest reported freshwater chronic toxic concentration. (Used only when FC is not available.)
Taste and odor (organoleptic) criterion.
Non'Carclnogenic human health criterion for ingestion of contaminated water and organisms.
Protection of human health from carcinogenic effects for ingestion of contaminated water and
organisms.
DH • Primary drinking water criterion.
c Entries in this column indicate exceedances of the human carcinogen value at the 10"5,
10~6, and 10"' risk level, respectively. The numbers are cumulative, i.e., all 10"'
exceedances are included in 10"6 exceedances, and all 10~6 exceedances are included in 10"7
exeeedances.
d Where hardness dependent, hardness of 100 mg/1 CaC03 equivalent assumed.
4 Different sets of criteria are written for the trivalent and hexavalent forma of chromium.
For purposes of this analysis, all chromium is assumed to be in the trivalent form.
18
-------
TABLE 5a.
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES FOR POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT
OF NURP SAMPLES: PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLES IN WHICH POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITERIA3
Frequency of
Criteria exceedances U)b
Pollutant detection (») None FA FC OL HH HCC DW
I.
II.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
PESTICIDES
3. o-Hexachlorocyclohexane
5. Y-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)
METALS AND INORGANICS
23. Arsenic
26. Cadmium4
27. Chromium3 'e
28. Copper3
29. Cyanides
30. Lead3
32. Nickel3
33. Selenium
36. Zinc3
HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
51. Methane, trichloro- (chloroform)
58. Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-
64. Ethene, 1,2-trana-dichloro-
65. Ethene, trichloro-
66. Ethene, tetrachloro-
MONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS, CRESOLS,
78. Benzene
85. Benzene, ethyl-
87. Toluene
PHENOLS AND CRESOLS
94. Phenol, pentachloro-
96. Phenol, 4-nitro-
PHTHALATE ESTERS
103. Phthalate, di-n-butyl
105. Phthalate, bie(2-ethylhexyl)
25
11
58
38
45
91
31
93
44
20
100
24
35 X
12 X
12
22
PHTHALATES)
34 X
12 X
24 X
18
10 X
11
24
2,20,25
2 2,3,11
58,58,58
20 38 4 4
2* 2
69 91
28
37 93 86 86
18 40
16 16
13 89
12,24,24
0,1,12
6,22,22
3,34,34
1* 10* 1
10*
22*
IX. POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
121. Phenanthrene
10
10,10,10
* Indicates PTA or FTC value substituted where FA or FC criterion not available (see below).
• Bated on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of 10/31/81, adjusted for preliminary
quality control review. Nine cities reporting.
b FA Freshwater ambient 24-hour instantaneous maximum criterion ("acute* criterion).
FC Freshwater ambient 24-hour average criterion ("chronic' criterion).
FTA Lowest reported freshwater acute toxic concentration. (Used only when FA is not available.)
PTC Lowest reported freshwater chronic toxic concentration. (Used only when FC is not available.)
OL Taste and odor (organoleptic) criterion.
HH Non-carcinogenic human health criterion for ingestion of contaminated water and organisms.
HC Protection of human health from carcinogenic effects for ingestion of contaminated water and
organisms.
DW • primary drinking water criterion.
c Entries in this column indicate exceedances of the human carcinogen value at the 10~5,
10"6, and 10"' risk level, respectively. The numbers are cumulative, i.e., all 10*5
•xceedances are included in 10"6 exceedances, and all 10"6 exceedances are Included in 10~7
exceedances.
3 Where hardness dependent, hardness of 100 mg/1 CaC03 equivalent assumed.
* Different sets of criteria are written for the trivalent and hexavalent forms of chromium.
For purposes of this analysis, all chromium is assumed to be in the trivalent form.
19
-------
20 percent of the time. Freshwater chronic cri-
teria exceedances were observed for lead, copper,
and zinc in at least 89 percent of the samples.
Drinking water criteria exceedances were signifi-
cant for lead (86 percent of the time). For the
non-carcinogenic human health criterion, lead (86
percent) and nickel (40 percent) exceedances were
most frequent. Arsenic human carcinogenic crite-
ria (at all risk levels) were exceeded 58 percent
of the time; however, drinking water standards of
50 ug/1 for this pollutant were not exceeded.
(In cases where inorganic criteria values are
water hardness dependent, a value of 100 mg/1
CaCOo equivalent was assumed.)
5. Among the organics, criteria exceedances occurred
most frequently in the freshwater chronic and hu-
man carcinogenic categories. Freshwater chronic
exceedances (utilizing the lowest reported fresh-
water chronic toxic concentration) were observed
most often for pentachlorophenol (10 percent),
di-n-butyl phthalate (10 percent), and bis{2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (22 percent). Carcinogenic
_5
criteria exceedances at the 10 risk level
were observed for o-BHC (2 percent), trichloro-
methane (12 percent), tetrachloroethene (6 per-
cent), and benzene (3 percent). However, at the
10~ risk level these exceedances increase to
25, 24, 22, and 34 percent, respectively. These
exceedances at the 10~ level occurred for ev-
ery sample in which the pollutant was detected, a
result of the fact that the carcinogenic crite-
ria levels are less than the limits of detection
which were used. For organics, the freshwater
acute and organoleptic criteria were exceeded
only by a single pentachlorophenol sample.
20
-------
Whenever a criteria exceedance is noted above, this
does not necessarily imply that actual violations of cri-
teria did or will take place in receiving waters. Rather,
the technique used is an initial screening procedure, to
make a preliminary identification of those pollutants
whose presence in urban runoff requires further study.
Exceedances of freshwater chronic criteria levels may not
**
persist for a full 24-hour period, for example. However,
many smail urban streams probably carry only slightly di-
luted runoff following storms, and acute criteria or other
exceedances may in fact be real for such streams.
While the 65 priority pollutants not detected are of
less immediate concern than those pollutants found often,
they cannot safely be eliminated from all future consider-
ation. Many of the pollutants not detected have criteria
which are below the detection limits of routine analytical
methods. More sensitive analytical methodologies must be
used and dilution effects considered before it can be said
with assurance that these pollutants are not found in ur-
ban stormwater runoff at levels which pose a threat to hu-
man health or aquatic life.
Several non-priority pollutants were reported by the
laboratory analyzing the Denver runoff samples (Table 6).
For example, the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
(2,4-D) was found at a concentration of 180 ug/1, a level
which violates its drinking water standard of 100 ug/1.
The Denver results indicate that many toxic compounds
which are not priority pollutants may be found in runoff,
and that such compounds may require further investigation
and control at some time in the future.
21
-------
TABLE 6.
NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REPORTED IN NURP
URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES
Pollutant
Estimated Number of times
concentra- detected/Number
tion ( uj/1) of samples
6-Methoxy-N,N'-bis(l-methylethyl)-l,3,5-
triazine-2,4-dione 64 1/7
4-Propoxyphenol 8 1/7
Methylheptanol 12 1/7
3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one 6-9 4/7
l-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol 5-23 2/7
2,2,4-Trimethyl-l,3-pentanediol 17 1/7
Tributylphosphate 6 1/7
9,10-Anthracenedione or
9,10-Phenanthrenedione 20-29 2/7
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or 2,4-D 180 1/7
(l,l'-biphenyl)-carboxaldehyde 17 1/7
Unidentified substituted alkyl hydrocarbon 5-37 3/7
Unidentified substituted alkyl hydrocarbon 12-390 2/7
Unidentified substituted alkyl
hydrocarbon oil 10-500 2/7
Unidentified substituted polycyclic
aromatic 22 1/7
2,/2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethoxy/ethanol '8 . 1/7
Note: Results reported by the Denver NURP program.
22
-------
SECTION 4
CONCLUSIONS
Section 3 identified the inorganic and organic prior-
ity pollutants which were most frequently detected in ur-
ban runoff and which were found at undiluted concentra-
tions exceeding applicable water quality criteria and
*
standards. The 24 pollutants (9 inorganics and 15 organ-
ics) detected in greater than 10 percent of the urban run-
off samples have been selected for further evaluation and
discussion in this section. A cutoff point of 10 percent
was used because the data are preliminary and the cutoff
tends.to minimize unusual runoff conditions. More pollu-
tants will be analyzed in future reports.
The 24 priority pollutants found in 10 percent or more
of the NURP samples, and their predominant sources, are
shown in Table 7. In general, priority pollutant inor-
ganics were found more frequently and at higher concentra-
tions than the priority pollutant organics. The inorgan-
ics found most frequently and at the highest concentra-
tions were arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, nickel, and zinc. Predominant sources of these
metals in runoff are thought to be fossil fuel and gaso-
line consumption, metal alloy corrosion, and automobile
tire wear. Lindane ( r-BHC) , o-BHC, chloroform, 1,1,1-
*A11 findings and conclusions are considered tentative, until corpletion.
of thorough quality assurance review.
23
-------
TABLE 7.
PREDOMINANT SOURCES OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WHICH HAVE BEEN
DETECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES
Pollutant
Predominant sources
121. Phenanthrene
23. Arsenic
32. Nickel
30. Lead
78. Benzene
85. Ethylbenzene
87. Toluene
96. 4-Nitrophenol
29. Cyanide
26. Cadmium
27. Chromium
28. Copper
29. Cyanide
36. Zinc
51. Chloroform
(continued)
Fossil Fuels Combustion
Product of the incomplete com-
bustion of fossil fuels, espe-
cially wood and coal burned in
residential home heating units.
Products of fossil fuel
combustion.
Gasoline Consumption
Components of gasoline
Product of gasoline combustion
Metal Alloy Corrosion
Metals released from the corro-
sion of alloys and from elec-
troplating wastes.
Metal released from the corro-
sion of copper plumbing and
from electroplating wastes.
Copper is also commonly used
in algicides.
Automobile Related Activities
Anti-caking ingredient in road
salts.
Component of automobile tires
and a common ingredient in
road salt.
Product of a chemical
interaction among road salt,
gasoline, and asphalt.
24
-------
TABLE 7. (Continued)
Pollutant
Predominant Sources
3. o-BHC
5. rBHC (Lindane)
94. Pentachlorophenol
58.
64.
65.
66.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,2-trans-Dichloroethene
Tr ichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
103.
105.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
e. Pesticide Use
Compounds commonly used in soil
treatment to eliminate nema-
todes and other pests.
Primarily used to protect wood
products from microbial and
fungal decay. Telephone poles
are commonly treated with pen-
tachlorophenol, for example.
f. Solvent Use by Light Industry
Products used in solvents by
light industries (e.g., dry
cleaning, auto repair, paint
contractors, metal finishing
and degreasing) to dissolve
grease and clean parts. The
"spent" solvent typically
finds its way into drains,
open storm drains, and surface
runoff due to careless dis-
posal practices.
g. Plastic Product Consumption
Two of the most widely used
plasticizers (components which
make plastic flexible). They
find their way into urban run-
off because, through .time,
they "leach" from numerous
plastic products (e.g., garden
hose, floor tile, plastic con-
tainers, food packaging) in
which they are found.
h. Natural Erosion
33. Selenium
Element which occurs naturally
in rocks and soil.
i. Chlorination of Drinking Water
and Municipal Wastewater
51. Chloroform
Chemical compound formed as a
result of the Chlorination of
drinking water and wastewater.
25
-------
trichloroethane, benzene, toluene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, phenanthrene, and pentachlorophenol were the
priority pollutant organics found most frequently and at
highest concentrations. Their predominant sources are
believed to be pesticides, solvents, plastic products, and
water chlorination practices.
POTENTIAL RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH
A comparison of undiluted NURP priority pollutant con-
centrations with EPA's human health criteria for water
revealed that the organic priority pollutants found most
frequently pose little risk to humans at detected levels,
except possibly for phenanthrene and chloroform. Ten per-
cent of the urban runoff samples for these two pollutants
contained concentrations greater than the EPA criteria for
protection of health from carcinogenesis at a 10 risk
level. Pentachlorophenol (PCP) exceeded the organoleptic
criterion in one sample, although it was found in 18 per-
cent of the samples. PCP does not appear to be a carcino-
gen, but tests with rats have shown it to be teratogenic
and fetotoxic.
Additional dilution during storm events may reduce the
concentrations of the organic pollutants found from the
levels measured in runoff. This, in addition to known
fates and pathways of these organic pollutants, suggests a
minimal risk to humans due to urban runoff-borne priority
pollutants. Chloroform, solvents, and gasoline-related
organics found in urban runoff are rather volatile (half-
life 30 minutes) and are not expected to persist in sur-
face waters. These compounds can be expected to persist
in groundwater, however, where they are not able to vola-
tilize.
26
-------
PCP has a short lifetime in water because photolysis
degrades it in streams within approximately one week.
However, where conditions such as turbidity limit photo-
lysis, degradation may take as long as several months.
PCP also sorbs to sediments where it can persist for
months and eventually recontaminate the water column,
which can be a problem in streams that are attempting to
recover from intermittent or continuous discharges.
Phenanthrene is also readily adsorbed to sediments where
it can persist and recontaminate the water column. The
effect of remobilization of these pollutants from sedi-
ments must be further evaluated before a conclusion
regarding potential risk to human health can be fully
stated. If PCP and phenanthrene are found in additional
NURP samples at concentrations of concern, monitoring may
be recommended at nearby water supplies.
The predominant pathway for human exposure for the
organics associated with gasoline is through ingested food
and inhalation. Contaminated surface water should there-
fore pose little risk at the levels measured in NUPNP sam-
ples. The plasticizers and pesticides should also pose a
minimal threat to humans as contaminated surface water is
an insignificant exposure pathway for these chemicals.
The plasticizer values in urban runoff are orders of mag-
nitude below toxic levels. However, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate has been shown to accumulate in aquatic life and
sediments. The effects of exposure to humans due to these
pathways at measured concentrations are currently unknown.
Some of the priority pollutant metals found in urban
runoff could represent a potential risk to human health.
Exceedances of the non-carcinogenic human health, drinking
water, and human carcinogenic criteria were observed.
Detected lead concentrations in undiluted runoff ranged
27
-------
from 38 to 445 ug/1 and exceeded the drinking water stan-
dard and human health criterion of 50 ug/1 (total lead) in
86 percent of the samples. Selenium concentrations in
undiluted runoff of from 2 to 25 ug/1 exceeded the drink-
ing water standard and human health criterion of 10 ug/1
(total .selenium) in 16 percent of the samples. Although
dilution in receiving streams and subsequent treatment in
drinking water treatment facilities would likely reduce
these observed concentrations, drinking water standard
violations are still possible under worst case condi-
tions. Such conditions would include cases where:
(1) the runoff generated during a storm event represented
a large portion of the total receiving water flow, result-
ing in a dilution of less than 1 to 10; (2) the prelimi-
nary sampling results are representative of lead and
selenium concentrations above drinking water supply in-
takes; and (3) lead and selenium removal by public drink-
ing water treatment facilities is minimal. Specific risks
to drinking water supplies could be evaluated by confirma-
tory sampling during storm events.
Nickel concentrations in undiluted runoff were found
to exceed the human health criterion of 13.4 ug/1 (total
nickel) in 40 percent of the samples with detected total
nickel concentrations ranging from 5 to 270 ug/1. Viola-
tions are expected to be less than the 40 percent figure
after dilution by receiving streams. Moreover, nickel is
not considered a significant human health problem in water
because it is poorly absorbed by the body when ingested.
Inhalation of nickel, especially nickel carbonyl, poses
the greatest risk to human health. However, nickel com-
pounds are suspected of acting synergistically with some
carcinogens to increase mutagenic effects (Sunderman,
1981).
28
-------
Arsenic concentrations in undiluted runoff frequently
_ c
exceeded the EPA human carcinogenic criteria (10 risk
level) of .022 ug/1. There is, however, presently a de-
bate on the carcinogenic potency of arsenic, and this pre-
cludes a meaningful assessment of the risk to humans at
this time. The arsenic levels in the undiluted runoff
were all below the 50 ug/1 EPA drinking water standard.
POTENTIAL RISK TO AQUATIC LIFE
Only one organic priority pollutant, pentachloro-
phenol, was found to exceed freshwater acute aquatic life
criteria. This occurred only once, although the compound
was detected in 12 out of 67 NURP samples.
Four priority pollutant metals, cadmium, copper, lead,
and zinc, exceeded acute criteria in 13 to 68 percent of
the samples. The highest detected values for these pollu-
tants were two to five times higher than their appropriate
criteria. Consequently, these pollutants could cause harm
to aquatic life, depending upon receiving stream dilution.
These same four priority pollutant metals, plus nickel
and cyanide, also exceeded 24-hour freshwater chronic cri-
teria in 18 to 93 percent of the samples. The highest
detected values for these pollutants ranged from 3 to 680
times higher than their appropriate criteria. However,
attenuating circumstances such as dilution and storm dura-
tion must be taken into account in order to fully evaluate
the significance of these exceedances. Since most storms
last between 2 and 16 hours, violations of chronic cri-
teria levels appear to be unlikely. The long-term effects
on aquatic life of these pollutants bound to sediments,
however, are unknown. These six pollutants may accumu-
late to some degree in sediments.
29
-------
One final observation can be made regarding toxic
metal problems in runoff and receiving stream waters.
Many metals appear to be bound to organic matter or min-
eral particulates in water or bottom sediments. Through
desorbtion they are potentially available for movement in
a soluble form into the water column. In many cases de-
sorbtion is governed by the physical-chemical parameters
of pH, oxidation-reduction potential (EH), and dissolved
oxygen (DO). Low (acid) pH, EH, and DO favor solubility.
Current research on acid precipitation suggests that the
pH and possibly the EH of stormwater in many locations is
decreasing. Consequently, an increase in the concentra-
tion of soluble metals and therefore the toxicity of these
pollutants in the water might be expected.
30
-------
SECTION 5
SPECIAL METALS SAMPLING PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Special Metals Project was initiated to enhance
the usefulness of the NURP priority pollutant metals data
base and to provide additional perspective on the potential
toxicity of priority pollutant metals in urban runoff. The
primary objective of this project was to determine the re-
lationship among dissolved, total, and total recoverable
concentrations of 29 metals (Table 8), including both prior-
ity and non-priority pollutant metals, and to evaluate the
potential impact of priority pollutant metals in urban run-
off on aquatic life and water supplies. A secondary ob-
jective was to ensure a high level of quality in the
generated data by having all the metal analysis conducted at
a single laboratory. This project, therefore, expands the
NURP priority pollutant metals data base which provides re-
sults for only one form (or fraction) of each metal's con-
centration, and which uses numerous laboratories.
Definitions of the three metal fractions analyzed in
this project are given below:
• Dissolved metals - those constituents (metals)
which will pass through a 0.45 micron membrane
filter. Occasionally referred to as "soluble"
metal content.
• Total recoverable metals - the concentration of
metals in an unfiltered sample following treat-
ment with hot dilute mineral acid. Occasionally
referred to as "extractable" metal content.
• Total metals - the concentration of metals
determined in an unfiltered sample following
vigorous digestion with concentrated nitric
acid.
31
-------
Table 8
Special Metals Project: Parameter List
Priority Pollutant Metals
Arsenic (As)
BeryI I I urn (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Nl)
Selenium (Se)
SI Iver (Ag)
Thai Ilum (T|)
Zinc (Zn)
Non-Priority Pollutant Metals
Aluminum (A I )
Barium (Ba)
Boron (B)
CaIcI urn (Ca )
Cobalt-(Co)
Iron (Fe)
Lithi urn (Li )
MagnesI urn (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Potass I urn (K)
Sodium (Na)
StrontI urn (Sr )
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (Tl)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
32
-------
The three forms of metal are identified and quantified
because: (1) in most cases, aquatic life toxicity is be-
lieved to be directly related to the amount of dissolved
metal available, and (2) total recoverable and total metals
results are directly comparable to EPA water quality
criteria and drinking water standards, respectively (Ap-
pendix D). Although the dissolved metal fraction is most
directly related to toxicity, criteria and standards are
based on total metals fractions because they provide an
indication of the amount of metal available for dissolution.
EPA's 1980 water quality criteria for priority pollutant
metals are based on laboratory toxicity tests in which the
actual form of the metal as measured in concentration may
not be known with certainty; most of these tests were pro-
bably conducted using metals in the more toxic, dissolved
form. The criteria for metals, however, are expressed in
terms of total recoverable metal in an effort to provide
adequate protection of aquatic life. This fraction was
selected as the basis for the criteria because: (1) the
actual form of the metal reported in laboratory toxicity
tests may not be known, and (?.) metals in the aquatic en-
vironment may undergo reactions which convert various forms
of the metal into the dissolved fraction. EPA's drinking
water standards, however, are based on the total metals
fraction. Consequently, to identify potential effects of
urban runoff on aquatic life and on water supplies, a com-
parison of both total recoverable and total metal con-
centrations against respective criteria and standards is
needed.
As part of this project, 17 non-priority pollutant
metals were also measured in the three fractions since the
analytical procedures provide this information at no ad-
ditional cost. These data are available to all NURP cities
and may be analyzed for potential water quality impacts in
future EPA NURP assessments. The concentrations of three of
33
-------
these metals (Ca, Mg, and Sr) were used to calculate hard-
ness for each sample. These hardness values were then used
to calculate the applicable EPA water quality criteria for
selected priority pollutant metals with hardness-dependent
criteria.
METHODOLOGY
Twenty-five NURP cities (Table 9 and Figure 2) are
participating in this project. These cities have been
supplied sampling kits with sufficient supplies to collect
eight runoff samples for each of the three fractions. Con-
sequently, a maximum of 200 samples can be analyzed for each
of the three fractions. Along with the sampling kit, a
sampling manual and recommendations on sampling were
provided. These recommendations are as follows:
l..The samples collected should be either flow-composited
or a series of discrete samples for a runoff event.
2. The special metals sample may be split out of the sam-
ple collected for priority pollutant analysis, or
for those cities not participating in the toxic sam-
pling program, the sample may be split out of a sam-
ple collected for conventional pollutant analysis.
The analytical methods followed by the contracted
laboratory are in accordance with the EPA approved pro-
cedures published in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (USEPA, 1979), and Inductively Coupled Plasma -
Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Element An-
alysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA, 1980). Table 10
summarizes the analysis procedures used and references the
EPA methods and detection limits for each metal. The use of
the Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometric
Method (ICP) for trace element analysis of runoff samples
provides a multi-element analysis at no additional cost.
34
-------
Table 9
NURP Cities Participating In the Special Metals Sampling Project
Durham, NH*
Lake QuInsigamond, MA*
Mystic River, MA»
Irondequoit Bay, NY*
Lake George, NY*
Long Island, NY*
Baltimore, MD*
Wash I ngton, DC*
KnoxviIle, TN»
Tampa, FL*
Wlnston-SaI em, NC
Champa Ign-Urbana, IL
Ml Iwaukee, WI
Chicago, IL*
Trl-County, Ml
Washtenaw, Ml
Austin, TX*
Little Rock, AR*
Kansas City, MO*
Denver, CO*
Rapid City, SD*
Salt Lake City, UT*
Fresno, CA
Be I levue, WA*
Eugene, OR*
*Also participating in the NURP priority pollutant sampling program.
35
-------
CO
er>
o so no Mo 100
m
MILES
Numbers Identify major river basins
delineated by (he United Stales
Geological Survey, 1980.
•: Priority Pollutant City
O r Non Priority Pollutant City
Figure 2 NURP Special Metals City Locations
-------
Table 10
Summary of Analytical Procedures Used in the
Special Metals Sampling Program
Metal
Arsen 1 c { As )
Bery Ilium (Be)
Cadml urn (Cd)
Chroml urn (Cr )
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury ( Hg )
NI ckel (Nl )
Selenium (Se)
SI 1 ver (Ag)
Thai 1 lum (Tl )
Zinc (Zn)
Aluminum (Al)
Bar 1 urn (Ba )
Boron (B)
Calcium (Ca)
(Cobalt (Co)
Iron (Fe)
Lithium (LI)
Magnes I urn (Mg )
Manganese (Mn )
JMo 1 ybdenum (Mo)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Method Ana 1 y s 1 s
Furnace AA ( 1 )
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
Cold Vapor AA (5)
ICP (3)
Furnace AA ( 2 )
ICP (3)
Furnace AA (2)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
• ICP (3)
ICP (3)
ICP (3)
Reference No.
206.2 (2)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
245.1 (2)
200.7 (4)
270.2 (2)
200.7 (4)
279.2 (2)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
Detect Ion Limit
ua/l
10
2
5
10
20
40
1
20
10
10
10
10
50
10
10
200.7 (4) ! 100
i
200.7 (4) 10
200.7 (4) j 20
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
200.7 (4)
10
100
10
10
200
100
10
50
10
10
10
Footnotes:
'Atomic Absorption, Furnace Technique.
^U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for the Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio.
'inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission SpectrometrIc Method.
^U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I960. Inductively Coupled
Plasma-Atomic Emission SpectrometrIc Method for Trace Element Analysis cf
Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio.
^Manual Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Technique.
37
-------
Therefore, besides data on the priority pollutant metals,
which are of primary concern, data on 17 additional metal
elements are provided.
Four data analysis approaches are used to summarize
preliminary results:
1. Metals are identified by frequency of detection,
including calculations of geometric mean con-
centrations of each fraction (total, total re-
coverable, and dissolved).
2. Comparisons are made of priority pollutant metals
concentrations (total recoverable and total metal) of
undiluted urban runoff with EPA's water quality
criteria and drinking water standards, respectively.
These comparisons identify exceeded criteria and
standards in an effort to evaluate the potential
downstream effects oh aquatic life as well as the
potential impacts on water supplies.
EPA water quality criteria for the protection of
aquatic life are of two types: (1) "acute" represent
the maximum concentration of a pollutant at any time;
(2) "chronic" represents the maximum 24-hour average
concentration allowed.
Those criteria that are hardness dependent were
adjusted using the hardness values calculated for each
water sample using Ca, Mg and. Sr concentrations.
(Hardness values ranged from 11.2 to 452 with the
arithmetic mean being 113 mg/1.) .
3. Comparisons are made of dissolved metals
concentrations with total and total recoverable
concentrations to identify the relative importance of
each fraction for each metal.
4. Comparisons are made of special metal concentrations
with results of metals analyzed in the NURP priority
pollutant monitoring effort when samples were sampled
simultaneously for both programs.
5. Comparisons are made of non-priority pollutant metal
concentrations (total metal) found in undiluted urban
runoff with EPA's "Red Book" Criteria.
38
-------
At this time, the focus of the data analysis is on the
priority pollutant metals. A range of the geometric mean
was calculated for each parameter, based on assumptions made
in the EPA-Water Planning Division report "Preliminary
Results of the NURP Program." Since it is not appropriate
to calculate a mean if most of the values are undetected,
only metals found in at least 10 percent of the samples are
included in this analysis. Two geometric means were computed
to identify a range within which the actual mean falls. The
upper end of the range was calculated using the actual de-
tection limit when the pollutant was undetected. The lower
end was calculated using a very small number (0.1 times the
detection limit) for the undetectable (remarked) result in
order to avoid zero, which cannot be accommodated in
geometric mean calculations. Mean concentrations were also
only calculated on composite samples; therefore, the total
sample size was 46. The 14 discrete samples were excluded
because they do not provide an adequate representation of
the runoff event concentration.
The data analysis used event mean concentration which
is calculated by dividing the mass discharge, whether it be
total, total recoverable, or dissolved, by the total runoff
volume. If a flow-weighted composite was collected, the
metal concentration was used to represent the event mean
concentration. No flow data were reported for discrete
samples and, consequently, event mean concentrations could
not be calculated. These discrete samples did provide data
on the instantaneous metal content of various periods in a
runoff event and were used in determining the percent of
total metal in the various metal fractions.
39
-------
FINDINGS
Raw sampling data for all pollutants are given in Ap-
pendix E and summarized in Table 11. Appendix F contains
preliminary laboratory quality control (QC) data. In
general this QC data meets established laboratory control
limits (except for aluminum, boron, and iron ), including
control limits specified in "Quality Assurance for Labora-
tory Analysis of 129 Priority Pollutants" (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data Support
Division, February 4, 1980). Recoveries for spiked samples,
method standards, and reference standards are within 90 to
110 percent for most metals, and replicate standard de-
viations. (RSD's) for duplicate samples are generally less
than 10 percent.
Specific results and findings are summarized below:
1. Eight priority pollutant metals were detected in the
total fraction. Their frequency of detection and range
of values are shown below. The range surrounding the
geometric mean is also provided for the metals found
in at least 10% of the samoles.
Frequency Range of Range of
Found Above Detected Values Geometric Mean*
Detection Limit (%) (ug/1) (ug/1)
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Chromium
Nickel
Cadmium
Beryllium
Arsenic
92
70
53
45
27
8
8
3
10-730
40-740
20-120
10-80
20-60
5
2
10-20
103-133
43-106
7-27
4-14
4-21
-
:
*Based on "total metal" values calculated in Appendix E and
presented in Table 11.
40
-------
Table II
Summary of Number of Detections, Mean Concentrations, Range and Detection Limits for
Special Metals Data Collected as of October 1961
(Composite Samples Only - 46 Samples: concentrations In ug/l)
Pollutant Form
Total
Arsenic Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Beryllium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Cadmium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Chromium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Copper Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Lead Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
)«ercury Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Nickel** Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Selenium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Silver Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Number of
Detected Values
1
0
0
4
0
t
4
t
2
20
13
0
20
21
4
28
28
0
0
0
1
12
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Geometric Mean
RMK m 0. 10 RMK*
—
-
-
_
-
-
„
.
-
4
2
-
7
8
•
43
42
-
.
-
-
4
-
-
.
-
-
"I
'-
-
—
Geometric Mean
RMK • RMK*
—
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
-
14
12
-
27
27
-
106
103
-
_
-
-
21 -
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
•
Range of
Detected Values
20
-
-
2
-
2
5
3
t - 10
10 - 80
10 - 80
-
20-120
20-110
20-80
40 - 740
40 - 740
-
.
-
1
20 - 60
20 - 40
140
„
-
-
-
-
—
Detection
Limit
10
10
10
2
2
2
3
3
•5
10
10
10
20
20
20
40
40
40
1
1
1
20
20
20
">
10
10
10
10
10
*RMK • REMARK and Indicates non-detection.
••ContamI nation suspected In dissolved fraction.
41
-------
Table 11 (Cont.)
Summary of Number of Defections, Mean Concentrations, Range and Detection Limits for
Special Metals Data Collected as of October 1981
(Composite Samples Only - 46 Samples: concentrations In ug/l)
Pollutant Form
Total
Thallium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
line Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Aluminum Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Barium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
1 Total
Boron" Total Recoverable
' • DI sso I ved
Total
, Calcium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
' Total
! Cobalt Total Recoverable
j . Dissolved
i Total
Iron Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
lltllum Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Magnesium Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Number of
Detected Values
0
0
0
41
43
37
43
46
12
43
42
38
32
43
38
46
46
46
2
4 '
0
46
46
37
11
to
9
46
46
46
Geometric Mean
RMK • 0.10 RMK*
^
-
-
103
tie
28
2,303
1,487
11
43
34
28
13
27
22
20,220
19,289
13,925
.
-
•
3,531
2.668
31
2
2
2
5.339
5,200
2,745
Geometric Mean
RMK • RMK*
—
-
-
133
137
43
2,423
1,487
58
50
41
42
27
32
33
20,220
19,289
13.925
.
-
-
3,531
2.668
49
14
13
12
3,339
5,200
2,745
Range of
Detected Values
^
-
-
10 - 730
20 - 690
10 - 550
200 - 74,400.
50 - 44,900
50 - 500
10 - 600
10 - 570
10 - 190
10 - 180
10 - 160
10 - 230
3,100 - 121,000
3,000 - 121,000
2,300 - 133,000
20-30
10 - 20
-
300 - 69,900
280 - 48.600
20 - 470
!0 - 1,140
10 - 1,200
10 - 1,300
900 - 26.800
900 - 25,100
300 - 28,500
Detection
Limit
10
10
10
to
10
10
50
SO
50
to
to
to
10
to
10
too
too
too
to
10
10
20
20
20
10
10
10
too
100
too
•RMK • REMARK and Indicates non-detection.
••Contamination suspected In dissolved fraction.
42
-------
Table II (Cont.)
Summary of Number of Detections, Mean Concentrations, Range and Detection Limits for
Special Metals Data Collected as of October 1981
(Composite Samples Only - 46 Samples: concentrations In ug/l)
Pol lutant
Manganese
Molybdenum
Potassium
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
vanadium
Yttrium
Form
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Total
Total Recoverable
Dissolved
Nunber of
Detected Values
45
45
30
4
0
1
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
3
0
0
36
40
1
14
13
0
3
5
0
Geometric Mean
RMK « 0. 1 0 RMK*
124
124
11
.
-
-
2,941
2.823
3.130
5,992
6,158
6,913
86
86
66
_
-
-
36
39
-
3
2
-
_
1
~
3oometric Mean
SMK o RMK*
130
130
25
.
-
-
2,941
2,825
3.130
5,992
6,158
6,913
86
86
66
.
-
-
59
53
-
13
12
-
_
It
—
Detected
10 -
10 -
10 -
10 -
-
10
700 -
400 -
800 -
700 -
900 -
900 -
20 -
20 -
10 -
30
-
-
20 -
10 -
20
10 -
10 -
-
20 -
10 -
•
Values
1,620
1,550
290
20
16.900
14.600
6,300
142,000
148,000
160,000
4,490
4,290
5.200
2.490
890
160
90
40
40
- - ,» • '
Limit
10
10
10
10
10
10
200
200
200
100
100
100
10
10
10
SO
50
SO
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
•RMK • REMARK and Indicates non-detection.
-------
2. Comparisons of total recoverable and total metal
concentrations (undiluted by stream flow) with EPA
water quality criteria and drinking water standards,
respectively, reveal that lead, copper, and zinc
exceed acute criteria in greater than 37 percent of
the samples while they exceed chronic criteria in
greater than 53 percent of the samples (Table 12).
Lead concentrations were found to exceed EPA's
drinking water standards in 63 percent of the
samples.
3. A comparison of the priority pollutant metal fractions
(Table 13a) revealed that, in general, most of the
metals are in the particulate form; most of the metals
associated with particulates are in the total
recoverable fraction. However, copper, and zinc both
are present at 27 percent in the dissolved form. For
non- priority metals (Table 13b), a larger percent of
the metal concentration is in the dissolved fraction.
More than 90 percent of potassium, sodium, lithium,
and boron are present in the dissolved fraction, as
expected due to the high solubility of these metal
salts.
4. Four of the non-priority metals (barium, boron, iron
and manganese) have criteria available in EPA's "Red
Book" (Table 14). In undiluted runoff, barium and
boron did not exceed criteria; iron and manganese
exceeded the criteria for domestic water supplies
(welfare) in 98% and 77% of the respective samples.
These criteria are established to prevent brownish
staining of laundry and plumbing fixtures and
objectional taste in beverages.
CONCLUSIONS
For this preliminary screening analysis, the results
indicate that zinc, lead, copper and chromium are the metals
found most frequently and at the highest concentration.
Lead concentrations in undiluted runoff were found to
exceed the drinking water standard and human health
criterion of 50 ug/1 (total lead) in 63 percent of the
samples, with detected total lead concentrations ranging
44
-------
Table 12
Summary of Water Quality Criteria Violations
(Analyses of data uses detected values only)
Metal i of Samples
Arsenic
Beryl Hum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
S 1 1 ver
Thai Hum
Zinc
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Percentage of Samples In Violation
Freshwater
Acute
0
0
3C
0
42b'C
43b
0
0
0
oc
0
37 b
Freshwater
Chronic
0
0
3C
2
53b'C
68b'C
0
0
0
oc
0
85 b
Human
Health
oc
0C
2
2
NCA
63b
0C
)2c
0
0
0
NCA
Drinking Water
Standard
0
NS
2
2
0
63b
0
NS
0
0
0
0
Ln
Footnotes:
aVlolatlons based on total recoverable fraction only.
"Five violations as a result of 5 discrete samples collected for a single runoff event In Long Island, NY., May II, 1981.
cDetectlon limit Is higher than criteria for the metal; therefore, the violation Incidence could be higher than shown.
-------
Table 13a
Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals Concentration
as a Percent of Total Metals Concentration:
Priority Pollutant Metals
(Based on 60 samples)
2 3
Arsenic RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
2
Bery 1 1 i urn RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
2
jCadm i urn RMK •= 0
RMK = RMK
Chromium RMK = 0
RMK » RMK
Copper RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
Lead RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
2
Mercury RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
Nickel RMK » 0
RMK = RMK
2 .
Selenium RMK = 0
RMK » RMK
SI 1 ver 2 RMK = 0
RMK * RMK
2
Tha 1 1 1 urn RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
21 nc RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
Percent Tota 1
Recoverab 1 e
.
-
_
-
—
-
61
77
93
94
94
95
_
-
35
85
—
-
_
-
—
-
64
65
Percent
D i sso 1 ved
.
.
_
-
—
-
0
41
27
53
4
18
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
—
-
27
28
Frequency of Detection
In Total Fraction (?)
2
7
7
33
33
47
0
20
0
0
o- '
68
^Determined using only those samples with a detectable level of metal in
the total fraction for greater than 10$ of the samples analyzed.
than IOJ of the samples had detectable levels of metal In the
total fraction.
= 0: Percentages have been calculated substituting zero for less
than detectable values in the dissolved and total recoverable
f ract I ons.
RMK = RMK: Percentages have been calculated substituting the detectable
limit for less than detectable values in the dissolved and
total recoverable fractions.
One data point eliminated from data set due to field contamination.
46
-------
Table 13b
Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals Concentration
as a Percent of Total Metals Concentration:
Non-Priority Pollutant Metals
(Based on 60 samples)
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Coba It2
1 r on
L i th I urn
Magnes i urn
Manganese
f
Mo 1 y bdenum*
Potass i urn
Sod i urn
RMK3* 0
RMK n RMK
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
RMK = 0
RMK B RMK
RMK = 0
RMK » RMK
RMK B 0
RMK *> RMK
RMK = 0
RMK ° RMK
RMK » 0
RMK •= RMK
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
RMK « 0
RMK o RMK
RMK 3 0
RMK * RMK
RMK - 0
RMK B RMK
Percent Total
Recovera b 1 e
64
64
85
86
100+
100+
95
95
-
75
75
97
99
97
97
97
97
-
90
90
99
99
Percent
D 1 sso 1 ved
1
1
87
89
100+
100+
61
61
-
1
1
100
100+
66
66
18
. 19
-
92
92
100+
100+
.Frequency of Detection
I n Tota 1 Fract i on (%)
»
72
53
77
3
77
18
77
75
7
77
77
47
-------
Table 13b (Cont.)
Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals Concentration
as a Percent of Total Metals Concentration:*
Non-Priority Pollutant Metals
(Based on 60 samples)
Strontium
Tin2
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttr ium2
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
RMK » 0
RMK = RMK
RMK " 0
RMK - RMK
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
RMK = 0
RMK = RMK
Percent Tota 1
Recoverab 1 e
96
96
-
59
59
63
71
-
Percent
01 sso 1 ved
93
93
-
0
5
0
32
-
Frequency of Detection
1 n Tota 1 Fract i on ( % )
77
5
60
23
5
^Determined using only those samples with a detectable level of metal in
the total fraction for greater than IOJ of the samples analyzed.
2Fewer than 10? of the samples had detectable levels of metal In the
total fraction.
* 0: Percentages have been calculated substituting zero for less
than detectable values In the dissolved and total recoverable
f ract I ons.
RMK » RMK: Percentages have been calculated substituting the detectable
limit for less than detectable values In the dissolved and
total recoverable fractions.
^Contamination suspected In the dissolved fraction.
48
-------
Table 14
Summary of Violations of EPA's
"Red Book" Criteria for
Non-Priority Pollutant Metals (1)
(In undiluted Urban Runoff)
Meta 1
Bar I urn
Boron
1 ron
Manganese
Criteria
(ug/l )
1000 (2)
750 (3)
300 (4)
50 (4)
Number
of
Samp 1 es
60
60
60
60
Range of
Detected Va 1 ues
(ug/l )
10-320
10-180
300-69900
10-1620
% of Samples
in Violation
0
0
96
77
Detect I on
Limit
(ug/l )
10
10
20
10
Violations based on total metal fraction only,
^Domestic water supply (health)
Long term Irrigation on sensitive crops
Domestic water supplies (welfare)
49
-------
from 40-740 ug/1. Although dilution by receiving streams
and subsequent treatment of river water by drinking water
facilities would likely reduce these levels (particularly
since it is in the suspended form), drinking water standard
violations are still possible under worst case conditions.
Such conditions would include cases where: (1) the runoff
during a storm event was a large portion of the receiving
water flow, resulting in a dilution of less than 1 to 15;
(2) the preliminary sampling results were representative of
lead concentrations above drinking water supply intakes; and
(3) lead removal by public drinking water treatment facili-
ties was minimal. Specific risks to drinking water supplies
could be evaluated by confirmatory sampling during storm
events.
In undiluted urban runoff, nickel concentrations ex-
ceed the human health criterion of 13.4 ug/1 (total nickel)
in 12 percent of the samples, with total detected nickel
concentrations ranging from 20-60 ug/1. Violations are ex-
pected to be less than the 12 percent figure after dilution
by receiving streams. Moreover, nickel is notconsidered a
significant human health problem in water because it is
poorly adsorbed by the body when ingested. Inhalation of
nickel, especially nickel carbonyl, poses the greatest risk
to human health.
Lead, copper and zinc concentrations in undiluted run-
off exceed freshwater acute criteria in greater than 37 per-
cent of the samples, with the largest observed concentration
being less than 10 times the respective criteria. Depending
upon receiving stream dilution, these pollutants could cause
harm to aquatic life.
50
-------
Lead, copper and zinc concentrations in undiluted
runoff also exceed freshwater chronic criteria in greater
than 53 percent of the samples. These criteria are
allowable levels for 24 hours. Consequently, duration of
the storm event and receiving stream flow are both important
factors needed to fully evaluate the significance of these
violations. Since most storms last between 2 and 16 hours,
problems due to chronic criteria violations appear to be
unlikely. The violations of acute criteria, however, could
be significant in longer term storms with low dilutions in
receiving waters.
Only two priority pollutant metals (copper and zinc)
were present in dissolved forms, to any great extent.
This screening approach does not account for the
long-term water quality impacts that might occur as a result
of the depositon of sediment and accumulation of toxic
metals in stream bottoms. The sediments deposited as a
result of urban runoff may be a source of toxic metal pol-
lution due to deposition and resuspension.
In undiluted urban runoff, two non-priority pollutant
metals (iron and manganese) exceed EPA's "Red Book" criteria
established to prevent brownish staining of laundry and
plumbing fixtures, and objectional taste in beverages. The
high levels of these elements found in urban runoff is not
unusual since the metals are ubiquitous in nature, and iron
is the fourth most abundant element in the earth's crust.
51
-------
REFERENCES
Athayde, D.N., et al. 1981. Preliminary Results of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volumes 1 and 2.
Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
Dalton"Dalton"Newport.
1981a. Priority Pollutants in Urban Stormwater Run-
off: A Literature Review. Draft Report.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6195, Work Assignment
No. 1, Dalton'Dalton'Newport, Cleveland,
Ohio.
1981b. Methods for Analysis of Initial Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program Data. Draft Report.
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6195, Work Assignment
No. 1, Dalton'Dalton'Newport, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Shelly, P.E. 1979. Monitoring Requirements, Methods, and
Costs for the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Re-
printed from the Areawide Assessment Procedures Manu-
al. EPA-600/9-76-014, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Planning Division. Washington, D.C.
52
-------
Sunderman, F.W., Jr. 1981. Recent Research on Nickel Car'
cinogenesis. Environmental Health Perspectives,
40:131-141.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
n.d.
Data Collection Quality Assurance for the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. EPA, Water
Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
1980. Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Data Man-
agement Procedures Manual. Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 95 p.
1978. 1978-1983 Work Plan for the Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Water Planning Division, Wash-
ington, D.C. 75 p.
Versar.
1980a. Monitoring of Toxic Pollutants in Urban Run-
off: A Guidance Manual. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards. Washington, D.C. 65 p.
1980b. Quality Assurance for Laboratory Analysis of
129 Priority Pollutants, Interim Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water Planning and Standards, Washington,
D.C. 63 p.
53
-------
APPENDIX G
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
G-l
-------
APPENDIX G
FOREWORD
Descriptions for each of the twenty-eight NURP projects are presented in
this appendix. The projects are presented in order by EPA Region number from
I through X. There is at least one project in each region.
Descriptions are organized in a uniform format.
G-2
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND
POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISION
DURHAM, NH
REGION I, EPA
Gl-1
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The town of Durham, situated In Strafford County, Is located In southeastern
New Hamshlre, approximately twelve miles inland from the Atlantic seacoast.
Durham's topography consists of gently rolling hills and streams with these
streams draining Into the Oyster River and Oyster River estuary.
The Oyster River has been classified "Class A° west of Mill Road and "Class B"
east of Mill Road. The water quality standards require that Class A waters
be acceptable for public water supply after disinfection with no discharge
of wastewater allowed, and that "Class B" waters be suitable for water supply
after adequate treatment with no wastewater to be discharged unless adequately
treated to maintain other classification parameters. Beneficial uses of the
Oyster River include freshwater fishing, boating, and extensive shell fishing
in the tidal flats.
The present water quality of the Oyster River and Oyster River estuary is good.
However, it is Important to note the high growth rate of coastal New Hamphire.
Strafford and Rockingham counties, which encompass the entire coastal region
of New Hampshire have increased In total population from 209,000 In 1970 to
259,000 in 1977. This represents an increase of 24 precent over seven years.
Recent economic conditions have continued or even spurred the present development
rate of the area.
Of concern to local and state agencies Is the impacts that this rapid development
will have upon the entire coastal area, including water quality resources.
Also, on a statewide level, under statute RSA 149:8 the staff Is currently
developing regulations for construction operations involving earth changing;
including road building and repair, site development and hydrologlc mod-
ifications. Under these proposed requlations a permit would require the use,
as applicable, of best management practices to control erosion and sedimentation.
Included In the recommendations for new developments is a requirement that
the peak rate of runoff during and after site development should not exceed
that occur1ng before the undertaking by more than about ten percent. The
Durham study will aide developers, as well as regulatory agencies. In deter-
mining the best control alternatives and management practices.
A. Area
The town of Durham, situated In Strafford County, Is located in Southeastern New
Hampshire, approximately twelve miles inland from the Atlantic Seacoast. The
total area of the Town comprises about 23.3 square miles of land and about 2.2
square miles of water. Land use within the town is characterized as Institutional
with associated residential and commercial development.
B. Population
In the northwesterly section of Durham, adjacent to the upper end of the Oyster
River estuary, are situated the grounds and buildings of the University of New
Hampshire. The most dense residential and commercial development has taken place
in the area near the University. Present population including University enrollment
Is 15,100 and has been projected to Increase to 22,500 in the year 2000.
C. Drainage
Durham's topography Is typically New England with gently rolling hills and streams.
These streams drain to the Oyster River and Oyster River Estuary.
The Oyster River originates In the southern portion of Barrlngton, New Hampshire.
The river flows southeasterly through the Lee-Durham town borders and continues
east through the north central portion of Durham. The river empties into the Great
Bay at Durham Point, and is tidal up to the tide head dam In Durham at Route 108.
It drains an area of 32 square miles, (see map)
D. Sewerage System
The existing sewage system serving the town of Durham and the University of New
Hampshire is completely separated and consists of lateral sewers, intercepting
sewers, the Dover Road pumping Station and force main, and a primary wastewater
treatment plant. The sewage system contains a total of approximately 13.5 miles
of gravity sewers serving a tributary area of about 800 acres and approximately
3,000 feet of 18 Inch force main.
The primary wastewater treatment plant is currently being upgraded to secondary
treatment. The construction phase Is approximately 151 complete. The wastewater
treatment plant discharges into the low reaches of the Oyster River estuary.
61-2
Gl-3
-------
Sugar)oaf
Mountain
(3701 ft)
THE STATE UK NEW MAMPSItlUE
Gl-4
•—U • I - .' f I >\ T^UVv-'-i 1
;
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - 2 Pte (Pettee Brook at Hadbury Road)
A. Area - 106 acres
B. Population - 2600 persons
C. Drainage - Pettee Brook Is a tributary draining Into the Oyster
River. Main channel 1s 2800 ft. at approximately 37 ft/mile
slope In the channel.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers. All of area is served by swales and ditches.
Streets consist of 100 lane miles of asphalt In good condition.
E. Land Use
20 acres (192) Is .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
2.4 acres (12%) Is Impervious.
16 acres (15%) Is >8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
1.76 acres (lit) is impervious.
9 acres (8%) Is Central Business District.
8.55 acres (951) Is impervious.
6 acres (61) is Shopping Center Area.
6 acres (1001) is impervious.
55 acres (52%) is Urban Institution (Univ. of NH).
5.5 acres (10%) Is impervious.
~ 23% imperviousness in entire drainage area.
II. Catchment Name - 3 Pte (Pettee Brook at Alumni Cntr.)
A. Area - 615 acres
B. Population - 100 persons
C. Drainage - Pettee Brook is tributary draining Into the Oyster
River. Main channel is 15,800 ft. long at approximately
42 ft/mile slope in the channel.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment Is 15S separate storm
sewers and 85% no sewers. All of area is served by swales
and ditches.
Gl-6
Street consist of 4.83 lane miles of asphalt and other materials.
E. Land Use
30 acres (5%) is .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
1.38 acres (5%) is impervious.
10 acres (2%) Is Central Business District.
9.5 acres (95%) is impervious.
135 acres (22%) is Urban Parkland.
.54 acres (<1%) is impervious.
18.5 acres (3%) is Urban Institutional.
3.09 acres (17%) is impervious
90 acres (15%) is Agriculture.
.84 acres (<1%) Is impervious.
320 acres (52%) is Forest.
.96 acres (<1%) is impervious
11.5 acres (2%) is Mater, Lakes.
0% impervious.
~ 3% Imperviousness in entire drainage area
III. Catchment Name - 5 Oys (Oyster River at Tidehead Dam)
A. Area - 2181 acres
B. Population - 3600 persons
C. Drainage - Drainage into site consists of 20% separate storm
sewers and 80% no sewers. All of area is served by swales and
ditches.
Streets consist of 31 lane miles of asphalt in good condition.
D. Sewerage - See above. 80% of drainage is through subsurface
systems.
E. Land Use
430 acres (20%) .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
25.8 acres (6%) is Impervious.
5 acres (.2%) >8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
.5 acres (10%) Is impervious.
Gl-7
-------
2 acres (.09%) Centra] business District.
1.9 acres (95%) is Impervious.
8 acres (.41) Shopping Center.
8 acres (loot) is impervious.
380 acres (17*) Is Urban Parkland.
15 acres (4*) is impervious.
86b acres (40%) is Forest.
02 Impervious.
21 acres (U) is Mater. Lakes.
OX impervious.
200 acres (9%) is Urban Institutional.
20 acres-(10%) Is impervious.
270 acres (12%) Is Agriculture.
.<5% is impervious.
~^3X of entire drainage area is impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - 7 Oys (Oyster River at Reservoir)
A. Area - 10,560 acres
B. Population - 300 persons
C. Drainage - 100% of area has no sewers.
Streets consist of 78 lane-wiles with 62 lane-miles being
asphalt in good condition.
0. Sewerage - Ho sewers. Drainage is all through subsurface systems.
£. Land Use
75 acres (1%) is .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
3.75 acres (5%) is impervious.
2 acres (<}%) is Central Business District.
1.9 acres (952) is impervious.
II acres (.11) is Urban Industrial.
8.25 acres (75%) is Impervious.
110 acres ([%) is Urban Parkland.
2.2 acres (2%) is impervious.
5 acres (<1%) is Urban institutional.
.5 acres (10X) is impervious.
26 acres (.2*) is Agriculture.
.52 acres (2%) is impervious.
10326 acres (982) is Forest.
5 acres is impervious.
~.2% of entire drainage area Is Impervious
V. Catchment Name - 1 Pkg (Shop and Save Parking Lot)
A. Area - .90 acres
B. Population - 0
C. Drainage - 1 Pkg Is a parking lot site drained entirely by
separate storm sewers.
Drainage area of the parking lot Is 1001 asphalt streets.
D. See above
E. Land Use
40.000 ft2 ts Commercial Shopping Center of which
36.000 ft2 (90%) is Impervious
Gl-8
G)-9
-------
O
:z
o
B
SCIIEhATIC OF SAMPLING SITES
Gl-10
Gl-11
-------
Project Description
A. Major objective
The final State of Hew Hampshire detailed 208 Hater Quality Management Plan
stated that the major emphasis of the 208 statewide effort is to control
"existing and potential nonpoint source pollutions" as necessary to "meet
the water quality goals of the state and the Fishable. Swlonable goal of
the Act."
The Durham HURP study is a continuation of the earlier 208 effort and was
structured to meet the objectives outlined in the final 208 plan. The project
was broken into two phases; Phase I - Base Line Study and Phase II - Control
Measures Study.
Phases I had several specific objectives. These were to 1) measure the mass
loadings of urban runoff constituents during Individual storm events, 2) measure
the impact of urban runoff upon the receiving stream and relate this Impact to
possible violations of State Hater Quality Standards and 3) model the Impact
of urban runoff upon the receiving estuary stream and relate this Impact to
possible violations of State Hater Quality Standards.
One full year's data base, encompassing any seasonal variations which pay
exist, was obtained for Phase I.
Phase II of the study will begin with the cessation of the Phase I data base
collection. The specific objectives of Phase II are to 1) measure the
effectiveness of urban runoff degradation control measures in terms of
cost versus mass loading reduction, 2) assess the impact of urban runoff
degradation control measures upon the receiving stream and Us State Hater
Quality Standards classification and 3) model the impact of urban runoff
degradation control measures upon the receiving estuary and Its State
(•later Quality Standards classification.
Phase II will also be one year in duration In order to encompass any seasonal
influences upun the Implanented control measures. In the study area the State
felt that efforts to prevent or reduce storm water pollution would be best
applied to developed areas in the Oyster River headwaters, since the Durham/
Tidal Oyster River area Is to a large extent developed. The study will con-
centrate on maintenance and operation practices that will attenuate or eliminate
the degree of upset to the natural hydrologic balance of the watershed caused
by urbanization In the loner Oyster River basin.
After the quantitative impact of the storm water pollution from the developed
area has been estimated, the State feels that effective planning could be
instituted by limiting the amount of stream degradation that could be tolerated
during wet weather. The town of Durham could then determine what development
options are available based on the residuals emitted from the remaining
undeveloped Town area.
Gl-12
B. Methodologies
Presently there is little urban data base for the Town of Durham. Basically.
this NURP study Initiated the Investigation of this phenomenon in the
New Hampshire coastal area.
In the data collection effort, the quantity, as well as the quality, of urban
runoff was examined. The hydrological causal factors of storm water runoff
were recorded in order to ascertain their role and importance in the phenomenon
of urban runoff. These factors Include storm intensity, duration and frequency.
Land use within the study areas will also be characterized. These parameters
are to be developed In relation to pollutant loadings results and compared
with those of other studies In order to determine whether or not a correlat-
ing factor exists between land use and the amount of pollution associated
with urban runoff.
Phase I consisted of gathering base line urban runoff data for the selected
sub-catchments and the receiving stream. Phase II will consist of examining
these sub-catchments after the Implementation of control measures. In this
way, the effectiveness of the control measures will be evaluated by calculat-
ing the difference in pollutant loads of the sub-catchments before and after
the Implementation of the selected control measures.
The cost-effectiveness of implementing control measures will be assessed In
terms of total costs versus pollutant removal amount or percent. The rela-
tionship examined will be unique to the land use characteristics of the
sub-catchments examined and to the hydrological stonuwater conditions
surrounding the storm events monitored.
Dry weather data was collected weekly for one year In the freshwater portion
of the receiving stream. Receiving water stream data was also collected during
storm events for comparisons with dry weather, as well as State Water Quality
Standards. The purpose of these comparisons is, first, to determine how
urban runoff and urban runoff control measures affect stream quality and,
second, to evaluate these changes with respect to possible State Hater
Quality Standard Violations.
Estuary monitoring 1s also conducted on a periodic basis. The purpose of this
monitoring is to collect data in order to calibrate and verify the estuary
flushing model. The flushing model will be used to assess the effects of urban
runoff and control measures upon estuary water quality.
C. Monitoring
The study area consists of a section of the Oyster River drainage basin
encompassing the downtown area of Durham, NH. The monitoring program covers
three in-town sub-catchments, the Oyster River and the Oyster River estuary.
One sub-catchment examined is a commercial parking lot in downtown Durham
(1 Pkg). The second sub-catchment is larger and drains on institutional-
commercial area of town (2 Pte). A third sub-catchment drains an area that
Gl-13
-------
Is largely forest and agricultural land (3 Pte). This station is necessary
to separate the upstream drainage from the downstream drainage. In addition,
there are five stations to be monitored in the Oyster River and Oyster River
estuary. The two upstream stations are located at Impoundment sites in the
River, the lower of which separates the freshwater and tidal portions of
the River. The remaining three stations are located in the Estuary.
There is one rain gage operated on the University of New Hamsphlre campus.
The gage 1s a Fisher-Porter model registering 0.1 inch increments of rainfall.
An additional rain gage was installed at the parking lot site.
The list of parameters examined in each sample Includes: Biochemical Oyygen
Demand (BOD). Chemical Oyxgen Demand (COD), Nitrogen (NO? and NOi), Total
Phosphorus (P) and Chlorides (CL). Metals analyzed for Include Cadmium,
Lead, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel and Zinc. This dissolved
and suspended nature of each of the parameters was tested. Temperature,
pll, dissolved oxygen and aklalinlty were also Included.
All monitoring sites, except those located in the estuary, have automatic
sampling equipment. Following is a brief suimary of the types of flow
monitoring and automatic sampling equipment located at each site:
ISCO model 1870 Flow meter and ISCO model 1680 sampler. Flow is measured
by a flume located at the outflow of the catch basin.
2 Pte
ISCO model 1870 Flow meter and ISCO model 1680 sampler. Flow is measured
using a weir located in the culvert.
3 Pte
ISCO model 1870 Flow meter and ISCO model 1680 sampler. Flow is measured
using a weir located at the upstream end of the culvert.
ISCO model 1870 Flow meter and ISCO model 1680 sampler with model 1640
actuater. A rating curve was established at this site. The equipment is
suspended in the fish ladder with a bubbler located at the dam.
ISCO model 1870 Flow meter and ISCO model 1680 sampler with model 1640 actuater.
Equipment Is located in gate house for the reservoir with bubbler located at
the dam.
Gl-14
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
LAKE QUINSIGAMOND, MA
REGION I, EPA
G2-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Lake Quinsigamond is located In the heart of Worcester County, Massachusetts
and lies between the City of Worcester and the Town of Shrewsbury. The lake's
drainage basin encompasses portions of Worcester, Shrewsbury, BoyIton, and
West Boylton, plus corners of Grafton and HiUbury.
Lake Quinsigamond lies in a north-south direction and is crossed by three major
highways: Interstate 1-290, Route 9 and U.S. Route 20. Being situated in a
highly urban area, the lake supports multiple recreational uses Including
fishing, boating, water skiing and bathing. The entire periphery of the lake
Is densely settled with many private homes and some commercial establishments.
The objectives of the Lake Quinsigamond NURP program are to assess the magnitude
and severity of storm water runoff pollution In the lake and Its tributaries;
assess the cost, impacts and benefits of appropriate control techniques;
recommend a comprehensive pollution abatement program for the watershed in
order to protect, preserve, enhance and recover portions of the lake and Us
watershed for recreation, and propagation of fish and other aquatic life;
and provide data on the character of urban runoff. Its Impacts on a major
recreational lake as a receiving water, and on the effectiveness of various
runoff control alternatives.
62-2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
Lake Quinsigamond Is located in the heart of Worcester County, Massachusetts,
between the city of Worcester and the town of Shrewsbury. Worcester and Shrewsbury
are the two most populous municipalities in central Massachusetts. The lake's
drainage basin also encompasses portions of the towns of BoyIs ton, West Boylston,
Grafton and Mlllbury. The entire periphery of the lake is densely settled with
many private homes and some commercial establishments. Two state parks, several
private beaches and marinas are located along the shorefront. The central part
of the drainage basin Is highly developed and considerable construction is
occurring or Is planned in the basin as a whole.
Being situated in a highly urban area with convenient access, the lake supports
Intensive, multiple recreational uses. These uses include fishing, SMI mining,
boating, waterskilng, and aesthetic enjoyment. In addition, the lake recharges
an aquifer providing water supply for Shrewsbury's lakeside wells.
Lake Quinsigamond is separated Into two distinct sections: the deep narrow
northern basin and the shallow southern basin known as Flint Pond.
The total area of the lake Is 772 acres comprised of 475 acres in the northern .
basin and 297 acres in Flint Pond. The Lake Quinsigamond drainage basin
occupies a total area of about 25 square miles (16,000 acres). The lake has
a maximum depth of 92 feet and an average depth of 20.7 feet. The lake is
approximately 5 miles long, with the width varying from 250 feet to nearly
a mile. The lake volume is estimated at 688 million cubic feet.
The single outlet of the lake is located at Irish Dam with the outflow creating
the Blackstone River. The major Inlet to the lake Is from a series of ponds
north of the main body of the lake. Approximately 14 small tributaries also
feed the lake. These tributaries drain sub-basins varying in size from less
than one square mile to over 5 square miles.
B. Population
Worcester and Shrewsbury, which occupy the majority of the Lake QuinsIgamond
Basin, are the two most populous of the 27 municipalities in the Central
Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission 208 Planning Area. In terms
of generalized economic and demographic trends, Shrewsbury Is characterized
as an area of moderate to high population growth and Industrial/commercial
expansion. Boylston and West Boylston are characterized as areas of moderate
to high population growth but slow Industrial commercial expansion. Worcester,
Grafton and Mlllbury are characterized as areas of slight decline or very slow
G2-3
-------
population and industrial/comiuerical growth.
or these areas are as follows:
Worcester
Shrewsbury
BoyIs ton
West BoyIs ton
Grafton
Mi II bury
1975
171.859
21.858
3.318
6.257
10.584
12.103
Existing and projected populations
1985
169.400
24,200
4,200
6.750
11.000
13,200
The entire periphery of the lake is densely settled with many private homes
and some commercial establishments.
C. Ural iiciije
The Lake Quinsigamond drainage basin is a headwater basin of the Blackstone
River, rising immediately to the east of that river's origin. The Quinsigainond
Itiver is the lake's outlet and flows to its juncture with the Blackstone at
Fislierville pond in the town of Grafton, MA.
Hie Blackstone River than carries the combined flows southeast into Rhode
Island and tlie Seekouk River, which is tidal and flows into the Providence
River and thence into Narragansett Bay.
Lake Quinsigamond lies in a region in which approximately half of the average
annual precipitation eventually becomes streamflow, the remainder being lost to
evapotranspiration. The most thorough study of the surface hydrology of Lake
Quinsigaiuond and its tributary streams was carried out as part of the 1971 Water
Quality study done by Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. The
discharge of the major tributaries was measured by current meter on three
occasions. Of the fifteen feeder streams contributing flow to Lake Quinsigamond.
six contributed over 90 percent of the surface flow: Tilly Brook, Newton Pond
Overflow. Bonnie Brook. South Meadow Brook, Poor Farm Brook, and Coal Mine
Brook.
A partial water balance was derived for the lake using data points which may be
summarized as follows:
Outflow (0)
Evaporation (E)
Tributary Inflow (I)
0 t E - I
4/26/71
38cfs
3
30.37
10.63
6/30/71
9cfs
6.4
9.94
5.46
12/17/71
47.2cfs
1.5
39.63
9.07
Tim outflow plus evaporation exceeds the inflow by the amount given In the last
row. That amount approximately equals the release from storage plus roundwater
inflow. Pumping front the Shrewsbury we Ms near the lake intercepts some of the
groundwater inflow to the lake and may, if their zones of influence intersect the
lake boundaries, cause a groundwater withdrawal from tlie lake.
The amount of storuiwater runoff reaching Lake Quinsigamond is important since it
is believed to have a significant pollutional impact. Using the measured outflow
for the lake and the dry weather flow data gathered by MDWPC. an estimate of the
total stormwater runoff was made. That estimate suggested that during the four
month 1971 survey period, about 25 percent of the lake inflow was due to stonuwater
which entered the lake from the storm drains and feeder streams.
Lake Quinsigamond Is stratified from May through November, during which time the
water below the thennocline becomes trapped and remains in place until the lake
becomes completely mixed during fall overturn. The surface inflow generally mixes
with the epillmnion during stratification. The detention time of water In the
epllimnion has been estimated to be between 125 and 150 days.
D. Sewerage System
The Lake Quinsigamond watershed is mixture of separate storm sewers and septic
tank systems. Within recent years elimination of point sources has been attainted
by the construction of interceptor sewers and transmission lines which convey the
wastewater out of the basin and southward to a regional treatment facility. However,
there is evidence that sewage contamination is still occurring. The sources of
the sewage contamination could be numerous. In areas without sanitary.sewers,
house connections have been Identified as a source of sewage contamination. In
general storm drains are constructed without a great deal of care to avoid infiltration
and renegade sewage leaking from house connections has no difficulty reaching
the storm drains. Additionally there way still be direct sewage connections draining
to storm drains or major points of leakage between neighboring sanitary and storm
lines. Common manholes were a problem in the past and may still be allowing some
leakage.
G2-4
62-5
-------
Poor Form
Bcoot -
ZOOO
— Billing'. Brook
—^~~" IO Contour inlorvol
/ \ Somplt Stotton
Rout* 9-Molch Lin*
Lake Quinsigamond North of Route 9
GZ-7
G2-6
-------
(cont.)- Bathymetric Map of Lal;e Quinsigamond
2000
—•— IO' Contour inlixal
/ \ Saraplt Stalin*
-5 Oiplh contour in leel
f ^ SompU Slolion
o IOOO 200O 3OOO
(c) Flint Pond
Lake Quinsigamond South Of Route 9
G2-9
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Jordan Pond (PI)
A. Area - 110 acres
B. Population - 1042 persons
C. Land Use
13 acres (121) is 1/2 - 2 dwelling units per acre residential
74 acres (661) Is 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
18 acres (16%) Is commercial
4 acres (41) Is Industrial
2 acres (21) Is Parkland
II. Catchment Name - Route 9 Manhole, within Regatta Point fence at
Police Station (P2)
A. Area - 338 acres
B. Population - 2285 persons
C. Land Use
138 acres (411) Is 2 -8 dwelling units per acre residential
21 acres (61) Is 9 * dwelling units per acre residential
82 acres (241) is Commercial
36 acres (111) Is Industrial
40 acres (121) Is Parkland
2? acres (71) is Open Land
III. Catchment Name - Manhole on Locust Ave (P3)
A. Area - 154 acres
B. Population - 1703 persons
G2-10
C. Land Use
131 acres (851) 1s 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
2 acres (21) Is Comnerclal
12 acres (81) Is Industrial
7 acres (51) Is Parkland
IV. -Catchment Name - Fitgerald Brook discharge to the Lake (P4)
A. Area - 601 acres
B. Population - 5491 persons
C. Land Use
363 acres (601) Is 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
33 acres (51) is 9 + dwelling units per acre residential
13 acres (31) Is Commercial
8 acres (21) is Industrial
92 acres (151) is Parkland
92 acres (151) Is Open Land
V. Catchment Name - Coal Mine Brook at Notre Dame Convent (P5)
A. Area - 100 acres
B. Population - 104 persons
C. Land Use
8 acres (81) is 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
63 acres (631) Is Commercial
9 acres (91) Is Parkland
20 acres (201) Is Open Land
G2-U
-------
VI. Catchment Name - Tilly Brook at Harvey Place Manhole (P6)
A. Area - 1690 acres
B. Population - 2«4b persons
C. Land Use
171 acres (10X) Is 1/2 - 2 dwelling units per acre residential
168 acres (10J) is 2 - 8 dv/ellin9 units per acre residential
112 acres (7X) is Commercial
27 acres (2%) is Industrial
«93 acres (53») is Parkland
99 acres (6%) is Open Land
210 acres (12%) is Wetlands
10 acres (>1») is Lakes
Note: Orainaye and Sewerage Information for the Individual sites was not
provided in time for inclusion in Report.
r_ . . •„ ^ \ --••"•5?
/V-^"* ~>V"i: <~--'£f "3
a^fe^if^i
A^%«2B3fc
G2-12
G2-13
-------
S3
1-290"
—Main Sl.-
COAL MINE BRK.
MEDICAL SCHOOL
STORM DRAIN
WORCESTER
BELMONT HILL
STORM DRAIN
fit 9
SHREWSBURY
...Rt. 20
fllNT POHO
IRISH DAM
OUWSIGAMONO
RIVER
Oulnilganond Drdnaqo latin
G2-14
Clark St.
Newton Pond
Rte. 70
Boylston ,St.
290
Poor Farm Brook
Eastmountaln St.
Plantation St.
Mohican St.-
Edgewater Ave.
Ridgeland Ave.
Rte 9
SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS
Southmeadow
Brook
Sunderland Rd.
Rte 20
Mass Pike Exit 11
-------
LAKE QUINS1GAHOHD
SAMPLING STATIOUS
Lake Qulnsigamood
STA tl - Lake - 90' «* J»-
SIA 12 - Lake - 60- fXA 112
STA » - Lake - 80' STA 83
STA 04 - Lake - 50' STA 015
STA 55 - Lake - Surface 3 290 Bridge STA 01b-
STA 06 - Lake - Surface 6 Bte. 9 BridBe STA 017-
STA 08 - Fitzgerald Brook - StA 018-
STA 09 - Coalniue Brook &xa •**"
STA 010 - Poor Farm Brook S|IA »zo~
Newton Fond Outlet, •
Laka @ Lincoln SC.
Billings Brook
O'Eara Brook
Medical School Drain
Tilly Brook
Jordan Pond Outlet
Beloonc Street Drain
Channel below Belmont
Street Drain
flint Fond
STA tl - Pond - 3m, 1.5m
STA 02 - Pond - 8 surface
STA S3 - Pond - 4m. 2n
STA ft - Pond - 8 surface
STA 05 - Pond - 6 surface
STA 16 - South Meadow Brook
STA. tl - Inlet from Lake
Qulnalgamond
STA 08 - Outlet of Food 3 Irish
Dam
STA 09 - Bonnie Brook
G2-16
LAKE QUINSIGA210ND HUB? PROJECT
TRIBUTARY WATERSHED SUHVE7S
SAMPLING S1ATIOMS
Poor Farm Brook
STA 01
STA 02
STA S3
STA. 04
STA 05
at staff gaga behind Shrewsbury Industrial Park
at Route 70 bridge
at staff gaga below Clark Street
at East Mountain Street, below golf course
at Hospital Drive (Usst Boylston)
Coalmine Brook
STA 16 t at Lake Avenue at gage
STA 07 : at Plantation Street
STA. 13 I below culvert at llotre Dame convent entrance
STA 09 > confluence with I-290/Llncoln Plaza drain -
Notre Dame property
STA 010: at culvert below 1-290
Fitzgerald Brook
O'Uara Brook
Tilly Brook
STA 011: at staff gage on Lake Aveaue
STA 012: below Coburn Avenue
STA 013: at staff gage oa culvert behind 17 Uhitla Drive
STA 014: West BrooU at Main Street
STA 01S: Outlet of Kill Pond
STA 016: at culvert above Spag's parking lot
STA 017: at staff gage on Hervey Place drain
South Meadow Brook
STA f18:
STA 019:
STA 020:
at Route 9
at Oak Street betwaen Dclphen Ed. and Judlck St.
at staff gage at South Quinslgamond Avenue
G2-17
-------
TlO Poor F*rro ErooV.
\
LI 2 10 Lake Oulnslgaraond
LOS 40 Lake nulnsiganon
1-290
T09 Coalmine Broo
Til Houton Pond Outlet
Main Street
-LO1 90 Lake puinslgamond
T16 Ke-'.lcal School Oral
T19 Belnont Street Drain
RI 9"
T20 Channel below
Biilnnnt Street drain
-L02 60 Lake Ouinsiqamond
.T 17 Tlllt Brook
-L06 10 Lake Ouinslqaraond
, L03 60 Lake Oulnslgamond
TOB Fitzgera'd Brool:
T21 Olr-1 Street 'irrok
_ F07 Inlet from L.Oulnslo-
L04 SO Lat-" pulnsigaroond
T22 Brlddle Path Storm Drain
F05 5 Flint ""ond
T1S O'llara Brook
TIB Jordan Pond Outlet
F03 IS Flint Fond-
H0° nonnln i;rook'
1106 Bouthir.eedou Brook
F02 S Flint Pond
F04 5 Flint PC
FOB Irish Dam O
LAKE QUniSlGAHONB SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS
Lake QuinsIgssiond at Deep Station tl
Lake Qulnsigamond at Deep Station ' 92
Lake Qulnslgamohd at Deep Station J3
Lake Qulnsigamond at Deep Station J4
Lake Qulnslgaiaond above Lincoln Street
Medical School Drain
Channel below Belmont Street Drain
Mouth of Fitzgerald Brook
Mouth of Coalmine Brook
Confluence of Coalmine Brook and 1TDA. culvert
Mouth of Poor Farm Brook
Flint Fond at Station tl
Flint Fond at Station 13
Flint Fond at Station 04
Open water in pond below South Meadow Brook
Bonnie Brook above railroad tracks, below railroad tracks, and at
Creeper Hill Road
LAKE AND TRIBUTARY SAMPLING STATION UTJTIONS
62-18
G2-19
-------
PROBLEM
A. local Definition
During the 1950's, Lake Quinsigamond was by far the most heavily fished
body of water In Massachusetts. During the average opening weekend of
the fishing season the lake supported considerably more angling trips
than that which the majority of Massachusetts' waters supported during
the entire season. The tremendous fishing use of the lake was as a
result of its good water quality and heavy stockings of rainbow, brown
and brook trout by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game,
supplemented by trout purchased with contributions from Interested
parties.
The urbanization of the lake basin resulted In a variety of water pollution
problems becoming-apparent during the 1960's. Fishing use of
Lake Quinsigamond dropped off dramatically as a result of the reduced
water quality and concomitant drastic reduction in the stocking program.
Concern about the deteriorating water quality combined with the tremendous
desire to utilize the recreational assets of the lake produced widespread
concern for the future of Lake Quinsigamond. Consequently, over a several
year period in the late 1960's and early 1970's. investigations of the
water quality of the lake and its feeder streams were undertaken by
state and local agencies, conservation groups, university departments
and private citizens. These efforts were successful in defining the more
conspicuous pollution sources and in providing water quality data.
The point sources of municipal and Industrial pollution were recognized,
and effective abatement measures Implemented. Most significant among
these was the establishment of the Upper Blackstone Water Pollution
Abatement District and construction of its regional treatment plants at
Millbury, discharging to the Blackstone River. This resulted In connec-
tion of most point sources in the Lake Quinslgamond Basin to a system
which conveys the wastes southward and out of the basin. A major point
source in the basin will be eliminated with the completion of a relief
sewer by the City of Worcester.
As a result of the public's continuing concern over Lake Quinsigamond's
water quality, and for the purposes of determining the magnitude of the
nonpoint sources on lake quality in a Massachusetts lake, the Massachusetts
Division of Hater Pollution Control (MDUPC) selected Lake Quinslgamond
for a comprehensive study during 1971. The eight month study included a
regular sampling program of 30 lake and tributary stations, flow measure-
ments of the tributaries, and special studies of photosynthesis, fish
populations dud lake sediments.
The 19/1 study concluded that significant Impact was being caused by
urban runoff entering Lake Quinslgamond. Specific problems cited were
the large quantities of nutrients and suspended solids carried In by
urban runoff plus runoff-induced degradation of the lake's bacteriological
quality. It was further concluded that intensive development of the
drainage basin had accelerated the lake's natural aging process, and could
limit the lake's future recreational value.
G2-20
The findings of the 1971 Lake Study, plus the increasing conspiciousness
of urban runoff as point sources were eliminated, provided the impetus
for additional actions. Beach closures at Regatta Point on the lakeshore
resulted in the construction of an earthen dam by the City of Worcester
to reroute stormwater from Belmont Hill. Worcester also Instituted an
ongoing program, Including television Inspections, to detect illegal
connections to storm sewers, which the City regards as a major problem. A
baseline survey was also conducted in 1977 by MDWPC which indicated that
there were some Improvements In lake water quality. It is believed that
these Improvements are a result of the elimination of various point sources
Pf pollution In the basin.
However, In spite of the abatement of point sources, survey data indicates
that certain pollutional Indices have shown little improvement over the
abatement period. In particular, the trophic status of the lake has, by
certain measures, shown little change. This is thought to be a result of
the urban runoff nutrient and BOD loads, which have replaced the point
source loads as the urbanization and point-source abatement have proceeded
simultaneously. Substantial growth Is projected for the basin, and the
question of what the ultimate Impact will be on the lake Is one of extreme
Importance. Planning for recreational and aesthetic amenities in the
region and public water supply is highly contingent on the answer.
B. Local Perception
The similarity of Lake Quinslgamond to other lakes in Massachusetts, from
a technical standpoint, was a primary consideration in the State's selec-
tion of the project. Massachusetts can be divided into four major
physiographic regions based on Itmnological factors. Lake Quinslgamond
is centrally located in the largest of these regions, termed the acidic
fades of the central and coastal areas. By far the most common type
in the State, this fades Is characterized by low pH, low total hardness,
high iron, and high manganese. The general cause for these characteristics
is the near absence of CaCOa in the rocks arid sediments. Considering that
the majority of the state's 2,859 lakes and ponds lie In these fades, the
regional significance of knowledge gained on lakes of the general limnological
type of Lake Quinslgamond is considerable.
Strong local commitment to Lake Quinsigamond has already been demonstrated
by local expenditures of time and money in efforts to identify and abate
pollution affecting the lake. In addition, the Lake Quinsigamond Commission.
the Lake Quinslgamond Action Force of the Worcester Chamber of Commerce,
and the Regional Environmental Council have all been involved in local and
state efforts to clean up the lake.
G2-21
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Ha Ior Oblecllve
The principle objective of the study is to develop a basin management program.
In conjunction with the ongoing Clean Lakes project, which will result in the
preservation and restoration of Lake Quinsigamond and Its tributary streams,
stressing In particular the water quality impacts of urban stormwater runoff.
Secondary objectives of the study are to develop information on the nature of
urban runoff affecting a major urbanized lake basin. This information Is to
be transferred to other areas with similar problems and to those areas where
It Is still possible to avoid those problems. An additional objective Is to
develop information on stonnwater pollution controls which can transferred to
other areas.
In developing Information on the nature of urban runoff affecting an urbanized
basin, the State feels it's necessary to define the full range of existing and
potential water quality problems caused by stonnwater runoff and to understand
the land use/beneficial use interrelations mediated by stormwater runoff. A
full range of viable stonnwater control alternatives will be defined to develop
a sound basin management program.
B. Methodologies
The Lake Quinsigamond NURP project has been divided Into two distinct phases,
the first of which took place during the first year. The first year effort
was Intended to define the full range of existing and potential water quality
problems in the Lake Quinsigamond basin and to gain a clear understanding of
the pollutant contibutions from different land uses.
Before a sampling methodology was developed, a preliminary assessment of stonnwater
loads was performed using models.
The purpose of the screening was twofold. First, It provided a basis for evaluating
the average annual stormwater pollutant load to the lake and what percentage of the
total annual pollutant load to the lake might be attributed to urban runoff. The
screening also assisted in the selection of stormwater sampling stations.
Using the information developed through the screening methods, a stonnwater
sampling program was Identified. This program was designed to provide sufficient
information on the quality and mass loadings of pollutants discharged to Lake
Quinslyamond to allow correlations to be made between land use, storm events,
and resultant short and long term impacts on lake water quality.
The data collected in the monitoring effort will be input Into the same models
used for that screening effort to come up with a refined set of land use-based
pollutant generation coefficients and an analysis of the Impacts of stonnwater
runoff on lake water quality.
This information on the impacts of stormwater runoff will be combined with the
criteria associated with the water quality goals for the lake to determine the
level of pollutant reduction required of stormwater runoff that will allow the
Lake to meet its assigned water quality classification.
Using other Information on historical rainfall, hydrcloglc design criteria such
as design storm volume, washoff depth, etc. will be established. A range of
control alternatives including structural, non-structural and management controls
capable of meeting the design criteria will be defined. This range of control
alternatives will be used In the development of a stormwater management plan for
the watershed.
C. Monitoring
In order to augment the existing data base and to more clearly establish cause
- effect relationships between wet weather events and in-lake water quality
Impacts on both a short and long-term basis, and expanded sampling program for
the lake and its tributaries was jointly developed by the Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control 314 staff and DEQE/NURP staff. Biweekly sampling was
conducted at all in-lake stations and natural tributaries from the months of April
to November 1980. For the In-lake stations, chemical samples were collected at
the surface, thermocline, 50 feet and bottom Intervals. Dissolved oxygen and
temperature measurements were made at 10 foot intervals in order to determine the
rate of oxygen depletion In the hypolimnlon and further define chemical trans-
formations and trends during the lake's period of stratification. Stage/rating
curves were developed for the major tributaries to the lake. A survey of selected
major tributaries was conducted by the Worcester Department of Public Health and
NURP staff. This program is to aid in characterizing and defining trends In water
quality as they relate to land use and other tributary watershed characteristics
and in establishing water quality baselines for the tributaries. Sampling at
these tributaries was conducted on a monthly basis from September 1980 to July 1981.
Sediment samples were also collected to determine the nutrient and heavy metals
content.
Primary and Secondary Stonnwater Sampling Program
Stormwater sampling sites were located at six primary sites (P1-P6) and nine secondary
sites (S1-S9). Automatic water quality sampling devices and continuous flow recording
devices were located at the primary locations. The secondary locations were selected
for manual sampling and gaging with the exception of Poor Farm Brook (S-9) which had
a continuous flow recording device for part of the sampling period.
The following Is a list of sampling stations. Primary sites are designated by "f".
Designation Location
PI
Storm drain discharge to Jordan
Pond (Shrewsbury at Lakewood
Drive and Edgewood Avenue)
G2-22
G2-23
-------
P2 Rt. 9 manhole (within Regatta Point
fence at Police Station upstream of
Be)wont St. outfalls to the lake.
Worcester side).
P3 Manhole on Locust Ave. (Worcester).
P4 Fitzgerald Brook discharge to the Lake
across from Anna St. (Worcester).
PS Coal Mine Brook at Notre Dante Convent
(Worcester).
P6 Tilly Brook at Harvey Place Manhole
(Shrewsbury).
There are ten secondary stonnwater sampling stations
A. Poor Farm Brook at Rt. 70 F. South Meadow Brook at Oak St.
B. Poor Farm Brook at Mouth G. South Meadow Brook at Mouth
C. Coalmine Brook at NDC H. O'llara Brook at Whitla Ave.
0. Coalmine Brook at Plantation St. I. Billings Brook at N. Quinslgamond
E. Coalmine Brook at Mouth J. Bonnie Brook at Creeper Hill Rd.
Catchment divisions were determined for all sampling locations and for the model
cells which cover the entire watershed. Land uses were assessed for each catchment
division.
Mater quality, flow and rainfall records were collected over a period from June -
to Decanter, 1960. Specific collection schemes were designed to cover various
types of composite and discrete samples.
Equipment
Each primary station was equipped with continuous automatic flow (liquid level)
recording devices. Each site designated as a secondary station had sampling
and flow gaging conducted by manual means.
Water quality samples were taken at the primary stations using Manning automatic
samplers collecting discrete and sequential samples over a specified period of
lime. The sampler used a vacuum pump to minimize agitation of the sample. It
was driven by standard 12 volt batteries. Samplers were set to initiate sampling
at the first significant increase in flow caused by storm runoff.
0. Controls
Several alternative control strategies will be evaluated using modeling techniques.
G2-24
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING
MYSTIC RIVER, WATERSHED, MA
REGION I, EPA
G3-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The Aberjona River Basin Is located to the north of Boston, Massachusetts and
comprises the largest tributary area to the Hystlc River watershed. Aberjona
River empties into the Upper Hystlc Lake which In turn becomes the headwaters
of the Hystlc River. During the two decades from 1950 to 1970 this area under-
went a tremendous urban expansion. Population increased by approximately
sixty percent and the total acreage under some fora of urban land use climbed
to nearly fifty percent of the available land area. Although the pace of
urbanization and population growth has slackened somewhat. It is estimated
that nearly sixty percent of the drainage area to the Upper Mystic Lake will
be developed by the mid 1990's.
At present the water quality conditions throughout the Aberjona River system
and In the Upper Mystic Lake are generally below the standards assigned by
the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control and fall short of the
quality desired by the local populace. As the level of urbanization and the
area population Increase, the demand for Improved water quality conditions
and expanded recreational opportunities will continue to grow. Recent and
on-going efforts at the state and local level have been" directed towards eli-
minating the adverse Impacts of point source discharges and past waste dispoal
practices. The effects of urban runoff on water quality In the study area
have not yet been addressed and remain a major factor prohibiting the full
realization of recreational opportunities within the urban watershed.
A. Area
The Mystic River basin Is located to the north of Boston and covers
approximately 62 square miles. The Upper Mystic Lake Watershed, the
study area, covers 28 square miles In the upper basin. Most of this
area, 25 square miles. Is drained by the Aberjona River and its tri-
butaries; the remaining area drains directly Into the Upper Mystic Lake.
The Upper Mystic Lake Itself has two shallow forebays. 6 to 8 feet in
depth, with a joint surface area of 40 acres, which flow into the main
body which has a surface area of 126 acres and a maximum depth of
approximately 90 feet. The lake Is a major recreational area serving
residents within the watershed and from nearby communities. The Metro-
politan District Commission maintains a swimming facility - "Sandy
Beach" - In the northeastern corner of the main body. There is also
a private swimming facility at the Medford Boat Club near the outlet.
Boating Is also a popular activity. Fishing was enjoyed In the past
but the lake quality Is no longer suitable for game fish.
The Mystic River basin In characterized by long, cold winters and short
to medium length summers with rainy, nun Id, warm periods. Average annual
precipitation Is about forty-three Inches and Is distributed through the
four seasons In approximately equal Increments.
Historical Information Indicates that storms with relatively long duration
and moderate Intensity have more pronounced effects on the Mystic basin
than short duration, high Intensity storms.
B. Population
In 1975, the population of the Upper Mystic Lake Watershed was 640,000.
During the two decades from 1950 to 1970 this area underwent a tremendous
uran expansion. Population Increased by approximately sixty percent and
the total acreage under some form of urban land use climbed to nearly
fifty percent of the available land area. Although the pace of urbanization
and population growth has slackened somewhat. It Is estimated that nearly
sixty percent of the drainage area to the upper Mystic Lake will be develop-
ed by the mid 1990's.
C. Drainage
The Mystic River Basin extends northeast from Boston Harbor and is bordered
on the west by the Shawsheen River Basin, on the north by the Ipswich River
Basin, and on the south by the Charles River Basin. The topography of the
basin, which was formed by the east glacier about ten thousand years ago,
Is predominately rolling hills and flat lands containing swamps, but includes
some steep and rocky areas. Elevations range from sea level to a few hun-
dred feet. Above the Amelia Earhart Dam. the basin encompasses a drainage
area of 61.9 square miles. Including 25 square miles which Is drained by
the Aberjona River.
63-2
63-3
-------
Upper Mystic Basin
The Aberjona River Basin covers the northern hiU of the Mystic Basin and
includes the true source of the Mystic river, although the name 'Mystic* is
not applied to these waters until they pass through the Mystic Lakes. The
Aberjona River has its origins In a marshy area to the north of Reading Center
and then flows in a southerly direction towards Uoburn. After crossing Route
129 in Reading the stream enters a swampy area and emerges as two separate
branches. .These two branches are re-united when the Aberjona is channelized
through the commercial/industrial area currently undergoing re-development
in the vicinity of the Old Mlshauua Lake just north of Route 128.
Halls Brook and its tributary. Willow Brook, rise In marsh land west of the
Aberjona. Halls Brook first flows north until Us confluence with Ml How Brook.
It then turns east-northeast until it reaches New Boston Street In Uoburn. where
it again turns and flows southeast until Its confluence with the Aberjona River.
The drainage area of Halls Brook Is 2.9 square niles of generally mild topo-
graphy with some swampy areas in the upper reaches.
Halls Brook and the Aberjona River formerly flowed into the Mtshawun Lake but
the recent construction In that area has altered that drainage pattern. Mishawuro
Lake has been largely filled and replaced by Halls Brook holding pond; Halls
Brook empties Into this pond. The Aberjona has been routed around this pond
and now joins Halls Brook at the pond outlet lamedlately north of Mishawun
Road.
Below Halls Brook the Aberjona flows south, passes under Route 128 and Olympia
Avenue and then enters a marshy area extending through Cedar Street and down
to Mill Street. This marshy area was formerly a large cranberry bog. The
marsh gives way to a well-defined stream channel and flows past Washington
Street and Hintvale Avenue, shortly after which Sweetwater Brook joins the
river from the east.
Sweetwater Brook, which has a predominantly urban drainage area of 2.3 square
miles, rises in a marshy area adjacent to Main Street in Stonehan. It flows
south for a short distance and then through an underground pipe for about
2000 feet. After leaving the pipe Sweetwater Brook flows southwest In an
open channel until just east of Interstate Route 93. from there the brook is
channeled through a manufacturing area and into the Aberjona River.
Below Sweetwater Brook the Aberjona River continues to the south and enters
Winchester. Throughout the upper part of Winchester, the river flows through
a relatively natural channel past Cross Street. Washington Street, the B&M
railroad and Swanton Street. There is a small pond Immediately upstream from
Cross Street. Downstream of Swanton Street the river travels In an open channel
for a few hundred feet until reaching Winchester High School's athletic field.
Aberjona pond once existed where the athletic field is now. The pond has been
filled and the river flows through three 7-foot diameter pipes beneath the
field. Horn Pond Brook joins the Aberjona River below the athletic field.
Horn Pond Brook has a total drainage area, above Wedge Pond, of 10 square miles.
The outer parts of the Horn Pond Brook watershed are drained by Shaker Glen.
Cununiiiys and Sucker Brooks. Cunnings Brook and Shaker Glen Brook rise in
G3-4
•arshy areas to the north and west of Horn Pond, respectively, darning's Brook
meanders in a southerly direction, while Shaker Glen Brook generally flows
northwest until its confluence with Cunnings Brook to fora Fowle Brook. Fowle
Brook flows due east where It empties Into Horn Pond. Sucker Brook rises to
the south and flows northeast to Horn Pond.
Horn Pond covers « surface area of roughly 120 acres and is used for limited
recreational purposes and as a water supply source for the Town of Uoburn.
In the recent past its capacity was Increased by raising its normal water
surface approxlnately six feet. Horn Pond discharges through a weir structure
into Horn Pond Brook, which then flows in a southeasterly direction through
Wedge Pond to the Aberjona River.
Below Its confluence with Horn Pond Brook, the Aberjona enters Judkins Pond
and Mill Pond In Winchester Center. The outlet of Hill Pond is configured
as a semi-circle step spillway that falls approximately six feet. The river
continues to travel in • southerly direction to the United States Geological
Survey guage located a short distance downstream. An elevation change of
approximately ninety feet is recorded over a distance ilightly more than eight
miles from the headwaters in Reading to Upper Mystic Lake in Winchester. As
the Aberjona River nears the end of its length It makes a final bend to the
west, gaining depth and width as it enters the Upper Mystic Lake.
0. Sewerage System
The upper Mystic Lake watershed is served entirely by separate storm
sewers.
GJ-5
-------
in <
i'
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - EOPA (36* storm drain outfall draining a SO acre
residential area).
A. Area - 50 acres.
B. Population - 240 persons.
C. Drainage - Station Is located at end of 36 Inch reinforced concrete
pipe. The area drained is low density residential. There are
sidewalks, well-groomed lawns, and trees. The land is moderately
sloped towards the monitoring station and the streets are relatively
clean.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 70X separate storm sewers
and 20% curbs and gutters. SOX of this area has swales and ditches.
30X Is not separately sewered. There are no combined sewers In the
area. Streets consist of 2.5 miles of asphalt.
E. Land Use
50 acres (100X) is .5 to 2 dwelling units/acre.
8 acres (16X) Is Impervious.
II. Catchment Name - EOPB (manhole installation in 30* pipe draining an
18 acre office park).
A. Area - 18 acres
B. Population - 0 persons live in the catchment
C. Drainage - Station is located at end of 30 inch reinforced concrete
pipe draining an 18 acre office park. There are well-groomed lawns,
shrubs, and trees throughout the park. Basin has relatively steep
slope towards station.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment Is 1M separate storm sewers
and 30* with no sewers. There are no combined sewers in the area.
Streets consist of 2.5 miles of asphalt.
E. Land Use
18 acres (100X) is light industrial.
12.5 acres (69X) Is impervious.
G3-7
63-6
-------
63-9
MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED
O End of pipe
£ In-stream
O Rainfall
recorder
-------
UPPER
MYSTIC
LAKE
UPPER BASIN
IOWEK
BASIN
ARLINGTON
Oo» fim OWPC 1981
Uuppvdby Ollie. ol Fvrong 0 Pio?om K
feel •* Erwuarawi*
G3-10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
The project was designed to build upon the existing data base to fully
define the urban runoff problem In the Mystic River Basin and work
towards Us solution.
The major objectives are to Identify the characteristics of urban runoff
and their Impacts on receiving water quality In the Aberjona River and
Upper Mystic Lake and to recommend control strategies and management prac-
tices needed for restoration of the Upper Mystic Lake.
There are several Intermediate objectives. These are to assess the relative
Importance of pollutants carried by urban runoff in relation to other
pollution sources, to evaluate the costs, effectiveness and practicality of
various procedures suggested as a means of improving the receiving water
quality, and to Illustrate how the data collected and the knowledge gained
In this effort can be applied to urban runoff problems in other areas of
the region and nation.
B. Methodologies
To fulfill the goals outlined for the program, the hydrologlc system was
broken down into several similar subsystems for analysis, namely: precipi-
tation, pollutant generation, stream transport, and lake processes.
Precipitation Is the basic driving for runoff, infiltration and stresnflow.
The statistical characteristics of the long-term observed precipitation at
local gauges were determined describing storm depth duration and intensity
and the Interval between storms, using a rainfall simulation logarithm.
This Information Is used as rainfall Input data for the runoff simulation
model discussed below.
The pollutant generation subsystem uses the STORM model to represent the
accumulation, washoff, and transport of pollutant species from the land
surface of the study area to the Aberjona River and Its major tributaries.
The Upper Mystic Lake watershed was divided into eight sub-basins for
analysis with the contibutlng acreage defined in terras of five land use
categories. The results of the STORM simulation give a long-term record
of flow and pollutant load Into the Aberjona River from the various sub-
basins.
During the stream transport component of the analysis the existing and
potential wet weather pollution problems are Identified with the urban
runoff contribution to these problems separated from other factors.
To accomplish this the RWQM is being applied to the Aberjona River with
the 6 mile system divided Into 12 reaches. A number of pollutants are
being simulated, including BOD. NBOD. 0.0., phosphorus and coliform. The
results of this simulation can be expressed as loadings to the Upper Mystic
Lake. RHQM will also be used to evauate a number of control options.
G3-11
-------
lite objectives of the lake processes component are:
1) to Increase understanding of the chemical, physical and biological
processes which control water quality conditions in the Upper Mystic
Lake (UML), relating those conditions to water uses of concern;
2) to assess the contribution of urban runoff relative to other sources;
and
3) to predict lake quality response to various control options.
The analysis Includes a number of key factors including: hydraulic flushing
rates and retention time; in-lake circulation patterns; relative thermal
resistence to nixing; oxygen distribution and depletion; In-lake pollutant
cycling; trophic state; buffering capacity; population dynamics, and;
bacteriology.
The analysis will compare wet-weather response conditions to baseline or
dry-weather conditions. Lake conditions that can be controlled through
application of urban runoff and lake restoration practices are being
determined.
C. Monitoring
Wet-weather sampling at end of pipe and instream stations was conducted by
the selected consultant. The existing sampling programs of the Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering and the Metropolitan District Commission
were modified to meet the project needs.
The end of pipes sites represent major land use types In the watershed. The
instrean sites segment the Aberjona into subbasins for the runoff nodel and
reaches for the river quality. The sites for In-lake sampling are shown
on Figure 2. Precipitation is being monitored at four sites.
The sampling program on the lake includes wet weather physical/chemical
sampling 24, 48 and 72 hours after the end of the storm event, dry weather
physical/chemical sampling, circulation studies, benthic sampling, phyto-
plankton and zooplankton surveys, fish population surveys, and fish flesh.
The lake sampling program includes 5 inlake stations and two tributary
stations. The Inlake sites are located between the forebays and main
basin, at the beach, at the deephole and at the outlet and are designed to
track water quality conditions throughout the system.
The data collection strategy for the end of pipe and instream sites is
presented in Table 2.
Equipment
Precipitation is being monitored using Weather Measure, Inc. P521 event
recorders, P501-I tipping ticket bucket rain gauges and Balfour gauges.
Al the end of pipe and Instrean stations, permanent installations are
maintained consisting of Manning S4040-2 discrete samplers and Manning
uj*ras?n!c l(*el recorders. Lake samples -ere taken manually
at various time intervals using a Keoraerer sampler. In the shallow
upper portions of the Upper Hystic Lake where maxlmin depths are less
thSMk. !£• ST fJl-ere u«sn fro° **depths- In the o«ln bod* °f
the lake, where depths up to 82 feet nay be encountered, sanples were
taken at three depths in five locations.
0. Control
Evaluation of control technologies and nanagement strategies will be
carried out using the sane package of simulation nodels as described
above.
G3-12
G3-13
-------
PROBLEM
TABLE 1: Sampling Strategy Summary •
Site
(OP A
FOP e
IS 1
Description
36' storm driln outdl 1
draining 1 SO acre
residential area
outfall installation In
30* P'pe draining an 13
acre office park
Aberjona River at Nishawua
Rd. with an upstren drain-
age area of 4,157 acres
•Men lulatei the impacts
Of pot Industrial waste
disposal practices In the
upper basin
Equipment
flow: automatic liquid
le
-------
The 208 program, undertaken by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(HAPC). investigated storm-related (combined sewer overlfows and urban
runoff) water quality problems in the Mystic River Basin. Under this
effort, the stormwater collection systems In the Mystic Basin communities
were inventoried and mapped. An attempt was then made to quantify the
water quality impacts of these collection systems in order to Identify
the most significant systems and discharges.
The OUPC completed wet-weather surveys In the fall of 1977. Data were
collected on six stations In the basin, 5 of which were storm drains and
1 was a combined sewer overflow, for the first four hours of a storm.
The Upper Mystic Lake has also been studied In detail. In 1974-1975. the
OUPC conducted a one-year intensive study of the Upper Mystic Lake with
monthly samplings at its Inlets, deep hole, and outlet. The study focused
on the limnology of the lake and the causes of Its eutrophic state.
The above survey Is indicative of the importance of this urban watershed
and of the attention that has been directed towards various water resource
problems in the Aberjona River and Upper Mystic Lake watersheds.
GJ-16
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
REGION I, EPA
G4-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Groundwater is the sole source of fresh water for the more than 2.7 million
residents of Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, N.Y. (Figure 1).
Under natural conditions, the groundwater reservior 1s recharged only by
local precipitation seeping from the land surface to the water table. Since
the 1920's, when Nassau County began to experience rapid urbanization, the
construction of highways and parkways, houses, shopping centers, industrial
parks, and street and sidewalks in areas that had been farmland has contin-
uously reduced the amount of land surface through which precipitation can
infiltrate to the water table. After urbanization, storm runoff from the
paved surfaces was carried to coastal waters through storm sewers, which
resulted in a substantial loss of recharge to the groundwater resevoir.
Ulicn Nassau County recognized that natural recharge was being lost, it began,
In 1935, to excavate large basins to impound stormwater so that the water
could infiltrate to the groundwater reservoir through the permeable sand and
gravel beds that underlie Long Island. The use of stormwater basins not only
helped to conserve storm runoff and to augment the groundwater supply, but
also eliminated the need for long, costly trunk storm sewers to carry runoff
to coastal waters. The concept was adopted throughout Suffolk County some
years later. In spite of these efforts, there remain significant areas not
served by recharge basins, and, therefore, relatively large quantities of
runoff are still discharged to bays.
Investigations of the results of stormwater runoff management practices con-
ducted during the Long Island 208 Study identified major deleterious effects
of runoff upon surface waters and possible significant impacts upon ground-
water. With respect to surface waters, the major concerns are the potential
impacts upon use of the embayments for contact recreation, a use presently
widespread, and both existing and future closures of shellfish areas for
health reasons. With respect to groundwater, a major concern is the suspected
organic chemical contamination of the drinking water supply from runoff.
G4-2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
Long Island, the eastern-most part of New York State, extends east-
northeastward roughly parallel to the coastline. The study area, Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, is bounded on the narth by Long Island sound, on the east
and south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by Queens County which is
one of the five boroughs of New York City (Figure 1). The primary land use
is residential but significant portions of the two counties is given to in-
dustrial and commercial uses. Farming is also a major land use, particularly
In the central and eastern sections of Suffolk County. The Inland fresh
waters, particularly In Suffolk County, have an abundance of trout and other
Important sport fish. Estuarine marshes and the off-shore waters abound In
a variety of shell- and finflsh.
B. Population
Nassau and Suffolk Counties occupy one-sixth of the land area of the New York
Metropolitan Region, and have been two of the fastest growing counties in the
United States since the end of World Mar II. In 1960, the combined Nassau
and Suffolk population of two million persons was one-eighth of the total
Regional population of sixteen million. The present population of the bi-
county area is in excess of 2.7 million people.
C. Drainage
Long Island is underlain by a thick southward-dipping wedge of rock materials
that consist mainly of sand, silt, clay, and gravel. These loose materials
are underlain by dense crystalline bedrock that does not store or transmit
significant quantities of water. The groundwater reservoir Is within the
loose (unconsolidated) materials above bedrock and ranges in thickness from
zero to northern Queens County, were bedrock is exposed to more than 2,000 feet
in south-central Suffolk County. Of the total precipitation on the island
(which averages about 44 Inches per year), approximately half or 600 million
gallons per day recharges the groundwater reservoir In Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. Natural runoff discharged to surface waters accounts for only
5-10 percent of the precipitation, but in urbanized areas of the two counties
runoff is much greater. As a result of the topography, all the southward
flowing streams have gentle gradients that average about 10 feet per mile
throughout most of their reaches. The northward flowing streams generally
have steeper gradients that average about 20-40 feet per mile.
D. Sewerage System
Because of differences in the degree of development in the two counties, and
the Inherently fixed nature of the existing Nassau system, treatment emphasis
differs not only by the hydrogeologlc zone but also by administrative area.
In Nassau, the major options concern treatment plant locations and effluent
disposal; in Suffolk, the major options concern an Identification of those
G4-3
-------
areas that should be sewered as well as the siting of treatment facilities
and effluent discharges.
In addition, Nassau and Suffolk are discussed separately because their munic-
ipal wastewater treatment needs differ. Nassau County Is highly developed;
according to the 208 population estimates, the county population Is approxi-
mately 96 percent of saturation or zoned capacity, and is projected to reach
98 percent by the year 1995. Suffolk's population, on the other hand, is
currently at 52 percent of saturation and'is expected to Increase to 71 per-
cent by 1995. Nassau County has 23 existing domestic wastewater treatment
facilities, and major new construction is not anticipated except where'
expansion and upgrading of existing facilities Is necessary. Suffolk County
has 105 small domestic treatment facilities in operation, and one major facil-
ity (30 MGD) under construction. Nassau's domestic treatment facilities are
generally large scale, treating up to 60 million gallons per day (MGD), but a
typical Suffolk County domestic wastewater treatment plant treats less than
one MGD, with the largest treating only approximately two MGD.
Surface water quality considerations also dictate different approaches in the
61-county Region. Marine water quality in Nassau County and western Suffolk
is Influenced by the effects of New York City discharge. In eastern Suffolk,
agricultural uses impact river and bay quality. A final reason for separate
consideration of the two counties concerns their degree of urbanization:
Nassau and western Suffolk Counties are highly urbanized, while eastern
Suffolk is essentially rural and agricultural In nature.
G4-4
teff. vV;'^-1. Kti
" v^"-VH>-i' / L!r4 -'
. fkv 75 • /, vo
« '>TOf^>4'X i y
1 X^jii^iHl
V"SV V ?
I 03330
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Bayville (Perry Ave.)
A. Area - 65.6 acres.
B. Population - 612 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
40 feet/mile, 50% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 40 feet/mile slope and extend 3500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
Streets consist of 3.9 lane-miles of asphalt,.60% of which is in
good condition and 40% of which is in fair condition.
E. Land Use
65.6 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban resi-
dential of which 9.8 acres (15%) is impervious.
II. Catchment Name - Unqua Pond (Massapequa)
A. Area - 298.5 acres.
B. Population - 9492 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
20 feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 20 feet/mile slope and extend 2800 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 000% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 46.6 lane-miles of asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition, and 3 lane-miles of concrete, of which 100% is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
253 acres (85%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban resi-
dential, of which 40 acres (16%) is impervious.
15 acres (5%) is Shopping Center of which 14 acres (93%) is
impervious.
30 acres (10%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space of which 4 acres (13%)
is impervious.
G4-6
III. Catchment Name - Carl Is River Street Sweeping
A. Area - 73 acres.
B. Population - 939 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
1.7 feet/mile, 81% served with curbs and gutters. The channel
approximates a 1.7 feet/mile slope and extends 4725 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 1002 separate storm
sewers.
Streets.consist of 9.5 lane-miles of asphalt. 902 of which Is in
good condition, 7% of which is In fair condition, and 3% of which
Is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
73 acres (100%) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residen-
tial, of-which 14.5 acres (202) is Impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - Carlls River Street Sweeping Control
A. Area - 64 acres.
B. Population - 925 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
1.7 feet/mile, 93% served with curbs and gutters. The channel
approximates a 1.9 feet/mile slope and extends 2775 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 7.98 lane-miles of asphalt, 90% of which is In
good condition, 7% of which is in fair condition, and 3% of which
Is in poor condition.
E. Land Use
64 acres (1002) is 2.5 to '8 dwelling units per acre urban resi-
dential, of which 13 acres (20%) Is impervious.
V. Catchment Name - Orowoc Creek
A. Area - 188 acres.
B. Population - 2,260 persons
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
22 feet/mile, 852 served with curbs and gutters. The channel
approximates a 22 feet/mile slope and extends 1,700 feet.
64-7
-------
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 16.45 lane-miles of asphalt, 86% of which is in
good condition, 102 of which is fair condition, and 4% of which is
in poor condition.
E. Land Use - 154 acres (82%) is 2.5 to e dwelling units p?r acre urban residential,
14 acres (8%) is urban institutional, and 18 acres (10%) «; the stream channel.
26.3 acres (14%) is Impervious.
VI. Catchment Name - lluntington (Parking Lot)
A. Area - 39.19 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
84.5 feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm
sewers approximate a 58 feet/mile slope and extend 1400 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 27 lane-miles of asphalt of which 100% is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
39.19 acres (100%) is Shopping Center, of which 39.19 acres (100%)
is impervious.
VII. Catchment Name - Plainview (Highway)
A. Area - 190 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
119 feet/mile, 85% served with curbs and gutters and 15% served
with swales and ditches. The channel approximates a 206 feet/mile
slope and extends 2500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Street consist of .9 lane-miles of asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition, and 1.5 lane-miles of concrete, of which 1007, is
In good condition.
E. Land Use
178.1 acres (94%) is urban parkland or open space.
11.9 acres (6%) Is Urban (other), of which 11.9 acres (100%) is
impervious.
G4-8
VIII. Catchment Name - Syosset (Medium Density Residential)
A. Area - 28.2 acres.
B. Population - 238 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
42.6 feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm
sewers approximate a 42 feet/mile slope and extend 2100 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 2.45 lane-miles of asphalt, 100% of which is In
good condition.
E. Land Use
28.2 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban resi-
dential, of which 4.5 acres (15%) is impervious.
IX. Catchment Name - Laurel Hollow (Low Density Residential)
A. Area - 100 acres.
B. Population - 117 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
519 feet/mile, 56% served with curbs and gutters and 44% served
with swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 275 feet/
mile slope and extend 2300 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 3.2 lane/miles of asphalt, 100% of which Is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
100 acres (100%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban resi-
• dential, of which 4.7 acres (4.7%) is impervious.
X. Catchment Name - Centereach
A. Area - 553 acres (But actual drainage area = 3.2 acres - see
attached note.)
B. Population - 0 In actual drainage area (see attached note.)
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of
53 feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm
G4-9
-------
sewers (main drainage channel) approximates a 74 feet/mile slope and
extend 2400 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 2.2 lane-miles of asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
543 acres (98.2%) is medium-density residential.
10 acres (1.8%) is urban commercial (linear strip commercial develop-
ment), of which 3.2 acres (0.6%) is impervious.
Note: Centereach Basin
The topographic drainage area surrounding the Centereach Basin is
553 acres, most of which is medium-density residnetial. The actual
area draining into the basin, however, is only a portion of the
state road (Route 25 - Middle Country Road) that passes through the
strip commercial portion of the area. The shopping areas on both
sides of the highways have their own individual drainage systems and
the residential areas drain into other basins. The basin being
tested is a state-owned basin that only drains that portion of the
state-owned highway passing through the area (3.2 acres). Thus,
some of the data presented in part (X) might appear somewhat
confusing.
G4-10
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
The Long Island 208 Study Indicated that stormwater runoff Is the major source
of bacterial loading to the marine waters of the area, and may contribute
significant quantities of pollutants to the groundwater reservoir through
stormwater recharge basins.
The groundwater reservoir has been designated the "sole-source aquifer" for
water supply In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and the embayments of the area
are used for contact recreation, and are the major source of hard-shell clams
(Hercenaria mercenarla) In the United States.
In most areas of the region, runoff was found to contribute greater than
95 percent of the annual bacterial loading to the bays. Since It Is the pre-
dominant source of colifonn bacteria, stormwater runoff Is very likely respon-
sible for much of the shellfish area closures on Long Island, and also
threatens many bathing beaches. Surface water quality standards for several
bays cannot be consistently attained until the pollutant loading from storm-
water runoff 1s controlled.
Large quantities of pollutants in runoff are known to enter stormwater basins,*
which recharge an estimated 10% of all runoff on Long Island. Little Is known,
however, about the composition and quantity of pollutants that reach the water
table after basin storage and exfiltratlon, or the effect of the soil cover
of a basin on the quality of percolate. The 208 study seemed to indicate that
urban runoff is a significant source of inorganic chemicals, organic matter
and sediment, and may also be a significant source of organic chemclals.
New York State's concern was clearly indicated In Its New York State Mater
Quality Management Plan, which Identified urban stormwater management problems.
In particular, runoff problems on Long Island were Identified as requiring
special attention. The State plan recommended additional monitoring, research,
and assessment in order to provide a better understanding of nonpolnt pollution
generation and transport, and a stronger technical basis for identifying and
solving runoff problems.
Stormwater recharge basins on Long Island are open pits of various shapes
and sizes excavated in moderately to highly permeable sand and gravel
deposites of glacial origin. Basins range from 0.1 to 30 acres in area
and average 1 acre. Basin depth average 10 feet, but some are deep as
40 feet. More of the water delivered to the basins consists of storm
runoff from residential. Industrial, and commercial areas and from high-
ways. In 1978, more than 3,000 stormwater basins were In use in Nassau
and Suffolk counties.
G4-U
-------
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
The forced closing of shellfish beds and occasional beach closings for health
reasons have caused stonns of protest at the time the actions were taken.
There 1s contlning concern about shellfish bed closures among both commercial
and recreational fishermen, and among all citizens who regularly use the
embayments for contact recreation - boating, water skiing and swimming - as
well, for they rightfully see the shellfish restrictions as a sign of declin-
ing water quality which, If allowed to continue, will sooner or later inter-
fere with other uses of the waters. However, these protests tend to be
triggered by specific events and ebb and flow with particular crisis in water
quality. The relationship of stormwater runoff to these highly visible crisis
is complex and requires a technical sophistication only a few random citizens-
in-the-street possess. The connection between pollutants In stormwater runoff
and contamination via recharge basins of the aquifers which provide drinking
water supply is even less visible and more complex technically.
As a result, the problem of controlling pollution from stormwater runoff is
not one which has received a lot of Independent, self-generated action, or
even attention, from the public. However, public participation and education
efforts under the original 208 Study were quite effective In alerting both
community leaders and Interested members of the general publich to the poten-
tial dangers of stonnwater runoff. Consequently there Is growing concern
for the need to control stormwater, resulting 1n a very active publich advi-
sory group for NURP and a high degree of citizen Interest In the results.
G4-1Z
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
This project comprises sampling programs conducted at nine representative
sites to monitor the impact of different land uses upon storrawater runoff
loads, and to evaluate the effects of management practices on receiving water
quality. Specifically, the project was designed to accomplish the following
objectives:
1. Groundwater:
• to determine the types and quantities of pollutants 1n runoff
entering recharge basins (5 sites) and in percolating runoff
entering the groundwater reservoir beneath basins;
• to evaluate the effects, If any, of the soil cover of recharge
basins and basin management practices on the quality of preco-
lating runoff;
2. Surface Waters:
• to identify the sources, concentrations and loadings for other
. pollutants in addition to coliform bacteria and nutrients;
• to determine the practicality and cost-effectiveness of measures
proposed for the control and/or treatment of urban runoff;
• to develop a stormwater management plan incorporating these
measures to guide local municipalities.
B. Methodologies
The overall program is being coordinated through the local 208 Agency (LIRPli)
as a cooperative effort of the local office of the United States Geological
Survey and the staffs of agencies represented on the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). The TAC is comprised of the Nassau Departments of Health,
Publich Works and Planning, and the Suffolk County Hater Authority and
Department of Health Services.
Nassau County Is evaluating control measures at two sites. The runoff
generated along Perry Avenue, Bayvllle was previously uncontrolled and
flowed overland, south along Perry Avenue, directly Into Hill Neck Creek,
contiguous "to a bathing beach. The majority of Hill Neck Creek had been
closed to shell fishing due primarily to stonnwater runoff bacteria loadings.
The method of control being evaluated in this drainage basin utilizes an
inline storage and leaching system, consisting of a series of perforated
catch basins, overflow leaching pools and perforated pipe. Flow measurement
data and samples will be collected from three locations: (1) in-flow Into
a catch basin, (2) in-flow Into overflow leaching pool (effluent of catch
basin), and (3) over-flow from whole sewerage system into a discharge outfall.
G4-13
-------
At Unqua Pond, Massapcqua, the control measure to be evaluated is settling
and sedimentation in a natural impoundment. Samples and flow measurements
will be obtained immediately upstream of the pond and at the spillway dis-
charging to the marine waters.
The Suffolk County Department of Health Services is sampling stonnwater run-
off pollution mitigation measures: (1) street cleaning; (2) energy dissipa-
tion at the discharge of a storm sewer to maximize overland runoff and the
pollutant removal capabilities of wetlands; and, (3) the pollutant filtering
potential of dried up portions of stream beds. Two of the sites are located
on Carlls River, which is the freshwater stream with the greatest base flow
discharging to western Great South Bay. The third site is located on Orowoc
Creek in South Brentwood, Town of Islip. Baseline data has been collected
at the Carlls River sites to establish pre-control pollutant levels. Sam-
pling at the Orowoc Creek site will begin in the spring.
The five remaining sites are all recharge basins draining various land uses
and will be monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey. At all sites there will
be monitoring of the inflow pipe, precipitation and a water-table well to
measure water-level changes and the quality of percolating runoff. In one
basin there is no existing vegetal cover on the basin floor. In three basins
no maintenance is carried out. The fifth basin has an impervious liner and,
therefore, contains standing water at all times.
Using the data generated at the nine control sites, the regional effective-
ness of the various control schemes will be evaluated by means of the dynamic
mathematical models which were developed during the initial 208 study.
Using information derived from the evaluation phase, and land-use information
from the 208 program, suggested stormwater runoff control procedures will be
developed for use by local agencies. The procedures will incorporate the
most cost-effective structural and non-structural controls for the area.
They will be developed as a regional approach to urban runoff control and
will have implementation geared to various localities on Long Island and to
similar areas-of the country elsewhere with specific instructions for manage-
ment, operation and maintenance of the proposed systems. Requirements for
implementation will also be included. The legislative, institutional, fiscal,
and administration needs will be addressed.
The Bayville site (figure 3), which is located along Perry Avenue between
Bayville Avenue and Creek Road, is in part situated on a steep grade which
is topographically representative of the north shore of Long Island. The
land use in this drainage basin is essentially all medium density residential,
consisting primarily of single family dwellings on 60' x 100* plots, which
Is typical of development in Nassau County. Automatic sampling and flow
measuring devices will be used for sample collection and flow measurement
at each of the three sampling points with the equipment located either in the
catch basin or overflow leaching pool structures. Bacteriological samples
will be collected manually. Precipitation is measured by a recording gauge,
installed on the roof of the Bayville Village Hall. Unqua Pond, (Figure 4)
is located between Sunrise Highway and (derrick Road, adjacent to Marjorie
Post Park. The drainage area contiguous to Unqua Pond 1s gently sloped and
topographically representative of the south shore of Long Island. The land
use in this drainage basin is primarily medium density residential, but the
pond also receives runoff from Sunrise Highway, which Is a major east-west
thoroughfare, from a commercial shopping center and from the adjacent park
land. Most of the stormwater discharge in this basin is diverted into
Unqua Pond and subsequently into South Oyster Bay. Portions of South Oyster
Bay adjacent to the shoreline are presently closed to shellfishing, primarily
due to the bacteria loadings from stonnwater runoff. Although there are a
number of ponds located along the south shore of Nassau County, Unqua was
selected for three reasons: (1) relatively deep (3 to 5 ft) as compared to
most ponds, which are shallow (1 to 3 ft), (2) only one direct discharge
into the pond in addition to the primary stream inflow, (3) easy accessibility
to the Inflow and outflow sampling locations. Essentially all sampling will
be conducted manually since the pond system ts unsecured and subject to
vandalism. Automatic samplers may be used once on site, but bacteriological
samples must be collected manually. Precipitation Is measured by a recording
gauge set up on the roof of the Marjorie Post Park Administration building,
located at the southern end of the drainage area.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services is studying three surface water
Sites, as follows: Two sites are located on the Carlls River and are being used
to test the effectiveness of street sweeping. The sweeping is being conducted
at site (1) Centra) Avenue, which has a drainage area of approximately 73 acres
Medium-density residential land use. Streamflow gauging and water quality sam-
pling are carried out at a location in the stream channel downstream of the dis-
charge points of the two 48" diameter and one 24" diameter storm sewers.
Site (2), located on the west branch of the Carlls River, and a few thousand
feet north of Belmont Lake, will be used as a control on the street sweeping
evaluation at Central Avenue. The site has a 48" diameter storm sewer col-
lecting runoff from a drainage area of approximately 64 acres of medium density
residential land use along Westview Avenue and West 24th Street. Flow measure-
ment and water quality sampling are done at the pipe discharge, and in the stream
channel upstream and downstream from the pipe. Precipitation is measured by a
recording gage located at Belmont Park Headquarters and by manual gages set up
at the sites by sampling crews.
G4-14
G.4-15
-------
"f-
0,v ri«V. -'.-I ' .,
=«h q*«S--'%Ji^s«5C
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDAUY.
i- 1 'Vj^J'- \y- ^-f"- * ' ^^^^ t ' 3 *^^_ ^^ «rry to*"- •• r r^ b'X X. • ?
i^y^^S^^^
Site (3) Is at a trapezoidal shaped recharge basin just to the north of the
Southern State Parkway in South Brentwood, Islip town, located on the service
road to the parkway. The basin is approximately 450' long and 300' wide at
its longest and widest points. There is a storm drain draining a small
residential area that discharges into the east side of the basin, roughly
200' downstream from the stream influent point at the northern end of the
basin. A low (8"-10" high) concrete wall at the end of the 10' long concrete
apron to the storm drain, which has been in place for at least 15 years,
acts as a working, effective energy disslpator. The basin and stream channel
upstream are heavily overgrown with wetlands vegetation and, hence, provide
an effective site for wetlands treatment. Upstream of the recharge basin,
the channel is dry for much of the year and resembles the conditions predicted
in the Suffolk County Flow Augmentation Heeds Study (FANS) for streams with-
out augmentation.
The parameters analyzed in samples from the above sites include: TKN, NH3-N,
HOz-N, TOC, COD, TSS, Chloride, BOD,. Total Conforms, Fecal Conforms, Fecal
Strep, lead, chromium, cadimiurn, zinc, copper. Iron, and mangenese.
The five recharge basins being monitored by U.S.G.S. are as follows:
site shown in Figure 6):
(Sample
T.N-I.I.XE STORAGE SYSTEM
["PERRY AVE. DAYVTI,LE J
Laurel Hollow is.located at the intersection of Cove Road and Moore's
Hill Road in Laurel Hollow, N.Y;, This basin drains a 100-acre area
of recently-constructed, medium-density housing. Some construction
was still going on in 1979. The basin is three acres in area and
trapezoidal In shape. The basin floor is approximately 14 feet below
land surface.
The Plain view basin, also known as Hew York State Department of
Transportation Highway Basin 66, Is located at the Intersection of
Mashington Avenue and Executive Drive in PTainvlew, N.Y. This
basin receives runoff from the Long Island Expressway, its service
road, and a small number of local streets - a total of 7,000 feet
of roads, or approximately eight acres of impervious surface area.
The basin is approximately two acres in size and square In shape.
The basin floor is 40 feet below land surface.
The Syosset stormwater recharge basin is located at Cary Street in
Syosset, N.Y. This basin Is also known as Nassau County Storm Water
Basin 377. This basin drains a 28.2-acre high-density residential
area. Housing construction in this area was completed in 1957. The
basin Itself is one acre In size and triangular In shape; its bottom
is 14 feet below land surface.
The Huntington stormwater recharge basin is located at Halt Whitman
Shopping Center on Route 110 at South Huntington, N.Y. This basin
64-16
G4-17
-------
drains the north half of the shopping center which includes approxi-
mately 39 acres of paved parking and roof area. This basin is clogged,
but storm water can exfiltrate the walls above the clogging layer.
The number of shopping center basins is small (less than 50), but
the large volume of man-made organic compounds that enter these
basins may have a disproportionately large Impact on the quality
of ground water.
The Centereach stonnwater recharge basin is located near the north-
west corner of the intersection of Oak Street and Middle Country Road
(N.V. Route 25) in Centereach. This basin drains Middle Country Road
and the commercial areas on both sides of the road. This basin is
different from the other four in that it has a liner, which causes
it to retain a pre-determined volume of water. Excess stonnwater is
recharged to the ground water via an overflow pipe connected to a
leaching field.
In all five basins, flow measurement data, water-quality samples and micro-
biological samples will be collected at the inflow pipes. A watertable well
will be placed in each basin to monitor water-level changes and the quality
of percolating runoff. A rain gage will be placed in each basin to record
rainfall input.
Equipment
Equipment
8 of Pieces Manufacturer
I. NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Automatic Re-
cording Rain
gauge
Manual Rain
Guage (dip-
stick type)
Flow Meter
Portable
Flow Meter
Manual Flow
Gauge-Staff
Gauges
Automatic
Water
Sampler
2 Weather Measure
2 Bel fort
3 Marsh-McBirney
1 Marsh-HcBirney
2
3 I SCO
Model i
P501-1
Site
Bayville,
Massapequa
U.S. Weather Bayville,
Bureau- Spec- Massapequa
ification
#4502301
VMFM 265
201
2100
Bayville,
Massapequa
Bayville,
Massapequa
Massapequa
Bayville,
Massapequa
G4-18
Equipment t of Pieces Manufacturer Model t
11. SUFFOLK COUNTY-DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Flow Meter 3 Harsh-HcBirney VMFS 265
Conductivity
Meter
Cone Sample
Splitter
pll Meter
or
pll Meter
D. 0. Meter
Temperature
Standard 8" Dia-
meter Manual
Rain Gage*
Tipping
Bucket Rain
Gage*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
III. U. S. GEOLOGICAL
Automatic
Sampler
Velocity
Modified
l;low Meter
Minigraph
Event
Recorder
Tipping Bucket
Rain Gage
w/Recorder
Atmospheric
Deposition
Water-Level
Recorder
4
5
4
4
2
4
Horizon Ecology
Company
Leonard Hold &
Die
Horizon Ecology
Company
Leeds & Northrup
Yellow Springs
Instruments
Science Associates
Weather Measure
Corporation
SURVEY
Manning
March-McBirney
Esterline Angus
Leupold & Stevens
N-Con
Leupold & Stevens
1484-10
-
5995
7417-L2
57
S-6000
250
none
7012
none
Type F
Site
CarlIs River-Energy
Dissipation
Sampling Vehicle
Sampling Vehicle
Sampling Vehicle
Sampling Vehicle
Carl Is River-Energy
Dissipation
Level area at
Sampling site
Belmont Lake State
Park Headquarters
Five basins, four
instrumented at any
given time
Five basins, four
instrumented at any
given time
Five basins, four
instrumented at any
given time
On-site at Hunting-
ton Laurel Hollow,
Plainview Syosset -
rear of USGS off.
Huntington Basin
Platnview Health
Center
Five basins, four
Instrumented at any
given time
64-19
-------
Controls
The in-line storage system In Bayville, Hew York, consists of a series of
leaching-type catch basins and leaching pools connected with perforated
reinforced concrete pipe. The catch basins are located strategically along
Perry Avenue for collection of runoff from storm event. Any overflow from
the basins enter perforated pipes (v/here some leaching also occurs) that
allow the stormwater to flow from one leaching pool to the next as each fills.
If the storm runoff Is of sufficient volume to fill all the leaching catch
basins and pools, then the excess volume will flow into Hill Neck Creek.
Figure 7 shows cross sectional views of a typical leaching pool, leaching-
type catch basin, and perforated pipe. The design capacity of this stream
will theoretically retain a one-in./24-hour storm before there Is any over-
flow and discharge to the marine waters. This design is Intended to capture
and retain the stormwater generated from approximately 851 of the rainfall
events 1n the Long Island area.
Unqua Pond Is located In the Village of Massapequa between Sunrise Highway
and derrick Road adjacent to Marjorle Post Park. The pond Is relatively
deep (3 to 5 ft) compared to most ponds on Long Island, which are shallow
(1 to 3 ft) Unqua Pond has one stream Influent and effluent, but it also
receives urban runoff from a small stormwater drainage system discharge.
Natural sedimentation on detention are the processes that are being evaluated
by this control measure. The site Is currently a control measure as It exists,
and the only changes that will occur are the installation of monitoring equip-
ment. Ducks and geese located on and around the pond contribute significant
quantities of nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, and bacteria to the pond.
Feeding of the ducks and geese by people in the area tends to increase their
population around the pond, thus contributing to more pollution.
For the Carlls River street cleaning site, existing Elgin Pelican street
cleaning equipment will be used. This equipment will be operated In accord-
ance with a predetermined operation schedule. At present, this area has a
typical street cleaning frequency of five times per year. During the HURP
study, the same mode of operation and piece of equipment should be used to
control the number of variables to be considered when evaluating the results
of street cleaning. Frequency of sweeping and antecedent rain will be the
only major variables.
The dry stream channel energy dissipation/wetlands treatment at Orowoc Creek
involves a recharge basin through which the stream channel passes. Up stream
of the recharge basin, the channel is dry for much of the year, which would
resemble the conditions predicted in the Suffolk County Flow Augmentation
Heeds Study for several of the streams without augmentation. In addition,
there 1s a storm drain which discharges into the basin from a small residen-
tial area. The stream channel and the recharge basin are heavily overgrown,
the latter with typical wetlands species.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services will be assessing the stormwater
runoff treatment benefits that may result from the drying up of portions
of streams due to the effect of sewering. The department is in the process of
establishing a monitoring station at the basin influent to evaluate the treat-
ment provided by the dry stream channel; a monitoring station at the storm
G4-20
drain discharge to the basin, to sample runoff from the small residential
area; and a sampling point at the basin effluent to evaluate the treatment
provided by the wetlands vegetation and from recharge in the basin.
Because of the existence of heavy vegetation in the channel up stream and
also in the recharge basin, It is anticipated that there will be several
storms for which there may not be measurable flow at the basin's Influent or
effluent points.
The originally proposed energy dissipation construction at the Hestvlew
Avenue site, on the Carll's River, has been dropped from the study for the
following reasons:
the low bid for constructing the facility was $41,000, which was
approximately $20,000 more than the consultant's estimate.
although the SCDHS' field crew had Identified 40 to 50 potential sites
where energy dissipation could be Implemented, the total contributory
drainage area to these sites has been found to be less significant than
envisioned prior to the site Inspections.
energy dissipation/wetlands treatment will be better evaluated at the
storm drain discharge to the Orowoc Creek Site, where an existing energy
disslpator and wetland has been operating for many years.
The Westvlew Avenue site is being retained In the monitoring program to facil-
itate evaluation of the Impact of varying street cleaning practices at Central
Avenue. Both Carll's River sites will be sampled during the same storm events.
G1-21
-------
%ZH-J ff^j&H °M u
^?5 CL^L^^^M
fcmw« M
/;s,«^« I i IE ;•/A?^-^-! . j f
/i|^m4-^h-^Wl
XM'-^.^.-^^*W- '^ ^ u
.? fRr^fe^i^w^ v^j^'
U.8.G.S. GAGE
SOUTHWEST SEWER
DISTRICT BOUNOART
_. ,.. . ...»
I'l.ATX SKDTMKN'T/rrrON^.VATliriAI. IMPOUNDMENT SYSTEM
TliMU rONJOIASSAPEQUA G4-22
G4-23
-------
TE:
faf^wirigsectTW^s Txcerprecrfrd^^ie nS^'.Is^ffd
Waste Treatment Management Plan, published in 1978.
2.2 GROUND WATER POLLUTION SOURCES
2.2.1 Background
An evaluation of ground water pollution sources is one of the products
of the Long Island 208 areawide waste management study. A full report,
presented to the 208 Technical Advisory Committee by Geraghty & Miller,
Inc. in September 1977, describes eighteen different activities which have or
may impair ground water quality in the study area. This section has been
prepared to provide easy access to the salient facts contained in the longer,
more technical version. The potential impact of the various contamination
sources discussed may be subject to reassessment at a later date as more data
are made available, or as legal requirements initiate a change in practices.
Although the ground water contamination contribution of several of
the sources described may not appear to be significant, it should be borne in
mind that the quality of the regional ground water supply is susceptible to
the adverse effects of the sum total of man's activities on land. This under-
standing is particularly crucial to Long Island where activities are diverse, and
where a water supply alternative to ground water is not readily or economi-
cally available.
There are many sources and causes of ground water contamination in
the 208 area. Basically, they can be divided into four categories (Table 2-1).
The first two categories represent discharges of contaminants that are derived
from solid and liquid wastes. The third category concerns discharges of con-
taminants that are not wastes, and the fourth category lists'lhose causes of
ground water contamination that are not discharges at all.
The variety and type of management options available for each
category differ. For example, some Category I sources may require a dis-
charge permit whereas others can be controlled by restrictions on land use.
Sources under Category II may require satisfaction of specified construction
standards, such as the lining of landfills and the installation of leachate
collection systems. Guidelines and manuals (e.g., tons/land-mile limits on
highway deicing salts) may be the only type of management option available
for Category III. Special regulatory controls are available for the causes of
ground water contamination listed under Category IV. An example is the
current system of ground water diversion applications and hearings employed
to minimize salt water encroachment. Another is the licensing of drilling
contractors in order to upgrade water well construction practices.
2.2.2 Domestic On-Site Waste Disposal Systems
Cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields are a source of ground water
contamination on Long Island that has been of great concern to many investi-
gators and regulatory agencies. "The Final Report of the Long Island Ground
Water Pollution Study" stated that 800,000 persons in Nassau and 950,000
persons in Suffolk reside in unsewered areas (Nassau-Suffolk Research Task
Group, 1969). In addition, facilities serving 24,000 people residing in Nassau
G4-24
Table 2-1
CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCES AND CAUSES OF GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATION USED IN DETERMINING LEVEL AND TYPE OF CONTROL
Category II
Systems, facilities,
or sources not
specifically designed
to discharge wastes
or waste waters to the
land and ground
waters.
Sanitary sewers
Category III
Systems, facilities,
or sources which
may discharge or
cause a discharge of
contaminants that are
not wastes to the land
and ground waters.
Highway deicing and
salt storage
Landfills
Animal wastes
Cemeteries
Fertilizers and
pesticides
Product storage
tanks and pipelines
Spills and incidental
discharges
Sand and gravel mining
Category IV .
Causes of ground
water contamin-
ation which are
not discharges.
Airborne
pollution
Water well con-
struction and
abandonment
Salt water
intrustion
Category I
Systems, facilities
or sources designed
to discharge waste
or waste waters to
the land and ground
waters.
Domestic on-site
waste disposal
systems
Sewage treatment
plant effluent
Industrial waste
discharges
Storm water basin
recharge
Incinerator quench
water
Diffusion wells
Scavenger waste
disposal
Sewer District No. 2 were reported as not being hooked up to the sewer
system. Other reports give different estimates for the number of cesspools
and septic tanks in Nassau County (Nassau Environmental Management
Council, 1974 and Padar, 1968). The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated
that in 1966, 120 million gallons per day of sewage were returned to the
ground through cesspools and septic tanks on Long Island (Parker, 1967). A
more recent paper from the Nassau County Department of Health reports
that 150,000 cesspools in Nassau alone discharge 60 million gallons per day
(Smith, 1975).
In on-site disposal systems, bacterial action digests the solid materials,
and the liquid effluent is discharged to the ground. In theory, filtration by
earth materials provides additional treatment so that the liquid, when it
arrives at the water table, is relatively clean. However, many constituents
carried by the effluent are introduced to the ground water system. Those
which present the greatest threat to ground water quality are excessive con-
centrations of nitrate, organic chemicals, detergent, metals, bacteria and
viruses. Other constituents-previously ignored, but now recognized as a
G4-25
59
-------
threat-arc halogenated hydrocarbons. Compounds such as chloroform,
carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, and others are in common use in
industry as degreasers and solvents or are incorporated in plastic products. It
has only recently been recognized that these and similar compounds regularly
occur in discharges from households. Many products common in the home,
such as fabric and rug cleaners, workshop cleaners and solvents, and solutions
to clean pipes find their way into on-site disposal systems. Septic tank
cleaners are composed almost entirely of active ingredients which are fre-
quently halogenated hydrocarbons. For example, one common cesspool
cleaner contains more than 99 percent trichloroethylene. One gallon of this
compound could raise the trichloroethylene concentrations of 29 million
gallons of water to the State recommended maximum of 0.05 parts per
million.
Cesspools and septic tanks are viewed by regulatory agencies as low-cost
systems which eliminate surface discharges of raw sewage. There are areas
where low housing density and favorable soil conditions make such systems
satisfactory alternatives to expensive trunk sewers and treatment plants.
However, government agencies have been leaning more and more toward the
latter in recent years. Sewer districts have been delineated in both counties
and plans for construction are well underway. Figure 2—14 is a nitrogen-
loading map, showing the areas in which more than 40 pounds of nitrogen are
added annually to each acre by cesspools and septic tanks (Weston, July
1976). This map does not include the nitrogen loading that results from
agricultural and domestic fertilizer applications.
2.2.3 Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent
At present, sewage treatment plant effluent is only a minor threat to
ground water quality in the bi-county area, as most of the effluent is dis-
charged directly to the sea. According to a study made by Weston in 1976, 23
plants in Nassau County discharge an average of 105.63 million gallons per
day, and in Suffolk County 101 plants have an average discharge of 14.26
million gallons per day (Weston, July 1976). These are the total flows of the
NPDES and SPDES permitted sewage treatment systems and are believed to
include all plants in both counties. Figure 2—15 shows the locations of plants
that discharge to the ground.
In Nassau County, only one percent of the total daily flow of treated
o
LEGEND
GREATER THAN 40 LBS OF NITROGEN/ACRE/YEAR
! FROM CESSPOOLS AND SEPTIC TANKS
G4-26
FIGURE 2-14 Areas of Major Concentrations of On-Site Domestic Waste Disposal Systems.
G4-27
GO
-------
effluent (1.2 million gallons per day) and in Suffolk County 50 percent of the
total daily flow of treated effluent (7.39 million gallons per day) are dis-
charged to the ground. Thus, a total of 8.59 million gallons per day enters the
ground compared to about 800 million gallons per day total recharge of fresh
water from precipitation in the bi-county area. Although small, this discharge
of effluent to the ground may have a significant effect when concentrated at
a few sites. In Nassau County, effluent is discharged at five sites: Meadow-
brook Hospital (0.77 million gallons per day), Farmingdale Sanitorium (0.07
million gallons per day), C. W. Post College (0.12 million gallons per day),
New York Institute of Technology (0.003 million gallons per day), and
Grumman Aerospace Corp. (0.25 million gallons per day).
In Suffolk County, the 85 facilities which discharge treated sewage
effluent to the ground are predominantly small residential facilities and some
special health and elderly care facilities (Weston, July 1976). Suffolk County
is undergoing rapid development and many small sewage treatment plants
are being installed to serve areas of 100 or more homes. In developments of
less than 100 homes where no sewer system is available, builders are required
to install sewers, which will be placed Into service after future construction of
a nearby interceptor. These homes are permitted to temporarily discharge to
cesspools and septic tanks (Pirn, 1977).
Some systems receive domestic wastes exclusively; others accept,some
industrial wastes. Regulatory authorities make every effort to exclude
constituents harmful to the treatment plant process or employees, but
incidental discharges are not easily controlled. Some chemicals, such as
solvents, do not appear to be harmful over the short term, but may damage
either the plant or sewer system over a long period of time.
According to a NYSDEC law, effective secondary treatment is the
minimum required before effluent can be discharged to surface water.
Although this law does not apply to plants discharging to the ground, second-
ary treatment also is common. Only Farmingdale Sanitorium in Nassau
discharges primary treated effluent to the ground (0.07 million gallons per
day). In Suffolk, of the 85 plants discharging to the ground, only six do not
provide at least secondary treatment. Denitrification of sewage effluent is
now required of all new sewage treatment plants which discharge to ground
water in Suffolk County.
A recently released report by Roy Gilbert of the SCDEC states that
• • . • • •
• :.o S'Uf F M. K
a 11 a ii I i n n r n n n
LEGEND
DOMESTIC WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE 2-15 Domestic Waste Treatment Plants Discharging to Ground Water, 1978
G4-28 , G4-29
61
-------
a number of organic compounds present in treated sewage are refractory
products (not affected by the treatment process) of the biological treatment
of the plant, or new compounds formed during chlorination (Gilbert, 1977).
It is possible that these products may move through the unsaturated soil
to contaminate ground water in places where the effluent is discharged to
the ground.
The New York State Environmental Conservation Law of 1967 em-
powers agencies to regulate sewage treatment plants. This law provides for
the classification of state ground water and establishment of quality standards.
Violators are assessed penalties under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (PL 92-500). The NPDES program was established in 1973 and the
SPOES program in January 1975; the SCOEC and the NCDH derive their
enforcement powers from these.
2.2.4 Sanitary Sewers
Approximately 120 million gallons per day of raw sewage flow through
thousands of miles of sewers in the bi-county area. The flow in Nassau
averages 105.63 million gallons per day and in Suffolk, 14.26 million gallons
per day (Weston, July 1976). Figure 2—16 shows the locations of sewered
areas. Sewers frequently leak, and depending upon the type of sewer and its
altitude relative to the water table, ground water can infiltrate or sewage can
exfiltrate. The contamination that takes place in the latter case is normal
domestic sewage, plus those constituents in industrial effluent discharged to
sewers.
Since the enactment of the SPDES permit program, the direct discharge
of industrial wastes to septic systems has been severely curtailed. Restrictions
on industrial discharges to sewers are much less stringent than those covering
such discharges to septic systems. Concern over the constituents in industrial
effluent is primarily due to their effects on the sewer system, the treatment
plant processes, and treatment plant personnel—not their effects on ground
water.
Permissible maximum infiltration rates are usually written into sewer
specifications and commonly vary from 200 to 500 gallons per day per mile
per inch of pipe diameter. Where ground water pollution is of concern, exfil-
tration rates are also specified. In Suffolk County's Southwest Sewer District,
for example, 200 gallons per day per mile per inch of pipe diameter has been
long i s I a ii il s o ii n il
r~
JVV«
V~n*i,
city nI A.,i;-4|
»«* y°|K Jll-f M^SSAU
a 11 a n t i c ocean
LEGEND
SEWERED AREA
FIGURE 2-16 Presently Sewered Areas, 1978
62
G4-30
G4-31
-------
specified as the maximum rate for exfiltration. Projections from tests carried
out on existing sewer lines show that leakage has been considerably less than
this figure (Graner, 1977).
The potential volume of exfiltration is small when compared to the
nearly 100 percent discharge that occurs from cesspools and septic tanks.
However, exfiltration may increase over the years as loading produces breaks
in the pipes and joints, and as chemical action deteriorates the joints. Exfiltra-
tion may also increase if the ground water level was originally above the
sewer, but has declined to a point below the sewer.
With present materials and construction techniques, a 50 year sewer life
is used as a minimum design estimate. However, a 100 year life may be a
more reasonable estimate (Graner, 1977). Some of the older systems In
Nassau County are receiving large volumes of ground water (Long Beach,
Glen Cove, Oyster Bay and Freeport) (Cameron, 1977). If these systems are
infiltrating additional water where the pipes are below the water table, it is
reasonable to assume they are also exfiltrating additional sewage where the
pipes are above the water table. Similar problems may be occurring in older
Suffolk systems, such as Port Jefferson, Huntington, Northport and
Patchogue.
Except for monitoring volumes, and to some extent, chemical quality
of incoming waste at sewage treatment plants, little control is exerted on
sewers once the construction specifications are satisfied. Severe problems
involving exfiltration, infiltration or clogging are remedied where they inter-
fere with the operation of the system or cause a public nuisance.
2.2.5 Industrial Waste Discharge
Industrial development and zoning are extensive on Long Island. In
1972, five percent of the Nassau-Suffolk area was zoned for industry. Most
of this acreage is inland and includes such heavily industrialized areas as
Syosset, Hicksville, Bethpage-Plainview, Melville-Farmingdale, Hauppauge
and Deer Park. Except for a small part of the Melville-Farmingdale area,
all of these zones and a number of smaller ones in Suffolk County are located
in the recharge area of the Magothy aquifer. Areas of known industrial dis-
charge to the ground are shown on Figure 2-17.
Although there are discrepancies in the number of Industries reported
to have permitted discharges, the nature and volume of NPDES and SPDES
discharges are documented in a 1976 report prepared by Roy F. Weston
allantic ocean
LEGEND
• INDUSTRIAL SITE
G4-32
FIGURE 2-17 Major Industrial Sites Discharging to Ground Water* 1978
G4-33
63
-------
(Weston. July 1976). According to the report, in Nassau 1.2 million gallons
per day of waste water are discharged by industry. About 800.000 gallons
per day of this amount are discharged to the ground. In Suffolk County,
88 industries discharge a total of 1,325.000 gallons per day, of which
1,278,900 gallons per day are discharged to the ground. Thus, in the bi-
county area, about 2.1 million gallons per day of industrial wastes are
discharged to the ground in a few industrialized areas.
There are also commercial and industrial discharges in both counties,
not included in the permitted inventory. These include car washes, coin-
operated laundries and industries discharging waste water with constituents
not covered by permitting regulations.
In an attempt to control industrial waste discharges, Nassau County
has recently instituted a program to inventory all industries, according to
the nature of and receiving body for their discharges. The inventory has
revealed a number of industries that are discharging untreated liquid wastes
to cesspools (Burger, 1977). Abatement actions have been initiated in these
cases. Suffolk County has been conducting industrial surveys for several
years.
In Suffolk County, a list of car washes and coin-operated laundries
has been compiled. Ten car washes presently discharge to ground water;
these predate the State DEC regulation requiring closed systems. There are
135 coin-operated laundries discharging to the ground water; two of these
ha.-a once-through waste treatment and four others have partial treatment
(Gilbert, 1977). Twenty-five percent of Suffolk's coin-operated laundries
discharge to sewers and require no pre-treatment (Pirn, 1972). Forty-five of
the laundries discharging to the ground are in the Southwest Sewer District
and will be sewered in the future. Nearly 500,000 gallons per day discharges
to ground water from 75 of these laundries.
In Nassau County, permitted discharges to the ground amount to about
800.000 gallons per day. Fourteen metal processing firms discharge 726.000
gallons per day, which is 90 percent of the total. The bottling industry pro-
duces an additional 32,000 gallons per day, and the food industry, 24,000
gallons per day. Very small discharges are from metal powder mixing and
paper processing industries (Weston, July 1977).
In Suffolk County, 1,278,900 gallons per day of industrial wastes are
discharged to the ground. This includes 470,989 gallons per day from metal
processing, 356,813 gallons per day from commercial laundries, 164,978
gallons per day from dairies and 152,18^'gallons per day from bakeries.
Prior to the passage of the New York State Environmental Conservation
Law in 1967, there was no effective law limiting the types of waste water dis-
charged to the land surface. With the enactment of the NPDES and subsequent
enactment of the SPDES, a NYSDEC permit is required for non-sewered
industrial effluent discharges. The industry must produce treated effluent
which meets state water standards. Compliance is monitored by the NCDH
and the SCDEC. These agencies also enforce sludge disposal rules.
2.2.6 Storm Water Basins
Investigators have determined, that on Long Island approximately half
the annual precipitation finds its way to the ground water reservoir as
recharge. This averages roughly one million gallons per day per square mile
in a 760 square mile recharge area. As the western part of the region has
become increasingly urbanized, however, permeable soil areas have been
replaced by impermeable roofs and paved areas. The water cannot seep into
these surfaces, so it accumulates and runs off.
As a water conservation alternative to offset reductions in ground
water recharge and to eliminate the need for expensive trunk sewers leading
to the sea, a system of small storm sewers draining to unlined recharge basins
was implemented in Nassau County in 1935. At the present time, there are
more than 2,000 basins on Long Island, the locations of which are shown on
Figure 2—18 (Seaburn, 1973). The basins range from less than one to more
than 30 acres in size but most are about one acre. They average ten to twenty
feet in depth.
Recharge basins have been considered to be highly beneficial to the
overall water conservation program on Long Island, since they account for
approximately twenty percent of all recharge to the underlying aquifers
(Aronson, 1974). Although the basins restore potentially lost recharge, they
are also sources of contamination. Inflow into the basins is a combination of
precipitation plus constituents that are dissolved and suspended by the water
as it runs over the ground. Typical sources of contaminants are fertilizers,
pesticides, deicing sa>ts, organic debris, grease and road oil, rubber, asphaltic
materials, hydrocarbons, animal feces and food wastes. Many of the contam-
inants are not biodegradable and persist in ground water.
As part of the 208 investigation, a number of studies were conducted
which have bearing on the amount and types of pollutants that may be
entering the ground water system via storm water basins. The Weston non-
point source analysts included sampling runoff from small drainage areas and
correlation of the runoff quantity and quality with the prevailing land uses.
The data and analyses indicated that annual toads of pollutants from non-
point sources can be as large as loadings from traditional point sources
(Weston, April 1977).
In their program of storm water runoff and ground water sampling at
two recharge basins along the Long Island Expressway, the SCDEC detected
significant intermittent concentrations of selected heavy metals (e.g., zinc
and lead) and total organic carbon (TOC) in discrete samples of storm water
runoff during the sampled storm events. Chloride and zinc were observed in
elevated concentrations in the ground water samples obtained from wells
located in the two recharge basins receiving storm runoff from the Express-
way. The SCDEC concluded that further investigation is obviously necessary
to determine if runoff quality from the Long Island Expressway is compar-
able to the often reported major waste load attributed to heavy metals in
runoff (Minei.1977).
C4
G4-34
G4-35
-------
• t i-
«*M.ti 1C (I / '•rtfK"^=^"-V*
HI x
s^v^ttrr->dLJ.QH
j. -- •!•-••--;j*~-JUl-•/••"/" <*-•/.-.;*:::
! H.A1.V SKnlMEXTATIOM^SATUIML IHI'OUXUMEiVT
^JNtjUA j-O.VI) IMASSAPEQUA
G4-37
PI.ATX 5KnlMENTATTO.^-gfATURAL IHPOUNDMEN'T SYSTEM
POMDVMASSAPEQl/A
-------
MUNICIPALITIES and C.D.P.'s. .
(Census Designated Places) -1S80
NASSAU COUNTY
SUFFOLK COUNTY
***• •L**"^ kit Mini
•X Cull* &. (C«MvU MM.)
H. Ctfll*
ii. OMMDC
Figure 2 - Project.Area and Sampling Sites
I i "*f~"\ut'Sif"'""" V-»™~ *r7j'—""SI'-B. J >r ^- / P*J*~
S=i5a3N5^*T f|: ^ V ,>"^
r^r-i-"?—^"^"St—•? ~ '^"r-'I/S - Ln *" jLJ *
L^^.*= ^Sk^.vj'fe • __lr-=f
—~
MUNICIPALITIES and C.D.P.'s. .
(Census Designated Places] -1980
mr tlt»*
NASSAU COUNTY
SUFFOLK COUNTY
•a! WMM'M ""' "' ' 5! •y«M«t'(c*rr'i«.}
•4! CUlU &. (»M»i«r M*,) «i. IkJtMUlM**
•4. OmMteMk «. ft
D •
Figure 2 - Project.Area and Sampling Sites
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
LAKE GEORGE, NY
REGION II, EPA
•GS-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Lake George is located In the eastern Adirondack Mountains of New York State
and the southeastern portion of the Adirondack State Park not far from the Vermont
State border (Figure 1). Sometimes called the Queen of American Lakes, its clarity
is nearly unsurpassed In the United States.
Lake George lies mostly within Warren and Washington Counties; the northern
tip of Lake George, at Ticonderoga, is within Essex County. Host of Lake George's
commerce Is located along the southwestern shores of the Lake, which are within
Warren County. The commercial district is concentrated mainly at the southern
tip of the Lake at Lake George Village.
The major use of the waters of Lake George has been for recreation. It also
provides a potable water supply for its peripheral inhabitants. In order to
maintain the Integrity of the waters, the State has designated it as a "Class
AA-Special* water body. In addition, Title 17-1709 of the New York State (NYS)
Enviromental Conservation Law prohibits the discharge of sewage into waters of
the Lake.
The population in Lake George is dominated by seasonal variations, since
this lake is a popular resort area. The year round population in Bo 1 ton and Lake
George Village, the two largest communities of south Lake George, is approximately
5000 persons. In the summer, this increases about tenfold to 50,000 persons.
New York State projections for these two communities show the populations increasing
to 6,000 permanent residents and 66,000 summer residents by the year 2000.
The recreational-based economies of communities in the Lake George region
are heavily dependent upon maintaining a high level of water quality in the Lake.
In recognition of the Lake as a unique resource, there has been a strong, long-term
State and local commitment to protect and enhance the water quality of Lake George.
This has resulted in a number of detailed studies of the Lake and in a long history
of spirited public debate over the Lake's present and future quality.
Although the water quality of Lake George has been studied for over fifty years
most of the emphasis has been placed on the physical and chemical nature of the open
water. Only in the last decade has the lake's watershed been the object of
scientific investigations, and almost all of this work has been in determining the
water chemistry at the mouths of the ten or so major tributaries.
65-
FIGURE 1 - STATE LOCUS AMD PROJECT AREA OF
LAKE GEORGE NURP
N
/
__
WARREN
SCALE IN MILES
G5-3
J
-------
PHYSICAL INSCRIPTION
A. Area
Lake George is long and narrow; its major axis extends in a north, northeasterly
direction. The Lake may be considered as two basins, commonly referred to as
North and South Lake George, respectively. The South Lake Is further divided
into two basins, South and Central, on a raorphometric and circulation basis;
each contains a very deep section and several shallower areas. The deep South .
basin is also called Caldwell Basin.
Lake George has 4 lake surface which stands at 97 ra above sea.level and en-
coiiipassess XI km. The drainage basin surface area is 492 km. The lake
averages 18.3 m in depth and varies in width from 1.6 kin to 4.8 km along
its 51.5 km length.
Most of the drainage basin Is covered with shallow soil from glacial debris,
with numerous outcroppings present. The lake shore is irregular, steep and
rocky, with the lake at a rather low level, amid elevations of considerable
height, cheating a steep and fjord-like appearance. About 16 km of a total
of 492 km is developed urban land, concentrated in the towns of Lake George,
Bo I ton, Fort Ann, Hague, Queensbury, Dresdan, Putnam, Ticonderoga, and
strip/shore developments along approximately half of the lake shoreline.
(Figure 1) The rest of the area is sparsely-populated, deciduously-forested
land with numerous conifers also present.
B. Population
in
According to HeIliny (1974), the population of the Lake George watershed
1970 was 32,484. of which 16,138 resided in sewered areas. The Town and
Village of Lake George accounted for 50.5< of the total and 90.9* of the
sewered population in 1970. However, of the total watershed population
of 32,484, only 17.2% or 5,575 were year-round residents. Ferris et al..
(1980) estimated a slightly smaller population for the watershed (10,160).
C. (Ira in aye
Surface runoff into the lake is greatly affected by the physical characteristics
of the basin, vegetation cover, areal variations and distribution of precipitation,
soil moisture arid groundwater, and development of the area by man. The shallow
soil cover, abrupt topography, steepness of slopes, and short travel of runoff
make storm runoff very rapid and tumultuous. The shape of the basin is
elongated and this, coupled with the steep topography, creates a large number
of streams with small drainage areas relative to the size of the lake. Of
the 80 streans flowing into the lake, about one-fourth are Intermittent.
The water volumes in the North and South basins are equal at 2.11 billion
cubic meters (1,689,600 acre-ft) for each. The average water retention time
in the lake is 7.98 years.
0. Sewerage System
The Village of Lake George is totally sewered with separate sewers and Is
served by a secondary sewage treatment plant utilizing trickling filters and
sand beds. Phosphorus is raaoved by passage of the sewage through the sand
beds whereupon the effluent is released as a subsurface discharge.
The Village of BoIton Landing, the other major concentration of population
on the South Lake, is about 75X sewered with a separated system. Secondary
treatment is provided by the same type of tricking filter and sand-bed
system employed at Lake George Village.
The remainder of the homes and small commercial establishments scattered
around the perimeter of the Lake are served by individual, on-lot disposal
systems usually consisting of septic tanks and drainfields.
G5-4
65-5
-------
FIGURE 2 - LAKE GEORGE MONITORING BASINS AHO SAMPLING SITES
' direct cunofl
> drainage basin no.
G5-6
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Cedar Lane Storm Sewer (37)
A. Area - 76.2 acres.
B. Population - persons.
C. Drainage - The Cedar Lane storm sewer drains Into East Brook
approximately 10 feet south of a culvert carrying the Brook under
Beach Road and Into the Lake. The main channel Is 1650 feet at
a slope of approximately 996 ft/mile and for the last 328 feet
flows through corrugated pipe.
D. Sewerage - 9.64X of the drainage area Is served by separate storm
sewers; 90.36% has no sewers.
Streets consist of .74 lane-miles of asphalt In good condition
and .48 lane-miles of other materials 1n poor condition.
E. Land Use
4.48 acres (6%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which .62 acres (14%) is Impervious.
27.52 acres (36<) Is Linear Strip Development,
of which 3.38 acres (12X) Is Impervious.
44.16 acres (58X) is Forest.
5X impervtousness in entire drainage area.
II. Catchment Name - West Brook (38)
A. Area - 5337.6 acres.
B. Population - persons.
C. Drainage - West Brook, with several tributaries, flows northeasterly
and enters the Lake at the south end. The main channel is 26400 ft.
with a slope of approximately 433 ft/mile.
0. Sewerage - 0.27X of the drainage area Is served by separate storm
sewers; 99.73X of the catchment has no sewers.
15.29 lane-miles of streets are asphalt (92% in good condition, 5%
in fair condition and 3X in poor condition); 18.7 lane-miles of
streets are concrete (100* in good condition); .36 lane-miles are
of other materials (53* in good condition and 47* in poor condition).
E. Land Use
22.04 acres (< IX) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 2.91 acres (13%) is Impervious.
G5-7
-------
119.37 acres (2X) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 18.43 acres (15X) is impervious.
15.60 acres (< IX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which .33 acres (2%) is impervious.
166.21) acres (3XJ is urban inactive, of which
0.62 acres (< IX) is impervious.
75.29 acres (IX) is Urban (other),
of which 23.57 acres (31X) is impervious.
2.75 acres (< IX) is Agriculture.
4894.17 acres (92X) is Forest,
of which 19.50 acres (< IX) is impervious.
42.24 acres (IX) is Mater, Lakes.
111. Catchment Name'- Sheriff's Dock Stonn Sewer (39)
A. Area - 552.3 acres.
B. Population - persons.
C. Drainage - Sheriff's Dock storm sewer discharges directly into the
lake on the western shore at the south end through a 117 cm concrete
pipe. The main channel is 5280 feet with a slope of approximately
610 ft/mile. The last 600 feet of the main channel and 1198 feet
of a triburtary flow through metal pipe.
I). Sewerage - 3.66X of the drainage area Is served by separate storm
sewers; 96.34X of the drainage area has no sewers.
9.75 lane-miles of streets are asphalt (74X in good condition, 24%
in fair condition. 2X in poor condition); 5.11 lane-miles of streets
are concrete (100* in good condition).
t. Land Use
71.32 acres (13X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 18.10 acres (25X) is impervious.
32 acres (6X) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 12.23 acres (38X) is Impervious.
7.04 acres (IX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 0 acres (OX) is impervious.
14.08 acres (3X) is Urban Inactive,
of which 0 acres (OX) is impervious.
65-8
26.60 acres (5X) is Urban (other),
of which 4.63 acres (17X) is impervious.
401.28 acres (73X) is Forest.
of which 2.07 acres (IX) is impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - Marine Village Storm Sewer (40)
A. Area - 163.2 acres.
B. Population - persons.
C. Drainage - Originally an above-ground stream, reconstruction prior
to 1926 channelized the stream and filled a wetland of considerable
size. Presently Marine Village Storm Sewer originates in a farm pond
(from which water discharges all year) and flows easterly, discharging
through a metal pipe directly into the lake on the western shore
approximately 2000 ft. from the south end. An intermittent tributary
collects drainage from Interchange 22 of interstate 1-87. The main
channel Is 1980 ft. with a slope of approximately 887 ft/mile;
approximately 1312 ft. of the main channel flow through corrugated
metal pipe.
0. Sewerage - 7.31X of the drainage area Is served by separate sewers;
92.69X has no sewers.
6.78 lane-miles of streets are asphalt (60X in good condition,
40X in fair condition); 3.31 lane-miles are concrete (100X in good
condition); .26 lane-miles are of other materials (100* in fair
condition).
E. Land Use
35.84 acres (22X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 12.38 acres (35X) is impervious.
17.28 acres (11X) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 6.55X acres (382) is impervious.
15.36 acres (9X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 0.42 acres (3X) is impervious.
14.72 acres (9X) is Urban Inactive.
of which 0.14 acres (IX) is impervious.
42.24 acres (26X) is Urban (other).
of which 25.99 acres (62X) Is impervious.
37.76 acres (23X) is Forest,
of which 0.48 acres (IX) is impervious.
G5-9
-------
PROBLEM
Catchment Name - English Brook (41)
A. Area - 5248 acres.
B. Population - persons.
C. Drainage - English Brook flows In a southeasterly direction, entering
the lake on the western shore approximately 4000 ft. from the south
end of the lake. The main channel Is 36,630 ft. with a slope of
approximately 2072 ft/mile. Highway, commercial and residential
development adjoin the brook within 11,000 feet of the mouth.
0. Sewerage - .IX of the drainage area 1s served by separate
sewers; 99.9X of the area has no sewers.
24.4 lane-miles of streets or highway are asphalt (100X In good
condition); 35.03 lane-miles of streets or highway are concrete
(100% In good condition).
E. Land Use
32 acres (IX) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3.96 acres (12X) Is Impervious.
62.28 acres (IX) Is Linear Strip Development,
of which 7.29 acres (12X) Is impervious.
8.96 acres (< IX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 0 acres (OX) Is Impervious.
11.52 acres is Urban Inactive, of which
2.09 acres (18X) Is impervious.
135.68 acres (3X) is Urban (other),
of whicjj 39.89 acres (29X) is impervious.
23.68 acres (< IX) is Agriculture.'
4956.77 acres (94X) is Forest,
of which 20.56 acres (< IX) Is Impervious.
1.84 acres (< IX) is Water, Reservoirs.
14.69 acres (< IX) is Wetlands.
A. Local Definition (Government)
Every summer, inhabitants of New York City, Albany, Schenectady, Utica,
Syracuse, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Montreal, and other northeastern
cities concentrate in a narrow strip around the southern basin of Lake George.
The population increases tenfold from about 5000 people to about 50,000 people,
renewing annually, if temporarily, urban pressures upon the area. The reason
for this migration is the quality of the environmental experience available.
Central to that experience is the water quality of Lake George.
From 1974 to 1978, the algae population in South Lake George has increased
logarithmically. The Lake is not eutrophic but the condition Is incipient as
reflected in the chlorophyll a data reported by Wood and Fuhs for 1978. The
residence, or flushing, time Tn the southern basin of Lake George is eight
years. Therefore, anything wrong with the Lake will take years to correct.
If corrective actions are not taken In the next decade, an invaluable water
resource impacting thousands of people may be lost. Reductions in recreational
use caused by declines in water quality have been documented for a number of
Lakes In New York State. Candarago Lake and Saratoga Lake are examples.
The water quality problem In Lake George appears to be related to phosphorus In
the water body. Since anoxic conditions have not been observed, it is unlikely
that the bottom sediment of the Lake is the source of the troublesome phosphorus.
Rather, the phosphorus very likely Is dissolved in the water discharges,such
as urban runoff, coming from the land surrounding the Lake.
Incipient eutrophtcatfon is not the only problem facing the Lake. Dr. C.R. Goldman
in his review of Lake George in 1978 presents the following account:
"Mr. C.G. Suits of the Lake George Association has noted that
bacterial pollution was the major problem in the Lake; total
colfform counts for 1977 were 11,500, while the maximum allow-
able for water contact recreation Is 2,400. Hazen and Sawyer
(1975) also noted occasional high coll form counts ... the
southern basin of Lake George has supported a noticeable growth
of planktonic blue-green algae during the sunnier months.
In addition, there have been more frequent complaints by residents
about near-shore growth of other types of algae (Hazen and Sawyer
1977).
The difference in limnological characteristics between the north
and south basins provides the most substantial evidence that hunan
impacts are causing changes in water quality. It Is not likely
mere coincidence that the south basin is much more populated and
also more productive that the north basin (Aulenbach and Clesceri
1977; Ferris and Clesceri 1977a)."
Other existing problems Include bacteriological levels that exceed water quality
standards and sediment deposition which is impairing stream usage and contri-
buting to takeshore silting. Perhaps the most dramatic example of sedimentation
is the emergence of deltas at the mouth of feeder streams. Sediments deposited
65-10
G5-11
-------
in the streams and in the Lake are adversely affecting the food-producing,
spawning and nursery potential of the Lake.
It appears that 'a significant part of any program to preserve the Lake's high
water qua!ity must be land-based control of urban runoff.
8. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Widespread public concern for the water quality of Lake George is evident in
the number of studies of the Lake conducted over the last dozen years, many
of than sponsored by citizen organizations of one kind or another. Six studies
of stream chemistry have been conducted and nine nutrient budgets have been
prepared for the Lake since 1971 and the Lake George Park Commission has sampled
storm sewers tributary to the Lake for bacterial quality since 1973. Much
of this study was triggered by public alarm over extensive algal blooms which
have occurred from time to time during the sunnier months. The Lake George
Association, with a current membership of 3000 residents of the Lake George area,
has been working since 188S solely to preserve the quality of the Lake. A Lake
George NURP Advisory Group comprised of IS members representing the Lake George
Park Commission, the Lake George Association, public officials, other public
interest groups and the citizens at large regularly meets with project staff
to review progress and provide comments and has conducted several public
meetings to inform the communities about project-goals and accomplishments.
Articles on urban runoff, its probable impact on the Lake and the need to control
it regularly appear in the six local newspapers serving the communities sur-
rounding the Lake.
G5-12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
The major technical activities taking place ir. the Lake George study arc:
1. Identification of all major stormwater sources in the highly developed
southern portion of the Lake George Basin;
2. Quantification (in terms of concentration and load) of the major
stormwater contaminants discharged to the Lake;
3. Assessment of the contribution of phosphorus and fecal bacteria to
south Lake George; and
4. Baseline monitoring of selected tributaries.
Essentially these activities are intended to provide an assessment of the
temporal and spatial generation of the various stonnwater contaminants, their
delivery to south Lake George, and the loadings attributable to stormwater,
especially those for phosphorus. The findings will be used in the formulation
of an overall urban runoff management strategy for the Lake to be funded at a
later date from other sources.
Stormwater inputs to Lake George are generated by two major sources: 1) the
densely populated residential/commercial area from Lake George Village to
BoIton landing and, 2) the major highways (Interstate 87 - the Adirondack
Northway - and New York State routes 9, 9L and 9M). that cross the watershed.
Specific sources and impacted tributaries have been sampled and measured on an
event basis to determine concentration and load of the several pollutants
including complete scans for priority pollutants on a limited number of samples.
The storm drains and streams designated for study give spatial distribution
over the area such that major source zones can be identified.
The contribution of pollutants from both dry and wet atmospheric fallout is
being determined in addition to the contributions from stormwater and septic
systems.
8. Methodologies
An historical data review was completed and submitted to USEPA on December 1, 1980.
A storm sewer map was developed for the Village and Town of Lake George. This
was essential to delineate the drainage of each catchment within the study area.
Field surveys established the storm sewer system and the catchment boundaries.
Land use estimate have been updated using aerial photographs from 1948, 1958,
and 1968, LUNR series maps (Shelton et a!., 1973) and 1976 aerial photographs.
G5-13
-------
Verification of the land uses within the study area was carried out by NYSDEC
personnel. Estimates for Impervious areas have been calculated for all catch-
ments within the study area.
The developed areas consist of private residences and commercial establishments
related primarily to tourism and recreation. All travel, which is quite heavy,
is essentially by automobile. There Is no significant Industry within the
basin. The following land uses occur within the five basins chosen for runoff
sampling and measurements:
* mixed residential/coroner leal;
' transportation (roads);
* urban open space; and
* forested, brush and open land.
The relatively large amount of undeveloped land which surrounds the urban areas
constitutes a major part of most of the monitored basins. For this reason an
additional monitoring site was established during the summer of 1981 upstream
of the urban area In one of the basins to determine background runoff loadings
for comparison with the loadings generated within the urban areas.
A total of forty atmospheric deposition samples were submitted for chemical
analysis during the first year of the study. These Include twenty-five wetfall
samples, six dryfall 'samples and nine sanples from the bulk collector.
The monitoring of priority pollutants was not carried out during the first year,
but is scheduled for completion by June, 1982. Sample collection will be
carried out by NYSOEC personnel and sample analysis will be conducted by
laboratories at the NYS Department of Health.
A review of historical data for the near-shore area of Lake George was completed
during the first year. Hater quality In the near-shore area has received little
previous attention. Host of the sampling programs have been carried out in the
deeper waters. Therefore, a limited sampling program for near-shore areas of
the Lake was established to determine baseline water quality and the response
of Lake water quality to storm events. To determine the Impact of stormwater
runoff on the Lake, the phytoplankton community response was analyzed. Algal
assays were conducted to determine the availability of nutrients in the open
waters. Lake sampling was conducted only during the first year of the project.
C. Monitor ing
The study area consists of two strean watersheds (West Brook and English Brook)
and three storm sewer catchments (Cedar Lane, Sheriff's Dock and Marine Village)
located at the extreme southern end of Lake George. A sampling station re-
cently established to determine runoff loadings from undeveloped open land is
located In the Shetff's Dock catchment west of the Village of Lake George and
Interstate 1-87.
The major land use within the West Brook watershed is forests. Urban areas
constitute a small part of the area (7.5%), all located immediately adjacent
to the Lake. The predominant land use in the English Brook watershed is
forest (91.7*).
G5-14
All development Is located adjacent to the Brook, is highway, commercial or
residential in nature and is within two miles of the mouth. The predominant
land uses within the Cedar Lane storm sewer drainage are forest (58.0%) and
urban (42.OX), approximately 86% of the latter being commercial. In the
Sheriff's Dock drainage basin, forests constitute the greatest proportion of
land use (72.6%). Urban areas, although only 27.4% of the total basin, are
concentrated east of Interstate 1-87 within the Village of Lake George and are
44.6% Impervious. Urban areas constitute the predominant land use (76.9%)
within the Marine Village basin, approximately 60% of which falls within the
boundaries of the Village of Lake George. The total Impervious area for this
portion of the drainage basin Is 25.45%. The remaining land area is forested
(23.1%).
Atmospheric sampling, Including wetfall/dryfall and bulk, was conducted
originally at a point within the West Brook drainage basin near the Lake but
has been shifted to a location within the Cedar Lane Storm Sewer basin for
the remainder of the project due to interference from trees at the first
location.
Collected samples are analyzed for the following constitutents: nitrogen,
phosphorus, suspended solids, chloride, sodium, lead, bacteria, pH, conduct-
ivity, alkalinity and temperature. In addition, other paraneters listed In
the USGS/EPA Urban Hydrology Studies Program will be analyzed for as necessary.
Location
Lake George V.
Village
West Brook
English Brook
Cedar Lane
Sheriff's
Dock
Marine
Village
Type
Atmospheric
Fallout
Streams
Stormsewer
Stormsewer
Stormsewer
Equipment
Aerochemetrics, Inc., wet/dry
deposition collector, bulk
precipitation collector and
weighing bucket recording
precipitation collector.
Manning S-4050 automatic
sampler, liquid-level actuated
STACOM-7735 gas purge servo
manometer, Fisher-Porter ADR-
350, and Stevens chart
recorder type A35.
ISCO 2100 automatic flow
proportional sampler, ISCO 170
flow meter with ISCO 1710
printer, 53 cm Palmer-Bowlus
Flume.
Manning S-4050-2 automatic
sampler, liquid-level actuated
or flow proportional, Harsh-
He Birney Flowmeter Model 250.
Manning S-4050 automatic
sampler, liquid-level actuated
or flow propotional, Marsh-
McBirney Flowmeter Model 250.
G5-15
-------
D. Controls
The original work plan for this project provided for the evaluation of control
measures and development of a stormwater control management plan in the second
and third years of the project if the sources of phosphorus and other nutrients
entering the southern portion of the Lake could be pinpointed as a result of the
first year's monitoring and analysis efforts. Because isolation of those sources
proved to be more difficult than originally anticipated, it was decided to
drop evaluation of controls and development of a management plan in favor of
modifying and continuing the monitoring and analysis tasks.
G5-I6
-------
IRONDEQUOIT BAY, NEW YORK
bC-i
-------
FIGURE 1 - STATE AND COUNTY LOCUS OF IRONOEQUOIT BAY
NURP PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
Irondequolt Bay Is one of many bays of Lake Ontario located within Hew York
State. It Is a prime water resource for Monroe County In terms of recreational
potential. Figure 1 shows the general location of the Bay within Monroe County.
A quarter of a million people presently Inhabit the area tributary to Ironde-
quolt Bay. It Is truly an urban receiving water body, being completely sur-
rounded by rapidly expanding urban development.
The Bay Is a relatively shallow body of water bordered by low-lying areas.
The stormwater generated from the eastern portion of the City of Rochester
and much of the southeastern portion of Monroe County drains to Irondequolt
Bay. Combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges also enter the Bay from the
City of Rochester. These factors have led to * progressive eutrophlcatton
of the Bay which has seriously restricted Its recreational potential.
The degraded water quality of Irondequolt Bay and the condition of the benthos
severely Interfere with its use for bathing, boating, and fishing. Presently,
the Bay is classified as Class *B* waters by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSOEC). Public surveys, however, have Indicated
widespread support for restoring the Bay sufficiently to support earlier uses
such as contact recreation.
A comprehensive sewer study conducted during the late 1960s recommended a
water quality management program requiring complete diversion from the Bay of
all sewage treatment plant (STP) discharges and CSOs from the City of Rochester.
The diversion of STP discharges has now been fully completed and a program to
reduce drastically CSO discharges to the Bay Is well underway. The expected
Improvement In water quality should move the Bay a long way toward restoration
of Its Identified best uses - fishing and swimming. However, there Is concern
by local officials that urban stormwater runoff. If allowed to continue to
enter the Bay uncontrolled, will deter the full restoration process.
G6-2
IRONDEQUOI
BAY
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
and
West Blooraf ield.
Population
^^
w« uttaated it 2M.OM Asking canplete diversion of Rochester sewerage.
the effective population would be about 140,000.
C. Drainage
The drainage area is characterized by gently rolling countryside IK* »"''
streams of various sizes, all of which feed into Irondequoit Creek. The Bay
itself Is bordered by steep, wooded hillsides. The Irondequoit flay Drainage
Basin (Figure 2) measures 22 miles on the north-south axis and
9 f
flow In Irondequoit Creek are not available, but a stage gauge "« existed
on Al en C?2ek 2bout 1 .lie upstre*. fro. Irondequoit Creek since 1959 An
average discharge rate of 168 cubic feet per second near the mouth of the
Irondlquoit Creek may be calculated based on the ratio of the Allen Creek and
Irondequoit Creek drainage areas.
FIGURE 2 - PROJECT AREA
N
A
IRONOEQUOIT
CREEK 3ASIN
: I URBANIZED AREA
FECT
G6-4
G6-5
-------
IrondequoH Bay Is about 4 miles long and varies between 1/4 and 1-1/4 miles
In width. The Bay lies at the mouth of a pre-glaclal river valley with slopes
rising on either side to about 150 feet over the present water level. Depths
vary between very shallow marshes at the northern and southern extremities and
75 feet in the central basin. Approximately SOX of its area lies over shallows
less than 10 feet deep. The outlet to Lake Ontario passes under railway and
highway bridges and Is restricted by a sand spit to an opening 50 feet wide
and 200 feet long. The depths at the outlet range between a few Inches and
4 feet. Flow at the outlet Is variable and restricted, depending on oscillations
in Lake levels due to wind direction and barometric pressure differences as
well as on variations In the discharge of Irondequott Creek. Nixing between
the Bay and Lake Ontario is limited.
D. Sewerage System
The area within the Rochester city limits (figure 2) In the northwestern corner
of the drainage area is served by combined sewers which are part of the $80
million program to reduce CSOs to a once-ln-ftve-year frequency. The urbanized
areas outside the City of Rochester and excluding the township of Hendon and
Victor are served by separate storm sewers which discharge Into the creek
system and by sanitary sewers which, along with the combined sewers within the
City limits, flow to the Van Lare treatment plant, Rochester's 250 MGD secondary
treatment facility which discharges directly InU Lake Ontario. The areas of
Mendon and Victor townships lying within the Irondequoit Creek watershed are
rural and unsewered.
G6-6
FIGURE 3 - MONITORING SITES
AND RELATED DRAIN-
AGE BASINS
^
Bail n Boundary ••"—•
Town Un» ——
C/Mfc —
County Un«
Cllv DM
Land UN Monitoring
Sit* Orataaq* Bain
Uonitartng Located
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - East Rochester.
A. Area -.384 acres.
B. Population - 6836 persons.
C. drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 58.08
feet/mile. SOX served with curbs and gutters and 10X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate t 15.84 feet/mile
slope and extend 7600 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 25.09 lane ulles of asphalt. 75X of which is in
good condition. 20X of *4»ich is in fair condition, and 5X of which
is in poor condition. There is no concrete or other roadway In the
catchment.
E. Land Use
384 acres (100X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 146 acres (38*) is impervious?
11. Catchment Name - Balrd Road (Thomas Creek)
A. Area - 18.240 acres.
B. Population - 24,618 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 232.32
feet/mile. 8X served with curbs and gutters and 2X served with swales
and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 15.84 feet/mile slope
and extend 56.496 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 10X separate storm sewers
and 90S unsewered.
Streets consist of 186.37 lane miles of asphalt. 90X of which is in
good condition and 1C* of which is in fair condition, and 19.03 lane
miles of other material, 90X of which is in good condition and 10% of
which is in fair condition.
E. Land Use
18,240 acres (100X) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 1920 acres (11X) is impervious.
G6-8
III. Catchment Name - Southgate
A. Area - 177.2 acres.
S. Population - 250 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 300.96
feet/oille. S8X served with curbs and gutters and 3X served with swales
and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 36.96 feet/mile slope
and extend 2150 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 60X separate storm sewers
and 40X no sewers.
Streets consist of 2.75 lane miles of asphalt. 95X of which is in
good condition and 52 of which Is in fair condition.
E. Land Use
177.2 acres (100X) Is Shopping Center
of which 37.7 acres (2U) is impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - Thornell Road
A. Area - 28.416 acres.
B. Population - 5950 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 279.84
feet/mile. ,2SX served with curbs and gutters and 4.75X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 15.84 feet/mile
slope and extend 82.360 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 5X separate storm sewers
and 95X no sewers.
Streets consist of 255.75 lane miles of asphalt, 90X of which is in
good condition and 10X of which is in fair condition. In addition
there are about 13.62 lane miles of concrete, of which 90X is In
good condition and 10X is in fair condition, and 25 lane miles of
other material, of which 90X is in good condition and 10X is in
fair condition.
E. Land Use
28.416 acres (100X) is Agriculture, of which
1051 acres (4X) is Impervious.
G6-9
-------
V. Catchment Name - Cranston Road
A. Area - 167.6 acres.
Population - 900 persons.
B.
C.
D.
Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 174.24
feet/mile, 68X served Mith curbs and gutters and 22X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 84.48 feet/mile
slope and extend 2850 feet.
Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 89.6X separate storm
sewers and 10.« no sewers.
Streets consist of 8.67 lane miles of asphalt. 100X of which Is In
good condition.
E. Land Use
167.6 acres (100X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban resident)!
of which 36.3 acres (22X) Is Impervious.
G6-10
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
A dense algal crop occupies the surface waters of the Bay continuously from
early Hay to mid-October. Deep sediments (characterized by citizens as
"black muck0) underlie the Bay waters. Spring mixing in the Bay is often
Incomplete and In the fall is often delayed. These conditions have been related
to the accumulation of roadway de-Icing salts In the deeper waters. Algae
and other organic matter sink to the bottom of the Bay. where decomposition
during winter and summer stratification consume all of the dissolved oxygen
In the bottom waters and generate high concentrations of ammonia, phosphate,
and hydrogen sulflde.
A comprehensive sewer study conducted during the late 1960s recommended a
water quality management program to enhance water quality in the Bay. The
program, which was eventually adopted, required complete diversion from the
Bay of all sewage treatment plant (STP) discharges and CSOs from the
City of Rochester. Extensive llmnological studies of the Bay ecosystems
were also conducted. These studies provided the data base to properly
evaluate the Impact of the proposed wastewater diversion program. All of
these studies Indicated that Irondequolt Bay was beginning to approach a
nutrient limiting condition and that a significant reduction In phosphorous
loadings would be necessary to arrest and reverse the water quality deg-
radation of the Bay.
Figure 4 Indicates the dramatic reduction In phosphorus loadings to the Bay
which has been accomplished by the STP effluent diversions and partial CSO
relief. The average daily phosphorous loading to the Bay has decreased from
238 kg P/day to 62 kg P/day since 1977 as the discharges from 16 STPs have
been diverted. Additional reduction will be realized when an ongoing
Rochester CSO pollution abatement program Is completed. This program In-
volves construction of the Culver-Goodman Tunnel complex on the east side
of the city. While completion of this program is expected to reduce phos-
phorous loadings further, It will not lower them to the 16 kg/day level
required to control the algal productivity of the Bay. Consequently nonpoint
source controls are essential to restore, and maintain acceptable water quality
In the Bay.
Specifically, there Is concern by local officials that urban stormwater runoff,
if It continues to enter the Bay uncontrolled, will deter the full restoration
process and may even reverse It.
While much Is known about Irondequott Bay from previous studies, the Impact
of further pollutant loading reductions by the control of urban stormwater
runoff has yet to be adequately demonstrated. The relative magnitude of
the remaining urban runoff pollutant loading and the cost-effectiveness of
further reductions require further study. Furthermore, If It appears cost-
effective to reduce the urban stormwater runoff component of the Bay's
pollutant Inputs, evaluations must continue In order to formulate control
strategies for dealing with the urban runoff problem.
06-11
-------
FIGURE 4 - REDUCTIONS IN PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS TO IRONOEQUOIT BAY
FOLLOWING STP EFFLUENT DIVERSIONS AND PARTIAL CSO RELIEF
log i|en6«puai| o| Buipocr)
G6-12
8. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Clear indication of the extent of citizen concern for water quality in the
Bay has been shown by public support of the $130 million already spent
to divert STP effluents from the bay and of the ibO million presently being
spent to reduce CSOs. Newspapers, radio and television consider efforts to
clean up the Bay newsworthy and generally give such efforts excellent
coverage, another Indicator of widespread citizen interest in the water
quality of the Bay. To some extent, public concern for the Bay is a matter
of re-education as water quality in the Bay has been on the decline for
aany years and Its widespread use for contact recreation is beyond the personal
memories of most of Its current citizens. As word of the NURP study has spread.
however, citizen interest In the future Improvement of the Bay has grown markedly.
G6-13
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
Simply stated, the primary objective of the Irondequott Bay National Urban
Runoff Program (IBHURP) 1s to establish the significance of the Impact of
urban runoff upon the Mater quality of Irondequott Bay and to put It Into per-
spective with other nonpolnt sources. The problems associated with
Irondequott Bay - hypollronetic oxygen depletion, turbidity, and adverse
fishery Impacts - result from the grossly over-productive status of the Bay
and have been well documented. The problems are very clear; the causes of
the problems are not clear. Controls for diverting all point source dis-
charges Involved the expenditure of $130 nillion and are presently operating.
Controls for reducing CSOs to a once-ln-fIve-year frequency have been designed
and are presently under construction. The amount of reversal In Bay
eutrophteat ion that will result from these controls, however, has yet to
be fully determined. The missing element now Is assessment of the-signi-
ficance of urban stormwater runoff as a contributor to eutrophteat ton.
A second, and equally Important objective. Is to determine the effectiveness
of primarily non-structlonat controls In reducing the Impact of urban runoff.
Accordingly, various management options Involving Best Management Practices
(BHPs) which are currently being evaluated by a USEPA Great Lakes Initiative
Grant Program for the City of Rochester will be reviewed for applicability
to the Irondequolt Bay drainage basin. The effectiveness of control measures
will be evaluated separately, and In various combinations. Since commit-
ments have already been made to both point source and CSO control, the merits
of urban runoff control can be more definitively specified and understood
more pragmatically.
B. Methodologies
The sources and magnitude of the pollutants must be determined before specific
control measures can be formulated to abate the present storm-Induced con-
tamination In runoff entering the Bay. The Irondequolt Bay drainage basin
Is comprised of urban, suburban, and rural or agricultural areas. Therefore.
one major task of the overall program Is to determine the magnitude and fre-
quency of specific pollutant loadings from typical urban land uses. Including
highways and roads, and to differentiate these loadings from those originating
from undeveloped land.
To. determine the pollutant loadings associated with different land uses, five
monitoring sites were established. Each site has an associated tributary
drainage area that Is relatively small In relation to the entire Irondequolt
Bay basin. Because of this, boundaries for each area can be accurately
established and the runoff measurements and sampling easily conducted.
Monitoring of small, well-defined watersheds will allow for reliable and
accurate pollutant runoff determinations and easy Identification of the
sources of these contaminants. Estimates of present and future runoff loads
to the Bay will be based on transferring and extrapolating the data collected
from these five different land use sites.
At present, a full year's monitoring program, Incorporating both dry weather
and storm samples and seasonal variations, has been conducted at all five
land use sites. Less frequent monitoring has also been conducted at two
•Junction* sites;draining larger sections of the overall Irondequolt Bay..
basin and at a wetlands site a few hundred yards from the point where
Irondequolt Creek discharges into the Bay and which effectively drains the
entire basin. The same monitoring program will be continued for a second year.
In conducting this project, the Vallenwelder eutrophicatlon model will be
adapted so that the contribution of urban runoff to Bay eutrophIcatIon can be
evaluated. The model will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
overall runoff management schemes on the water quality of the Bay. A watershed
model will be used to establish the relationship of rainfall to stormwater
runoff and pollutant loadings. Watershed response, which transfers precipitation
Input Into runoff output. Is determined by land use and other physical
characteristics which can be estimated during model calibration. One-demensional
tributary models that address advectlve and dispersive process components will
be used to simulate the transport of loads by the tributaries to the Bay. Con-
straints will be imposed on the models to simulate the action of control measures
and thereby establish their relative effectiveness.
C. Monitoring
f .0.
Sample collection and analysis for the Irondequolt Bay NURP are being performed
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Monroe County Health Department
(MCHO).
Table 1 summarizes the land uses and relative sizes of the five primary
sampling sites:
TABLE 1. LAND USE MONITORING SITES
Drainage Area
fenltorlng Location Basin Tributary «1
Land Use
rhornell Road
• i —
laird Road (BOCES)
Cranston Road
iouthgata Road
ast Rochester
Irondequoit Creek 44.4
Thou* Cr«ek 28.5
Irondequott Creek 0.31
Whit* Brook 0.36
Store sewer to 0.61
Irondequolt Creak
Rural
Mixed
Middle density residential
Coaoerelal
High density residential
G6-14
66-15
-------
TABU 2. FLOW MONITORING AMD SAMPLING METHODS
Baseflow samples are collected at all sites using methods described by Guy
and Norman to define non-storm or background concentrations at gaged sites.
Precipitation quality is determined at three sites using an Aerochemetries Inc.
Model 301 wet/dry fall collector. A minimum of one continuous precipitation
quantity gage is located in each watershed sampled. Because of the large
basin area, a network of daily gages for rainfall quantity are operated In the
Irondequoit Bay NURP to supplement continuous precipitation data.
The constituents analyzed In each sample are:
Suspended solids.
Particle size analysis.
Specific conductance,
PH.
Dissolved Solids.
Dissolved NO., NO,-H.
Dissolved KJeldahf-N.
Total Kjeldahl-N.
Dissolved Phosphorus-P,
Total Phosphorus-P,
Dissolved Sodiun-Na,
Dissolved Calcium-Ca,
Dissolved Hagnesiin-Hg.
Dissolved Potasslun-K,
Dissolved Chloride-Cl
Dissolved So.
Alkalinity a? CaCo,.
Dissolved Organic Carbon,
Suspended Organic Carbon,
Chemical Oxygen Demand.
5-Day BOD.
Ultimate BOD. and
Fecal Collfonu.
Sampling and streamflow equipment at the Irondequoit Bay collection sites are
maintained by USGS and Monroe County personnel. All samples are returned as
soon as possible after collection to the Monroe County Health Department
Laboratories for further processing, i.e.. filtering, splitting, preservation.
etc. The use of this lab provides a nearby well equipped facility with well
trained personnel for sampling processing.
Equipment
Flow monitoring at four of the five land use sites Is accomplished by converting
a stage or depth of flow, the primary measurement. Into a flowrate according
to a calibrated and verified stage/discharge relationship. At the East Rochester
site, flow is computed directly by a Harsh-HeBirney electronic head and velocity
meter. Depth is computed by a pressure sensor, whereas, velocity is determined
by an ultrasonic meter. All water quality sampling is accomplished by the use
of Manning Corporation flow proportional samplers. Each of the five monitoring
sites also measures precipitation by a recording tlpping-bucket rain gauge. A
suumary of the type of sampler and recording procedure used for runoff flow
monitoring and water quality sampling is presented in Table 2.
Monitoring
Location
Flow Monitoring
Sampling
Rainfall
Thornall Road
Balrd Road
(BOCES)
Cranston Road
SouthgaU
Ea*t
Rocnastar
Mercury •anoaatar
bubblar gaga-records
In graphical and 15-
•in digital fora.
Manning SaopUr
stags-actlvatad
or flowr
proportlonal
saoples.
Volumetric
S *1n digital
output
Stilling wall-float
ntlwd-rvcords In
graphical and IS din
digital fora
SaM as Thormll Road -
axcapt racords In S ain
digital fora
Sana as Cranston Road -
—Sao* as Thornatl Road
-Sam as Thornall Road
Manh-Mcairney
flowMtar
.as Thorn*11 Road
Controls
A wide variety of control measures have been investigated for possible use in
the Irondequoit Bay basin. Probable candidates include Increased use of porous
pavement in developing areas. Improved solid waste management procedures.
erosion and sedimentation control regulations, chemical use ordinances and
related public Information programs, modification df highway deicing practices.
industrial spill control ordinances, mlscroscreening and swirl concentrators
(depending upon monitoring results with regard to particles size and associated
nutrients), detention and retention basins and swale drainage. Because of
the presence of a large wetlands area near the mouth of Irondequoit Creek,
this technology offers great promise in this watershed. Considerable discussion
has already addressed the possibility of installing a control structure on the
outflow from the wetlands to maximize detention tine and. presumably, nutrient
uptake. However, this would have to be done carefully as. according to some
of the available literature, microbial activity is the most important mechanism
for phosphorus reaoval and this activity decreases If the soil is submerged and
becomes anaerobic. In any case, because of the length of time required for
adequate evaluation it is highly unlikely that significant results can be
obtained by the end of the NURP project period and therefore wetlands evaluation
would have to be conducted as a separate project.
(16-16
G6-17.
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Water Resources Planning Board
In Association With
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
And The
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
REGION III, EPA
G7-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The metropolitan Washington area extends for approximately 2400 square miles cen-
tered on the District of Columbia. The major receiving waters include the
Potomac River and Estuary, the Patuxent River and the Occoquan Creek and River.
These rivers and estuary systems provide important freshwater and low salinity
spawning aras for anadromous fish populations off the Atlantic coast from Maine to
Florida. Further these river systems provide the source of a valuable product,
drinking water, for the entire metropolitan Washington area.
The water quality problems Include destruction of spawning areas, reduction in
storage capacity of the Occoquan reservoir from excessive upstream erosion, and
eutrophtc levels of algae production.
The project is (1) evaluating BMP effectiveness of source, volume and detention
controls, (2) determining capital and operation, maintenance and repair costs of
BHP's, (3) scanning 128 priority pollutants, (4) refining runoff data in central
business district areas, (5) monitoring and analyzing the contribution of atmos-
pheric sources to urban nonpoint source loads, (6) conducting critical watershed
studies to apply runoff relationships, refine data transferability and identify
nonpoint source management options, and (7) conducting a public participation
program.
The Washington NURP project participation represents a unique cooperative ventures
of government and the business community. The project is being coordinated and
administrated by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and its
Water Resources Planning Board (WRPB).
Since 1975, the WRPB has been responsible for areawide wastewater management plan-
ning for the metropolitan region under provisions of Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The WRPB Is composed of represen-
tatives of the executive and legislative branches of COG's 16 member jurisdic-
tions. Members also include representatives from the State of Maryland, Virginia,
and the District of Columbia (through its responsibility for state certification
of the 208 areawide water quality management plan); the Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), and the Northern Virginia Planning District Com-
mission (NVPDC).
Technical staff assistance of the WRPB Is provided by the COG Department of En-
vironmental Programs (OEP). OEP is responsible for all of the project's program
management activities. Other COG participating departments include its Office of
Computer Services and Office of Public Participation.
The project was developed and is being carried out in association with the Nor-
thern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) and the Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (VPI). VPI is responsible for all sample collec-
tion and analysis, with the exception of priority pollutant scan analysis, which
has been subcontracted to a private research/engineering firm. NVPOC is responsi-
ble, in conjunction with VPI and COG, for evaluating lab data from specified BMP
monitoring activities and land use/runoff correlation studies. VPI and NVPDC are
generally recognized as national leaders in research and data applications involv-
ing nonpoint source assessments.
67-2
Both agencies were associated with COG in earlier 208-related studies and planning
efforts.
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the Northern Virginia Buil-
der's Association (NVBA) are also providing financial support, and periodic tech
nical input to this project. To date, the associations have provided assistance
in site selection and development of unit cost survey information for the BMP pol-
lutant removal efficiency and cost studies. The NAHB and NVBA have also partici-
pated on the WRPB Nonpoint Source Task Force (NPSTF), a group which includes
engineers and planner from area local and state governments as well as business
and citizen group interests.
67-3
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
Tlie Washington, DC. metropolitan region is an area of approximately 2,400 square
miles, located within the Potomac River Basin and a major portion of the
Patuxent River Basins (See Figure 1). Us principal urban areas are situated at
the heail of the Potomac Estuary. Free-flowing sections of the Potomac River pro-
vide 60 percent of the region's drinking water, with one of the estuary's major
tributaries, Occoijuan Creek, supplying an additional thirteen percent. The upper
Potomac Estuary and its tributaries constitute an important freshwater low salin-
ity spawning area for anadromous fish of the Potomac and Chesapeake Bay.
A majority of the region falls within the piedmont and coastal plain geologic for-
mations. The region's clay/sandy silt loan soils, found on both formations, are
considered severely erosion prone. Figure 2 depicts the region's generalized soil
groupings.
6. Population.
Iliu Washington, DC. region has a current population of approximately 3 million
persons. Population growth has traditionally been greatest in area suburbs and
recent growth trend assessments predict this trend will continue, with the suburbs
projected to show over a 40 percent increase in population by the year 2000 as
compared to an 11 percent rate of growth in the inner urban core (District of
Columbia, Arlington County).
Table 1 shows.the current (1977) distribution of land use throughout the region,
and provides a general indication of future development and land use patterns.
C. Drainage.
There are several hundred streams of varying flow in the region, tributary to both
the free-flowing and estuary portions of the Potomac and Patuxent rivers. A large
number of these streams are located in older residential or newlydeveloping areas.
Figure 3 shows the metropolitan region, its streams, basins and some of its major
jiirisdictional boundaries.
The urban area is served by a separate sanitary sewer systeal with the exception of
14.UOO acres in the District of Columbia and 650 acres in Alexandria which are
served by combined sewer systems. Further, approximately 7 to 8 percent of the
population of the metropolitan Washington area is served by on-site (e.g., septic
tank) systems.
G7 4
Figure 1. The Washington Metropolitan Are* and Potomac River Basin
G7-5
-------
I!D!QIBIO;@ I! 01! 110111683;
ii
TABLE 1. LAND COVER IN THE WASHINGTON MEIROPOUTAM AREA
3
I
S
3
f.
I
s
Urban/Suburban Areas
Low-density single family
Medium-density single family
Townhouse/garden apartment
Hi-Rise Residential
Institutional
Industrial
Suburban Commercial
Central Business District
Rural Areas
Forest
Idle
Cropland (Hin. till)
Cropland (Conv. till)
Pasture
Tended Areas
Estimated Total
Percent
Imperviousness
6%
25%
40%
70*
60%
70%
90%
95%
1%
a%
IX
1%
1%
IX
Existing (1977)
Land Cover in
Acres
37,615
137,643
14,689
28,316
43,580
15,011
39,671
3.575
512,585
311,263
61.732
25,933
206,442
68,583
1,506,641
Projected (200)
Land Cover in
Acres
100,885
206,880
17,905
30,391
48,337
23,642
48,029
6,133
436,935
271.982
54.323
22.743
185,176
53,083
1,506,641
G7-6
67-7
-------
PROJECT AREA
1. Catchment Name - DC1. Catchment 001. Stratton Woods, Roadside Swale, BMP
A. Area - 8.461 acres.
B. Population - No data.
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 64.5 feet/mile,
100% served with swales and ditches. The drainage channels approximate a
95.0 feet/mile slope, and extend 1890 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
E. Land Use
8.46 acres is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential
II. Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 002. Dufief. Roadside Swale BMP
A. Area - 11.84 acres.
B. Population - No data.
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 449.8 feet/mile,
100% served with swales and ditches. The drainage channels approximate a
343.2 feet/mile slope, and extend 450 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
Streets consist of 0.78 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes.
E. Land Use
11.84 acres of 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential
III. Catchment Name - OC1, Catchment 103. Westleigh Retention Pond (wet) Inflow
BMP
A. Area - 40.952 acres
B. Population - No data
Figure 3. Major Washington Area Watersheds
G/-8
G7-9
-------
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 195.4 feet/mile,
63.7% served with curbs and gutters and 16.30% served by no sewers. The
drainage channels approximate a 127.25 feet/nile slope, and extend
1800 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 83.7% separate storm sewers
and 16.30% no sewers.
*
Streets consist of 3.26 lane miles of 12-foot wide equivalent lanes.
Curbs consist of 2.58 curb miles.
E. Land Use
37.96 acres is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
2.94 acres is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
IV. Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 004, Fairidge Roadside Swale BMP
A. Area - 18.77 acres
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 227 feet/ mile,
49.7% served with curbs and gutters and 50.83X served with swales and
ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 190 feet/mile slope, and extend
375 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm sewers.
Streets consist of 2.24 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes.
E. Lane Use
16.54 acres is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
2.24 acres is Urban Institutional
V. Catchment Name - OC1, Catchment, Burke Ponds
A. Area - 18.3 acres
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 230 feet/mile,
100% served with curbs and gutters. The drainage channel approximate a
220 feet/mile slope, and extend 1260 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
Curbs consist of 1.52 curb miles.
E. Land Use
18.3 acres is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
VI. Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 106, Stedwick Detention (dry) BMP
A. Area - 24.44 acres
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 248.2 feet/mile,
79.67% served with curbs and gutters and 20.33% served by no sewers.
The drainage channels approximate a 227 feet/mile slope, and extend
1000 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 79.67% separate storm sewers,
and 20.33% no sewers.
Streets consist of 2.96 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes. Curbs
consist of 1.99 curb miles.
E. Land Use
0.57 acres is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential
20.70 acres is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
6.17 acres is Urban Institutional
VII. Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 107, Lake Ridge Detention Pond (dry) BMP
A. Area - 68.3 acres
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 420 feet/mile,
68.26% served with curbs and gutters and 31.74% served with no sewers.
The storm sewers approximate a 164 feet/mile slope, and extend 2220 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 68.26% separate storm sewers,
and 31.74% no sewers
Streets consist of 11.56 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes.
Curbs consist of 6.10 curb miles.
E. Lane Use
Not available
VIII. Catchment Name - DC 1, Catchment. 008, Dandridge Infiltration Irenrh BMP
A. Area - 1.96 acres
G7-10
(57-11
-------
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catchment hat> a representative slope of 190.1 feet/mile.
93.87% served with curbs and gutters and 6.12% served with swales and
ditches. The store sewers appruxlnate a 113 feet/mile slope, and extend
540 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of Uie catchnent is 100% separate storm sewers.
Streets consist of 0.27 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes. Curbs
consist of 0.13 curb miles.
E. Land Use
1.96 acres is greater than 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
IX. Catchment Name - OC1, Catchment 009, Rockville City Center Porous Pavement BMP
A. Area -4.2 acres
B. Population - No data
C. Drainage - This catcliment has a representative slope of 135 feet/mile,
74.3% served with curbs and gutters and 25.7% served with no sewers.
Ihe storm sewers approximate a 135 feet/mile slope, and extend 390 feet.
I). Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 74.3% separate storm sewers,
and 25.7% is no sewers.
Streets consist of 1.82 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes. Curbs
consist of 0.25 curb miles.
t land Use
3.J2 acres is urban institutional
l.ut) acres Is urban parkland or open space.
X. Catchment Name - (id. Catcliment Oil, Burke Village Shopping Center Infiltra-
tion Trench BMP
A. Area -4.5 acres
B. PupuI at ion - No data
C. Drainage - This catcluuent has a representative slope of 85 feet/oile,
82% served with curbs and gutters and 18X served with no sewer. The stom
sewers approximate a 30.6 feet/oile slope, and extend 585 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 82% separate storm sewers,
and 18% no sewers.
Streets consist of 2.14 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes. Curbs
consist of 0.36 curb miles.
t. Land Use
3.69 acres is urban commercial shopping center, O.B1 acres is urban parkland
or open space.
G7 12
G7-13
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local definition (government)
In 1975, the Water Resources Planning Board (WRPB) of the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments (COG) was given broad responsibilities and funding support
to conduct areawide waste treatment management planning in the Washington metropol
itan area pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972. In accordance with its mandated responsibilities, the WRPB adopted an ini-
tial 208 Waste Treatment Management Plan for the Washington area in June 1978.
The Plan was subsequently approved by Washington area jurisdictions and is cur-
rently under review by State certifying agencies.
As a starting point for developing an understanding of pollutant sources and im-
pacts affecting Washington area waterways, a water quality assessment was con-
ducted as part of the initial 208 plan. This assessment identified the following
general conditions.
• The Potomac estuary experiences periodically excessive algal concentra-
tions and occasional contraventions of dissolved oxygen standards during
summer periods of low fresh water inflow and high water temperature.
• Ther is no longer a diversified system of bottom life in the upper Potomac
estuary. Nearly all rooted aquatic plants are gone from the estuarial
shallows of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers.
• The recreational and commercial value of acquatic life within or dependent
upon Potomac and Patuxent River waters has generally declined due to habi-
tat descruction and water quality degradation.
• Few streams in the more urbanized portions of the Washington metropolitan
area consistently meet bacterial standards for safe water contact
recreation.
• The recreational and aesthetic value of many of the region's stream valley
has decreased due to stream channel destruction resulting from uncontrolle
storm runoff in urbanizing areas. This has also resulted in declines in
the diversity and range of acquatic and water associated species inhabitin
these small streams.
• Sedimentation from excessive upstream erosion is reducing the storage capa
city of the Occoquan reservoir -- a major water supply source for
Northern Virginia. Periodically high suspended solids loads in the
Potomac River has also resulted in higher water treatment costs for the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission at its Potomac filtration plant.
• As the Washington area has developed, related increases in the amount of
land surface made impervious to rainfall have increased stormwater runoff
pollutant loads and freshwater flows to downstream areas in periods im-
mediately following storm events. The combination of increased freshwater
flows from runoff, and increased sediment, nutrient, and bacterial loads
being swept down into the Potomac and Patuxent estuaries appear to have
reduced available commercial seafood harvesting areas, reduced fish spawn-
ing and nursery grounds and stimulated excessive plant and algal growth.
Eutrophic levels of algae production is an especially visible problem at
the Occoquan Reservoir.
B. Local perception (public awareness)
The public participation program will provide the opportunity to determine the
public perception of water resources problems.
G7-14
G7-15
-------
PROJECT! DESCRIPTION
A• Major Objective.
I lie Washington Metropolitan Area's Urban Runoff Demonstration Project is being
undertaken as one of 28 projects sponsored by EPA in various urban areas through-
out the country as part of its Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). The pro-
ject will provide information on urban uoripoint source loadings and potential
control measure effectiveness needed by EPA in its national assessment or urban
runoff problems and potential controls. It will also develop local field data
needed to help assess the impacts of nonpoint loadings in Washington area waters
and to quantify the costs and effectiveness of potential control measures. This
work is critical to the identification and implementation of water quality manage-
ment strategies that are based on a full understanding of interactive point/
nonpoint source loading impacts on the region's waters and the potential control
tradeoffs available for meeting clean water goals in the most cost-effective
manner.
Individual tasks being executed under this project have been designed to build upon
the land use/runoff relationships and Best Management Practice (BMP) pollutant
trap efficiency and cost information originally developed for the Washington, O.C.
recjitm as part of the Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning Board's
(WRPB) initial 20d planning effort.
The specific and interrelated tasks being carried out in this project will:
• Document, through monitoring and analysis, the costs and effectiveness of
alternative Best Management Practices (BHPs) for nonpoint pollution
control.
Related tasks will associate BMP effectiveness with sediment particle size
(for detention controls) and soil absorption characteristics (for infiltra-
tion controls).
• Refine atmospheric loading estimates and identify air/water quality manage-
ment interfaces and possible regional variations in air quality that should
be accounted for in the local application of runoff data to specific geo-
graphic areas.
• Demonstrate the detailed application of land use/runoff relationships to
identify nonpoint source management program alternatives in two prototype
local watersheds selected for further study in the region's initial
206 planning effort.
• Refine existing land use/runoff loading estimates in central business dis-
trict areas which have very high levels of imperviousness and on-site
activity.
Identify the bioavailability of phosphorus loads in urban runoff and the
presence of other toxic substances specified in EPA's list of pollutants.
Identify maintenance and captured pollutant disposal guidelines for urban
BHPs having potential application In the Washington area.
In addition, local technical liaison and public participation activities, under-
taken as part of overall project execution, are being used to further refine and
develop local understandings of nonpoint pollution problems, demonstrate the types
of measures currently available to control these problems, and otherwise encourage
the participation of local jurisdictions and affected Interest groups in the im-
plementation of detailed planning and nonpoint source management activities that
may be needed to meet area water quality goals and standards.
All of these activties are needed to develop an adequate understanding of the over-
all significance of nonpoint loadings and the most cost-effective means available
for their control. Without these analyses and associated demonstration of local
data applications, it would be nost difficult to gain any meaningful degree of
local support and participation In implementing those nonpoint management programs
that may be needed to protect certain area waters. Final task outputs will also
provide EPA with state-of-the-art planning and management tools that will be help-
ful in the evaluation of other urban nonpoint pollution problems and solutions
from the broader perspective of national needs that EPA is addressing through its
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
B. Methodologies.
The Washington, O.C. NURP project will substantially refine and expand upon the
preliminary nonpoint source data base collected during the region's initial
208 water quality planning effort. As part of its initial activities as the de-
signated agency for areawide waste treatment planning in the Washington region —
the Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning Board (WRPB) sponsored sev-
eral field studies to develop basic data needed to identify the major sources and
magnitude of area nonpoint pollution contributions and to evaluate the need and
options available for nonpoint control. These studies produced estimates of land
use/runoff relationships from 11 representative land uses (7 of which were urban/
suburban in nature), and Best Management Practices (BMP) pollutant removal effi-
ciency and cost information primarily directed toward BMP applications in urban
and developing land uses areas.
Conducted for COG by the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVDPDC)
and VPI & SU's Department of Engineering, the land use/runoff study analyzed rain-
fall and runoff data from over 300 site/storms collected between June 1976 and
May 1977 at 21 small watersheds in Northern Virginia. Each composite, the moni-
tored sites represented a mix of the residential, urban and rural land uses typi-
cally found in the Washington, O.C. area.
More recent studies by the Council of Governments have been directed at assessing
the total annual pollutant loading (BOO, N, P) reaching the upper 50 miles of the
G7-I6
67-17
-------
Potomac Esluary, by source, and considering both loads delivered by watersheds within
the metropolitan region and pollutant loadings originating from the Upper Potomac
Basin above the Washington, D.C. area. Using the NVPOC land/runoff relationships
previously cited, nonpoint loadings from the region's 42 major watersheds were
assessed based on simulations of current (1977) and forecasted (2000) average
annual total and unit area nonpoint loads for average rainfall year and according
to existing and forecasted land use patterns. Regional versus upper Potomac Basin
loading comparisons were developed based on an analysis of US EPA and USGS data
taken at Chain Bridge (at the head of the Potomac Estuary) during the late 1970's.
Point source loadings were considered based on all permitted discharges to the
Upper Estuary and its direct tributaries below Chain Bridge. Projected point
source discharges were calculated to reflect Implementation, over time, of NPOJS
discharge permits.
Study Findings
These initial 208-retated studies resulted in the following conclusions regarding
urban nonpoint pollution, its impact and control In the Washington, D.C. area:
1. The concentration of pollutant loads in runoff fron urban sites was sig-
nificantly higher than runoff from rural/agricultural sites on a per acre
basis.
2. Urban runoff contained significant loadings of BOD, nitrogen and phos-
phorus on a per acre loading basis. Runoff rate, volume and pollutant
loadings Increased as land area increased in impervious cover (see
Table 2).
3. Urban areas with a high percentage of impervious land cover generally
shows significant, "first flush" effects for certain pollutants.
4. local storoiwater runoff loadings represented roughly one-half the current
total annual pollutant loading of BOD, N and P, particularly as point
source discharges are brought under control.
5. Local runoff represented approximately 20 percent of the total pollution
load at Chain Bridge. A majority of the load originated from sources
(primarily nonpofnt) upstream of the Washington, D.C. area.
6. Local runoff and upstream nonpoint loadings, if controlled, would far
exceed future nonpoint source loadings on an average annual basis
(Figure 4).
7. Nonpoint loads from stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflow loads
are extremely transient and variable. Both respond directly to runoff
produced by precipitation and snow-melt. The generation of nonpoint
pollutants ranges from nearly no contributions at all during dry periods
to the largest and most Important source of pollutants during major run-
off events. Similarly, combined sewer overflows typically do not occur
unless some type of runoff Is generated, but overflows represent the most
severe form of localized pollution when they do occur.
<
oc
—
J
C
-
-J
>
Undiffer-
enfiated
Soil
i
o
_i
c
•0
lis
ii
TO O
C
£|g
£ §
_J
C
•— O -r-
cj -j i
&§
CJ -J
Percent
Impervious
at
(A
3
3
O 1^- CJ
o cvj «*
«\j m m
u>r-r,maocomrsiu>cOrHU>
r-» rH CM rH
atorooicsjiooimintDiocn
r-l l/> O* U"> <^ ^ O «~* »~* rH rH f~<
«*eou,o«Mu.^«o.o^
^-.^ooai^cxjoooortr-i
oo^*^a,Moo««oa>o
r-t ^1 CM r-4
oNor-~nr^i~.carH4-r-.o
•*'"SP;«S'vl"'f'*'t't
^OOrtNOCMOOT^OOtHrH
r-l r-4 CM C«l iH *-*
rH.«4-ou>5n*y>«-H
«'j^r^fn r^o^a>
X
f i
5 ot
X u. — o»
•— O) r* O) '—
f- a* c io ai (a
W *O) W> C +J )— U
U. C 01 C 0> *r- U
T- X ^ Ot O) r~ OJ
oiio^k-o*- * e
*o> >» To ca *u> c r-io to o
c*Tc\oio --c « — o
T- T- 41 ai a: '*- i— o uto
iAUlQW M >r- O-r-C
C 30)3 E 4-1 Ot *- ID
01 0) E O « +J V» 3 C »- TJ *J ^3
*j a S -c ••- -^ w 60)30>uii>
10 -r-ca:*Ja)a>-r->*JXJ3D
^* 2 TJ y i Mkr-ccvic-axia
V)oa>Of-co'D*>~oiaa>c3ca
UJ_j£r-3:—tU.H-.X-»«^0
1A *O
3-3
o 'i- u>
u c to
to to s-
3 O -r-
H- >
r— L.
O) O)
i- a (~
3 C 0)
o "
z
_
UJ (0 3
•r- C. «/>
*£•>.
-O P —
E ft 01 2
01 01 3 •—
in to O ttl
tO O» C «A
i C •-• tO
-I- a
•»- (D
V «- • T3
O m C
c to 0) *ti
.
o j
c o
«-
u • •->
0) 00 C
C ro -*-
R7-18
G7-19
-------
I-
s. -
g
G »
i
J
i "
Oxygen Demand
Taoo20)
Total tSlir
p2, ™
Taul Phoipftorui
f*i"" ••' ti i
8. Uncontrolled urban stonnwater runoff volumes posed a threat to stable
streambed habitats.
9. Application of certain BMPs appeared to be feasible methods of reducing
urban runoff loads, particularly in developing areas of the region. Of
these. Modification of storrowater management structures to achieve added
water quality benefits appeared particularly cost-effective. Habitat
protection and trapping of heavy metals were identified as additional
benefits provided by certain BMPs. Available data were incorporated into
the 1980 Supplement to the region's 208 Water Quality Management Plan.
The following is a summary of task objectives and methodologies:
Task 1. BMP EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
Runoff inflows and outflows of certain BHPs are being monitored to determine wine
pollutant removal efficiencies for different BMPs having potential application in
the Washington metropolitan area. BMP efficiency data will be used by local and
regional agencies to:
• Address local technical and poll tea) concerns about the effectiveness of
typical nonpoint pollution control measures specified in the initial
208 plan and develop information on the efficiency of local BMPs that is
equivalent in detail to the "urban land use-nonpoint pollution" relation-
ships produced by the initial 208 planning study. The BMP efficiency data
will be used by local and regional agencies to evaluate nonpoint pollution
management strategies for the region's watersheds.
• Refine the region's "urban land use/nonpoint pollution" relationships
produced In the initial 208 planning effort, by collecting and analyzing
nonpoint pollution loading data from new monitoring sites under various
neteorologic conditions.
• Refine the region's 208 "desktop" nonpoinl source and BMP assessment
models to enhance applications by local public works and land use planning
staffs using the BMP efficiency and nonpoint pollution loading relation-
ships cited above.
• Refine the region's 208 "computer-based" planning models to enhance appli-
cations by regional planning agencies Involved in water quality management
using the BMP efficiency and nonpoint pollution loading relationships.
• Actively Involve representatives from the home building industry in the
evaluation of BMPs that are being considered for the region's urban areas.
Task 2. AMORTIZED/UNIT COST DAFA ON BMP CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING
Itemized unit cost information is being developed for BMPs used throughout the
Metropolitan Washington area. This information will allow for projection of
figure 4. Average Animal Pollutant Loads
G7-21
-------
anticipated capita) costs of BMPs as well as projections of manpower and equip-
ment expenditures required to maintain BMPs in proper operating condition. Data
Mill be amortized and reviewed with other BMP test results in determining cost-
effectiveness of the various BMP alternatives. Operating, maintenance, and pollut-
ant disposal guidelines that are necessary to insure the continued effective
operation of these structures will also be developed.
Task 3. SCAN OF 128 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
While there is strong evidence Indicating that storm runoff represents a major
contribution of contaminants to acquatic systems, the majority of work in this
area has concentrated on traditional sanitary and chemical parameters. To assist
in its nationwide assessment of the presence, severity, and sources of 128 prior-
ity pollutants, EPA has requested that a limited scan of priority pollutants in
runoff be included as part of the NURP project.
Runoff from representative urban land uses (including a central business district,
an Industrial site, suburban shopping center, and a nedium density residential
area is being sampled for the 128 priority pollutants Identified by EPA.
Task 4. REFINEMENTS OF RUNOFF DATA IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) AREAS
Several years ago,- as part of its overall Combined Sewer Overflow Study, the D.C.
Department of Environmental Services installed and monitored the quality of storm
runoff from two sampling stations In the Washington area's CBO. At COG's sugges-
tion, the samples collected and sampling methodology were patterned after the
NVPDC/VPI&SU study to provide comparable data. Under this task, NVPDC Is analyz-
ing the sampling data collected to refine the original NVPDC land use/runoff rela-
tionships to specifically reflect CBD areas. (NVPDC's original runoff studies foY
the WRPB developed relationships for highly impervious areas, but they were more
suburban in nature than the CBD.)
Task S. MONITORING AND ANAYLS1S OF ATMOSPHERIC SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO URBAN
NONPOINT SOURCE LOADS
Initial 208 field work indicated that significant percentages of total nutrient
and COD loadings and lesser proportions of other constituents observed in runoff
are delivered by precipitation rather than washed off the land surface. More ex-
tensive analysis of locatlonal differences In air quality was needed to determine
if they were substantial enough to necessitate further refinements of the land
use/runoff relationships when they are applied to specific parts of the Washington
area. Similarly, a better understanding of the components and sources of atmos-
pheric loads was thought necessary to identify the most appropriate control tech-
niques and interfaces between air and water quality management strategies. As an
example, data was lacking on the composition of airborne particulates, their
source, dispersion characteristics, and the ultimate manner in which they became
entrained in runoff (through wetfall or dustfall accumulation on the land).
This task is attempting to quantify the contribution of atmospheric sources to
runoff pollutant loads; consider how air-related sources should be factored into
existing land use/runoff quality relationships; assess the relative importance of
67-22
atmospheric loads delivered by rainout, washout and dryfall; determine the influ-
ence of seasonal and rainfall variations on atmospheric loads; assist in identily-
ing and quantifying possible multiple water and air quality benefits and
limitations associated with certain control techniques such as street sweeping;
and assist COG's air quality management efforts by providing a greater understand-
ing of fugitive dust sources and possible controls.
The task involves the analysis of hi-vol filter data from eight selected state and
local air quality monitoring stations and the establishment and analysis of othor
data from four wetfal1/dryfall sampling sites that were constructed with NURP
funding.
Task 6. CONDUCT CRITICAL WATERSHED SAMPLING AND MODEL RUNS TO APPLY RUNOFF
RELATIONSHIPS, REFINE DATA TRANSFERABILITY, AND IDENTIFY NPS MANAGE-
MENT OPTIONS
The land use/runoff relationships developed in initial 208 planning activities
were based upon intensive sampling of small watersheds of homogeneous land use in
Northern Virginia. Land uses monitored were typical of those found in other parts
of the Washington area in terms of kinds of site activity, ranges of impervious-
ness, and underlying soil conditions. As such, they are quite suitable for devel-
oping preliminary estimates of overall regional nonpoint pollutant loads and
relative watershed contributions to these loads. However, concerns have been ex-
pressed that more detailed demonstrations of runoff data transferability are
needed before such relationships are applied to more precisely defined water
quality management options and programs that may be needed for specific
watersheds.
A transferability analysis of this nature was conducted as part of the-Occoquan
comprehensive watershed study for the WRPB. In this study, a hydrologic and water
quality model was set up and runoff pollutant loads were estimated for large mixed
use drainage areas using the described land use/ runoff relationships. These
model outputs favorably compared with observed monitoring data once appropriate
refinements were made to reflect In-stream process effects on runoff loads. How-
ever, additional activity involving hydrologic modeling in conjunction with water
quality sampling and analysis was believed needed in other watersheds of the
metropolitan area to further demonstrate runoff data applications in different
areas having some variation in physiographic and land use characteristics.
The Seneca Creek and Piscataway Creek Watersheds in Maryland were selected as pro-
totype watersheds to further demonstrate to area local jurisdictions the applica-
tion of metropolitan area land use/runoff relationships in the investigation of
nonpoint pollution problems. The watersheds selected have mixed land uses and
differing physiographic characteristics, and were selected because of their rela-
tive significance for nonpoint source load contributions as determined through the
WRPB's critical watershed identification process.
G7-23
-------
lasfc 1. Pl/BilC PAHIICIPATION
Ihis task contains a broad range of public participation activities geared to in-
forming and involving the public in urban runoff evaluations. The objectives of
cespcsiie subtasfcs are as follows:
• To inform the public about the problems of urban runoff, the objectives of
the HURP project and the nature of the research conducted under NURP.
To encourage the involvement of a broad range of interested and affected
constituencies in BMP evaluation and in the fomulation of regional urban
runoff policies that may be prompted by NURP project results.
Activities include:
• publication of newsletters and other literature to educate the public on
the issues related to urban runoff and NURP studies and objectives.
• preparation of urban runoff exhibits, slides and other audiovisual mater-
ial
• BMP site tours
presentations to outside citizen and professional organizations
COG Public Advisory Commit lee involvement
media education
conference sponsorship
these activities are being timed to parallel the NURP project's technical work and
management activities. The initial focus has been on providing information about
the urban runoff situation in the Washington area and the objectives and method-
ology of the NURP project. As the project progresses and data becomes available,
more attention will be devoted to surveying the public on issues of BMP accepta-
bility, costs, effectiveness and willingness to pay. A concluding conference in
FY '82 is to be sponsored to facilitate discussion between citizens, development
interests and public officials on possible policy and implementation approaches to
urban runoff control.
C. Monitoring.
1. The BMP sites devised in Table 3 and located in Figure 5 monitored, con-
sist of three types of BMP practices as follows:
Source CuntroIs
Programs that are designed to minimise the accumulation of pollutants on the land
surface during dry periods between rainfall events, and subdivision site design
I
o>
G7-25
-------
policies that, are directed at reducing the potential for generating nonpoint pollu-
tants during storm events. These programs can range from policies that encourage
the use of roadside sw.iles and other natural drainage systems in lieu of conven-
tional connected storm drain systems, to reducing roadway pavement widths in order
to decrease the total amount of impervious surfaces created through development.
This type of control is being tested at the following NURP sites established dur-
ing 1980.
• Fairldge (Swale Drainage and Reducted Pavement Width)
• Stratton Woods (Swale Drainage)
• Dufief (Swale Drainage and Reduced Pavement Widths)
Volume Controls
Volume Control BHPs obtain their pollutant removal effectiveness through channel-
ing a specific volume of runoff, containing both dissolved and suspended pollu-
tants, into the soil profile where pollutants are trapped or otherwise degraded by
the natural checmical and biological processes that take place in the soil. This
type of control Is being evaluated at the following sites during this NURP
project.
• Dandridge Apartment Complex (Infiltration Pits)
• Burke Village Center Shopping Center (Infiltration Trenches)
• City Center Building (Porous Pavement with underlying stone storage area)
Detention Controls
Detention controls obtains their pollutant removal effectiveness through detaining
captured storn runoff for a sufficient period of time to allow suspended pollu-
tants to settle out through the natural sedimentation process. The pollutant re-
moval effectiveness of both "wet ponds" and "dry ponds" were evaluated during 1980.
The dry ponds that were evaluated were equipped with modified outlet structures
designed to detain storm runoff for a period of 24 hours prior to its release to
the receiving waters. The sites being monitored that are equipped with detention
controls are:
• WesHeigh (Wet Pond)
• Burke Village (Wet Pond)
• Stedwick (Dry Pond)
G7-26
2. The priority pollutant scan sites are divided into two sets. Tlie first
set consists of three paired stations:
1. Falridge/Stedwick;
2. Oufief/Westleigh; and
3. Burketown Center/Burke Pond.
The close arrangement of these stations allows for sampling to take place at bnth
of the pairs during a single storm event.
The second set of sites consist of a series of individual sampling stations.
These sites include:
1. Rockville City Center;
2. Stratton Woods;
3. Dandridge; and
4. Lakeridge.
3. Four wetfa)I/dryfall (WD) sampling stations have been established as
shown In Figure 6 within the COG area as part of this NURP program. Ihese sites
are located at the Burke Village Shopping Center In Burke, Virginia, adjacent to
the BMP volume control monitoring site, with the other being located at the U.S.
Park Service Administrative Building in Southwest Washington, D.C.
4. The eight (8) hi-vol sampling stations established as part of this NURP
project represent the widely diversified conditions found within this region.
Their spatial distribution throughout the metropolitan area also Insures that in-
formation gained through this work will contribute to a greater understanding of
the impact air quality has on nonpoint source pollution problems.
Five of the stations have been located in the more suburban portions of the region.
These sites will collect total suspended particulate (TSP) data from the following
surburban business districts:
Maryland
Rockville, Montgomery County
Laurel (Laurel Junior H.S.), Prince George's County
Hall (C&P Telephone Co.), Prince George's County
Virginia
Massey Building (Police Station), Fairfax County
Fort Belvoir (South Post Bldge. #247), Fairfax County
67-27
-------
MM MUMTITI CP
Figure 6. Location of Wetf»11/Dryfal 1 Monitoring Sites
G7-28
The remaining three sites are located in more dense urban areas of the metropoli-
tan region. They are located as follows:
District of Columbia
Catholic university, Northeast D.C.
lladley Hospital, Southeast O.C.
Virginia
Aurora Hills Community Center, Arlington County
The distribution of these TSP sampling station allows for conclusions to be drawn
regarding the variations in air quality that exist betwen the high density busi-
ness districts and lower density suburban developments. Figure 7 illustrates this
regional distribution of TSP Hi-Vol sampling equipment.
5. Two watersheds are being monitored as shown in Figure 8.
Seneca Creek
The Seneca Creek watershed is located in Central Montgomery County, Maryland and
drains an area of approximately 82,440 acres, (his watershed is located almost
completely within the Piedmont Plateau, an area characterized by gently to steeply
rolling topography. Elevations within this area range from 850 ft. Mean Sea Level
Datum (MSI) in the northeastern section to 180 ft MSL at the mouth of Seneca Creek
at its confluence with the Potomoac River.
Soils found within the Seneca drainage area are typical of those common to the
Piedmont Plateau, having been derived, in part, from the underlying igneous,
metamorphic and older sedimentary bedrock. Approximately 45 percent of these
soils belong to the Glenelg-Hanor and Chester associations. These are well
drained silt loan soils that produce moerate to low amounts of runoff in their
undisturbed condition. The next largest group of soils (30 percent) are from the
Manor-Linganore-Glenelg association. These are also silt loam soils that produce
moderate to low amounts of runoff. The last major type of soils (20 percent)
found within the area are the Penn and Lewisberry Association that developed from
the Triassic sandstone common to the area. These are silt loam (Penn) and sandy
loam (tewisberry) soils that generate moderate to high amounts of runoff in their
undisturbed condition.
At the present time, the Seneca Creek Watershed is primarily rural in character.
This situation is expected to change considerably during the next 20 years, how-
ever. This transformation will include conversion of extensive areas into single
family and other types of residential housing, as well as the more intensive com-
mercial uses. This activity is summarized in Table 4.3.
The results of the NURP critical watershed monitoring will be used to establish
and calibrate the Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSP-F) continuous simu-
lation water quality node! under existing land use conditions. Following the
calibration of this model, the project land use changes will be inputed. From
G7-29
-------
KEY
Lautlon at Ht-Vol Supllng
SuUoo*
Figure 7. Location of Hi-Vol Supllng Stations
Seneca Creek
Watershed
Plscatawayjyeek
Watershed
Figure 6. NURP Watershed Study Areas and Monitoring Sites
67-30
G7-31
-------
these ciiamjtb, the impact of development on water quality within I he basin can be
evaluated. The results from this study will also allow other jurisdictions with
similar physiographic situations to better estimate the impact that extensive
changes in land use will have on water quality within their area. In addition
this study will provide EPA with a documented working water quality/ land use
planning tool.
pibcataway Cruuk
ihc- Piscaldway Creek Watershed is located within the southwestern portion of
Prince George's County, Maryland. In contrast to the Seneca area, the Piscataway
Watershed is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province.
This area is underlain by the unconsolidated deposits of gravel, sand, silt and
clay and characterized by gently rolling hills dissected by broad shallow valleys.
Elevations within the watershed range from approximately 260 ft HSL in the north-
east portion to sea level at the entrance of Piscataway Creek on the Potomac
Estuary.
The majority (53 percent) of the soils found within the drainage area are from the
Sassafras Cruoa Association. These are gravelly loam and sandy loan soils that
produce low to moderately high amount of runoff in response to rainfall. The
second largest group of soils found within the watershed (33 percent) consist of
the Beltsville-lfeonardtown-Chillum Association. These are silt loam soils that
are generally found in the upland portions of the watershed, which because of com-
pact subsoils and substratum layers, generally produce moderately high to high
amounts of runnoff. The last major group of soils found within the watershed
(13 percent) consist of those formed within the tidal marsh and floodplain areas
adjacent to the major stream channels of the watershed and the Potomac Estuary.
These soils are extremely variable in their characteristics, due to their loca-
tion, and range from poorly drained to well drained with all subject to some de-
gree of periodic inundation due to flooding.
Even though the Piscalaway watershed will not undergo the dramatic changes in ur-
banization that are expected in the Seneca Watershed, available information indi-
cates that the area will undergo a significant amount of growth during the next
20 years.
0. Equipment
All of the monitoring stations have been designed with equipment being selected to
allow maximum flexibility in installation. See Figure 9 for schematic. A brief
explanation of the function of each piece of station equipment and its role in the
overall station operation follows.
Rain Gaging Equipment
A tipping bucket rain gage with a sensitivity of O.OJ" of rainfall was selected
for use with voltage accumulator devices. The voltage accumulators count the num-
ber of bucket tips (and therefore the amount of rain) and convert the number into
a voltdge. The voltage created varies from 0-5 vdc. Each increase of 5 mv signi-
fies 0.01" of rainfall. The voltage is constantly maintained, so that whenever a
recording device (such as a data logger) queries the accumulator, the total pre-
cipitation to the moment nay be determined.
U7-J2
s
G7-33
-------
Primary Flow Measuring Devices
In most cases, a primary flow measuring device was installed at each monitoring
location. This primary device is used to facilitate the development of a stage-
discharge relationship and consists of some type of flume. The two types of
flumes utilized are "Palmer-Bowlus" and Type H." Where possible, the "H" type
flume was perferred because of its wide range of flow measurement, ability to
function while submerged, and ease of installation.
Secondary Flow Measuring Device
A bubbler-type secondary device was selected for use during this study. The in-
strument makes use of pressurized gas and a transducer arrangement to measure
static head. A microprocessor arrangement then allows for the conversion of sta-
tic head data directly into flow rate by using the stage-discharge relationship of
the primary measuring device. This flowmeter is also the basic controller of the
station in that it activates the sampling device at predetermined equal increments
of total flow. In addition, the device outputs a 4-20 ma analog signal propor-
tional to the flowrate. At times of sampler activation, the flowmeter also momen-
tarily activates the data logger, which then scans all the appropriate data
channels.
Automatic Samplers
The sampling units utilized in this study are all portable, automatically acti-
vated 12 vdc battery powered devices. These units are activated by the secondary
flow measuring device during periods of flow and are capable of retrieving a
500 ml. sample against a suction lift of 20 feet using a 3/8" hose of 25 ft. long.
Each sample is withdrawn at a velocity of 3 feet per second up to 15 ft. of suc-
tion head. Each unit has the capability of collecting either discrete of compo-
site samples. These samples are then collected in either a 24 1.0 liter capacity
container or a single 15.0 liter polyproplyene bottle depending on the needs of
the site.
When discrete samplers are collected, each unit can collect up to four (4) samples
of equal volume per bottle and distribute a single sample among as many as four
(4) bottles. Upon activation, the sample collection unit purges the sample line
to prevent contamination both before and after the collection cycle.
Data Logger
A cassette type data logger is attached to the rain gage accumulator and flow-
meter. An Internal quartz crystal clock allows data from all associated Instru-
ments to be recorded on the same time base, thus eliminating the timing error
problems that plague the acquisition of synoptic hydrologic data. The logger
scans flowmeter and rain gage channels at regularly selected switch Intervals and
when the sampler is activated.
Power Unit
Each station is powered by a single deep-cycle 12 vdc battery. This unit is
changed at a minimum Interval of one week, or whenever station power demands make
it imperative.
G7-34
Wetfall/Dryfall Sampling Station Instrumentation
The wetfall/dryfall (WO) sampling stations have been equipped with table mounted,
12 vdc battery operated units that collect material that Is deposited under both
dry and wet meteorological conditions. This is accomplished by having one of the
two sample collection units of equal cross sectional area exposed to the atmos-
phere. Upon sensing the onset of precipitation, the device automatically closes
the dryfall collector to the atmosphere and exposes the wetfall side. Upon sens-
ing the end of precipitation, the sequence is reversed. Samples are then removed
to the lab for analysis.
Watershed Monitoring Site Instrumentation
With the exception of the primary flow measuring gages, the equipment deployed at
the two critical watershed monitoring sites are identical to those used at the BMP
sites. Since both of the critical watershed stations are located at existing USGS
flow recording gage sites, it was decided to utilize the inplace controlled stream
cross sections as the primary measuring device. While USGS had no objection to
allowing Installation of this equipment in their gage houses (space permitting),
they were unwilling to provide nonagency personnel with direct access to their ir-
replaceable flow records. This required that the procedure described below be
implemented at each site.
Seneca Creek
The secondary recording device is connected directly to the existing USGS stage
recording "stilling well." A magnetic reed switch arrangement was then installed
on the "Stevens" recorder that allows the water quality sampler to be triggered at
each 0.25 ft. Interval of rising or falling stage. This procedure produces se-
quentially collected discrete samples which may then be flow-composited by hand.
The actual sampler intake hoses are placed In the main stream channel.
Piscataway Creek
Due to space limitations in the existing gage housing, the monitoring equipment at
this site is contained in a pad mounted fibergalss protective enclosure adjacent.
to the USGS structure. The flowraeter bubbler tube is then anchored inside the
existing gage house near the USGS datum. The sample uptake probe was then estab-
lished within the main stream. An Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EPROPM)
is then used to store data from the flowmeter used at the station. Flow weighted
composite samples are then collected using this arrangement.
D. Controls
The BMP controls evaluated are source controls, volume controls, and determination
controls as described in Table 3.
67-35
-------
TABLE 3. FIXED SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF BMP MONITORING SITES
NOJHTOtllK
IMI
MU I DENSITY
iwrtll ftml/ACM)
•Saa^BS-^^lww?1
m*r \ "VrnVmn LinSKfRnn
E*|l OP CATCMMnr AIU
;. tMsc-ior sinciE fnxitt RCSIDCHTIAL
A. Strttton Hoods
1. Olfltf
C. HtstUloh Inflow:
Onflow:
A. ftlrloot
8. BurW Ponds Inflow:
Out (ION:
A. StxHIck* Inflow:
Outdo*:
B. Ltlwrtdot Inflow:
Outflow:
C. Omdrtdo.
A. DodKlllt City
C*nttr
A. Bulk Mill Inflow:
Cmur ' Outflow:
8.b 1.8
11.8 2.2
40.9 1.2
47.9
18.8 2.8
18.3 1.0
27.1
27.4 6.1
34.4
68.3 ».0
88.4
2.0 56.0
4.2 I/A
19.0 «/A
20. 1 «/«
».2
18.5
21.2
il.7
11.
14.1
32.7
30.1
13.8
30.5
a.t
x.o
M.4
M.S
83.0
78.5
16.5
11.1
14.0
13.7
orttsod —
nxlt
grasMd —
suit
Mt 191.400
pond
— 100 0
— 100 0
Surf in Am: 100 83.70
35.500 to. ft.
0
0
14.30
KOUM DEIISin SIHEIE FWIIT BtSIOtHIIAl
21.0
n.i
21.1
III.
22.1
19.:
27.2
24.0
34.0
. C9.S
83.0
78.5
grnstd .—
SMlt
«.t 135.000
— 100 0
Smf Mt Am: 100 100
41.400 so. ft.
0
0
TOWOBUSt/WRDCB »PMT«KT!
dry 38.000
pond (HTSI
5.5' It* rlitr 100 79.<7
dry 210.000 7.5' rlttr 100 68.JS
pond (10 yr/2nrl
Inflltrt- 4.060 Perfonttd 6* 100 100
tlon pits (mid tll» dnim
sptcv)
II. OFFICE
poraol 27.400 PtrforttM 6* 100 74. »
pwomt (mid dnln
iptnl
«. IIOUSniAl
dry 68.000
pond (UPS)
l.S- 8' t\m. 100 •
rtstr
20.13
31.74
0
25.70
•
•i. swrim CUTEI
A. Burti *ll)iot
Shopplnt Cnur
4.S "/»
71.2
79.2
Inflltrt- 11.240 —
tlon pits (ootd
sptc*)
*SI«d»lck Mi HMD •odl'IM no (unction u • Or arf pond (M< fotxm «ft«ttliio the ml taring iltn » tM «M of Soctlon If for • cowltu dlicnulo
of mMflutloin).
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
JONES FALLS URBAN RUNOFF PROJECT
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Regional Planning Council
In Association With
Baltimore City
Baltimore County
and the
U. S. Geological Survey
•REGION III, EPA
-------
INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
In over 375 years, the Baltimore metropolitan area has developed into one of
the nation's largest urban centers. This growlh, spawned primarily by commercial
and industrial interests centered upon maritime activities, has been a majot-
factor of the degradation in quality of the surrounding waters. The region's seven
major watersheds provide rapidly flowing freshwater to numerous estuarine
ranbayraents which drain into the Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary.
The Bay supports an abundance of finfish and shellfish populations which repre-
sent a considerable economic resource to the states of Maryland and Virginia.
This delicate ecosystem also represents a major artery of water-borne transporta-
tion and a recreational resource of virtually unlimited potential.
Historically, local streams have enjoyed a multitude of uses including drinking
water supply, commercial and public fishing, spawning grounds for certain species,
boating, swimming, agricultural support, industrial consumption, and the transporta-
tion of wastewater discharges. Many of these uses have suffered due to the severe
degradation of water quality. Numerous problems have been identified, including
the following: extensive land surface and streambank erosion resulting in sedi-
ment which fills water supply impoundments and adversely affects aquatic species;
entranced algal propagation with resulting eutrophication in freshwater impoundments
and estuarine embayments; and, potentially adverse health effects due to bacterial
contamination.
Although less than one-third of the region is considered to be urbanized, urban
stormwater runoff has been identified as a significant factor in the degradation
of local receiving waters. The Jones Falls Watershed, selected because of.its
representative urban/urbanizing characteristics, provides an excellent case study
of urban runoff - its sources, causes, impacts, and cost-effective control mea-
sures. More specifically, the Jones Falls Urban Runoff Project (JHURP) is de-
signed to identify and quantify all significant sources of pollutants in the
watershed, define the existing water problem(s), and examine selected management
practices capable of "cost-effectively" controlling the identified problem(s).
Cooperation among the region's six local jurisdictions in successfully formulating
and implementing the Areawide Water Quality Management Program has provided a
unique framework for JFURP. Project coordination and technical guidance is vested
in the regional forum - the Regional Planning Council (RPC). In light of the fact
that the study watershed is located in both Baltimore City and Baltimore County,
the participation of these jurisdictions was desirable and has been guaranteed.
Past successes in water quality management within the Baltimore Region have been
assisted by direct involvement of this nature. The II. S. Geological Survey, an
agency with a solid foundation of knowledge in local and national hydrology, was
asked to provide technical expertise and resources to the Project; this assistance
is provided nationally through a formal coordination plan with the I). S. EPA and
locally by cooperative agreement. This cooperative effort has greatly eased the
identification of critical issues and priorities through an effective planning and
management structure.
A. Area
The Baltimore metropolitan region is an area of approximately 2.20O square
miles. The area is situated in east central Maryland to the west of the
Chesapeake Bay and approximately 4O miles northeast of Washington, D. C.
The urbanized portion of the region is 589 square miles (2635 of total area).
The principal, highly developed urban areas are located near the Bay in five
of the region's seven major river basins. Much of the older, more intensive
urban land use is located in the Patapsco River Basin which also includes
the Jones Falls Watershed with an area of approximately 54 square miles.
Figure 1 illustrates the Baltimore metropolitan area and the Jones Falls
Watershed.
The area lies within the Piedmont and Coastal Plain geologic formations.
The region receives, on the average, 45 inches of precipitation a year
occurring primarily as rainfall. Precipitation volumes are distributed
evenly throughout the year but generally follow a well-defined seasonal pat-
tern: extended, low intensity frontal storms during winter and spring months
and short duration, high intensity convective storms.
B. Population
The Baltimore region has a current population of approximately 2.2 million
(190O). Two-thirds of the total are located in Baltimore City and County.
Development in recent decades denotes a trend from the more established
urban areas toward the rural countryside. This trend continues although
some reinvestment and relocation back to older urban areas has begun. Of
the total developed land in the region, 44% is residential, indicating the
level of land consumption for living.
There are seven major river basins in the region, comprised of hundreds of
tributaries. These streams are generally small, shallow, and rapidly flowing,
draining a few miles into estuarine embayments. Developed areas of the region
include a mixture of natural and man-made storm drainage systems.
D.
The urban area is primarily served by separate sanitary and storm sewer
systems. Typical storm sewer systems include curbs, gutters, and inlets. A
few isolated areas of Baltimore City were developed privately and have a
combined sewer system; these were later assumed by the City. Due to the age
of the system and rapid growth in the upstream sections, some sanitary sewers
have been found to leak and capacity-exceeded problems such as sanitary over-
flows now occur. There is also evidence of illegal sanitary connections to
the storm sewer system. Present 2O1 studies are directed at correcting these
problems.
G8-2
G8-3
-------
FIGURE 1 - HIE BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN AREA
AND JONES FALLS WATERSHED
PROJECT AREA
1. Catchment Name - WD1, Jones Falls Watershed
The Jones Falls Watershed is approximately 54 square miles, and includes
all of the listed catchments. Figure 2 provides detailed illustration of
the study area.
A. Area - 34.501 acres
B. Population - Not yet compiled
C. Drainage - Subsurface and surface conveyance to the Jones Falls.
More specific hydrologic information to be provided later.
D. Sewerage - Not compiled
E. Land Use
Urban
- Residential
- Commercial
- Industrial
- Institutional
- Expressways
- Cemetary/Recreational
•f Total Urban
Non-urban
- Agriculture
- Brush/Grass
- Woodlands
- Reservoir
- Quarry/Landfill
+ Total Non-urban
Total Acreage
15,082
1,586
825
1,452
46)
1,955
21,361
4,192
1,059
7,672
155
142
13,220
II. Catchment Mane - MD 1, O08, Lake Roland
% of Total Drainage Area
44
5
2
4
1
6
62
12
3
22
.4
.4
38
The Lake Roland catchment area comprises the upper Jones Falls Watershed and
is approximately 35 square miles.
A. Area - 22,142 areas
B. Population - ftot yet compiled
C. Drainage - Subsurface and surface conveyance to the Jones Falls and
Lake Roland. Representative slope of overall drainage basin is 63.32
feel per mile.
68-5
G8-4
-------
-LEGENO-
• RECEIVING WATERS STATION
O SMALL HOMOGENEOUS CATCHMENT
A AID DEPOSITION STATION
O SUPPLEMENTAL RA1NGAGE
FIGURE 2 - JONES FALLS WATtliSHEO
ANU SAMH-ING STATION
LOCATIONS
D. Sewerage - Not yet compiled
E. Land Use Total Acreage
Urban
- Residential 7,846
- Commercial 428
- industrial 212
- Institutional 831
- Expressways 276
- Cemetary/Recreational 843
Total urban 1O,436
Non-urban
- Agriculture 4,192
- Urush/Grass 732
- Woodlands 6,575
- Reservoir 92
- Quarry/Landfill 115
Total Non-urban
of Total Drainage Area
36
2
1
4
1
4
47
110
3
30
.4
.5
53
11,706
Percent of impervious area not compiled.
III. Catchment Name - MD1, O07, Stony Run
The Stony Run catchment area is a subwatershed within the Jones Falls
Watershed and is approximately 3.2 square miles. Two of the snail homo-
geneous catchments, Homeland and Hampden, are located within this area.
A. Area - 2,047 acres
B. Population - Estimate: 51,151 persons based on 12 persons per acre
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to Stony Run, a tributary of the Jones
Falls. Representative slope of overall drainage basin is 130.38 feet
per mile.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 1OGK separate storm sewer.
G8-7
G8-6 .
-------
E. Land Use Total Acreage
Urban
- Residential
- Conrnercial
- Industrial
- Institutional
- Expressways
- Cemetary/Recreutional
Total Urban
Non-urban
- Agriculture
- Brush/Grass
- Woodlands
- Reservoir
- Quarry/Landfill
Total Non-urban
1,472
95
O
172
O
118
1,857
O
83
101
6
0
190
% of Total Drainage Area
72
5
0
8
O
6
91
O
4
5
.3
0
9
E. Land Use Total Acreage
Urban
- Residential
- Commercial
- Industrial
- Institutional
- (Expressways
- Cemetary/Recreational
Total Urban
Non-urban
- Agriculture
- Brush/Graos
- Woodlands
- Reservoir
- Quarry/Landfill
Total Non-urban
14,797
1,425
744
1,407
442
1,943
20, 758
4,192
1,059
7,672
155
142
13,220
% of Total Draic
44
4
2
4
1
6
61
12
3
23
.5
.4
39
Percent of impervious area not compiled.
IV. Catchment Maine - MD1, OO6, Biddle Street
Tho Biddle Street catchment area includes all of the listed catchment areas
and is approximately 53 square miles. This is the lowest point of sample
collection in the Jones Falls Watershed.
A. Area - 33,978 acres
0. Population - Not yet compiled
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to the Jones Falls. Representative
slope of overall drainage basin is 62.4 feet per mile.
D. Sewerage - Percent of drainage area served by separate storm sewers
is not yet compiled.
Percent of impervious area not compiled.
There are five email homogeneous catchments: Reservoir Hill, llampden,
Mt. Washington, Bolton Hill, and Homeland. These areas are located within
the Jones Falls Watershed and range in size from 1O to 23 acres. The areas
are predominantly residential.
V. Catchment Name - IO1. CO1, Reservoir Hill
A. Area - 10.42 acres
B. Population - 577 persons
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to the Jones Falls. Main channel is
437 feet at a slope of approximately 1O2.7 feet per mile.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 1COS4 separate storm sewers.
luCK is served by curbs and gutters.
E. Land Use
- Residential
^ High (9 more more du/ac) = 1O.42 acres, 10CK of total drainage
area.
G8-8
Gft-9
-------
VI. Catchment Name - MD1, OO2, llampden
A. Area - 17.02 acres
0. Population - 681 persons
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to the Jones Falls. Main channel
is 8/5 feet at a slope of approximately 274.56 feet per mile.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100% separate storm sewer.
100% is served by curbs and gutters.
E. Land Use
- Residential
+ High (9 or more du/ac) = 12.27 acres, 72* of total drainage area.
- Commercial = 4.75 acres, 28K of total drainage area
VII. Catchment Name -MD1. 003, Mt. Washington
A. Area - 16.5U acres
B. Population - 195 persons
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance tu Western Run a tributary of the
Jones Falls. Main channel is 825 feet at a slope of approximately
355.2 feet per mile.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100K separate storm sewers.
87% is served by curbs and gutters and 13% is served by swales and
ditches.
E. Land Use
- Residential
+ Medium (3 to 8 du/ac) = 13.91 acres, 84% of total drainage area.
- Recreational = 2.67 acres, 16% of total drainage area.
VIII.. Catchment Name - MD1, OO4, Bolton Hill
A. Area - 14.02 acres
B. Population - 415 persons
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to the Jones Falls. Main channel
is 688 feet at a slope of approximately 53.72 feet per mile.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
100K is served by curb and gutter.
G8-10
E. Land Use
- Residential
-f High (more than 9 du/ac) = 13.2b acres, 95% of total drainage
area
- Recreational = .73 acres, 5% of total drainage area.
IX. Catclmient Name - MD1, OO5, Homeland
A. Area - 23.O3 acres
B. Population - 2O4 persons
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to Stony Run a tributary of the
Jones Falls. Main channel is 35O feet at a slope of approximately
181.02 feet per mile.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 10O/6 separate storm sewers.
tOOH is served by curb and gutter.
E. Land Use
- Residential
+ Low ('/> to 2 du/ac) = 23.03 acres, 10OS4 of total drainage area.
G8-11
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
Section 2O8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
addressed areawide waste treatment management planning, designating certain
local and regional government agencies to plan for improved water quality
while concurrently reviewing environmental, land use and organizational issues
related to solving water quality problems in their respective areas. The six
member jurisdictions of the Regional Planning Council (KPC), through the
Baltimore Region's Areawide Water Quality Management Process, reported that
urban runoff was a major contributor of pollutants to local receiving waters.
Following Federal guidelines, a water quality management plan was adopted by
the six member jurisdictions, establishing an implementation process to pre-
vent, reduce, and eliminate sources of contamination of regional waters.
The 2O8 Plan identified the Jones Falls as one of the most severely degraded
streams in the region. This stream is representative of the variety of water
quality conditions found throughout the region. Emanating from springs in
Baltimore County, the Jones Falls meanders toward the south into an old, man-
made water supply impoundment located near the City/County jurisdictional
boundary. Upper watershed streams have been designated by the State of
Maryland as suitable for the support of trout population growth and propaga-
tion and related food sources. This designation represents the most stringent
of the State's four receiving waters classifications, which include the fol-
lowing: contact recreation and aquatic life waters, shellfish harvesting
waters; natural trout waters; and, recreational trout waters. In spite of the
encroachment cf the urban area, slowed somewhat by local government inter-
vention, local fishermen report that certain upper Jones Falls tributaries do
indeed support a trout population.
Lake Roland is an almost eO-acre impoundment completed in 18C1 to serve as
Baltimore's first major water supply reservoir. This lake suffers from a
variety of problems, which include the following: exponential sedimenta-
tion and the resulting loss of storage capacity; eutrophication; and, vio-
lations of state bacterial standards. The Lake Roland Clean Lakes Project,
sponsored under Section 314 of the Act, is currently investigating the lake's
problems and attempting to identify potential solutions to restore and
maintain beneficial uses associated with recreation.
After exiting Lake Roland, the Jones Falls continues to flow southward,
passing through Baltimore City into a large conveyance tunnel and finally
emptying into Baltimore Harbor, the estuarine section of the Patapsco River.
The State has recently reclassified this section of the stream to a Class III
receiving water, capable of supporting adult trout for put-and-take fishing.
Since 1979, rainbow trout have been stocked in the upper reaches of this
section of the stream; results of this effort are not yet apparent.
The section of the Jones Falls below Lake Roland is also the most Influenced
by urbanization and the associated pollutant sources. These include NPDES
discharges from industrial/commercial userr., sanitary sewer overflows, illegal
connections, and increased runoff volumes due to impervious areas.
G8-12
To recover and mintain designated beneficial uses, the State has promulgated
water quality standards including a range of physical chemical parameters.
The two parameters with major violations of state standards are turbidity
and bacteria - turbidity being storm-related and bacteria in a range of stream
conditions.
Storm wash-off results from selected land uses indicate signfleant levels of
nonpoint pollution entering the receiving streams in the watershed. The
direct impacts upon receiving streams and relative magnitude comparisons to
other poiiulant sources have not been established. Also, the existing levels
of urban housekeeping management practices being implemented by local
governments focus upon aesthetic and primary public health objectives rather
than water quality. The effectiveness of these non-structural controls aimed
at reducing the magnitude of source-related pollutants is not known. The pri-
mary question is how effective are current levels of urban housekeeping in
pollutant removal in comparison to alternative strategies, and what is the
relative cost-effectiveness of the control applications for achievement of
water quality objectives.
B. Public Perception (Public Awareness)
The assessment of public perception of water quality benefits and problems
in a stream or lake requires careful investigation. In the planning of JFIIRP,
a vigorous public participation strategy was developed in recognition of the
fact that there is a wide range of diversity in the "public" and perhaps many
perceptions of benefits and problems. JFURP intends to provide guidelines to
determine how the public perceives of local water quality problems. In each
of the land use categories being examined, public lifestyles and, therefore,
public perception and expectations of water quality will be different. For
example, citizens in heavily urbanized downtown Baltimore probably will not
have an interest in, or awareness of, their impact upon downstream estuaries.
Inhabitants of rural areas, on the other hand, may be seriously concerned
about their impact upon local bodies of water and interested in assuming an
aggressive posture when addressing water quality issues.
In reviewing water quality management strategies, these and other differences
must be taken into account. A first step will include citizen surveys in each
of the land use areas under scrutiny to determine how they perceive local water
quality management programs and what level of control they consider necessary.
Moreover, citizens must be informed of the significant economic realities asso-
ciated with specific management strategies. In the end, public value judgements
will tie balanced against realities of economics, politics, and technical de-
cisions and limitations.
Examples of efforts inspired by individuals and public and private organizations
to revitalize areas in Baltimore adjacent to the Jones Falls and other re-
ceiving waters include the following:
1. A massive urban renewal campaign encouraged by the City and private
groups to rebuild local communities and the Inner Harbor in the
vicinity of the Jones Fails outflow.
C8-13
-------
2. Strong local community interest in neighborhood "cleanliness" and
nearby streams via clean-up campaigns, stream 'Vjatchdogs", and other
actions.
3. Independent stream monitoring and revilalization programs sponsored
by organizations staffed primarily by volunteers.
4. Increased use of various streams and surrounding valleys by commu-
nity children, joggers, hikers, and other public groups.
5. The development of far-reaching water quality public advisory com-
mittees operating in local jurisdictions and at the regional level to
encourage citizen awareness and education, and provide for forums for
the elucidation of various viewpoints.
In brief, the public awareness of JFURP and the existence of urban runoff
is not only desirable, but essential, the public response to questions
posed about water quality "problems" in the Jones Falls will be encouraged.
Project findings, conclusions, and resulting technology gained from moni-
toring and data analysis will be disseminated by reports and a series of
technical transfer sessions. These and other actions should provide the
basis for future inclusion of urban runoff problem assessment and de-
velopment of control strategies in the Baltimore region's water quality
management activities.
PROJECT INSCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
There is abundant evidence that the Jones Falls Watershed is plagued by
the ravages of nature and the myriad degradations exercised by anthro-
pogenic activities. Identified sources of water quality impairment
include the following: urban runoff, sanitary sewer overflows, sediment
releases, streambank erosion, upstream pollutant loadings, unsewered
areas and illegal storm sewer connections. The review of specific pro-
blems, as identified in the "PROBLEM" section of this summary, resulted in
the development of JFURP objectives based upon local concerns and the pri-
mary objectives stated by EPA. In brief, the JFURP objectives are as fol-
lows:
1. Investigate and define water quality contaminants, sources, transport
mechanisms, and receiving water impacts in the urbanized Jones Falls
Watershed.
2. Quantitatively define the total pollutant contributions of the Jones
Falls Watershed to the Baltimore Harbor.
3. Identify and assess the sources and transport mechanisms from a va-
riety of small, relatively homogeneous land uses in a stable urban
watershed and determine their comparability with similar areas in
the Eastern United States.
4. Determine the efficacy of existing source control management practices
and operational implementation strategies in the reduction and/or pre-
vention of water quality degradation.
5. Determine the efficacy of Lake Roland as a water quality/quantity
management practice and its role in water resources management,
especially for downstream control.
6. Provide information supporting the development of an integrated, cost-
effective water quality management program for the urbanized Jones
Falls Watershed through the "2O8" Program.
7. Provide a basis for transfer of project findings to the related techni-
cal public and private communities for future stcrmwater runoff manage-
ment planning and implementation.
Additional work will include local technical liaison and public participa-
tion activities. The combination of efforts should result in a mechanism
for balanced decision-making. Data collected throughout the Project should
provide an illumination of choices which rest upon scientific evidence.
Subsequent clarification of the cost-effectiveness of the control techniques
and strategies becomes an input necessary to provide a management structure
which includes the considerable realities of economic limitations.
G8-14
G8-15
-------
B. Methodology and Associated Monitoring
Deficiencies in knowledge demand that a methodology be developed pro-
viding a structure for obtaining the information required to explain the
issues confronting decision-makers. With problems and objectives now de-
fined, a range of techniques is selected, designed to reduce the existing
state of scientific uncertainty within resource limitations.
Briefly stated, the Project intends to quantify the various Inputs to the
lower Jones Falls Watershed and assess their impact upon the water quality
of the stream and its subsequent output into the Baltimore Harbor. Spe-
cific attention will be focused upon the development of an urban nonpoint
source data base suitable for use as a planning and management tool in the
evaluation of local, regional and national problems and solutions.
Monitoring is a critical facet of. the Project, with requirements defined
by data needs. JFURP Monitoring is summarized in the following components:
1. The monitoring of quantity and quality of the Jones Falls stream
during base-flow (dry weather) conditions.
2. The monitoring of quantity and quality of the Jones Falls during
high flow (storm events).
3. The monitoring of quantity and quality of rainfall and runoff during
storm events at five selected small homogeneous catchments of pro-"
dominant land covers in the watershed.
4. Atmospheric deposition quantity and quality monitoring: dryfall and
precipitation.
5. The quantity and quality monitoring of sanitary sewer overflows and
direct sewer discharges during base-flow and storm conditions.
6. Industrial/conmercial NPDES discharge monitoring for load assessment.
7. Collection of stream bottom sediment samples throughout the year to
define seasonal conditions.
8. The collection and analysis of street dust and dirt to assist in the
evaluation of pollutant source accumulation and non-structural house-
keeping management practices.
9. Supplemental rainfall monitoring throughout the watershed.
1O. A range of miscellaneous activities designed to support the primary
components.
There are varying degrees of dependence between these facets of moni-
toring: the ultimate goal is, of course, to complement the knowledge
gained with a perspective which recognizes the effects of one element
upon another. This approach is calculated to provide the input necessary
for tne definition and implementation of a practicable water quality
management strategy.
G8-16
The monitoring of base-flow and storm conditions in the Jones Falls and of
urban runoff at the five small homogeneous catchments relies upon auto-
matic samplers and flowmeters. Base-flow samples are collected biweekly.
Storm sampling depends upon the activation of the automated sampling
equipment by an associated pressure transducer type recording flowmeter to
permit the collection of discrete samples at a number of points along the
runoff hydrograph. The flownieter places an event mark on its strip chart
in order to record the time at which each sample is taken.
Flow rates for each monitoring station are derived from the stage measure-
ments recorded by the flowmeters. Natural controls were used to develop
stage-discharge relationships wherever possible; artificial controls were
installed at other locations. In addition, chemical gaging techniques are
being used to verify rating curves in storm events.
The collection of dryfall and wetfall samples is also being performed with
automatic equipment. In addition, a continuous recording, tipping-bucket
raingage with a sensitivity of O.01 in. was installed near or within each
study area to provide the required rainfall information. Supplemental
•rainfall data are being supplied by the National Weather Service long-term
gages and eight supplemental gages maintained by LEGS; these are being used
to enhance the data base as well as to check data collected by JFURP equipment.
A combination of automated and manual techniques is being used for other
monitoring elements associated with discharges to the Jones Falls. These
methods have been outlined by several publications, including the NPDES
Compliance Sampling Inspection Manual.
Street dust and dirt samples arc collected during daylight hours by a
field crew using an industrial wet/dry vacuum cleaner. Subsamples are
collected within the small homogeneous catchments by running the vacuum
cleaner intake along the street surface from curb-to-curb.
The collection, handling, preservation and analysis of all samples re-
sulting from JFURP activities follow procedures which have been outlined
by the II. S. EPA and supplemented by project-developed methodologies.
C. Controls
An important facet of JFURP is the evaluation of certain pollutant control
or management practices for removal efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and
feasibility of application. The following two practices have been identi-
fied for evaluation:
1. An assessment of the efficacy of a total watershed "best urban house-
keeping practices" strategy and its comparison to existing practices
employed by Baltimore City.
2. Study the efficacy of Lake Roland as a water quality/quantity de-
tention control structure.
G8-17
-------
The study of urban housekeeping practices (including street, alley, and
stonndrain cleaning; animal litter control; and general sanitation) will
examine the feasibility of applying these methods in low to high density
coninercial and residential areas within the Jones Falls Watershed. This
element of JFURP is significantly affected by a number of items, including
economic restraints and the existing drive toward urban revitalization
within Baltimore City. Communities within Hie city are, for the most part,
wu11 -organized and vocal in the protection of local interests. The socio-
political aspect of this cannot be neglected: uniformity of solution may
not generally apply. Management strategies should attempt to satisfy the
needs of the communities with their multiplicity of competing objectives.
The study of Lake Roland and its efficacy as a management practice is
boing performed in the following manner: the Lake Roland Clean Lake
Study, supported by the U. S. EPA Section'314 funds, will gather one year
of base-flow and storm event water quality and quantity data. In a co-
operative effort, JFURP and the Clean Lakes Study will examine the cur-
rent condition of Lake Roland and its efficacy as a management practice.
JFURP has assumed a secondary posture in the collection and evaluation of
information gathered.
D. Progress to Date
The progress of tho various aspects of the Project is suninarized below:
1. The collection of base-flow and storm event samples occurs regularly
at the stream monitoring stations; activities were initiated in
October, 1080.
2. The collection of storm event samples occurs regularly at the five
small homogeneous catchments; activities were initiated in early 1981.
3. Flow rating curves for all sites are being developed. This task is
approximately 75% complete.
4. Dryfall and wetfall samples are collected regularly at JFURP
atmospheric deposition stations. This includes the compilation
of rainfall data as provided by the continuous recording, tipping-
bucket raingagcs.
5. The monitoring of sanitary sewer overflows occurs regularly in
conjunction with stream monitoring events.
6. A strategy for the monitoring of direct sewer discharges awaits
field implementation.
7. A strategy for industrial/comnercial discharge monitoring awaits
implementation.
• U. ins11-earn bottom sediment sampling is underway.
9. A strategy for the collection and analysis of street dust and dirt
samples has been developed and sampling was initiated in October, 1981.
G8-18
1O. Field sampling associated with the Lake Roland Clean Lakes Project
. has been completed and a draft final report is hearing completion.
JFURP has received raw data collected throughout the study: its
review is forthcoming.
As might be expected in any project of this scope, numerous problems
were encountered during the first months of work. Base-flow monitoring
has proceeded smoothly; the sampling of rainfall events, however, has
been less successful. Automated equipment must be used because of the
capricious nature of rainfall patterns and limitations in budgeted re-
sources. Unfortunately, experience has proven that automatic equipment
is capable of mischief.
The overall project plan of action attempts to correlate all facets of
the study in a systematic fashion and, in doing so, admit for the proba-
bility of mechanical and operator error. Experience results in the intro-
duction of proper control techniques to assure system reliability and col-
lection of accurate data through a rigid quality assurance program. JFURP
has reached a stage where the most prominent work elements continue in an
orderly manner toward the achievement of objectives with high quality data
results. Analysis of project data proceeds toward the achievement of stated
objectives.
G8-19
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
WACCAMAW REGIONAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
MYRTLE BEACH, SC
REGION IV, EPA
G9-1
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
The 208 Areawida Water Quality Management Plan for Maccamaw Regional Planning
and Development Council (VIRPDC) was based upon a comprehensive inventory,
analysis and quantification of water pollutant sources within the region.
Water quality problems were prioritized and addressed in the 208 plan reports.
One of the .recognized water quality problem areas Involved stormwater from
the City of Myrtle Beach. Stormwater from Myrtle Beach is discharged direct-
ly onto the beach or into various swashes which flow across the beach into the
Atlantic Ocean. There are more than 280 direct pipe discharges onto the
beach within the Myrtle Beach city limits. While some of the small pipe dis-
charges are from swimming pool drains and pool filter backwashes, more than
160 are direct stormwater discharges from streets and property drains. The
city of Myrtle Beach felt that these beach discharges adversely affect water
quality, beach erosion and beach appearance.
Preliminary sampling of these beach discharges indicated they had high
bacterial counts. Based on this sampling, a detailed stormwater runoff study
was proposed that would develop the solutions necessary to correct the exist-
ing water quality problems which resulted from the urban stormwater runoff.
This runoff study was accepted by EPA Headquarters as part of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program.
A. Area
The area being studied includes the commercial strip and bathing
beaches along the "Grand Strand" area of Myrtle Beach.
B. Population
Myrtle Beach and the Grand Strand area entertain over 6,000,000
visitors per year. Myrtle Beach alone hosts up to 250,000 visitors
on major holiday weekends. The area's largest industry of course
Is tourism.
C. Drainage
The drainage consists of pipe systems draining directly to the
beach area.
0. Sewerage System
The Myrtle Beach area is served entirely by separate sewer systems.
G9-2
09- 3
-------
1 « « «. § a « a /
V /
•>-, /
i /
\ /
NORTH CAROLINA
O
> SOUTH c A R Q'L I N
'i >> V
LOCATION
LOW r. ON
G9-4
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
The Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council received a grant from
the USEPA in June 1975 to prepare an areawide water quality management plan
for the H ace am aw region. The Uaccanaw Regional 20U Areawitie Water Quality
Management Plan, completed in 1978, contained strategies for local water
quality Improvement through integration of various federal pollution abate-
ment requirements-municipal, industrial, residual wastes, stocmwater runoff,
groundvtater pollution abatement-and placed the responsibility for planning
and implementing these requirements with regional and local agencies.
The 208 Areawide Mater Quality Management Plan was based upon a comprehensive
inventory, analysis and quantification of water pollutant sources within the
region. Water quality problems were prioritized.
One of the recognized'water quality problem areas involved stormwater from
the city of Myrtle Beach. Stormwater from Myrtle Beach is discharged directly
onto the beach or into various swashes which flow across the beach into the
Atlantic Ocean. There are more than 280 direct pipe discharges onto the
beach within the Myrtle Beach city limits. While some of the small pipe dis-
charges are from swimming pool drains and pool filter backwashes, more than
160 are direct stormwater discharges from street and property drains. The
local government feels that stormwater runoff adversely affects water quality,
beach erosion and beach appearance.
A 1972 study by EPA Indicated that many of the Myrtle Beach stormwater discharges
had high bacterial counts. The discharges were cited by the study as posing
a potential health hazard along the extensively developed and utilized beach.
Two stormwater pipes discharging onto the beach were also monitored, sampled
and analyzed during the 208 study. The sampling occurred in October 1976.
The bacteriological results of the sampling confirmed the initial EPA findings
as to the seriousness of bacterial concentrations in the stormwater being
discharged onto the beach.
Based on this work, Waccamaw RPOC and South Carolina Department of Health and
Environment Control concurred that the Myrtle Beach stormwater runoff was a
high priority state problem.
The two levels of government felt that Myrtle 3each's stormwater problem
required attention because large quantities of materials contained in the
urban runoff enter Withers Swash or flow directly onto the beach and into
the ocean waters. They felt that the seriously degraded water quality in the
surf has the potential for containing disease causing bacteria that could
affect anyone swimming in, using, or eating food obtained from those waters.
The Myrtle Beach area provides the attraction for very extensive tourist
tride, which is the prime revenue producing "industry" of the Grind Strand.
The local decision makers felt that the water quality problens that they
felt existed potentially threatened the source of tourist expenditures in
South Carolina.
G9-5
-------
In addition to the water quality problem, another major area of concern to
the local government was the beach erosion. Stormwater runoff from the city
of Myrtle Beach causes extensive beach erosion after every significant rain-
fall. Runoff is collected in the Stormwater system and transported to the
over 160 pipes discharging directly onto the beach. As the runoff flows
from the discharge pipes, it erodes the beach sand and creates pools and
gullies across the beach.
These pools and gullies are usually smoothed out to the high tide line by the
erosion and deposition action of the tidal cycles. The gullies enable the
tides to reach further up the beach to the pipe discharge points. As the
sand bank around the discharge pipe dries out after rain storms, the tidal
action in the gullies creates further collapse and erosion of the drain line.
This erosive action continues as long as Stormwater flows across the beach
or until the tides have filled In the gullies.
Runoff front the numerous paved parking and terrace areas between the beach
and Ocean Boulevard often Is not collected by the Stormwater system. It
flows as sheet runoff across the paved areas and falls directly onto the
beach. This sheet runoff contributes to erosion along the remnant of the
dune line that still exists so that structural retaining walls are necessary
to prevent further loss of soil and property.
The appearance of the beach is also something the local government Is
concerned about. Over 280 pipes, many corroded, chipped, and supported on
make shift wooden braces that extend further across the beach each year as
beach erosion continues, are a current feature of Myrtle Beach's prime
tourist attraction. Unsightly, stagnant runoff pools on the beach also
detract from its appearance.
The local officials are interested in correcting both the storrawater quantity
and quality problem that exists in Myrtle Beach.
8. Local Perception
The local population Is of course concerned about the Stormwater problem If
It means losing some of the tourist industry. The local resident population
however, is very small compared to the number of tourists that visit the
area. The tax base generated by local taxes Is nowhere near that needed to
finance any cleanup of the problem, if in fact it is determined that one Is
needed.
G9-6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
The Myrtle Beach Stormwater study was designed to provide Myrtle Beach,
Kaccamaw RPOC, EPA and South Carolina OHEC with specific information that
will enable decisions to be made regarding Stormwater runoff related water
quality problems. First, the seriousness of water quality problems was to
be determined through a sampling progran. The second objective of the study
was to Identify, screen and recommend solutions that would reduce the amount
of pollutants entering the surf from Stormwater runoff. Preliminary engi-
neering design and cost estimates for the best runoff control alternatives
were to be developed and presented. A third objective was to identify,
examine the applicability of, and recommend non-structural runoff control
measures for implementation by Myrtle Beach and Horry County.
To provide a gauge against which to compare the costs of runoff controls, the
study had a fourth element which involved examination of the economic costs
to the city and region of taking no action to control runoff. This "no action"
alternative projects the impacts to the local economy of a decline in tourist
numbers if continued water quality degradation reaches a magnitude where
closing the beach after storms might be necessary.
B. Methodologies
Extensive bacterial sampling was performed to gather information on the quality
of recreational and other waters within the commercial section of town during
dry and wet conditions.
In the beginning of the project all existing direct discharges to the beach
were inventoried in an attempt to select primary and secondary sampling sites.
It was decided upon that 120 of 160 discharges to the beaches and swashes
were to be selected for initial sampling.
The spurces of the conforms were to also be defined. The ratios of fecal
coltfbrm to fecal strep were used to determine if the sources were primarily of
human or animal origin.
In order to evaluate the water quality of direct beach discharges, pipe
streams flowing across the beach, and natural beach pools, established
South Carolina water classification standards were used for comparison.
However, there are no South Carolina water classifications standards which
are applicable to direct beach discharges, pipe streams, or natural beach
poo Is.
C. Monitoring
A total of 289 separate and distinct Stormwater pipes discharging directly to
the beach inside the Myrtle Beach City limits were identified, located, and
inventoried. Based on the inventory, 120 pipes were selected for more in-
tensive sampling. The location of these selected pipes ind random sampling
stations ara shown in the following maps.
GO-7
-------
The City of Myrtle Beach was divided into six contiguous sections according
to predominant land use. A brief description of each section is shown in the
following table:
Location
North Myrtle
Beach City
Limits to
69th Ave.
North
69th Ave. North
To Sunset Trail
Sunset Trail to
Hampton Circle
Hampton Circle to
39th Ave. North
29th Ave. North to
20th Ave. South
20th Ave. South to
South Myrtle Beach
City Limits
Predominate Land Use
Open Space
Mixed Residential
and Commercial
Residential
Mixed Residential
and Commercial
Commercial
Mixture of Commercial,
Residential, and Open
Space
Direct Beach Discharge No.
1-12
13-15
16-20
21-33
34-111
112-120
After initial sampling, it was decided that Section 5 would be intensively
sampled since this section contained the majority of the commercial section
of the city and this was where the tourist population was centered.
Samples were collected from 4 places during wet and dry periods: direct beach
discharges, swashes, surf, natural pools. Samples were collected during the
storm, 4 hours after a rainfall event and 24 hours after 4 rainfall event.
Samples were also collected during dry weather as a means of comparison. The
samples were analyzed for fecal coliforra and a selected group of metals.
0. Controls
Alternative control methods, structural and nonstructural, were identified and
screened in an effort to select three to five alternatives having cost-
affective potential.
The structural and nonstructural control alternatives considered included
ocean outfalls, disinfection, collection, transport, and release at selected
locations, collection and discharge to the Intracoastal Water Way, use of
porous paving and any combination of these measures.
The four basic structural alternatives considered for controlling Myrtla
Beach's runoff were: ocean discharges, collection and diversion, disinfection
and infiltration.
The evaluation procedures for the alternatives considered hydrology, storm
frequency, and engineering economics. A detailed analysis was performed to
establish the hydrologic characteristics of each of 25 areas or subbasins
that contribute storm runoff to the section 5 portion of Myrtle Beach. This
analysis established a methodology for determining peak and total storm flows
for rainfall frequencies that would recur on an average of 3 month, 6 months,
and 1, 5, 10, and 25 years.
The frequency of the storms was considered. The cost evaluation prepared
show that the rankings of alternatives for controlling both the one-year
and the 25 year storms are identical.
Cost evaluations of alternatives were made using a discount rate of 6 7/82,
an evaluation period of 20 years, service life of the punping facilities of
30 years, and service life of structures and piping of SO years.
The alternatives were evaluated in terms of initial costs, capital and O&M
costs.
Several reports were submitted by Waccamaw RPOC which included evaluations
of the selected alternatives. The final list with costs was the following:
Alternative
Ocean Discharge from
one outfall pipe with
disinfection
Ocean discharge from
four outfall pipes with
disinfection
Ocean discharge from
four diffusers
Intracoastal Waterway
discharge
Ocean discharge from
one diffuser
Construction Cost with Interception Sewer in Beach
32,800,000
37.700,000
40,000,000
41.300,000
44,500,000
G9-9
-------
I _. JJggpg*gfSs£
69-10
-------
R./MMOOIW SAMPLlNO
G9-12
MYRTLi =E.iCH
3T3HU sr*ea a°.c,cc~
RANOCM
STATCNS
vtYRTLi 5EACH i
-------
RANDOM SAMPLING STATIONS
G9-14
MYRTL£ =£A
j STCPM jr*e.i ">
G9-15
-------
G9-16
G9-17
-------
ST~EHT i/IO SOJflCS
G9-18
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
WINSTON-SALEM, NC
REGION IV, EPA
630-1
-------
INTOHHICI ION
In Hnrlh Carolina, t.he industries and overall population are relatively dispersed.
Consequently, water (wllution effects characteristic of large urban cities in
other parts of the nation are not pronounced. Only 3/.3 percent of North Carolina s
1970 population of 5,082,059 lived in standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's).
Nationally, 68.5 percent of the population is centered in SHSA populations.
Seven SMSA's are designated in North Carolina: Asheville, Burlington,
Charlotte-Gastnnia, Fayetteville, Greenshoro-Uinston-Salem-lligh Point, Raleigh-Durham,
and Wilmington.
The Piedmont, where 54.1 percent of the population Is in urban areas, is the most
urbanized region in the State.
A large (Kjrtion of the state's urban population is located in a string of cities
from Gastonia and Charlotte, through Greensboro to Raleigh. Similarly, a large
portion of the manufacturing industry is concentrated in this area tended the
"Piedmont. Crescent." The Cresent is a dispersed urban region; no single city
dominates. The development of this clustered cresent was originally influenced
by a railroad line and has since been reinforced by the construction of Interstate 85.
Three district clusters make up the Crescent: the Hetrolina area (centered in
Charlotte), the Triad (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-lligh Point), and the Research
Triangle (Raleigh-Uurham-Chapel Mill).
In North Carolina, several studies have been carried out to determine the magnitude
of water quality problems associated with urban runoff. Many of these studies were
conducted in the urbanized Piedmont Crescent. The results of the studies showed
that the Central Business District and other commercial land use areas were found
to generate the highest pollutant loadings for most of the pollutant parameters
monitored. Additionally, work conducted by the Division of Environmental Management
found urban streams In Asheville to be severely biologically degraded.
The Winston-Salem area was designated by OEM as a priority area in the first phase of
statewide 208 planning process, due to the concentration of urban and industrial
activities. Additional significance in choosing Uinston-Salem as a study area lies
in the fact that the city is the first major urban center (fourth largest city in NC)
below the headwaters of the Yadkin River. Runoff from from almost all of this urban
area is received ultimately by the Yadkin River, the major potable surface water
supply for many communities downstream.
In conjunction with the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, sampling
in Winston-Salem was Initiated in January, 1978, to examine the water quality
impacts of both Central Business District (CBO) and residential land uses. Each
stream station was sampled during low flow and several during stormflow conditions
for nutrients, heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, BOD, and fecal coliforms. Biological
sampling was also conducted on a (|iiarterly basis in Tar Branch, the stream the Central
Business District discharges into.
The results of this study were consistent with earlier studies. That is, concen-
trations of most pollutants were higher in the Central Business District diiriiH)
the period sampled.
In addition to monitoring for physical/chemical parameters, biological sampling
was conducted which showed the urban streams to have "poor water quality conditions.
The urban stonnwater section of the North Carolina Water Quality Management Plan
identified various techniques that could be used to reduce urban runoff pollution.
The purpose of the Uinslon-Salem urban runoff project was to evaluate some of the
techniques mentioned in this plan under a variety of real world conditions.
GlO-2
filO-3
-------
PHYSICAL lit SCRIPT ION
A. Area
li.
.C.
The II ins tun- Sal em NIJKP project encompasses several jurisdictions including
Forsyth County and I he city of Uinston- Salem.
I uc j I. c-d in north central North Carolina in the middle Piedmont Plateau,
Forsyth County is characterised by a foothill terrain. Elevations range
trum a low of about 700 feet along the Yadkin River to points of about
111)0 feet along the divide between the Dan-Roanoke Basin and the Yadkin
River Basin, with an average elevation of about 870 feet.
I lie soils of the county are extremely varied and highly intermingled. The
soils present a wide range of percolation characteristics, depth to water
table, depth to bedrock, erodabilHy, and other factors.
(hi: quality of the gronndwater for Forsyth County is good and the mineral
content is low. The dissolved solids content ranges from about 30 to 160
my/1 , but is generally between 50 and 100 my/ 1.
Winston- Salem is the major urban area in Forsyth County and is located in
the central part of the county. The city has a total land area of 61.6
square mi les.
Approximately t!l% of the laud area in Winston-Salein is in residential and
related uses. Industry accounts for about 7% of the area. Commercial use
accounts for another 7%, and the remaining SI is in vacant lots.
Thu average annual temperature is 50.5°F, with an average monthly temperature
of 1l°F in Oecember to 78°F in July. Precipitation averages about 44.2 inches
per ye 6 1'.
Summer rainfall is characterized l>y thunderstorms with occasional hail.
Iliriler rainfall results mainly from low-pressure storms arid is less variable
than summer rainfall. Ihe total snowfall in Fursyth County every v/inter
ranges from one inch to two feet with an average total amount of nine inches.
Ihe Hj/a population estimate for I orsyth County is 233,600. Future projections
done in 1976 were 238,200 by 1980 and 260,900 by 1990.
Drainage
Urainuge patterns in Forsyth County follow three main directions. A very
small fraction flows eastward and is received by the Cape Fear River.
Approximately 'i'ti of the county's drainage flows north and is contained
within tht Uan-Koanuke River basin. Southwestward flow into the Yadkin
River accounts for approximately 78l of the drainage.
Glu-4
The Yadkin River is located on the western boundary of the county. The
two major tributaries flowing into the Yadkin River from Forsyth County
are Abbott's Creek (drainage 25.3 square ariles in forsytis County), as;d
Muddy Creek (drainage 159.2 square miles in Forsylh County). The Muddy
Creek basin drains a major portion of urban Forsyth County, including
all of Winston-Salem, portions of the municipalities of Kernersville
and Rural Hall, and portions of the unincorporated communities of Malkertown
and Clemmons. Muddy Creek tributaries and their drainage areas from
north to south include Mill Creek (32.2 square miles). Silas Creek and
Little Creek (18.9 square miles,) Salem Lake and Salem Creek (69.6 square
miles), and the Forsyth County portion of South Fork Creek (36.8 square
miles). The Abbott's Creek watershed drains southward into High Rock
Lake. The remaining of the county is westard directly into the Yadkin
River, eastward into the Maw and Deep Rivers, and northeastward into
the Dan-Roanoke River Basin. These drainage areas are shown in Figure 111.A.'
D. Sewerage System
The entire area of Winston-Sal em is served by separate storm sewers.
G10-5
-------
NORN CAROM
RIVER BASINS
IO&H/-N;
,WINSTON- x .
_0 SALEMQ 1 O
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Broad
Cape Fiar
CaUwbJ
Chowan
French Broad
Hiwasset
Little Tenn.
Saunnab
UC
08 Umber
09 Neust
10114 Kew-Watauga
11 Pasquotank
12 Roanoke
13 Tar-Panlico
15 White Oak
IB ladkin-Pee Dei
WILMINGTON
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
-------
PKG.IECI AKEA
1. Cattluuent Name - NC IU23 Ardiiiore
A. Area - 324 acrts.
B. Copulation - )U4b persons.
C. Drainage - Burke Brancli is a tributary draining the Ariliuore
residential district.
I). Sewerage - Drainage area of calcluuent is 97.7* separate storm
sewers. 2.3% is served by on-site systems. All of the separate
storm sewered aroa has curbs and gutters. Streets consist of
26 miles of asphalt.
t. Land Use
3u.y acres (122) Urban Parkland.
5.73 acres (2*) is Liyht Industrial.
b.M dcres (2i) is Linear Strip Development.
. y!) acres (< 1%) is 78 dwelliiuj units per acre residential.
2b'J.36 (83%) is 2.5 to U dnulliny units per acre.
II. Calcluuenl Name - NC 1013 Central business District
A. Area - 22.7 acres.
b. Copulation - U persons.
C. Liramaye - Site is a stonu sower draining into Tar Branch Tributary
to Muddy Creek.
U. Seweraye - Drainage area of catclunent is 100% separate stonu sewers.
All of the separate stonu sewered area has curbs and gutters. Streets
consist of 3.68 miles of asphalt.
E. land Use
22.7 jcres (10U£) is Central business District
LOCATION OF WATERSHEDS TO'St MONITORED
G1U-B
G10-9
.•, i-'
-------
^^m^m^fff^^^y\ vx~fr^i>
S& \: ftllSw M, fg^r m^
Minstnii-Saleni, N.C.
Central Business District Site
G10-10
&\%i( •\M\t@M
' •vUVr^-'.'Jnv.Jl'
-. :.vV^_, AV.-.\I/
/ I '^^,
, N.C.
Ardiiiore Rosidcntiiil Site
Gin-11
-------
PKOJtCI UtSCKIHTlOM
A. Major Objective
The primary ubjective of the Uinston-Salem HIIRP project is to evaluate street-
related, non-structural practices for relative pollutant removal cost and
effectiveness potentials under a variety of real world conditions. Street
cleaning and catch-basin cleaning activities in already developed urban
areas were evaluated. Tyraco Regenerative Air Sweepers and various cleaning
frequencies were investigated in small-scale field tests and larye-scale
program tests in selected watershed. Small-scale tests included determination
or accumulation rates of street surface solids by weight and particle sue
distributions and associated, attached contaminants.
Larger scale proyraiiauatic tests included cost determinations, as well as
benefits to water quality, leading to the development of an optimal cost-
effective program.
Determination of the seasonal atmospheric fallout contribution which can
accumulate on streets and other impervious surfaces and subsequently be
washed off and a determination ol the pollutant contributions washed out
of Ihu atmosphere by precipitation were made.
The watersheds monitored are representative of about 8UJ of the land area
of Winstoii-Saleiii, and a lanje percentage of most urban areas in North
Carolina. The CBU watershed was studied because of the associated high
concentration of pollutants and potential efficiency of management for
this type of land use. The residential area, although having relatively
lower pollutant concentration in runoff accounts for a large majority
of tin- city area and thus a larye overall pollution potential.
B. Hotho>1ulO'jies
Hie full scale tests of Best Management Practices was divided into four
subiasfcs. These four subtasks included 1) accumulation rate determinations
2) pollutant/particle size determinations, 3) street cleaning equipment
performance determinations, and 4) catch basin cleaning performance
determinations. Each of these tasks were necessary to accomplish the main'
objective of the study.
1. Accumulation Kate lletenninations
A knowledge of the accumulation rales of solids on street surfaces and
surrounding impervious surfaces is important in determining the amounts
of associated pollutants that accumulate on these surfaces. Past studies
had shown that accumulation rates vary widely between areas due to street
surface characteristics, land use patterns, traffic conditions and other
local factors.
tilO-12
Solids accumulations within eacli watershed were studied by collecting
representative samples from the streets and sidewalks. An experimental
design was carried out In each watershed to determine the number of subsampies
needed to statistically represent the variation found in the watershed. Due
to cost constraints however, only 50 strips were chosen randomly throughout
the watershed. This number is less than the number needed to adequately
represent the variation.
The experimental design study was carried out in each season, in both watersheds,
to determine the required number of subsampies for a representative watershed
sample.
Accumulated solids on strips of street were then collected with a small-scale,
hand-held, vacuum cleaner capable of removing and retaining particles as small
as five microns.
Watershed accumulation studies were carried out in essentially the same manner
as the experimental design studies. The exception was that larger capacity vacuum
cleaners were used in the full scale tests to accomodate the collection and
retention of the larger watershed representative "sample". Solids accumulation
within each watershed was determined by taking weekly samples within each watershed
for a period of 12 months.
Collected solids in each sample were analyzed for wet and dry weight, particle
size distribution and median paticle size class based on the weight fractions
of size classes. All particle size fractions were retained for each watershed.
Size fractions from each weekly sample were composited on a monthly basis by
watershed and analyzed for several pollutants.
Because of the possibility of across the street variation in solids loading on
streets and sidewalks, seasonal studies were carried out to evaluate this possiblity.
Street lengths of 10 feet considered to be representative of the test areas were
chosen. A number of pavement strips of afferent width were vacuumed, solids
collected, removed, and retained for particle sizing and pollutant analysis.
2. Pollutant/Particle Size Determinations
Many of the accumulation rate determination studies have associated particle sizing
of solids collected, and pollutant analyses for each separated particle size
class. These pollutant analyses are important in determining the relationship
between particle size and associated pollutants and in drawing conclusions from
these analyses.
The weekly samples collected in the watershed accumulation studies were separated
into particle size fractions which were weighed and retained. These size fractions
from weekly samples were composited by size class on a monthly basis. The
composited, monthly size fractions were analyzed for eight pollutants of interest.
GIG-13
-------
PROBLEM
•*• jiLLi?.'J-LlSffiLlU-El".ipment performance Determinations
Vacutun cleaners were investigated under a variety of real-world operating conditions
to determine the pounds of solids removed per curb-mile and the particle size
distributions in samples taken from street surface tests strips before and after
cleaning operations.
Particle size determinations provided for estimates of associated pollutants
removed based on information determined in the pollutant/particle size association
studies. Calculations were also made to determine the median particle size in
each of the samples to allow for determinations of equipment performances to
be made as a function of particle size.
4. QUch-BasIn Cleaning Performance
The purpose of this subtask was to determine the accumulation rates of solids
in test catch basin structures. Three test structures were chosen to represent
different siting positions. The pollution abatement potential of cleaning these
structures at various intervals was investigated. Accumulation periods of two
weeks, one month, and two months were studied.
Practice effectiveness was evaluated for different accumulation periods by
determining dry weight amounts (pounds) of solids removed per structure
cleaned. Representative solid samples were removed from the catch/basins
being studied after cleaning.
Precipitation events and other activities influencing accumulation were closely
documented.
Water quality samples were taken at the two selected watersheds before and after
implementation of the RMP's. Total loads washed off and concentrations were
compared l:o before and after BMP implementation as well as to water quality
standards promulgated by the state of North Carolina.
Two sites were also constructed in the Central Business District to supply
source input for background deposition, and street and curb deposition
from atmospheric sources.
C. Monitoring
Automatic samples were taken at both monitoring locations. ISCO model 1870
flow meters and ISCO model 1680 high speed sequential samplers were used.
Discrete samples were taken at both sites.
Acrochemetrics Model 301 wetfall/dryfalI samplers were used to collect the
atmospheric deposition samples. Hut fall samples were collected on an event
basis. Dryfall samplers were collected on a monthly basis.
I). Controls
As described in the Methodologies section, both street sweeping practices
and catch-basin cleaning practices wore evaluated. The methods used for
those evaluations are described In Section B.
A. local Definition
Several studies have been conducted in North Carolina to detenu!ne the extent
of degradation of urban streams, lliese studies in Durham, Uoleigh, Asheville.
and Winston-Salem have shown that, under present conditions, almost all urban
streams will he unable to meet the 1083 water quality go.ils.
Many of these studies were conducted in the urbanized Piedmont Crescent. Iho
results of the studies showed that the Central Business District and other
commercial land use areas were Inund to getierate the highest pollutant load-
ings for most of the pollutant parameters monitored. Sitjnif icantly high
concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals, notably phosphorus and load,
respectively were observed. Additionally, v/ork conducted hy the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) in conjunction with the Land of
Sky Regional Council of Governments found urban streams in Asheville to he
severely biologically degraded.
The Winston-Salem area was designated hy DEM as a priority area in the first
phase of the statewide 208 planning process, due to the concentration of urban
and industrial activities. Additional significance in choosing Winston-Salcm
as a study area lies in the fact that the city is the first major urban center
below the headwaters of the Yadkin P.iver. Runoff from almost all of this urban
area is received ultimately by the Yadkin River, Hie major potable surface water
supply for many communities downstream.
In conjunction with the Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, samp I Ing
was initiated in January 1978 to examine the water quality impacts of both
Central Business District (CBD) and residential land uses. Each stream station
was sampled during low flow and several during stoniiflow conditions for
nutrients, heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, BOD and fecal colifoniis. Biological
sampling was also conducted on a quarterly basis in Tar Branch, the stream the
Central Business District discharges into. The data from these studies showed
distinct differences in iwllutant concentrations from the residential areas and
the CBD for several parameters. Concentrations of most pollutants were higher
in the CBD during the period sampled.
The monitoring also showed that some water quality problems also oxist durint)
dry weather (low flow) conditions. During high flow conditions, concentrations
exceeding proposed North Carolina standards were deinrmstrdtiul for load, mercury,
iron, and fecal colifonn bacteria. Elevated levels associated with high flows,
hut not exceeding proposed standards were shown for zinc, several nutrient para-
meters, BOD, and COD. However, high concentrations of several of the heavy metals.
particularly mercury, were found during low flow conditions. High fecal r.olifotm
concentrations were also found during low flow conditions.
In addition to the monitoring for physical/chemical parameters, biological
sampling vias conducted which showed the urban streams to have "poor water quality
conditions".
G10-I5
GIO-14
-------
Hie urban stonm/ater section of tlie florlh Carolina Water Quality Management
Plan Identified various techniques that possibly could be used to reduce
urbdii runoff pollution. These techniques include both structural and
MOPI-structural practices. The objective of the Winslon-Salein study is
tu evaluate some of the uon-striictrual techniques for relative pollutant
removal effectiveness potentials under a variety of real world conditions.
B. Local t*t!i-ceptign
The "North Carolina Stonnwater Manager" is a publication put out bi-nionthly
by the Mater Resources Research Inlstitute at North Carolina State University.
Thi: purpose of the newsletter is to help consultants, city engineers and public
works directors in North Carolina who are concerned with stonnwater management
communicate with each other. Ihe state has always been a leader in the field
of stormwaler management.
Because of the local interest in environmental problems. Forsyth County formed
an Environmental Affairs Board in 1976. The purpose of the board is to encourage
the wise and beneficial use of the natural environment and minimize the adverse
effects of environmental contaminants on human health. The Forsyth County
Environmental Affairs Board has played a very active part in the Winston-Sal em
IIURP project.
GlO-16
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
TAMPA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TAMPA, FLORIDA
REGION IV, EPA
Gll-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The City of Tampa Department of Public Works is charged with solving the, at
limes, conflicting problems of urban flood control and runoff generated water
quality deterioration. Large portions of Tampa have been developed with
little, if any, drainage provisions and the consequent flooding is of primary
concern to the citizens. At the same time, urban runoff has been identified
as a significant source of pollution to several important local water bodies
(the Hillsborough River including a reservoir, and portions of Hillsborough
Bay). The areawide Water Quality Management Plan recently completed by the
Tampa Bay RFC classified all land areas within the City limits as segments
with serious water quality problems. The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER) has designated all stream segments within the Tampa Bay Region
as water quality limited, i.e., point source treatment is expected to be In-
sufficient to achieve acceptable water quality and thus nonpoint sources must
be considered a significant portion of the problem. The DER also recently
enacted stormwater runoff permitting rules which call for a reduction of
pollution to comply with water quality standards.
To help find a solution to all of these problems, the Tampa Department of
Public Works is participating in the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Tampa
OPU hopes to use the data collected in the NURP program and develop a plan
for the management of stormwater runoff in the Tampa area.
Gll-2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Tampa lies at the northeast corner of Tampa Bay wd partially
encompasses the Hillsborough Bay System (Figure 1). Hi I lsborou<|h Bay covers
approximately sixty-five square miles and surrounded by a large metropolitan
complex which supports extensive industrial activity and serves as a major
shipping port. The Bay is highly eutrophic, and anoxic conditions have been
reported. The city of Tampa is bisected by the Hillsborough River. The Bay
and the River serve as the primary ultimate recipients of stormwater dis-
charge. The Hillsborough River originates some 55 miles northeast of fampa
in the Green Swamp.
Approximately ten miles from its mouth, the river has been dammed to create
the Hillsborough River reservoir. The predominantly forested and agricultural
(but increasingly urban) drainage basin above the dam is estimated at 630
square miles. Below the spillway, approximately sixty square miles of largely
urban area drain into the river.
The Tampa Bay area is a humid sub-tropical area. Average annual rainfall is
48.9 Inches, 60X of which falls between June and September (National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration). The rainfall is associated with seasonal
thunderstorms and frontal activity.
Easterly winds prevail during the summer and northerly winds during the winter.
Mean monthly temperatures range from 16.?"C (61.?°F) in January to 27.8°C
(82*F) in August.
Tampa exhibits flat to gently undulating terrain, typically characteristic
of the Gulf Coastal Lowlands in which it is Included. Elevations range from
sea level along Hillsborough and Tampa Bay, to 87 feet above mean sea level
(MSL) in the extrane northeastern parts of the City. Ihe remnants of three
shorelines and four marine terraces, attributed to the rise and fall of the
sea durfng'the periods of continental glaciation, have been identified.
A close examination of a topographic map of the City reveals that the majority
of the City is less than 25 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This low coastal
area, which originates at the Bay margin, varies considerably in configuration
and is extranely susceptible to adverse weather conditions, specifically, high
tides and tropical storms. Historical evidence confirms the assumption that
a significant portion of the City is subject to frequent and recurrent flooding
due to adverse weather conditions, low and flat topography, and a lack of
drainage facilities.
Flooding is a serious natural hazard that should he avoided. Because Florida
is prone to periods of drought or long periods of less than average rainfall,
many areas which are subject to flooding appear to be high and dry. Especially
deceptive to many people is the extent of the floodplain associated witli tropical
storms. The low-lying areas surrounding the Bay are extremely attractive for
residential neighborhoods, and consequently, are well developed. Since the last
major hurricane (1960), extensive development in the coastal floodplain has
occured. Realistically, the next hurricane can inflict massive and catastrophic
damages upon the low-lying areas within the City.
611-3
-------
Lower HUlsborough River
PA3CO COUNTN
HILLSBOROUGrTcOUNTT
Basin Boundaries
nHILLSBOHOllGti HIVEH
OPfllNAOE UrtSiN
B«>inii Wtmm Cilf Limiif
nonCiH H;i:vEn
[
1 I I HILLSDOHOIIl'.d UA»
Figure 1 Ctcy of Taapa Drainag* Areas
-------
^jw'V-^^ii^iJij: i!
•(•I :-.*/:.. :.| ;: ...-n,'--;*A.'1
STr^mm iffWmrT^yTTrn?
Beyond the low-lying areas subject to flooding, extensive areas within the City
are representative of karst topography. Evidenced primarily in the northern
extent of the City, karst topography is characterized by springs, disappearing
streams, depressions, water-filled depressions, subterranean cavities, and
sinkholes.
Tampa may be considered as being almost entirely developed, with lew large
tracts of open land remaining. This state of development is significant in that
the development process has altered existing vegetation patterns, drainage,
soils and groundwater characteristics. For example, development of roads, side-
walks, and roof tops increases the amount of water that "rims off" a site; this
extra runoff, above the natural rate, necessitates the construction of a storm
sewer system. This modification of drainage, from a natural to an artificial
urban stystem, is essentially complete within the City although construction of
storm sewer systems is not yet complete.
Within the incorporated city limits of Tampa, a relatively small amount of
land remains vacant for development, the majority of vacant lam! exists near
MacOill Air Force Base and south of Tampa Airport -- undeveloped land is also
available around McKay Bay and on Seddon Island.
Industrial land uses in the City are heavily concentrated in the areas around
the port facilities, with the greatest percentage located along the north side
of Adamo Drive from the Palm River area on the east to 13th Street on the west.
From this location, industrial usage extends southward to (looker's Point.
Another large concentration of industrial usage which exists ap-irt from the port
facilities is located just north of Busrh Boulevard and east of 30th Street.
This area is the Tampa Industrial Park which includes the well-known tourist
attraction, Busch Gardens. Smaller concentrations of industry exist at the Port
of Tampa and west of Westshore Blvd. in the vicinity of the Westinghouse Plant.
Commercial development in Tampa has in many cases developed in the traditional
strip commercial fashion along the length of major traffic arterials. The pri-
mary commercial strips are found on Hi IIsborough Avenue, Kennedy Boulevard,
East Broadway,'Busch Boulevard, Hale Habry Highway, Armenia Avenue, Florida Avenue,
and Nebraska Avenue.
The majority of land in the City is in residential usage, primarily single
family with multi-family the second largest category, but representative of a
significantly smaller amount of acreage. Mobile home parks are a much smaller
residential use in the City.
B. Population
The City of Tampa is located in west central Florida. The corporate limits
encompass 84.45 square miles (8.12*) of Hillsborough County; approximately half
of the total population of Hillsborough County resides within Tampa. Gross
population density per square mile is 3,351; total population (1978) is 282,741.
This figure represents a 4 percent increase since the 1970 Census. Ihe minor
population increase is not characteristic of the Tampa Bay region; compared to
most other jurisdictions, Tampa's population is increasing at a very slow rate.
The level of population concentration generally increases as one moves from the
downtown Central Business District (CBD) to the corporate limits. As a result,
large portions of the population are located in the North Tampa and Interbay areas.
Gil-6
-------
C. Drainage
I lie Illy of lompa Is divided into three major drainage areas: the Ilil Isborough
River. Hillsborough bay, and Old Tampa bay. Old Tampa Bay Is not addressed at
all in this study, (see map)
Mi 1Isborough Kiyer
The Hi)Ishorough River originates approximately 50 miles northeast of the
City of Tampa in the Green Swaiup. The Green Swamp is a large. Ill-defined,
wetland area situated in Suinter, folk, Pasco. and Lake counties. The swamp
has been determined to be situated directly over a recharge subsurface aquifer.
The swamp is also the origin of two other major central Florida rivers, the
Uithlacoochee and Oklawaha. The watershed for the Ilil Isborough River is
generally considered to be approximately 630 square wiles; however, exact
delineation of the basin's area is difficult due to the lace of readily defined
interfluves in the Green Swamp headwaters. Under certain high water conditions,
the Hillsborouyh River receives drainage that would normally be considered as
being part of the Uithlacoochee basin. Ihe Army Corps of Engineers estimates
that intermittent overflows as high as 35,000 cfs have occurred in the past
(1934) but that the animal average overflow is about 30 cfs.
Proceeding downstream from the Uithlacoochee "overflow channel", the river shows
a relatively steep gradient; however, the floodplain remains quite expansive,
with widths varying between 2.000 to 6,000 feet. Fox Branch enters the
Ilillsburaiigh at this point. Fox Branch extends roughly 8 miles to the southeast,
to its origin near the settlement of Socrum. Host of Fox Branch extends through
unimproved pasture, but some citrus and improved pastures are apparent. Flows
range from 0 to 100 cfs. Downstream, Crystal Springs discharges to the
Hillsburough through a half mile run. Ihe springs flow year-around and assure
a base flow in the river. Discharges vary from 20 to 150 cfs. Big Ditch is a
3-mile long tributary flowing due west into the river. The headwaters of Big
Ditch originate in an area of surface mining and phosphate production.
Uowni-leaiu, ui. unnamed tributary flows south 5 miles through areas of improved
pasture, citrus, and at least 20 confined feeding operations around the out-
skirts of the City of Zephyrhills.
Blackwater Creek is the first major tributary to the Hillsborough downstream
from Big Ditch. Ihis watershed is characterized by extensive channelization
that has been developed to manage improved pasture and citrus groves within
the watershed. Furthermore, the headwaters of Blackwater Creek and its major
tributary, Itchepackesassa Creek, drain urban and suburban development in and
around Plant City. Discharges from Blackwater range from 0 to 5,500 cfs. As
many as 15 confined feeding operations have been identified within the Blackwater
watershed.
Proceeding downstream, an Intermittent stream known as Two-hole Branch discharges
into the Hillsborough. Two-hole Branch drains primarily unimproved pasture.
At this point, the HitIsborongh hiver is associated with a vast hardwood swamp.
Two tributaries, the New River and an unnamed tributary, also enter at this point.
Ihe New River drains an extensive arou of improved pastures and rangeland, and
has been channelized over much of its length. Ihe unnamed tributary to the west
of Hew River has similar characteristics.
GH-8
The Hillsborough River, at this point, is ill-defined as it flows through
the massive hardwood swamp. This swamp is the location of the lower
Ilil Isborough River Detention Area, and encompasses approximately 15 square
miles. The detention area, coupled with the nearly complete Tampa Bypass
Canal, is intended to alleviate downstream flooding along the uranized portions
of the Hillsborough River.
Several other tributaries also drain into this hardwood swamp, including
Ho11Oman's Branch, Flint Creek, Cow House Creek, Clay Gully and Trout Creek.
Ho11Oman's Branch is an intermittent stream that is largely channelized. It
drains rangeland, improved pasture, and several confined feeding operations.
Flint Creek originates at Lake Thonotosassa, which in turn is fed by Baker
Creek and Pemberton Creek. Baker Creek and Pemberton Creek drain areas of
mixed land-uses, including hardwood swamp, improved pasture, rangeland, sub-
urban areas, and a small Industrial area. Lake Ihonotosassa is the largest
lake in Hillsborough County at 830 acres. Its stage is regulated by a weir
at the outfall to Flint Creek. Varying over a range of 2 feet, maximum lake
depth is 14 feet with the deeper areas being covered with benthic muck, a
result of phytoplankton fallout and organic wastes (citrus pulp) trum
industrial sources tributary to Baker Creek. Lake Thonotosassa experienced
the largest fish kill in the U.S. in 1969. Flint Creek discharges into the
Hillsborough via an unchannelized section of hardnood swamp. Average discharge
is 20 cfs, with a range from 0 to 350 cfs.
Cow House Creek is a natural meandering channel of the Hillsborough and is
undergoing substantial modification due to the construction of the Tampa
Bypass Canal. Trout Creek and Clay Gully drain predominately land uses north
of the Hillsborough. Both creeks drain Into the river through a series of
swamplands which probably reduces water quality problems.
Cypress Creek is the last major tributary in the rural segment of the
Hillsborough River. Indeed, several portions of the lower reaches of Cypress
Creek contain suburban residential land-uses, including a small airport and
several minor commercial establishments. The upper reaches of Cypress Creek
basin lies within a trough (50-70 feet) in the potentiometric surface of the
Floridan Aquifer. Thus, the potentiometric level results in the discharge
of considerable ground water into Cypress Creek.
The Hillsborough River segment downstream from the tributary Cypress Creek to
its mouth at Hillsborough Bay is highly urbanized. Houses are located imme-
diately on the river and in some cases are located in the ten-year flood plain.
Urban stormwater drainage from the cities of Temple Terrace and Tampa is
generally routed directly to the river, with little or no retention or quality
control provided?
Water quality sampling efforts indicate that as the river passes through the
urban areas, the water quality is degraded. Particularly important to the
City of Tampa is the utilization of the IlilIsborough River as a surface reservoir
of raw water for potable uses. The Tampa water systaii pumps approximately
65 mgd of water from the reservoir and has a plant capacity of 94 ingd. The
City of Tampa reservoir is formed by tne City dam, located approximately at
30th Street. The reservoir water storage currently covers approximately 950
acres. The water treatment facility is located directly upstream from the dam.
Gll-9
-------
The majority of the annual low Dow of the river is diverted through the
waterworks and consumed by the residents of the City. During the wet season,
some water passes over the dnm; however, the reservoir pool Is usually main-
tained at approximately 22 m.s.l., resulting in the river segment below the
dam being primarily tidal in nature.
Ten storm sewers of 60° or larger drain directly into the Tampa reservoir;
numerous smaller storm sewers and urban sheet flows also enter the reservoir.
Two industrial sources dicharge Into the river at this point; McGraw Edison
and Anhetiser Busch both discharge cooling water. Several residentia'l areas
directly adjacent to the reservoir utilize onsite waste disposal systems (septic
tanks), which in times of high ground water levels, may be discharging Into
the rtver.
The segment of the river below the dam exhibits characterises of a tidal
stream, varying in width from about 50 feet near the dam to approximately
300 feet in downtown Tampa. Depth varies from a few inches to nineteen
feet. Urban residential, commercial, and industrial uses border most of
the river along this segment. The watershed below the dam consists of
approximately 45 square miles, with urban land uses predominating. This
river segment has the environmental characteristics of a low salinity estuary.
Two river-miles downstream from Tampa dam is Sulphur Springs, with an average
annual flow of 31 mgd. Usually the springs discharge directly into the
river; however-, during periods of low river flow, up to 20 mgd can be diverted
upstream to the reservoir to be utilized as a potable supply augmentation.
Several other small springs also discharge into the river in this segment.
This segment is also impacted by urban storm water runoff. At least 106
stormwater outfalls (24" and above the diameter) discharge into the river,
draining almost one-third of the City. Because of the age of these systems
and the urban development intensity, little or no structural quality control
measures are incorporated. Both open ditch and closed systems are utilized.
The river finally empties into Hillsborough Bay at downtown Tampa; the last
1.5 miles are maintained for commercial navigation.
Hillsborough Bay
The MilIsborough/McKay Bay systems are part of the larger Tampa Bay system,
a complex series of estuaries on the west central coast of Florida. Hillsborough
Bay is a natural arm of Tainpa Bay, approximately eight miles long and four
miles wide. McKay Bay is an extension of Hillsborough Bay. Hillsborough Bay
has three major freshwater tr ibutarles, the Ilillsborough River, the Palm River,
and the Alafia River. Improved channels are maintained at 34 foot depths.
The surface area of Ilillshoroiigh Bay, including the harbor area. Port Sutton,
and McKay Bay, is 39.6 square miles and the total volume is 8.3 x 10 cubic
feet at mean low water. Shoreline slopes are gentle except at bulkheads,
with the 6-foot depth contour extending some 400 yards off the western shore
and about 1200 yards off the eastern shore. Bottom configuration has been
altered markely by channel dredging and placement of spoil.
Tides are of the mixed type, having one strong flood and ebb per day with
an intermediate phase which may be either flood or ebb. The diurnal tidal
ranges is 2.8 feet and the mean level is 1.4 feet.
011-10
Several major dredge and fill projects have dramatically altered natural
configuration of the MilIsborough/McKay Bay systen. Davis Islands, situated
in northern Hillsborough Bay, were dredged in the Florida land boom of the
1920's. tand use on Davis Islands is primarily residential, with a small
commercial strip', a general aviation airport, and Tainpa General Hospital.
Seddon Island, directly east of Davis Islands, is currently undeveloped.
Hooker's Point, a natural perisinsula, has been enlarged by dredging, and is
the site of most of Tampa heavy Industry and port terminals. Connecting
Hooker Point with the eastern shore, and bisecting McKay Bay, is the 22nd
Street Causeway. Port Sutton, on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, is
the site of several shipping terminals and an electrical generating plant.
McKay Bay, named after former Tampa Mayor D.B. McKay, is a small shallow bay
located at the northeast corner of Ilillsborough Bay. Before extensive dredging
and filling took place in Hillsborough Bay, there was no distinct dividimi
line separating it from the rest of Hillsborough Bay. However, after the
construction of the 22nd Street Causeway and bridge In 1926-1927 and more
recently the dredging and filling of Hooker Point and Port Suttnn, McKay has
became a distinct. Isolated body of water.
The present shoreline is 7.5 miles long and covers 977.8 acres. The deepest
natural depth for the bay is only 5 feet. However, a number of old borrow
areas and the dredging of the Tampa Bypass Canal left areas as deep as 12-15
feet.
Freshwater discharges into the III I Isborough/McKay Bay systens originate from
the three rivers, stormwater runoff from urban and rural sources, and point
discharges from sewerage treatment plants. The Hillsborough River's mean
annual discharge is 397 mgd in a natural state (bear in mind the diversion
to the municipal waterworks). The maximum recorded natural flows have been
significantly modified by the construction of the Tampa Bypass Canal. The
canal, designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is being constructed to
prevent the flooding of the Hillsborough River. Flood surges can be
diverted from the Ilillsborough River to the bypass through a series of canals
and control structures. The canal extends partially into the Floridan aquifer,
and acts as a collector for groundwater discharges. Estimates vary as to the
amount of groundwater entering the canal, the most recent estimate is between
15 to 25 mgd. The figure for groundwater discharges, added to the natural
flow of the Palm River, yields an estimate of 90 mgd mean annual discharge.
The Alaf la River drains approximately 460 square miles of Ilillsborough and
Polk Counties. No significant man-induced changes are present to modify
natural flows. The average annual discharge is 264 mgd, with a maximum of
1,118 mgd and a minimum of 4.3 .
Stormwater runoff enters the Bay through closed urban systems, open iirhan
systems, open rural systems, and natural sheet flow.
Gil-II
-------
~] 4,;:'." TU..I)
. i . I r— -
ig|^l;. ^rygT-
I "£•>= Vr^^^M--!-•;j|;-4^
1 !•-:/?
-------
'.(—*
7>-f
/%!•
^M
•'-Irv
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Uefinition
Hie Hi IIsburouyh Kiver/Hil Isborough Uay System quality has declined to the
extent that many of its beneficial uses are now impossible. The most recent
general water quality index for body contact by the Hillsborough County Environ-
mental Protection Ccianission rated Uillsborsugh Bay as undesirable for any
form or' body contact. A once significant shellfish industry estimated in
1969 to be valued at $1.6 million, is now gone. Aesthetically, enjoyment of
the river and bay led to the development of desirable residential areas along
the watei front. Odor, color, turbidity, and bacterial contamination have
reduced the benefits of the Bay. Sporadic fish kills compound the problem.
Several incidents and low water quality in general, have resulted in water
quality below minimum state standards. Point sources, urban and rural runoff,
natural background, and the dredge and fill activities all contribute to the
problem.
The City ul Tampa utilises the Ilillsborouyh Kiver as a potable water supply.
Stale water quality standards are the highest for such potable water bodies.
Urbanization has, however, extensively impacted this segment of the Hillsborough
River. Two cities, Taiupa and Temple Terrace route urban stormwater into the
reservoir segment. The City of Tampa alone has eleven outfalls, 24 Inches
or larger, discharging into the Reservoir. Hater quality problems are further
compounded by upstream rural runoff from agricultural lands, and large blooms
of water hyacinths in the reservoir. Runoff adds nutrients, suspended solids,
and coliform bacteria to the water supply; water hyacinths add to the nutrient
problem, and upon their death, contribute to a low dissolved oxygen problem.
Runoff from a large development bordering on the Hillsborough River north of
Temple lerrace will probably have to be treated to at least maintain present
water quality of the reservoir.
H. Lucal Perception
Several studies were undertaken over the past few years to evaluate the conditions
of the Ilillsborouyh River and Bay. There is a tremendous interest on the part
of local professors, local USGS offices and the Public Works Department to
define the problem.
The USGS established a stonuwater evaluation program in 1974. That project
established 10 streamflow gaging stations, 12 recording rain gages and
tabulated watershed land uses. Runoff and rainfall data, and water quality
data, has been collected since 1975.
The University of South Florida, College of Engineering, has performed several
hydraulic and hydrologic studies in an attempt to develop models to simulate
the hydraulics of the Bay.
The Public Works Department is concerned with the quantity as well as quality
problems. Tampa's relative lack of significant topographical relief, coupled
with a high average annual rainfall, has necessitated the construction of
numerous Sturm sewer systems. The majority of the systaiis were constructed well
before urban runoff was considered to be a possible source of water quality
problems. The City of Tampa has identified over 30U drainage problem areas and
is concerned with taking care of these yet satisfying the State standards.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
Goals of the Tampa urban runoff studies are to characterize the stonnwater
flows and loads from urban drainage basins, analyze the effectiveness of
selected stonnwater controls, determine the Impact of storm generated loads
on the lower Hillsborough River and develop a stonnwater management plan for
the City of Tampa. The stoniiwater management plan will address receiving
water quality, the quantity and quality aspects of stonnwater runoff, and
support the cities efforts to deal with flooding problems in an environmentally
sound manner.
B. Methodologies
Rainfall quantity and quality data will be collected and analyzed to develop
design storms and storm sequences, and characterize the direct load input to
the drainage basins from rainfall. Basins will be selected for detailed
monitoring during storm events to assess rainfall-runoff relationships and
stonnwater flows and loads. Stonnwater controls will be selected and monitored
during storm events to assess their effectiveness in reducing stormwater load-
ings. Stormwater flows and loads will be determined for the entire study
area under design conditions and used in development of the citywide storm-
water management plan.
A receiving water study will be on-going concurrently, funded by the City
of Tampa. This study will consist of a data collection effort intended to
better characterize water quality in the lower liillsborough River and analysis
of these data to determine the impact of stonuwater runoff. Specifically,
the data collection effort will consist of continuous monitoring of stage,
tanperature, conductivity and dissolved oxygen, synoptic sampling conducted
during distinct hydrologic conditions, continued collection of long-term
background data, collection of sediment oxygen demand and sediment chemistry
data, and biological sampling.
C. Monitoring
Equipment is just being ordered. It is anticipated that each site will contain
a precipitation recorder and sampler, a water level recorder and an automatic
sampler.
D. Controls
Controls to be monitored have not been definitely selected. The controls
studied may include 1) detention/retention basin with underdrain, 2) drainfield
or trench, 3) open bottom inlet or catchbasin and 4) undercut ditch.
GII-16
GH-17
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
KNOXVILLE/KNOX COUNTY METROPOLITAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
KNOXVILLE, TN
REGION IV, EPA
G12-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Knoxville, Tennessee Is a growing metropolitan area with a population of some
182,000 persons living within the present city limits. Total Knox County popu-
lation is approximately 335,000, while some 483,000 persons live within the
SMS A.
An earlier study of some urban streams in Knoxville revealed that urbanization has
a greater than expected effect on the hydrological regimes of streams with large
amounts of carbonate rocks in the basin. Under rural conditions much of the
streamflow is lost to the carbonate rocks and solution channels and is not measured
as surface runoff. Land cover alterations, along with sewers and channel modifications
In the study watersheds, resulted in an increase in the peak of the unit hydrograph
of from 1.9 to 3.6 times and a decrease in time to peak ranging from .86 to .36.
An important conclusion of the previous study was the recognized need for additional
water quality monitoring across the flow regime. Building on this original data base,
the Second Creek basin is being studied. Second Creek while typical of other urban
streams in the area, is well recognized for its poor water quality. The Knoxville
Metropolitan Commission and Tennessee Valley Authority hope to identify the cause
of these water quality problems and the solutions.
A. Area
Knox County, located in eastern Tennessee, lies wholly within the Ridge and Valley
physiographic province of the southern Appalachian region, extending from 35°47'30"H.
to 36010'30"N. latitude, and 83°39'U. to 84°16'U. longitude.
The topography of the county consists of alternating ridges and valleys which cut
into the steeply dipping, folded and faulted calcareous rocks. The rocks include
limestone, dolomite, calcareous shale, sandstone, and sandy shale.
Host soils have textures ranging from loam to silty clay loam. Depth to bedrock
ranges from zero to more that 20 feet. Fifty-seven percent of the county has
a soil depth of more than five feet.
The study area is located in a broad valley between the Cumberland mountains and
the Great Smoky Mountains. These two mountain ranges have a significant influence
upon the climate of the valley. Topography has a pronounced effect upon the prevailing
wind direction. Winds usually have a southwesterly component during day time,
while night time winds usually move from the northeast.
Rainfall is distributed throughout the year with a normal annual total of 47.98
inches.
B. Population
The population of Knox County has grown significantly in the past 15 years. Between
1960 and 1970 the county grew 10.3%, while between 1970 and 1975 it grew 9.8%. Between
1975 and 1990 the county is projected to grow an additional 23.7%. The following
table shows the population of the county.
Year
1960
1970
1975
1980
Population
250.523
276.293
303.900
335.400
C. Drainage
There are five drainage basins within the Knoxville-Knox County study area which,
by nature of their land use, may be considered urban. These include First Creek.
Second Creek. Third Creek. Fourth Creek, and Ten Mile Creek. The two most Intensely
developed drainage basins. First Creek and Second Creek, were chosen for this
study. In combination, these two creeks drain the entire Knoxville central business
district.
G12-2
G12-3
-------
First Creek Drainage Basin
The First Creek drainage basin encompasses an area of 22.04 square miles, the
largest 1n the Knoxvllle metropolitan area. Seventeen percent of the area
(3.78 square miles) drains into sinkholes. These sinkhole areas arc primarily
In the north and northwest parts of the basin. The average drainage density
of the First Creek basin Is nine miles of channel per square mile, with the
highest drainage density on steep slopes and less soluble geographic formations,
and lowest drainage density on gentle slopes and more soluble rocks.
Groundwater elevation and permanent streams In the First Creek drainage basin
are shown on Figures 1 and 2. The major trunk of First Creek runs from northwest
to southeast and Intercepts northeast - southwest surface and groundwater flows.
Inter - basin water transfer may occur where abundant sinkholes are present and
the surface drainage divide is not prominent.
In the First Creek drainage basin, commercial land use is concentrated on the
lower (downstream) portions of the basin and along the Broadway strip commercial
development. Open and forest lands predominate In the northeastern portions of
the basin. Although Industrial and multi-family land uses cover small portions
of the basin, single family residential land use Is Important. Table 1 shows the
percentage of different land uses in the basin.
Areas of potentially high water yield are associated with steep slopes, high elevations,
shallow and less permeable soils (low soil moisture capacity), s-hale bedrock,
faults acting as groundwater barriers, and densely developed residential and
commercial land uses which have a large percentage of Impervious surfaces. Areas
of potentially low water yield are related to deep and more permeable soils, gentle
slopes, and carbonate rocks where bypass losses of groundwater occur, especially in
summer and fall when soli moisture Is depleted. In general low water yield occurs
in summer and fall on relatively low elevations, deep and more permeable soils, carbonate
rocks, and open and forested areas.
Second Creek Drainage Basin
The Second Creek watershed Is adjoined on the east by the First Creek basin and on
the west by Third Creek basin. Second Creek basin Is elongated 1n shape and is
the smallest major drainage basin In the Knoxvllle urban area. The creek originates
on Blackoak Ridge north of Insklp and Norwood communities and drains into a gently
rolling area. It has no major tributaries unlike the other principal streams In
Knoxville. The creek flows into central Knoxvllle through the gap In Sharps Ridge
where 1-75 (U.S. Highway 25W) and the Southern Railway pass through. Below the gap
it passes the Southern Railway's Coster Yards and is repeatedly crossed by the railway
before reaching downtown Knoxville. The creek enters the Tennessee River at the
eastern edge of the campus of the University of Tennessee.
The basin has a drainage area of 7.1 square miles (4,544 acres) Including an area
0.5 square miles (320 acres) that drains into sinkholes and has no surface channels.
The complete drainage basin is shown on Figure 3. Drainage density is high on
steep slopes and high-elevation areas, while low drainage density is associated
G12-4
O SURFACE DRAINAGE DIVIDE
• GROUNDWATER DIVIDE
FIRST CR££K
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION MAP
Figure 1
G12-5
-------
:°oo°,po°°p
o
TABLE 1
LAND USE IN FIRST CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
Total
Single Family HuUI-Famlly Commercial Industrial Open Forest Total Impervlou:
Percent of total
area («)
Extent (Acres)
45
6,347
6
846
6
846
1 28 14 100 . 17.5
141 3.949 1,975 14,104 2,468
-------
V\%:\;-f^/-:-o
i--~±c^m<
/•..\p
kF^-Y-'' x" /''">';( >{
^~4x- ../ k>- •
o-'.i'
cy \
o \
0 xr,^ -* \L-+
Av X^^>^>''--7 c
d A^pf A r.**
Or-—-i*. *• \ f» ..••. . . •
with gentle slopes and low-elevation areas such as the Coster railway yard. The
highest drainage density ocurs on Sharps Ridge, where the geologic structure 1s
complex, rocks are tmperaeable and not highly soluble, elevation Is high, and
slopes are steep.
Elevations In Second Creek basin range mostly between 900 and 1,100 feet. The maximum
elevations are 1.360 feet on Blackoak'Ridge and 1.400 feet on Sharps Ridge, both
on the divide between First and Second Creeks. Along the divide between Second
and Third Creeks, the maximum elevations are 1,180 feet on Blackoak Ridge and 1,340
feet on Sharps Ridge. The lowest elevation In the basin at the mouth of Second
Creek Is 810 feet. The local relief Is 590 feet.
Second Creek basin Is more urbanized than First Creek. Commercial developments
are located downtown, along Central Avenue, and along Clinton Highway. Industrial
use Is extensive from Western Avenue to the Coster yards of the Southern Railway.
Because of the greater extent of Industrial land and less open and forested lands
than in the First Creek basin, a higher percentage of impervious surfaces and
higher water yield occurs. Table 2 Indicates the percentage of different
land uses in the basin.
0. Sewerage System
Storm sewers are used primarily to convey water to the nearest surface stream.
A few older homes have septic tanks, the remainder are served by sanitary sewers.
SECOND CREEK
DRAINAGE NETWOF
Figure 3
G12-8
G12-9
-------
cc
u
O 01
-i^
IO f—
CM CO
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Rl (Residential Site One)
A. Area - 54.24 acres.
B. Population - 578 persons.
C. Drainage - End-of-pipe site draining residential land use. Main
channel is 1600 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is B9.92X separate storm
sewers. 81.921 of this area has curbs and gutters and 18.062 has
swales and ditches. 10.08X is not served by separate storm sewers.
E. Land Use
46.17 acres (85X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre residential.
4.04 acres (7«) is urban Institutional.
1.41 acres (3S) Is urban parkland.
2.62 acres (5X) is linear strip development.
II. Catchment Name - SC (Strip Commercial Site)
A. Area - 187.04 acres.
Population - 464 persons.
B.
C.
D.
E.
ii £
Drainage - Drainage ditch draining strip commercial site. Main
channel is 1330 feet.
Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment Is 23.47X separate storm
sewers. 100X of this area has curbs and gutters. 76.53X of the
area does not have separate storm sewers.
Land Use
1.08 acres (U) is urban Institutional.
65.40 acres (35X) is linear strip development.
101.02 acres (54X) is .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre residential.
.18.8 acres (10X) is < 5 dwelling units per acre.
.70acres (<1X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
G12-10
G12-11
-------
III. Catchment Name - RS2 (Residential Site Two)
A. Area - 89.34 acres.
B. Population - 333 persons.
C. Drainage - End-of-plpe site draining residential land use. Main
channel Is 1600 feet.
D. Sewerage - 10M of the area has no separate storm sewers.
E. Land Use
66.40 acres (74%) Is .5 to 2 dwelling units per acre.
3.40 acres (4X). is linear strip development.
.70 acres (IX) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre residential.
18.8 acres (21X) Is < .5 to dwelling units per acre residential.
IV. Catchment Name - CBD (Central Business District)
A. Area - 25.8 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
C. Drainage - End-of-plpe site draining central business district.
D. Sewerage - 100X of the area is served by separate storm sewers.
100X of that area has curbs and gutters.
E. Land Use
25.8 acres (lOOt) is Central Business District.
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition
An earlier study of some urban streams in Knoxvllle revealed that urbanization
has a greater than expected effect on the hydrological regimes of streams with
large amounts of Carbonate rocks in the basin, under rural conditions much of
the streamfloM is lost to the carbonate rocks and solution channels and Is not
measured as surface runoff. Land cover alterations, along with sewers and
channel modifications in the Study watersheds, resulted in an increase in the
peak of the unit hydrograph of from 1.9 to 3.6 times and a decrease In time
to peak ranging from 0.86 to 0.36. From a water quality standpoint, material
transport of most constituents from the basins was not significantly greater
than that which has been previously reported for some rural watersheds.
This Knoxvllle, Tennessee urban study was conducted at four watersheds located
in Karst terrain - - areas overlying soluble carbonate rock. Storm sewers are
used In these study watersheds to convey stormwaters to the nearest channel.
As a consequence, the hydrology of these study catchments proved to be quite
complex which served to provide some contrasts for evaluating and quantifying
these urban systems.
Mathematical streamflow models which had been developed earlier using data from
typical rural areas were modified to handle urban watersheds and used in this
study to quantify the Impact of urbanization upon the hydrology of the study
watersheds. The models were regionalized so that necessary parameters could
be predicted from watershed and climatic measures.
Based upon the model studies, urbanization was found to have a particularly
marked effect on water yield from catchments where, under rural conditions,
most of the potential streamflow Is lost to the carbonate rock drainage system.
Increases in yield up to 270 percent were found in a watershed where development
Is extensive. Most of this increase results from storm runoff that under rural
conditions would have drained Into the carbonate rock system and therefore bypassed
the gage site. At one watershed where bypass losses were not a factor, modest
Increases in stormwater runoff resulted In a near-corresponding decrease in
groundwater runoff.
In the study, it was found that urbanization can affect the storm hydrograph In
two ways. Through land cover alternations along with sewers and channel changes,
the peak of the unit hydrograph was found to have been Increased at the study
watersheds by-factors ranging from 1.9 to 3.6. The times to peak were decreased
by factors ranging from .86 to .36. Increased stoni runoff from urbanization,
it was found, could further modify the unit hydrograph.
Bulk precipitation and water quality data collected at the project were compared
with data collected at other studies. It was found that because much of the
potential runoff at two of the project watersheds was lost to the carbonate rock
drainage system these watersheds act as filters. For most constituents the
loadings into the watersheds from the atmosphere exceeded the streamflow loadlngsr
G12-12
G12-13
-------
The concentrations and loadings of some metals were found to be well in excess
of recommended water quality criteria In two of the project watersheds. Hlgn values
for Iron and manganese that were found appeared to be associated with erosion
problems. Relatively high concentrations of lead were also found and the source
appeared to be the atmosphere.
The streamflow loadings of organic* and the concentrations of pathogenic Indicators
were found to be high from the study areas and reasonably comparable with urban
data collected elsewhere.
The most important conclusions from this study were the following:
1) The impact of urbanization upon the storm hydrograph results from a com-
bination of land use/channel drainage changes and storm runoff changes
2) Atmospheric sources may account for most of the loadings for many water
quality constituents, at least in watersheds with separate sewer systems
3) There is a need for monitoring of water quality. Water quality in rural
and urban areas should be monitored across the flow regime in order to be used
in the development of operational nonpoint source water quality models and
identify pollution source information so that pollution control money will be
spent effectively and result in the greatest improvement in water quality.
solution to park maintenance. Of even greater concern is the fact that the
creek constitutes such a public health menace due to the bacterial contamination
(State standards can be exceeded by many orders of magnitude during and after
a storm) that unless some remedial action Is taken, it will be necessary to
exert physical barriers to prevent even partial body contact.
The Tennessee River Is actually the backwater of Fort Loudoun Reservoir as It
passes through Knoxvtlle and is used as * drinking water source by downstream
communities (as well as Xnoxvllle) in addition to such recreational activities
as swimming, boating, fishing, etc. Although a single urban stream such as
Second Creek probably does not exert a severe impact on the river in and of
itself, the accumulated discharges of all of Knoxville's urban streams may well
exert considerable stress on the assimilative capacity of the river and contribute
to its degrading water quality. Although It will remain for the NURP project to
provide firm quantification of these urban runoff loads, it is conjectured that
their combined loading might well be an order of magnitude'greater than that
of the sewage treatment plant when its upgrading is finished in 1982. Should this
prove to be the case, the need for better water quality management practices will
be even more acute since the affected receiving water will include the reservoir as
well as the urban streams themselves.
8. Local perception
The water quality problems typically found in Knoxville's urban streams can
be appreciated by the following general observation of conditions in Second
Creek. Portions of Second Creek are highly eutrophic — there are stream
reaches measured in hundreds of yards where the water surface is totally obscured
by rooted vegetation. In other areas the stream is replete with filamentations
and other types of algae and a host of slimes. Evidence of streambank erosion
due to Increased runoff rates is abundant. During storm events, the stream may turn
absolutely black as it passes through the lower central ousiness district, and
it produces a visible plume at its confluence point with the Tennesse River that *
can last for many hours after a storm event and extend downstream for a
considerable distance.
The harshest indictment of Second Creek's present water quality has arisen in
conjunction with the planned 1982 International Energy Exposition which Knoxville
will host. The six-month long event will occupy a site at the lower end of the
Second Creek basin, and initial plans were to integrate the creek into the site
design. Residual plans for the Exposition site include a public park with a flow
through pond on Second Creek to serve as a focal point. The degraded water
quality of Second Creek is so poor (including such aesthetically important con-
siderations for a park as color and odor) that Expo planners are considering ways
to hide the creek from attenders and are drilling wells as a source for water to
maintain the pond during the course of the Exposition. Such an energy and other
resource intensive alternative can hardly be considered as a BMP or long-term
G12-14
G12-15
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
The purpose of the proposed project In Knoxville Is to examine the water quality
problems which result from nan's urban activities and to determine what manage-
ment practices might be Implemented to mitigate the present water quality
problems and prevent others front occurring as the area of urban development
expands. The msjar objectives are the following:
1)
2)
3)
Determine sources of pollutants in urban streams that result from
storm events and threaten, Impact or deny their designated beneficial
uses.
To further characterize the urban stream systems.
To provide Increased confidence In the transfer of data from gaged
to ungaged catchments at the local, State, Regional, and National
levels.
4) To provide a better understanding of the influence of the geological
features (karst terrain, carbonate rock) on urban runoff.
S) To provide preliminary data on BMP effectiveness at a pilot scale
level.
The primary emphasis of the project is on the Second Creek basin, although a
small catchment located in the First Creek basin is included to help establish
the transferability of the data.
6. Methodologies
An Intense data collection effort will take place over a two year period to
further characterize the urban runoff loads and the impact on the stream.
The source of the pollutants, their concentrations, and transport, and their
relationship to the runoff process will be described.
C. Monitoring
Six sampling sites are included In the study. These sites cover different
land uses as well as attempt to characterize the karst terrain. Following
is a brief description of the equipment available at each of the sites listed.
Central Business District Site
Residential (Woodland Ave.)
Upper Sink
Lower Sink
Residential (Orchid Drive)
Strip Commercial
Central Business District Site
The CBO sampling site Is located at the Intersection of Central Street and
Union Avenue. Water sampling and flow measurement is performed In the outflow
pipe of a manhole. A 30 inch Palrcer-Bowlus flume is Installed In the outflow
pipe. An (SCO model 1870 flow meter Is used in conjunction with the flume to
measure and record flow. Flow proportional water samples are collected during
rain events with an ISCO model 2100 automatic water sampler. A wet/dry
atmospheric collector as well as a recording ralngage are located at the site.
Woodland Avenue Residential Site
This sampling site is located near Woodland Avenue and Central Street. The
sampling is done in a drainage ditch tributary to Second Creek. A 48 inch
Palmer-Bowlus flume has been installed in the ditch. An ISCO model 1700 flow
meter will be used to measure the flow going through the flume. The totalized
flow values are recorded by an ISCO model 1/10 digital printer. A Friez water
level- recorder will be used to obtain a continuous strip chart record of the
flow. Flow proportional water samples are collected by an ISCO model 2100
automatic water sampler. A recording raingage and wet/dry atmospheric collector
are located at a residence adjacent to the sampling location.
lower Sink Site
The lower sink site is located just off Rowan Drive in a drainage ditch tributary
to Second Creek. The data collected at this site is limited to flow data. The
primary flow measuring device is 4 concrete control structure plus a weir plate.
A rating curve Is being developed for the control structure. A Friez water
level recorder is used to acquire a complete set of flow data. The site, which
is in a sink area, will be studied (using tracers) in conjunction with the
upper sink site to accumulate data regarding subsurface drainage In the area
of karst-terraln. A raingage is located within the drainage area.
Upper Sink Site "'
The upper sink site Is located on Sanford Road, approximately two blocks north
of the lower sink site. The data collection at this site is also limited to
flow data. The data collected at this site will be used in conjunction with :
the data collected at the lower sink site to study subsurface drainage. The
equipment is the same at the two sites.
Orchid Drive Residential Site
The .Orchid Drive site Is located in a culvert next to the Midas Muffler Shop.
The primary flow measuring device is a 30 inch Palmer-Bowlus flume. An (SCO
model 1700 flow meter Is used to measure flow. The total flow values are
recorded by an ISCO model 1710 digital printer. A modified Friez water level
recorder is used to obtain a continuous strip chart record of the flow. Flow
proportional water samples are collected with an ISCO model 2100 automatic
water sampler. A recording raingage and wet/dry atomospheric collector are
located in the upper part of this drainage area.
G12-16
G12-17 .
-------
Strip Commercial Site
The strip commercial site Is located in a drainage ditch behind the Clinton
Plaza Shopping Center.
A 54 Inch Palmer-Sowlus flume is Installed in the ditch. An I SCO model 1700
flow meter Is used to measure the flow going through the flume. An (SCO model
1710 digital printer records total flow values and a modified rriez aater
level recorder provides a continuous strip chart record of the flow.' A recording
raingage and wet/dry atmospheric collector is located in the drainage area.
Flow proportional water samples are collected by an ISCO model 2100 automatic
water sampler.
Tennessee Valley Authority is responsible for most of the technical work,
including sampling equipment installation and calibration, data collection, and
sample and data analysis. Both composite and discrete samples will be taken.
It is hoped that composite samples will be collected from 16 storm and discrete
samples from 8 storms.
0. Controls
The Best Management Practices which will be evaluated have not yet been
determined. After preliminary sampling results are obtained, BMP's will be
selected and implemented at the various sites In order to evaluate their
effectiveness.
G12-18
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
TRI-COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
LANSING, MI
REGION V, EPA
G13-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
This project, with investigation conducted under the direction of the Tri-County
Regional Planning Commission, is located in the City of Lansing state capital of
Michigan. Urban stonnwater pollution impacts are being evaluated in the Bogus
Swamp Drainage District, Ingharo County, which is drained by stomi sewers into
the Grand Kiver. The Grand River and its major tributaries In the vicinity of
Lansing, the Red Cedar and Sycamore River, flow eventually into Lake Michigan.
The Grand River has been classified for total body contact recreation in the reach
into which the Bogus Swamp stormdrain network flows. Future planning for the
Grand River includes fish ladders to allow fish migration, and development of linear
parks, some of which already exist along the river, which is now used for boating and
fishing, with other recreation activities conducted primarily at lake Lansing.
The existing water quality of the Grand River was documented in recent monitoring
efforts. Problems were identified as the result of (1) point source discharges;
(2) combined sewer overflows; and (3) stomiwater drainage. Nonpoint source-pollution
has been identified as a major contributor to biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen
and suspended solids.
Of concern to the local and regional agencies is the need to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of best management practices that may be applied to reduce pollution of
the Grand River. This information will be utilized in future planning for the most
cost-effective total effort to reduce pollution from the three identified sources.
Such future planning will also utilize similar data developed by other urban runoff
projects underway nationwide to the extent it proves both transferrable and applicable.
The project lias the major objective of evaluating an in-line wet storage basin, a
normally-dry detention basin, and two sections of increased diameter storm drains,
for both costs and stonnwater quality enhancement.
N
LAKE
MICHIGAN
LAKE
HURON
'ANN ARBOR
LAKE
ERIE
STATE LOCUS
MICHIGAN NURP PROJECTS
FIGURE 1
G13-2
G13-3
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
84'37'30" |^y»k.L *U?JS- " *W
GRAND
-oK-xwv^- >'
...t'sj'.vs&tfr r -..
LAtlSING STREETS, USGS QUAD SHEET
SAMPLING AND MONITORING POINTS
FIGURE 2
G13-4
Station Description and Schedule
Located In the Bogus Swamp Drain District are three types of
Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the control of storrnwater
pollution. These are (a) two in-line upsizcd tiles, (b) an in-line retention
basin, and (c) an off-line detention basin. Figure I illustrates
monitoring stations and the "Best Management Practices" (BMP's) being
studied and includes all station locations and designations in Table I.
Each will be monitored for flow and stormwater constituents to
determine the efficiency and cost effectiveness for the reduction of
various pollutants. Sampling at the inlet and outlet of each BMP will
require a total of ten stations, each consisting of flow recorders and
samplers.
TABLE I. STATION DESCRIPTION
BMP Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Main Outlet
West Subdistrlcl Drain
Dryer Farms Detention Pond
- outlet
- Inlet
Golf Course Pond Retention Pond
- outlet
- Inlet '
Upsized tile 96" Sump
- outlet
- Inlet
Upslzed tile 96" Sump
- outlet
- Inlet
11
River
G13-5
-------
PROJECT AREA
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Lansing Michigan, in Ingham County, is located in the north central
lower peninsula. The Bogus Swamp Drain Drainage District, in which the best
management pratices are installed, is west of, contiguous to, and representative
of developed urban conditions in Lansing. The drainage district contains 450
acres. Land uses and land covers in this district are separated into more or less
homogeneous covers which correspond to drainage subdistricts. Uses include
single and multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial, as well as open
space-recreation.
B. Population
The 1971 population of Lansing-East Lansing was 385,694, with a projected 1980
population (Series E, 1972 OBERS) of 434,000. The 1980 census for the Lansing
SMSA reported an actual population of 468,482, and 130,414 within the Lansing
city limits. The 1972 OBERS projection shows that the 1980 SMSA population was
not anticipated to be reached until 1985, which is an indication of the rate of
urbanization in the area.
C. Drainage
The drainage district terrain is typical Michigan glacial landscape with gently
rolling topography and relatively low slopes. The surface elevation drops 20
feet, from 890 feet at the headwaters to 870 feet at the Grand River outlet.
Urbanization has Increased the impervious cover to the extent that the capacity
of many storm sewers Is routinely exceeded by storniwater flows.
The Grand River headwaters are located south of Lansing, and with its tributaries
drains approximately 2/3 -3/4 of Jackson County, most of Ingham County, and a
small part of Eaton County on its way north through Lansing. From there it
flows generally West-northwest until it enters Lake Michigan in Ottawa County.
0. Sewerage Systan
Within the drainage district, the storm and sanitary sewers are separate, except
for possible illegal connections not yet detected. Within the City of Lansing,
there are areas served by combined sewers which result in high levels of coliform
in the Grand River, preventing body contact recreational uses. Correction of the
combined sewer overflow problem will be incorporated into a combined total
pollution reduction effort that includes application of best management practices
to control urban stormwater pollution, and control of point source discharges,
in the most effective manner. Such planning will be accomplished when results
of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program projects become available.
1. Catchment Name - HI 1,001, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 452.6 acres
B. Population - 2250 persons.
C. Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to the Grand River. Main channel
Is 49,500 feet at a slope of approximately 32 feet per mile.
• D. Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 1001 separate storm sewers.
Forty-nine percent Is served by curbs and gutters, and Sit is served
by swales and ditches.
E. Land Use
126.5 acres (28%) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 37.4 acres (30%) Is Impervious.
76.9 acres (171) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 23.4 acres (30%) Is Impervious.
14.3 acres (3%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 8.3 acres (58%) is Impervious.
13.2 acres (2.9%) Is Linear Strip Development,
of which 10.1 acres (78%) Is impervious.
10.1 acres (2.2%) is Shopping Center,
of which 10.1 acres (100%) is Impervious.
3.3 acres (0.7%) Is Urban Industrial (light).
of which 2.2 acres (67%) Is impervious.
83.2 acres (18.4%) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
of wlch 52.7 (63%) is Impervious.
91 acres (20.1%) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
of which 5.6 acres (6%) is Impervious.
Approximately 37% Impervlousness 1n entire catchment area.
II. Catchment Name - MI 1.002. Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 63 acre's.
B. Population - 0 persons (industrial).
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative catchment slope
of 132 feet/mile, and 100% curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 31 feet/mile slope, anil extend 9.450 feet.
G13-6
G13-7
-------
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers, and Is completely provided with curbs and gutters.
Streets consist of 17 lane miles of asphalt all In fair condition
and 2.2 lan.i miles of concrete, all In good condition.
E. Land Use
63 acres (IOCS) Is Urban Industrial (heavy),
of which 40.4 (64%) Is Impervious.
III. Catchment Name - HI l.DRO, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 127.6 acres.
B. Population - 550 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has. a representative slope of 121
feet/mile, 37% served with curbs and gutters and 63% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 27 feet/mile
slope, and extend 10,650 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Street consist of 10.6 lane mile of asphalt, 59% of which Is In
good condition and 41% of which Is In fair condition, and 6 lane
miles of concrete, 54% of which Is In good condition, and 46%
of which Is 1n fair condition.
E. Land Use
52.9 acres (41.5%) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 16.1 acres (30%) Is impervious.
5.2 acres (4.1%) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3.1 acres (60%) is Impervious.
8.4 acres (6.6%) Is Linear Strip Development,
of which 4.9 acres (58%) Is Impervious.
10.1 acres (7.9%) Is Shopping Center,
of which 10.1 acres (100%) Is Impervious.
49.2 acres (38.6%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 1.2 acres (2%) 1s impervious.
1.8 acres (1.4%) Is Urban Institutional,
of which 1.7 acres (94%) Is impervious.
Approximately 29% impervlousness In entire catchment area.
G13-8
IV. Catchment Name - HI l.DRF, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 112.7 acres.
B. Population - 480 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 233
feet/mile, 42% served with curbs and gutters and 58% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 32 feet/mile
slope, extending 9,980 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist 10.1 lane miles of asphalt, of which 62% Is In good
condition and 385 is in fair condition, and 5.8 lane miles of concrete,
54% of which is in good condition, and 46% of which is In fair
condition.
E. Land Use
38.0 acres 33.7% Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 13.4 acres (35%) is Impervious.
5.2 acres (4.6%) is 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3.1 acres (60%) is Impervious.
8.4 acres (7.4%) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 4.9 acres (58%) Is Impervious.
10.1 acres (9%) is Shopping Center,
of which 10.1 acres (100%) Is Impervious.
49.2 acres (43.7%) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 1.2 acres (2%) Is impervious.
1.8 acres (1.6%) Is Urban Institutional,
of which 1.7 acres (94%) is Impervious.
Approximately 31% imperviousness In the entire catchment area.
V. Catchment Name - MI l.GCO, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 67 acres.
B. Population - 340 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 200
feet/mile. 48% sered with curbs and gutters, and 52% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate 29 feet/mile
slope, extending 5,480 feet.
G13-9
-------
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of this catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 6.6 lane miles of asphalt, all in good condition,
and 3.0 lane miles of concrete, 37% in good condition and 63% fair
condition.
E. Land Use
15.0 acres (22.4%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 7.3% acres (49%) is impervious.
5.2 acres (7.8%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3.1 acres (60%) is impervious.
10.1 acres (1S.1%) is Shopping Center,
of which 10.1 acres (100%) is impervious.
36.7 acres (54.8%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 0.6 acres (2%) is impervious.
Approximately 31% impervlousness in the entire catchment area.
VI. Catchment Name - HI 1.GC1, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 30.3 acres.
B. Population - 340 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 121
feet/mile, completely served with curbs and gutters. The storm
sewers approximate 22 feet/mile slope, extending 4800 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of this catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 6.1 lane miles of asphalt, all in good condition,
and 3 lane miles of concrete, of which 37% in good condition and
63% is in fair condition.
E. Land Use
15.0 acres (47.5%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 7.3 acres (49%) is impervious.
5.2 acres (17.2%) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3.1 acres (60%) Is Impervious.
10.1 acres (33.3%) is Shopping Center.
of which 10.1 acres (100%) Is impervious.
Approximately 68% imperviousness in the entire catchment area.
G13-10
VII. Catchment Name - HI 1.UP1, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 163.9 acres.
B. Population - 850 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 226
feet/mile, with 21.0% curbs and gutters, and 79.0% having swales
and ditches, the total extending 15,530 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate stonn
sewers.
Streets consist of 14 lane miles of asphalt which are all In fair
condition, and 1.7 lane miles of concrete roadways, all In good
condition.
E. Land Use
29.3 acres (17.9%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 6.5 acres (22%) is impervious.
61.6 acres (37.6%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 16.1 acres (26%) Is Impervious.
0.6 acres (0.4%) Is Linear Strip Development.
of which 0.6 acres (100%) Is impervious.
16.4 acre (10%) Is Urban Industrial (heavy)
of which 12.3 acres (75%) is impervious.
33.2 acres (20.3%) in Urban Parkland or Open Space,
of which 0.6 acres (2%) Is Impervious.
22.8 acres (13.9%) Is Urban Institutional,
of which.8.7 acres (38%) Is impervious.
Approximately 26% Impervlousness In the entire catchment area.
VIII. Catchment Name - HI 1.UP2, Bogus Swamp Drain
A. Area - 74.9 acres.
B. Population - 370 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 194
feet/mile, with 47% having curbs and gutters, and 53% having
ditches and swales, the total extending 9,230 feet at a repre-
sentative slope of 63 feet/mile.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
Streets consist of 8.9 lane miles of asphalt, all in fair condition.
and 1.7 lane miles of concrete, all in good condition.
G13-11
-------
E. Land Use
1.8 acres (2.n) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units acre urban residential,
of which 1.3 acres (721) Is Impervious.
33.9 acres (45.3%) is 2.5 to B dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5.5 acres (16X) Is Impervious.
16.4 acres (21.92) Is Urban Industrial (heavy)
of which 12.3 acres (751) 1s Impervious.
22.8 acres (30.41) Is Urban Institutional,
of which 8.7 acres (381) Is Impervious.
Approximately 37X Impervlousness In the entire catchment area.
PROBLEM
A. Local definition (government)
[he present water quality of the Grand River is capable of supporting a fishery
in pike, bass, catfish and bluegill. Contact recreation use is denied nrlmarly
due to the high levels of coHfonn In the river, which come from the combined
sewer overflows in the area, although none are Included in the catchment areas
being evaluated in this project.
Water quality problems have been Identified as also resulting from agricultural
runoff, benthal demand, and urban runoff. The problems experienced include
high nutrient levels and cutreplication and low dissolved oxygen. The principal
water supply source is ground water, causing concern of possible contamination
from urban runoff, or the feasibility of using stonnwater for recharge, from
the Red Cedar River, which is underlain by sand/gravel.
B. Local Perception (public awareness)
llitti the exception of boating and fishing, most residents travel to Lake Lansing,
which is used as the principle local recreational water body in the area. They
ate aware of the current unsuitability of the Grand River for body contact
recreation. As the linear parks along the river continue to be developed, increased
interest in the utilization of the river for recreation may be expected.
G13-12
G13-13
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Major objectives
Previous studies conducted in the Lansing, MI, area have resulted in the conclusion
that water quality problems do exist in the Grand River which impair desired bene-
ficial use. Further, urban nonpoint source pollution has been identified as a
major contributor to biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and suspended solids.
This study is designed to determine the efficiency of three best management practices
to enhance storm water quality from urban runoff. The three best management
practices consist of an in-line wet storage basin, a dry detention basin, and
two up-sized sections of underground storm drain pipe.
Specific study objectives include:
1. Determination of pollutant loads transported in the stormwater,
as it enters and leaves each best management practice structure,
and related land use;
2. Assessment of the impact these practices can have on the receiving
water quality in the project area and regionally;
3. Identification of the financial requirements for capital and
operating and maintenance costs for these types of controls,
and;
4. Transfer of the information developed to other agencies in
the region, for their use in implementation of pollution control
plans.
B. Methodology
Atmospheric deposition sampling is providing Information on the atmospheric input
of pollutants under both wet and dry conditions. The quantity and quality of flow
into and out of the best management practices control features are being determined
during storm event conditions through appropriate measuring and analytical procedures.
Sediments collected in the wet retention basin and the up-sized stormdrain sections
are also scheduled for analysis.
The two up-sized pipe sections were installed with crown elevations at the same
elevation as the smaller diameter inlet and outlet pipes. This resulted in standing
water depth above the pipe inverts of 36 and 42 inches. This design will provide
conditions favorable to sedimentation for storms which occur frequently during the
year. To prevent flushing of deposited solids during high peak flows, periodic
removal of the accumulated sediment will be evaluated with respect to timing and
cost.
C. Monitoring
Field sampling of runoff water quality, flow and precipitation, initiated in
April, 1980, at some of the monitoring stations, has gradually been extended
to all the stations, as construction activites were completed, and other
problems encountered were eliminated.
G13-14
Monitoring locations are identified In Figure 2. Water quality and flow data
for inlet and outlet flows and in the Grand River are being obtained from ENCOTEC,
a consulting firm located in Ann Arbor, HI. In addition to the 11 locations
identified, a monthly grab sample is obtained at each of the two stations
(one located upstream and one located downstream of Lansing) sampled by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. These particular samples are needed
for analysis of those parameters not being evaluated by the state which are
of interest in this program. Two sampling locations have been established for
bulk fallout, and dryfall/wetfall sampling, with respect to evaluating the
atmospheric pollutant contribution.
The list of parameters and constituents examined in the sample collected includes:
total solids, total suspended solids, pll, total alkalinity, specific conductance,
choride, turbidity, total organic carbon, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite
nitrogen, soluble and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, soluble and total organic carbon,
soluble total phosphorus, orthophosphate, grease and oil, biochemical oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand, total metals-to include lead, iron, zinc, chromium,
copper, nickel, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. PCB, total fluoride, orthophosphate,
phenolics, sulfide, a pesticide scan, and particle distribution.
Equipment
The sites will be monitored using automatic flow recording devices of a type suitable
for specific installation, and automatic discrete/composite water samplers, except
for grab sample points in the Grand River. Metfall and dryfall sampling is also
done using automatic sampling equipment. Sediments removed from the best management
practice control structures will be subjected to particle size analysis.
Control
the four best management practices structures will be evaluated to determine their
effectiveness as control measures to reduce the pollutant effect of urban stormwater
runoff.
G13-15
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN
DETROIT, MI
REGION V, EPA
G14-I
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments project Is centered In the
City of Troy, In Southeast Michigan, about 15 miles northwest of Detroit.
Topography in the area Is very flat, with poor drainage. Drains carry
runoff to the Clinton River and then to Lake St. Clalr.
The Clinton River, not specifically assigned a classification by name, must,
as a minimum, be protected for agricultural uses, navigation. Industrial
water supply, public water supply at the point of Intake, warmwater fish,
and partial body contact recreation. As one of the site selection criteria,
the'sub-drainage area identified as the Red Run sub-basin, which exhibited
poor known stormwater-lnduced quality, was chosen.
Other siting criteria used In selecting Troy were, the requirement for an
area of poor drainage, yet highly urbanized and within close proximity to
a concentration of raingages. The exIrene southeast corner of Oakland County
is very flat, and has experienced rapid urbanization, both factors exacer-
bating the problem that flat terrain causes for stormwater runoff. This
area has also become highly urbanized during the past 20 years, and
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments has a raingage network In the
area. Troy's population has Increased approximately 350X since 1960.
As municipal and industrial wastewater treatment has reduced the degree or
level of pollution attributable to point source pollution, an Increasing
awareness has developed regarding the significant contribution from nonpolnt
sources, especially in southeast Michigan. SEMCOG studies have identified
urban stormwater runoff as an important factor in water quality degradation.
LAKE
MICHIGAN
LAKE
HURON
'AHH ARBOR
LAKE
ERIE
FIGURE 1
G11-2
G14-3
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Troy, located in Oakland County, Is about 15 miles lo the northwest
of Detroit, or about 5 wiles southeast of Pontlac. Michigan. The total area
of the city comprises about 31 square miles. Land use within the city is best
characterized as residential and commercial development.
B. Population
Troy has experienced very large Increases in population over the last twenty
years from about 19.100 in 1960 to about 67.100 in 1980. During this same
period. Oakland County has increased from about 668.800 to 1.011.793. a 51.3
percent increase. The rate of increase in population for Troy was 106.8X from
1960 to 1970. and 70.ZX from 1970 to 1980. Although the rate of increase has
slowed, it is reasonable to expect that the population will continue to grow
in the future. The year 2,000 projected population is 70.800.
C. Drainage
The southeastern area of Michigan, including the City of Troy. Is very flat.
As a result it is poorly drained. Drainage is accomplished through storm drains
which connect to the Clinton River and its tributaries, which flows into
Lake St. Clair. Developments are required to Include detention basins to slow
storm runoff and prevent downstream flooding.
0. Sewerage System
The existing seweraye system is completely separate, with suitable treatment of
the collected sanitary sewage, and discharge of the effluent.
G14-4
N
MAJOR RIVER BASINS IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN
CLINTON RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 2
G14-5
-------
OAKLAND COUNTY COMMUNITIES
FIGURE 3
011-6
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - HI 2, Catchment 100. VILLAGE GREEN
A. Area - 55.1 acres.
B. Population - 275 persons.
C. Drainge - This catchment area has a representative slope of 53.0
feet/mile, 3.8X served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 25 feet/mile slope and extend 2675 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 75X separate storm
sewers and 28% with no sewers.
Streets consist of 1.05 lane-miles of asphalt, 100X of which Is In
good condition.
E. Land Use
2.8 acres (5.IX) 1s > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 1.8X acres (64.3X) Is Impervious.
II. Catchment Name - HI, 200. BEAVER TRAIL
A. Area - 127.3 acres.
B. Population - 1.053 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 53
feet/mile, 100X served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 13 feet/mile slope and extend 3.300 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 7.74 lane-miles of concrete, 100X of which Is In
good condition.
E. Land Use
106.9 acres (84X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 12.3 acres (9.7X) is impervious.
20.4 acres (16%) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
G14-7
-------
111. Catchment Name - MI 2. 300, SYLVAN GLEN
A. Area - 97 acres.
B. Population - 459 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 53
feet/mile. 100* served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 29* feet/mile slope and extend 3,910 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 81.2% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 4.96.lane-miles of concrete, 100* of which is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
78.8 acres (81.2%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 9.5 acres (125!) is impervious.
18.2 acres (18.82) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
IV. Catchment Name - MI 2, 400. CITY Of TROY. RECORDING RA1N6AGE
A. Area - 279.4 acres.
B. Population - 1,787 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 53
feet/mile, 100X served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 22.3 feet/mile slope and extend 9,885 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 79* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 1.05 lane-miles of asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition. In addition there are about 12.6 lane-miles of
concrete, of which 1002 is in good condition.
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
SEMCOG identified stonnwater generated pollution as a problem within their
area of jurisdiction during the initial Section 208 planning work. Earlier,
stonuwater quantity problems had resulted in requirements for runoff control
in subdivision developments to prevent downstream damage. In the rapidly
urbanizing areas in southeastern Michigan, the topography is relatively flat,
and poorly drained. Many stormwater detention basins have been constructed
in compliance with quantity control requirements. Such basins might be suit-
ably adapted through minor modifications to incorporate water quality control.
This would eliminate potential water quality standards violations to the
Clinton River drainage network, and denial of beneficial uses, if it proved
cost-effective.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Public participation during the Initial planning effort which identified
urban storuiwater runoff as a source of pollutants alerted the public.to
the problem. Continued communications with local elected officials and
citizen leaders during the conduct of the NURP study has been a require-
ment, and scheduled task in the work plan. In addition, there is a public
education program task included in the detailed plan, designed to educate
the public before management recommendations are formulated.
GIB-8
G14-9
-------
VILLAGE
GREEN
k
nut
SOUHE LUC
LOU me
TR
Hints
»" »tm«
SYLVAN
GLEN
S.ITE
0
1011
.„
1010
«0»0
RAIN GAUGE
IOIQ
•Dig
BEAVER
TRAIL
SITE
TROY, MICHIGAN
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
The Oakland County project, as a continuation and follow-up Section 208 study,
has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of modified stonnwater
quantity control structures for use In event runoff quality control. In
addition to this technical evaluation, the costs Involved for the modifi-
cations, and subsequent maintenance costs and responsibilities will be
reported. Legal and institutional aspects of an Implementation program will
be reviewed and recommendations presented concerning needs in these areas.
The project will extend over three years, with Initial sampling and monitoring
designed to determine the level of pollution existing In the selected drainage
areas. Subsequent sampling will demonstrate the effectiveness of detention
basin modifications In controlling the identified pollutants.
B. Methodology
The hypothesis being tested is that stormwater pollution control in newly
developing areas can be achieved with relatively Inexpensive modifications
over present practices, specifically retention systans, used In control of
stonnwater quantity.
Consultant testing and evaluation require sampling of rainfall and urban
runoff quantity and quality and engineering analysis of data. The engineering
analysis Is being performed to determine mass emissions of pollutants and the
degree to which various retention structures and modifications to these
structures reduce pollutant discharges. General pollutants of concern are
suspended solids, oxygen demanding materials, toxics, and plant nutrients.
Studies concerning operation and maintenance requirements, both institutional
and legal constraints and alternatives for implementation, and evaluation of
overall costs and benefits are being conducted by SEMCOG, running concurrently
with the sampling/engineering effort. Thus, the feasibility of using retention
structures as a best management practice (BMP) for controlling stormwater
runoff pollution In urban areas will be based on technical, legal, insti-
tutional, and economic considerations.
Information generated will be used by SEMCOG in conjunction with relevant
work products from SEMCOG's 208 water quality management planning efforts to
determine the relative costs and benefits and the institutional constraints
Involved in modifying existing stormwater quantity control systans for in-
corporation of permanent in-place stormwater quality control. In particular,
design criteria and guidelines will be prepared by the consultant for use by
local and nationwide site planners, engineers, and review agencies to In-
corporate and Implement preventive control measures for urban nonpoint pollu-
tion. Results will also aid SEMCOG In the development of future basin-wide
alternatives for controlling total urban pollutant loadings to the region's
rivers.
G14-10
G14-H
-------
The proposed effort in Southeast Michigan lias been organized in conjunction
with the Oakland County Drain Commissioner in order to incorporate the ex-
perience gained by the Cannes loner through his successful administration of
programs to enforce the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act (PA 347) and the
Plat Act (PA 288). both of which often require stoniiwater retention basins.
The Drain Commissioner's function is especially important to the long-term
development of sound and comprehensive water resources management since it
is the policy of SEMCOG to integrate a system of controls for urban nunpoini
pollution into the present framework of laws and practices, wherever possible.
The retention control measures to be assessed in this project are those re-
quired under Michigan PA 208 of 1967. These controls are required in order
to reduce excess runoff from development sites which are tributary to county
drains with little additional hydraulic capacity. Retention structures are
designed to protect against the ten-year storm event. Should these struc-
tures provide significant improvement in water quality, it may be possible
to implement a comprehensive storm drainage program which provides both flood
protection and water quality benefits.
Many variables affect the treatment efficiency of retention basins. For
instance, three major variables affect the efficiency of a basin for settl-
ing nut particulates; these are: (1) Influent particle size distribution.
121
(2) magnitudes and timing of water flow, and (3) basin configuration. In
turn, these first two variables are a function of rainstorm intensity, ante-
cedent dry periods, drainage area land cover/use characteristics (e.g., soil
types, percent impermeable area, seasonal activities, slope), and the design
and efficiency of the stoniiwater conveyance systen.
Previous SEMCOG studies have focused on the problem of characterizing runoff
pollutant loads from different land uses. Fran these efforts, it has been
concluded that pollutant load characteristics of runoff from commercial and
residential areas differ significantly. Hence, the kinds of control measures
necessary to abate stonnwaten-associated water pollution may vary according
to the land use in the storm drainage district. Accordingly, this project
considers two categories of land use: residential and commercial.
Seventeen runoff events are projected to be sampled over the course of the
project. Ideally, two of these events will be snowmclts with one sampled
early each Spring. The remaining events will be rainfall events.
C. Monitoring
Three test sites have been selected for the purposes of this project. Two of
the sites are residential and one is commercial. All arc less than 135 acres,
have curbs and gutters, and exemplify typical development in many areas of
the nation. Their descriptions follow:
The Beaver Trail Sub. No. 2 and 3 retention basin is located off Pasadena
near Traverse. The basin is in good condition with some weed growth at
the northerly end due to wet conditions at the two 54-inch inlets. Ex-
isting manholes on the 54-inch inlets can be utilized as monitoring man-
holes for inflow.
614-12
The Beaver Trail retention basin has a capacity of 1.292,000 ft (cubic
feet). Based on current design requireuents of the Oakland County ..Drain
Commission, required capacity of the retention basin is 405,628 ft .
The design area is 135 acres with a runoff "c" factor 0.42. The time from
start of rainfall to peak storage is approximately 118 minutes for the design
storm. The time of concentration for the drainage area is approximately 31
minutes. The base rainfall of 0.5 inches would generate approximately 103,000
ft of runoff to the retention basin. This volume would cause a depth of
water at the 16 inch outlet of approximately 2.7 feet, assuming no outflow.
The contributing area of this retention basin Is entirely residential with
the exception of some open space immediately east of the retention basin.
The Sylvan Glen Sub. No. 2 retention basin is located adjacent to the northeast
corner of Long Lake Road and Berwyck. This basin is in excellent condition,
we'll maintained with no excessive weed or cat-tail growth. There is no outlet
structure visible which could serve as a monitoring manhole. The Sylvan Glen
retention basin has i. capacity of 220,000 ft . The design area is 75 acres
with a runoff "c" factor of 0.42. The time from start of rainfall to peak
storage is approximately 100 minutes. The time of concentration for the
drainage area is approximately 37 minutes.
The base rainfall of 0.5 inches would generate approximately 40,837 ft of
runoff to the retention basin. This volume would cause a depth of water of
4 feet at the 12-inch outlet, assuming no outflow.
The contributing area to this retention basin is entirely residential.
The Village Green of Troy retention basin is located southwest of the Big
Beaver Road (16 Mile Road)/I-75 Interchange. This basin is in generally ex-
cellent condition with short grasses over a majority of the site. Some erosion
and standing water is present near the inlet. Manholes exist on the inlet off-
site and on the outlet on-slte. These existing structures show promise for
use as sampling stations.
The Village Green of Troy retention basin has a capacity of 1,466,000 ft .
Based on current design requirements of the Oakland County Drain Commission,
required capacity of the retention basin Is 776,480 ft . The design area is
60 acres with a runoff "c" factor of 0.6. The time from start of rainfall to
peak storage is 148 minutes for a design storm. The time of concentration of
the drainage area Is approximately 26 minutes.
The base rainfall of 0.5 inches would generate approximately 65,300 ft, of
runoff to the retention basin. This would cause a depth of water at the
10-inch outlet of approximately 4 feet, assuming no outflow.
The contributing area to this retention basin is multiple dwellings and
commercial use. The high ratio of land used for parking and building increases
the imperviousness of the area, resulting in runoff factors higher than those
for the residential areas.
G14-13
-------
Stonnwater runoff from the three basin catchments for 17 events planned to be
collected at the inlet and outlet of each of the three Stonnwater retention
basins Mill be analyzed and evaluated.
The three basins described have been selected for study. Two have one Inlet
and one outlet, and one has two Inlets and one outlet for a total of seven
stations. The flow recording Instrument is a continuous flow recorder. One
will be installed at each Inlet and outlet. This instrument is required in
order to overcome the prevailing site conditions which would cause errors in
flow measurement if other methods were employed. The units will provide
accurate flow measurements even though surcharge conditions do or can exist
at each station; low flows will lead to open channel flow, and peak flows
will result in fullpipe flows. Influent and effluent hydrographs will be
produced for each event.
Automatic water sampling equipment will be coupled to and be paced by the
flow recorders. Regardless of the flow regime at any point in the storm event,
this combination of equipment will produce a representative flow weighted com-
posite sample for analysis at the basin inlets and outlets.
At least two members of the sampling team will be on call during periods when
the designated wuather service Indicates a reasonable probability of an ap-
propriate stonn event occurring. The data gathering team will mobilize to
the retention basins immediately upon the onset of the precipitation event.
Precipitation and flow measurements will then be performed on a time related
basis to enable correlation with rain gauge data from the SEMCOG network and
gauges added at the retention basin site.
Loadings at each influent and effluent for each event will be determined/
estimated for each parameter in the following list:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (ODD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Phosphorus
Orthophosphate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate and Nitrite Nitrogen
Metal Ions (Pb, Fe, Zn, Cr, Cd. Cu, Ni. As, Hg)
Pesticides (8. chlorinated)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Dissolved Solids (TOS)
Particle Size Analysis (lu, 4u, lOu, 62.5u, 125u)
Fecal Coliform
ph
Chloride
Precipitation data is also needed with respect to events. Quantity - A rain
event history including the rain duration. Intensity and quantity will be
determined for each event and basin which is monitored. The primary source
of rainfall quantity information will be the recording rain gauge located near
the junction of Long Lake River and Rochester Roads in Troy. This gauge
G11-14
1s within approximately two miles of the retention basins which have been
selected for study and is part of SEMCOG's raingauge network. Hyetographs
will be constructed from this data to assist in characterization of the storm
event. In addition, manually read rain gauges will be placed adjacent to
each test basin to verify the uniformity of precipitation or to allow for
adjustments in the rainfall volumes for a given basin should the precipi-
tation event prove to he non-uniform.
Quality - The chemical characteristics of the rainfall will also be sampled
as a part of this program. It is presently projected to perform such samp-
ling at one of the three test basins during each stonn event monitored. This
task will require locating a relatively large rainfall collector pan in the
immediate vincinity of one of the test basins. This approach will provide
Information not only as to the potential for pollutants to be contributed by
atmospheric washout In general, but also to the determination of whether
any localized situation alters the rainfall chenical characteristics between
the basins being studied.
At least Initially, the parameters to be evaluated on the collected precipitation
samples will Include the majority of those to be investigated with respect
to the retention basins.
Precipitation Parameters
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen
Metal Ions (Pb, Fe, Zn, Cr. Cd, Cu, Nl, As, Hg)
pH
Chloride
D. Controls
As previously described, this project is evaluating existing Stonnwater
detention basins installed for quantity control, and modified for quality
control, for effectiveness and costs.
G14-15
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
ANN ARBOR - MICHIGAN
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGION V
G15-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The City of Ann Arbor, situated in Uashtenaw County is located in southeastern
Michigan, approximately 60 miles west of Detroit. Ann Arbor's surface topo-
graphy was determined largely by glacial processes. Rolling hills predominate
with some interspersed flat areas, pothole lakes, and wetlands. Occasional
steep slopes will be found. The area Includes an extensive system of storm-
drains consisting of both open and enclosed channels. Main lines tend to
follow the course of former natural streams, and outlet to the Huron River
which passes through Ann Arbor in a series of run-of-the-rlver impoundments.
The Huron river flows directly Into the western basin of Lake Erie.
The impoundment above Geddes Dam in Ann Arbor, which reaches about one-half
the distance upstream to Argo Dam, is identified as Geddes Pond. This water
body is identified In the Michigan State Water Quality Standards as protected
for partial body contact recreational use with a goal for total body contact
recreational use in the future. The free-flowing stretch of the Huron River
would come under the general classification of being protected for agricultural
uses, navigation, Industrial water supply, public water supply at the point
of water intake, warmwater fish, and partial body contact recreation. There
have been water quality standards violations.
Hater quality surveys conducted in the 1970's generally disclosed water
quality conditions during dry weather flow to be reasonably good, while
pollutant levels increased dramatically during stormwater runoff periods.
The population in the area has shown considerable growth, increasing from
about 67,000 in 1960 to about 107,000 in 1980, a rate of 60X in 20 years. The
rate has slowed down during ten years from 1970 to 1980, with a gain of only
about 7.5X. This still Mould result In a projection of further growth during
the next twenty years. Population may easily reach 115,000 with continued
urbanization, since the growth rate In the urbanized area was 16.7% between
1970 and 1980.
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, In the development of the
Section 208 Managenent Plan, identified the reach of the Huron River between
the Argo and Geddes Dams as one of three problen areas. With no point source
discharges, the focus Is on nonpoint sources in this stretch of the river.
The SEMCOG Section 208 program Included an overall approach for managing
pollution from urban nonpoint sources of pollution. The area in which this
project is located had the highest priority of the three identified problem
areas.
LAKE
MICHIGAN
LAKE
HURON
:AHH ARBOR
LAKE
ERIE
FIGURE 1
G15-2
G15-3
-------
it — v. ~x '-.. ; .'• .. ~:-'•• ~-^. •'' 'V
~--_i~ZS~ - , '| '•-' •_" ' .' • : - •. _•••'Hjnoo Hillj | . ^.
/ . ,"• ' •'— .^^-"^"."V><'. ;'-JT: "' ';'=• ••->•• "•• ~^—•" .- ^ vv
^^•^•--^ --•'••'• fi'i". •"'•'\ i" I *:'•."''"•* N N -. ,A-,K:B u K '•'*
: : '::)? »^C><.
..-'- ' *.i7 - ^
ANN ARBOR STRECTS
USGS QUAD SHEET
FIGURE 2A
G1S-4
T:^;.:^ ^,t7----i-
. v ..
,. -'- : -t-. \ ./•
, r *'•: j \-'. l^.
-. >-»''r--
^ -W-TK^i-^'.'y^VJ- ^ .*f
V»-\ ... ^-^A^fi-r-;? Of >--:-Mi
\i o .- ..•;><:>,..<- \l f^~.-•;•-!>"• V ?/. ••--<£!
:HP' !v**-'!- •>At:>"Vyya.- •-----/(-• */-.i _ j- f
_4, . t fciiTl^N^r^ : V"v-v;>jL* rrvi!Jr?.-
IfPiltprtlSlii
z-
G15-5
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Ann Arbor, situated in Washtenaw County, is located in southeastern
Michigan, approximately 60 miles west of Uetroit. The total area of the city
comprises 26.5 square miles, land use within the town Is characterized as
institutional and residential, with associated commercial development, and
some industrial use.
B. Population
Ann Arbor is the home of the University of Michigan, with parts of the campus
on either side of the Huron Kiver. The census population figure for the City
of Ann Arbor for 1970 was 99,797, representing a 48.2 precent increase from
the 1960 census population. The 1980 Census population figure was reported
as 107,316, a much lower 1% Increase. The Washtenaw County standard metro-
politan statistical area population was reported as increasing by 35.8% from
1960 to 1970, when it was 234,103. By 1980. It had become 264,103, a 14
percent increase. City population is projected to continue to grow, although
not as rapidly as in the last twenty years, and Is projected to increase to
about 115,00 by the year 2000.
C. Drainage
Ann Arbor's topography is predominately rolling hills, with some flat areas,
potholes and wetlands. The Huron River flows through the city from the north-
west to the southeast, through both free flowing and impounded reaches. The
drainage in sub-watersheds is divided Into five specific drainage districts
(Figures 3-6), identified as follows:
a. Traver Creek Drainage District, rural and with a relatively flat
grade away from the urbanizing area, it becomes steeper and with
more development downstream. Much flood damage has been exper-
ienced in this area due to the nature of the watershed shape,
streambed slope and development.
b. Swift Run Drainage District, also agricultural in the upper portion,
includes a wetland preserved by the Drain Commission to provide
storage and water quality improvements. Below the wetland, to the
Huron River, there has been a high level of urbanization, reducing
pervious areas and increasing runoff rates through stormdrains.
c. Allen Creek Drain Drainage District is located in the urban areas
of Ann Arbor and is extensively served with an enclosed storm drainage
network. The configuration and intense development result in a
very short time requiranent to concentrate peak flows.
d. North Campus Drain Drainage District is located adjacent to the
Traver Creek Drain onthe north side of the Huron River. There is
less development along this open natural watercourse, which outlets
into the Geddes Pond impoundment of the Huron River.
G15-6
e. The Pittsfleld-Ann Arbor Drain Drainage District comprised the sub-
watershed lying between the Allen Creek and Swift Run Drain Drainage
Districts. Tills drain has been modified by straightening, deeping,
widening and enclosing some portions. In addition, on-line retention
basins have been constructed. The Pittsfleld-Ann Arbor Drain Drainage
District can be divided into 3 sub-districts. The South arm district
comprises approximately 31< of the total area and has the least
impervious area. The North arm district includes part of the
University with attendant high density residences and some com-
mercial development. The remaining sub-district is highly urban-
ized and contains the most Impervious surface area.
D. Sewerage System
The sanitary wastes are carried through a separate collection system to
treatment facilities, with the treated effluent discharged to the Huron River
below Geddes Dara. Although a separate sanitary sewer system was developed,
In the Allen Creek Drain prior studies suggest that CrossConnect ions exist
within certain sub-districts.
G15-7
-------
PROJECT AREA
The following station codes and descriptors identify the locations of the
monitoring stations:
Descriptor
Pittsfield-ARii Arbor Drain
South Inlet
North Inlet
Basin Outlet
Outlet to River
Swift Run Drain
Inlet
Outlet
Outlet to River
Traver Creek Drain
Outlet to River
Basin Inlet
Basin Outlet
North Campus Drain
Outlet to River
Allen Drain
Outlet to River
Station Code
PITAARETBNSINLT
PITAARETBNNINLT
PITAA RET BN OT
PITTS-AA UR OT
SR WETLANDS INT
SR WETLANDS OT
SWIFT RUN OR OT
TRAV CK OR OT
TRAV CK RT BN I
TRAV CK RT BN 0
N CAMPUS Oft OT
ALLEN OR OUTLET
1. Catchment Name - HI3, PITAARETBNSIHLT
A. Area - 2001 acres.
B. Population - 3800 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 33.8
feet/mile, 30% served with curbs and gutters and 70% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 17.6 feet/
mile slope and extend 10,000 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 35 lane miles of asphalt. 54% of which is in
good condition and 46% of which is in fair condition. In addition
there are about 15 lane miles of concrete, all of which is in good
condition, and 1 lane miles of other materials, all of which is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
345 acres (17.2%) Is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 4 acres (1.2%) is impervious.
117 acres (5.8%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5 acres (4.3%) Is impervious.
62 acres (3.IX) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 30 acres (48.4%) is impervious.
92 acres (4.62) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 64 acres (69.6%) is impervious.
457 acres (22.8%) is Commercial, of which
264 acres (57.8%) is Impervious.
138 acres (6.9%) is Industrial, of which
12 acres (8.7%) is Impervious.
485 acres (24.2%) is Parkland, of which
42 acres (8.7%) is Impervious.
305 acres (15.2%) is Agriculture,
of which 4 acres (1.3%) is Impervious.
II. Catchment Name - NI3. PITAARETBNNINLT
A. Area - 2871 acres.
B. Population - 18,800 persons.
G15-8
G15-«
-------
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 60.7
feet/mile, 68X served with curbs and gutters and 32% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 10.6 feet/
mile slope and extend 10,200 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 89 lane miles of asphalt. 58X of which Is In
good condition, 40X of which Is In fair condition, and 2X of which
Is in poor condition. In addition there are about 9 lane miles of
concrete, all In good condition, and 4 lane miles of other materials,
all of which Is In good condition.
E. Land Use
11 acres (0.4X) Is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 1 acre (9.IX) Is Impervious.
211 acres {8.IX) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 17 acres (7%) Is Impervious.
938 acres (32.7X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 293 acres (31.2X) Is Impervious.
378 acres (13.2X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 220 acres (58.2X) is Impervious.
293 acres (10.2X) is Commercial, of which
150 acres (51.2X) Is Impervious.
80 acres (2.8X) Is Industrial, of which
40 acres (50*) Is Impervious.
618 acres (21.5X) is Parkland, of which
26 acres (4.2%) Is impervious.
312 acres (10.9X) Is Agriculture, of which
6 acres (1.9X) is impervious.
III. Catchment Name - HI3, PITAA RET BH OT
A. Area - 4872 acres.
B. Population - 22,600 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 45.5
feet/mile, 52X served with curbs and gutters and 48X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 14.1 feet/mile
slope and extend 20,000 feet.
G15-10
IV.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 124 lane miles of asphalt, 57X of which is in
good condition, 41X of which is In fair condition, and 2X of which
Is in poor condition. In addition there are about 6 lane miles of
concrete, all In good condition, and 6 lane miles of other materials,
all of which is good condition.
E. Land Use
356 acres (7.3X) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5 acres (1.4*) is impervious.
358 acres (7.4X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 22 acres (6.2X) Is impervious.
1000 acres (20.5X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 323 acres (32.3X) Is Impervious.
470 acres (9.6X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 284 acres (60.4X) is impervious.
750 acres (15.4X) Is Commercial, of which
414 acres (55.2X) Is Impervious.
218 acres (4.5X) Is Industrial, of which
52 acres (23.8X) is Impervious.
1103 acres (22.6X) Is Parkland, of which
68 acres (6.2X) is impervious.
617 acres (12.7X) Is Agriculture, of which
10 acres (1.6X) is Impervious.
Catchment Name - MI3, P1TTS-AA OR OT
A. Area - 6,363 acres.
8. Population - 27,700 persons.
C. . Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 61.6
feet/mile, 7SX served with curbs and gutters and 25X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 15.4 feet/mile
slope and extend 33,900 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 209 lane miles of asphalt, 49X is in good condition,
SOX of which is in fair condition, and IX of which Is in poor condition.
In addition, there are about 26 lane miles of concrete, all in good
condition, and 0 lane miles of other materials, all In good condition.
G15-11
-------
E. Land Use
356 acres (5.6*) Is < 0.5 dwellimj units per acre urban residential.
of which 5 acres (1.4%) is impervious.
483 acres (1.6%) is 0.5 to 2 dwellimj units per acre urban residential,
of which 29 acres (6S) is impervious.
1714 acres (26.9%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 462 acres (27%) is impervious.
510 acres (8%) is > 8 dwellimj units per acre urban residential,
of which 314 acres (61.6%) is impervious.
861 acres (13.5%) is Commercial, of which
499 acres (58%) is impervious.
218 acres (3.4%) Is Industrial, of which
52 acres (23.8%) is impervious.
1604 acres (25.2%) is Parkland, of which
88 acres (5.5%) is impervious.
617 acres (9.7%) Is Ayr(culture, of which
10 acres (1.6%) is impervious.
V. Catchment Name - HI3, SR WETLANDS INT
A. Area - 1207 acres.
B. Population - 2700 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 32.1
feet/mile, 13% served with curbs and gutters and 87% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 6.9 feet/mile
slope and extend 8.000 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate
storm sewers.
Streets consist of 5 lane miles of asphalt, 20% of which is In good
condition and 80% of which is In fair condition. In addition there
area about 3 lane miles of concrete, all In good condition, and 5 lane
miles of other materials, all in good condition.
E. Land Use
509 acres (42.2%) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5 acres (1%) is impervious.
30 acres (2.5%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3 acres (10%) is impervious.
13 acres (1.1%) is 2.5 to B dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3 acres (23.1%) is impervious.
90 acres (7.5%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 23 acres (25.6%) is impervious.
4 ac,-cs (0.3%) is Cowaercia!, of which
1 acre (25%) is impervious.
14 acres (1.2%) is Industrial, of which
3 acres (21.4%) is impervious.
187 acres (15.5%) is Parkland, of which
2 acres (1.1%) is impervious.
360 acres (29.8%) is Agriculture, of which
3 acres (0.8%) is impervious.
VI. Catchment Name - HI3, SR WETLANDS OT
A. Area - 1227 acres.
B. Population - 2,700 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 32.1
feet/mile. 13% served with curbs and gutters and 87% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 6.9 feet/mile
slope and extend 8,000 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 5 lane miles of asphalt, 20% of which is in
good condition and 80% of which is in fair condition. In addition
there are about 3 lane miles of concrete, all in good condition.
and 5 lane miles of other material, all in good condition.
E. Land Use
509 acres (41.5%) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5 acres (1%) is Impervious.
30 acres (2.4%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3 acres (10%) is impervious.
13 acres (1.1%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 3 acres (23.1%) is impervious.
90 acres (7.3%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 23 acres (25.6%) is impervious.
4 acres (0.3%) is Commercial,'of which
1 acre (25%) is impervious.
G15-12
G15-13
-------
14 acres (1.1X) is Industrial, of which
3 acres (21.430 Is Impervious.
187 acres (15.2X) is Parkland, of which
2 acres (1.1%) Is Impervious.
360 acres (29.3X) is Agriculture, of which
3 acres (0.8%) is impervious.
20 acres (1.6X) Is Wetlands.
VII. Catchment Name - MI3, SWIFT RUN OR OT
A. Area - 3075 acres.
6. Population - 10.800 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 39.6
feet/mile, 42< served with curbs and gutters and 58X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate 17.6 feet/mile
slope ami extend 24,000 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 63 lane miles of asphalt, 38X of which is in
good condition and 62* of which is In fair condition. In addition
there are about 15 lane miles of concrete, all of which is in good
condition, and 9 lane miles of other material, all in good condition.
E. Land Use
509 acres (16.6%) Is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 5 acres (IX) Is impervious.
151 acres (4.9X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 10 acres (6.6X) is impervious.
574 acres (18.7X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 103 acres (17.9X) Is impervious.
319 acres (10.4%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 140 acres (43.9%) Is impervious.
123 acres (4X) Is Commercial, of which
97 acres (78.9X) is impervious.
14 acres (0.5%) is Industrial, of which
3 acres (21.4*) is impervious.
1005 acres (32.7X) is Parkland, of which
63 acres (6.3X) is impervious.
360 acres (11.7X) is AgricuHure. of which
3 acres (0.8X) Is impervious.
20 acres (1.6X) is Wetlands.
G15-14
VIII. Catchment Name - HI3, TRAV CK OR OT
A. Area - 4402 acres.
B. Population - 8400 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 68.6
feet/mile, 18X served with curbs and gutters and 822 served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 37.8 feet/mile
slope and extend 25.700 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 41 lane miles of asphalt, 15X of which is in
good condition and 85X of which is in fair condition. In addition
there are about 17 lane miles of concrete, of which 100% is in good
condition, and 18 lane miles of other materials, all in good
condition.
E. Land Use
125 acres (2.6X) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 6 acres (4.8X) is Impervious.
161 acres (3.7X) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acres urban residential,
of which 7 acres (4.4X) Is Impervious.
174 acres (4%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 32 acres (18.4%) is Impervious.
192 acres (4.4X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 114 acres (59.8X) is Impervious.
49 acres
38 acres
(1.1%) is Commercial, of which
(77.6%) Is Impervious.
96 acres (2.2X) Is Industrial, of which
3 acres (3.IX) is Impervious.
1530 acres (34.8%) is Parkland, of which
70 acres (4.6X) is impervious.
1862 acres (42.3X) Is AgricuHure, of which
130 acres ( 7%) is impervious.
213 acres (4.8X) is Forest.
IX. Catchment Name - HI3. TRAV CK RT BN I
A. Area - 2303 acres.
B. Population - 160 persons.
G15-15
-------
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 33.2
feel/mile, 100< served with swales and ditches. The storm sewers '
approximate a 28.5 feel/mile slope and extend 9.500 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 17 lane miles of asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition. In addition there are about 15 lane miles of
concrete, of which 1002 is in good condition, and 10 lane miles of
other materials, all in good condition.
E. Land Use
125 acres (5.4*) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 6 acres (4.8%) is impervious.
52 acres (2.3%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 2 acres (3.8%) Is impervious.
10 acres (0.4%) is Commercial, of which
3 acres (30%) is impervious.
37 acres (1.6%) is Industrial, of which
1 acre (2.7%) is impervious.
4 acres (0.2%) is Parkland, of which
1 acre (25%) Is impervious. '
1862 acres (80.8%) is Agriculture.
of which 130 acres (7%) is impervious.
213 acres (9.2%) is Forest.
X. Catchment Name - HI3, TRAV CK RT BN OT
A. Area - 2327 acres.
B. Population * 160 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 33.2
feet/mile, 100% served with swales and ditches. The storm sewers
approximate a 28.5 feet/mile slope and extend 9.500 feet.
U. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 17 lane miles of asphalt, 100% of which is
in fair condition. In addition there are about 15 lane miles of
concrete, of which 100% is in good condition, and 10 lanes miles
of other materials, all in good condition.
t. Land Use
125 acres (5.4%) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 6 acres (4.8%) is impervious.
G15-16
52 acres (2.2%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 2 acres (3.8%) is impervious.
10 acres (0.4%) is Commercial, of which
3 acres (30%) is impervious.
37 acres (1.6%) is Industrial, of which
1 acre (2.7%) is impervious.
28 acres (1.2%) Is Parkland, of which
1 acre ((3.6%) is impervious.
1862 acres (80%) is Agriculture, of which
130 acres (7%) is impervious.
213 acres (9.2%) is Forest.
XI. Catchment Name - MI3. N CAMPUS OR OT
A. Area - 1541 acres.
B. Population - 2800 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 89.8
feet/mile. 46% served with curbs and gutters and 54% served with
swales and ditches. The stom) sewers approximate a 53.3 feet/mile
slope and extend 15,500 feet.;
i
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate Sturm
sewers.
Streets consist of 29 lane miles of asphalt. 7% of which is in
good condition. 93% of which is in fair condition, and 1 lane mile
of other material, all in good condition.
E. Land Use
255 acres (16.6%) is 0.5 to 2 Dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 7 acres (2.7%) is impervious.
395 acres (25.6%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 53 acres (13.4%) is impervious.
61 acres (4%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 32 acres (52.5%) is impervious.
250 acres (16.2%) is Commercial, of which
167 acres (66.8%) is impervious.
580 acres (37.6%) is Parkland, of which
34 acres (5.9%) is impervious.
G15-17
-------
XII. ratclnnent Name - HI3, ALLEN OR OUTLET
A. Area - 3,800 acres.
fl. Population - 35,700 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 82.0
feet/mile. 79X served with curbs and gutters and 2U served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 57.9 feet/mile
slope and extend 11.200 feet.
I). Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is lOOt separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 123 lane miles of asphalt, 20t of which Is in
good condition and SOX of which is in fair condition. In addition
there are about 11 lane miles of concrete, of which 10W is in
good condition, and 9 lane miles of other material, all in good
condition.
139 acres (3.7X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 5 acres (3.61) Is impervious.
1682 acres (44.3X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 318 acres (18.9X) is impervious.
390 acres (10.3%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 300 acres (76.9%) is Impervious.
344 acres (9X) is Commercial, of which
300 acres (87.2X) is impervious.
65 acres (1.71) Is Industrial, of which
45 acres (69.2X) Is impervious.
1180 acres (31%) is Parkland, of which
345 acres (29.2%) is impervious.
C15-18
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
The prior Section 208 study conducted In the Ann Arbor area by SEMCOG resulted
In the determination that urban storm runoff Introduced a significant amount
of pollution into the receiving waters. Of three areas Identified as needing
additional monitoring and evaluation the specific reach covered under this pro-
ject had the highest priority. The water quality background study on the
Huron River Basin concluded that the most significant cause of poor quality
water In the Huron In-the Ann-Arbor-Ypsilantl reach was point sources and
urban stormwater runoff. This reach has no point source discharges, and
five major urban stormdraln discharges. State standards for ammonia and
phosphorus concentrations and fecal col(form densities are exceeded.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
With the University of Michigan campus located adjacent to this reach of the
Huron River, studies have been conducted at various times, and by various
agencies of the water quality, primarily during dry weather flows. While this
provides a good historical data base, as far as It may be applicable, It is
not sufficient or of suitable types and quality to be used to evaluate wet
weather conditions. However, such past studies have provided the public with
Information concerning the quality of the water in the Huron River. Both the
community and the state consider the river to be a recreational resource.
Boating on the Huron Is popular, and city parks abut the river. State
attempts at re-stocking to improve fishing have not resulted in the presence
of popular game fish in the Ann-Arbor reach.
G15-19
-------
*V'-'i '•=£?''. .-Tyr-i
' '
PITTSF1ELO - AUN ARBOR DRAIN
RETENTION BASIN
FIGURE 4
. --.
,,;> .-,
•• -• •' L j..
PITTSF1ELO - AHM ARBOR ORAIH
SAMPLING POIi)T LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3
-------
'^ "
SWITT RUN LWAIH
SAI1PLIIIG POIIIT LOCATIONS
PICURE 5
G15-22
TRAVER CREEK DRAIN
SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6
GI5-Z3
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
Following the determination that the reach of the Huron River In Ann-Arbor
was in need of pollution abatement, primarily from urban nonpoint storuiwater
runoff, an approach was developed to manage that source. Highlights included:
a. Preventing pollution from new development, accomplished through on
and off-site retention and detention techniques.
b. Developing guidelines for the design and implementation of techniques
for storuiwater pollution abatement.
c. Subjecting major regional development projects to a review of
storuiuater pollution abatement.
d. For existing, builtup urban areas, developing guidelines for local
units of government's uses. It is recognized that data on the
cost-effectiveness of the measures to be considered does not
presently exist, but that such data will be forthcoming from the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
e. Undertaking additional investigation and evaluation of stormwater
pollution in Problem Areas. As mentioned above, this reach of the
Huron River (Ann-Arbor-Ypsflanti) is the Problem Area requiring
first, attention. The focus of the additional work recommended is
to quantify the costs and effects of the various control measures.
As part of the total NURP effort, this project has been planned to evaluate
the utilization of selected best management practices for their effectiveness
in reducing or preventing pollutant loads from urban runoff. This will at
the same time improve the water quality of the Huron River to the degree that
such techniques prove effective. This evaluation will require a sampling and
monitoring effort duriny rainfall events, since most prior studies have been
during dry weather.
B. Methodology
Major findings, reports, and presentations in the urban stormwater runoff area
will guide project personnel, and their meaning In conjunction with project
results will be summarized in the final project report. Additionally, data
on the existing background conditions of the receiving streams and the Huron
River, must be evaluated for the stormwater discharges for the purposes of
this project. Much data has been developed on this reach of the Huron, which
is a water quality limited reach, by many public agencies, universities and
private contractors. An excellent historical data base exists therefore for
selected aspects of the chemical, biological, and physical characteristics,
but the data was collected for different purposes, by different geographic
locations in the reach. Most all of the existing data has also been focused
01.1 conditions at selected locations during dry-weather, low flows for the
purpose of establishing minimum stream flows neded to achieve water quality
standards during such events. Attention to conditions during wet-weather high
G15-24
flows is a new concern and little if any data has been collected specifically
for that purpose. It will be necessary therefore to acquire, condense, render
and evaluate existing data on the Huron River in this reach in order to extract
information reflective of wet-weather conditions. Developing such a profile
using existing data will strengthen our analysis of the effect of BHP's under
investigation on the receiving water.
Studies conducted within the last five years by a variety of agencies have
with varying degree of sophistication,examined stonndrainage flows from select-
ed outfalls in the study reach. A brief survey of the available literature in
journals will be made in order to determine relative loadings be.ing observed
elsewhere. Data existing on runoff entering this reach must be compiled and
evaluated, compared with regional data from similar areas, and eventually
compared with the results obtained in the monitoring which will be conducted
in this project.
Essential land use/cover information must be compiled in order to compare the
monitoring data from wet-weather events to the land features generating such
runoff. One important objective of the research will be to observe the relation-
ships, if any, between land use/cover and stonnwater runoff. Existing land
use data will be collected and evaluated and supplanented as needed to assure
that a fine-scale of analysis will be possible. The result will be a land
use/cover delineating within each Drainage District where a BMP is being
investigated.
In addition to the sampling and monitoring program in the five drainage districts
and the specific best management practices, precipitation data has been collected
in the area. All sampling and monitoring for this project, which was scheduled
to be completed in two years, has been completed. A final report will be com-
pleted duriny October 1981, and should be available about January, 1982.
C. Monitoring
The year one monitoring program included a sampling and analyses program to
monitor water quality at the five stonn drain outlets along the Huron River
in the Geddes Pond area, in the river itself, and at inlet and outlet points
at the BMP's. In addition precipitation quantity and quality information was
measured as part of the program. Sediment chambers were placed in the river
to obtain estimates of sedimentation rates in the study section of the Huron
River. The second year monitoring program focused primarily on measuring
water quality conditions at inlet arid outlet locations at each BMP. Precipi-
tation information was collected throughout the project period. Sediment
chambers could not be located after two years In the river.
Monitoring stations were established during the first year's work at the
inlets and outlets at the Pittsfield-Ann Arbor retention basin (wet, on-line
basin) and the Swift Run Wetland. Monitoring stations at the inlet and outlet
of the Traver Creek Retention Basin were established in the spring of 1981.
However, due to construction delays in building the by-pass structure, the
retention basin acted as an on-line retention basin duriny the study period.
The by-pass structure was finished during the end of the sunnier of 1981.
G15-25
-------
Construction activities on the by-pass structure did not occur until after
the completion of the monitoring program. Each station consisted of an
automatic level recorder and automatic water sampler. Flow was determined
by using the continuous level recordings In conjunction with site calibrated
stage-discharge relationships. Mater samples were collected individually
at preset time Intervals and then composited according to flow.
In addition to event monitoring, snow melt surveys were performed on the
Pittsfield-Ann Arbor retention basin and the Swift Run Wetland. Second year
rainfall event monitoring was conducted at the BMP's. Including the Traver
Creek on-line retention basin. This effect Included collection of water
quality samples and flow data for the Inlet or (for PittsfIeld-Ann Arbor),
inlets and the outlet of each .BMP.
During each runoff event flow was measured on a continuous basis by use of
water level recording equipment and the use of a stage-discharge curve. The
stage-discharge relationship was developed by measuring depth and velocity at
several points to determine the curve. Once established, periodic checks of
velocity-depth measurenents were made during the survey work.
Flow proportionate composite samples were collected for chemical analyses.
Individual grab samples using the automatic sampling equipment were composited
manually into the flow weighted samples using the recorded level data and
calculated flow rates. It has been our experience that two flow proportionate
samples are generally required for Inlet stations and three to five samples far
outlet stations to adequately represent the Inlet and outlet hydrographs and
pollutant loadings. The outlet stations require additional samples due to the
travel time required for the runoff waters entering the retention areas to
pass through and exit the pond or wetland. Sampling of the initial discharge
water represents the water quality, in the pond areas and during the heavy
hydraulic loads, while post storm sampling at the outlet reflects Inlet water
reaching and passing the outlet structure.
During the first year of the study a continuous recording rain gauge at the
University of Michigan provided rainfall information which was augmented by
three manual rain gauges located in or near the districts being studied. A
second recording rain gauge now In use was utilized during the second year
of this study. This rain gauge is located at ENCOTEC's office which is
In the Pittsfield - Ann Arbor Drain District and within one mile of the Swift
Run Drain District. These two recording rain guages were utilized to document
rainfall during the second year of this project.
Sediment chambers placed in the Huron River (Geddes Pond) during the first
year of this progran could not be found after two years In the river. Nu-
merous attempts were made to locate the chambers but proved to be unsuccess-
ful.
The first year analytical progran showed that most of the parameters in the
Initial list should be retained for the second year program. The parameters
to be monitored on all samples included:
PH
Alkalinity
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
COO (sol, snol, ChPinical Oxygon Demand)
G15-26
Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen (sol, Insol)
Nitrate
Phosphorus (sol, Insol)
Irpn (sol, Insol)
Lead (sol, Insol)
Particle Size
One half of the samples
Grease and Oil
Cadmium
Zinc
Chromium
Fecal Collform
The main changes In the analytical program from year one included the addition
of chemical oxygen demand, and the elimination of nickel and copper from the
list. COD was/added because of the seemingly highly variable nature of the
BOD levels monitored In the various drains. The COD test added another deter-
mination for organic type materials In the water to use along with BOD data.
Nickel and copper were dropped from the program for the second year as the
level of these metals was low in the first year surveys.
Equipment
Sampling was accomplished with automatic sampling equipment taking discrete
samples which were subsequently composited manually as desired for specific
analytical work. Precipitation was measured with continuous recording rain
gages. Sampling and analysis was done by consultant contractor personnel.
Controls
The controls evaluated Included the runoff ordinance, a detention/retention
basin, and a naturally-occurring wetland. The description of these
controls, and the Drains where they were located follows:
a. Traver Creek Drain - 1,513 acres are drained by this drain. Urban
development is concentrated In the 200 acres surrounding the mouth
of this watercourse. The stormdralns are located in this area and
are physically separate from the sanitary lines. The flood plain
of the drain is developed with multiple family structures and the
drain is open its entire length. Rural and agricultural cover
predominate in the balance of the district. Met and dry weather
surveys were conducted by the Drainage District In 1977-78.
The BMP Investigated in this district was the runoff ordinance.
Data on land cover and wet and dry weather stormwater runoff were
collected during 1978 and can be used with the river mass balance
data to compile the estimated effectiveness of a stoimwater runoff
ordinance enacted by the City of Ann-Arbor In 1977. Estimates of
the existing and projected quantity of pollutants associated with
future development can be determined and the reduction in loadings
calculated. The impact on the river can be forecast thereafter.
G15-27
-------
An additional aspect to be documented will lie the reasons for the
ordinance's being rescinded by the City Council in early 1978. In
this district both technical and political-economic data can be used
to document and evaluate the reductions and costs associated with
this BMP. Using relationships to be developed in this District it
would also be possible to suggest the pollutant loadings which
could be achieved throughout the City if the BMP were applied. A
discussion and analysis of the institutions and technical constraints
will also be prepared.
b. Pittsfield-Ann Arbor Drain - Open and agricultural cover in the
upper portion of this disTrict contribute runoff which passes through
a regional shopping center and airport, a major commercial area and
finally through sub-divisions containing single family dwell ings.
The confluence with the river is in Geddes Pond. Recently completed
drainage improvements (1978) included enclosing some reaches and
the creation of a major detention basin for hydrological purposes.
c. Swift Run Drain - This 1,716 acre tributary to the Huron River also
3oTns the river at Geddes Pond which is a major recreation area
developed by the City of Ann Arbor. Urban land cover is concentrated
in the lower third of the district which is also below the naturally
occurring wetland. The City's landfill Is sited 1,000 feet upstream
of this area. An analysis of the water quality impacts of the land-
fill was performed in 1975, and wet and dry weather conditions of
the drain were documented for the district in 1978.
The UMP investigated was the capability of natural wetlands to reduce
TSS, BOD and nutrients contained In stornwater runoff from urban cover.
An initial data base was developed on this capability during the 1977
evaluation but only on one wet-weather event. This investigation
detenutned the performance of the wetland during major seasons of
the year. Net annual as well as seasonal impact of the wetland on
pollutant loadings released to the river was determined. Other data
collected on this district were pollutants introduced by precipitation
patterns during selected storm events, and wet-weather samples at the
mouth during spring melt and late summer 1978.
615-28
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY DIVISION
CHAMPAIGN, IL
REGION V, EPA
G16-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
Tilt! City of Champaign, situated in Champaign County, is located in mideastern
Illinois, about 120 miles south of Chicago, and about 40 miles west of the
Indiana state line. Topography in the study area consists of gentle slopes,
served by urban feeder creeks.
The major urban drainage basin in the study area is Boneyard Creek, and the
other area drainage basin is Copper Slough and the Finny Branch of the Kaskaskia
River. Both of these drainages are included in the category of Illinois rivers
and streams designated for general use. The alternate category, to which certain
named rivers and streams are assigned and which is not applicable in the
project area, is designated for secondary contact and indigenous aquatic
life waters.
Central Illinois agricultural development included substantial tile drainage
installation due to the existing swampy conditions. The center of Champaign-Urbana
is located on a small hill and drainage is away from the downtown area. Boneyard
Creek, which carries flow from the downtown area and tile drains, flows into
Saline Ditch, at which point sanitary treatment plant discharges are located.
Saline Ditch flows into the Saline Branch of the South Fork of the Vennillion
River. Flow continues into the Wabash River, the Ohio River, and finally into
the Mississippi River. Flow from Copper Slough and Finny Branch enter the
Kaskaskia River, and eventually the Mississippi River.
Historically, the Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, standard metropolitan statistical
area (SHSA) population has grown from 106,414 in 1950 to a figure of 168 392
obtained in the 1980 census, an increase of 58% in thirty years. During the
10 years from 1970 to 1980, census figures show an increase from 163,281 which
is only 3.1%. The 1970 census population of Champaign was 56,532. reported
as an Increase of 14% from 1960. The comparable 1980 figure is 58,133, which
is an increase of 3% during the past ten years. The Department of Commerce 1972
Series E OBERS projection for the SHSA for 1980 was 177.400, 9.000 more than was
actually experienced. The difference in rate of growth projected and experienced
indicates a slowing down in the increase in both the SHSA and the Champaign urban
area to approximately 3%. .
Public concern about the pollution effect of urban stormwater runoff relates to
costs of control, and the possibility that agricultural runoff may be an equally
important source of pollution to the feeder creeks. Determination of the cost
and effectiveness of the street sweeping control will be followed up by a study
of receiving water impacts in the last year of the project.
N
A
1LAKE
MICHIGAN
STATE LOCUS
ILLINOIS NURP PROJECTS
FIGURE 1
G16-2
G16-3
-------
CHAMPAIGN STREETS
USGS QUAD SHEET
FIGURE 2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Champaign situated 1n Champaign County, is located just West of
and contiguous to the City of Urbana, In the mid-east part of the state of
Illinois approximately 40 miles West of the State of Indiana on Interstate
route 74, as shown in Figure 1. The total area of the city comprises about
11.4 square miles. Land use within the city is characterized as residential
and commercial, with some agricultural areas. Figure 2 shows street layout
.in the vicinity of the monitored streetsweeplng areas.
B. Population
The rate of growth of population in the Champaign-Urbana Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area, and in Champaign, itself, has approximated 3% between the
1970 and 1980 census polls. Projecting this rate of growth to the years 1990
and 2000, the 1980 figure of 58.133 will become 59,000, and then 61,670
respectively. This is a lower rate of growth then experienced during the last
30 years, when SMSA population grew by 581, but is more realistic than applying
the larger percentage figure.
C. Drainage
The topography in Champaign-Urbana is best described as gently rolling, with
the urban center located on a small hill, and with drainage away from the
downtown area. As noted In the introduction, drainge is conducted by local
streams to regional rivers, eventually being carried to the Hislssippi River.
0. Sewerage System
The City is 100% served with a separate sanitary sewer system with the treatment
plant discharge to Saline Ditch. The urban area is served by curbs, gutters,
storm drains and the local streams.
G16-1
G16-5
-------
PROJECT AREA
1. Catchment Name - 6 01, Mattis Avenue No. Basin 1
A. Area - 16.66 acres.
B. Population - 50 persons.
C. Drainage - The representative slope of the catchment is 18.7
ffcet/mile, with a representative storm sewer slope of 28.4
feet/mile, extending a total of 3,255 feet.
D. Sewerage - The catchment area is completely served with separate
storm sewers with curbs and gutters.
There is approximately 0.3 lane miles of asphalt roads, all in
fair condition, and approximately 2.4 lane miles of concrete
road, all in fair condition.
E. Land Use
7.15 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 2.25 acres (312) is impervious.
9.51 acres (100%) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 7.44 acres (78%) is impervious.
Approximately 58% imperviousness in entire catchment area.
II. Catchment Name - B 02, Mattis Avenue South Basin 2
A. Area - 27.6 acres.
B. Population - 600 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative catchment
slope of 54.9 feet/mile, and 57.6% with curbs and gutters and 42.4%
with swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 63 feet/
mile slope and extend 2,480 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 0.23 lane miles of asphalt in good condition, and
2.10 lane miles of concrete - 80% in good condition and 20% in fair
condition.
E. Land Use
19.26 acres (78%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 4.8 acres (25%) is impervious.
5.59 acres (22%) is > 8 dwelling units per acure urban residential
of which 2.78 acres (68%) is impervious.
G16-6
2.78 acres (100%) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 2.5 acres (90%) is Impervious.
Approximately 40% is imperviousness In entire catchment area.
111. Catchment Name - B 03, James and Daniel Basin 3
A. Area - 1.38 acres.
B. Population - 30 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative catchment slope
of 90 feet/mile and 100% curbs and guttes. The storm sewers
approximate a 90 feet/mile slope and extend 350 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
This micro-basin Includes 0.11 lane miles of concrete streets, all
classified in fair condition.
E. Land Use
1.38 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 0.19 acres (14%) is Impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - B 04, John Street South Basin 4
A. Area - 39.2 acres.
B. Population - 720 persons.
t C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative catchment slope
of 62 feet/mile, and 91% curbs and gutters and 9% swales and ditches.
The storm sewers approximate a 69 feet/mile slope, and extend 2.530
feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Street consist of 0.23 lane miles of asphalt in good condition.
and 3.1 lane miles of concrete, 20% in good condition and 80% in
fair condition.
E. Land Use
35.6 acres (90.9%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 6.84 acres (19%) is Impervious.
3.6 acres (9.1%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
all pervious.
G16-7
-------
PROBLEM
V. Catchment Name - B 05, John Street North, Basin 5
A. Area - 54.4 acres.
B. Population - 1,000 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 30.6
feet/mile, and 100% curbs and gutters. The storm-approximate sewers
a 35.5 feet/mile slope, and extend 3,260 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 1.7 lane miles of asphalt In good condition, and
3.0 lane miles of concrete, of which 10% Is in good condition, 80%
is in fair condition, and 10% is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
54.4 acres (100%) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 10 acres (18X) is impervious.
A. Local Definition (Government)
Previous studies conducted by the Illinois State Water Survey focussed on
water quality standards violations. Conclusions reached included evidence of
frequent and excessive standards violations occurring during stormwater runoff,
which were for short periods of time. •
The problem Is that there is only very limited data on (1) the effectiveness
of streetsweeping in controlling pollution from urban storwwater runoff, (2)
the most cost-effective streetsweeping program to adopt, and (3) what happens
to pollutants transported into the receiving water body. A plan of develop-
ment of a creekside park is coupled with a major area redevelopment.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is planning to examine urban
receiving stream point source discharges versus nonpoint sources. The study
area feeder creeks discharge into larger waterways which collect runoff from,
primarily, agricultural areas. A better understanding of the interrelationships
of these sources of pollutants is expected as one result of the study.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Local residents have expressed varied concerns about stream pollution from
urban runoff. Generally, while some would like to see opportunities for
fishing and water contact, there Is not a large concern expressed to up-grade
the quality of feeder creeks. Concern does not exist with respect to cost of
control measures, and the feeling Is that agricultural runoff may be an even
more important pollutant contributor. The public Interest in the area is
centered on maintaining acceptable water quality 1n the recreational lakes,
rather than the urban drainage streams, where concerns related basically to
flood control.
G16-8
616-9
-------
URBANA
I
GENERAL STUDY AREA IOCATION
FIGURE 3
G16-10
616-11
-------
BAS1H BOUNDARY AND GAGHIG LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5-
Project Description
A. Major Objective
One of the problems Identified In previous 208 urban area studies was that of
pollution from stormwater runoff causing water quality standards violations.
This project was designed to evaluate municipal street sweeping as a potential
best management practice to control urban stormwater pollution of the receiving
streams.
The first year effort resulted In site selection, selection, purchasing and
installation of monitoring equipment, and initiating a streetsweeping and
monitoring and sampling program. Computer model modification, also was Initiated
during the first year. The second year of the project included a continuation of
the monitoring and sampling program, model modification, and initiation of data
analysis, which is still underway. Over 6,000 samples have been collected and
analyzed. Third year sampling will focus on receiving waters. Simulations
using the modified model will be correlated with actual results at monitoring
stations. Modeling is being applied as an economic way of evaluating the urban
impact, for which an adequate monitoring and sampling program would be prohibitively
expensive.
The goals anticipated to be met Include:
1. Relating the accumulation of street dirt to such factors as land use,
traffic count, time, type and condition of surface;
2. Defining street dirt washoff in terms of rainfall rate, flow rate,
available material, particle size, slope and surface roughness;
3. Determining what fraction of pollutants occurring in stormwater runoff
come from atmospheric fallout;
4. Modifying the Q-ILLUDAS model to permit examination of the
functions determined above; and
5. Evaluation of the runoff Impact from urban nonpoint sources on the
receiving waters.
B. Methodologies
The streetsweeping studies are being conducted in the five small urban basins
identified in Figure 4. Data collected Include continuous measurement of rain-
fall and runoff, chemical analysis of rainfall and runoff, chemical analysis of
dry atmospheric fallout, accumulation rate of street dirt, particle size
distribution of street dirt and chemical analysis of street dirt.
One of the five basins consists of about 0.1 acre of street area contributing
to a single inlet and will be referred to as the micro-basin. Since no pipe
flow is Involved in this basin, data from It will be used to examine the wash-
off characteristics of surface flow. The exponential washoff functions used
in most current models have been shown to be inadequate for accurate simulation
of the washoff function (2). Two of the renalning four basins are similar in
G16-12
G16-13
-------
size and have a uniform land use consistiny of single family residential. The
final two basins are similar in size and consist primarily of heavy traveled
4-Iane streets serving a commerical area.
After an initial clean up by the city including sweeping and flushing of the
streets and cleaning of catch basins, all basins were allowed to accumulate
dirt without municipal sweeping while data collection took place. This
accumulation period consisted of about 9 weeks In the fall and winter of 1979
and 15 weeks in the spring and summer of 1980. The data collected during this
period allowed for calibration of the QIJAL-ILLUDAS model on all 5 basins
without the complication of street sweeping.
In July 1980. the municipal street sweeping program began on one of the
residential and one of the commercial basins. These two basins were designated
as the experimental basins and were cleaned twice weekly by the municipal
sweeper. The other residential and commercial basins were maintained without
sweeping as the control basins. The micro-basin lies within the residential
control basin and was not swept. Throughout the 24 week control period and
the municipal sweeping period street dirt sampling continued on all basins
to monitor the accumulation of street dirt.
A concurrent activity during the data collection period was the modification
of the 1LLUOAS model to simulate v/ashoff by particle size and runoff quality
on a continuous basis. This version of the model will be known as Q-ILLUOAS.
The actual evaluation of municipal street sweeping Is accomplished by three
independent techniques:
1. Street dirt sampling before and after municipal sweeping provides
a basin wide sweep or reuoval efficiency. Knowledge of the chemical
composition of this street dirt permits calculation of the amount
of pollutant removed.
2. Continuous simulation of the accumulation, sweeping, and washoff
functions using a calibrated model. This is the most flexible^
method of evaluating sweeper performance in terms of water quality
improvements. Specific pollutants can be considered as well as
specific sweeping frequencies and efficiencies.
3. Comparison of the chemical analyses of runoff from control versus
experimental basins. This is the most direct method of relating
sweeper performance to water quality. The validity of this method
is improved by danonstrating the degree of similarity between the
experimental and control basins with a model.
Evaluation of the pollutant impacts of the urban stbrmwater runoff on the
receiving water, to be accomplished during the third year of the project, will
include both sampling and modelling. The proposed study site is shown in
Figure 5. The receiving water associated with this study is a small agricultural
stream with a watershed area above the urban input of about 68 square miles. Much
of the basin is tiled and the stream channelized. The stream bed at samplfng
locations is only 20 to 30 feet in width. This configuration will allow the
G16-14
use of single point automatic samplers with only occasional vertically and
horizontally integrated samples for calibration. The small size of the stream
will further simplify measurement of sediment oxygen demand, the collection of
representative sediment cores, and the conducting of bio-assays. AM water
sampling can be done from small bridges reducting required personnel, Increasing
their response time, and eliminating the need for special equipment such as
boats.
The agricultural watershed is about ten times the size of the urban watershed
contributing to it. The response time of the agricultural watershed is nearly
20 times that of the urban contributions. This Is a desirable ratio since the
Impact of the urban runoff will be significantly different for a thunderstorm
than it would be for a frontal type rainfall. One of the goals of the project
will be to relate urban impact to type of rainfall and season.
The problems Inherent in mathematical modeling for urban Impact analysis will
be overcome in two ways. First, a comprehensive sampling program on the
receiving water will eliminate the need for Instream simulation. All results
will be based on hard data and observed event. Secondly, simulation within
the urban area will be limited to changes In loading related to-hypothetical
municipal street sweeping intensities. Further, the Q-ILLDAS model to be used
for this simulation was developed on data from this basin and will be calibrated
for each observed event used In the analysis of data. The proposed combination
of data collection and simulation takes advantage of the strongest aspects of
each and will lead to the most reliable results possible from sucli a study.
A comprehensive data collection program will be used to establish the quantity
and quality of dry weather .and wet weather flow for a small agricultural basin
upstream from and downstream from a significant urban contribution. The impact
of the urban contribution on measurable water quality parameters will be the
difference between these upstream and downstream observations. Loading of the
stream from the urban portion of the watershed will be measured as part of the
data collection program and simulated using the Q-ILLUDAS model. The effect
of municipal street sweeping upon the quality of urban runoff and the impact of
that runoff on the receiving stream will be demonstrated by simulating the
reduction of loading from the urban area as a result of various intensities of
municipal sweeping.
Existing conditions in the stream, upstream and downstream from the urban
contribution will also be documented. In addition to the actual measured
water quality parameters, these conditions will Include: the diversity of
micro-organisms and fish,-the sediment oxygen demand of the stream bed, the
biological and chemical composition of the stream bed, public use and per-
ception of the stream, mathematical relationships between various stream
dimensions known as stream geometry, bank stability and condition, and veget-
ative cover of the banks.
C. Monitoring •
The monitoring program covers five in-town sub-catchment areas and the larger
drainage catchment that includes Saline Branch and its tributaries. The
catchments have been described in proceeding sections and are outline in
Figures 4 and 5, which also Indicate the monitoring equipment locations.
G16-15
-------
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Dissolved,
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Dissolved, Total
5-day, Ultimate
Following Is the maximum list of constituents. Water samples will average 15
analyses per sample, rainfall samples will receive an average of 10 analyses,
and sediment samples will average about 12 routine analyses.
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Solids
PH
Specific Conductance
Nitrate plus Nitrite (as N)
Ammonia Nitrogen (as N)
KJeldahl Nitrogen (as N)
Phosphorus (as P)
Lead
Copper
Iron
Zinc
Mercury
Chromium
Cadmi urn
Manganese
Chloride
Sul fate
Organic Carbon (as C)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Streptococcal Bacteria
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Color
Turbidity
Hardness
Particle Size Determination
Occasional special constituents: PCB's, Pesticide, Herbicide Scans.
Rainfall and sediment samples will be limited to metals and nutrients.
Equipment
This discussion Is In two parts, covering the streetsweeping portion conducted
during the first two years first, followed by the receiving water impact assess-
ment effort. In general, flow measurement and sampler control at all five
basins and ralngages at three locations are tied into a telemetry system. In
addition to the equipment purchased for this project, three wet-dry samplers
and one recording ralngage are on loan from ISHS. Other equipment described
Is for use in the street dirt sampling and sieving process.
A decision was made at the time that the original proposal was written to
utilize telemetry In the data collection network. The heart of a telemetry
network is a mini-computer with a typewriter style keyboard for input, a printer
for output, and magnetic storage on cassette tape or floppy disk. These Items
G16-16
can all be placed on a desk top in a convenient location and are referred to as
the central or central station. The central station Is connected by leased
phone lines to one or more remote stations. A remote station is an electrical
device that can receive signals from raingages, depth sensors or temperature
sensors and communicate these signals back to the central. The ranote station
can also start up electrical devises such as pumps or motors on command from
the central. The remote station must be wired directly to the devices with
which It communicates or which it controls. For this reason the ranote station
is usualiy located within a few hundred feet of these various devices-
Some advantages of a telemetry system in this kind of a project are:
1. All raingages, depth sensors and samplers operate on a single clock
located In the central station. Synchronization of data is automatic
and precise.
2. Data Is recorded directly Into magnetic storage eliminating
the chart reading operation.
3. Status checks of the instruments are made automatically every 60
minutes, 24 hours a day. The system can also be checked or operated
fran the office. This helps to avoid Instrumentation being down when
an event occurs.
4. Event simulations can be compared with observed values after an
event has occurred.
5. Additional cost of equipment is offset by reduction in manpower.
Disadvantages include the reliance upon a number of manufacturers for pieces of
equipment that must Interface electrically with each other. A further dis-
advantage Is the necessity for a highly skilled Individual to set up, progran,
and trouble-shoot the system. In addition, equipment breakdown/malfunction
and power outages may occur during a significant storm event, which will
consequently not be monitored.
Central Station —
1. Computer - Heath H-11A with 32K RAM, a real time clock, and BASIC
language compiler.
2. Input/Output - A Texas Instruments model 745 hard copy data terminal.
3. Storage - Heath dual floopy disk system with controller and operating
system. Each standard 8 Inch disk contains 266 K bytes of storages.
4. Interface - EMR Recon II Number 3283 from Sangamo Weston. This Is a
device capable of receiving phone line signals from and transmitting
signals to a remote station.
Remote Station —
Recon II ranote Sangamo Heston, a device capable of receiving hard wire
signals with at least 8 separate addresses of the following types:
G16-17
-------
1. Status/Alarm: 8 Status/Alarm inputs for relay closure.
2. Analog: 6 points, 0 to 5V, (J-4ma, and 4-2Uma, 8 bit coding accuracy
through the central station _+ 0.5% or better.
3. Control: 4 two-state or 8 unitary controls, contact closure rated
at least 20Quia and 30 volts for 200ma.
4. Pulse Accumulator: accepts on tipping bucket raingage signal and
provides accumulation of up to 255 pulses before reset-capable of
interrogation at anytime without affecting count - two registers to
prevent overflow.
Four of these remote stations were required to provide communication with all
of the raingages, depth sensors and samplers in the network.
Bubbler (Flow Measurement) --
Flow measurement is accomplished by measuring depth of flow approaching a
control section. The control section can be created by installation of a
partial restriction to flow in the pipes or can occur at a free overfall
section. Both of these methods are utilized. The device selected to measure
depth is the Sigma-niotor LMS-300 level recorder. It operates on 110 volt AC,
has its own compressor and has an accuracy of _* It or better in an operating
range of 0 to 3 feet of head. The bubbler outputs a 4-20ma signal to the
telemetry remote. The signal is proportional to the pressure required to
force a bubble of air through an orifice located at the invert of the storm
sewer. That pressure is in turn proportional to the depth of flow over the
orifice. The LMS-300 is also equipped with a small chart recorder which is
used for backup and to check the instrument's performance in the field.
Automatic Sampler --
The automatic sampler must be able to withdraw a sample of water from the
storm sewer on command from the remote station and store this sample of
water in a refrigerator until it can be picked up and transported to the
laboratory. The unit used in this study is the Sigma-motor 6301 refrigerated
sampler. Upon receiving a signal to take a sample the 3/8 inch suction line
is air purged, a sample Is pumped, the line is purged again, and the sampler
positions itself for the next sample. Samples are limited to 24 500ml bottles.
A peristaltic pump is used so that the sample only contacts the Tygon tubing
and the latex tubing used in the suction line.
Equipment Shelter --
At each of the sampling points the remote station, one or more bubblers, and
the automatic sampling device are housed in a two-dour fiberglass shelter
approximately 4 feet square and 4.5 feet tall. The shelter is a Western Power
Model 42-2. It has one inch of from insulation and a thermostatically con-
trolled exhaust fan for temperture control in the summer.
G16-18
Raingages --
Three Heather Measure P-501 tipping bucket raingages are part of the telemetry
network. The 8 inch diameter collector funnels the rainwater to a dual cup
device that holds 0.01 inch of water. As one of these cups fill the device
tips to empty one cup and begin filling the other cup. The tip causes a
switch closure which is transmitted to an accumulator in the remote as 0.01
Inch of rain.
Wet-Dry Fallout —
These devices were produced by and are on loan from the ISUS. Similar devices
are available commercially. Two plastic buckets are installed on a frame about
one meter above the ground. A lid covers one of these buckets and exposes the
other to dry fallout. A sensor on the lid detects rain and the lid moves to
cover the dry fallout bucket and expose the other bucket to catch a rainfall
sample. After rainfall ceases the lid again moves and exposes the dry fallout
bucket.
Street Dirt Sampling Equipment
Samples of street dirt are collected by running a shop type vacuum cleaner
over selected strips of pavement from curb to curb. This procedure requires
a vacuum, a generator, and a ve.hicle to move this equipment from site to site.
Additional equipment is required for sieve analysis of the sample upon return-
ing to the lab.
Vaccumm --
A HI Id Model 730 Industrial Vacuum consisting of a 30 gallon stainless steel
tank, a 2.3 hp motor. 20 ft of 2 inch vinyl hose, a 4 foot aluminum wand with a
12 inch floor tool and a dynel cloth filter (cotton/nylon blend).
Generator --
A Lincoln Model K-1282 Welder-Generator with a Kohler Model K-241P lOhp engine
rated at 4500 watts AC.
Truck —
The Vacuum and Generator are mounted In a 1980 Dodge Van equipped with a yellow
strobe light for safety.
Sieving —
Stainless Steel sieves by W.S. Tyler were used on a Combs Type HL Gyratory
Sifting Machine. It is made by Great Western Manufacturing Co. and is equipped
with a 1/6 hp motor.
The receiving water Impact study equipment, and its purposes are described
as follows:
616-19
-------
1. Flow Measurement — Flow measurement at all sites except the UCSD
outfall will be determined by continuously monitoring depth of flow
at a rated section. Depth of flow will be determined with a float,
bubbler, or ultrasonic device depending on available equipment. On
the Boneyard Creek sites these devices will be tied to the telemetry
system. On the Saline Branch sites the devices will record on
Independent clock driven charts. Rating curves will be established
or checked by current meter measurements throughout the period of
study.
2. Rainfall -- Three tipping bucket rain gauges in the urban watershed
will be supplemented by two weighing bucket recording gauges in the
agricultural watershed.
3. Atmospheric Sampling — Automatic wet/dry fallout samplers will be
operated at two locations, one in the urban area and one in the
agricultural area. Rainfall will be analyzed for nutrients and
metals for each event.
4. Present Stream Conditions -- Biological assays, measurement of
sediment oxygen demand, and sediment core sampling will be done
on a seasonal basis, this information along with documentation of
bank stability and vegetative cover will provide an up-to-date
evaluation of the receiving stream condition during the year of the
study.
5. Water Samples — Dry weather samples will be collected monthly at
all six sampling points and analyzed for the constituents Indicated
below. Each of the sampling points except the UCSD outfall will be
equipped with automatic samplers. Samplers on the Boneyard will be
on the telemetry network and will sample on a 5 minute interval.
Samplers on the Saline will be triggered on a rise in stage and will
sample on a IS to 30 minute Interval. An attempt will be made to
collect discrete samples on 15 to 20 storm events during the 8 month
sampling period.
In addition to the automatic sampling, augmentation will be by manual sampling.
This will consist of horizontally and vertically Integrated samples collected
with a DH59 sampler equipped with a glass bottle.
Controls
As previously described, this project will be evaluating strcetsweeping as an
effective best management practice for control of urban stormwater runoff
pollution of receiving waters.
G16-20
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS PLANNING COMMISSION
CHICAGO, IL
REGION V, EPA
G17-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
This project Is located in the community of Glen Ellyn, DuPage County.
approximately 25 miles west of Chicago, Illinois. Area topography consists
of gentle slopes, with drainage through Lake Ellyn Into the East Branch of
DuPage River.
The DuPage River, Including the East Branch, is grouped in the category of
Illinois rivers and streams designated for general use. The alternate
category, to which certain named rivers and streams are assigned Is designated
for secondary contact and Indigenous aquatic life waters.
The East Branch of the DuPage River, into which take Ellyn discharges, receives
wastewater treatment plant point source discharges at sixteen points. Mainte-
nance dredging of Lake Ellyn has been accomplished to attempt to retain Its
use as a popular recreation area for boating, fishing (primarily for carp) and
outdoor activities. Lakes In the system. Including Lake Ellyn. are subject to
rapid eutropnlcatlon unless routine maintenance dredging is performed, experi-
encing water quality problems In both the water column and sediments. The
actual drainage area for Lake Ellyn is 534 acres, located in an area with a
pppulation of 5,000/mK, resulting in an approximate population of 4,200 in the
watershed OuPage County is extremely fast growing in population, and ranks
close to the top nationwide In this respect.
This study will determine the accumulation and fate of pollutants from
various sources, such as roof runoff, street surfaces, catchbasin/storm sewers.
and Lake Ellyn, serving as a detention basin. These sources are being evaluated
as control points along the flow path where control strategies may be effectively
erop oyed. Evaluation will be directed towards determining If controls can be
applied to effectively alter lake conditions, or whether Lake Ellyn should be
utilized as a detention basin, and provide for periodic maintenance dredging.
N
GLEN ELLYN
DuPAGE COUNTY
1LAKE
MICHIGAN
STATE LOCUS
ILLINOIS NURP PROJECTS
FIGURE 1
G17-2
G17-3
-------
?$ GLEN ELLYH STREETS?//'
USGS QUAD SHEET " *•
FIGURE 2
G17-4
G17-S
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
PROJECT AREA
A. Area
The City of Glen Ellyn, situated in DuPage County, is located in northeastern
Illinois, approximately 25 miles west of Chicago, which borders the south-
western end of Lake Michigan. The area of the Glen Ellyn watershed totals
534 acres, and the total area of Glen Ellyn is 4,096 acres. Land use is
80 percent low density residential, with the remaining 20 percent made up
of high density residential, wetland, commercial, parkland, and Institutional
uses.
B. Population
The total city population is 23,649, with approximately 4,200 located within
the Lake Ellyn watershed. DuPage County is Included in the Chicago Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area.
C. Drainage
Glen Ellyn's topography consists of gentle slopes, with the watershed
average 220 feet per mile.
The East Branch DuPage River originates in DuPage County. Glen Ellyn is In
the headwater of a tributary, about 1/4 mile east of the East Branch.
Drainage from most of Glen Ellyn Is conveyed to Lake Ellyn, from which it
flows through a feeder stream Into the East Branch, DuPage River. The
East and West Branches Join to form the DuPage River which then flows Into
the DesPlaines River and then Into the Kankakee and the Illinois Rivers, on
the way to the Mississippi River. Artesian springs supplied by the St. Peters
aquifer, which originally gave Glen Ellyn Its reputation as a resort, are no
longer productive due to the lowering of the aquifer by about 100 feet. A
large part of the base flow In the East Branch DuPage River Is now the
effluent of several waste treatment facilities, and contains high bacteria
levels.
D. Sewerage System
The existing watershed is served by an extensive network of paved streets
with curbs and gutters and underground storm sewers. A separate sanitary
system serves to convey the sanitary wastes to the wastewater treatment
plant, with outfall to the East Branch DuPage River.
Catchment Name - Lake Ellyn watershed
A. Area - 534 acres
B. Population - approximately 4,200
C. Drainage - Lake Ellyn drains through a 1/4 mile long tributary to the
East Branch DuPage River, with a slope of 49 feet/mile.
D. Sewerage - Lake Ellyn watershed Is 95X served by separate storm sewers;
981 of the streets have curb and gutter drainage, and 2% have ditch and
swale drainage.
Street density Is 21.6 miles/square mile.
E. Land Use
427 acres (BOX) Is O.S to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
16 acres (31) Is 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
27 acres (51) Is central business district urban connerclal.
10 acres (21) Is wetlands.
27 acres (51) Is urban parkland.
27'acres (51) Is urban Institutional.
G17-6
617-7
-------
PROBLEM
A. Locai definition (government)
The present water quality of Lake Ellyn is only capable of supporting carp,
and has required periodic maintenance dredging to remove the accumulated
polluted sediments. Due to Its park setting and recreatidnal uses the
condition of the water In Lake Ellyn Is of concern to the local populace;
much less concern has been expressed about the East Branch OuPage River,
where base flow Is primarily sanitary effluent from several wastewater
treatment plants, and major uses of this River are for flood control and
waste transport. * •
/
U. Local Perception (Public awareness)
Due to the location of Lake Ellyn within the major recreational park of
the City of Glen Ellyn, the public Is aware of the condition of the water
in the lake. From that point downstream, Including the East Branch DuPage
river there Is little concern about the water quality Issue.
617-8
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Hator objectives
Previous evaluations have stated that the watershed contributary to
Lake Ellyn has s'o great an impact that a continuing maintenance program
is essential to its survival as an attractive lake. This study Is de-
signed to assess the control potential of wet-tot tons detention facilities,
represented by Lake Ellyn. in removing pollutants from stormuater runoff,
and identifying the pollutant sources and transport mechanisms.
Specific study objectives are:
1. Identify the originating sources of sediment, BOD. ammonia, nutrients.
and metals and construct their respective material balances, (I.e.,
output = input i storage + transformations).
2. Quantify and qualify the effects of urban stormwater detention on
water quality and, where possible, on bottom materials in the
detention basin.
3. Identify the design factors necessary for siting, sizing, and operating
storage facilities, based on the analysts of runoff variables such as
magnitude and duration, pollutant settling characteristics and reocur-
rence of flow and pollutant loads.
4. Evaluate the relative importance of wet and dry periods and seasonal
variation in terms of pollutant load movement, bottom material char-
acteristics and water quality.
5. Investigate the lag effect in the movement of sediments through the
drainage system by determining the time delay between the input of the
constituent to the drainage pathways and its output to Lake Ellyn.
6. Identify the measurable physical and anthropogenic characteristics of
the watershed and attempt to relate these to urban runoff quantity and
quality to determine whether these characteristics are sufficient to
define water quality problems and design solutions.
The second year project report included the water year ending September 30.
1980. For the purpose of accomplishing the listed objectives, second year
work tasks Included atmospheric deposition sampling, source surveys, control
point sampling, runoff water quality monitoring, and detention basin bottom
material and water column sampling. The report is for the period April 1,
1980 through March 31. 1981.
B. Methodology
Atmospheric deposition sampling Is providing information on the atmospheric
617-9
-------
Input of pollutants by rain and dry fallout. To date forty-two weeks
of wet, dry and bulk samples have been collected from two locations In
the watershed by the Illinois State Mater Survey.
Field surveys have examined six sources of pollutants; soil, vegetation,
animals, vehicular traffic, decomposition of Impervious surfaces, and home
and public works use of chemicals. Constituent concentrations In parkway
soils have been determined for three traffic classifications and varying
distances from the roadway. The quality of leachate from watershed soils
has also been analyzed In the laboratory. Surflclal geology information
has been assembled from recent borings undertaken near Lake Ellyn.
Constituent concentrations In the predominant forms of vegetation In the
watershed have been determined. The Illinois Department of Conservation
undertook a fish survey of Lake Ellyn and a count of migratory birds was
made at Lake Ellyn.
The results of the questionnaire prepared In the first project year have
been tabulated. This has produced valuable Information on home use of
fertilizers and pesticides.
Estimates of peak and average dally traffic volume have been prepared and
mapped. The quantity, type and condition of Impervious surfaces in the
watershed. Including streets, driveways, parking lots and roofs, have been
tabulated and mapped. In addition to these items, the environmental prac-
tices of the Glen Ellyn Public Works Department have been monitored. Data
collected to date include street sweeping schedules, deicing application
dates and quantities and points of most frequent salt application.
The accumulation and fate of pollutants from the above sources also have
been examined at four control points In the basin. These control points
represent positions along the flow path from source to receiving water
body where control strategies might be employed. The points are: rooftops;
street surfaces; catch basin/storm sewers; and the detention basin. Samples
of roof runoff for as many as six storm events have been collected and
analyzed for roofs representing different pitch, vegetal influences and
land use. An Inventory of catch basin characteristics has been completed
and samples from clean and dirty catch basins have been analyzed. Road
dirt samples were collected during the spring and fall from sites represent-
ing different traffic and road surface conditions. Thirty snow samples also
have been analyzed from snow lying In the gutters, on parkways and on lawns.
The snow sample sites also represented various road conditions, traffic
and land use. Five sets of three samples each of bottom material from
Lake Ellyn have been analysed by the ISWS to determine the characteristics
of material which has settled out of runoff to the lake. Sediment depths
and current bottom topography for the detention basin have also been mapped.
Three sets of detention basin water column quality data have been collected.
LEGEND
Atn.Mph.tlcD^pwhlon 0- W.tw Column
.Bool Runo« <
Sl> County Loc«ton Map
Bottom M.I.H.I
Sampling Snwtt
SAMPLING AND MONITORING POINTS
FIGURE 4
G17-10
G17-11
-------
C. Monitoring
Sampling of runoff water quality, flow and precipitation began in March
of 1980. Through September, 1980 nine storm events were monitored along
with one low flow event and one snownielt runoff event. Five minute flow
data were gathered for all storms during the water year at the main inlet
and both outlets. Five minute precipitation values were collected at two
stations and fifteen-minute rainfall data were collected at a third.
Monitoring locations are Identified in Figure 4. Water quality and flow
data for Inlet and outlet flows at Lake Ellyn are being obtained by the
U.S. Geological Survey, using automatic monitoring equipment. Precipitation
data is also being obtained at the same locations by the Survey.
Also indicated in Figure 4 are the locations of the other sampling efforts,
including additional precipitation, atmospheric deposition, roof runoff,
snow, lake bottom material, water column and street dirt.
The list of parameters and constituents examined In the samples collected
includes: Sodium, Magnesium, Potassium, Calcium, Ammonia, Nitrate,
Chlorides, Sulphate, Zinc, Iron, Copper, Cadmium, Lead, Chromium,
Phosphate, Mercury, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids,
chemical oxygen demand, 5 day biochemical oxygen demand, specific con-
ductance, sediment oxygen demand, chlorophyll a_, cell count, algal
species, temperature,dissolved oxygen, organic nitrogen (total and dis-
solved) calcium carbonate alkalinity, hardness.
Equipment
The sites monitored by the Geological Survey have automatic sampling and
flow recording samplers. Wetfall and dryfall sampling Is also done by
automatically controlled sampling equipment. Street dirt samples were
obtained by use of an appropriate portable wet/dry vacuum. Lake Ellyn
water samples were composited automatically, as determined necessary by
the automatic flow recording devices.
Control
In addition to evaluating Lake Ellyn as a wet detention basin, other control
measures will be considered that would affect the source and transport
mechanisms disclosed during the investigation, which lend themselves to
improvements that are cost-effective.
G17-12
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM •
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND '
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MADISON, WI
REGION V, EPA
G13-I
-------
INTRODUCTION
The City of Milwaukee, situated In Milwaukee County, Is located In southeastern
Wisconsin on the western shore of Lake Michigan. The topography consists of
gentle rolling hills drained by tributaries to, and the Menomonee, Milwaukee
and Klnnlckirmic Rivers, which flow Into Milwaukee Bay In Lake Michigan. Other
shoreline drainage enters the lake directly.
The Menomonee River is used for hydropower production, waste assimilation, and
Industrial water supply. Fishing, recreation, aesthestic values and stock and
wildlife watering are common. Water quality requirements and standards shall
meet the standards for recreational use and fish and aquatic life. Lake Michigan
waters shall meet the standards for public water supplies and the standards for
recreational use and fish and aquatic life. The intrastate rivers also are
classified to meet these same standards, although not identified by name. Pre-
vious studies have shown that surface waters are severely polluted, and a large
proportion can be attributed to urban pollution.
This city has had a decline In population during the last 10 years. The
census of populations for the city, the urbanized area and the standard metro-
politan statistical area have been recorded for 1970 and 1980; they show a
population declining faster In the city than in the urbanized area or the
SMSA. The recorded census population for the city in 1980 was 636,200, which
represented an 11.3X decline from 717,100 in 1960. The 1980 urbanized area
population declined 3.6%, and the SMSA declined 0.5X during the same period.
As these changes indicate, the increasing population of the past within the
urban and standard metropolitan statistical areas changed to a decreasing popu-
lation during the last 10 years. The city population had started decrease-
Ing during the 10 year period beginning In 1960. Its quite likely that much
of the initial city population decline represented relocation away from the
urbanized area into the urbanizing areas of the SMSA. This Is the only project
area in Region V to show a decline In population trend.
Previous evaluation of the water quality of the local drainage system Identified
urban stormwater runoff as a major concern. As a result, the Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin has recommended reduction
of pollutants from urban runoff through Implementation of appropriate practices
and control measures. This project is designed to evaluate the effectiveness
of alternative streetsweeping schedules in varying land use conditions.
LAKE
SUPERIOR
LAKE
MICHIGAN
MILWAUKEE CY
MILWAUKEE
STATE LOCUS
WISCONSIN NURP PROJECT
FIGURE 1
G18-2
618- 3
-------
NURP STUDY SITES IN THE
MILWAUKEE RIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 2
N
/I
NURP STUDY SITES IH THE
MENOMONEE RIER WATERSHED
FIGURE 3
Gil!-4
G18-S
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Milwaukee, situated In Milwaukee County. Is located on the
western shore of Lake Michigan, In southeastern Wisconsin. The total area of
city comprises about 95 square miles of land. Land use within the city Is
characterized as Institutional, residential, commercial and industrial.
B. Population
As noted In the introduction, and in Table 1, below, city population has declined
from about 741,500 in 1960 to about 636,200 In 1980. During ths same period
the urbanized area and SMSA show a net Increase, although over the last ten
years both show declines. If these trends continue, projected year 2000 popu-
lation could be down another 100,000 or more to around 510,000. It is much
more reasonable to expect the rate of decline to be damped and the city population
to not drop much lower than 600,000 over.the next twenty years. This Is
based on the assumption that a lot of the decline represented movement out of
the urban areas to the urbanizing suburbs, as percentage changes for those
areas seem to indicate. A reverse trend already seems to be starting in metro-
politan areas which will balance in part the initial move outward.
TABLE I
DECENNIAL CENSUS OF POPULATIONS
MILWAUKEE, URBANIZED AREA, SMSA
Milwaukee
Urban Area
SMSA
1960
(APPROX)
741,570
1,150,100
11,278,400
1970
717,099
1,252,457
1.403,688
X Change
-3.3
+8.9
+9.8
1980
636,212
1,207.008
1,397,143
X Change
-11.3
- 3.6
. - 0.5
C. Drainage
The gently rolling terrain of the City of Milwaukee is drained by the Milwaukee,
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers and their tributaries Into Milwaukee Bay In
Lake Michigan. Shoreline drainage is directly into Lake Michigan.
D. Sewerage
The City of Milwaukee sanitary sewerage system consists of both public and
private sewage treatment facilities, and combined sewer outfalls, by passes,
crossovers and relief pumping stations. This type of system produces point
source pollution at the various discharge points throughout the system whenever
excessive flows occur or hydraulic characteristics prove Inadequate.
G18-6
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name WI 1, 630, State Fair
A. Area - 29 acres.
B. Population - 290 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100X served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 2.9 lane miles of asphalt, 3IX of which Is In
good condition, and 69X of which is in poor condition. In addition,
there are about 0.6 lane miles of concrete, of which B3X is in good
condition and 17X of which Is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
7.54 acres (26X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 5.9 acres (7B.2X) is impervious.
21.46 acres (74X) is Linear Development.
of which 16.4 acres (76.4X) is impervious.
II. Catchment Name - HI 1, 631, HOOD CENTER
A. Area - 44.9 acres.
B. Population - 540 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100X served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 4.2 lane miles of asphalt, 14X of which Is In
good condition, and 86X of which Is In poor condition. In addition
there is about 1 lane mile of concrete, of which SOX Is In good
condition and 20X of which is in poor condition.
E. Land Use
13.84 acres (30.8X) is 2.5 to B dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 11.22 acres (81.IX) is Impervious.
25.28 acres (56.3X) Is Linear Strip Development.
of which 20.5 acres (81.IX) is Impervious.
5.6 acres (12.5X) is Urban Industrial (heavy),
of which 4.54 acres (81.IX) Is impervious.
618-7
-------
III. Catchment Name - HI 1, 632, N. Hastings
A. Area - 32.B4 acres.
U. Pupuldtion - 560 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The stonu sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 2.2 lane miles of concrete, all of which is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
32.84 acres (100*) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
of which 16.86 acres (51.3%) is impervious.
IV. Catchment Name - Wl 1. 633, N. Burbank
A. Area - 62.6 acres.
B. Population - 915 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Street consist of 4.1 lane miles of concrete, 972 of which is in good
condition, and 3% of which is in poor condition.
E. Land Use
62.6 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 31.27 acres (50%) is impervious.
V. Catchment Name - MI 1, 634, Dustier
A. Area - 12.44 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
[). Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 0.6 lane miles of' asphalt, 100% of which is in
good condition.
E. Land Use
12.44 acres (100%) is Shopping Center,
of which 12.39 acres (99.6X) is impervious.
VI. Catchment Name - HI 1, 635, Post Office
A. Area - 12.08 acres.
"B. Population - 0 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
E. Land Use
12.39 acres (100%) is Shopping Center.
of which 12.12 acres (97.8%) is impervious.
VII. Catchment Name - HI 1. 636. Lincoln Creek
A. Area - 36.1 acres.
B. Population - 650 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate 160 feet/mile slope.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate
storm sewers.
Streets consist of 0.1 lane miles of asphalt, 100% of which is
In poor condition. In addition there are about 4.4 lane wiles
of concrete, of which 62% is in good condition and 38% of which
is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
34.91 acres (96.7%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acres urban residential,
of which 20.0 acres (5.73%) is impervious.
1.11 acres (2.-5%) is Linear Strip Development,
of which 0.64 acres (57.7%) is impervious.
G18-8
G18-9
-------
VIII. Catchment Name - HI 1, 637. W. Congress
A. Area - 33.04 acres.
B. Population - 540 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 160
feet/mile, 100X served with durbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 160 feet/mile slope.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 100 lane miles of concrete, 54X of which Is In
good condition and 46X of which is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
30.1 acres (91.IX) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 15.19 acres (50.5X) Is Impervious.
2.32 acres (7.OX) Is Linear Strip Development,
of which 1.17 acres (50.4X) is Impervious.
G18-10
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
Considerable effort has been expended on the assessment of urban stormwater
problems In Milwaukee County. The,assessments have been made for the Milwaukee.
Klnnikinnic and Menomonee Rtver Watersheds. Most of the study areas for the
proposed project are In the Menomonee Rtver Watershed. A large amount of
Mater quality data was collected for the evaluation of urban pollution In the
Menomonee River Watershed. The sources of water quality data include: The
SEWRPC-DNR 1968-1974 continuing water quality monitoring program, a 1968-1969
watershed-wide phosphorus study, three 24-hour synoptic surveys conducted
under the Menomonee River Watershed planning program and the Menomonee River
Pilot Watershed Study. An examination of the water quality data from previous
studies reveals the surface waters are severely polluted. The categories of
pollutants Included are toxic, organic, nutrient, pathogenic, sediment and
aesthetic. The specific pollutants are lead, BOO, phosphorus, fecal col(form
and suspended solids. The results of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study revealed a significant portion of these pollutants transported in the
stream can be attributed to urban runoff. The concentration of these pollu-
tants are above stream quality standards during runoff events. Over 60 percent
of the annual loading of phosphorus, lead and suspended solids Is from nonpolnt
sources. The Southeastern Wisconsin Areawide Water Quality Management Planning
Program is recommending nonpoint source control of the above pollutants in the
proposed study areas. The practical consequence of these polluted conditions
is to severely restrict the use of the watershed stream system for recreational
pursuits and propagation of fish and aquatic life.
Literature values of the effectiveness of street sweeping are variable and
are specific to locality of the study. Recent evaluation of Improved street
sweeping practices have observed up to 50 percent reduction in the amounts
of phosphorus, lead and suspended solids coming from urban watersheds. A
street sweeping study using two small watersheds in Hinneapolis-St. Paul
observed a reduction of 50 percent In phosphorus loading for the watershed
with higher sweeping frequencies. A similar comparison between watersheds In
Sweden produced reduction in suspended solids concentrations of 57 percent
and 30 to 60 percent In lead concentration. A study In San Jose, California
evaluating reduction of street surface loading by street sweeping observed
between 13 and 60 percent of the street solids loading was removed. If street
sweeping is shown to reduce the urban nonpoint source pollutant loading by as
much as 50 percent in the SEWRPC area, street sweeping could be an Important
part for realizing a 25 percent reduction In urban nonpoint source pollution.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
The limitations placed on the use of the watershed stream system for recreational
pursuits has assured that members of the general public with an interest in
that direction are aware of the problem. Community Interest has resulted In
the preparation of comprehensive watershed plans for both the Menaoonee and
the Milwaukee River watersheds.
G18-11
-------
WEST LINCOLN CREEK PARKHAV
STUDY SITE
(PAIRED WITH U. CONGRESS ST. STUDY SITE)
FIGURE 4
G18-12
WEST CONGRESS STREET STUDY SITE
(PAIRED UITH U. LINCOLN CREEK PARKWAY STUDY SITE)
FIGURE 5
618-13
-------
v^^tf^
•.*•&&&?*:*&$**
• t* ? «SLr^ *4^%-' v^
^^.^1
gl^^ll^
NORTH BURBAHK STREET STUDY SITE
FIGURE 6
G18-14
'i«r«t*P
NORTH HASTINGS STREET STUDY SITE
FIGURE 7
G18-15
-------
-fiii.-;. ..„..-.. ,7V-T "•
•fctts iStfi* fe^5
-»•«•»• »-rf*i .**»**•
^WUJUUtiiULUiii*.; Ui^hM.
iilMM^-M
^(^i^ttLK'm^Q
Mr, .- t -fc^^^^^^^^OT '^"^•^•^*"
;
G1B-16
SOUTH 77th STREET STUDY SITE
(PAIRED WITH WOOD CENTER STUDY SITE)
FIGUTE 9
G1B-17
-------
.• w'''
*:I3' s3f4W±r '*^»t -^Uawv^v^v^;,* «£
>' 53 :t?'r* :iT?*T');' r" '•"•'" *•r •*;;t*'--^ia -rT*
/'Irtl'8LlS-.'Lxiri^--n-v.i • .j'is*HnrfF*
^.. /'-fe^^^^i^^^^^i^^SlO
CAPITAL COURT NORTH
AND
CAPITAL COURT SOUTH
PAIRED STUDY SITES
FIGURE 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
8. Methodologies
to prolong the ttae between
-
ssrsa.
G1B-19
616-18
-------
The increased frequencies in the residential areas are once and twice per week,
in the conmerical area they are twice and three times per week, and in the
parking lot they are biweekly and weekly. The street sweeping schedule for
1980, 1981and 1982 is given in Table 2.
During control periods, when the street sweeping frequencies In both the test
and control watersheds are identical, the individual event and seasonal itonu-
water pollutant load will be compared to determine Intrinsic pollutant loading
differences between the areas. During test periods, the differences between
the test and control area's seasonal pollutant load, after adjusting for
intrinsic differences found during control periods, will be deemed attributable
to the increased street sweeping. Test and control periods and test and control
watersheds are necessary to calculate the theoretical pollutant load that a
test area would have had during a test period, had it been swept at the control
frequency.
Some simple hypothetical numbers will help illustrate the study design. If
during a control period a control area discharges 100 kg of suspended solids,
and the corresponding test area discharges 120 kg, the test area intrinsically
discharges 202 more suspended solids than the control area. If in the next
test period, with perhaps less rainfall, the control area discharges 80 kg of
suspended solids, the theoretical test area pollutant load, under normal
street sweeping frequency, would have been 96 kg. If instead the observed
test area suspended solids load was 67 kg, the difference due to street
sweeping would be considered 29 kg, or 30X of the potential suspended solids
load.
The length of the test and control periods are each approximately eight weeks .
long. By long term averages there are 12 to 16 events of greater than 0.1
Inch precipitation per eight week period. There are three test periods per
annual street sweeping season (spring, summer and fall), separated by two
control periods.
Idktily there should be 12 to 16 sampled events per period from which to
derive seasonal pollutant loads. Seasonal loading differences are desired
for comparison because they will be more representative of the overall effect
of an accelerated street sweeping program than Mill be individual differences
observed from singular events.
Composite sampling is being used to monitor stormwater quality. Composite
sampling allows for excellent analysis of monitored events, but because of
the relatively small number of events per sampling period, there is not likely
to be enough analyses to make statistically good pollutant loading estimates
of uiunonitored events. Initially only those events, wherein the samplers at
both the test and control areas functioned properly, were to be included in
the seasonal loading comparison of each pair. However, there has been a
much higher incidence of sampler failure than had been anticipated. Within
each pair of sites, there has been more events wherein a sampler at either one
or both the test and control sites failed, than there has been when both •
samplers operated properly. Consequently, by the above criterion, most
events would not be included in the seasonal loading comparison.
-
> CD t
CD 00 CD »-*CD
»-•*-*»-* I t—•
I • I O» I
*-•»-* CD *•»» in
t-» O "^tNJ "N.
OD -^ "-* CO CD
•^ CD CD I-* »-•
CD •-*»-*
ODI—CO*-*CD
CD*-* CD*-* CD
in in in in in
COO CO
O • O
I CD I
* •
ui in in in
3
3D
§
i »
° S
O* f-»
1
O
G18-20
G18-21
-------
One analytical alternative Is to compare seasonal flow weighted average
concentration for all monitored events at each station. This would allow for
the inclusion of many more events in the seasonal comparison. On the other
hand, different events at the test and control sites would be Included In the
overall analyses, which raises different concerns. Hopefully, the Incidence
of sample failure will be reduced as some of the Initial sampling problems
are resolved.
In addition to the water quality monitoring, further analyses of street sweeping
will be based on the monitoring and analysis of contaminants on the street
surfaces of the test areas. Street surface contaminants will be collected in
a manner as to analyze for three functions: the accumulation of materials on
streets over time, street sweeper removal efficiencies and rainfall-washoff
processes. This Information will be useful for modeling purposes. In order to
extrapolate to various street sweeping frequencies and rainfall regimes.
A private street cleaning contractor Is sweeping all of the study areas. A
private contractor was chosen to do the sweeping, rather than the respective
municipalities, in order to maximize our control over, and consistency within,
the street sweeping operation, and to facilitate coordination and communication
with the operators.
A contractor uses a 1969 four wheel, rear end brush, Mobil street sweeper.
The sweeper operates at five miles per hour, spraying dust suppressing water
on the street as It travels. The strike of the broom is maintained at six
Inches. There is one principal operator of the sweeper, "with an occasional
stand-in operator. The principal operator has had more than 30 years of
street sweeping experience with the City of Milwaukee;
The streets are being swept In accordance with the schedule given in Table 4.
The control areas are swept at their usual and customary sweeping frequency. •
The sweeping in the test areas alternates between the control frequencies and
accelerated frequencies. The alleys in the study areas are considered another
pollutant source as are rooftops, sidewalks and driveways. These alleys are
normally swept three to four times per year. He are maintaining the normal
sweeping frequency in the alleys of both test and control study areas.
The usual leaf pick-up program in Milwaukee and West All is is to, on designated
dates at preselected Intervals, ask the residents to rake all of their leaves
into the gutters. Jeeps equipped with leaf rakes then push the leaves to the
corners of the blocks, where Vac-Alls or front end loaders and dump trucks
pick up the leaves. Our street cleaning contractor does not have the equip-
ment to handle a large leaf pick-up program. Nor are there funds to contract
the leaf pick-up to another party. Therefore the municipalities will maintain
their usual leaf pick-up program in the study areas. .
i
Stormwater pollutant loads are determined through the use of composite sampling
techniques. The decision to use composite rather than stratified random
sampling followed an analysis of the latter, which indicated that, based upon
available urban stormwater concentrations, as many as 100 samples per station
per test period could be required to achieve a _» 20% error term on the pollutant
loading estimate. By contrast, as few as 12 to 16 composite analyses will be
required to get a good seasonal loading estimate, but the resultant loading
estimates will hot have associated error terns. A report of this analysis,
with a description and comparison of Integration, composite and stratified
random sampling, Is being reviewed prior to publishing by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
The sampling stations are equipped with Manning S-4050 samplers. Samples are
collected flow proportionally during events. Either one, one liter or two,
half liter samples are placed in each sample bottle. The samples are refri-
gerated to 4*C. When the event has ended, the samples are removed from the
stations and transported on Ice to the Department of Natural Resources South-
east District Headquarters In Milwaukee for processing.
At the district lab the samples are split using a USGS cone splitter and
recombtned to get a single one to two liter flow weighted composite sample.
Each composite Is then further split Into five separate samples for filtering
and/or fixing as needed for the various parameters. The samples are then
transported to Madison on Ice and refrigerated at the State Lab of Hygiene
until analyzed. The State Lab Is performing all of the sample analyses. A
listing of water quality parameters Is given In Table 3.
In addition to the composite sampling, for five events per station per year
when more than ten sample bottles have been filled, discreet analyses will
be done on six of the samples per event. To do so, one-tenth of each sample
(0.1 liters) will be split off and combined to get a single composite sample.
The remaining nine-tenths (0.9 liters) of each of the six discreet samples
will then be analyzed separately.
Finally, on large events, the suspended sediment will be separated from the
collected samples, divided Into particle sizes, and analyzed for contaminants.
Analysis of particle sizes will occur whenever 14 or more sample bottles have
been filled. After a one to two liter composite sample Is split off of the
total sample volume, the remaining sample (twelve or more liters) Is sent to
the USGS Hydraulics Lab for analysis.
C. Monitoring
The project provides for monitoring four pairs of study sites, each pair consisting
of a control site and an experimental site. The pairs were selected to be of
matched and uniform land use types, In close proximity to each other. Figures
2 and 3 depict the locations of these paired sites, and Figures 4 through 10
provide street layouts of the individual or paired sites.
Table 3 Includes general characteristics of the study sites, Including the
primary land use designations.
G18-22
G18-23
-------
TABLE 3
GENEKAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDY SITES
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
Study Site
U. Lincoln
Creek Parkway
U. Congress
Street
N. Burbank
Avenue
N. Hastings
Street
Wood Center
S. 77th Street
Capital Court
North
Capital Court
South
Major
Civil
Divisions
City of
Milwaukee
City of
Milwaukee
City of
Milwaukee
City of
Milwaukee
City of
west All is
City of
West All is
City of
Milwaukee
City of
Milwaukee
Area
(Acres)
37
33
71
43
45
30
13
12
Primary Land Use
High Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
Commercial/High
Density
Residential
Commercial/High
Density
'Residential
Commercial/
Parking Lot
Commercial/
Parking Lot
The stonnwater quality constituents and parameters scheduled, and their frequency,
are indicated in Table 4.
TABLE 4
STORHHATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Frequency of Analysis
Every event, all stations
Every event during 1980. all
stations
Every other event, all stations
Every other event, all stations
Every fourth event, all stations
Every other event during 1980,
test sites only
One grab sample per event, all
stations
One grab sample per event, all
stations
Whenever 14 or more sample bottles
have been collected, all stations
Paramters
Primaries*
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Soluable Phosphorus
Total Lead
Chlorides
Secondaries
Nitrate + Nitrite
Ammonia
KJeldahl Nitrogen
Soluble Lead
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biological Oxygen Demand, Five Day
Biological Oxygen Demand, Thirty bay
Multi-element Scan
Fecal Coll form
Fecal Streptococcus
Particle Size
Total Phosphorus
Available Phosphorus
Total Lead
•All samples are composite samples except for the fecals.
G18-24
G18-25
-------
Equipment
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has provided automatic water quality
sampling devices to the U.S. Geological Survey, and USGS has provided the
automatic flow meters. Rainfall Is also determined with automatic equipment.
An automatic rainfall sensor Initiates startup of the automatic recorders, and
the automatic flow meters, which in turn activate the automatic samplers. In
addition to the volumetric rainfall gage, there are automatic atmospheric
wet fall/dry fall samplers.
Street surface sampling Is accomplished In one of the paired sites (4 of 8,
total), using a 1/2 ton van towing a trailer-mounted generator connected to
two vacuum cleaners. The vacuums operate In tandum through a vacuum hose,
wand and nozzle.
Water quality sampling was accomplished by composite sampling except during
winter, when discrete sampling at 5 minute Intervals was Initiated.
Quality and flow monitoring Is being accomplished by USGS, and streetsweeping
sampling Is being done by Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Comrolssslon.
Controls
This project is evaluating the effectiveness of streetsweeping as a practice
for controlling pollution from urban stonnwater runoff. Various land uses
are being tested for different streetsweeping frequencies. Transferrability
of results will be evaluated by modelling.
.G18-26
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS
REGION VI, EPA
G19-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The City of Austin, located in Travis County, lies along the Colorado River, in
the central part of the State of Texas. The Colorado River empties into
Hatagorda Bay approximately 175 miles to the Southeast. The topography consists
of gentle rolling hills, and the urban area is drained.by streams flowing into
the Colorado River.
The Colorado River, in the vicinity of Austin, is comprised of run of the river
impoundments named Town Lake, Lake Austin and Lake Travis. Currently, Lake
Austin serves as the primary drinking water supply for the city, with the
original source, Town Lake, used as a supplemental source. Increasing urban
density is encountered downstream from Lake Travis toward Town Lake. Urban
stormwater runoff into Town Lake results in highly visible evidence of
aesthetic degradation, and water from this source is not utilized for water
supply during times. While this decision may be the result of the increased
costs for treatment, rather than because of the concentration of pollutants,
this study will clarify this. Water quality standards for all three lakes have
been established as adequate to support contact and noncontact recreation, pro-
pagation of fish and wildlife, and for use as domestic raw water supply.
A major concern is to control urbanization in the Lake Austin area to pre-
vent urban stonnwater runoff problems similar to those experienced In Town
Lake. The population of the Austin standard metropolitan statistical area
in 1950 was 162,336; this Increased to 295,516 in 1970, an Increase of 82%
in 20 years. By 1980, the SHSA population was 536,450, a 10 year change of
81.231. The city population, itself, went from 186,524 1n 1960 to 251,808
in 1970, an increase of 352. In the next decade 1t further increased to
345,496, or an increase of 37.25J. Much of the increase is occurring in the
Lake Austin watershed. The 1960 urbanized area increased from 264,499 in
1970 to 379,322 in 1980, a jump of 43.4X. following a 41.3% Increase between
I960 and 1970.
TRAVIS CY , £rf^ AUSTIN
^*><
STATE LOCUS
TEXAS NURP PROJECT
FIGURE 1
G19-2
619-3
-------
RECEIVING WATER STUDY AREA
FIGURE 2
G19-4
•N
THE ROLLIHGWOOD SITE
FIGURE 3
619-5
-------
THE NORTHWEST AUSTIN SITE
FIGURE 4
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Austin, situated in Travis County on the Colorado River, is
centrally located in the State of Texas. From the Gulf coast. Austin is
inland in a Northwesterly direction approximately 175 miles. The total area
of the city comprises about 120.6 square miles of land, and about 8.3 square
miles of water. Land use within the city is characterized as institutional
with associated residential and commercial development.
B. Population
The entire metropolitan area of the City of Austin, comprising the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area, the urbanized area and the City of Austin,
itself, has been increasing rapidly in the last twenty to thirty years. City
population, according to the 1980 census, is now 345,500, while it was 186,500
just 20 years ago, an 85< increase.. Even if this rate slows down considerably
over the next twenty years, urbanization of the Lake Austin watershed, as a
desirable area of expansion, will take place.
C. Drainage
Austin's topography consists of gentle rolling hills. The urban area is
drained by streams flowing into the Colorado River, which passes through the
city and the steeper hills in the Western margin.
The headwaters of the Colorado River are located in Oawson County, near the
New Mexico border in midwestern Texas. Some tributaries extend beyond the
border, into New Mexico, such as Sulphur Springs Creek, and Wordswell, Serainole
and Monument Draw. The river flows in a southeasterly direction across Texas,
passing through Austin on its way to the Gulf of Mexico In Matagorda County.
The Lake Austin watershed area currently being developed is more hilly, and
therefore subject to faster stormwater runoff and the attendant pollution
problems, unless Adequately controlled by appropriate measures as development
in the watershed proceeds.
D. Sewerage System
The existing sewerage system serving the city is separated, with treatment
facilities located downstream of the urbanized area and Town Lake.
G19-6
G19-7
-------
II.
PROJECT AREA
Catchment Name - TX1, 001, Northwest Austin (Hart Lane and Woodhollow '
Dam sampling stations)
A. Area - 377.7 acres.
B. Population - 3,500 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 237.6
feet/raile, 1005! served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 137.3 feet/mile slope and extend 3700 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 31.8 lane miles of asphalt, 100% of which is
in good condition. There Is no concrete roadway In the catchment.
E. Land Use
365.2 acres (97.3%) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 144.4 acres (39.5%) is Impervious.
10.0 acres (2.7%) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 6.0 acres (60S) Is Impervious.
2.5 acres (100X) Is Shopping Center, of which 1.5 acres (60%) is
impervious.
Approximately 40.2% Impervlousness In the entire catchment.
Catchment Name - TX 1, 003, Turkey Creek
A. Area - 1297 acres.
B. Population - 70 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 396
feet/mile. There are no curbs and gutters, or swales and ditches.
The drainage channel slope approximates 100.3 feet/mile and extends
17,688 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is not served with either
separate or combined sewers.
Streets consist of 1.0 lane miles of asphalt, 100% of which is In
good condition. In addition there are about 10 lane miles of other
material of which 100% Is In good condition.
E. Land Use
47.0 acres (3.6X) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 0.9 acres (1.9X) is Impervious.
400 acres (30.8X) is Range!and.
850 acres (6536) is Forest.
G19-8
-2-
III. Catchment Name - TX1, 002, Rollingwood
A. Area - 60.2 acres.
B. Population - 200 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 260
feet/mile, 100S served with curbs and gutters. The storra sewers
approximate a 190 feet/mile slope and extend 1270 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 4.5 lane miles of asphalt, 100X of which is In
good condition.
E. Land Use
60.2 acres (100%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 12:9 acres (21.4X) Is Impervious.
G19-9
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
Lake Austin serves as the primary water supply source for the city; the old
water treatment plant on Town Lake is used to supplement the capabilities of
the two Lake Austin plants during periods of excessive urban runoff. The
Colorado River in the vicinity of the City of Austin has been controlled by
dams that result in three consecutive run of the river impoundments. Much
of the urbanized area in Austin is in the watershed of Town Lake. As a re-
sult, the quality of water reflects to an extent the conditions of urban
slonuwater runoff.
While the Town Lake watershed is highly urbanized, with high-density residen-
tial and commercial development, The Lake Austin watershed has only low-
density residential development, and that only in the lower portion. However,
the expanding population is forcing development in this watershed, which
drains into the primary water supply source. The City of Austin has imple-
mented the Lake Austin ordinance to protect the city's drinking water source.
Development must meet minimum standards and/or incorporate adequate runoff
control measures. Lake Austin, in addition to being the water supply reser-
voir, 1s a popular recreation area.
Data collected by both TDWR and USGS will be used to supplement that collected
1n this project.
Although preliminary results of the investigation have not demonstrated that
urban stormwater runoff is reducing the quality of Town Lake water below a
level where it can continue to be used as a drinking water source, added
treatment costs have discouraged such use.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
The location of Town Lake, passing through the urbanized area of Austin as it
does, makes it highly visible to the general public. Its appearance, attrib-
uted to stormwater runoff following rainfall in the watershed of one inch or
more, has many people convinced that it should be considered an unacceptable
water supply source. The limited results of a public awareness survey also
emphasize an awareness of water pollution as an area that needs addressing.
G19-10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
The City of Austin expects, by quantifying the storrawater quality with respect
to the degree of urbanization and specific control measure, It can better
understand how to prevent urban stormwater from causing further Impairment of
the current uses of Lake Austin water. Census figures have shown the rapid
rate of urbanization In Austin, which is anticipated to continue, and which
will modify the largely undeveloped Lake Austin watershed considerably by the
year 2000.
In attaining this objective, the answers to two specific questions are being
sought, as follows:
1. How significant are the Impacts of the urbanization on stormwater
quality?
2. How effective are the control measures for minimizing the Impacts?
To determine these answers, a receiving water study and a stormwater sampling
program are being conducted.
B. Methodologies
Data on water quality in both Lake Austin and Town Lake have been obtained in
the past as part of several city, State and Federal programs. Such data should
only be considered to be representative of baseline conditions. Previous sam-
pling efforts have collected very little storm event water quality data in the
two watersheds. With respect to hydrology and ambient water quality, these
two riverine impoundments function similarly to river systems at times rather
than acting as true limnologies1 systems. The almost total dependence on
hypolimnetic releases from Lake Travis as the Influent waters into the Lake
Austin-Town Lake systems ensures that the ambient water quality In these lakes
will be a function of the prevailing conditions in the larger lake's hypolimnion
as well as on-going limnological processes within the lakes themselves. This
close relationship is particularly relevant during the spring and summer months
when irrigation demands downstream are greatest and large-scale releases of
lake water are commonplace. During the wintertime when flood control consider-
ations predominate, releases through Mansfield Dam are minimal and the ambient
water quality conditions throughout the Lake Austin-Town Lake system, particu-
larly for nonconservative constituents, are more variable due to the much
longer lake retention times.
Because the waterbodies under study are essentially free from the Influences of
point source discharges, any observed deterioration in limnological water qual-
ity is probably due to nonpoint sources, Including storm water runoff from an
urbanizing watershed. Even though both riverine lakes are dominated by the
water releases from Lake Travis, these lakes offer a contrasting view In terms
of the magnitude of urban runoff pollutant loadings. Town Lake is contlgous
to the major urban area of the city, and runoff events have directly affected
water treatment plant operation, bacteriological water quality, and aesthetic
G19-11
-------
considerations. Lake Austin has not undergone such runoff-related impacts to
any major extent, although the value of the lake as a water-oriented recreat-
ional resource, and as the primary source of drinking water for the Austin
metropolitan area, means that similar effects should be carefully avoided.
The primary data sets utilized in the analysis of historical water quality In
Lake Austin and Town Lake Include: (1) the City of Austin weekly lake
samples, (2) the periodic USGS lake sampling program, and (3) dally raw water
data on water treatment plant withdrawals from the lakes. All of these
monitoring programs will be continuing throughout the NURP study and the data
will be utilized to construct the water quality baseline for Lake Austin and
Town Lake. For sampling station locations, refer to Figures 5 and 6.
In contrasting the background water quality data in the two lakes, observable
differences occurred for water quality parameters such as turbidity, total
alkalinity, hardness, total conforms, and fecal col (forms. Total and fecal
coHform differences were attributable to the larger urban runoff loadings
In Town Lake; however, hardness and total alkalinity differences, especially
during the winter months, were due to the Influence of Barton Springs flow
contributions into Town Lake. Turbidity measurements exhibited transient
increases after storm events, but the magnitude of runoff-generated turbidity
is more pronounced in Town Lake than Austin Lake. The limited data on toxic
materials, such as pesticides and heavy metals, indicate that few of these
materials are detectable in the waters of Lake Austin and Town Lake, and those
that do occur are not found in concentrations that might be harmful to aquatic
life or the beneficial uses of the water supply. It Is possible, however,
that the historic sampling for toxic pollutants did not coincide with runoff
events, and that these materials are rapidly attenuated within the water column
by dilution with Lake Travis waters. Moreover, since most of these pollutants
are associated with suspended materials in the water column, there is a dis-
tinct possibility that they have accumulated In the sediments.
The receiving water sampling program is being conducted based on the following
premises:
(1) The on-going water quality sampling program will be used to provide
baseline information on Lake Austin and Town Lake for the more
conventional water quality parameters, rather than expending the
limited field sampling resources on duplication of effort.
(2) A program for toxics which endanger biota and/or drinking water
supplies will be implemented in a stepwise fashion - a preliminary
screening at sites where a high potential for occurrence exists,
followed by sediment and water sampling to verify the spatial
distribution in the lakes. Toxic materials identified during actual
runoff sampling in the lake tributaries will have the highest
priorities for toxics testing.
(3) The best time for water quality sampling in Lake Austin and Town Lake
to determine toxics or other constituents that appear in low con-
centrations would be during the winter months when the impact of
releases from Lake Travis Is minimal and lake retention times are
longest.
G19-12
(4) Water quality results from the initial runoff events should be used
in defining the parameters of concern for receiving waters, especially
when event-oriented sampling is undertaken. The list can be updated
if subsequent sampling indicates that other relevant constituents
appear on a seasonal basis or exhibit highly variable ambient levels.
(5) Baseline biological samples will be curtailed (I.e., seasonal
samples) and the biological sampling program reoriented to "problem"
areas where toxics and other water quality parameters might have a
. biological impact. Pre-event and post event monitoring might still
be warranted at sites experiencing significant water quality changes
due to urban runoff; however, such monitoring may produce inconclusive
Information.
The rationale for sampling site locations Is as follows:
(1) In Lake Austin, control stations where the influence of nonpoint
source pollution Is minimal will continue to be monitored through
the existing water quality network, rather than establishing a NURP
site there. Hypolimnetic releases from Lake Travis which tend to
dictate the overall flow and water quality regimes in the downstream
riverine lakes are likely to remain fairly constant on the short-
term basis, although the significant seasonal differences in the
magnitude of these releases are well documented. On-going water
quality monitoring.programs below Mansfield Dam will be used since
good long-term data records are available and monitoring continues
on a frequent basis.
(2) The new station alignment will have sampling points located where
they are likely to be Influenced by urban-related runoff or septic
tank drainage. Since the effects of runoff events are likely to be
short-lived in lakes dominated by upstream releases, It is important
to locate the sampling sites where the best information can be
obtained. With this in mind, the stations will be located at the
confluence of major tributaries with both Lake Austin and Town Lake
since these are the best sites for nonpoint event-oriented sampling.
(3) Each station will Include all relevant vertical dimensions at the
sampling site to ensure that samples represent ambient conditions
throughout the water column, even when thermal stratification and
tributary mixing zones are involved.
The nonevent sampling is limited to a screening function in order to
indicate the presence of toxic materials and other constituents which are
likely to affect the beneficial uses of lake water. It Is imperative that
the sampling activities be closely oriented to those environmental areas where
the maximum useful information on runoff-related conditions can be obtained.
For instance, it would be unwise to enter directly into detailed phytoplankton
and macroinvertebrate collection and Identification on a lake-wide basis
and expect to distinguish between runoff-induced effects and natural environ-
mental variation, given the limited sampling resources available. Although
changes in abundance and diversity of these biological indicators has been
a useful tool in assessing the effects of point souce loadings on a waterbody,
their value as biological measures of runoff-related impacts has yet to be eval-
uated.
G19-13
-------
."• /NORTHWEST AUSTIN /
/SITE
r
L
NOTE:
A-E ARE USGS SAMPLING STATIONS
ES IS NURP DESIGNATION OF
SAMPLING STATION
UATER QUALITY SAMPLING POINTS
ON TOWN LAKE
FIGURE 5
G19-14
UATER QUALITY SAMPLING POINTS
ON LAKE AUSTIN
FIGURE 6
619-15
-------
The initial nonevent sampling In the receiving waters Include water, sediment,
and fish tissue sampling from stations in both Town Lake and Lake Austin.
Samples are being collected from three stations located in each lake
in order to detect the presence of any constituent(s) which may represent
potential environmental hazards. Such sampling should provide data on the
relative magnitude of ambient pollutant concentrations In these three environ-
mental media. Regardless of whether or not the water samples show significant
levels of a given constituent, the long-term accumulations of potentially
toxic constituents in the sediments and biomass in the lakes are likely to be
revealed by this initial screening, so that appropriate resources can be
applied to the assessment of those critical constituents In later stages of
the receiving water program.
A single water sample per station (composited from various depths) is being
collected to describe the current status of many aqueous constituents within
the lake waters, while sediment and fish tissue samples provide data on long-
term interactions between certain persistent constituents and the other major
environmental media. Two sediment grabs and two adult fish samples are being
taken at each of the six field stations for subsequent laboratory analyses.
Additional sediment samples are scheduled at two other Lake Austin stations
to expand the available baseline on long-term accumulations. Sediments at
some major tributaries (primarily 1n Town Lake) may also be included In this
initial screening based on prior monitoring results. The list of those con-
stituents and parameters to be initially investigated in the water, sediment,
and tissue samples taken from the lakes is presented In Table 1.
Although the constituent list does not include a majority of the 129 priority
toxic pollutants, it does contain the ones whose presence In the lakes have
been documented by the ongoing U.S.G.S. lake quality sampling program. A
complete priority pollutant analysis will not be included at all in the receiving
water study program. Priority pollutant sampling of storm water runoff in
tributary watersheds will be used to Identify additional substances of concern
and to update the analysts list as necessary.
The ultimate direction of the receiving water program for water quality
constituents will be related to whether or not toxic materials are encountered
in the water, sediment, or biomass samples taken during the screening phase.
This flexibility in reorienting the later stages of the receiving water study
based upon the results of an initial screening Is crucial to the proper con-
duct of an Investigation which will emphasize the effect of runoff pollutant
loadings on the ecology of the receiving waters, especially when only minimal
ambient levels or sublethal biota responses to the pollutants are expected.
Only a small number of toxics have been found In the lakes during previous
monitoring efforts, and their ambient concentrations have been very low, so
this initial screening process Is important to verify the current status with
regard to the presence of any toxic materials in the receiving bodies that may
threaten Austin's water supply or the other beneficial uses of these lakes.
When high environmental levels of a toxic substance(s) are detected, additional
sampling to determine the extent of its spatial and temporal distribution in
the receiving water bodies may be required, including the use of additional
field stations and increased sampling frequency. Similarly, additional
biological samples can be taken to determine body burden of the pollutant
constituents present in the tissue of different biota groups, or to examine
the prevailing resident community structure and diversity for signs of pollu-
tant-related stress.
G19-16
If the initial screening showed a pattern of toxic material deposited in
the sediments, the second phase of the receiving water program would require
an expansion of the sediment analysis activities. Sediment samples taken in
the deltaic deposits located at the mouths of tributaries would indicate the
extent of the toxics distribution In the coarse-grained sediments, while mud
samples from the deepest portions of the lakes near the dams reflect the slow
accumulations of fine-grained sediments and associated materials. Sediment
collection sites would generally be limited to those locations where suspicious
levels of one or more toxics previously have been detected.
Storm Event Monitoring
If ambient levels of toxic materials are not sufficient to warrant concern
on a long-term basis in areas known to already receive substantial Inputs of
storm water runoff, then the monitoring of limnologlcal effects from specific
rainfall events would gain in Importance. During the initial phases, this
event-oriented sampling program will receive inputs directly from the storm
water runoff analysis efforts to define the probable constituents of concern
that are being discharged from local watersheds Including both toxics (pre-
dominately common pesticides and heavy metals) and nontoxic constituents
which are likely to affect the lakes in an observable manner. The available
resources of the receiving water program can be placed on event-oriented
activities on the lakes which focus on short-term effects by the more convent-
ional constituents present in runoff (i.e., suspended solids, oil and grease,
etc.). Rather than representing direct health threats to hunans or aquatic
biota, as one might expect with toxic materials, the conventional pollutant
component of runoff produces secondary environmental effects, such as in-
creasing the treatment cost of drinking water or slightly altering the
aesthetic desirability of a recreational water body.
Three or more separate runoff events will be monitored in Lake Austin and
Town Lake, primarily from the mouth of major tributaries. It is not practical
to sample at the confluence of the same tributaries which have runoff flow and
quality monitoring stations in place, because of their relatively small con-
tribution to the lake. Larger tributaries, such as Bull Creek and Dry Creek
on Lake Austin or Shoal Creek and Waller Creek on Town Lake are better
candidate stations because of the greater magnitude of change that their
discharges can Introduce into the subject receiving waters. Water quality
sampling stations may be located along the mldchannel axis of the lake or along
the middle of the prevailing discharge plume, whichever spatial pattern best
describes the changing pattern of water quality. Furthermore, rather than
be composited as in the inltal screening samples, water quality samples are
to be taken at distinct depths during storm water discharge from tributaries,
so that the vertical dimensions of the discharge pluiie can be represented
properly. The initial phase of the biological program will involve laboratory
analyses of fish tissue to identify those toxic materials which are found to
bioconcentrate in the lake fishes. This approach utilizes the resident
fishes as long-term indicators of chronic exposure to low levels of toxic
substances that may be present in storm water runoff. When used in con-
junction with water and sediment quality data collected during the preliminary
sampling effort, this Information provides the basis for a comprehensive
ecological evaluation of the Impacts associated with urban storm water
pollution.
G19-17
-------
CONSTITUENT ANALYSES ru BE PERFORMED
DURING INITIAL LAKE SAMPLING
Environmental Media
Parameter
Sediment
General
Specific conductance, in situ
pH. in situ
Temperature, in situ
Dissolved oxygen (DO), in situ
Sediment volatile fraction
Sediment particle size distribution
Liglit-Intensity-Related
Transparency (Seechi disk). In situ
Color
Filter photometer - light extinction, in situ
Organic Potlution
e-day biochuiiical oxygen demand (BUiX),
a I col i forms
al chemical oxygen doudiiLj (COD)
al suspended solids (TSS)/turbidity
al dissolved solids (IDS)
total
Total organic carbon (TOC)
nutrients
Nitrate-nitrogen
Nitrite-nitrogen
Auviioni a-nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl-nitrogen (TKN)
Alkalinity (HCU " CO ~)
Total phosphorus
Dissolved ortliophosphate
Metals
Arsenic
Copper
Udd
Mercury
Zinc
Cadmium
Total Organics
Total hydrocarbons x
Oefoltants
Total 2,4-0 (2.4-dischlorophenoxyacetic acid) x
Total 2.4.5-T (2.4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)x
Total diazinon x
000
ODE
DOT
Pulychlorinated biphenyls
One of the reasons for limiting the scope of the biological activities is
the lack of evidence for biological degradation In the lakes due to pollutant
loadings. A mult(faceted biological sampling program that includes bacterio-
logical, plankton and macro invertebrate sampling, primary productively estimates,
and fish tissue analyses would be ideal when assessing easily observable environ-
mental problems. 'However, it would have to be done on a massive scale for
the purpose of verifying the more subtle environmental effects. Therefore,
the extent of their use in either dry-weather or storm event-oriented sampling
will be based on the capacity of these biological parameters to indicate change
due to gross runoff loadings or specific constituents in a given nonpoint
source discharge.
In order to meet objectives with regard to identifying and assessing those
environmental effects induced by urban runoff loadings, it will be necessary
to reduce the number of baseline samples aimed at illustrating natural seasonal
differences in biota composition and diversity. Also, it may be necessary
to conduct some collections without simultaneous detailed water quality
analyses (except for the more conventional parameters that are measured in
situ) to conserve resources. Biological field samples may be collected
Initially at each take station to familiarize the field team with the typical
composition and distribution of the biota: however, it would be impractical
to develop a systemwide, long-term biological baseline for evaluation of
urban storm water effects. An assessment of the more probable short-term
liianological phenomena regarding changes in ambient hydrology and water quality
conditions following a storm water runoff event In the watershed will often
necessitate sampling near the point of maximum effect (i.e., the mouths of
major lake tributaries) by implementing component activities of one or more
of the original biological work elements. For example, bacteriological
quality samples and primary production estimates via experimental setups may
be taken in the runoff plume that enters the lake. Plankton and macro inverte-
brate collections would likely be omitted during heavy runoff discharge
because of the disruptive effect on distribution patterns due to the increased
flow velocities.
C. Monitoring
In addition to the receiving water sampling program just described, a storm water
runoff sampling program will be conducted. There are 4 sampling sites, for
the subwatersheds Indicated in Figure 2, and in greater detail for the Northwest
Austin and Rollingwood Sites in Figures 3 and 4. The storm rainfall, time-
varying flow and water quality data are collected at each of the four r stations
for a series of storms. The Turkey Creek site drains directly to Lake Austin,
typifying an undeveloped condition. The Rollingwood and Northwest Austin sites
are located withih Town Lake Watershed, representing low and high impervious cover
developments, respectively. The Uoodhollow site is below the dam at the outlet
of Uoodhollow detention pond. The inlet of the pond coincides with the northwest
sampling site, (identified as the Hart Lane site.) Under the City of Austin/USGS
data collection cooperative program, the USGS has installed automatic water quality
samplers in Bull Creek and Shoal Creek basins. Storm event data are being
collected at the two stations. These data will also be incorporated into this
study.
G19-18
G19-19
-------
Storm load will be calculated for each pollutant of significance which was
measured during the monitoring. The calculation will permit an evaluation
of the relative magnitude of nonpolnt source pollutant loads from each of the
study areas. The average annual load is to be evaluated from the storm load
information and rainfall characteristics, coupling the Information developed
from the storm sampling with the data obtained from the receiving water study;
the existing and potential impacts on Lake Austin/Town Lake water quality and
aquatic ecology can be estimated and described.
The cost/benefit of control measures for minimizing the impacts will also be
analyzed. The changes In benefits and costs resulting from a given urban
runoff control measure determine the merit of the Implementation.
Equipment
The instrumentation for storm water quality and quantity sampling is of the
automatic type. In addition, for the purpose of measuring runoff event volume,
suitable hydraulic control devices were Installed at the mouth of each sub-
watershed being monitored. An ML flume was selected for the Rollingwood
site, a triangular broadcrested weir for the Turkey Creek site, and a critical
depth meter for the Northwest Austin site.
Controls
The storm water runoff is being monitored at the three subwatersheds, described
above. One of the three, Northwest Austin, Includes a detention basin
which has been incorporated into the study. The other two sub-basins are
representative of differing levels of development which will provide information
on runoff impacts.
019-20
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
METROPLAN
LITTLE ROCK, AR
REGION VI, EPA
S20-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The City of Little Rock, situated in Pulaski County is located in the approximate
center or the State of Arkansas. The local topography consists of gentle hills and
wetlands, drained by the niainstein of the Fourche Creek, crossing from west to east
and entering the Arkansas River, east of the city. The Fourche Creek and its major
tributaries drain ninety percent of the urban area.
Upstream of the urban area, Fourche Creek is dominated by rural runoff. Within the
urban area the water quality of Fourche Creek has been classified in Use Class B,
Fishery Class U. The definition is "suitable for desirable species of fish, wildlife
and other aquatic and semi-aquatic life, raw water source for public water supplies,
secondary contact recreation and other uses." It will support a warm water fishery.
The Fourche, where it passes through the urban area, has been classified as water
quality limited.
Areas to the west of the urbanized center of Little Rock are becoming developed.
Census figures for 1960, 1970 and 1980 are respectively, 107,800, 132,483 and 158,461.
These increases occurred at the rate of 22.9 percent from 1960 to 1970, and 19.6 percent
from 1970 to 1980. The rate of increase in population in the Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area between 1970 and 1980 was 21.7 percent. Between 19SO and 1980,
this rate was approximately 80%. growing from 220,327 to 393,494. Although growth has
slowed down, it appears to be going up close to 20 percent in ten years in both the
SHSA and in the City of Little Rock.
Such growth will continue to increase urbanization during the coming decades. Of
concern to local and state agencies are the impacts such continued growth will have
on the runoff pollution of Fourche Creek and its tributaries above that already
being experienced.
Local agencies are cooperating on this project expecting that evaluation of BMP's
will provide information on the most cost-effective, acceptable ways of improving
water quality in the Fourche drainage network.
G20-2
o
—i a.
a:
620-3
-------
LITTLE ROCK STREETS
USGS QUAD SHEET
FIGURE 2
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The City of Little Rock, situated In Pulaskl County, Is located In approximately
the middle of the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas River, following South-Southwest
through the area forms a boundary between Little Rock and North Little Rock. The
total area to the city comprises about 87.8square miles. Little Rock Is the location
of the state capltol, and Includes forests, agricultural, residential, commercial and
some Industrial development, along with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
B. Population
The City of Little Rock population of 158,461, based on the 1980 decennial federal
census, Is projected to grow about 20% every 10 years. The population in the year
2000 will reach about 190,000, much of the growth accomodated In the upper reaches
of the Fourche Creek system.
C. Drainage
The Fourche Creek system flowing generally from west to east, drains 90% of urbanized
Little Rock to the Arkansas River. Host of the urbanized area (90-95%) is served with
storm drains and curbs and gutters with the remainder served by drainage ditches and
swales. In the less developed areas, this percentage drops to about one-third served
with curbs, gutter and storms drains. The Arkansas River eventually flows into the
Mississippi River.
0. Sewerage
The urban area is 100 percent served with a separate sanitary sewer system, or with
on-site septic tank systems. Evidence has been uncovered In past studies that some
pollutants are entering the drainage network from Improperly installed and/or main-
tained septic tanks. Also, surcharging manholes cause high fecal coll form counts
in the streams.
G20-4
,G20-5
-------
x.,>
FOURCHE CREEK WATERSHED
FIGURE 3
G20-6
»6, near airport
»7, Little
Fourcha-
65 th
Coleman Cree
13, & Asher
IS, Fourche Creek @
University Avenue
U 16 th
.f5, Fourche Creek
@ Highway 5
SAMPLING SITES SCHEMATIC LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4
G20-7
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - ARI, Catchment Oil, Rock Creek
A. Area - 5,265.4 acres.
B. Population - 53? persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 24.7
feet/mile, 35Z served with curbs and gutters and 65X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 24.7 feet/mile
slope, and extend 60,720 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 53.5 lane miles of asphalt, 90% of which is in
good condition, and the remaining 10X is evenly split between fair
and poor condition. In addition there are about 6 lane miles of
concrete, also classified percentage-wise the same way.
E. Land Use
444.8 acres (8.4X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 164.6 acres (37*) is Impervious.
19.8 acres (0.4X) is Shopping Center, of which
16.2 acres (82%) is impervious.
12.3 acres (6.2%) is Urban Industrial (light), of which
1.5 acres (12X) Is Impervious.
175.4 acres (3.3%) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
3.5 acres (2X) is impervious.
405.2 acres is Agriculture.
4,081.9 acres is Forest.
14.8 acres (0.3X) Is Water, Reservoirs.
111.2 acres (2.IX) Is Barrens.
II. Catchment Name - ARI Catchment 012, Rock Creek
A. Area - 4808.3 acres.
B. Population - 22,875 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 24.7
feet/mile, 35% served with curbs and gutters and 65% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 24.7 feet/mile
slope, and extend 60,720 feet.
G20-8
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 53.5 lane miles of asphalt, 90X of which Is in
good condition, 5X of which is In fair condition, and 5% of which
is in poor condition. In addition, there are about 6 lane miles
of concrete, of which 90X is in good condition, 5X is in fair
condition, and 5X is in poor condition.
E. Land Use
2629.0 acres (54.7%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 972.7 acres (37%) is Impervious.
605.4 acres (12.6%) is Central Business District, of which
363.2 acres (60%) is impervious.
291.6 acres (6.1%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
14.6 a.cres (5X) is impervious.
1,210.7 acres (25.2X) is Forest.
7.4 acres (0.2X) is Water, Lakes.
7.4 acres (0.2X) is Water, Reservoirs.
56.8 acres (1.2%) Is Barrens.
III. Catchment Name - ARI Catchment 013, Rock Creek
A. Area - 706.7 acres.
B. Population - 2789 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 24.7
feet/mile, 35X served with curbs and gutters and 65X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 24.7 feet/mile
slope and extend 60,720 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 53.5 lane miles of asphalt, 90X of which is in
good condition, 5% is fair condition, and SX is In poor condition.
In addition there are about 6 lane miles of concrete, of which 90%
is in good condition 5% is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor
condition.
E. Land Use
264.4 acres (37.4%) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 66.1 acres (25X) is impervious.
G20-9
-------
259.4 acres (36.7%) is Central Business District, of which
220.5 acres (85*) is impervious.
49.4 acres (7%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
0.5 acre (li) is impervious.
111.2 acres (15.7%) is Forest.
22.2 acres (3.IX) is Wetlands.
IV. Catchment Name - AR1 Catchment 021. Grassy Flat Creek
A. Area - 2433.8 acres.
B. Population - 12,840 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 32
feet/mile, 90% served with curbs and gutters and 10% served with
swales and ditches. The stomi sewers approximate a 32 feet/mile
slope and extend 21,120 feet.
D. Sewerage - Draiange area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 70.9 lane miles of asphalt, 90% of which is in
good condition, 5% is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor condition.
In addition ther are about 17.7 lane miles of concrete, of which 90%
is in good condition, 5% is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor
condition.
E. Land Use
1571.5 acres (64.6%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 581.5 acres (37%) is impervious.
276.4 acres (11.4%) is Shopping Center, of which
226.5 acres (82%) is impervious.
306.4 acres (12.6%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
15.3 acres (5%) is impervious.
185.3 acres (7.6%) is Forest.
17.3 acres (0.7) is Water, Reservoirs.
76.6 acres (3.1%) is Barrens.
V. Catchment Name - AR1 Catchment 022, Grassy Flat Creek
A. Area - 677 acres.
B. Population - 3,516 persons.
G20-10
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 32
feet/mile, 90% served with curbs and gutters and 10% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 32 feet/mile
slope and extend 21,120 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 70.9 lane miles of asphalt, 90% of which is in
good condition, 5% Is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor condition.
In addition there are about 17.7 lane miles of concrete, of which
90% is In good condition, 5% Is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor
condition.
E. Land Use
410.2 acres (60.6%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 151.8 acres (37%) is impervious.
54.4 acres (8.2%) is Shopping Center, of which
44.6 acres (82%) is impervious.
66.7 acres (9.8%) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
3.3 acres (5%) Is Impervious.
123.5 acres (18.2%) is Forest.
22.2 acres (3.3%) is Water, Reservoirs.
VI. Catchment Name - Afil Catchment 031, Coleraan Creek
A. Area - 2124.9 acres.
B. Population - 10.624 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 44.8
feet/mile, 95% served with curbs and gutters and 5% served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 44.8 feet/mile
slope and extend 22,986 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 1002 separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 19.4 lane miles of asphalt. 90% of which is in
good condition, 5% is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor condition.
In addition there are about 4.8 lane miles of concrete, of which 90%
is in good condition, 5% is in fair condition, and 5% is in poor
condition.
E. Land Use
1166.2 acres (54.9%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
residential, of which 431.5 acres (37%) is impervious.
G20-11
-------
593.0 acres (27.9X) is Shopping Center, of which
486.3 acres (82X) is Impervious.
227.3 acres (10.7%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
22.7 acres (10X) is impervious.
117.6 acres is Forest
12.4 acres is Hater, Reservoirs.
7.4 acres is Barrens.
VII. Catchment Maine - AR1 Catchment 032, Coleman Creek
A. Area - 120.5 acres.
B. Population - 89 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 44.8
feet/mile, 95X served with curbs and gutters and 5X served with
swales and ditches. The storm sewers approximate a 44.8 feet/mile
slope and extend 22,968 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 19.4 lane miles of asphalt, 90X of which is in
good condition, 5X is in fair condition, and 5% Is in poor condition.
In addition there are about 4.8 lane miles of concrete, of which 90%
is in good condition, 5X is in fair conditions, and 5X is in poor
condition.
E. Land Use
56.8 acres (44.2X) is Shopping Center, of which
48.3 acres (85X) is Impervious.
71.7 acres (55.8X) is Wetlands.
PROBLEM
A. Local definition (government)
The Corps of Engineers is currently developing a local stormwater control project
to control flooding in the Fourche drainage system. The study Included comments
on the necessity for improving Fourche water quality 1f full benefits to the coramuntiy
are to be realized from that project. The 208 plan identifies urban runoff into
the Fourche as the most significant nonpoint water quality problem in the metropolitan
area.
Pollutants identified as contributing to water quality problans include excessive
fecal and total coliform concentrations, low pll, phosphorus, heavy metals concen-
trations, low dissolved oxygen levels, and violations of BOD and suspended solids
standards.
The flood management program with the Corps of Engineers proposes a 1,750 acre public
use area in the Fourche Bottoms in the south part of the city, oriented toward water
related activities not supportable given present poor water quality.
B. Local perception (public awareness)
The Fourche system Improvement will benefit a large number of residents in less
affluent neighborhoods, and minority groups through whose neighborhoods the main
stem and its major tributaries flow. Because of recent flood experiences and
subsequent Increased public awareness of Fourche Creek, proposals have been made
to coordinate development to accommodate flood protection and water quality im-
provement goals. The city, the county, the health department and the local
University of Arkansas are all actively participating in various projects deal-
ing with Fourche Creek. Warning signs have been posted on several of the
streams-, and the public Is aware that water quality problems deny some bene-
ficial uses of Fourche Creek.
G20-12
G20-13
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
Hater quality of the Fourche Creek system was identified previously in the 208
plan, and by the Corps of Engineers in the flood protection plan as an area
where improvement was needed. The urban runoff contribution to the pollution
problem has been identified as a major source.
The Little Rock NUliP project, being conducted by Hetroplan, a Council of Local
Governments, is a continuation of the prior 208 study. In brief, this project will
evaluate specific best management practices for effectiveness and cost, and determine
the beneficial impacts of implementation of those best management practices determined
most cost effective, throughout the drainage system.
During the period from October 1980 to June 1981, the sampling program has collected
information during dry weather periods 17 tiroes, producing 891 data points. Rainfall
event sampling during the same period was conducted during 13 events, with a total
of 2,258 data points obtained. In addition to further sampling, and data analysis,
the remaining project efforts will be evaluation of selected best management practices.
The first year sampling program will be directed at determining background conditions
present in the Fourche Creek system. Pollutant loads which are generated by urban
stormwater runoff will be developed. Runoff from an isolated watershed with a
predominant land use pattern will be sampled to calibrate an urban runoff model storm.
After water quality problems have been identified, their sources will be located.
Best management practices will be evaluated for effectiveness, the presence of priority
pollutants will be determined, and pollutant contributions from the Fourche tributaries
to the main stem will be identified.
B. Methodologies
Sampling sites have been selected by the joint efforts of Metroplan and the
University of Arkansas, Little Rock (UALR), taking into account accessibility, ability
to sample during events, how well runoff represented basin water quality, and ability
to determine instantaneouos discharge. Sites selected along the mainstream and on
the major tributaries are depicted in the schematic shown as Figure 4. At least
seven flow proportional samples will be taken to make up the composite sample,
three on the rising leg and four after the peak. The university, utilizing
students, is obtaining the samples and performing analyses in compliance with
quality assurance and control requirements.
C.
The study area consists of a portion of the Fourche Creek drainage system in Little
Ruck. In addition to the mainstem, Grassy Flat Creek, Rock Creek, Col email Creek and
Little Fourche Creek are part of the study.
G20-14
CHECK DAMS
SODDING B
STABILIZED AREAS
SAMPLING SITE
(No Seal*)
SODDING AND CATCH BASINS
MAR MEMORIAL PARK
FIGURE 5
G20-15
-------
W///A CHANNEL OEARWG.BANK REUXATCN
£i§i RIP RAP 8 VEGETATION
O SAMPLING SITE
STABILIZATION OF ROCK CREEK
FIGURE 6
(No Scol*)
G20-16 '
RIP RAP BANK
(No Seal*I
RIP RAP BANK
GRASSY FLAT BRANCH
FIGURE 7
G20-17
-------
LOW WATER BRIDGE
ACTING AS 0AM
o
SAMPLING SITE
LOU WATER BRIDGE ACTING AS DAM
ROCK CREEK. BOYLE PARK
FIGURE 8
The list of parameters and consituents examined in each sample includes: BOD,.,
total suspended solids, totat phosphorus, total nitrogen, fecal coli, lead, ztnc,
chromium, aluminum, chemcial oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, rainfall, flow,
and temperature. For a few samples, the presense of priority pollutants will
be analysed.
D. Equipment
For this project no automatic water sampling equipment was Installed. Rather,
students at the university were utilized to obtain the grab samples and record
field conditions in accordance with the established schedule.
Controls
Following completion of the first year program of background sampling, a
determination was made with regard to which types of best manageuent practices
would be used. The decision was made to evaluate the benefits gained by seed-
ing, sodding, retention basins, and bank stabilization with rip rap and gabions.
Their locations are shown schematically in Figures 5-8.
G20-18
G20-19
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS AND.
INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI
REGION VII,- EPA
G21-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Hater Quality Management 208 Final Plan for the Kansas City Metropolitan
Region concluded that "specific sources of nonpoint source pollution In the
208 area have not yet been identified" and that additional information must
be collected to identify the nonpoint sources, determine their impact on water
quality, and develop control measures. Because of the large size of the
Kansas City Metropolitan Region (4000 square miles), nonpoint source monitor-
ing was not performed in the original 208 program. Instead, nonpoint source
loadings were calculated using loading functions.
The impact of urban runoff on water quality in the Kansas City Metropolitan
Region has not been intensively studied. However, both Indian Creek and Rock
Creek appear to have water quality problems. Results of several years of
macroinvertebrate study on Indian Creek indicate that stressed conditions exist
in stream reaches receiving urban runoff. There are no existing water quality
or biological data for Rock Creek, but visual observations indicate that water
quality in Rock Creek is adversely affected by urban runoff. Large amounts of
debris, transported by stormwater runoff and high stream flow conditions, is
present in Rock Creek.
The primary objective of the Kansas City NURP Study Is to document the magnitude
and sources of urban runoff loadings to Indian Creek and Rock Creek and to
determine their impact on water quality and biota.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The Kansas City metropolitan region, located at the confluence of the Missouri
and Kansas rivers, has grown from a small fur-trading settlement to a sprawling
metropolitan region that Is home to more than 1.3 million people. The area
covers nearly 4,000 square miles.
Until the end of World War II, most development In the metropolitan area occured
In a semi-circular core area south of the Missouri River that Includes the
central business districts of the two Kansas Citys. At this time, the core area
was the most dominant sector. In recent decades, however, most development has
occured outward from the core and along major transportation corridors. Freeway
access and annexations by local governments, which provide urban services and
facilities, have encouraged such suburban development. This suburban growth
has occured primarily In Johnson. Platte. and Clay counties.
Residential development occupies more than 54J of the acres In urban use In 1973.
The predominant residential use Is the single family dwelling.
The topography, soils and water resources of the region are the most significant
aspects of the region's physical environment. A large portion of the region Is
composed of gently rolling hills with elevations ranging from 690 feet to 1200
feet. There are numerous areas of steeps slopes and low-lying flood plains,
where care must be taken If development Is to occur.
The surface water resources of the region are various. Within the region, numerous
creeks and streams drain Into the Missouri and Kansas Rivers. In addition, there
are eleven major man-made lakes of fifty surface acres or larger.
B. Population
According to population projections adopted by Mid-America Regional Council,
future growth Is expected to occur In surburban areas, primarily In Johnson,
Clay. Platte, and eastern Jackson counties. Urban land use Is projected to
Increase by more than 30 percent by the year 2000.
C. Drainage
The study Is taking place In two separate drainage areas in two different
states.
Indian Creek. In Johnson County. Kansas orglnates near 01athe and flows pass the
urbanizing area of Lenexa and Overland Park Into the Blue River. Indian Creek
drains one of the most rapidly developing areas In the Region. .Slopes range
from mild to moderate. Land use ranges from low to medium density residential,
shopping centers and light Industrial. The average number of rain events for
the period 1960 to 1976 Is over 100 per year, with a mean annual rainfall of
38.8 inches.
G21-2
G21-3
-------
Hock Creek, in the city of Independence. Missouri forms its headwaters
in southwest Independence and flows north into the Missouri River just
below the mouth of the Blue River. Rock Creek drains an area of 9.2
square miles in the southwest and west parts of the city. Rock Creek
has many small tributaries. It has an average channel width of 30 feet.
and an average slope of 40 feet per mile. The watershed contains moderate
to steep sloes, resulting in frequent flooding of urban areas adjacent
to the creek. The study area has a mean annual rainfall of 40.64 Inches.
Land use is primarily old low to medium density residential and strip
commercial.
Sewerage System
There are some combined sewers in the Mid-America Regional Council's
planning area. However, both areas being studied have separate sewer
systems, (see Figure 2.16)
Kansas City
Totnrka
Q Independence
Q Kansas City
rlan'
terland Park
O 01 h the
O
Jefferson City
Missouri
THE STATES OF KANSAS AND MISSOURI
G21-4
G21-5
-------
Rock Creek
Study Area
Indian Creek
Study Area
LEGEND
Urban Subwaterthed
::::::. Combined Sewer System
MARC 208 AREA
PROJECT AREA
Rock Creek Study Area
I. Catchment Name - Rock Creek Residential Site (RR)
A. Area. - 58 acres.
B. Population - 457 persons.
C. Land Use
58 acres (100X) is Medium Density Residential.
II. Catchment Name - Rock Creek Commercial (RC)
A. Area - 36 acres.
B. Population - 122 persons.
Land Use
C.
18 acres (SOX) Is Median Density Residential
18 acres-(SOS) is Commercial
III. Catchment Name - RS 1 (In-strean Site)
A. Area - 3045 acres.
B. Population - 25,197 persons.
C. Land Use
18.797 acres (74.6t) is Medina Density Residential
1.260 acres (5X) Is Commercial
806 acres (3.2X) Is Industrial
957 acres (3.8X) Is Parkland
3.276 acres (13X) is Vacant Land
100 acres (,4X) Is Urban Area Under Construction
IV. Catchment Name - RS 2 (In-strean Site)
A. Area - 4624 acres.
B. Population - 40,190 persons.
C. Land Use
3436 acres (74.3X) is Hediun Density Residential
4.4X) Is
2.2X) is
Commercial
Industrial
203 acres
102 acres
305 acres
569 acres
9 acres (.2X) Is Urban Area Under Construction
6.6X) Is Parkland
12.3X) Is Vacant Land
GZ1-6
G21-7
-------
V. Catchment Name - RS 3 (In-slream Site)
A. Area - 5566 acres.
B. Population - 51.237 persons.
C. Land Use
4.035 (72.5*) is Medium Density Residential
245 acres (4.4X) is Commercial
100 acres (1.8*) is Industrial
412 acres (7.4*) is Parkland
763 acres (13.7%) is Vacant Land
11 acres (.2%) is Urban Area Under Construction
G21-8
INDEPENDENCE. HO STUDY SITES
G21-9
-------
ct
CO
Indian Creek Study Area
I. Catchment Name - Indian Creek Commercial Site (1C)
A. Area - 58 acres.
B. Land Use
55.7 acres (96X) Is Commercial
2.3 acres (4X) ts Vacant Land
II. -Catchment Name - Indian Creek Light Industrial Site (II)
A. Area - 72 acres.
B. Land Use
40.3 acres (56X) is Industrial
31.7 acres (44%) ts Vacant Land
III. Catchment Name - Indian Creek Residential (IR)
A. Area'- 63 acres.
B. Land Use
56 acres (89X) is Mediun Density Residential
2 acres (3X) Is High Density Residential
5 acres (8X) is Parkland
IV. Catchment Name - IS 1 (In-stream Site)
A. Area - 11,005 acres.
V. Catchment Name - IS 2 (In-strean Site)
This site is currently being moved.
VI. Catchment Name - IS 3 (In-strean Site)
A. Area - 16,862 acres.
VII. Catchment Name - IS 4 (In-stream Site)
A. Area - 1372 acres.
VIII. Catchment None - IS 5 (In-stream Site)
A. Area - 23,941 acres.
Note: All fixed site data was not submitted in time for inclusion In this
report.
G21-10
621-11
-------
m^feyjs
. HI
CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA & MONITORING SITES, INDIAN CREtK
G21-12
621-13
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROBLEM
A. Local definition
The Impact of urban runoff on water quality In the Kansas City metropolitan
region has not been Intensively studied and, thus quantitative water quality
data are not available to assess the Impact of water quality problems. Result:
of several years of macro*nvertebrate study on Indian Creek indicate that
stressed conditions exist in stream reaches receiving urban runoff. The
macro!nvertebrate data indicate that the only point source discharge to
the Indian Creek study area does not adversely affect the macroinvertebrate
population In the urbanized area.
There are no existing water quality or biological data for Rock Creek, but
visual observations indicate that water quality In Rock Creek Is adversely
affected by urban runoff. Throughout the study area there is evidence of
sewer streambank erosion and sediment deposition. Large amounts of debris,
transported by stormwater runoff and high stream flow conditions is present
in Rock Creek.
Johnson County is also Interested in collecting urban runoff data for input
Into the 201 facilities plan for the Indian Creek watershed. A wastewater
treatment plant is proposed and the urban runoff data may have a significant
Impact on the degree of treatment required at the proposed plant.
The city of Independence also has some very specific objectives for the
NURP study. The city will be performing their own stormwater management
study encompassing the entire 78 square mile area. However, their study .
will last only 16 months versus 36 months for the NURP study. The city
is interested in transferring the results of the NURP study to help calculate
the hydro!oglcal characteristics of Independence and develop stormwater
control methods.
B. Local perception
Indian Creek in Johnson County Is highly visible to the residents. The
stream Is classified as a class B stream. This means the waters must be
protected for secondary contact recreation, the preservation and propagation
of desirable species of fresh warm water aquatic biota, public water supply,
Industrial water suppy and agricultural purposes. In Johnson County the
citizens seem to be Interested In the water quality of the creek.
Rock Creek is not classified by Missouri since It is considered an ephemeral
stream. The creek does seem to be affected by stormwater runoff as evidenced
by the areas of severe erosion and sedimentation, and from the large amounts
of debris found in the stream. The main concern with the citizens of
Independence seems to be flooding.
A. Major Objective
The principal objectives of the study are to characterize urban runoff loadings
by land use and define the sources of the pollutants, to determine the impacts
of urban runoff on stream water quality and biota and to evaluate the effective-
ness of sedimentation basins and ponds In reducing urban runoff pollutants.
The project objectives are being accomplished by monitoring specific land uses
In the two study areas and by In-stream monitoring of water quality during both
dry and wet weather conditions.
B. Methodologies
Automatic flow measurement and sampling equipment was Installed at eight stations
In the Indian Creek Watershed. Three of the stations are to measure runoff from
three land uses. Five of the stations are In-stream stations to measure the
impact of urban runoff on water quality.
In the Rock Creek Watershed two stations were installed to measure stormwater
runoff from different land uses and three stations were installed on Rock Creek
to measure the impact of urban runoff on water quality.
Dry weather data Is also being collected once a month and analyzed for the
same parameters as the wet weather samples.
Base or 'low flow" pollutant loads will be calculated for each stream station
in order to determine the relative magnitude of loads generated during low flow
and during rain events.
The wet weather data (rainfall, flow and mean event concentrations) will be used
to develop load-runoff relationships that characterize the resulting water
quality from different types of storms and different land uses.
The land use runoff data will be analyzed using a method developed by Browne and
Bedlent. Graphs of area) pollutant loadings In pounds per acre versus runoff
In Inches over the land use area will be developed for various parameters. The
slope of a straight line through a plot of total pollutant loading versus runoff
will yield a pollutant concentration In pounds per acre-Inch. The slope of the
line can be expressed In units of concentration. Mean concentrations developed
using this method can be applied to runoff from other areas of similar land use
to calculate runoff loadings based on a knowledge of the runoff volume. An
attempt will be made to correlate the data to other characteristics such as soil
type, average slope, rain intensity, rain duration and peak storm flow.
Post-storm sampling data will be used to study the recovery mechanics In action
as the stream returns to base flow. Processes such as sedimentation, nutrient
transport, and precipitation will be emphasized during analysis of this data.
The stormwater quality results from the In-streara data will be analyzed In two
ways. First, concentration distributions will be constructed with the composite
concentrations from each storm to search for any temporal or spatial trends.
G21-14
621-15
-------
Particular attention will be paid to the difference between land uses. The
second analysis to be performed will calculate a total storm load (in Ibs.)
from each storm. This calculation will be performed by multiplying the composite
concentrations and the total discharge of direct runoff. The amount of direct
runoff »il! be determined by using a base flow separation technique on the
hydrograph from the flow meters. The actual procedure for calculating the
amount of direct runoff will consist of counting the marks made on the strip
chart that represent a sample being taken. These marks represent a ore-set
volume of runoff and will be used to calculate total flows. Annual loads from
the catchments above each station will be calculated for each parameter.
Relationships from the load-runoff relationships and the statistical analysis of
the data will be used to predict urban stormwater quality in other areas of the
Midwest Region. Key parameters in these relationships will be catchment size,
type of land use and basic geomorphlc data such as slope and soils. Using
these basic factors from a small subdivision or small industrial catchment
to a large urban watershed, the annual pollutant loads for different parameters
can be predicted.
The model will also be used in the City of Independence storoiwater study.
C. Monitoring
Automatic flow recording and sampling equipuent was Installed at each station.
The sampler is programmed to collect an equal volume sample for every programmed
volume of water that flows by the station. The resulting composite sample Is
analyzed in the laboratory. The sampling system Is activated during a storm event
by a mercury float switch set at a predetermined water level for each site. The
method will produce a volume-proportioned composite sample.
Dry-wet fallout samplers are being used to measure bulk precipitation.
Following is a list of the monitoring sites and the equipment available at
each site (see maps).
Indian Creek
Indian Creek Residential Site (1R) - The catchment being monitored contains a
trapezoidal concrete channel that receives direct runoff from back yards. An
ll-flume was installed to calculate flow. A Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and
ISCO flow meter are installed.
Indian Creek Commercial Site (1C) - This site contains 3 pipes draining a
commercial parking lot into a concrete channel. A cutthroat flume is installed
to calculate flow. A Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and ISCO flow meter are
installed.
Indian Creek Light Industrial Site (II) - This monitoring station is located at
the outfall of a 66 inch reinforced concrete pipe which discharges to a rough
concrete apron. A Palmer-Bowlus flume was installed to calculate flow. A
Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and ISCO flow meter are installed.
G21-16
Indian Creek jn-Streain Sites
Motor automatic samplers
developed for the sites.
Rock Creek
(IS 1-lS S)
ISCO flow m
- The instream sites all have Sigma-
Rock Creek Residential Site (Rfi) - This site Is located at a road crossing of
a 42 Inch reinforced concrete pipe. There Is a free discharge point off an
apron at the downstream end of the culvert. An ll-flume was installed at this
point. A Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and ISCO flow meter were installed.
Rock Creek Commercial Site (RH - This site Is a 27 inch pipe draining Into
a 30 inch pipe, accessible only thru a manhole. A flume was installed to
measure flow. A Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and ISCO flow oieter were Installed.
Rock Creek In-Stream Sites (RS 1-RS 3) - RS 1 has a OSGS float type flow gage
with a five minute punched paper tape recorder. Abroad crested weir is used
to provide a suitable control section. RS 2 has a rating curve available also.
RS 3, located at the wastewater treatment plant pumping station, has a rating
curve also. All Instream sites are equipped with Sigma-Motor automatic samplers
and ISCO flow meters.
0. Controls
The Best Management Practice Monitoring program will be designed after
preliminary results from the problem assessment phase are analyzed. It is
planned that one detention basin or similar BMP will be monitored to evaluate
pollutant removal efficiencies.
G21-17
-------
•NATIONWIDE URBAN RUN-OFF PROGRAM
DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
DENVER, CO
REGION VIII, EPA
(52Z-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The Denver Regional Council of Governments Clean Water Plan completed under
Section 208 of the Mater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500, Section 208) Identified nonpotnt source loadings as a significant
contribution to receiving water pollution through computer simulations of
the South Platte River basin and Its major tributaries as It passes through
the Denver Metropolitan Region.
The Denver urban runoff project Is a relatively unique project as the climatic
and water use/reuse conditions Imposed by a semi-arid climate and highly
credible soils combined with significant Irrigation withdrawals and return
flows, make the study area highly complex. Additionally, the historic flows
in the river channel have been highly modified by the construction of flood
control and water supply reservoirs on the mainstern and tributaries. As a
result of these constraints, the relationship between urban nonpoint sources
loadings and receiving water quality are much different than more humid areas.
Nonpoint sources of pollution occurring as urban runoff are a significant
source of receiving water quality pollution In the Denver region. However,
due to the uncertainties of the effectiveness of control measures on nonpoint
sources, the benefits to be accrued by local governments, and the cost and
institutional difficulties surrounding an implementation program, the 208
Clean Hater Plan recommended that additional studies and data were needed.
The Denver NURP project was Initiated to fill in these data gaps.
A. Area
The Denver area is typical of many communities and areas of the nation that are
located in a semi-arid climate. In such areas, the rainfall Is sporadic both
in time and In intensity. The Denver area receives approximately 16 Inches of
precipitation per year with over 300 days per year of sunshine. Because of
meteorological conditions in the Denver are, there are periods of many weeks
during a year when precipitation is negligible or zero.
The Denver area streams are greatly affected by urban runoff. While precipitation
occurs on only about 15S of the days of the year. Individual, storms are typically
of snort duration and high Intensity. Many of the urban drainage areas in the region
have steep slopes which. In combination with intense rainfalls of short duration,
yield low times of concentration and high overland and gutter flow velocity heads.
Streams provide little dilution of urban runoff events occurIng during the low
flow periods of the year. During dry periods, runoff from various urban land
uses when storms do occur appear to be causing Instream water quality problems
due to the extreme low flows experienced at these times.
B. Population
The Denver regional area presently has a population of approximately 1.6 million
people. It is forecasted that the population in the year 2000 will 2.35 million.
This growth will be occurring to a great extent In response to the nation's commitment
to become energy Independent. Denver is the focal point for major development
of energy resources such as coal, oil, gas and oil shale during the foreseeable
future.
C. Drainage
The South Platte River originates in the continental divide and flows through
the South Park area of the Rocky Mountains. It funnels through hard bedrock
to the foothills of the mountains. When It breaks out of the foothills onto
the plains, it enters Denver proper. The actual natural boundaries of the
South Platte Includes about 3000 square miles of land.
The South Platte River basin study area, as defined. Is approximately 120,000
acres (187 square miles). Elevation ranges from 5,140 feet to 7,965 feet
above mean sea level. The downstream reach of the South Platte River is
characterized by a broad alluvial flood plain with a gravel channel. This
condition also characterizes the furthest upstream reach at Littleton. Between
these points, the stream channel of the South Platte River varies from a hard
bedrock to deposltional areas with much accumulated sediment.
G22-2
622-3
-------
The study area lies In a piedmont basin, with high plains to the east and
foothills to the west. The topography is gently 'rolling with drainage and
ridgelines trending generally between east-northeast and west-northwest.
The predominant weather patterns and winds are from the west, however.
frontal storms approach from the southeast or northeast. The climate is
semi-arid with 14-15 inches of precipitation annually.
Figure I is a map of the Denver area showing the location of the study area
within the South Platte River basin. That portion of the main stream channel
sampled is 14.5 miles long and drains generally in a northerly direction. Three
dams built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers exert a control over the river
flow and define boundaries of the surface runoff basin area. Chatfield Dam is
located on the South Platte River approximately 20 miles south of Denver. It is
operated as a flood control and recreational reservoir by the Corps of Engineers
and normally releases water in an amount equal to its flow, although sometimes
abrupt changes are made in release from day to day. Mt. Carbon Dam is located
in the southwest part of the region on Bear Creek and is operated similarly by the
Corps of Engineers. Cherry Creek Dam impounds a reservoir on Cherry Creek
which has released water downstream only two times in the past ten years.
D. Sewerage System
The Denver area did have combined sewers until approximately 20 years age. These
have since been separated and the area is served entirely by separate storm sewers.
There are storm sewers only in the downtown area. In the residential areas the'
drainage is all through curbs and gutters and street drainage.
M8TRIAM BASIN BOUNDARY
TRIBUTARY BASIN BOUNDARY
WATIH QUAUTY MONITORUM STATION
PROPOSED WATCH OUAUTY MOMTORUM STATION
SOUTH PLATTS RIVER AT MTH AVC. AT DENVER, CO
SOUTH PtATTE RIVM AT 1ITH ST. AT DENVER. CO
CHERRY CREEK AT WAZEI ST. AT DtNVIR CO
UKfWOOO OULCH AT DENVER. CO
WIiaaUlCH AT DENVER CO
SANDERSON OULCH AT DENVER, CO
SOUTH PLATTB RIVER AT FLORIDA AVE. AT OENVEA CO
HARVARD OULCH AT DENVER. CO
UTTLI DRY CREEK AT ENGLEWOOO. CO
t«AR CREEK MOUTH AT SHERIDAN, CO
SW DRY CREEK AT CMOL6WOOO, CO
SOUTH ItATTE fltVOR AT UTTLCTON. CO
Figure I
MAP OF DRUAP STUDY AREA SHOWING INSTREAM AND TRIBUTARY BASINS.
G22-4
G22-5
-------
PROJECT AREA
B. Instreara Sites
1. Catchment Name - South Platte Rtver at 50th Avenue at Denver.
A. Area - 119,900 acres.
B. Population - 581,882 persons.
C. Land Use
45,628 acres (38%) Is Single-Family Residential.
6,409 acres (5X) is Multi-Family Residential.
15,403 acres (13%) is Commercial.
7,181 acres (6X) is Industrial.
8,725 acres (7%) is Parkland.
29,846 acres (25X) is Vacant Land.
6,708 acres (6X) Is Agricultural.
II. Catchment Name - South Platte River at 19th Street at Denver.
A. Area - 108,329 acres.
B. Population - 464,942 persons.
C. Land Use
40,398 (38X) is Single-Family Residential.
5,299 acres (5X) is Multi-Family Residential.
13,341 acres (12X) is Commercial.
5,596 acres (5X) is Industrial.
7,775 acres (7X) is Parkland.
29,212 acres (27X) is Vacant Land.
6,708 acres (6%) is Agricultural.
III. Catchment Name - Cherry Creek at Denver.
A. Area - 15,817 acres.
B. Population - 98,397 persons.
G22-6
C. Land Use
4.629 acres (29X) Is Single-Family Residential.
1,929 acres (12X) Is Mult 1-Family Residential.
2,509 acres (16X) Is Commercial.
772 acres (5X) Is Industrial.
2.314 acres (15%) Is Parkland.
3.664 acres (23X) Is Agricultural.
IV. Catchment Name - Lakewood Gulch at Denver
A. Area - 10,440 acres.
B. Population - 50,461 persons.
C. Land Use
5.070 acres (49X) Is Single-Family Residential.
628 acres (6X) Is Mult 1-Family Residential.
2.402 acres (23%) Is Commercial.
211 acres (2X) is Industrial.
45? acres (4X) Is Parkland.
»
1.672 acres (16X) is Vacant Land.
V. Catchment Name - Weir Gulch at Denver
A. Area - 4.789 acres.
B. Population - 36,547 persons.
C. Land Use
2.781 acres (58X) Is Single-Family Residential.
321 acres (7X) is Multi-Family Residential.
455 acres (10X) is Commercial.
54 acres (IX) is Industrial.
587 acres (12X) is Parkland.
622-7
-------
534 acres (lit) Is Vacant Land.
54 acres (IX) is Agricultural.
VI. Catchment Name - Sanderson Gulch at Denver
A. Area - 4.715 acres.
B. Population - 45,116 persons.
C. Land Use
2,947 acres (62%) is Single-Family Residential.
ICO acres (3X) is Multi-Family Residential.
590 acres (13%) is Commercial.
107 acres (2X) is Industrial.
322 acres (7X) is Parkland.
589 acres (13%) is Vacant Land.
VII. Catchment Name - Harvard Gulch at Denver
A. Area - 2,833 acres.
B. Population - 21,873 persons.
C. Land Use
1,838 acres (652) is Single-Family Residential.
192 acres (7X) is Multi-Faun I ly Residential.
459 acres (16*) is Commercial.
38 acres (1%) is Industrial.
267 acres (9X) is Parkland.
39 acres (21) is Vacant Land.
VII. Catchment Name - Bear Creek at Mouth
A. Area - 14,603 acres.
B. Population - 42,534 persons.
• C. Land Use
4.444 acres (30X) is Single-Family Residential.
477 acres (3X) is Multi-Family Residential.
1.317 acres (9X) Is Commercial.
318 acres (22) is Industrial.
1.428 acres (10X) is Parkland.
6.507 acres (45%) is Vacant Land.
112 acres (IX) is Agricultural.
IX. Catchment Name - South Platle River at Littleton, CO.
This station is the upstream control station.
NOTE: Description of Drainage and Sewerage was not included as it is not
applicable fur instreara sites.
G22-B
622-9
-------
PROJECT AREA
A. End-of-PIpe Sites
I. Catchment Name - Big Dry Creek Tributary at Easter Street, near
Llttelton. CO.
A. Area - 33 acres
B. Population - 637
C. Land Use -
33 acres (100X) Is Multi-Family Residential
13.6 acres (41.3X) Is Impervious
II. Catchment Name - Rooney Gulch at Rooney Ranch near Morrison, CO.
A. Area - 405 acres
B. Population - 0
C. Land Use
405 acres (100X) Is Open Land
2.43 acres (.6t) Is Impervious
III. Catchment Name - Asbury Park Storm Drain at Denver (Inflow to
detention basin)
A. Area - 121 acres
B. Population - 1,115
C. Land Use
104 acres (86%) Is Single-Family Residential
16.9 acres (14X) Is Commercial
IV. Catchment Name - Asbury Park Storm Drain at Asbury Avenue
(outflow to detention basin)
»
A. Area - 127 acres
B. Population - 1,177
LOCATIONS OF URBAN, INSTREAM AND TRIBUTARY MONITORING SITES,
AND RAINGAUGE NETWORK IN ORURP STUDY AREA
G22-10
G22-11'
-------
C. Land Use
109 acres (86%) is Single-Family Residential
17.6 acres (14S) is Commercial
V. Catchment Name - North Avenue Stonn Drain at Denver Federal
Center, at Lakewood, CO.
(Inflow to detention basin)
A. Area - 68.7 acres
B. Population - 631
C. Land Use
22.7 acres (33%) is Multi-Family Residential
20.6 acres (301) is Commercial
25.4 acres (371) is Open Land
VI. Catchment Name - North Avenue Stonn Drain at Denver Federal
Center North Avenue, at Lakewood. CO.
(outflow to detention basin)
A. Area - 79.7 acres
B. Population - 631
C. Land Use
26.3 acres (33%) Is Multi-Family Residential
23.9 acres (301) Is Commercial
29.5 acres (37%) is Open Land
VII. Catchment Name - Cherry Knolls Storm Drain at Denver
A. Area - 57.1 acres
B. Population - 1,388
VIII.
c. Land Use
57.1 acres (100%) Is Hultl-Family Residential
21.4 acres (37.5%) Is Impervious
Catchment'Name - Storm Drain at 116th Avenue and Claude Court,
at Northglenn, CO.
A. Area - 167 acres
B. Population - 2.406
C. Land Use
167 acres (100%) is Single Family Residential
39.9 acres (23.91) Is Impervious
IX. Catchment Name - Villa Italia Storm Drain at Lakewood, CO
A. Area - 73.5 acres
B. Population - 0
C. Land Use
73.5 acres (100%) Is Commercial
67 acres (91.2%) Is impervious
Note: Drainage and Sewerage Information was not provided by project in time
to be Included in report.
G22-12
G22.-13
-------
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASIN AT 116TH AND CLAUDE CT.
(NORTHGLENN). AREA = 167 ACRES.
G22-14
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASIN AT TEJON ST. (UPPER AND LOWER
ASBURY PARK). AREA = 248 ACRES.
622-15
-------
kwrv^vr v "-«c
.1 7Tf"
Mi h -' \ bw>"• •• «f *Tp^
RffiJ&V
I* StoSsjiJw£/' "^fldfr^
'i^^S^SS^Sf »J«ftw«i
liviHH£!sn\ *»>9/£L/
"^•CFSW ^aCT'
3 lU«fe«*'
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASIN AT EASTER ST. (SOUTHGLENN).
AREA = 30 ACRES.
G22-16
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASIN AT CHERRY KNOLLS STORM DRAIN.
AREA = 57.1 ACRES.
G22-17
-------
MIXED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BASINS AT NORTH AVENUE STORM
DRAIN (UPPER AND LOWER DENVER FEDERAL CENTER).
AREA = 14B.d ACRES. G22-18
COMMERCIAL BASIN AT VILLA ITALIA SHOPPING CENTER STORM DRAIN.
AREA = 73.5 ACRES.
622-19
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (government)
A report by the Colorado Department of Health has concluded that the major
receiving waters In the Denver region are heavily Impacted by nonpotnt
sources of pollution. Bacterial, plant nutrient and heavy metal pollution
problems have all been attributed In part to nonpoint sources. The receiving
waters have been described by the Health Department as being unsuitable
for beneficial uses such as recreation, agriculture and water supply, based
upon the 1978 Water Quality Standards of Colorado.
Two flood control and recreational reservoirs, each located on the mainstem
of a major Denver area river, are rapidly approaching advance stages of
cultural eutrophicatton. No major point source discharges and little irrigated
agriculture presently exist upstream of these two water bodies. Yet. high annual
nutrient loads enter these lakes each year, causing accelerated algae productivity
evidenced by observed high chlorophll - A concentrations. It is felt by Denver
COG that the nutrient loads originate in large part from nonpotnt sources.
These watersheds are presently less than 51 developed. Projected land development
in one upstream Denver area county alone may result in a population increase of
over 4 fold, or 85.000, by the year 2000. It is felt that the Increase in
runoff volumes resulting from urban development will more than offset the differences
in nutrient concentrations in runoff from Idle/agricultural lands and the slightly
lower values from urban uses.
Results of earlier Denver area nonpotnt source pollution studies indicate
that large pollutant loads are delivered to area streams from diffuse sources
each year. Past studies showed that pollutant loading rates during storm
events appear to be within the same order of magnitude as those from point
sources. Because of the sparse amount of data available, however, only
qualitative assessments of the storm water runoff pollution problems could
be made. Before the Denver NURP program It was not possible to quantify the
nature of the urban runoff problem.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
The Denver program received funding from many sources - USEPA, Denver Regional
Council of Governments, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. U S Geological
Survey and several local jurisdictions.
There is very much interest on the parts of the local governments and citizen
groups to gather more Information on the extent of the urban runoff problem
in Denver.
NATURAL GRASSLAND BASIN AT RCONEY GULCH. AREA = 405 ACRES.
622-20
622-21
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
The basic objectives of the urban runoff program are to assess the nature,
causes, severity and opportunities for the control of urban runoff problems
(n the Denver region.
The specific principal objectives are:
1} to characterize runoff pollution loadings by land use type
2) Identify the specific land surface sources of pollutant
3) determine, to the extent possible, the effect of nonpolnt
source pollution loads on receiving Maters
4) determine the technical and Institutional opportunities
for the control of nonpolnt source loads
5) determine, through computer model calibration efforts, dry
weather land surface accumulation rates appropriate for
the Denver region.
B. Methodologies
Urban runoff monitoring sites were selected that represent the specific urban
land use classifications that generate significant runoff pollution loadings.
Land use types selected include single-family residential, multi-family
residential, commercial, industrial, parkland and Idle/native land. Several
sites were also chosen on the South Platte River to monitor the effect of
urban runoff on the receiving water. Several detention ponds are being
monitored.
The field data collected Includes rainfall and runoff at the mouth of each tributary
ambient flow at the mouth of each tributary, quality data at tributaries major
point sources, instream stations, and Irrigation return flows, precltatlon data
for all basins, and weather records.
There are nine urban runoff monitoring sites in seven basins representing
discrete land use types. There are eight Instream stations being monitored.
There are two detention basins being monitored at both the Inlet and outlet.
The analysis procedures consist of the following steps:
1) quantify runoff and pollutant concentrations from each of the
nine urban runoff sites for selected numbers of quality constituents
2). determine any difference In loadings of pollutants, If any,
by land use type. Determine correlation coefficients through
linear or non-linear statistical techniques.
3) apportion each tributary basin that has been measured for flow
and quality parameters by land use type, % imperviousness, etc.
4) apply conversion factors for each land use type to
the total basin area and sum. Compare predicted loads vs.
measured loads
5) analyze comparisons for each major constituent in
each tributary and determine a correction factor if
needed to apply to the larger Instream basins
6) apply loading factors to large basins. Compare
predicted loads with measured loads
7) evaluate OHP's by using empirical detention pond
data as the best estimate of water quality
improvement. Apply a factor of pollutant loads vs.
detention time to determine gross improvements,
if any
There are several special pollution studies being carried out in the following
area: characterization of the relationships between total and soluble pollutant
loads of several land uses, determination of possible relationships between
the fractions of pollutant load associated with discrete particle sizes (n the
Denver region with those found In studies across the country, and determination
of the relationship between flow-proportioned composite sampling and discrete
sampling.
C. Monitoring
U. S. Geological Survey is performing the sampling at the runoff sites. The
equipment Installed at each site consists of Manning automatic water quality
samplers, stage recorders, systen control units, recording rain gages and
wetfall/dryfall samplers. Automatic samples are taken at each site.
At the Instream sites, a sample will be taken and composited in the field.
The equal transit rate method of depth-and-width-tntegratlng the flow will be
the sampling technique. A USOH-59 sampler equipped with teflon nozzles is
used to collect the samples. The sampler Is lowered into the water at a number
of equally spaced intervals marked across the stream. The Individual depth
Integrated sample volumes collected will be placed into an eight liter churn
splitter to make up the six liter composite sample volume required.
Water quality sampling of the South Platte is carried out on a weekly basis in
the same manner.
Initiation of sampling activities is determined by early storm warning
services provided by a private weather service.
D. Controls
Adams County is developing a concise manual that may be utilized by local
government planning departments and developers in evaluating and controlling
runoff pollution from transitional and newly stabilized urban areas.
To test the feasibility of implementing the control measure requirements at
the local government level, Adams County Is participating as a prototype for
the Model Implementation Program. The purpose of the program Is to assess the
effectiveness of the nonpolnt source pollution ordinance in identifying
institutional implementation opportunities and problems.
G22-22
G22-23
-------
In addition to this, two detention basins have been instrumented tn order to
determine the best structural arrangement to control sedimentaion. Samples
are collected at both the inlet and outlet of the detention ponds to determine
the effectiveness of the control measures.
G2Z-24
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
SALT .LAKE COUNTY DIVISION OF FLOOD CONTROL
AND
WATER QUALITY
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
REGION VIII, EPA
G23-1
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
The Jordan River is the ultimate receiving water for essentially all urban
runoff generated in Salt Lake City. |The river is designated as water quality
limited for the entire length in the county which means that water quality
criteria for designated beneficial uses is not presently being met nor will
it be met even with application of stringent effluent limitations for point
source discharges. :
i
As discussed in the Salt Lake County Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan,
a principal reason for non-attainment of beneficial uses is the adverse impacts
from urban runoff pollution. These impacts are not localized-they occur county
wide and because of the complexity of; the surface hydro logic system in the
county, all urban runoff impacts are transferred from one segment to another.
Urban runoff pollution generation in one area causes direct 'impairment of
beneficial uses up to 25 miles away.
The purpose of the Salt Lake County NURP project is to build on this early 208
data base and also to demonstrate the effectiveness of control strategies for
mitigation of urban runoff pollution of the surface waters of Salt Lake County.
A. Area
Salt Lake County is bounded on the east by the Wasatch Mountains, on the West
by the Oqufrrh Mountains and on the south by the Traverse range. The Great
Salt Lake is the final receiving water for the north flowing Jordan River and
essentially all waters in the county. Streams originating from the Wasatch
Front flow westward into the Jordan River, the only natural outlet from Utah
Lake in Utah County tq the south. No major streams originate from the western
side of the valley. The three mountain ranges along with the Great Salt Lake
create a virtually enclosed hydrologic basin in the county.
The elevation of the Great Salt Lake Is approximately 4200 feet above mean
sea level. The Wasatch Front reaches elevations of over 11,000 feet above sea
level while the Oquirrh Mountains to the west reach elevations of over 9200
feet. The land surface between these ranges of mountains consists of a series
of benches, each of which slopes gradually from the mountains and drops sharply
to the next bench.
The Salt Lake Valley has a maximum length of 31 miles and art approximate width
of 23 miles. Roughly 65 percent of the 764-square mile' County lies within the
valley itself with the remaining 35 percent in the surrounding mountainous
areas. Approximately half of the mountainous areas are under the management of
the U.S. Forest Service.
Figure 2 summarizes the topography of the basin.
Valley geology is largely a product of ancient Lake Bonnevllle, which through
centuries of rising and falling, carved a linear north-south corridor of steep
shorelines and associated shore fades. These facies and lacustrine deposits
range from cobbly, well drained formations to sandy, silty formations.
The historic drainage of the Jordan River through the valley floor together
with its intercepted mountain tributaries carved several fairly deep chasms
through layer-upon-layer of deposited floodplain and alluvial formations.
The Jordan River has formed a massive saline delta at the southeastern end of
the Great Salt Lake where It deposits eroded material over a large area referr-
ed to as "Salt Marsh."
Geologic formations in the valley significantly influence hydrology,
particularly with regard to the movement of subsurface water. Artesian pressure
Is common along fault scarps throughout the valley with numerous springs pro-
viding significant gains to both natural and artificial channels. Artesian
pressure is prevalent in the Salt Marsh area where seepage from both confined
and unconflned aquifer reservoirs surfaces.
The geologic elements of combined alluvium, talus, and till form a well
(trained association of highly permeable rocks which provide recharge to the
aquifer. Municipal and private wells are common In proximity to this recharge
area.
Figure 3 provides a summary of geologic conditions in Salt Lake County.
G23-2
G23-3
-------
B. Population
Presently, Salt Lake Valley accomodates about 620,000 people, living in
approximately 200,000 homes. These homes occupy a total area of aoout 37,000
acres.
Since 1847, the population of the County has steadily grown until it now
serves the inter-mountain region as a center of commence, industry, communication,
medicine, education and finance.
The past and present figures concerning population and land use are shown
below:
Year 1960
Population 383,035
Household Size 3.5
Occupied Dwelling Units 108,007
% Population Increase
1970
458,607
3.4
134,926
19.7
1980
620,000
3.1
200,000
35.2
C.
The major hydro logic features in Salt Lake County consist of surface water
and groundwater systems. Surface systems are comprised of a natural tributary
drainage system which is intercepted repeatedly by an Irrigation canal system
constructed after initial settlement of the valley. Natural segments of major
tributaries generally flow east to west to the Jordan River while the canal
segments generally flow south to north. Subsurface systems consist of confined,
unconfined and perched aquifers recharged in areas along the Wasatch Front. •
Figure 4 illustrates the major surface water system components of Salt Lake
County. Figure 5 shows the extent of the subsurface hydrological regime.
Jordan River & Tributaries
From Utah Lake, the 'Jordan River meanders approximately 55 river miles northward
to the Great Salt Lake. The river gradient Is slight, averaging only 5.2 feet
per mile. The river flow is supplemented by tributaries entering the river
from the east and groundwater flows' depleted during the simmer by diversions
into irrigation canals.
At the Jordan Narrows, ten miles north of Utah Lake (Salt Lake County-Utah County
line) the bulk of the river flow is diverted into irrigation canals during the
irrigation season (May-September). Flow immediately below the diversion varies
from 1400 cfs during spring runoff to no flow during summer months. North of
the diversions, the Jordan River meanders through a broad flood plain, gaining
flow from groundwater, irrigation returns, URO, and several small area waste-
water treatment plants. The 20-mile reach of the river that passes through
the Salt Lake City metropolitan area is the receiving water for a large amount
of urban runoff. At 2100 South Street, much of the river flow is diverted into
the Surplus Canal. This canal was designed to provide for a direct access to
Great Salt Lake for flood control purposes protecting downstream areas on the
Jordan River. North of Salt Lake City, the river and Surplus Canal flow into
marshland areas that feed the Great Salt Lake.
G23-4
0. Sewerage Systen
There, are no combined sewers in the Salt Lake study area.
through storm sewers and canals.
The drainage is all
I G23-5
-------
rigurs
TOPOGRAPHY
.r=C2: o. s.
tCPCCPAFKIC CUAD SHE
Y. 5.L. ca. l
VJacar 7^aJ-i-~/ Project
-------
IV
f^y-TAT. •£!
GEOLOGY
SCXBCZ: L~r>H GECL3GICU.
SUWTf, GaCITC/ CF S.-U LAKZ
ecu-fry, ajr/i?£:r^ 'Cf (.i-Jj
G23-8
D
SURFACE HYDROLOGY
(GSEaALTZSD) SOJrCS: 2F/ISICN CF V5VTI?. ICS
CCPTTY. 1ST3. (Her. 1)
G23-9
-------
Figure V
~JE3 > SKrXLCH I I
NFTIED .-OJin3 I I
CCNF2IO a SKr.
UNCNFTIED
DEZ?
SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY
SCC?C1: HHT/, :v..tZ?. =ZSC'J?CZ3 ™ S^iT L^iS
RBCKAHGS AHEA
PE3C-3D .^lT3i
orssmcti cr
ccurry. -.—>: ;-^— :£?Agz-srr'cr
:iPr-,-=>I. ?Z£CC=CZ3, 1971. (?ec. 13)'
623-10
PROJECT AREA
There are forty-four (44) assessment sites for the Salt Lake County NURP project.
A listing of these sites Is Included on Table 1.
A map showing the location of the assessment sites Is shown In Figure VI.
A description of the atmospheric sampling stations Is shown on Table 2. A map
showing the location of the atmospheric sampling sites is shown in Figure VII.
The fixed site data Information for these sites was not submitted In time for
inclusion in the Report.
There are eight (8) actual sampling sites for BMP evaluation. A listing of these
sites is shown on Table 3. Figure VIII locates these sites.
023-11
-------
TABLE 1
TABLE 1
ASSESMENT SITES AMD TYPE Of SAMPLING
ASSESSMENT SITES AND TYPE OF SAMPLING
STATION
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
STATION
LOCATION
East Jordan Canal 0 Little Cotton-
wood Creek (upstream)
East Jordan Canal 0 Little Cotton-
wood Creek (downstream)
East Jordan Canal 0 Pump House
East Jordan Canal 0 Tanner Ditch
Upper Canal 9 Tolcate Lane
Upper Canal 9 Holladay Drain
Upper Canal 0 Wild Rose Lane
Upper Canal 0 Mill Creek (upstream)
Upper Canal 9 Mill Creek
(downstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0 Little
Cottonwood Creek (upstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0 Little
Cottonwood Creek (downstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0 Big
Cottonwood Creek (upstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0 Big
Cottonwood Creek (downstream)
Jordan i. Salt Lake Canal 9 Mill
Creek (upstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0 Mill
Creek (downstream)
Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 0
Zenith Ave.
90th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
STATION
IDENTIFICATION
10167105
10167106
10167115
10167118
10167122
10167125
10167127
10167128
10167141
10167142
10167145
10167146
10167147
10167148
10167149
10167240
STATION
TYPE
WG
UG
PR
UG
WG, AS : .
UG. AS
SG
SG
UG
UG
UG
UG
WG
UG
CG, AS
UG. AS
STATION
NUMBER
IB
19
20
21
. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
STATION
LOCATION
Little Cottonwood Creek 0
Canyon Mouth
Little Cottonwood Creek 0
2050 East
Little Cottonwood Creek 9
Jordan River
Big Cottonwood Creek 0
Canyon Mouth
Big Cottonwood Creek 9
Cottonwood Lane
Holladay Drain 9 Big
Cottonwood Creek
Big Cottonwood Creek 9
Jordan 'River
Mill Creek 0 Canyon Mounth
Mill Creek 9 Jordan River
2100 South Conduit 0 Jordan River
Parley's Creek 0 Canyon Mouth
13th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
(SOUTH CONDUIT)
13th. South Conduit 0 Jordan River
(NORTH CONDUIT)
Emigration Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
Red Butte Creek 9 Fort Douglas
(below reservoir)
STATION
IDENTIFICATION
10167500
10167700
10168000
10168500 .
10168800
10168840
10169500
10170000
10170250
10170900
10171600
10171801 Pre-1981
1017235L Post-1981
10171802 Pre-1981
10172352 Post-1982
10172000
10172220
STATION
TYPE
UG
UG
WG,
UG
UG
CG.
UG.
UG
WG.
CG.
UG
UG
CG.
CG.
WG
UG
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
G23-12
623-13
-------
rigura VI
STATION
NUMBER
TABLE 1
ASSESSMENT SITES AND TYPE OF SAMPLING
STATION
LOCATION
STATION
IDENTIFICATION
STATION
TYPE
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
•STATION TYPE
City Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
(SOUTH CONDUIT)
8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
(MIDDLE CONDUIT)
8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
10172500
10172511 Pre-1981
10172371 Post-1981
10172512 Pre-1981
10172372 Post-1981
10172513 Pre-1931
10172373 Post-1981
(NORTH CONDUIT)
North Temple Conduit 9 Jordan River 10172520
Neff Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
Jordan River 9 Narrows 10167001
Jordan River 9 90th South 10167230
Jordan River 9 58th South 10167300
Jordan River 9 17th South 10171000
Jordan River 9 5th North 10172550
Decker Lake Outfalt 10170350
WG
CG, AS
CG, AS
CG, AS
CG, AS
SG
WG, AS
WG, AS
WG, AS
WG, AS
WG, AS
SG
UG » well gage, recording
PR * pump records, Intermittent records
AS » automatic sampler
SG * staff gage, non-recording
CG » conduit gage (Marsh-HcBirney type), recording
X
. ^.;;^r-—-j^-~ N ../
'}
-<< 'i
J.U
y £ffit&jjj!®b&<=^
I J I • II l-Jv
I •— I, .«^x". ' . . '-.-—
G23-14
SALT LAXS COUNTY WATER QUALITY & WATEH POLLUTION CONTHOL
NATIONAL URBAN HUNOFr PROGRAM
G23-15
-------
TABLE 2
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTION OF ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLING STATIONS
DESCRIPTION OF ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLING STATIONS
STATION
NUMBER
A-l
A-2
A-3
A -4
A-5
A -6
A-7
A-8
STATION
LOCATION
Dixie Valley Atmospheric
Bell Canyon Atmospheric
Fire Station 17 Atmospheric
• USGS Administration 61 dg Atmospheric
Sandy Public Works Atmospheric
Fort Douglas Atmospheric
Liberty Park Atmospheric
Suburban Sanitary District No. 1
STATION
IDENTIFICATION
403758111585501
40330611514201
40463211551001
404356111562400
403538111543101
404600111493801
404442111523000
404220111544300
'STATION
TYPE
RR,
RR,
RR,
RR,
RR,
RR,
RR
RR
AD, (#49)
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
STATION STATION STATION
NUMBER LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
A-21 Cottonwood Weir Atmospheric 403708111465800
A-22 Union Atmospheric 403602111510600
A-23 Little 'Cottonwood Plant Atmospheric 403512111475600
*RR « Rainfall, recording
RN • Rainfall, non-recording
AO • Atmospheric wet -and dry-fall deposition
STATION
TYPE
RN
RH
RN
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
Atmospheric
Murray Sewage Treatment Plant
Atmospheric
Murray Vine Street Atmospheric
Salt Lake Airport Atmospheric
Salt Lake Downtown Atmospheric
University of Utah Atmospheric
Eighth South Atmospheric
Foothill Post Office Atmospheric
Salt Lake'City 142 Atmospheric
1-215 8 Mill Creek Atmospheric
Olympus Cove Atmospheric
Ho 11 ad ay Drain Atmospheric
1-215 9 1050 West Atmospheric
404024111541300
403829111514500
404636111572800
404607111530700
404600111505000
10172510
404355111500100
404205111500600
404138111474300
404034111463700
10168840
403818111551000
RR
RR
RR
RR
Rtl
RR
RN
RN
RR
RR
RR (12)
RR
G23-lfi
G23-17
-------
"igurs 711
/
• : •-.*—¥ !
r-M^rr^-jSU^^.^-- ft.
_. j^-'f*3ssaixrsij£-- L_/~
A-6
— ." •-.rvlI7V,-i .^IsJliaraaxf-rS-—j^V" y'
' • ' • N-=-s..S:s--'S^r1:~-i~.-=» • ./^l
A -^ :!^a^^^-^^~
^rW^J^igg^^;
- -!•• .V;- -JJ-r-y.— ';
TABLE 3
-SAMPLING SITES AT BMP LOCATIONS
v\
,-•—J
v^
SALT LAKE COUNTY WATcH GUAUTY & V/ATH3 POLLUTION CONT3CL
RATIONAL URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
CVT.CN CF ArMcs?Hz.'.zc 3A.-j>^i:!C s:
G23-18
STATION
NU1BER
STATION
LXATION
STATION
IDENTIFICATION
B-l **
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5 to
B-7
B-8
Overland flow BMP Inlet 9 Jordan
River (90th South)
10167240
Overland flow BMP Outlet 9 Jordan 10167244
(Bell Canyon)
Publtc Education/Information BMP 10167220
(Jackson Coram)
Catch Basin Modification BMP 10172552
(Dixie Valley)
Detention Basin Modification BMP
(COMBINED INLETS (3)
(Dixie Valley)
Detention Basin Modification BMP 10167184
(Outlet)
*Stat1on Type
US • well gage, recording .
AS » Automatic sampler
CG • Conduit gage, recording (Marsh-McBlrney type)
** Also listed as Assessment Site
G23-19
STATION*
TYPE
WG, AS
WG, AS
WG, AS
CG, AS
CG. AS
CG, AS
-------
PROBLEM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Local Definition
The Jordan River Is the ultimate receiving water for essentially all urban
runoff generated in Salt Lake County. The river is designated as water quality
limited for tne entire length in the county which means that water quality for
designated beneficial uses is not presently being met nor will it be met even
with application of stringent effluent limitations for point source discharges.
The valley segments of Jordan River tributaries are also designated water
quality limited. These stream segments are intermediate receiving waters for
urban runoff and could account for the water quality limited designation.
The 208 Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan states that a principal reason
for non-attainment of beneficial uses are the adverse impacts from urban runoff
pollution. These impacts are not localized, they occur county-wide. Because
of the complexity of the surface hydro logic system In the county, all urban
runoff impacts are transferred from one segment to another.. Urban runoff
pollution generation in one area causes direct impairment of beneficial uses
up to 25 miles away.
There are four major sources of urban runoff data in the Salt Lake County area,
prior to NURP. The most complete investigation of urban runoff pollution was
presented by Jou In 1974 Master's thesis. Four important conclusions from this
study are 1) urban runoff from storms has a more detrimental impact on the Jordan
River than do daily loads from secondary wastewater treatment plants, 2) 800
and suspended solid concentrations are greater than those from "typical* urban
areas, 3) average coliform numbers increase exponentially with population density,
and 4) suspended solid loads in Salt Lake City storm sewer discharges are much
greater than discharges from San Francisco's combined sewers.
Other studies also showed that urban runoff from the Salt Lake City area
contributes to the already high pollutant loads in the Jordan River. Flow
values were not recorded in the other studies.
B. Local Perception
The U.S. Geological Survey and the Salt Lake County Public Works .Oepartment-
Oivislon of Flood Control and Water Quality have taken a big interest in this
project. Funds were committed by both agencies In an effort to define the urban
runoff problem as well as understand the hydrologic system In Salt Lake County.
A. Major Objective
The Salt Lake City NURP program can conceptually be broken down into three
phases: problem assessment, control facility design, and control facility
evaluation. Problem assessment consisted of monitoring flow and quality of
urban runoff, monitoring the Jordan River and irrigation canals. These sites
were monitored during dry and wet weather conditions. Additionally, several
control facility sites are being monitored for determination of design criteria
and evaluation of effectiveness. Atmospheric contribution to urban runoff,
both quantity and quality, is being monitored at various stations within and/or
adjacent to control facility drainage boundaries. Discharge is continuously
monitored at forty stations. Atmospheric quantity is continuously monitored at
twenty-three atmospheric sites. Atmospheric quality is monitored on a specific
storm basis at six sites. Eight thunderstorm events and including snowfall -
snowmelt events were monitored at twenty-eight quality sites (including USGS
Jordan River Stations).
Four control strategies were evaluated for effectiveness in'abating urban
runoff pollution. These BMP's are 1) Modification of existing detention basin,
2) Modification of storm drain catch basins, 3) Public information/education,
and 4) Overland flow. Control effectiveness evaluation parameters include
reduction in pollutants, cost of control, transferrability to other parts of
the county and implementability.
The USGS also has a river quality assessment study ongoing in Salt Lake County.
This study is concentrating on groundwater and surface hydrology systems of the
county to the extent that they are not duplicated but thay they are in concert
with the NURP project.
B. Methodologies
The assessment portion of the project was run for approximately one and one-half
years. In addition, low flow winter and summer conditions were monitored for
•background conditions. A-very detailed and complete list of constituents was
monitored for as shown below. After initial assessment sampling, a reduced list
was agreed upon:
G23-20
623-21
-------
PARAMETER LIST
Particle Size Analysis*
TS*
TOS
TSS
PH
Temperature
Ca (d)
Mg (d)
Na (d)
SAR
K (d)
(X)
NO (t) (d)
NO* (td)
NO'-t NO, (t)
NH^ (t) fd)
Organic N (d)
N (T)
P (t) (d)
0-PO, (d)*
COD
Fecal Conform*
Fecal Streptococcus*
Hardness
Non-Carbonate Hardness
Alkalinity
S04 (d)
C14(d)
F (d)
S10, (d)
Ba (d)
Be d)
Cd (tr) (sr)
Cr (tr) (d)
Co (d)
Cu (tr) (d)
Fe I
Pb i
LI i
Hn i
Mo
Ag
Sr
d)
tr) (d)
d)
d)
d)
tr)
d)
V (d)
Zn (tr) (sr)
(d)
(d)
NOTES: * » Hot run for alJ stations and all sample dates.
Most of other analyses run for all sites at least for
1/2 the samples collected.
dissolved
t = total
itr!
(sr)
* total recoverable
" suspended recoverable
All stream gaging sites were continuously monitored for quantity. All storm
drain gaging sites were continuously monitored for quantity and quality to
the extent possible.
There are eight actual sampling sites for BMP's. These Include the Influent
and effluent for the overland flow site, 3 Influent and 1 effluent sites at a
detention basin, a public education BMP, and catchbasln modification, (see Table
3). Following Is a brief discussion of each of these sites.
1) Overland Flow - 90th South
This BMP, at the outlet of the 90th South storm drain conduit the
Jordan River, will also be monitored for assessment purposes. The
concept is to divert runoff onto a spreading area, allow natural
processes to treat runoff much the same as in overland flow treat-
ment of wastewater, and to monitor quality of the runoff before
discharge to the Jordan River.
Atmospheric contribution of both wet and dryfall quality and
quantity Is monitored at a location adjacent to the drainage area.
2) Detention Basin Modification - Dixie Valley
The relatively large detention basin located In the Dixie Valley
Subdivision In West Jordan City was modified to make essentially
all flows pass through the basin. As the basin was designed only
flows greater than the capacity of an underground pipe system flowed
through the basin. Modification included the blockage of three
pipes In the system and forcing runoff up through a grated "bubble-up"
box. Monitoring includes quality and quantity instrumentation at
three Inlets and at one outlet location before discharge to an
open ditch. Atmospheric contribution of both wet and dry fall quality
• and quantity 1s measured at a location within the basin.
3) Public Education/Information - Bell Canyon
The strategy for this BMP .is to monitor runoff quality for two one
year periods, one pre-BMP'period and one post-BMP period. Atmospheric
quantity and quality is monitored at a station located within the' basin.
The public education program will mainly take place via personal
contact, literature distribution,neighborhood meetings and workshops.
These are to be held where intensive information exchange Mill be the
target approach.
4) Catchbasln Modification - Jackson Community
Salt Lake City constructed a drainage system on 900 West Street in
the Jackson Community area of the city. Sixteen catchbasins in the
system have been designed to include a three foot sump below the
flow line of the pipe system. These sumps are filled with sand and
capped with asphalt to affect a depth of flow at 0.0 feet below the
G23-22
623-23
-------
flow line of the pipe system. After one year of monitoring, the
sand and asphalt will be removed, baffles and floatable traps
installed, and another one year period of monitoring undertaken.
Atmospheric contributions of both wet and dryfall quantity and
quality will be monitored by an instrument station near the drainage
area.
The results of the BMP analysis will be presented as 1) urban runoff quantity
and quality without control, 2) urban runoff quantity and quality after imple-
mentation of controls, 3) total and percent reduction of pollutant constituents.
4) costs of implementation of controls, 5) cost per total and percent reduction
of pollutant constituents, and 6) cost-effectiveness of each of the controls.
The results of the evaluation of control strategies will ultimately be incor-
porated into an update of the Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan to be
used county-wide.
C. Monitoring
Nineteen of the twenty-eight quality sites are equipped with automatic sampling
equipment. These stations have the standard USGS setup which consists of
well/float or Marsh-McBirney flow monitors and Manning Samplers. Six Marsh-McBirney
units are used in conjunction with 3 System Control Units. Atmospheric stations
consist of tipping bucket or weighing bucket rain gages and atmospheric fallout
collection buckets if so noted.
BMP evaluation sites are also equipped with Marsh-McBirney or well/float meters.
Manning Samplers, System Control Units and rain gages. A control structure
for measuring flow is also available at each site. The U.S. Geological Survey
is performing the sampling. Discrete samples were taken for the first year
of monitoring at the assessment sites. Due to budget constraints it was de-
cided that composite samples would be collected for the remainder of the
project.
D. Controls
For a detailed description of the Best Management Practices to be monitored,
see Section B.
GZ3-24
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
SIXTH DISTRICT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
' RAPID CITY, SD
REGION VIII, EPA
G24-1
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Urban runoff from the Rapid City area has been recognized as a problem for many years,
and serious quantitative efforts to better define the problem began in 1975. Data
have been generated through both the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and
the Sixth District Council of Local Governments.
Past studies in the Rapid City area evaluated the runoff from the Heade St. drainage
basin, a developed area which has a contributing drainage area of 1,723 acres. The data
showed that the runoff from the watershed contained a high concentration of solids and
organic material. According to the data, the runoff from the this one area contributed
about half as much COD to the receiving stream during June of 1975 as the continuous
effluent from the Rapid City municipal wastewater treatment plant. The city felt that
this could be a serious water quality problem considering that Rapid Creek is a
high-quality, cold-water trout fishery.
Additional data collected under the 208 work showed that water quality in Rapid Creek
met the strict water quality standards for a trout fishery during normal low flow
conditions, but the water quality standards are violated during runoff events.
The Rapid City NURP project was proposed to better define the impact of urban dis-
charges and determine if it is necessary to meet in-stream water quality standards
during runoff events.
A. Area
Rapid City Is located In Pennington County in western South Dakota, in the
center of the Sixth District. It is situated approximately 400 miles north
of Denver and 650 miles west of Minneapolis. Rapid City contains the ma-
jority of the economic activity of the District. One third of Sixth
District's population resides in Rapid City proper.
Rapid City Is surrounded by contrasting landfonns, with the forested Black
Hills rising immediately west of the City and rolling prairies extending
out in the other three directions. From 40 to 70 miles southeast lie the
eroded Badlands. The Black Hills, many of which are more than 5,000 feet
above sea level, with a number of peaks above 7,000 feet, exert a pronounced
influence on the climate.
Rapid City experiences wide temperature fluctuations, both daily and seasonal,
that are typical of semi-arid continental climates.
Rapid City contains about 18.7 square miles of land of which approximately
67 percent is developed. Development is relatively compact and is generally
concentrated east of the ridge running north-south; more recent growth has
extended the developed area west of the ridge and also to the southeast.
Although there is growth occurring within the City limits, growth adjacent
to the City limits Is greater.
B. Population
The population of Rapid City was 13,844 persons In 1940. The following
two decades were periods of great growth for the City. In 1950, the
population was 25,310; and by 1960, It grew to 42,399. During the decade
of 1960-1970, population growth rate In the City declined to 3.4 percent,
resulting in a population of 43,836 In 1970. A 1973 estimate by the
Bureau of Census calculated Rapid City's population to be 47,210. The
final 1980 census data shows the Rapid City population to be 46,492.
Rapid Creek originates within the Black Hills from s no wine It, springs, and
forest land runoff. A large reservoir (Pactola) located 20 miles upstream
from Rapid City provides flood control and a municipal water supply.
Rapid Creek has the characteristics of a relatively large mountain stream,
normally flowing at a rapid rate as it meanders over a rocky bottom. There
are no known point sources of pollution on Rapid Creek upstream from Rapid
City. Activity along the creek, housing developments, construction activities,
and storn water discharges all contribute to diminished water quality as the
stream progresses.
G24-2
G24-3
-------
D.
The Meade Street drainage 1s one of ttie major contributors of pollutants to
Rapid Creek. The drainage area Is In a developed urban area In southeast
Rapid City. The Meade Street drainage channel drains more than 20% of
the Rapid City area.
Below Rapid City, extending out onto the prairie. Rapid Creek becomes a
more sluggish stream as its slope and velocity decrease. The major point
discharge In the area occurs approximately 13 stream miles below Rapid City
and consists of treated effluent from the Rapid City Municipal Uastewater
Treatment Plant. This plant employs a trickling filter for biological
treatment, but does not provide for the removal of phosphorus from the
wastewater.
Several non-point discharges occur downstream from agriculture areas and
numerous septic systems have been Identified adjacent to the Creek.
Extreme variations in flow have been recorded In Rapid Creek. Normal dry
weather flows In the summer are of the 20 to 40 cfs magnitude. Runoff
events, with flows exceeding 1,000 cfs, can be expected during the study.
Flows In excess of 10,000 cfs have been documented.
The major system in the urban area of Rapid City Is a separate sewer system.
There are no combined sewers In the area. In some of the trailer parks
outside of town, septic tanks are widely used.
G24-4
G24-5
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Rapid Creek above Canyon Lake (06112500)
A. Area - 33,574 acres.
6. Laud Use
1,340 acres (42) is Residential
32,234 acres (96%) is Forest
--.01* is impervious
II. Catchment Name - Rapid Creek above Water Treatment Plant at Rapid City
(06413700)
A. Area - 20,877 acres.
B. Land Use
3,340 acres (16%) is Residential
1,043 acres (5%) is urban parkland, open space, institutional, etc.
16,494 acres (85%) is Natural Grassland
1% ioiperviousness in entire drainage area
III. Catchment Name - Rapid Creek at Rapid Creek, South (06414000)
A. Area - 3,872 acres
B. Land Use
77 acres (2%) is Residential
503 acres (13%) is urban, commercial
194 acres (5%) is Industrial
774 acres (20%) is urban parkland, open space, institutional, etc.
2,324 acres (6%) is Natural Grassland
2% imperviousness in entire drainage area
IV. Catchment Name - Rapid Creek at East Main Street (06414700)
A. Area - 3,540 acres
B. Land Use
1,274 acres (36%) is Residential
496 acres (14%) is Commercial
531 acres (15%) is urban parkland, open space, institutional, etc.
1.239 acres (35%) is Natural Grassland
18% imperviousness in entire drainage area
G24-6
V. Catchment Name - Rapid Creek below Hawthorn Ditch (0641600)
A. Area - 1,606 acres
B. Land Use
418 acres (26%) is Commercial
321 acres (20%) Is Residential
562 acres (35%) is urban parkland, open space,
305 acres (19%) is Grassland and Agricultural
10% imperviousness In entire drainage area
institutional, etc.
VI. Catchment Name - Meade Street Drain at Rapid City (06416300)
A. Area - 1.760 acres
B. Land Use
968 acres (55%) Is Residential
123 acre.s (7%) is Commercial
423 acres (24%) Is Natural Grassland and Forest
246 acres (14%) Is Urban Under Construction
19% Imperviousness in entire drainage area
Note: The entire fixed site data base was not submitted in time for inclusion
in this report.
G24-7
-------
^w£^
,-itg J -'I^K "
G24-8
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition
From past work done under 208, the Sixth District Council of fiovernments
feels that urban runoff from the Rapid City area Into Rapid Creek causes
a water pollution problem. The stream water quality standards are not met
during storm events. The significance of these standard violations,
however, Is not clear. Also, the extent that urban runoff affects the
trout fishery, the food chain, and species migration Is undefined.
The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Is trying to maintain
a trout fishery In Rapid Creek and needs to know the effects of urban
runoff. The city of Rapid City Is Interested In knowing what Is now belnq
flushed Into the stream. They also need to know what effects, If any,
certain structural practices such as metering dams and storm sewer discharges,
have with respect to water quality changes. The city Is looking for manage-
ment options for potential implementation measures.
B. local Perception
The State of South Dakota had recommended that the Immersion recreation
classification for Rapid Creek be deleted - but that the present fishery
classification remain - warm water semi-permanent. The City has requested
that the fishery classification be lowered to warm water marginal and the
immersion recreation classification be deleted.
Hearings were held on the reclasslflcation which generated much public
awareness and Interest. A brief history will help clarify the city's
interest In the problem.
Rapid Creek Is classified as a warm water semi-permanent fish life
propagation, Immersion recreation, limited contact recreation, Irrigation,
wildlife propagation and stock watering stream. Since Rapid City received
their discharge permit on January 30, 1979, extensive research and evalua-
tion have determined that It will require quite a large expenditure to meet
the requirements which exist In the discharge permit. The city is concerned
that If millions of dollars are required to meet the discharge permit then
measurable benefits should be obtained downstream for the money spent.
The Sixth District Council of Governments Is Interested in finding out the
significance of non-point sources In relation to the point sources (the
wastewater treatment plant). Sixth District feels that if they are going
to ask the City to clean the wastewater treatment plant to the ultimate
degree they better be sure that they are going to have a clean stream
afterwards. If non-point sources are a major contributor of pollutants,
then maybe a tradeoff could be made.
G24-9
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objective
From past work under 208 it is felt by the local people that urban runoff
from the Rapid City area into Rapid Creek causes a water pollution problem.
The stream water quality standards are not met during storm events. The
Rapid City HURP project was proposed to better define the impact of urban
discharges. The city is interested in knowing if it is necessary to meet
in-stream water quality standards during runoff events.
The major objectives of the project are to characterize the impacts of
urban runoff into Rapid Creek from rainfall and snowmelt runoff and to
evaluate the effects of the runoff on a high quality, cold water fishery.
Secondary objectives are to assess the value of in-streain water quality
standards as related to water quality during storm events and to assess the
impact of urban runoff on downstream beneficial uses.
B. Methodologies
The data collected in the NURP study will undergo analysis by various
statistical and modeling techniques. Two levels will be used: regression
analysis to determine relationships between a dependent and one or more
independent variables, and modeling to determine and define the processes
responsible for the volume and characteristics of precipitation runoff.
Three forms of regression analysis will be applied. First, relationships
between discrete observations will be observed and correlation coefficients
will be developed (ex: ammonia concentration and stream .discharge). Second,
storm event multiple linear regression will be used to relate storm yields
to selected basin and storm characteristics. This will identify the most
important independent variables and indicate how they relate to storm yields.
Third, long tenn multiple linear regression will be used to relate annual
precipitation to annual loading of Rapid Creek. Regression analysis will
be accomplished by using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS).
Detailed modeling will be limited to the Meade Street basin. The two models
to be used are 1) Distributed Routing Rainfall-Runoff Model (DR^) and
2) DRaM-QUAL. The DR3» provides detailed simulation of a storm runoff
hydrograph from short time interval rainfall data. DRsM-QIJAL Is an urban
runoff quality model which is linked with ORsM. Both models were developed
by USGS.
C. Monitoring
Six monitoring stations have been selected, with 5 of them actually being
in the creek. Following is a short description of each monitoring site
selected:
G24-10
Station 01 This station is located at the USGS gaging station on
Rapid Creek at the west edge of the city. This station
was selected as a background water quality station on
the creek before significant urbanization occurs.
Station 12 This station is located on Rapid Creek, in the western
part of town below some major urban discharges.
Station 13 A station on Rapid Creek near the center of Rapid City.
This site will catch all the drainage from western Rapid
City plus any drainage from the Cement Plant and limestone
quarries.
Station #4 This station Is also on the creek and will catch the
•drainage from both the downtown area and north Rapid City.
The stream is a little flatter In this part of town and
meanders are more frequent.
Station *5 This station is on Rapid Creek to help determine the stream
_water quality as Rapid Creek exits the community.
Station #6 This is the only end of pipe site in the project. (Station
is located on the Meade Street drainage channel). The
Heade Street drainage channel drains over 20 percent of the
Rapid City land area.
See the enclosed map for location of these sites.
Stations 1, 3, 5 and 6 are fully equipped with automatic flow measuring
and sampling equipment. Stations 2 and 4 have flow measuring devices but
manual sampling will be done. At the stations with automatic sampling
equipment, the standard USGS setup is used. This setup includes a
System Control Unit which controls the functioning of the system and
processes data received from rain gages, stage sensor and pump sampler,
a digital recorder, a Manning water sampler, and a freezer for cooling
samples.
Atmospheric deposition samples will be collected at two sites using
Aerochem Metrics Model 301 samplers.
Mater quality samples will be composited according to flow and sent to the
lab for anlaysis.
D. Controls
Best Management Practices may be evaluated but this will not be done until
later on In the project.
G24-11
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF.PROGRAM
CASTRO, CALIFORNIA
REGION IX, EPA
G25-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is the single most Important water body
In the State of California. More than one-half of all of California's
fishery resources either live in or directly depend on the Bay Delta Estuary
for their survival. San Francisco Bay also provides scenic beauty and re-
creation to over 5 million people who live near Its shore (California State
Water Resources Control Board, 1980).
San Francisco Bay is the dominant feature and primary receiving water of the
Bay-Delta system. Assessment of the water quality Impact on San Francisco
Bay from stormwater runoff is difficult because of the drainage from Its vast
tributary area. The Bay-Delta system receives runoff from about 40* of the
land area of California, or about 63,000 sq. mi. About 3200 sq. mi. of the
region drains directly to San Francisco Bay.
Castro Valley Creek and many other Bay Area creeks with similar flow volumes
can be considered "urban feeder creeks". These may be characterized as having
low summer flows and large winter flow variations and providing some natural
habitats. It probably is not economically feasible to improve these creeks
to a fishable/swimmable status.
Castro Valley, the study area for this project, is a small watershed considered
typical of residential basins in the San Francisco Bay Delta Region (Sylvester,
1978) The U.S. Geological Survey and the Corps of Engineers (which initially
began monitoring runoff In Castro Valley 1n 1971) considered Castro Valley a
typical residential basin because of the general geology, soils, topography,
hydrology, climate, vegetation and hunan activities In the basin. Assessment
of the impact from stormwater runoff on the water quality of Castro Valley
Creek shows that the runoff water quality commonly fails to meet beneficial use
criteria for several toxic heavy metals.
Although It was beyond the scope of this project to investigate the effects
of street cleaning on Bay water quality, the project was based on the assumption
that, If street cleaning would Improve water quality In Castro Valley Creek,
then street cleaning on a larger scale may Improve water quality In the Bay.
VICINITY
ALl
MAF
F
\
WIOX STREET STREAK
CARING STATION
SEAVIEW AVENUE
STREAM GAGING STATION
RAIN GAGING STATION
PROCTOR SCHOOL
CASTRO VALLEY WATERSHED
OUTSIDE STUDY AREA
RAW GAGING STATION
(SYhNEY SCHOOL)
\
RAIN GAGE STATION
(FIRE STATION
1
SAN LORENZO CREEK
SCALE: 1"« 2000'i
FIGURE 1 - STATE LOCUS, PROJECT AREA AND SAMPLING SITES FOR
- CASTRO VALLEY NURP PROJECT
G25-2
625-3
-------
PROBLEM
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
Castro Valley is an unincorporated community within Ataneda County. The
project's study area was a 2.4 sq. mi. portion of this unincorporated area.
The Castro Valley Creek branch of the Castro Valley Watershed was selected
as the study area because it was a manageable size.
The study area is 1,542 acres and is predominantly residential, with urban,
suburban and rural terrain in the flats and hills bordering San Francisco
Bay south of Oakland and north of San Jose. The uppermost portion of the
study area is rural with about 633 acres of grass and woodlands that is slowly
being replaced by suburban development. The Seaview station monitors water
quality and quantity from this essentially rural area. Below this station is
the urban test area of about 909 acres. Length of the main creek channel
between the rural station (Seaview) and the urban station (Knox) is 2.4 miles.
The majority of the residential land use in the urban area consists of single
faintly housing with lot sizes varying from 5,000 square feet to 10,000 square
feet. Residential land use of the 909-acre urban study area occupies about
636 acres (70 percent), commercial land use occupies about 64 acres (7 percent),
and the remaining land is about 209 acres (23 percent) of open space and
Institutional land use. Development along the stream banks In Castro Valley
is intense and houses are frequently constructed directly over the existing
streambed. Some light commercial areas, more than six schools, and a short • '
portion of Interstate Highway 580 are also in the area.
B. Population
Present population is estimated to be 15,000, located principally in the urban area
of the watershed, but population in the upper rural area Is steadily Increasing.
C. Drainage
Topography within the drainage basin Is highly variable, and the land slopes
range from 10 percent to 70 percent in the upper end of the basin to slopes
as low as 1 percent in the valley portion near San Lorenzo Creek. The Castro
Valley Creek streambed In the lower portions of the drainage basin ranges
from 20 to 50 feet in width and 8 feet to 10 feet in depth. The streambed
is often strewn with litter and debris.
Host of the streets in the urban area are asphalt and in fair condition. The
gutters are mainly concrete, and the curbs are mostly vertical (rather than
rolled).
D. Sewerage System
100X of the drainage area is served by separate storm sewers.
A. Local Definition (Government)
As a result of P.L. 92-500, many regions of the nation undertook areawide
planning studies (supported by 208 grants) to Identify and define existing
water quality problems, in ihe Bay Area, the problems investigated included
fish kills, shellfish contamination, toxic pollutants, eutrophicatlon,
dredging and disposal, oil and chemical spills, and freshwater outflow from
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The following Is a brief description of three of these problems and their
probable causes in the San Francisco Bay Area:
* Shellfish beds are widespread, well-populated, and represent a
presently under-utilized resource in San Francisco Bay. Commercial
and recreational shellfish harvesting Is prohibited because of
contamination by bacteria, viruses .and. In some cases, heavy metals.
Storm runoff, sewage discharge and waste from boats are sources of
contamination (Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 1978.)
Many fish kill incidents can be traced to specific pollution causes;
however, the fish kills occur In the Bay for unknown reasons. The
State Is investigating the causes of death of striped bass and has
also Initiated a study of the aquatic habitat of the Bay.
There Is evidence that the Bay's aquatic life may be adversely
affected by toxic materials, e.g.. heavy metals, pesticides and
organic compounds, which are showing up in analyses of Bay waters.
The evidence points to pollutants that occur at low concentrations
whose effects are cumulative and/or long-term (ABAG, 1978).
The primary use of many creeks in the Bay area Is to convey stonnwater runoff
Into San Francisco Bay. Although runoff contains large amounts of pollutants.
its relationship to observed water quality problems In San Francisco Bay remains
uncertain. However, Castro Valley Creek's contribution of large quantities
of toxic pollutants into San Francisco Bay is seen as a significant water quality
problem.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Because the primary use of Castro Valley Creek Is to convey stonnwater runoff
into San Francisco Bay, public concern for the water quality of the Creek
Itself is not high. To the extent that it exists, public perception of a
water quality problem focuses on the Bay as a scenic, recreational and
commercial water resource for all communities within the Bay area. There
Is widespread and at times vocal citizen concern over Bay water quality. The
Bay area 208 Study drew heavily upon public support and active citizen parti-
cipation in carrying out its problem identification and prior filiation tasks.
However, the magnitude and technical/institutional complexity of Bay water
quality problems tend to discourage remedial action by any one community.
G25-4
G25-5
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
The Castro Valley study Mas directed towards developing Information on three
subjects which were of particular concern to local decision makers. The
objectives were to:
' danonstrate the effectiveness of street cleaning in Improving
water quality;
provide Information to local Public Works agencies on how to
Incorporate water quality as a factor into their street cleaning
programs; and
investigate the quantities of asbestos on urban streets and In
urban runoff.
Again, the primary purpose of the project was to demonstrate whether removing
the pollution load from the street surfaces by street cleaning has an effect
on the quality of runoff from street surfaces. The project collected data
to compare the monitored mass pollutant flows of the storms with the total
pollutant removal of street cleaning programs. The project also Investigated
a related subject: comparison of the performance of regenerative air (RA) and
mechanical street cleaning equipment.
B. Methodology
Project field activities began in October, 1978, and ended in April, 1980.
In order to demonstrate the relationship between street cleaning and runoff
water quality, the project measured:
(1) street cleaning effectiveness, to Identify the quantity of
pollutants removed and the initial and residual loadings before
and after cleaning for a variety of street cleaning programs;
(The street surface particulate sample was obtained by vacuuming
portions of the street surfaces immediately before and after the
area was cleaned. The two loadings were then compared to obtain
measures of street cleaning effectiveness. These samples were
then divided into eight discrete particle sizes, weighed, and
finally composited over selected time periods by particle size
and test area for chemical analyses.)
(2) street surface pollutant accumulation rates to identify the
loading on the street at any time;
(3) precipitation, to know the quantity of rainfall; and
(4) runoff water quantity and quality, to identify the quantity of
pollutants washed off the watershed for various types of rain-
storms. Two monitoring stations were located on Castro Valley
Creek. The upper station (Seavlew) measured the runoff from the
rural area, and the lower station (Knox) measured the runoff from
G25-6
both the urban area and the rural area. The contribution from only
the urban test area was determined by subtracting the contribution
of the rural station from that of the urban station.
Curve fitting analysis was used to correlate street surface pollutant loadings
before rain events with changes in runoff water mass yields.
C. Monitoring
The Alameda County Flood Control District entered Into an agreement with the
United States Geological Survey to establish two water quality monitoring
stations on Castro Valley Creek. The USGS was responsible for gathering flow
and stage data and developing a rating curve for these stations. The Alameda
County Flood Control District was responsible for collection of samples for
chemical parameters'and measurement of field parameters. The samples were
sent to the USGS Laboratory In Denver. Colorado, for analysis.
The watershed has two distinct parts - the urban and non-urban areas. The
rural area's contributions of sediments and pollutants were subtracted
from the rest of the watershed to give an accurate accounting of pollutant
and sediment loading In the urban study area. To accomplish this, a gaging
and water quality monitoring station was established on Castro Valley Creek
near the intersections of Seaview Avenue and Madison Avenue, the boundary
line between the urban and rural areas of the watershed. Another gaging and
monitoring station was established near the Intersection of Knox Street and
North 4th Street. This station was at the lower end of the watershed and
measured the total flow and total pollutant loading of the watershed. In
this way it was possible to separate the contributions of each portion of
the watershed. Separation was critical since the study was concerned with
the urban area.
Three rain gages were used to monitor precipitation In the project area
(Figure 1). One was located near the intersection of Redwood Road and
Proctor Road at Proctor School. This gage measured the rainfall in the
upper watershed. Another was located at the Sydney School outside the study
area and was used as a check against the Proctor gage. The third one was
located at the Castro Valley Fire Station on San Miguel Avenue in central
Castro Valley. From these stations, the rainfall record correlated well
with the water quality and street surface data collected during the project.
For the street surface particulate sampling portion of the study, each
subsanple included all of the street surface materials that would be removed
during a severe rain (Including loose materials and caked-on mud in the gutter
and street areas). The location of the subsaraple strip was carefully selected
to ensure that it had* no unusual loading conditions. For example, a sub-
sample was not collected through the middle of a pile of leaves, but where
the leaves were lying on the street in their normal distribution pattern.
When possible, wet areas were also avoided. If a sample were wet and the
particles caked around the intake nozzle, the caked mud from the gobbler
was carefully scraped into the vacuum hose while the vacuum units were
running at the end of the sampling period.
625-7
-------
Eacli subsample was collected in a narrow strip about 6 in. wide (the width
of the gobbler) from one side of the street to the other (curb to curb).
In heavily traveled streets where traffic was a problem, some subsamples
consisted of two separate one-half street strips (curb to crown). On busy
roadways with no parking and good street surfaces, most participates were
found within a few feet of the curb, and a good subsample was collected by
vacuuming two adjacent strips from the curb as far into the traffic lanes as
possible. Subsamples taken in areas of heavy parking were collected between
vehicles along the curbs. Subsamples were collected, composited and submitted
to a laboratory for chemical analysis.
To carry out the street cleaning task, several frequencies were evaluated
during the first project year. The second project year, however, used a
constant street cleaning frequency of 5 times per week for one month followed
by two months with no street cleaning operations at all. This enabled the
streets to become as dirty as they were likely to become during the first
month and then remain at that level during the second month of no cleaning.
Equipment
At both runoff monitoring sites, stream level was monitored by a manometer-servo
water level sensor and recorded on a Stevens digital tape recorder. The water
quality samples were taken by -a modified ISCO automatic wastewater sampler
Initiated by a continuous-recording modified ISCO flouuieter with printer. The
limited capacity of the samplers' sample holders was expanded during the. record
year by placing samplers on top of 55-gallon stainless steel drums. This'
allowed project personnel to monitor completely even the storms of longest
duration. All of the water quality sampling equipment was powered by a
90 amp hr. 12 volt car battery. Field parameters were measured by an EXTECH
ph meter and a YSI conductivity meter with thermometer.
For the collection of street surface particulate samples, a light-duty
(half-ton capacity) trailer was used to carry the generator, tools, fire
extinguisher, vacuum hose and wand, and two wet-dry vacuum units. A truck
with a suitable hitch and signal light connections was used to pull the trailer.
Two-hursepower (tip) Industrial vacuum cleaners with one secondary filter and
a primary dacron filter bag were selected. The vacuum units were heavy duty
and made of stainless steel to prevent contamination of the samples. Both 2-lip
vacuums were used together by using a wye connector. This combination extended
the useful length of the 1.5-inch vacuum hose to 35 feet and Increased the suction
so that it was adequate to ranove all particles of interest. A wand and gobbler
(triangular In shape and about 6 inches across) are also needed. The generator
which was used produced about 5000 watts of electrical power.
Host of the street cleaning tests were conducted using a modern, mechnical.
four-wheel brush-type street cleaner that had dual gasoline engines and
hydraulic controls. The speed during the cleaning program was about five to
eight ra.p.h. Broom replacement and other maintenance were conducted on a scheduled
basis. Operating conditions were held constant during the study program and were
not varied. A regenerative air street cleaner was tested for part of the project
period and its performance compared with that of the conventional mechanical
cleaner in order to provide information to public works officials concerned
about replacing their street cleaners. Too little performance difference was
observed under the test conditions to justify purchase of one type versus others.
Controls
Project results showed that, when the streets were dirtiest (Initial loadings
of about 1000 or more pounds per curb mile), the cleaning efficiency was
about 40X. Even though the range of percentage removal values varies appre-
ciably, the residual (after street cleaning) loading values were no lower than
about 200 pounds per curb mile, even with very Intensive cleaning.
After about two or three passes per week, there Is very little improvement
In either Initial or residual street surface loadings. Under these cases,
the streets are about as clean as they are likely to get by street cleaning
operations and any more frequent street cleaning Is unproductive. It is
much more cost effective to decrease the streat cleaning effort in areas
having frequent cleaning and to Increase street cleaning efforts in areas
with appreciably dirtier streets such as Industrial areas.
When the urban runoff yield Information was compared to the specific street
surface Initial loading values for each constituent, this analysis showed that
a maximum of about 20 percent of the total solids and about 35 percent of the
lead could have been prevented from reaching the receiving water. If maximum
urban runoff improvements are going to be realized by street cleaning, then
the streets should be cleaned during the winter months between adjacent storm
periods. As expected, lead shows the greatest potential for control by
street cleaning equipment, followed by total solids and then arsenic. Figure 2
Illustrates this relationship and further shows that after about three passes
per week, any more street cleaning is unproductive.
•nu or smn acuiit uau «a nu
FIGURE 2 - IMPRpVEHEBT IN URBAN RUNOFF QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF STREET
LLtAfllNo EFFORT.
G25-8
G25-9
-------
Results of the special asbestos study yielded some interesting results. In
this case current optical techniques provided inadequate to identify asbestos
in small quantities, especially for small fiber sizes. About 10% of the
runoff which was monitored had detectable asbestos. The annual average
asbestos fiber concentration in urban runoff in Castro Valley was about thirty,
million fibers per liter. This concentration is roughly equivalent to 3 x 10
fibers per acre per year for an area without any known asbestos in the natural
soils. Eighty per cent (SOX) of the street surface samples contained detect-
able asbestos fibers. Street cleaning was found capable of achieving 10X re-
moval of asbestos during weekly street cleaning and up to SOX removal when
street cleaning was carried out three times per week.
G25-10
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
REGION IX, EPA
(To Be Provided)
626-1
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
REGION X, EPA
G27-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant outgrowths of the P.L. 92-500 "208 Water Quality
Planning" effort was the recognition of urban storm water quality as a principal
contributor to water quality problems in communities throughout the country.
Local government agencies have long been involved in the management of urban
storm water for the purposes of flow control (quantity) to relieve and reduce
local flooding, property damage, and public hazard and inconvenience. A
variety of Jurisdictions! entities have developed throughout the country to
perform this function at a local level, including flood control districts,
drainage districts, diking districts, soil conservation districts and municipal
and regional flood control management departments and agencies. Until recently,
however, only a few of these jurisdictions have involved themselves in water
quality pursuits as well. Most 208 Water Quality Management agencies, however,
after reviewing existing Institutional arrangements In their area, recommended
that urban storm water quality management should be closely coordinated or
combined with control of water quantity.
The City of Bellevue, located in the metropolitan area of Seattle, Washington,
between Lakes Washington and Samnamish, (Figure 1) has already moved in that
direction. The City embarked on a program of urban storm water quantity and
qualIty management In 1970, well before the passage of P.L. 92-500, by
establishing a Storm and Surface Water Utility within Us Department of Public
Works to administer the design and implementation of an effective storm
drainage/stream system.In the City. The Utility has a variety of functions
related to the operation of the city-wide drainage system, including planning,
design, construction, maintenance and operation of the physical system, acqui-
sition and preservation of wetlands, design review of all new developments In
the City (with requirements for on-slte detention of storm water), field
Inspection of development and construction practices, water quality and flow
quantity monitoring, and land use and flood plain development policy. Fortui-
tously, Bellevue had three characteristics which made the City especially well
suited for implementation of an effective, centralized stormwater management
system:
a) an even, continuous supply of rainfall (42 inches/year average);
b) no combined sewer systems In operation within the City limits; and
c) ninety percent of the area's drainage systems located within the
Bellevue city limits (the City of Bellevue and Mercer Island are
probably the only cities In the Pacific Northwest that will be able
to manage their storm water problems from within their respective
city limits.
Results of the Bellevue NURP study will be helpful to other agencies
contemplating, or already initiating, Innovative stormwater management
systems, not only in the Pacific Northwest but throughout the nation.
G27-2 627-3
-------
FIGURE 1 - STATE LOCUS OF 8EUEVUE NURP
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
Bellevue Washington is located in the Puget Sound lowlands on the west side
of the Cascade Mountains and immediately east of Lake Washington. It has a
land area of 25 square miles. The community is primarily a bedroom community
for middle and upper level anployees of the aerospace Industry located in
nearby Seattle. The principal land use is residential with associated commercial
development. The mean annual precipitation is about 42 inches, which occurs
mainly as rain.
B. Population
Bellevue currently has a population of over 75.000 people. As part of the
Bellevue Urban Runoff Project, a demographic survey was conducted in the Lake
Hills and Surrey Downs catchments, thi two primary catchments monitored during
the Project. These results Indicate that the population in Lake Hills is
approximately 4« higher than that in Surrey Downs. These differences are
due in large anounts to the higher housing density in Lake Hills (3.51 houses/
acre) as compared to Surrey Downs (2.99 houses/acre).
C. Drainage
The land surface in Bellevue is mostly hilly with very few flat areas. Slopes
are generally moderate with the exception of some steep slopes on the east
side of the city. Altitudes range from 40 feet on the western boundary to
over 400 feet at points on the eastern boundary. Drainage is carried by a
system of separate storm sewers, open channels and streams largely to the west
into Lake Washington through Hercer Slough although Phantom Lake and one other
stream flow east into Lake Sammamish (Figure 2). The surflc a geology is
typically relatively shallow, sandy soil overlying glacial-till hardpan.
D. Sewerage System
The existing sewerage systea serving the City of Bellevue 1s totally separated.
The structural stora drainage system - streets, curbs and gutters, storm Inlets.
swales, catchbaslns and culverts-are in good condition.
The City is served by the Renton wastewater treatment plant which has a current
capacity of 36 MGD, provides a secondary level of treatment and discharges
into the Duwamlsh River. Construction to expand the plant's capacity to 72
HGO is nearing completion. A second expansion will then be-initiated to
carry the plant .to its ultimate capacity, 105 HGO.
G27-5
G27-4
-------
FIGURE 2 - BELLEVUE STREAM SYSTEMS
G27-6
FIGURE 3 - BELLEVUE SAMPLING SITES
GZ7-7
-------
PROJECT AREA
I. Catchment Name - Lake Hills: 208 Bell 0586/12119725 - (Both the City of
Bellevue (COB) and USGS are monitoring runoff at this site: COB collects
flow proportional composites and enters data under station code "208
Bell 0586°; USGS collects selected discrete sanples and enters data
under "12119725",
A. Area - 101.7 acres.
B. Population - 1185 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representatie slope of 317
feet/mile. 1002 served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 211 feet/mile slope and extend 3400 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 9.683 lane miles of asphalt. 94* of which is In
good condition and 6* of which Is in fair condition.
E. Land Use
92 acres (90*) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
of which 33.8 acres (37*) is impervious.
9.7 acres (104) is Urban Institutional.
of which 3.6 acres(37X) is impervious.
II. Catchment Name - Surrey Downs: 208 Bell 0588/12120005 - (Both COB and
USGS are monitoring runoff at this site: COB collects flow proportional
composites and enters the data under station code "208 Bell 0588"; USGS
collects selected discrete sanples and enters data under station code
"12120005".)
A. Area - 95.1 acres.
B. Population - 822 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 475
feet/mile, 84* served with curbs and gutters. The storm sewers
approximate a 106 feet/mile slope and extend 3600 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 100* separate storm
sewers.
Streets consist of 6.18 lane miles of asphalt. 65* of which is in
good condition, 33* of which is In fair condition, and 2% of which
is In poor condition.
E. Land Use
95.1 acres (100*) is 2.5 to B dwelling units per acre residential,
of which 27.7 acres (291) Is impervious.
III. Catchment Name - 148th Avenue SE: 12119730 (only USGS monitors runoff at
this site: selected discrete samples with data entered under station code
"12119730".)
IV. Catchment Name - Lake Hills: 208 Bell 0580 - (Particulate data from
selected catchbasins within Lake Hills catchment.)
V. Catchment Name - Surrey Downs: 208 Bell 0581 - (Particulate data from
selected catchbasins within Surrey Downs catchment.)
VI. Catchment Name - Lake Hills: 208 Bell 0582 - (Street surface particulate
loadings from street sweeping within Lake Hills catchment.)
VII. Catchment Name - Surrey Downs - Hain Basin: 208 Bell 0583 (Street
surface particulate data from the major sub-basin of Surrey Downs
catchment.)
Streets consist of 4.787 lane miles of asphalt. 77* of which is in
good condition and 23* of which is In fair condition.
VIII. Catchment Name - Surrey Downs - 108th Avenue SE: 208 Bell 0584 (Street
surface particulate data from minor sub-basin of Surrey Downs catchment.)
This street, an arterial, is In poor-to-fair condition, has a bumpy
surface, has a rolled asphalt curb only on downhill side and is
bordered for most Us length by vacant land (grass, woods, brush).
IX. Catchment Name - Surrey Downs - Westwood Homes Road: 208 Bell 0585 (Street
surface particulate data from minor sub-basin of Surrey Downs catchment.)
This street is a private lane in good-to-excellent condition with a
rolled asphalt curb on the downhill side only.
X. Catchment Name - 148th Avenue SE: 208 Bell 0589 (Street surface particulate
data from the major portion of a drainage basin sampled only by USGS (12119730)).
This street Is a divided arterial in falr-to-good condition.
G27-8
G27-9
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
As noted In the Introduction, the City of Bellevue, through Its Storm and
Surface Water Utility, has established an Innovative organizational approach
to stormwater control. From Us Inception, the Utility has been under con-
stant pressure from citizens' groups and the general public (details below)
to focus Us efforts heavily upon Improving water quality as well as upon
resolving water quality and problems. All waters in and surrounding Bellevue
are classified °AA" to support use as fisheries (including salmon) and for
contact recreation - swimming, boating and canoeing. But while there has been
widespread concern that these standards are being violated or at least are
threatened by the rapid development that has characterized Bellevue's recent
past, the problem has not been documented with hard data. In part, the Bellevue
N1IRP study is directed at Identifying the pollutant loadings from urban runoff.
Additionally, while best management practices (BHPs) were tentatively Identified
in many Areawide 208 plans and preliminary studies of selected BHPs were con-
ducted, the effectiveness and costs associated with the practices for the most
part were only estimated. An urgent need exists to apply and test, under actual
field conditions, many of the BMPs Identified through the 208 Program. To
accurately assess the practices and their cost-effectiveness and to provide
"real-world" assessment of the requirements for effective Implementation, such
analysis should be conducted by an operating local agency In the course of Its
normal work program.
Bellevue's need for up-to-date, reliable data on pollutant loadings from
urban runoff and on the effectiveness and workability of control measures has
recently become more urgent as a result of Us selection as a test site for a
new State stormwater discharge permit program. Under a court order arising
from a suit brought against the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE),
the DOE has developed a State general permit program similar to the NPDES
General Permit Program which grew out of similar litigation at the national
level. Bellevue will be Issued the first such permit for a set term and then
monitored for permit compliance. Development of a realistic and effective
permit will require realistic, reliable data on both existing pollutant
levels in runoff discharges and the performance which can reasonably be expected
from control measures.
B. Local Perception (Public)
In part due to the presence of a large number of citizens of Scandanavlan
descent, the City of Bellevue has always treasured Its water resources,
particularly for fishing. Established at the same time as the Utility
itself, the Storm and Surface Water Advisory Commission (SSWAC) functions In
an advisory role to the City Council, reviewing the Utility's functions and
providing recommendations on policies and ordinances. It is composed of
citizens-at-large, many with professional Interests and expertise in the water
quality area as well (e.g., engineers, professors), and representatives of
business and community organizations within the City.
G27-10
More recently the Bellevue Creeks Committee, which meets monthly, has developed
from a cluster of concerned citizens Into a working committee Identifying water
quality goals and stimulating programs aimed at water quality and fisheries
enhancement and at wildlife habitat preservation to achieve them. In association
with Seattle Metro's Salmon Enhancement Program (SEP), sockeye salmon eggs were
Incubated In Kelsey Creek from January until March of 1980. Problems with
slltatlon reduced the survival of salmon eggs by approximately SOX but incubation
will continue at this and two other sites less vulnerable to slltatlon. Community
support for SEP has been overwhelming. Three local high schools (Bellevue
Christian, Bellevue High, and Interlake High) have assisted with construction
and box installation. Local sports and service organizations (Eastside Steel-
wheelers. Overtake Fly Fishing, and Bellevue Kiwanls) have assisted with site
preparation; box installation and stream clean-ups. Elementary school groups
(Somerset, Wllburton, Three Points, Clyde Hill and Cherry Crest) have seen the
eggs taken from Cedar River adult salmon or have seen the slide presentation
on SEP. Private citizens and Interested groups (Seattle Audubon) assisted in
a gruelling silt removal project on Valley Creek. Over forty cubic yards of
silt and debris were hand-shovelled onto a conveyor belt to a waiting dump
truck in order to clear out a dam which will act as a sediment trap upstream
of the new egg box. The popularity of SEP is evidenced by the many news
articles published about it and by the television coverage it has received
in the past year. However, the significance and value of the Salmon Enhancement
Project Is far greater than just Improving the odds for future salmon runs.
It has also served as a high visible, readily understandable and attentlon-
gettln vehicle for educating citizens and local officials about the Impacts of
stormwater runpff upon water quality and for rallying their support for programs
to improve and protect strean quality. It has been a key factor in the passage
of ordinances to control discharge of pollutants to the drainage system and In
the establishment of related stream management programs.
Public awareness is also generated through programs like Bellevue's Oil
Recycling Program. In the summer of 1980 over one-half of the City's service
stations agreed to receive used crankcase oil from the public and to publicly
identify their stations by pasting a sign. Another poster was distributed by
local Boy and Girl Scout troops to merchants that sell oil. One of the most
significant accomplishments of the Creeks Committee, however, was the recent
passage of the storm drainage advisory ballot for the sale of $10 million of
revenue bonds for urban runoff capital improvements.
627-11
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
This study provides a well documented assessment of the application, cost
and effectiveness of BHP's for urban storm water quality control within an
operating local agency of government. In cooperation with the United States
Geological Survey, the City has applied a variety of structural, non-structural
and operational management practices in several small watersheds and monitored
the cost of such practices and their effect upon quality conditions.
Specifically, the study seeks:
* To apply uniformly, in selected drainage basins, a variety of
management practices which are avallabe to and achievable by
local units of government;
To improve standard practices and operations by varying the frequency
and manner of application, developing management programming methods
and altering monitoring and inspection practices for greater respon-
siveness to water quality needs;
* To test, analyze and document the impact of local management
practices on storm water quality, Isolating causal factors and
their impacts on water quality and evaluating and developing
functional relationships between the quantity and quality of
runoff and the hydrologic and cultural characteristics of the
basins involved;
* To develop, test and document methods of source control of common
urban storm water pollutants;
' To document temporal changes in storm runoff and constituent
concentrations within several drainage basins of differing land
use;
To develop and document means of incorporating best management
practices into the institutional and operational framework of
local government agencies;
To expand the toxic metals, sediment, herbicides and pesticides,
and other data base for various land use categories, contributing
to the data base of storm water quality modeling efforts nationally;
To develop methods for estimating storm and annual loads of water-
quality constituents from unsaopled watersheds in each urban-study
area; and
To evaluate methods of transfering the data to ungaged watersheds
in other regions.
G27-12
8. Methodologies
As its part of the cooperative study, USGS Is carrying out continuous monitoring
of precipitation on three urban catchments, and the resultant discharge from
these catchments; the collection and chemical analysis of rainfall and dry
deposition samples, both of which are composited over periods of time varying
from fractions of a day to a month: and the collection of discrete samples of
runoff to define pollutant hydrographs for each of the catchments during
approximately 12 storms per year.
For its part, the City of Bellevue is gathering composite samples of stormwater
runoff from two urban catchments (Surrey Downs and Lake Hills) as well as
catchbasins and street partlculate samples from the same two catchments. Street
sweeping evaluation is accomplished by using one of the basins.as a control,
with no sweeping, while the other is swept Intensively. A period of no sweeping
in either basin follows. Then the swept basin and control basin are reversed.
The major objective of this part of the study is to determine the effectiveness
of street cleaning equipment for various levels of effort under the actual
conditions encountered. The most important measure of street cleaning effect-
iveness is "pounds per curb-mile removed" for a specific program condition.
This removal value, in conjunction with the unit curb-mile costs, allows the
cost for removing a pound of pollutant for a specific street cleaning program
to be calculated. ;
i
An important element of the Bellevue urban runoff project is the study of
sewerage system partlculate deposition and scour. The objective of this
portion of the program is to describe the quantities and characteristics of
sewerage system particulates in the study area. The sewer system partlculate
studies involve both observation and sampling of catchbasin particulates and
particulates accumulated in the pipes throughout the Lake Hills and Surrey
Downs study areas. Data obtained from these studies will be compared
to monitored street surface loadings and total runoff yields measured at the
outfalls of the two study areas. Analysis procedures will attempt to obtain
a continuous mass balance relationship between total runoff yields and all
the sources of urban runoff pollution. These nass relationships will define
the Importance of sewerage solids to the!total runoff yield. It will also
provide an insight to the residence time of particulates within the sewage
system and how these times are affected by runoff from adjacent storms.
The municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) Is participating in the
Bellevue Urban Runoff Project under a grant entitled the 'Toxicant Inventory."
This grant allows Metro to have samples that are collected in the Bellevue
Project analyzed for the 129 EPA toxic or 'priority* pollutants. All except
asbestos are being looked for at the part per billion range in these samples.
Sampling through the summer and fall of 1980 resulted in the collection of
seventeen samples. Decisions on the remaining samples were made based on
careful review of the results of those samples. The stormwater runoff and
street dust samples for priority pollutant analyses are all split samples
from the Bellevue Project collected by Bellevue staff and handled in such
a way as to minimize sample contamination.
627-13
-------
C. Monitoring
Two of the three study catchments, Surrey Downs and Lake Hills, are single-family
residential areas of similar size. These two basins are used to investigate
the effectiveness of street sweeping for reducing the anount of pollutants In
storm runoff. The third catchment. 148th Avenue, consists mainly of a divided
4-lane arterial street. The data from this site are used to Investigate
the effects of detention basins on the quality of runoff.
The area comprising the Surrey Downs catchment consists of single fanily homes
and the Bellevue Senior High School. Slopes In the basin are generally moderate,
with the exception of the steep slopes on the west side. Surrey Downs Is re-
latively isolated from neighboring communities by the general lack of easy
vehicular access and convenient 'short cuts" through this residential neighbor-
hood.
The Lake Hills catchment contains single family residences and the St. Louise
Parish Church and School. Although there are relatively Isolated residential
areas within the catchment, two through-streets, which carry more traffic than
a typical residential street, cross the area.
The 148th Avenue catchment contains 4,960 feet of 148th Avenue, a four-lane,
divided arterial street, and some adjacent land with sidewalks, apartments,
parking lots, office buildings, and grassy swales that can be used as detention
basins. A little over one-fourth of the catchment area is taken up by the
148th Avenue street surface.
USGS sample collection and management procedures are essentially the same at all
three sites. A digital paper punch recorder records: (1) clock time, (2) a
number code which indicates If a sample was taken by the automatic sampler,
(3) accumulated precipitation in up to three rain gages, and (4) up to two
stages for computing discharge. Data are recorded at 5-minute Intervals
whenever the gage exceeds a present threshold or whenever there Is measurable
precipitation. In addition, data are recorded at 1:00 a.m. every day regard-
less of stage or precipitation. Precipitation is measured with tipplng-bucket
rain gages. Three gages are operated for the Surrey Downs catchment and two
each are operated for the Lake Hills and 148th Avenue catchments. Rainfall
and dry deposition quality samples are collected at one location in each
catchment. Discrete runoff sanples are taken during storms for defining the
temporal variation of water quality during storm hydrographs. Samples are
taken at a preset time interval (5 to 50 minutes) once the stage exceeds a
preset threshold.
The procedures and techniques used by Bellevue for collecting composite flow
and proportional stormwater runoff samples are as follows. The sampler is
triggered at pre-determined increments of flow by the flowmeter (300 and 500
cubic feet the former to obtain more subsamples when small events were expect-
ed). The flowmeters use an ultrasonic transducer to sense relative stage.
Stage Is converted to discharge by a programmed microprocessor in the flowmeter
and presented on a circular flow chart as a percentage of maximum rated flow.
The microprocessor is programmed from a stage/discharge rating developed by the
USGS. Storm samples are removed from the samplers as soon as possible after
storms, typically within two or three hours. Samples are kept on ice until pH,
conductivity and turbidity are measured in-house. Subsamples are preserved and
sent to a contract lab in Seattle for the remaining chemical analysis.
G27-14
To obtain street surface participate samples the City of Bellevue used the
following procudures. Because the street surfaces were more likely to be
dry during daylight hours (necessary for good .sample collection), collection
did not begin before sunrise nor continue after sunset, unless additional
personnel were available for traffic control. Subsamples were collected In
a narrow strip about six Inches wide (the width of the gulper) from one side
of the street to the other (curb-to-curb). In heavily traveled streets where
traffIce was a probelm, some subsamples consisted of two separate half-street
•strips (curb-to-crown).
To carry out the catch basin sampling tasks, all catch basins In each study
area were surveyed for location, length, size and slope of pipes, and depth
of catchment. Another survey was done to record the dimensions of each catch
basin. Sediment volume could then be calculated from a measurement of sedi-
ment depth.
Some experimental design work was done In 1979 and early 1980 to determine
the concentrations of some pollutant constituents. Grab samples of supernatant
and sediment were taken from selected catch basins in each study area and.sub-
mitted to a contract lab for chemical analysis. During 1980, two complete
catch basin Inventories Mere made; recording sediment depth, and thus mass
loading In the system. Monthly Inventories are scheduled for 1981. Since
December, 1980, spot checks of fifteen to twenty-five selected catch basins
In each study area .have been made after each significant storm event. This
Information, along with storm and street loading data should allow characteri-
zation of flushing and deposition within the sewerage system.
For the toxicant Inventory portion of the study, stormwater runoff samples
are collected as flow proportioned composites using Manning S3000T automated
samplers — all teflon and glass contact surfaces — activated by ultrasonic
floMneters, e«cept for the volatile sanples which are collected as grabs early
In the storm events. Samplers and containers are cleaned between events accord-
Ing to USEPA protocols using 'Micro* brand soap and nitric acid; the hyro-
chlorlc acid and methylene chloride rinses are not used. Oeionized distilled
water blanks are taken through each sampler before use and have proven to be
completely clean of organic and metal contaminants. Street surface dust
samples are collected as described above using a stainless steel vacuum and
PVC flexible hose. No special cleaning protocol has been applied to the vacuum.
Some sample contamination could occur from the PVC hose, but no functional
alternatives has been found for collecting the dust sanples. Interstitial water
samples from the stream-bed In KeUey Creek are collected through aluminum stand-
pipes set In the strean gravel, using a Manning S3000T sampler to draw the water
up from the perforated base of the standplpe. This sampling Is In conjunction
with the 'Ecological Impacts of Stormwater Runoff In Urban Streams" project of
the University of Washington.
D. Equipment
The equipment used by the City of Bellevue at the Lake Hills and Surrey Downs
sites for flow-weighted composite stormwater monitoring consists of a Manning
composite sampler (S-3000), a Manning flonraeter with an ultrasonic stage sensor
(UF-1100) and a 12 volt power converter. The samplers were factory modified
for priority pollutant sanpling. All surfaces contacting the sampler are
either glass or teflon.
G27-15
-------
For the USGS sampling effort at Lake Hills, Surrey Downs and 14Qth St., at
walk-In instrument shelter was constructed near the mouth of each catchment
for housing a data recording system and sample control and collection system.
A digital paper punch recorder records: (1) clock time, (2) a number code
which indicates if a sample was taken by the automatic sampler, (3) accumulated
precipitation in up to the three rain gages, and (4) up to two stages for
cusputing discharge.
For the City's street sampling task various vacuum, hose and gulper attachment
combinations were tested. Relative air flows and suction pressures in the
hose were monitored for different test set-ups. Both one-and two-vacuum con-
figurations and 1.5 inch hoses in lengths varying from 10 to 35 feet were
tested, along with a Vacu-Hax unit. The standard "reference" systan was two
vacuums and a 35-foot hose. The best suction and higher air velocities were
observed with two vacuums and short hose lengths (10 feet), but the short hose
length would require that the vacuuns be dismounted from the truck at each
subsampling location. The longer hose, with the two vacuums, was judged
adequate, and resulted in great cost and time savings.
A pick-up truck was used to carry the equipment components, consisting of a
generator, tools, fire extinguisher, vacuum hose and wand, and two wet-dry
vacuum units during sample collection. The truck had warning lights, including
a roof-top flasher unit.
Two industrial vacuum cleaners (2-hp) with one secondary filter and a primary
dacron filter bag were used. The vacuun units were heavy duty and made of
stainless steel to reduce contamination of the samples, the two 2-hp vacuums
were used together by using a wye connector at the end of the hose. This
combination extended the useful length of the 1.5 Inch hose to 35 feet and
increased the suction. A wand and a gulper attachment were also used.
E. Controls
Alternate streetsweeping in the Lake Hills and Surrey Downs basins, using the
unswept basin as a control, was described earlier. The other control being
evaluated Is a unique, small, short-term detention basin at 148th St. The storm
sewer system consists of a main trunk line parallel to the street, which is fed
by short laterals that connect to catchbasins In 148th Avenue and in adjacent
lands. The sewer has a complex system of gates and valves in five junction boxes
that permit the storm water to be backed up into five grassy swales which serve
as detention basins.
G27-16
-------
NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD, ORE.GON
REGION X, EPA
G28-1
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area has a population of just over 200,000
people and has been experiencing moderately rapid growth. Much of the storm
runoff for the area Is collected In open channels that serve multiple-use
function including open space, flood control, dratnagei recreation and Irrigation.
Significant portions of the runoff so collected discharge secondarily to the
Willamette River Inside the metro area. Eugene and Springftled are at points
in their development where recent growth Is outstripping the existing drainage
capacity. At the same time, more and more growth Is occurring In hill areas
where problems are erosion and peak flow are being exacerbated. Complicating
these developments is the general desire to concentrate growth In the central
urban areas and the Increasingly strongly felt need to preserve water-oriented
open spaces and parks. Hence, a timely reconsideration of the physical demands
of runoff control coincides with the increasing need to control runoff quality,
and if solutions to both of these problems are not developed In the next several
years, serious service cost escalations and compromises In beneficial uses are
to be expected.
Urban stormwater runoff pollution from the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area
has been identified as a significant source of contamination to local streams
and water bodies on an annual average as well as during peak storm events.
Of particular concern are spills and accidental discharges of oil,grease and
industrial chemicals during high runoff periods. This contamination causes a
variety of problems ranging from specific and localized health hazards In water
recreation areas to a more general degradation of streams and chronic Interference
with downstrean beneficial uses. In-stream water quality standard violations have
been observed as a regular result of this contamination. Under an intitlal 208
Grant problems were identified and potential control options developed. The NURP
grant is being used to complete this process by Identifying and developing specific
and adoptable management programs.
FIGURE 1 - STATE LOCUS OF EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD NURP PROJECT
G28-2
G28-3
-------
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
A. Area
The Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area is located in western Oregon
approximately 55 miles inland from the Pacific coastline and 100 miles south
of Portland. The total land area of the two jurisdictions totals just over
29,000 acres.
B. Population
Eugene/Springfield is a growing metropolitan center whose current population
of 190,000 is expected to reach 300,000 by the year 2000. The City of Eugene
has 102,000 people, Springfield has 43,000 and 45,000 people reside in the
semi-urban unincorporated areas of River Road and Santa Clara.
C. Drainage
Much of the area is of flat topography with occasional prominences above the
130-meter valley elevation. The southern portion of both cities are bordered
by hills rising 100-250 meters above the surrounding flatlands. Natural
drainages in this area are of basically two types - Intermittent and seoi-
permanent small-hill drainages, and long flood channels that drain the
alluvial flats. Some streams, such as Amazon Creek, are combinations of hill
drainages and extended flood channels. An exception is Spring Creek, which
is fed from groundwater springs. Nearly all of the channels have been at
least partially altered by nan. In particular, Amazon Creek has been deepened,
channelized in most lower reaches, concrete lined In the city center and di-
verted from its flood swale west of Eugene towards Fern Ridge Reservoir. The
"Q" Channel is a channelized flood swale to which a McKenzie River connection
was added for irrigation and to which side channels have been attached for
runoff drainage. Near its lower end a park pond has been created and Willamette
River waters diverted via a canoe way to increase the flow.
The drainages are highly variable In their flow volumes with summer flows
running 0-1 cfs. and winter maxima reaching 100 to 1000 times that volume. The
Amazon Creek has been known to exceed 1000 cfs. west of Eugene. In the south
hills and in western sections of Eugene where heavy, clay soils predominate,
runoff response to rainfall is rapid, while in the central and northern areas
of Eugene and Springfield, the presence of pervious soils means that stream
flow will often not increase until soils are saturated and the shallow water
table has risen to the stream bottom level.
0. Sewerage System
A piped stormwater drainage system directs runoff into open channels which
carry the waters north and west to receiving waters such as Fern Ridge Reservoir
or the Willamette River. The stormwater drainage systems in both cities are
generally separated from the sanitary sewer systems but storm overflow connect-
ions do exist. Eugene and Springfield are currently each served by wastewater
treatment plants providing a secondary level of treatment. A 50-MGO advanced
secondary wastewater treatment facility to serve the whole Metropolitan Area
will be completed in 1983.
G28-4
5z
— "
Z 09
555
PS
3?
e_ «•»
G28-5
-------
MONITORING STATIONS, CATCHMENTS. AND RECEIVING MATERS
I. Catchment Name - Amazon at Oakpatch (limited data)
A. Area - 6951 acres.
B. Population - 45,210 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slopeof 320
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 19.6X feet/mile slope
and extend 30,140 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 60X separate storm
sewers and 40X with no sewers.
E. Land Use
2000 acres (292) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
1500 acres (Z2X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
300 acres (4X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
200 acres (3X) is Linear Strip Development.
41 acres (<1X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
400 acres (16X) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
460 acres (7X) Is Urban Institutional.
550 acres (6%) is Agriculture.
1500 acres (22X) Is Forest.
II. Catchment Name - Amazon at Washington
A. Area - 4745 acres.
8. Population - 28,830 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 355
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 26.IX feet/mile slope
and extend 19,730 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 55X separate storm
sewers and 45X without sewers.
E. Land Use
1400 acres (30X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
810 acres (17X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
280 acres (6X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
G28-6
125 acres (3X) Is Linear Strip Development.
270 acres (6X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
260 acres (5X) is Urban Institutional.
400 acres (8X) is Agriculture.
1200 acres (25X) Is Forest.
»
HI. Catchment Name - A-2 at Golden Garden
A. Area - 1655 acres.
B. Population - 7,570 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 8.8
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 7.6 feet/mile slope and
extend 14.400 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 40X separate storm
sewers and 60X without sewers.
E. Land Use
730 acres (44X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban Residential.
115 acres (It) Is Linear Strip Development.
30 acres (2X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
250 acres (15X) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
280 acres (17X) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
100 acres (6X) is Urban Institutional.
150 acres (9X) is Agriculture.
IV. Catchment Name - A-3 at Hall is
A. Area - 565 acres.
B. Population - 190 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 9.2
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 2.4 feet/mile slope and
extend 3700 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 30X separate storm
sewers and 70X without sewers.
G28-7
-------
E. Land Use
4 acres (IX) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
2 acres (<1X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
74 acres (13X) is Linear Strip Development.
127 acres (22X) is Urban Industrial (light).
85 acres (15%) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
190 acres (342) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
85 acres (15%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
V. Catclment Name - Q Street at Garden Way
A. Area - 4428 acres.
B. Population - 27,300 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 14
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 9.8 feet/mile slope and
extend 27.000 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is SOX separate storm
sewers and SOX without sewers.
E. Land Use
670 acres (15X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
1305 acres (29X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
219 acres (5X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
180 aces (4X) is Linear Strip Development.
45 acres (IX) is Shopping Center.
110 acres (2X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
240 acres (6X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
810 acres (1BX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
199 acres (5X) is Urban Institutional.
650 acres (15X) is Agriculture.
G28-8
VI. Catchment Name - Q Street North Branch •
A. Area - 676 acres.
8. Population - 550 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 12
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 10.5 feet/mile slope
and extend 8500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 1004 without sewers.
E. Land Use
40 acres (7X) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
5 acres (IX) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
70 acres (12X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
135 acres (23X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
26 acres (5X) is Urban institutional.
300 acres (52X) Is Agriculture.
VII. Catchment Name - Q Street South Branch
A. Area - 1170 acres.
B. Population - 6670 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 14
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 10.5 feet/mile slope and
extend 10.500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment 1s SOX separate storm
sewers and 20X without sewers.
E. Land Use
450 acres (3BX) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
95 acres (8X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
95 acres (8X) is Linear Strip Development.
25 acres (2X) is Shopping Center.
100 acres (9X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
80 acres (7X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
300 acres (26X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
25 acres (2X) is Urban Institutional.
628-9
-------
VIII. Catchment Name - Q Street at Quinalt (monitored under previous 208 Study)
A. Area - 2985 acres.
B. Population - Approximately 23,000 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of a IS
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 10 feet/mile slope and
extend 23,800 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 90X separate storm
sewers and 10* without sewers.
E. Land Use
230 acres (8X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
1105 acres (37X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
139 acres (5X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
145 acres (5X) is Linear Strip Development.
45 acres (2%) is Shopping Center.
100 acres (3%) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
190 acres (6X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
610 acres (20%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
121 acres (4X) is Urban Institutional.
300 acres (10*) Agriculture.
IX. Catchment Name - Q Street at Centennial
A. Area - 4736 acres.
6. Population - 28,030 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 14
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 9.8 feet/mile slope
and extend 34,500 feet.
0. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 50* separate storm
sewers and SOX without sewers.
E. Land Use
670 acres (14X) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
G28-10
1305 acres (28X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
219 acres (5X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
215 acres (5X) Is Linear Strip Development.
45 acres (IX) is Shopping Center.
110 acres (2X) Is Urban Industrial (moderate).
240 acres (5X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
885 acres (19X). Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
250 acres (5X) Is Urban Institutional.
787 acres (17X) Is Agriculture.
X. Catchment Name - Q Street at Second
A. Area - 2793 acres.
B. Population - 14,840 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 13
feet/mile. The stora sewers approximate an 8.6 feet/mile slope
• and extend 18,500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 95* separate storm
sewers and 5X is without sewers.
E. Land Use
190 acres (7X) Is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
1020 acres (37X) Is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
137 acres (5X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
140 acres (5X) Is Linear Strip Development.•
45 acres (2X) Is Shopping Center.
100 acres (4X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
190 acres (7X) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
550 acres (20X) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
121 acres (4X) Is Urban Institutional.
300 acres (11*) is Agriculture.
G28-11
-------
XI-X1I. Catchment Name - Amazon Vegetation 1,2,3 - Downstream, Mid-Site and Upstream
A. Area - 11,321 acres.
B. Population - 52,310 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 270
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 15.6 feet/mile slope and
extend 43.077 feet.
D. Sewerage- Drainage area of the catchment is 60X separate storm
sewer and 4OX without sewers.
E. Land Use
2800 acres (25%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
I860 acres (16X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
420 acres (4X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
350 acres (3X) is Linear Strip Development.
81 acres (IX) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
60 acres (1%) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
650 acres (6X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
600 acres (5X) is Urban Institutional.
2400 acres (21X) is Agriculture.
2100 acres (19%) Is Forest.
XIII. Catchment Name - A-3 at Bertelsen
A. Area - 1056 acres.
B. Population - 200 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 8.4
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 4.2 feet/mile slope and
extend 6,000 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 25X separate storm
sewers and 75X without sewers.
E. Land Use
2 acres (<1X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
4 acres (<1X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
2 acres (<1X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
93 acres (9X) is Linear Strip Development.
165 acres (16X) is Urban Industrial (light).
116 acres (11X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
239 acres (23X) is Industrial (heavy).
435 acres (41X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
XIV. Catchment Name - Polk Stormsewer
A. Area - 771 acres.
B. Population - 6600 persons.
C. Drainage'- This catchment area has a representative slope of 5.3
feet/mile.
E. Land Use
254 acres (MX) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
50 acres (6X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
227 acres (29X) is Central Business District.
114 acres (15X) is Linear Strip Development.
32 acres (5X) is Urban Industrial (light).
34 acres (5X) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
50 acres (6X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
10 acres (IX) Is Urban Institutional.
XV. Catchment Name - Harcola Ditch 2 - Above E. Bale
A. Area - 16 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
E. Land Use
16 acres (100X) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
G28-12
628-13
-------
XVI. Catchment Name - Marcola Ditch 3 - Above H. Bale
A. Area - 4 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
E. Land Use
•4 acres (100X) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
XVII. Catchment Name - Marcola Ditch 1 - Below Oil Trap
A. Area - 20 acres.
B. Population - 0 persons.
E. Land Use
20 acres (100X) Is Urban Industrial (heavy).
XVIII. Catchment Name - Amazon above 29th Sed. Trap
A. Area - 3066 acres.
B. Population - 13,640 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 4.50
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 39 feet/mile slope and
extend 10,750 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 40X separate storm
sewers and 60X without sewers.
E. Land Use
1120 acres (375!) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
160 acres (5%) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
33 acres (IX) is Linear Strip Development.
38 acres (1%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
145 acres (5X) is Urban Institutional.
400 acres (13%) is Agriculture.
1170 acres (38X) Is Forest.
XIX. Catchment Name - Amazon at 29th - Below Sed. Trap
A. Area - 3066 acres.
B. Population - 13,640 persons.
G28-14
C. Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 450
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 41 feet/mile slope and
extend 10,800 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment Is 40X separate storm
sewers and 60t without sewers.
E. Land Use
1120 acres (37X) Is O.S to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
160 acres (5X) Is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
33 acres (IX) Is Linear Strip Development.
38 acres (IX) Is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
145 acres (5X) Is Urban Institutional.
400 acres (13X) Is Agriculture.
1170 acres (38X) Is Forest.
XX. Catchment Name - 72nd at Thurston (discharge to McKensle River)
A. Area - Approximately 700 acres.
8. Population - 870 persons.
C. Drainage - This catchment area has representative slope of 720
feet/mile. The storm sewers approximate a 30 feet/mile slope and
extend 2500 feet.
D. Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 15X separate storm
sewers and 85X without sewers.
XXI. Receiving Haters - Springfield Hill Race near Willamette River.
XXII. Receiving Waters - Eugene Hill Race at Mill Street (limited data).
XXIII. Receiving Haters - Willamette River at Valler River Footbridge.
XXIV. Receiving Waters - Hilllaroette River at Autzen Footbridge.
XXV. Receiving Haters - Wllliamette River at Highway 126 Bridge.
628-15
-------
PROBLEM
A. Local Definition (Government)
Past studies in the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area have included an
industrial survey, a data-supported STORM II modeling of major basin hydro-
land pollutograph predictions, development of lists of problen areas and
potential abatement techniques, compilations of existing ordinances and
charter powers, and considerable public involvement effort. The local juris-
dictions have been convinced by these studies that a general problem exists
and that certain areas, such as Amazon Creek, Springfield and Eugene Hillraces,
the A-3 Channel, and the "Q" Street Channel, are of special concern because of
their existing and potential uses.
Local data is presently insufficient, however, to support specific program
findings such as, for example, that lead in a problem in the Millraces but
organics and oil are the major concern in the "Q" Street Channel. Simi-
larly, although national data provides a guide for preliminary controls
selection, the data is presently insufficient to determine that, for example,
under the conditions which exist in Eugene/Springfield, vaccum sweeping
rather than catch basin cleaning will provide the needed 60% reduction in
sediment loads at the sane cost factor. Until morespecific answers to these
questions can be provided, the jurisdictions are unlikely to adopt effective
and (mplementable ordinances or plans or actually to commit their public
works efforts to a comprehensive program of controls.
As a result of earlier studies, especially the Lane COG 208 Plan, matrices
were prepared to identify the relationships between critical problem areas,
potential managanent options, pollution impacts and the present state of
knowledge. These matrices painted out large gaps in the existing knowledge
of certain pollutant problems and physical management options. In addition
they showed that the most thoroughly researched options (ordinances) also have
the lowest level of benefits for many of the local priority areas. The problem
therefore, Is one of gathering selected additional data on known local areas
of concern, using this data to evaluate the costs and local utility of various
stormwater runoff control measures, choosing from among a range of control
options, and then developing schema for the Implementation of this option.
The goal will be to find control methods sufficient to protect beneficial uses
in areas of concern (25-75% pollution reduction) and to provide a lesser de-
gree of abatement (10-40% reduction) in other major drainages.
B. Local Perception (Public Awareness)
Local officials, citizen groups and the public at large have shown an increased
awareness of, and a desire to support, storm runoff control efforts and have
provided strong support, administratively and financially, for past efforts.
From the inception of the multi-year L-COG "200" planning effort, a broadly
representative Citizens Advisory Committee was closely and actively involved
in the identification and assessment of storawater runoff problems in the
Eugene/Springfield area and possible solutions to them. In addition to pro-
viding frequent advice and comments to local elected and appointed officials
throughout all stages of the L-COG 208 planning project, the Citizens Advisory
Committee regularly communicated the findings of the 208 study to the public
as a whole and stimulated discussions of the leading issues through newsletters,
workshops and public meetings. As the planning process moved closer to the
implementation phase, the CAC was replaced by a 208 Areawide Advisory Committee
which 1s more oriented to policy formulation.
G28-16
Two documents in particular received wide distribution and attention. The
"Urban Streaii or Open Sewer" newsletter, distributed in 1977, discussed general
problems with runoff potential impacts upon the beneficial uses of urban
waters and the future of runoff management. A ma1lout brochure relating
"Urban Water Pollution and Hazardous Wastes" was developed and mailed out in
utility billing In 1978 to over 55.000 residences. The focus of this information
was to the proper disposal of hazardous wastes that might otherwise end up in
storm drains. Recycling was emphasized.
As & result of the activities of the Citizen Advisory Committe and other
environmentally oriented citizen organizations, there is a high degree of
sensitivity to actual and potential stormwater runoff problems aaong both
public officials and the public as a whole. In addition, several accidents
and oil spills resulting In fish kills have highlighted the need for spill
prevention and toxic chemical control measures. There is widespread support.
In principle, for protecting and improving the urban drainage ways for recre-
ational and other beneficial uses. The specific economic and social costs
which will be requ4red to assure such protection were not clearly and fully
identified prior to the NURP study, however, and the final level of public
support will only be known after those costs have been determined and a final
management plan proposed.
G28-17
-------
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Major Objectives
The overall objective of NURP project activities Is to complete the technical,
institutional, and financial groundwork necessary for effective implementation
of the ordinances, policies, plans and specific programs developed In concept-
ual form during the earlier 208 assessment of urban runoff problems in the
Eugene/Springfield area. The specific objectives are:
1. To complete inventories of beneficial uses, problems and development
potentials for all urban storm drainages, provide maps and develop
basin goals and plans, and assure protection of critical areas
through adoption of appropriate Comprehensive Metropolitan Plans
by appropriate planning agencies and public works departments;
2. To refine potential Best Management Practices (including analysis of
costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies), and provide each
jurisdiction with general basin, and problem-specific strategies
suitable for adoption (including strategies for critical problem areas
or significant runoff hazards);
3. To conduct pilot studies to adapt BMP's operationally to local situ-
ations, and explore innovative, passive, low energy or low cost
control alternatives (street and site maintenance modifications,
control ordinances, and instream treatment systems);
4. To perform financing studies to develop a funding base for runoff
management programs (with a major focus on exploration of a "user
charge" financial base for support of a management plan);
5. To develop plans for coordination of existing ordinances for the
control of Industrial, construction, commercial and residential
site runoff, provide brief cost-benefit analysis on effective
ordinance enforcement and develop guidance to assist appropriate
jurisdictions in enlarging funding for ordinance enforcement;
6. To conduct data gathering programs to define more accurately the
following concerns: toxic chemicals runoff (heavy metals) chronic
receiving strean impacts, the relationships between specific bene-
ficial uses and quality constraints, winter peak and spring flow
quality and loading, effectiveness of natural treatment systems,
and pilot study evaluations;
7. To recalibrate the previously used STORM II or SAM model of runoff/
rainfall relationships on key channels, use it to predict problems
associated with peak flow and spring runoffs, and assess costs of
structural flow management options;
8. To provide accurate and up-to-date information on runoff control
problems and strategies to public works and planning departments,
public interest groups, and special interest (e.g., industrial con-
cerns) groups so as to involve them all in the development of goals
and plans for the preservation of beneficial uses of urban waters;
G28-18
9. To evaluate the Impacts of storm runoff pollution on existing and
proposed beneficial uses of the Amazon Creek and "Q" Street Channel
systems and the quality Impacts of proposed diversions on source
and receiving streams.
B. Methodologies
To accomplish the above objectives, a broad spectrum of activities were planned
and are now near Ing completion. All urban drainage basins were inventoried,
and mapped on the basis of currently availalbe information. Maps include land
use, vegetation, zoning and planning designations, soils, hydrologic control
points, major impervious zones, benefical uses and problem areas. The maps
are In a format suitable for Comprehensive Metropolitan Plans.
SNYOP was combined with sub-basin rain gage data to analyze storm trends but
found not to be effective as a defining tool in the Northwest due to the length
of storms and their lack of intensity. Wetfal1/dryfall and rainfall samples
from stations located strategically around the metropolitan area, are regularly
collected and analyzed. Background and storm sampling for flow and numerous
water quality parameters have been conducted for more than a year at both
control and loading sites.
Pilot studies of sediment traps, vegetation management, industrial site runoff
management (straw bale oil/grease trap) and street sweeping/street maintenance
have been conducted to determine their effectiveness and feasibility as relat-
ively low-cost, easy-maintenance control measures. Priority pollutant sampling
has been carried out at two sites. In-streara water quality Impacts were assessed
by means of an Invertebrate and periphyton analysis at the vegetation site.
Analysis of land development ordinances In both Eugene and Springfteld is aimed
at evaluating the effectiveness of existing ordinances in controlling pollution
from erosion, track-out and Increased runoff, the enforceablllty of such ordi-
nances and the extent to which they allow fixing the responsibility for such
problems on the land developers. Major emphasis has been given to preparation
of a detailed financial management plan by a financial consultant which includes
cost/budget breakdowns for both cities in terms of current revenues and sources,
cost projections for various runoff management programs and recommended program
funding options for each city specifically designed to Incorporate water quality
enhancenent and protection costs.
C. Monitoring
Twenty-six (26) sampling sites were established throughout the Eugene/Spring-
field Metropolitan area and for the most part have, been sampled under both
storm and base flow conditions for flow and various water quality parameters.
Water quality samples were taken manually and flows were measured for the most
part by the use of stream gages.
G28-19
-------
Sixteen (16) of the sampling sites were used to collect in-stream water quality
data for one or more of several purposes: to provide additional data needed
to refine the STORM II or SAM Model, to assess the impact of urban runoff upon
Willamette River water quality, to assess the impact of street cleaning frequency
and to assess the impact of industrial/commercial/construction activity upon run-
off quality.
Three (3) of the sampling sites have been used to evaluate the straw bale oil/
grease trap installed in an open ditch draining a wood products industrial
site, with two sites located above the control site and one below it. Two (2)
of the sites were used in the spring of 1981 for priority pollutant sampling.
Two (2) sites have been utilized to evaluate the performance of a sediment trap
in a relatively newly developed part of Eugene upstream from the commercial/
Industrial section of the city. Three (3) sites have been used to assess the
Impacts of natural vegetation and alternative vegetation management techniques
upon water quality.
The parameters for which the samples were analyzed included total and suspended
solids, pH, conductance, turbidity, hardness, alkalinity, temperature, BOO, COD,
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, lead, zinc, chromium, mercury, copper, iron, arsenic,
col(forms, bio-indicators (periphyton and invertebrates), flow and pesticides
(as needed).
Controls
The controls which were evaluated as part of the Eugene/Springfield NURP were
vegetation treatment and management, sedimentation traps, street sweeping, land
development ordinances and straw bale oil/grease traps.
G28-20
-------
APPENDIX H
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT'S
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER PROGRAM
H-l
-------
APPENDIX H
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 15 years, much research effort has been expended and a large amount
of data has been generated on the characterization and control of stormwater
discharges and combined sewer overflows (CSO), primarily through the actions and
support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Storm and Combined
Sewer Control Research and Development (SCS) Program.
The program originated in 1964 under the EPA predecessor organization, the
U.S. Public Health Service, and has been supported by U.S. Public Laws (PL) since
1965 (presently by the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,"
PL 92-500 and the "Clean Water Act of 1977," PL 95-217).
The purposes of the program are to quantify urban storm and CSO pollution problems
and develop countermeasure controls.
These urban wet-weather pollution control advancements are and can be used by
those municipal and consulting engineers and planners concerned with area-wide/
city-wide pollution control plans, strategies, and facilities required for the
management and control of urban stormwater runoff.
Because it is nearly impossible to segregate benefits and strategies of urban
stormwater runoff pollution control from drainage, flood, and erosion control,
multipurpose analyses and control are stressed.
There have been over 250 projects under the program on urban stormwater runoff and
CSO, but only urban stormwater runoff projects, the CSO projects which directly
relate to urban stormwater runoff, and the basic program direction will be high-
lighted. The products will be divided into the following areas: (1) Problem
Definition, (2) User Assistance Tools (instrumentation and models), and
(3) Management Alternatives.
H-2
-------
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Characterization
Urban stormwater runoff is a significant source of pollution, having suspended
solids concentrations equal to or greater than untreated sanitary wastewater, and
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD,.) approximately equal to secondary effluent.
Under certain conditions, urban stormwater runoff can govern the quality of receiv-
ing waters, regardless of the level of treatment of dry-weather flow provided (1).
Table 1 shows average pollutant concentrations in urban stormwater runoff. The
samples were taken in various parts of the country, from diverse land use, during
different seasons, and during dissimilar rainfall events. The average pollutant
concentrations shown in the the table indicate an order of magnitude of the
stormwater runoff problem and the ranges indicate the wide variations in concen-
trations that may be anticipated.
TABLE 1. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF (2)
pollutant OMCtrtratieM. mg/L
total
IS 800r~ CE9 »lti«5t» at
AtlMU. CMT9U 237 •-. "f .a OJ7 OJ2 OJJ . —» 0.15 §33»
BMMIMS. 1*. . «» 1C* S* — 2-B Xl» "OJS C.W- ....
i CMltM 1 223 122 ~ • 170 C,* ^-» &J> ..~ .O.M SB
440 ~o 7° 0 U. U . fcA- OJO -fl.17- 2»n>
eu*m ««». Olrtow 147 ~ 22 "* 2A X2Z UO 1.00. CU2« «COO
Tuln. PiliM1! 357 —. U » OJ5 ~^ ".~—_ 0-» ~~ ' 4»
SMU a«r». Ca1Ucin><» ZW 79 29 M7 _~ . U 0-23 — C.75 «...
htll«dl. ttimmf • 158 -*3 11 • 12$ «M. • ... ~~ .... .... •
415 0 20 .113 l.« XII . 0.62 O.tt-' 6.3S. &SDO
! . 147-1 223 SV1Z2" 7-56 «-!» 0.57-2.09 0.82-S.B OJ3-I.OO 0.1S-1.00
From 40-80 percent of the total annual organic loading entering receiving waters
from a city is caused by sources other than the treatment plant (3). During a
single storm event, 95 percent of the organic load is attributed to wet-weather
flow sources which include urban stormwater runoff and CSO. About 70 Ib/ac/yr
(75 kg/ha/yr) of BOD in urban stormwater runoff discharges contribute 45 percent
of the annual BOD load if secondary treatment is provided for the dry-weather
flow (4). Heavy metals in urban stormwater runoff have been investigated at
numerous sites across the United States. The data have been condensed and are
shown in Table 2.
H-3
-------
TABLE 2. HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF (4, 5)
Concentration Ranges in- Urban:
Stonnwater Runoff, jig/1*
20
0.2
1.0
0.6
4
2
3
, 0.1
9
0.8
2
0.2
10
- 60
• 100
- 4.0
- 9000
- 10000
- 700
. 5000
- 60
- 400
- 10
• 10
- 10
- 780
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
•"Includes grab-and flow-weighted samples-
Bacterial contamination of separate stormwater is two to four orders greater than
concentrations considered safe for water contact. Excess concentrations of patho-
genic organisms in urban stormwater runoff will hinder water supply use, recrea-
tional use and fishing/shell fishing use of the receiving water (6,7,8). The
frequency of occurrence of human pathogenic organisms in storm flow was found to
relate to cross contaminations from sanitary sewage (9).
Characterization: Products
Past characterization studies for storm flow provide a data base for pollutant
source accumulation, and hydraulic and quality loads. A computerized data base and
retrieval system, especially useful for urban stormwater runoff pollution problem
assessment efforts, containing screened data for model verification and study area
data synthesis, has been developed (10).
Receiving Water Impacts
Approximately 50 percent of the stream miles in this country are water quality-
limited and 30 percent of these stream lengths are polluted to a certain degree
with urban stormwater runoff (3), which contributes oxygen demanding material,
toxic organics, and metals to the water and sediment (11, 12, 13, 14, 15).
H-4
-------
Dissolved Oxygen Depletion. The SCS Program has had only partial success in
finding direct urban storm flow generated receiving water impacts employing the
conventional dissolved oxygen (DO) parameter. The problem appears to be in the
application of conventional dry-weather monitoring in unsteady-state flow regimes
caused by storms. Based on a comparative analysis of wet vs. dry-weather oxygen
demanding substance loads as shown in Table 3, there remains a high potential for
adverse impacts to occur in receiving waters (1, 11). The Program has been more
successful in sediment analysis than in water column analysis for DO depletions.
Direct evidence has been obtained from the Milwaukee River project (16) of how a
distrubed benthos depletes DO from the overlying waters.
Nutrients. The discharge of materials, such as phosphorous, which fertilize or
stimulate excessive or undesirable forms of aquatic growth can create significant
problems in some receiving water systems. Overstimulation of aquatic weeds or
algae (eutrophication) can be aesthetically objectionable, cause dissolved oxygen
problems, and in extreme cases, can interfere with recreational use and create
odors and heavy mats of floating material at shorelines (1,2).
TABLE 3. NATIONAL ANNUAL URBAN WET- AND DRY- WEATHER
FLOW BOD5 AND COD LOAD COMPARISONS* (4)
TYPE
COMBINED
STORM
UNSEWCRED
TOTALS
PERCENT
OP
DEVELOPED
AHEA
14.3
38J
47.4
10O
ANNUAL DWf
•oos
MIL IB.
340
710
310
1330
COO
MIL IB.
010
IBtO
•30
3B30
ANNUAL WV»F~
BOOS
MtLLO.
no
440
MO
U40
COO
MILL*.
3MO
2800
23SO
•an
FEnCENT~WWf
BODj
n
M
84
88
COO
74-
s?
7T
.SI
: ASSUMING
cso
URBAN
STORMWA7BR
ORV-
YYEATHeR
BOO,
IMO/LJ
too
20
30
COO
IMC/U
300
131
80
~t» •OAS4KC
In Lake Eola, Florida, urban stormwater runoff was found to be the sole source of
lake degradation (17). Urban stormwater runoff is the only flow entering the
lake. Phosphorous concentrations in the runoff were found to significantly
increase algal productivity.
Biota Impacts. An assessment of the environmental impact of urban stormwater
runoff requires a comprehensive in-depth analysis of water quality and the
biological community in the receiving stream.
H-5
-------
In San Jose, California (15), sampling showed that the nonurbanized section of
Coyote Creek supported a diverse population of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates
as compared to the urbanized portion which was completely dominated by pollution
tolerant algae, mosquito fish, and tubificid worms. Figure 1 shows this point.
Similar results were found in the Lake Washington Project (18) where bottom organ-
isms (aquatic earthworms) near storm outfalls were more pollutation tolerant
relative to those at a distance from these outfalls.
I
o
u
o
VXUKIZtD
I *
£ »« a
•
I
STATIONS
Figure 1. Abundance of Benthic Taxa:
San Jose, California
Coyote Creek,
Toxicity Over the years, the SCS Program has compiled data which have shown that
a significant amount of toxic substances, including priority pollutant heavy
metals, and organics (most of petroleum origin) exist in urban stormwater
runoff (1, 2).
Tvoicallv heavy metal concentrations in urban stormwater runoff are in excess of
the proposed EPA water quality criteria for aquatic life protection even with many
receiving water dilutions (4). Many of these metals and other toxics are associ-
ated in varying degrees with particulates.
Sediment samples in Lake Washington (18) were analyzed for metals, organics,
phosphorus, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCB's. Composite indices, to assess
wet-weather impacts, were up to 16 times the minimum background control value.
Also, pesticide levels in sediments along the Seattle shoreline of Lake Washington
were up to 37 times background concentrations.
H-6
-------
In Coyote Creek (15), urban sediment compared to non-urban sediment contained
higher concentrations of lead, arsenic, BODj. and orthophosphates. Significantly
greater concentrations of high molecular weight hydrocarbons and oxygenated com-
pounds were also found in the urban samples. Lead and zinc concentrations in
urban samples of algae, crawfish and cattails were two to three times greater than
in non-urban samples.
In fiscal year 1981, the SCS Program entered into a wet-weather priority pollutant
study with the EPA Office of Water Regulations and Standards. The objectives of
this project are to determine the magnitude of toxic pollutants in urban storm-
water runoff, CSO, and combined sewer sediment.
An ongoing project involves screening urban stormwater runoff and CSO for bacterial
mutagens using the Ames test. Positive results have been obtained from a number
of samples (19).
It is strongly suspected that for many of these contaminants, treatment or control
will be needed in order to satisfy effluent guidelines and water quality standards.
Erosion/Sediment Impacts. Urbanization causes accelerated erosion and raises
sediment yields two to three orders of magnitude. At the national urbanization
rate of 4,000 acres/day, erosion and sedimentation are major environmental problems
(20, 21, 22, 23).
Solution Methodology Products
The state-of-the-art (SOTA) text (24) on urban stormwater technology is an excell-
ent guide for planners and engineers. It organizes and presents more than 100 com-
pleted program projects. Also published are reports on stormwater management
planning (25, 26), an updated SOTA, which includes guidelines for city-wide wet-
weather pollution control (2), case histories report on urban stormwater management
and technology (20), and a soon to be published design manual on storage/
sedimentation for control of urban stormwater runoff and CSO (27).
A Program film on full-scale control technologies is available. Program seminar
proceedings with themes of planning, design, operation, and costs have been pub-
lished (28). Separate engineering manuals are available for storm flowrate deter-
mination, storm flow sampling, storm sewer design, and for conducting stormwater
studies (29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34). All of these documents are valuable for plan-
ning, design, evaluation, control and enforcement.
A cost estimating manual has been published for construction and operation of
storage and treatment devices (35). Other manuals are available for deicing pol-
lution (36, 37, 38, 39) and erosion control (40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45). The SOTA
document on particle size and settling velocity (46) offers significant information
for solids treatability and their settlement in receiving waters, an important
area always overlooked during planning and design. Endeavors to study direct
receiving water impacts, along with model verification, will lend credence to the
implementation of storm flow impacts.
H-7
-------
USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
Instrumentation
Storm flow measurement is essential for process planning, design, control, evalua-
tion, and enforcement. Sampling devices do not provide representative aliquots,
and in-line pollutant monitoring capabilities are needed. Conventional flow
meters apply to steady-state flows and not to the highly varying storm flows.
Instrumentation: Products. Flowmeters, including nonintrusive, electromagnetic,
ultrasound, and passive sound types, have been developed to overcome adverse storm
conditions (33, 48, 49, 50, 51). A prototype sampler for capturing representative
solids in storm flow has also been developed and a design manual is available
(52). This manual lead to design changes by sampler manufacturers. Instantaneous
in situ monitoring devices for determination of suspended and total organic carbon
have been developed and demonstrated (53, 54). Because storm flow conditions are
extremely adverse, these manuals and instruments are useful for monitoring all
types of flow (32).
Models
Simulation Models. Models are needed to predict complex dynamic response to
variable runoff phenomena. Models are categorized into: (1) simplified, for
preliminary planning, (2) detailed, for planning and design, and (3) operational,
for supervisory control.
The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) provides a detailed simulation of storm-
water quantity and quality during a storm event. Its benefits for detailed plan-
ning and design are widely accepted, but for certain users it may be too detailed.
Consequently, four levels of evaluation techniques (from simple to complex) that
can be worked together have been developed.
Planning/Design Models. There are four levels of Planning/Design Models.
Level I. The Level I procedure was derived from a nationwide assessment (55).
The nationwide assessment contains data on: (1) land use, (2) drainage system
types, (3) runoff volumes and pollutant quantities, and (4) costs and cost-
effective control strategies for urban areas, state and EPA Regions. The informa-
tion can be used for preliminary assessment and planning, and determining national
cost requirements.
In Level I, the "desktop" procedure (56) estimates the quantity and quality of
urban runoff. Equations have been developed to estimate pollutant loads as
functions of land use, sewer system type, precipitation, population density, and
street sweeping. Equations are also provided for dry and wet-weather flow
quantification.
A method for evaluating the optimal storage-treatment mix and associated costs has
also been developed in Level I. Procedures for comparing tertiary with stormwater
treatment and savings from integrated dry and wet-weather flow management from
combined and separate areas (56) and from integrated nonstructural management
practices (57) are included.
H-8
-------
Level II. Level II involves a flexible and inexpensive simplified continuous
model for planning and preliminary sizing of facilities. The model can screen an
entire history of rainfall records and is especially valuable in sizing storage
facilities based on storm return periods and available in-line capacity. A user's
manual is available (58). Other Level II models are ABMAC (59), and EPAMAN (60).
Level III. Level III is a more refined continuous model using Storage, Treatment,
Overflow Runoff Model (STORM) and continuous SWMMM (61) for providing flow time
routing and allowing for continuous receiving water impact analyses (62). A few
thousand statements are involved as compared to a few hundred for Level II. The
continuous SWMM user's instructions are available in draft form (62), and the
computer program is available. Another Level III (and IV) model is QQS (63, 64).
Level IV. The first three levels relate to planning and involve relatively large
time steps and long stimulation time. Data requirements and mathematical
complexity are relatively low.
Design models require short time steps and simulation times for detailed prediction
of a single storm event, and their data needs are extensive. They provide complete
flow and pollutant'routing and prediction through the runoff system and into
receiving waters, and can show the exact manner in which abatement procedures
affect hydraulic and pollutant loads. These models and user's manuals are avail-
able (62, 63, 64, 65, 66). The program has expanded SWMM into an Urban Water
Management Model which integrates both dry and wet-weather flow analyses including
sludge handling (62).
Operational Models. Operational models produce control decisions during a storm.
Rainfall is entered from telemetered stations and the model predicts system
response a short time into the future and augments control settings. We have
demonstrated supervisory control models, in combined sewer systems, in Detroit (30),
Minneapolis (67), and Seattle (68, 69).
Other Products. Othe simulation model products include a dissemination and user's
assistance capability (70), and a short course and course manual (71, 72). Of
particular note is the SOTA assessment document on 18 models for urban runoff
management (73). The document presents advantages and limitations of each model
and a comparison to aid in model selection.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Wet-weather flow control is grouped into three management alternatives. First,
the decision must be made where to attach the problem: (1) at the source by land
management, (2) in the collection system, or (3) with separate storage basisn. We
can remove pollutants by treatment and by employing integrated systems combining
control and treatment. Second, there is the decision of the degree of control
necessary. Third, there is the need for assessing impacts, and ranking the
problem with other needs. Proper management alternatives can only be made after
conducting a cost-effective analysis involving goals, values, and hydrologic-
physical system evaluations.
H-9
-------
Land Management
Land management includes all measures for reducing urban and construction site
stormwater runoff and pollutants before they enter the downstream drainage system.
Structural/Semi structural Control
On-Site (Upstream) Storage. On-site or upstream refers to short term detention or
long term retention of stormwater runoff prior to entry into the drainage system.
Design can provide for benefits in aesthetics, recreation, recharge, irrigation,
or other uses (27).
Successful low-cost dual-use variations of detention are ponding on parking lots,
plazas, recreation and park areas, and rooftops. Apparent economic benefits are
derived from surface ponding for flood protection over a conventional sewer
project. Additional benefits are realized when the multipurpose benefits of
erosion and pollution control from these basins are considered.
Porous Pavements. The use of an open graded asphalt-concrete pavement .during
pilot tests has allowed over 70 in./hr of stormwater to flow through. The cost is
comparable to conventional pavement. Clogging resistance and filtered water
quality evaluations have been made. Porous pavement can be important in preserving
natural drainage and decreasing downstream drainage and pollution control facility
requirements. A feasibility report is available (74) and the program has recently
completed evaluating a porous pavement parking lot north of Houston at the new
planned community—The Woodlands (8, 75). Porous pavement was recently demon-
strated for CSO control in Rochester, New York (76).
Results of the Rochester study indicated:
1. Peak runoff rates were reduced by as much as 84 percent.
2. The pavement, which was subject to 100 freeze/thaw cycles in the labora-
tory, showed no observable structural degradation. In addition, the
water drained through the pavement without problems during the winter.
3. Through observations and flow monitoring, it was determined that the
structural integrity of the porous pavement installed, where heavy load
vehicles were parked, was not impaired.
4. Clogging did result from runoff carrying a heavy sediment load. Clogging
during the test study was relieved through cleaning.
A project in Austin, Texas is comparing the runoff and water quality characteris-
tics of porous asphalt cement pavement to other kinds of conventional (concrete,
gravel, grass, conventional asphalt with a drainage system, conventional asphalt
with a peripheral drainage trench), and experimental (grass and concrete lattice-
type pavement) porous paving materials. The overall objective is to develop
design criteria for potential porous pavement construction. Phase I of this
project has been completed (77). It consisted of accumulating and condensing all
available design, construction, and operational data for existing porous pavement
areas to develop preliminary design and operational criteria.
H-10
-------
Solids Separation. Sediment basins trap and store sediment to conserve land and
prevent excessive siltation. If designed properly, these basins remain after
construction for on-site storage.
Because a significant portion of solids remain suspended and cannot be treated by
sedimentation, special devices for fine-particle removal are required. A project
developed a SOTA on fine-particle removal (78), and also evaluated a tube settler
and a disc screen (79).
The swirl concentrator has been developed to control the impacts of erosion and to
remove settleable solids at much higher rates than sedimentation (80, 81, 82, 83).
Nonstructural
Surface Sanitation. Reduction of litter and debris, and both street repair and
street sweeping can minimize pollutants washed off by stormwater (84, 85, 86). It
may well be cheaper to remove solids by street sweeping than from the sewer system.
Street sweeping results are highly variable. Therefore, a street sweeping program
for one city cannot be applied to other cities, unless the program is shown to be
applicable through experimental testing. This may be seen when comparing street
sweeping test results from San Jose, California, and an ongoing project in Belle-
vue, Washington (87, 88).
Street cleaning not only affects water quality; but has multiple benefits including
improving air quality, aesthetic conditions, and public health. Since street
cleaning alone will probably not ensure that water quality objectives are met, a
street cleaning program would have to be incorporated into a larger program of
"best management practices," and/or downstream treatment. A user's manual on
cost-effective comparisons of street cleaning and sewer flushing with downstream
treatment is available (57).
Chemical Use Control. Reduction in the indiscriminate use of chemicals such as
fertilizers and pesticides, and the mishandling of oil, gasoline, and highway
deicing chemicals will reduce stormwater runoff pollution (36, 37, 38, 39).
Urban Development Resource Planning. The goal of urban development resources
planning is a macroscopic management concept to prevent problems from shortsighted
planning. A new breed of planner is required to consider the new variables of
land usage, population density and total wet and dry-weather runoff control as
they integrate to affect water pollution. A simple land planning model has been
developed to encompass the new variables and control options (21).
Use of Natural Drainage. Traditional urbanization upsets the water balance by
replacing natural infiltration areas and drainage with impervious areas. The
impact is increased stormwater runoff, decreased infiltration to the ground water
and increased channel erosion and transport of pollutants to the stream. Promoting
natural drainage will reduce drainage costs and pollution, and enhance aesthetics,
ground-water supplies, and flood protection.
H-ll
-------
A project in Houston, Texas focused on how a "natural drainage system" integrates
into a reuse scheme for recreation and aesthetics (8, 75). Runoff flows through
vegetative swales and into a network of wet-weather ponds, strategically located
in areas of porous soils. This system retards the flow of water downstream pre-
venting floods by development, and enhances pollution abatement.
The ability of marsh/wetlands to remove pollutants from stormwater has been demon-
strated in Wayzata, Minnesota and Palo Alto, California (89, -90). A SOTA manual
was developed on best vegetative practices and wetlands utilization for removing
pollutants from urban stormwater runoff (91). It involves the review and analysis
of scientific investigations and other basic literature sources concerning bio-
chemical processes, pollutant uptake properties and tolerances of various marsh
and upland vegetation types. Additionally, a detailed review and analysis was
made of vegetative and hydraulic/hydrologic practices relative to the management
of wetland and upland ecosystems for treatment of urban stormwater runoff.
Nonstructural Erosion/Sedimentation Control
Nonstructural soil conservation practices such as cropping, mulching, chemical
soil stabilization, and berming may be relatively inexpensive (22,23).
Erosion/Sediment Control: Products
An audiovisual training program with workbook and instructor's manual (41,42) has
been developed for the local land developer, inspector, and job foreman, and is
designed to directly support the State of Maryland's published "Standards and
Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control." As state and local agencies
move toward setting standards for control, the need for this type of training
program becomes urgent. Several erosion control techniques were evaluated in the
Piedmont Region of the United States and in the Lake Tahoe Region of California (22,
23).
Drainage System Controls
Drainage system control pertains to management alternatives concerned with urban
stormwater runoff collection, interception, and transport. This includes improved
maintenance and design of catchbasins, elimination of sanitary and industrial
wastewater cross connections, in-pipe and in-channel storage, and remote flow
monitoring and control. The emphasis is on optimum use of existing facilities.
Because use of the existing system is employed, the concepts generally involve
cost-effective, low structurally intensive control.
Catchbasins. A catchbasin is defined as a chamber or well, usually built at the
curbline of a street, for the admission of surface water to a sewer or subdrain,
having at its base a sediment sump designed to retain grit and detritus below the
point of overflow. An optimized catchbasin configuration and geometry has been
developed by hydraulic modeling (92).
In a project conducted in the West roxbury section of Boston (93), three catch-
basins were cleaned, and subsequently, four runoff events were monitored at each
catchbasin. Average pollutant removals per storm are shown in Table 4.
H-12
-------
TABLE 4. POLLUTANTS RETAINED IN CATCHBASINS
Constituent % Retained
Suspended Solids 60-97
Volatile Suspended Solids 48-97
COD 10-56
BOD5 54-88
Catchbasins must be cleaned often enough to prevent sediment and debris from
accumulating to such a depth that the outlet to the sewer might become blocked.
The sump must be kept clean to provide storage capacity for sediment, and to
prevent resuspension of sediment (92). It is also important to clean catchbasins
to provide liquid storage capacity.
Sewer System Cross Connections. Sanitary and industrial wastewater cross connec-
tions are a significant reality, which, in effect, make the separate storm sewer a
combined sewer. Where cross connections are suspected, investigations should be
made of the drainage network, using screening/mass balance techniques, to determine
the sources of sanitary or industrial contamination. Once the sources have been
isolated, an analysis will bave to be made to determine whether corrective action
at the sources, or downstream treatment, is most feasible.
Flow Routing. Another drainage system control method is in-pipe, and in-channel
storage and routing to maximize use of existing drainage system capacity (94).
The general approach uses remote monitoring of rainfall, flow levels, and sometimes
quality, at selected locations in the network, together with a centrally computer-
ized console for positive regulation. As previously mentioned, this concept has
proved effective for combined sewers in Detroit, Minneapolis, and Seattle (30, 67,
68, 69), and the technology is transferable to storm sewers.
Regulators-Regulators/Concentrators. To protect receiving water from the effects
of stormwater discharges, conventional static regulators used for CSO control (95)
can be installed in separate storm sewers to divert stormwater to either a sanitary
interceptor, or to a storage tank.
The dual functioning swirl flow regulator/solids separator has shown outstanding
potential for simultaneous quality and quantity control. At present, there is a
strong need to develop and have a reserve of control hardware for urban runoff
control and to effectively reduce the associated high cost implications for conven-
tional storage tanks, etc. It is felt that the swirl/helical type regulators,
previously applied only to CSO, can also be installed on separate storm drains
before discharge and the resultant concentrate flow can be stored in relatively
small tanks, since concentrate flow is only a few percent of the total flow.
Stored concentrate can later be directed to the sanitary sewer for subsequent
treatment during low flow or dry-weather periods, or if capacity is available in
the sanitary interceptor/treatment system, the concentrate may be diverted to it
without storage.
These methods of stormwater control (illustrated in Figure 2) may be more economi-
cal than building huge holding reservoirs for untreated runoff, and offer a feas-
ible approach to the treatment of separately sewered urban stormwater (96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102).
H-13
-------
A project in West Roxbury, Massachusetts represents the first trial on storm
water (102). This project is receiving joint sponsorship from the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the State and the SCS Program. Full-scale field
demonstrations of the swirl and helical bend devices have been, or are currently
being conducted. Since non-point control may soon move into the implementation
phase, it is important to demonstrate these units on a comparative basis.
TREATMENT
PLANT
STORM DfM/N
NETWORK .
SANITARY
INTERCEPTOR.
R&AJLATDR
•.;•««•?.-i-v&Sfe•;&:-• •'• ?£:• i^w^v^ a
^VJ^i^^-r,^.. .^i;r^;i:-^::,;iS/
-!"J-^:>.T5arg!*f5i.-- •-. '. ;>M^.-.«ea!£.«.-i>^J
Figure 2. Regulator-Regulator/Concentrator Urban
Stormwater Control Devices
Storage
Because of the high volume and variability associated with urban stormwater runoff,
storage is considered a necessary control alternative. Storage must be considered
at all times in system planning, because it allows for maximum use of the existing
dry-weather treatment plant and drainage facilities, optimum economic sizing of
new stormwater treatment facilities, and results in the lowest cost control system,
for all cases. The runoff is stored until the downstream system can accept the
extra volume. At that time, it is discharged.
Storage basins can provide the following advantages: (1) they respond without
difficulty to intermittent and random storm behavior, (2) they are not upset by
water quality changes, and (3) they are simple in structural design and operation.
H-14
-------
Storage concepts that have been investigated for CSO, but can be used for urban
stormwater runoff, include the conventional concrete holding tanks and earthen
basins (103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108), underwater containers (109, 110, 111),
gravel packed beds (112), natural and mined underground formations (113, 114,
115), and existing sewer lines (30, 67, 68, 69).
Treatment
Due to considerable hydraulic variation, and unpredictable shock loading effects
during storm events, it has been difficult to adapt existing treatment methods to
storm-generated flows, especially the microorganism-dependent biological processes.
The newer physical/chemical treatment techniques have shown more promise in over-
coming these adversities. To reduce capital investments, projects have been di-
rected towards high-rate operations approaching maximum loading.
Wet-weather flow treatment methods that have been investigated, and that can be
adapted to treat urban stormwater runoff, are mainly physical/chemical treat-
ment (116-128).
Disinfection
Because disinfectant and contact demands are great for storm flows, research has
concentrated on high-rate applications by mixing and more rapid oxidants, i.e.,
chlorine dioxide, ozone and ultraviolet, and on-site generation (6, 129, 130, 131,
132, 133). Although research has centered around CSO disinfection, similar high-
rate systems may be necessary for certain urban stormwater runoff applications
where runoff is impacting high-value contact recreation waters.
System Integration
Dual-Use Treatment. A process designed to treat only wet-weather flow may not be
in operation for long stretches of time. This is less cost-effective than a
process designed to treat both dry and wet-weather flows. Therefore, it is
important to pursue the investigation of dual-use treatment technologies.
The Program has demonstrated the dual use of high-rate trickling filters (134),
and high-rate filtration (124). On a pilot scale, powdered activated carbon
absorption/alum coagulation has been evaluated (128).
Urban Stormwater Reuse. Previous projects have evaluated the reuse of urban
stormwater runoff for aesthetic, recreational, and subpotable and potable water
supply purposes (137, 138, 139). In Mount Clemens, Michigan, a series of three
"lakelets" have been incorporated into a CSO treatment-park development. Treatment
is being provided so that these lakes are aesthetically pleasing and allow for
recreation and reuse for irrigation (140).
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology transfer covers the formal dissemination of program findings. To date,
the SCS Program has published over 250 reports (141), concentrating on "user" type
documents.
H-15
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Receiving Water Impacts
Ties between receiving water quality and stormwater discharges must be clearly
established and delineated. Quantification of the impairment of beneficial uses
and water quality by such discharges is a major goal. Project results indicate
the potential for significant impact to receiving waters of wet-weather flows.
Control of runoff pollution can be a viable alternative for maintaining receiving
water quality standards. However, the problems found seem to be site specific in
nature. Therefore, site specific surveys are required. Based on results from
these surveys, control may be warranted.
Toxics Characterization and Control/Treatment
Results from a limited in-house effort indicate that urban stormwater runoff con-
tains significant quantities of some priority pollutants.
An important area requiring further work is the comparison of priority pollutant
concentrations and quantities in wet-weather flow and their respective dry-weather
flow values. Additional investigation of the significance of concentrations and
quantities of toxic pollutants with regard to their health effects is required. A
need exists to evaluate the removal capacity of alternative treatment technologies
for these toxics and to compare their effectiveness with estimated removal needs
to meet water quality goals.
Sewer System Cross Connections
Investigations have shown that sanitary and industrial contamination of separate
storm sewers is an extensive nationwide problem. In other words, a significant
number of separate stormwater drainage systems function as combined sewer systems.
Therefore, a nationwide effort on both Federal and local levels, to alleviate the
pollution impacts from discharges of these systems is required. It is better to
classify such bastardized drainage systems as combined systems for pollution
control priorities.
Integrated Stormwater Management
The most effective solution methodology for wet-weather pollution problems must
consider: (1) Wet-weather pollution impacts in lieu of blindly upgrading existing
municipal plants, (2) structural versus non-structural techniques, (3) integrating
dry and wet-weather flow systems to make maximum use of the existing drainage
system during wet conditions and maximum use of wet-weather control/treatment
facilitiesiduring dry-weather, and (4) the segment or bend on the percent pollutant
control versus cost curve in which cost differences accelerate at much higher
rates than pollutant control increases, although load discharge or receiving water
requirements will dictate, ultimately, the degree of control/treatment required.
Flood and erosion control technology must be integrated with pollution control, so
that the retention and drainage facilities required for flood and erosion control
can be simultaneously designed for pollution control. If land management and
H-16
-------
non-structural techniques are maximized and integrated, there will be less to pay
for the extraction of pollutants from storm flows in the potentially more costly
downstream plants.
The optimal solution is going to come from multi-use, multi-purpose facilities
offering multi-benefits. Up to now, sotrmwater management has usually meant flood
and drainage control. In order to make wet-weather pollution control economical,
ways have to be initiated to utilize flood control techniques for multi-purpose
benefits such as pollution control, erosion control and reuse (irrigation, fire
fighting, ground-water, recharge, etc.). When ground-water recharge is an objec-
tive, pollutant removal properties of the soil profile must be taken into account.
A modification to the CSO philisophy can be utilized by older and/or built-up
cities with so-called separate stormwater drainage systems. In effect, they
probably have CSO because of the proximity to sanitary and industrial sources and
the potential for cross connections. Generally, they also have a lot of sanitary
lines, in close proximity to stormwater lines, going to sewage treatment plants.
A solution is to try to establish the types of control used for CSO which allow
bleed-ins and/or underflow to the sewage treatment plant during low flow.
Another topic is the integrated approach to new development planning and stormwater
management. The following questions have to be answered: Should a separate or
combined sewer system be built? Under what conditions should we opt for either
one? New design concepts need to be employed for integrated stormwater management
as per above. Zoning and land use distributions need to be considered so that
buffer zones which will lessen stormwater runoff quantity and quality impacts can
be developed. Other topics which need to be considered include:
1. Chemical use criteria (such as fertilizer, deicing salt, and chemical
stockpiling restrictions).
2. Fines for dumping oil in drains.
3. A more immediate ban on leaded gasoline.
4. Further considerations on highway salt misuse.
Institutional Socio/Economic Conflicts
Some of the most promising opportunities for cost effective environmental control
are multi-purpose in nature. However, there are institutional problems that
hinder their implementation. First, the autonomous Federal and local agencies and
professions involved in flood and erosion control, pollution control, and land
management and environmental planning-must be integrated at both the planning and
operation levels. Multi-agency grant coverage must be adequate to stimulate such
an approach. For example, EPA would have to join with the Corps of Engineers,
Soil Conservation Service, Department of Transportation, and perhaps other Federal
agencies as well as departments of pollution control, sanitation, planning, and
flood control at the local level.
Another problem is that construction grant incentives are geared towards structur-
ally intensive projects which may counter research findings in the area of optimal
solutions.
H-17
-------
Optimized wet-weather pollution control usually involves a city-wide approach
including the integration of structural as well as low-structural controls. The
low-structural measures more labor intensive. Construction grant funding does not
presently address this expense and accordingly muncipalities are discouraged from
using them. An example of this is the Boston Metropolitan District Commission's
reluctance to incorporate sewer flushing technology for the very reasons mentioned.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, on a mass basis toxics, bacteria, and oxygen demanding, suspended, and
visual matter in urban stormwater runoff are significant. Ignoring the problem
because it seems to be too costly to solve by conventional methods, such as
separate facilities for dry-weather flows, flood, and wet-weather pollution control
is the only way which is going to be feasible, economical and, therefore, accept-
able. Potentially tremendous "bangs for the bucks" can be derived from wet-weather
pollution control research fostering integrated solutions. Consequently, funding
allocations should be commensurate with achievable benefits. Only through the
combined efforts of concerned citizens, planners, engineers and legislators will
we be able to abate the pollution that is impairing our nation's receiving waters.
H-18
-------
APPENDIX H
References
1. EPA-600/2-77--064c - Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows and
and Urban Stormwater Discharges. Volume III - Charac-
terization of Discharges: by R. Sullivan, etal_.,
American Public Works Association, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 272 107
2. EPA-600/8-77--014 - Urban Stormwater Management and Technology Update and
User's Guide: by 0. Lager, et a]_., Metcalf & Eddy,
Palo Alto, CA.
NTIS PB 275 654
3. EPA-600/2-77--047 — Urban Runoff Pollution Control Technology Overview:
by R. Field, et al_., USEPA, Storm and Combined Sewer
- -'- . Section, Edison, NO.
NTIS PB 264 452
4. "Potential of Urban Stormwater Impacts Based on Comparative Analysis of Wet
arid Dry Weather Pollutant Loads," by D. Ammon and R. Field, In: Urban
Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow Impact on Receiving Water Bodies -
Proceedings of the National Conference, Orlando, FL, November 26-28, 1979,
EPA-600/9-80-056.
5. In-house Priority Pollutant Data, Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
USEPA-MERL, Edison, NJ.
i
6. EPA-600/2-76-244 - Proceedings of Workshop on Microorganisms in Urban
Stormwater: March 24, 1975, Storm and Combined Sewer
Section, USEPA, Edison, NJ.
NTIS PB 263 030
7. EPA-600/2-79-050f - Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
Community - Bacterial Characteristics of Stormwaters
in Developing Rural Areas: by E.M. Davis, Rice
• University, Houston, TX.
- NTIS PB 80-129091
i' ... -^ ; .
8. EPA-600/2-79--050a - Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
Community - Executive Summary: by W.6. Characklis,
et al., Rice University, Houston, TX.
NTIS PB 80-116205
9. EPA-600/2-77--087 - Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater: by V.P. Olivieri,
et al., The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
NTIS~PB 272 245
10. EPA-600/8-79-004 - Urban Rainfall-Runoff-Quality Data Base: Update with
Statistical Analysis; by W. Huber and J. Heaney.
et al_.,"University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
NTIS PB 80-113384
R-l
-------
11. EPA-600/9-80-056 - Urban Stormwater & CSO Impact on Receiving Water Bodies;
Proceedings of National Conference, Orlando, FL,
November 26-28, 1979.
NTIS PB 81 155426
12. EPA-600/2-79-156 - Dissolved Oxygen Impact from Urban Storm Runoff: by
Thomas N. Keefer, et al_., The Sutron Corporation,
Arlington, VA.
No NTIS
13. EPA-440/3-79-023 - A Statistical Method for the Assessment of Urban
Stormwater: Load-Impacts-Controls: by D. Athayde,
USEPA, Nonpoint Sources Branch, Washington, D.C.
-No NTIS
14. 'EPA-600/2-78-T35 - Dissolved Oxygen Measurements in Indiana Streams During
Urban Runoff: by L.H. Ketchum, Jr., University of
Notre Dame, IN.
NTIS PB 284 871
15. EPA-600/2-80-104 - -Water Quality & Biological Effects of Urban Runoff on
Coyote Creek - Phase I Preliminary Survey: by R. Pitt and
M. Bozeman, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, CA.
NTIS PB 81-144487
16. EPA-600/2-79-155 - Verification of the Water Quality Impacts of Combined
Sewer Overflows: by Thomas L. Meinholz, et aJL,
(Rexnord) Metropolitan Sewage District of County of
Milwaukee, WI.
No NTIS
! • *
17. Stormwater Management to Improve Lake Water Quality: by M.P. Wanielista,
ert al_., University of Central Florida, Grant No. R-805580, (Publication
Pending).
18. EPA-600/2-80-111 - Fate and Effects of Particulars Discharged by
Combined Sewers and Storm Drains: by Richard D.
Tomlinson, £t jil_., Municipality of Metropolitan
i Seattle and University of Washington.
19. Evaluation of Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Mutagenicity;
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-806640.
20. EPA-600/8-80-035 - Urban Stormwater Management & Technology: Case
Histories: by W.G. Lynard, et al_., Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
NTIS PB 81-107153
21. WPD 03-76-04 - Water Quality Management Guidance - Proceedings Urban
Stormwater Management Seminars: Atlanta, GA,
November 4-6, and Denver, CO, December 2-4, 1975,
Edited by Dennis Athayde, USEPA, Water Planning Div.,
Washington, D.C.
NTIS PB 260 889
R-2
-------
22. EPA-600/2-79-124 - Evaluation of Selective Erosion Control Techniques -
Piedmont Region of S.E. United States: by H. Buxton
and F.T. Caruccio, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC.
NTIS PB 80-219645
23. EPA-600/2-78-208 - Demonstration of Erosion and Sediment Control Technology -
Lake Tahoe Region of California: t • C.A. White and A.L.
Franks, California State Water Resources Control Board,
Sacramento, CA.
NTIS PB 292 491
24. EPA-670/2-74-040 - Urban Stormwater Management and Technology An Assessment:
by O.A. Lager and W.G. Smith, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo
Alto, CA.
NTIS PB 240 687
25. EPA-600/9-78-035 - Urban Runoff Control Planning - Miscellaneous Reports
Series: by M.B. McPherson, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Marblehead, MA.
No NTIS
26. EPA-600/2-80-013 - Select Topics in Stormwater Management Planning for New
Residential Developments: by R. Berwick, et ai.. Meta
Systems, Cambridge, MA.
NTIS PB 80 187479
27. Storage/Sedimentation Facilities for Control of Storm and Combined Sewer ....
Overflows Design Manual - draft final report: by W.M. Stallard, et al.'.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
28. EPA-670/2-73-077 - Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers: by Storm and
Combined Sewer Technology Branch, USEPA, Edison, NJ.
NTIS PB 231 836"
29. EPA-670/2-75-046 - Rainfall-Runoff Relations on Urban and Rural Areas:
by E.F. Brater and J.D. Sherrill, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
NTIS PB 242 830
30. EPA-670/2-75-020 - Sewage System Monitoring and Remote Control: by T.R. Watt,
et al., Detroit Metro Water Department, Detroit, MI.
NTIS~PB 242 107
31. EPA-600/2-76-116 - Urban Stormwater Runoff Determination of Volumes and
Flgwrates: by B.C. Yen and V.T. Chow, University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL.
NTIS PB 253 410
32. EPA-600/2-75-065 - An Assessment of Automatic Sewer Flow Samplers - 1975:
by P.E. Shelley, EG&G Washington Analytical Services
Center, Inc., Rockville, MD.
NTIS PB 250 987
R-3
-------
33. EPA 500/2-75-027 - Sewer Flow Measurement - A State-of-the-Art Assessment:
by P.E. Shelley and G.A. Kirkpatrick, EG&G Washington
Analytical Services Center, Inc., Rockville, MD.
NTIS PB 250 371
34. EPA-600/9-76-014 - Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual -Vol. I. Vol. II
and Vol. Ill: by USEPA Municipal Environmental Research
Lab.-ORD, and Water Planning Division-OWHM.
No NTIS
35. EPA-600/2-76-286 - Cost Estimating Manual—Combiner' Sewer Overflow Storage
and Treatment: by H.H. Benjes, Jr., Gulp, Wesner, Gulp,
Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA.
'NTIS'PB 266 359
36. EPA-600/2-78-035 - Optimization and Testing of Highway Materials to Mitigate
Ice Adhesion - Interim Report: by M. Krukar and J.C. Cook,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
NTIS PB 280 927
37. Optimization and Testing of Highway Materials to Mitigate Ice Adhesion - draft
final report:by J.C. Cook and M. Krukar, Washington State University,
l-9
id
Pull man, VIA.
38. EPA-670/2-74-045 - Manual for Deicinq Chemicals: Application Practices;
D.L. Richardson, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
NTIS PB 239 694
39. EPA-670/2-74-033 - Manual for Deicing Chemical Storage and Handling: by
D.L. Richardson, et.al_., Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Cambridge, MA.
NTIS PB 236 152
40. EPA-660/2-74-073 - An Executive Summary of Three EPA Demonstration Programs
In Erosion and Sediment Control: by B.C. Becker, et al.»
Hittman Associates, Columbia, MD.
GPO EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-073
41.. EPA-600/8-76-001a - Erosion and Sediment Control Audio-Visual Training Program:
Instruction Program: by the State of Maryland Water
Resources Administration; Dept. of Transportation, The
Federal Highway Administration; The U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; and USEPA, Office
of Research and Development.
NTIS PB 256 901
42. EPA-600/8-76-001b - Erosion and Sediment Control Audio-Visual Training Program:
Workbook: by the State of Maryland Water Resources
Administration; Dept. of Transportation, The Federal
Highway Administration; The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service; and USEPA, Office of Research
and Development.
NTIS PB 258 471
R-4
-------
43. EPA-R2-72-015 - Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Implementation: by the Dept. of Water Resources, State
of Maryland, and Hittman Assoc., Inc., Columbia, MD.
NTIS PB 213 119
44. EPA-660/2-74-071 - Programmed Demonstration for Erosion and Sediment Control
Specialist: by T.R. Mills, et al_., Water Resources
Administration, State of Maryland.
GPO EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-071
45. 15030DTL05/70 - Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment Control: by National
Association of Counties Research Foundation, Washington,
D.C.
-NTIS PB 196 111
46. EPA-670/2-75-011 - Physical and Settling Characteristics of Particulates in
Storm and Sanitary Wastewater:by R.J. Dalrymple, et al.,
Beak Consultants for American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 242 001
\
47. EPA-R2-73-145 - A Thermal Wave Flowmeter for Measuring Combined Sewer Flows:
by P. Eshleman and R. Blase, Hydrospace Challenger, Inc.,
Rockville, MD.
NTIS PB 227 370
48. EPA-600/2-73-002 - A Portable Device for Measuring Wastewater Flew in Sewers:
by M.A. Nawrocki, Hittman Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD, -
NTIS PB 235 634
49. EPA-600/2-76-115 - A Passive Flow Measurement System for Storm and Combined
Sewers: by K. Foreman, Grumman Ecosystems Corp.,
Bethpage, NY.
NTIS PB 253 383
50. EPA-600/2-76-243 - Wastewater Flow Measurement in Sewers Using Ultrasound: by
' R.J. Anderson and S.S. Bell, City of Milwaukee, WI.
; NTIS PB 262 902 .
51.. EPA-600/2-79-084 - Field Testing of Prototype Acoustic Emission Sewer Flowmeter:
by K.M. Foreman, Grumman Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, NY.
NTIS PB 80-121544
52. EPA-600/2-76-006 - Design and Testing of Prototype Automatic Sewer Sampling
System: by P. Shelley, EG&G Washington Analytical Service
Center, Inc., Rockville, MD.
NTIS PB 252 613
53. EPA-670/2-75-002 - Suspended Solids Monitor: by John W. Liskowitz, et al.,
American Standard, Inc., New Brunswick, NJ.
NTIS PB 241 581
54. EPA-670/2-75-067 - Automatic Organic.Monitoring System for Storm and
Combined Sewers: by A. Tulumello, Ratheon Co.,
Portsmouth, RI.
NTIS PB 244 142
R-5
-------
55. EPA-600/2-77-064b - Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows and
: Urban Stormwater Dischar-es, Volume II - Cost Assessment
and Impacts: by J.P. Heaney, et, al_., University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.
NTIS PB 266 005
56. EPA-600/2-76-275 - Storm Water Management Model Level I. Preliminary Screening
Procedures: by J.P. Heaney, ert al_., University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
NTIS PB 259 916
57. EPA-600/2-77-Q83 - Stormwater Management Model Level I, Comparative Evaluation
of Storage Treatment and Other Management Practices: by
J.P. Heaney, et a]_., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
NTIS PB 265 671
58. EPA-60Q/2-76-218 - Development and Application of a Simplified Stormwater
Management Model: by John A. Lager, et al_., Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
NTIS PB 258 074
59. Areawide Stormwater Pollution Analysis with a Macroscopic Planning (ABMAC)
Model: by Y.J. Litwin, et al_., RAMLIT Associates, Berkeley, CA, and Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, Grant No. R-806357, (Publication Pending).
60. Macroscopic Planning Model (EPAMAC) for Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow
Control: Application Guide and User'* Manual; by W.G« Smith and M.E.
Strickfaden, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Paio Alto, CA, Contract No. 68-03-2877,
(Publication Pending).
61. EPA-600/2-79-100 -, Level III; Receiving Water Quality Modeling for Urban
Stormwater Management: by M. Medina, Duke University,
Durham, NC.
NTIS PB 80-134406
62. Storm Water Management Model User's Manual - Version III - draft final report:
by W.C. Huber, et_al_«» University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Grant No.
R-802411.
63. EPA-600/2-80-011 - Quantity-Quality Simulation (QQS): A Detailed Continuous
Planning Model for Urban Runoff Control - Volume I: Model
Description. Testing and Applications: by W.F. Geiger
and H.R. Dorsch, Dorsch Consult Ltd., Toronto,
Ontario.
NTIS PB 80-190507
64. EPA-600/2-80-116 - Quantity-Quality Simulation (QQS): A Detailed Continuous
Planning Model for Urban Runoff Control - Volume II:
User's Manual; by W.F. Geiger and H.R. Dorsch, Dorsch
Consult Ltd., Toronto, Ontario.
NTIS PB 80-221872
R-6
-------
65. EPA-670/2-75-022 - Urban Stormwater Management Modeling and Decision-Making:
by J.P. Heaney and W.C. Huber, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
MTIS PB 242 290
66. EPA-670/2-75-017 -• Stormwater Management Model User's Manual - Version II:
by W.C. Huber, et al., University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL.
No NTIS
67. 11020FAQ03/71 - Dispatching Systems for Control of Combined Sewer Losses:
by Metro. Sewer Board, St. Paul, MM.
-~NTIS PB 203 678
68. EPA-670/2-74-022 - Computer Management of a Combined Sewer System: by
C.P. Leiser, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
Seattle, WA.
MTIS PB 235 717
69. 11022ELK12/71 - Maximizing Storage in Combined Sewer Svstems; by
Muni ci pal i ty of Metropol i tan Seattl e, V/A.
NTIS PB 209 861
70. EPA-670/2-75-041 - Storm Water Management Model: Dissemination and User
Assistance: J.A. Hagerman and F.R.S. Dressier, University
City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA.
NTIS PB 242 544
71. EPA-670/2-75-065 - Short Course Proceedings, Applications of Stormy/ater
Management Models: by F. DiGiano, et al_., University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
NTIS PB 247 163
72. EPA-600/2-77-065 - Short Course Proceedings, Applications of Stormwater
Management Model - 1976: by F. DiGiano, et al..
University of MA, Amherst, MA.
NTIS PB 265 321
73. EPA-600/2-76-175a - Assessment of Mathematical Models for Storm and Combined
Sewer Management: by A. Brandstetter, Battelle, Pacific
Northwest Lab., Richland, WA.
NTIS PB 259 597
74. 11034DUY03/72 - Investigation of Porous Pavements for Urban Runoff Control;
by E. Thelen, W.C. Grover, A.J. Hoiberg, and T.I. Haigh,
The Franklin Institute Research Lab., Philadelphia, PA.
NTIS PB 227 516
75. EPA-600/2-79-050c - Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
Community - Application of the Stormwater Management'
Model: Volume I: by E. Diniz and W. Espey, Jr.,
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc., Austin, TX.
NTIS PB 80-121437
R-7
-------
76. Best Management Practices Implementation - Great Lakes Demonstration Program,
Rochester, NY: by C.B. Murphy, O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., Syracuse, NY,
Grant No. G005334 (Publication Pending).
77. EPA-600/2-80-135 - Porous Pavement: Phase I Design & Operational Criteria:
by E.V. Diniz, Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.,
Albuquerque, NM.
NTIS PB 81-104796
78. EPA-600/2-77-033 - Methods IFor Separation of Sediment from Storm Water at
Construction Sites: by J.F. Ripken, et aL., University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MM.
NTIS PB 262 782
79. EPA-600/2-79-076 - Laboratory Evaluation of Methods to Separate Fine Grained
'Sediment from Stormwater: by L.M. Bergstedt, et al_.,
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, Minneapolis, MN.
NTIS PB 80-121528
80. EPA-670/2-74-026 - The Swirl Concentrator as a Grit Separator Device: by
R.H. Sullivan, ertaK, American Public Works Association,
Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 233 964
81. EPA-600/2-75-271 - The Swirl Concentrator for Erosion Runoff Treatment? by
R.H. Sullivan, et al_., American Public Works Association,
Chicago, IL.
, NTIS PB 266 598 ;
82. EPA-600/2-77-185 - Field Prototype Demonstration of the Swirl Degritter: by
R.H. Sullivan, e_t al_., American Public Works Association,
Chicago, IL,,
NTIS PB 272 668
83. EPA-600/2-78-122 - The Swirl Primary Separator: Development and Pilot
Demonstration: by R.H. Sullivan, elt a]_., American Public
Works Association, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 286 339
84. EPA-R2-72-081 - Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants:
by J.D. Sartor and G.B. Boyd, URS Research Co., San Mateo,
CA.
NTIS PB 214 408
85. EPA-R2-73-283 - Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface Contaminants:
by R.E. Pitt, and G. Amy, URS Research Co., San Mateo, CA«
NTIS PB 224 677
86. EPA-600/2-75-004 - Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution;
by D.G. Shaheen, Biospherics Inc., Rockville, MD.
NTIS PB 245 854
R-8
-------
87. EPA-600/2-79-161 - Demonstration of Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Through
Improved Street Cleaning Pract^s: by R.E. Pitt,
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San hrancisco, CA.
NTIS PB 80-108988
88. Bellevue (WA) Street Sweeping Demonstration Project - First Annual Report,
Cooperative Agreement # CR-805929, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
89. EPA-600/2-77-217 - Urban Runoff Treatment Methods, Volume I - Non-Structural
Wetland Treatment: by E.A. Hickock, et al_., Eugene A.
Hickock and Associates, Wayzata, MN.
NTIS PB 278 172
90. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff by a Marsh/Flood Basin - draft final report:
by Y.J. Li twin, et_al_., RAMLIT Associates, Berkeley, CA, and Association of
Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, CA, Grant No. R-806357.
91. The Use of Wetlands for Water Pollution Control - draft final report: by
E. Chan, et^alk» Association of Bay Area .Governments, Berkeley, CA, and
RAMLIT Associates, Berkeley, CA, Grant No. R-805357.
92. EPA-600/2-77-051 - Catchbasin Technology Overview and Assessment: by
0. Lager, et al_., Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA,
in association with Hydro-Research-Science, Santa
Clara, CA.
NTIS PB 270 092
93. Evaluation of Catchbasin Monitoring - draft final report: by G.L. Aronson,
et 8K, Environmental Design & Planning, Inc., Allston, MA, Grant No. R-804578.
94. "An Update on EPA's Storm and Combined Sewer Research," by R. Field, In:
Deeds & Data - Water Pollution Control Federation Highlights, Volume 18,
Number 6, June, 1981.
95. 11022DMU07/70 - Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities: by
American Public Works Association, Chicago, IL.
No NTIS
96. EPA-625/2-77-012 - Swirl Device for Regulating and Treating Combined Sewer
Overflows: EPA Technology Transfer Capsule Report,
Prepared by R. Field and H. Masters, USEPA, Edison, NJ,
ERIC 2012 (Cincinnati), 1977.
97. EPA-R2-72-008 - The Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer Overflow
Regulator Facility; by R. Sullivan, American Public
Works Association, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 214 687
98. EPA-670/2-73-059 - The Dual-Functioning Swirl Combined Sewer Overflow
Regulator/Concentrator: by R. Field, USEPA, Edison, NJ.
NTIS PB 227 182/3
R-9
-------
99. EPA-670/2-74-039 - Relationship between Diameter and Height for Design of
a Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer Overflow
Regulator" by R.H. Sullivan, et al., American Public
Works Association, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 234 646
TOO. Design Manual-Secondary Flow Pollution Control Devices - draft final report:
by R.H. Sullivan, .et Jl., APWA, Grant No. R-803157,
101. EPA-600/2-75-062 - The Helical Bend Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator:
by R.H. Sullivan, et al., American Public Works
Association, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 250 619
102. Demonstration of Swirl and Helical Bend Regulators as Storm Sewer Control
Devices, Cooperative Agreement Demonstration No. CS-805795.
103. 11020FAL03/71
704. EPA-600/2-77-046 -
105, 11023—08/70
106. EPA-R2-72-070
107. EPA-600/2-75-071 -
108. EPA-670/2-75-010 -
109. 11022DPP10/70
110. 11022ECV09/71
111. 11020DWF12/69
Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks, Columbus, OH; by
Dodson, Kinney & Lindblom, Columbus, OH.
NTIS PB 202 236
Cottage Farm Combined Sewer Detention and Chiorination
Station. Cambridge, MA: by Commonwealth of MA Metro-
politan District Commission, MA.
NTIS PB 263 292
Retention Basin Control of Combined Sewer Overflows;
by Springfield Sanitary District, Springfield, IL. -
NTIS PB 200 828
Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows;
by the City of Chippewa Falls, HI.
NTIS PB 214 106
Detention Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow - Milwaukee,
VII Demonstration Project: by Consoer, Tqwnsend and
Associates, Chicago, IL.
NTIS PB 250 427
Multi-Purpose Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility,
Mount Clemens, Michigan: by V.U. Mahida, et a]_., Spalding,
DeDecker & Associates, Inc., Madison Heights, MI.
NTIS PB 242 914
Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage Facility;
by Mel par, Falls Church, VA.
NTIS PB 197 669
Underwater Storage of Combined Sewer Overflows; by
Karl R. Rohrer Assoc., Inc., Akron, OH.
NTIS PB 208 346
Control of Pollution by Underwater Storage: by
Underwater'Storage, Inc., Silver, Schwartz, Ltd.,
Joint Venture, Washington, DC.
NTIS PB 191 217
R-10
-------
123. 11023EYI04/72 - High-Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows:
(Cleveland): by R. Nebolsine, et al_., Hydrotechnic
Corp., New York, NY.
NTIS PB 211 144
124. EPA-600/2-79-015 - Dual Process High-Rate Filtration of Raw Sanitary
Sewage and Combined Sev/sr Overflov/s: (Newtown"Creek),
by H. Innerfeld, et al_., New York City Dept. of
Water Resources, New York, NY.
NTIS PB 296 626/AS
125. EPA-600/2-7S-033 - Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by Dissolved
Air Flotation: by T.A. Bursztynsky, et al_., Engineering
Science, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
NTIS PB 248 186
126. EPA-600/2-78-209 - Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by High Gradient
Magnetic Separation - On-Site Testing with Mobile Pilot
Plant Trailer: by D.M. Allen, Sal a Magnetics, Cambridge,
MA.
NTIS PB 292 329
127. EPA-600/2-77-015 - Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by High Gradient
Magnetic Separation: by J. Oberteuf f er, e£al_., Sal a
Magnetics, Cambridge, MA.
NTIS PB 264 935
128. EPA-R2-73-149 - Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined and Municipal
Sewage: by A.O. Shuckrow, et al_., Pacific NW Lab.,
BatteHe Memorial Institute, Rich!and, WA.
NTIS PB 219 668
129. 11023EV006/70 - Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overflows: by Cochrane Div., Crane Co., King of
Prussia, PA.
NTIS PB 195 67
130. EPA-R2-73-124 - Microstraim'nq ?"id Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overflows-Phase II: G.E. Glover, and G.R. Herbert,
Crane Company, King of Prussia, PA.
NTIS PB 219 879
131. EPA-670/2-74-049 - Microstraim'ng and Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overf1ows-Phase III: by M.B. Maher, Crane Company,
King of Prussia, PA.
NTIS PB 235 771
T32. EPA-670/2-75-021 - Bench-Scale High-Rate Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overflows with Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide: by P.E..
Moffa, et aj_., O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.,
Syracuse, NY.
NTIS PB 242 296
R-12
-------
112. EPA-600/2-76-272 - Demonstration of Void Space Storage with Treatment and
Flow Regulation: by Karl R. Rohrer Assoc., Inc.,
Akron, OH.
NTIS PB 263 032
113. 11020—02/71 - Deep Tunnels in Hard Rock: by College of Applied Science
and Engineering and University Extension, University of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
NTIS PB 210 854
114. EPA-R2-73-242 - Temporary Detention of Storm and Combined Sewage in
Natural Underground Formations:by City of St. Paul,
St. Paul, MM.
GPO EP 1.23/2:73-242
115. EPA-600/2-80-014 - Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System-Interim Report-
Planning and Construction: by L. Koncza, et.al_., City
of Chicago, Chicago, IL0
NTIS PB 81-145708
116. EPA-600/2-77-069a - Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows.,
Volume I - Bench-Scale and Pilot Plant Investigations: by
M.K. Gupta, ejt al_., Envirex, Environmental Science Div.,
Milwaukee, WI.
NTIS PB 272 834
117. EPA-600/2-79-106a - Screening/Flotation Treatment of 'Combined Sewer Overflows:
Volume II: Full-Scale Operation, Racine, HI: by T.L. •'-'•
Meinholz, Envirex, Inc., Milwaukee, WI.
NTIS PB 80-130693
118. 11020FDC01/72 - Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows;
by the Ecology Division, Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Milwaukee, WI,
No NTIS
119. EPA-600/2-79-085 - Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment by Screening and
Terminal Ponding - Fort Wayne, IN: by D.H. Prah and
P.T. Brunner, City of Fort Wayne, IN.
NTIS PB 80-119399
120. 11023FDD07/71 - Demonstration of Rotary Screening for Combined Sewer
Overflows: by City of Portland, Dept. of Public Works,
Portland, OR.
NTIS PB 206 814
121. 11023FDD03/70 - Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of Combined Sewer
Overf1ows: by Cornell, Howl and, Hayes and Merry field,
Corvallis, OR.
NTIS PB 195 168
122. 11020EXV07/69 - Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows:
by Fram Corporation, East Providence, RI.
NTIS PB 185 949
R-ll
-------
133. EPA-600/2-79-134 - Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows.
Syracuse, New York: by F. Drehwing, e^aU, O'Brien &
Gere Engineers, Inc., Syracuse, NY.
NTIS PB 80-113459
134. EPA-670/2-73-071 - Utilization of Trickling Filters for Dual-Treatment of
Dry and Wet-Weather Flows: by P. Homack, et jfL, E.T.
Killam Assoc., Inc., Millburn, NJ.
NTIS PB 231 251
135. EPA-670/2-75-019 - Biological Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflow at
Kenosha, WI: by R.W. Agnew, et al_., Envirex,
Milwaukee, WI.
NTIS PB 242 126
136. EPA-670/2-74-050 - Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment by the Rotating
Biological Contactor Process: by F.L. Welsh, and
D.O. Stucky, Autotrol Corp., Milwaukee, WI.
NTIS PB 231 892
137. EPA-660/2-73-006a - Wastewater Treatment Reuse by Land Application -
Volume I: Summary; by Charles E. Pound and Ronald W.
Crites, Metcalf & Eddy, Palo Alto, CA.
No NTIS
138. "Industrial Reuse of Urban Stormwater," by R. Field and C. Fan, In:
J. Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 107, No. EE1, February, 1981.
139. EPA-R2-73-139 - The Beneficial Use of Stormwater: by C.W. Mallory,
Hittman Associates, Columbia, MD.
NTIS PB 217 506
140. EPA-670/2-75-010 - Multi-Purpose Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility.
Mount Clemens. Michigan: by V.U. Mahida, F.J. DeDecker,
Spa!ding, DeDecker Associates, Inc., Madison Heights, MI.
NTIS PB 242 914
141. Storm and Combined Sewer Section Publications Bibliography, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Edison, New Jersey, March, 1981.
R-13/R-14 (blank)
------- |