r/EPA
           UniMdStttw
           EfivifOft
           Agency
            Wat*r Planning DfvMon
            WH-664
            Washington, DC 20460
Results of The Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program

Volume  Il-Appendices

-------
                                                                        832R82103
     -101
  REPORT DOCUMENTATION
         PAGE
                        1. REPORT HO.
                                                                       a. Recipient's Accession No.
                                                                       PB8U-l8$$60(pre.as S1-qned)
 4. TOO and suMrae
               RESULTS  op THE NATIONWIDE  URBAN RUNOFF  PROGRAM
               VOLUME II-APPENDICES
                                                                        September 1982
7. Author^ Dennis N  Athayde, (EPA), Dr.  Philip E Shelley,  (EG & G),
iuaene D Driscoll.  and David Rabmirv^ and Rail 8ovd
                                                                        t. Performing Organization Rept. No.
          organization Name end Address Environmental  Protection  Agency
     M Street, s. w.
 Washington, D. C.  20460
                                                                        ia ProJect/Tssk/Work Unit No.
                                                                       11. ContreettQ or OranKO) No.

                                                                       (o Contracts

                                                                       (O)
 12. Spi
       ring Organization Na
 EPA,  Office of Water  Program Operations
 Water Planning Division
 401 M Street, s: W.
 Washington, D. C.  20460	
                          U. Type of Report 4 Period Covered

                          Final,  1978 - 1983
                 This  is  one of four volumes  which comprise  the complete  set.  The assigned
 Accession Number for the  complete set  is  PB84-185537.
 1C. Atatract (limit 200 worts)

 This  Vo1'!::ie of Appendices  includes an  individual Appendix  on each of the  following:
      A  ~3lected Site  Characteristics
      B  "sleeted Event Data
      C  ~ata Analysis  Methodologies
      D  "et Weather Water  Quality Criteria
      H  ""reject Summaries
         "Yiority Pollutant Report
         ~roject Descriptions
         rPvD Report
      G
 17. Document Analyst*  a. Daaulgtma
    Hydrology            Water  pollution
    Urban Development   Water  Resources
    Watersheds           Sedimentation
   b. Idantiflan/OpeitCnded Terms
    Runoff
    Streamflow
    Stream Pollution
    Rainfall
    Snowmelt
   C. COSATI neM/QroupAV)
                       Soil Erosion
                       Water Quality
                       Sediments
                       Sediment Transport
                       Suspended  Solids
                                           Storms
                                           Regional  planning
                                           Urban  planning
Storm  Drains
Urbanization
Land Use
                   Civil  Engineering
 it.
                  MO restriction  on  distribution.
    Available  from National Technical  Information
    Service, Springfield, VA  22161
                                                        ML Security Claea (TMt Report)

                                                        IIMfl /KST FTFTI	
                                                        20L Security Claea (TMs Pace)
                                                        UNCLASSlFI^n
                                    21. No. of Pages
                                                                                  22. Price
(See ANSt-Z39.il)
                                                                                  OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                                                  (Formerly NT18-35)

-------
ATTENTION

AS NOTED IN THE NTIS ANNOUNCEMENT, PORTIONS
OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT LEGIBLE,  HOWEVER, IT
IS THE BEST REPRODUCTION AVAILABLE FROM THE
COPY SENT TO NTIS,

-------
               RESULTS
                OF  THE
   NATIONWIDE  URBAN RUNOFF  PROGRAM
         September 30,  1982
       VOLUME II - APPENDICES
      Water Planning Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Washington, D.C.  20460
          National  Technical  Information  Service (NTIS)
          Accession Number:   PB84-185560
                   l-h

-------
                         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  	     2-6
   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
                                     iii

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Chapter                                                                  Page
             Receiving Water Effects  	    5-27
             Evaluation of Controls   	    5-54
             Project Findings 	    5-59
   6         CONCLUSIONS TO DATE	     6-1
   7         REFERENCES	     7-1


                               LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                   Page
 5-la        Cumulative Probability Plots in Log-Space  	     5-5
 5-lb        Cumulative Probability Plots in Log-Space  	     5-6
 5-2         Pollutant Concentration in Urban Runoff Event Means
             (Preliminary NURP Data - 13 Projects)  	     5-7
 5-3         Comparison of NURP Results with Other Studies  	    5-10
 5-4         Urban Runoff Concentration Ranges for NURP
             Pilot Data	    5-12
 5-5         Zonal Differences in Event Mean Concentrations 	    5-18
 5-6         Contours of Long Tern Storm Event Average Rainfall
             Intensity for the Period June-September  	    5-29
 5-7         Regional Value of Average Annual Stream Flow 	    5-30
 5-8         Schematic of Rapid City Stream System  	    5-33
 5-9         Distribution of Lead Concentrations in Rapid City
             During Storm Runoff Periods (Preliminary
             Projection)	    5-36
 5-10        Mean Recurrence Interval of Indicated Storm Event
             Averaged Stream Concentration	    5-37
 5-11        Effect of Urban Runoff Control  on Distribution of
             Lead Concentration in Streams  . .-.  .	    5-40
 5-12        Effects of Urban Runoff Control  on Lead
             Concentrations	    5-41
 5-13        Copper Concentration in Urban Runoff 	    5-43
 5-14        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

-------
                            LISI OE IABLES  (Cont'd)
Table
 5-9

 5-10

 5-11

 5-12

 5-13

 5-14
Average Storm and Time 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-Sal em 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  .  .  .
   0         Wet Weather Water Quality Criteria
   E         Project Summaries  	
   E         Priority Pollutant Report  ....
   G         Project Descriptions 	
   H         ORD Report 	
                                                             A-l
                                                             B-l
                                                             C-l
                                                             D-l
                                                             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 predominately 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
I.DURHAM, NEW HAMPSHIRE                                NH1
2.LAKE QUINSIGAMOND, MASSACHUSETTS                     MAI
3.MYSTIC RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS                          MA2
4.LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK                                NY1
5.LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK                                NY2
6.IRONOEQUOIT BAY, NEW YORK                            NY3
7.METRO WASHINGTON, O.C.                               OC1
8.BALTIMORE, MARYLAND                                  MD1
9.MYRTLE BEACH. SOUTH CAROLINA                         SCI
10.WINSTON-SALEM , NORTH CAROLINA                         NCI
11.TAMPA, FLORIDA                                      FL1
12.KNQXVILLE, TENNESSEE                                TNI
13.LANSING. MICHIGAN.                                   Mil
1*.OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN                            MIZ
15.ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN                                 HI3
16.CHAMPAIGN-UR8ANA, ILLINOIS                          IL1
17.CHICAGO, ILLINOIS                                   IL2
IB.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                                      OKI

                    NON-NURP  PROJECTS

29.MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA                              MN1
30.DES MOINES,  IOWA                                     IA1
31.TOPEKA, KANSAS                                      KS2
32.RENO, NEVADA                                        NV1
33.SALEM, OREGON                                       OR2
3*.DALLAS, TEXAS                                          TX2
                           A-3

-------
LAND USE COOES
URBAN RESIDENTIAL «.5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
URBAN RESIDENTIAL (.5 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
URBAN RESIDENTIAL (2.5 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
URBAN RESIDENTIAL OS DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)
URBAN COMMERCIAL (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)
URBAN COMMERCIAL (LINEAR STRIP DEVELOPMENT)
URBAN COMMERCIAL (SHOPPING CENTER)
URBAN INDUSTRIAL (LIGHT)
URBAN INDUSTRIAL (MODERATE)
URBAN INDUSTRIAL (HEAVY)
URBAN PARKLAND OR OPEN SPACE
URBAN INSTITUTIONAL
URBAN UNDER CONSTRUCTION
AGRICULTURE
RANGE LAND
FOREST
WATER ( STREAMS AND CANALS
WATER. LAKES
WATER* RESERVOIRS
WATER. BAYS AND ESTUARIES
WATER. OCEANS
WETLANDS
BARREN
1110 •)
1120 I
1130 f
1140 J
1201 )
1202 f
1203 J
1301 7
1302 f
1303 J
1*00 \
1*01 J
1500
2000
3000
*000
5100
5200
5300
5*00
5500
6000
7000
S 3 =5
1100
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
Ml 1


NAME
Durham
Lake Q.





WASH COG













Win. Sim.

Champaign




6. Ellyn
Lansing


CATCHMENT
CODE
1 PKG
PI
P2
P3
P4
PS
P6
001
002
003
004
006
007
008
009
010
on
103
106
107
no
NC1013
NC1023
B01
802
B03
B.04
BOS
001
001
002
ORO
NAME
Parking Lot
Jordon P
Rte 9
Locust Ave.
Guua St.
Convent
THIy Br.
St.W.D.
Duf
Ueh R.P.
F.R. Rd Se.
Stdw DP
Lake DP
Oanrge I.T.
Rocky CCPP
Bulk Mall
Burke V.
Westly RP.
Sted. DP
Lake DP
Bulk Mall
C.6.D.
Ardmore
Mattls N
Matt Is S.
J & 0
John St. S.
John N.
Lake Ellyn
B.S.O.
B.S.O.
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
LANOUSE DISTRIBUTION « 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
-
-
.
S
S
-
14
1300

4
11
8
1
0
2

.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
0
.
.
.
.
-
-
.
19
100
-
1400

2
18
S
31
29
58

.
16
12
34
46
.
100
100
18
8
22
46
46
0
12
.
.
.
10
.
12
28
.
40
Other

_
_
.
.
.
2 Wdlanc

_
_
.
_
.
_
_
.
_
.
_
.
_
_
.
.
_
.
„
_
.
.
»
-
POP/DEN
PER/ AC
0
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
3.0
21.74
21.7
18.37
18.38
7.87
4.97
0
4.31
CATCHMENT
SLOPE FT/MI
58.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
84.5
450
195
227
248
420
190
135
N.D.
85
195
248
420
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
187
549
90.0
62
30.6
49
221
132
121

-------
      NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FIXED-SITE DATA FOR FASTTRACK FILE (CONT'D)
PROJECT
CODE
HI 1




HI 3











UI 1







TX 1


CO 1



NAME
Lansing
(CONTINUED)



Ann Arbor











Milwaukee







Austin


Denver



CATCHMENT
CODE
Oft 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.O.
B.S.D.
B.S.O.
B.S.O.
B.S.O.
PUt AA(1)S
PUt AA(RB)N
PUt AA(RB)0
Pitt S-AARO
SR Wetld INT.
SR Uetld DOT.
SMi ft Run 0X0
Traver CKO
Traver CK RBI
Traver CK RBO
NCampus DOR
Allen OR OTR
St. Fair
Wood CTR.
N. Hastings
N. Burbank
Rustler
Post Off.
Ltncbler Cr.
Uest Congress
Northwest
Rolling wd
Turkey Ck
50th ft Den
19th ft 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
19900
08329
15817
10440
LANDUSE DISTRIBUTION (X OF TOTAL AREA)
1100
38
30
67
55
48
31
55
45
48
53
53
SO
IS
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

-------
      NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
FIXED-SITE DATA FOR FASTTRACK FILE (CONT'D)
I
PROJECT
CODE
CO 1



WA 1
SO 1




NAME
Denver
(CONTINUED)



Bellevue
Rapid City




CATCHMENT
CODE
005
006
007
008
009
001
002
001
002
003
004
005
006
NAME
Uetr Gulch
Sandrsn G
Hrvd G.
Bear Ck.
SoPlat Lit.
Lake Hills
Surry Downs
RpdCk Abv CLake
RpdCk Abv UTP
RpdCk AtRpd Cty
RpdCk AtE MnSt
RpdCk BloHtnOh
HeldeOnRpdCty
AREA
AC
4786
4715
2833
14603
N.O.
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
-
.
onst. 45

-
96 Fores)
79
60
35
19
24
POP/DEN
PER/ AC
7.64
9.57
7.72
2.91
N 0
11.7
8.64
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.D.
N.O.
N.D.
CATCHMENT
SLOPE FT/MI
240
168
143
444
Nn
317
475
N.O.
N.O.
N.D.
N.O
N.D.
N.O.

-------
    APPENDIX B
SELECTED EVENT DATA
     B-l

-------
                                                                                                       "OX04T.
                                                                                                                        l,  1 44}    52
                                       •wjcet   NCI
                                             coo
                                             «TLl
                                             •f* LITf*
                                                                rss
                                                                    I'T'K
                                             •••osntomis
                                             «ILL
                                             »»»
                                                                                          inn
                                                                                          "11L!0»»"'
                                                                                          •(* ltff»
                                                                                                            co»»e*
                                                                                                            • K
                                                                                                            »f*
»1/1T/*0
ol/2*/«o
04/04/40
04/24/40
g«/2«/io
«/l./»0
»*/l«/«0
Od/tl/IO
8«/?«/«0
IO/2.*!
*.0«
1.24
1.21
".'•
I. II
0.12

O.cMIM*
                                             1*0
                                             I«T
                                             •«
                                             ITT
                                                 IM.tTI
                                                                n
                                                                44
                                                                1*i2
                                                                t)]
                                                                •««
                                                                •»
                                                                «l
                                                                21*0
                                                                212
                                                                IT
                                                                II
                                                                I*
                                                                l»
                                                                212
                                                                '•
                                                                TT
                                                                !«?
                                                                1)0
                                                               22«.**t
                                              .21
                                                              11*
                                                                                          .211
                                                                                          .III
                                                                                          .11*
                                                                                          .>!«
                                                                                          .Ml
                                                                                          .111
                                                                                          .11*
                                                                                          .T22
                                                                                          .Ml
                                                                                          .01
                                                                                          .«
                                                                                          .2T«
                                                                                                             .92
                                                                            .0*1
.0*1
.OT1
.0»T
.01*
.112
,**T
.11'
                                                                                                             ,0*2
                                                                                                             .OTT
                                                                                                             .01«
                                                                                                             ,OT1
XUMIC* or Fvr«i« m* '»u jutini.
    (vcxr
    srtir
    .Tl«f
                                                                                                  ttll* •ONDIt.
                                                                                                                       «,  !*•<    11
                                       MOJICt
                                                 «i

                                                 em
                                                           strcto
                                                            TJS
                                                            »IU
                                                            M*
                                                                                             idn
                                                                              •f* titr*
                                                                                                            •t*
01/IT/«0
0«/2nnk       .0101*4

                   * TH|<| $T«TI(W       }4
12*

44

















in
»«
122
111.424
1.1440*1
.
.
14
102*
1*1
It*
111
III
111
!*•
T»2
144
4|
I2»
12
74
1!
1*
104,
14
1*
4»
)••
»«•
1*1. I'l?
2.1***T1

.4
.Tl
.*«
.Tl
.12
.It
.*
,«2
.02
.Tl

1 14
.1
.24
.1*
.1*
,4
.21
.2*
.1*
.81
»fl
.*0*2TI1
.«l4««*t

.na
.1*4
.4*1
.104
.2*
• 1*4
.IT*
.4*7
.*!<
.212
.122
.0«2
.011
.117
.OT?
.04*
.III
.0*«.
.1
.I1T
.11*
.Tl*
.10*141*
.0*«*ll

.021
.0*1
.01*
.012
.01
.021
.OH
.011
.Oil
.01*
.02
.021
.OIT
.02*
.02
.021
.01*
.02
.OIT
.«•«
.0*1
.014
.0141074
.1*11111
                                                                B-2

-------
    ri3T.t*ICI D4T4


    cve»T
                                      WOJKT
                                  (I«CIt«fto»
                                   41
 .11
               (TO
               100
               J«0
               70
               151.2115
               0.7*71075
1*7
1*7
1070
15*
«•*
1*5
115
141
417, H45
O.I»I*7?5
.51


V4
• *4
,i
.2*
.5
.711*5*5
!*l«57l*
• 17*
.1*4
.11
.4*
.44
.477
.Ok*
.1
1.207*74*
). 17*1*4
.Oil
.01*
.05
.1*
.1
.01
.01*
.025
.0411*100
,**OT**1
                                                                                                14110
                                                                                                          4». J4HU4HT «.
                                                                                                                                15
                                      f*njtct   cm
                                                          sittio
                                                                    ««7io«io
    ST4CT
    TI»€
••ic»tT4TioN  cno            TII
fI»t«tS)       »ILI.IC»«»S
               *r«  LiTf*      »t» iitro
                                                                                            itto
                                                                                 Lite"
                                                                                                IITIH
                                                                                                           w* LITIH
    04/D/IO
    04/10/00
    05/01/10
    05/15/00
    05/lt/OO
    •5/17/00

ItTf «€••
me cnirrictt«T o»
       or t»f«n« »•»  TMIS  iritton
»TT
,»>7
.15
.5*
.44
.•1
.4««*4I
.*1*20*4
4
71
71
•4
51
«f
11
54.11011
0.111*541

                             441
                             541
                             l*«
                             154
                             104
                             15
0.51
0.15
0.0*5
0.27
0.21
0.14
0.11*701*
0.4**** 11
.04
.015

!l21
.017 .
.00*
.0441441*
.27*101
.410
.01*
.012
.•12
.01
.01 •
.01157*41
.1*171*2
                                                       USTTtiCl  (,0*»
                                      »«OjttT
    IVtKT
    >T»T
    05/01/10
    04/14/10
    05/01/11

sm "f««
IITC COt«lCIt»t  0*  VHUT10*
 .11
 .5*
 .11

 .1*0521*
 .5107111
em
coo
110
141
410
107.0145
0.504714
IITftB
n*
7*1
711
111
4*7 || 515
»«01»»0»US
Lt»«i>iS HILLla*4l>l
l>7>* n* LITI*

417.547"
0.744MM
.2
.21
.4
.71*447
.44*51*4
                                                                                                1*11*
                                                                                            l>IUie*4l>t
                                                                                            n* \.rn*
               .41
               .40*
               .1*

               .572121
               .41121*5
                                                                       OIT. JAMJ4IT 4, I«W



                                                                         eot>»t«

                                                                         »et Li7t*
                                                             .0*
                                                             .141
                                                             .11

                                                             .0*11471*
                                                             .4*7*117
»UMt« Of (V(NT<|
                     THIS ST4TIO*
                                                                                  Reproduced  from
                                                                                  best available
                                                                  B-3

-------
                                                        r*ST7*tC«
                                                                                                  14118 «
              coe
              »tUIC»««S
              ft* LITF*
                             rsa
                             »ILL
                             »C* k
.IT
.27
.00
.2*
.!•
.27

.2»«
.S«20!S«
 .5
 .11
 ,0*1
 ,020
 ,011
 .«»•
 ,01*
 ,92*
 ,017
 ,002
 ,»S
 ,1*
 ,»«
 ,031
 ,04
 ,02*
 ,»»1
 ,011
                                                                                                              ,0*077111
•UMf* Of («IMT<| riM THIS ffOTIlM
                                       l«
                                                                                                  1*110  •owotT.  j*«u»»r «, I'M   10
                                       •WMCC7   COI
                                                           SI ft 10    **7|l«l«
    Jt«»t
    fl«f
                                  •»fCI»IT«T!0»  COO            TSS
                                  (INCHCI)       •II.LIS«»«0     "ILL !••»•"»
                                                              '
                                                                                              ft*  iff*
                                                                          »H.LI8«*«»
                                                                          n*
    00/1 «/00
    01/12/01
    01/20/01
    07/12/01
II Tf
                 o» »««UTIO«

                 riM t»|0 OTlTItW
,2*
,11
,**

,471440s
,7|7U««
              0*
              0*
              1*0
              0*

              l**.U2t
              0.4772440
                                                               10
                                                               SOU
                                                               1*0

                                                               21«.270«
                                                               1.712^1'
0.4
 .21
 .4S
 .J7

 .«22t*0«
 .4«1]0<7
.11*
.01*
.10
.1*

,2704211
,471434
.010
.000
.0*
.01*

.9204424*
.740414
    ftOT-r*«CK n«T«
                                                        Fi9TT»tC>


                                                           JITrtO
                                                                                                  1*11* «0>101Y. J»NU«*»  4,  1402    14
                                                                     C47J04JO
    1TM7
                                  CIDCHCS)
             cne
             »ILl
             ft* LI7f»
                                                                ft*  U«7»ll
                                                                                             nlLLIC*4KS
                                                                                             ft*
                                                                         eo**tit
                                                                         •ILl.te*»«S
                                                                         ft* LI7t»
    91/07/00                      O.tl            **              110
    07/01/00                      0.14           170             200
    07/02/00                      O.M           211             413
    00/11/00                      0.17           100             121
    40/24/09                      0.20           II*             III
    90/24/09                      0.10           10*             100

JJTC »f"                         0.1411442      IU.7117        217.0*24
SITE entrneunt or volition     0,12*12**      0.17*7421       o.7ii***2
                                             .1*
                                             .41
                                             .4*
                                             .7!
                                             .41
                                             .12

                                             .4144S14
                                             .11*1124
                                                           .lit
                                                           .11
                                                           .7*4
                                                           .2*
                                                           .1*1.
                                                           .14

                                                          0.2*1*711
                                                          0.7711021
                                                                                                             .91
                                                                                                             .019
                                                                                                             .0**
                                                                                                             .911
                                                                                                             .01*
                                                                                                             .92

                                                                                                             .020*1*11
                                                                                                             .1*14*2*
«*••(•
          r*t«if4 rn* mis S7*T1(W
                                                                   B-4

-------
                                        MOJtCT   CO I
                                                        ritTTiten to*'1 "«T»

                                                           SITtIO    '44234105042400
                                                                                                  141II «ONO«T. J1NU1DT 4, IMS   »0
     CVCNT
     St»«T
•HfCIMTltlON  COO            'S3            »MOS'«0«US      UlD            CO»»C«
               »ILLICO»MS     «ILLI«»«S     »uii6«»«s      «ILLIC«««S      «n.Lte»»«3
               H» UTtl      H* t«t'H      K*  HTM       VCR UTll       re*  LITM
     07/01/00
     07/11/80
     07/30/10
     00/07/00
     08/10/80
     01/14/10
     oi/25/oo
     04/oe/oo
     04/00/00
     04/10/00

 SITt «*•«
 il TC cocrricttMT or
 .11
 .07
 .0*
 .Of
 .7?
 .0*
               • TO
               112.HIT
               0.•«•«?)
                              IK
                              1*2
                              t«<
                              270
                              t«2
                              IJJ
                              57
                              272
                              It
                              It
                                                                I.UflV
                                                                               .3
                                                                               .«J
                                                                               .1
                                                                               .If
                                                                               .'I
                                                                               .22
                                                                               .27
                                              .11

                                              ,S»7«77
                                              .40IITO
               .1*7
               .11
               .4
                »3J
                12
                1*
                102
                11
                »••
                0(4

                2M0012
.021
.0}
.071
.055
,0«»
.014
.012
.«*
.01*
.04*

,OIJ««I*2
.0*I7|M
       or l»t«T» rno THIS sririnic
                                                                                                                JiMU»»T 0, |M2
                                       MOJtCT   BCI
                                                           jt'rio
     €Vt"«T
     ST«BT
     TI"-t
(INCHES)
                              TSS
                              »I1.LI»»«"S
                                            »«OS»HOIIUS
                                            «ILLIS»««S
                                                           «ILLIC»«»S     »ILUISIH»S
                                                                          rt« \.lit*
    II/0«/IO
    n/o«/eo
    11/25/60
    ll/2«/00
    u/oi/ao
    12/21/00
    02/20/01
    02/21/01
    02/22/01
    02/22/11
    Ol/OI/OI
    03/14/01
    03/30/11
    03/3I/«I

UTt «(••"
site cntrrictCNr ti' V»«I»TION

•watt* or IvtNTj rnn THIS JTITIOX
O.H
 .)!
 .2
 .11
 .J]
 .0*
 .15
 .1
 .«
 .10
 .»•
 .!«

0.4
                                                                23
                                                                I*
                                                                17
                                                                10
                                                                22
                                                                102
                                                                II

                                                                34.2774
                                                                I.OIll*'
.2*
.24
.2
.1
.12
.IT

.04
.04
.11
.14
.4t
.2*
.12
    CVCNT
    ST«OT
    T|»f
                                       MOJKT   OC1


                                  MCCIMTITION
                                                                     rcuiuios
               »ILLIC»«»S
                                            »«08»«OBUS
                                            «1LLIC»»«5
                                                                                                  141II «OMO«r, J»U4*T  «,  l»02    42
                                                           l«o           COMC*
                                                           «tLLIC»««S     OILLIGKMIS
                                                           Ml HTC»      «« LJTC*
    ««/IT/00                      0.31            «l              12
    04/2S/00                      .              34              4
    ll/Ot/00                      .              20              12
    11/04/00                      .              40              152
    11/14/00                      o.«            40              «
    IIV2T/IO                      0.21            1«              3
    IS/04/00                       ,2            <4              22
    02/02/01                       .01            54              00
    02/00/01                       .31            54              24
    02/10/01                       ,*1            n              «J
    02/14/HI                       .44            52              20
    02/20/01                       .2            *«              23
    02/22/01                       ,|«            f<              |4
    03/04/01                       .54            .               4
    03/14/01                       .20            45              10
    03/30/01                       .3*            77              3T

SITt *(IN                         0.5234T32      44.IT43        J7.JI»«7
JITt cntrrictlKT or VIQUTION     0.405TU2      0.340*02        i.2i3»54
                                             .34
                                             .27
                                             .3*
                                             .34
                                             .24
                                             .34
                                             .23
                                             .*4
                                             .12
                                             .1
                                             .ST
                                             .34
                                             .54
                                             .30
                                             .22
                                             .34

                                             .5T0404
                                             .T22542T

-------
                                       NOJICT   oei
                                                        F49TT*4CX L04P "«T»

                                                           siuta
                                                                                                  Ulll •ON017, JUKI tut 1,  l*M   kl
    fVC«T
    37187
    Ti«e
                                  ••eci»t747io»  coo            TSS            •HOS»MO«US     itio           COMC*
                                  (l»C»fS)       »ILLieiU»3     »Il.LI»«»«S     «ILLIS»»«3     »IUI5»4«3
                                                 •f» cm*      «• L«2*

     12
                                                 4*
                                                 42
                                                 12
                                                 10
                                                 *•
                                                 .
                                                 ri
                                                                kl
                                                                M
                                                                II
                                                                221
                                                                10
                                                                »s
                                                                n«
                                                                •<
                                                                II
                                                                T2
                                                                            ,12
                                                                            ,2
                                                                            ,1*
                                                                                 ,T««*«02
               0«TI
                                       '•OJCCT   DC I
                                                        rtaTTXCn

                                                           JITHO
                                                                                                  UII8
                                                                                                                JANUMV «, 1«M   »«
    fVINT
    JT««T
    TI«€
cno
»ILl
*f* LITE*
                                                            rsa
                                                            "ILL1»»«"S
                                                            ft* L'T'O
                                             »»os»>
-------
    rilT-riien  niri
    3T1IT
    tl«f
                                      MOJCCT   OCI
                 "CCt'ITtTIO"  COO
                 (1NC"CJ)
                                                          aiTCID


                                                              TJ3
                                                    LITM
                                                                                                1*111 •OOO1T.
                                            m«a*MO*Ua
                                            •ULIC«»«S
                                                                                           ItlO
                                                                                           »lLLie««»8
                                                                                                          C0»»l«
                                                                                                          •tLLIO**H«
    IO/II/IV
IO/2«/tO
II/H/«0
II/I«/«0
il/o«/*e
•i/H/61
OI/IO/II
oj/il/«i
SIT( ofiN
JITC cntrrtCl(«T
•U"il« or
                  .5
                  ,i
                  .11
                  .!«
                  .«
                  .17
                  .»?
                  .a

                  .7V«10t
of vi*itrio«

f(W THIS ITtTION      II
               II
               «
               «C
               M
                                                «».7»T»«
                                                              II
                                                              >«
                                                              11
                                                              141
                                                              «•
                                                              IT
                                                              1*
                                                              it
                                                              «•

                                                              •?.<»»»»
                                                                             9.11
                                                                             o.»
                                                                             0.11
                                                                             «.«•
                                                                             ».«•

                                                                             I.S«
                                                                             ».11
                                                                             !.»«
                                                                             g.lT
                                                                             g.ir
                                                                             0.1TI94IT
                                                                             o. ?
                                                oei
                                                       ftSTTItO  10*" «•!•

                                                          SITtID    F
                                                                                                uiti •o«e«*. j««u»»» «, iMI   •*
    ivext
    1TMT
«tctnt«Tio»  em            TSS
               »in.ie«««s
               ft* {.111*      H* 1. 1 IK
                                                                             »f« LITt*
                                                                                            it»o
                                                                                            »ILLIC»«»S
                                                                                            Ml LITtl
                                                                                                          co»*t*
                                                                                                          ft* LIU*
    II/04/IO
    «i/n/ai
    »tl»/*\
    «I/«I/*I
    o?/io/ei
    01/21/11
    OI/II/II
    01/04/11

SIT( »CIN
lire cncrriciiiT  n»  »««ntro»

•U»BC* Of f«CWT*  fO*  TM|J STtTtOX
.J
.1*
.ia
.a
.17
.«
.o»
.3*
.*
0,S«S71*
I.OV1II*
44
a
7*
»!
40
1*
1*
40
10
47.»«ia*
0.4I1M7B
J»
404
»**
171
14*
*•
II
«
17
tai.lMT
I.7*1'I1
.*»
.Tl

Is*
.14
.1
.14
.H
.11
.41*1117
.**0*M*
    (.'lit  OTOBfl) 0«Tl
    evmT
    9TIDT
    tt»e
     '•OJCCT   IIDCCI7T


•00            COO


ll«            toil*
                                                                       0»t«


                                                                        lITflO
                                                                                               1*111 •OmtlV. JUHIMT 4, ItU   14
                                                                                      oeuiu
-------
     LflCf  (JTOtfl)  04T4
     CVCNT
     St««T
                                        MOJtCt    22IIC1TT

                                   •oo            era
                                                                           tlTCIO
                                                                 TS«
                                                                 ft*  IITF»       •«*  LITI»
                                                                                                         KON04Y.
                                              l€ll>            COMC*
                                              »ILLIO»»«S
                                              Ml llte»       ft» UITM
                                              |OJ|            10*2
                                                                                                                         «, |«M   If
     01/1 I/HO
     OI/I4/40
     •1/17/10
     01/14/M
     OI/2«/*0
     tl/21/IO
     01/10/a*
     •«V*)/aO
     OVI2/I9
     OVI2/M
     04/14/M
     04/1 T/l<
     Ot/21/M
     ••)/«!/«*
     04/14/M
     04/H/«0
     04/21/M
     0»/2*/*0
     07/24/«0
     07/27/to

iITt •€••
jltt cotrriciciiT n* vicuna*
   ). 1)15
                                                 >*T.*II|
 112. 2»«!
                1*1. •»«>
               •O.TT>««
1.l4f7«*
1.144444
I.MT112
«.a»«T7«
0.17J«00«
«
;.o»7«««
4. 4414*42
«
*
9.12««7I7
J.4.»T«.
o.iieo7«
o!»«47701
0.04(4(12
0.11111)1
0.04700214
O.OS24j|4a4
O.OI24|24«
•
0.0)01*171
0.044721K
•
:
0.0142444?
0.0404*01
0.01T004TT
o'()04l(7
          OTOTft) OtTt
                                       MOJfCT   22ILCITY
                        8»t«


                         IITCID
                                                                                         ««»l«2
    IVtIT
    *Tt*T
    Tim
coo
»ILl.
Ml LI7CI
TM
"ILl !•••«•
•fl
                                                                               •«• L|7f«
1.00
«KI.>«»
•€• l!'l»
                                                                                                             •»• .«*«•
    OI/tl/M
    
                                                                                              0.-44710


                                                                                              014440*11
                                                                                                             :.:)!)*••
                                                                                                             O.J1(•*)(•
                                                                                                             0.1447114
                                                                 B-8

-------
    IFJU tJtOlrf) n»T»
                                                    lHLC(STn«fT) I"!' 0«1t


                                                zmcrrv                 aifcin
                                                                                               14,11 KONDt*.  JtnutlV «, Iff}   IT
    event

    TI"£
                                               cno            '53            »*>oimo»us
                                               «ILLie»««3     "ILL!•••»>     "ILLie«4«S
                                               »C» U1TCI      »€• L"'«      Ml IITCI
                                               3«0            110
                                                                                           •€• UTtl
•ILllCltHl
'(I IITCI
10*2
    01/14/10
    01/14/10
    01/12/10
    01/12/10
    01/1T/10
    05/17/10
    01/IV/10
    01/21/10
    01/10/10
    04/01/10
    04/21/10
    14/21/10
    IT/2T/10

SITE «C«N
me cocrricieoT n» V»*UTION

«W«8fl Of fV[xt< FOB THIS JTtTIOX
                                                O.KT*



                                               14.11411
                                                              Il.lS'T
                                                              0. »»»•••!



• I
(
•'•"**'

.tITlltl
.2019034 (
. I* 1(4 12 I
l.00»«*«*»
,OI120«I5
.OK11T1I
.OI1V1191
.1*1411*
                                      11
                                      nojict    in
                                                      FilTTIlCK

                                                         sitfin
                                                                                               14110 KONOIT. J1NUMT «, KM   4T
    (VfNT
    JT»»t
    TI"t
    01/t»/IO
    04/11/10
    04/21/80
SITt "€"
       of

•
nf vMitrion
tm THIS SUTttW
•«ftl»IT«TIO«
IINCHC1)
III
.1
.»
.24
::«.£•
i
coo tss
«ILL1G«««S "III !•••«»
»f» LfTf.1 f* L'tr*
1* I4T
10 12*
Tl '
"I"?"T ,".££2

HwaMKwua
«1H.IS«»«S
HI iiTei
.1*
.2*
.112
.501
!lll2*|7

IC10
Ml 1.1 TCI
0.141
O.IT
O.ll
o!*22*«2*

HILLICItKl
»€• LI TCI
0.011
0.01
0.02
0.02
.O.OH44II
0. 50124*4

                                                                          Reproduced  from
                                                                          best  available  copy.,
                                                                B-9

-------
           •/««
     *•/*]/**
     *•/«)/•«
     ««/*•/*«
     ••/•«/*«
    •1/I2/*0
    M/I2/M
    •1/I2/*0
    01/I4/*0
    •«/!*/*«
    01/I7/*0
    tl/17/(0
    a*/]*/**
    *l/l*/*«
    «•/«!/*•
    •*/Ot/*0
    *»/!!/**
    »*/!!/«*
    •*/IV«0
    0*/21/*0
    •*/2*/«o
    •T />»/(«
    «T/«T/*0
SITt «f Ml
SITC CO€»riCIt«T
               1I».»71J
               K4.67H
                              1 «».!'«•
                              209.7T4*
                              299.7*4*
                              111.?***
                              T9.JM8
               IH.OHi
               291.1127
               291.1127
                              IIT.i*7?
                              117.••ft
                              191.1»V*
                              101.5>J-»
              M«.8»M
                             IIO.J'01
                                             1.425*1)
                                             |>.57«|54«
                                             1.111721
                                             1.111721
                                            0.1*21*17
                                            0.1421*17
                                            I.141111
                                            1.145111
                                            O.*494|4«
                                            0.704470*
                                                            0.1414421
                                                            0.1*010*1
                                                            0.. 1*919*1
                                                            9.19979*2
                                                            0.90*70*2
              0.2M0104
              0.2*012*7
              9.2*012*7
                                                                                              9.1701112
                                                                                              0.1701112
                                                            9.2*411*12
                                                            0.4*44141
                                                                           0.91428*7
                                                                           0.0142*07
                              0.02*917*1
                              9.921917*1
                             0.0*111147
                             0.0*111147
                             0.01*17112
                             9.91*17112
               0.9*1*12*7
               0.0*1412*7
               9.0*7920*4
               0.04702094
                                                                           0.01411111
                                                                           0.0141111]
                                                                           0.04*** 114
                                                                           0.94*1*114
                             0.05281*44
                             0.9212421
       Of (»lnr<| Fnn THIS JTlTtmi
                                       12
                                       MOJCCT   tL2
                                                                  i.n«r P«T«

                                                                     •1'02U««0011«02
                                                                                                  1411* KOND4T. JMUMT 4. 1««2   *•
    ITM7
MtCl»t7«TtO»  CRO
               »ILLIC«»«S
               »f» Lttf*
                                                                »t» l«T»*
                                            »«O3»XO»US
                                            »tLLle»7in*
 21
.17
.*!
.21
.1)
.1*
.!•«*»!
. **!***!
                                                 2*0
              11
               I4J. *!«•
               0.74*21112
                              1*2
                              171
                              141

                              ill
                              42
                              tl
                              12*

                              24J.77o«
.444
.•27
.714
.1*7
.22*
.24
.22*
.14*14*1
.•••lilt
0.141
2.*1
0.7»<
0.2*1
0..1*

5.1*7
0.744*141
t .451541
 .012
 .012
 .19*
 .044
 .911
 .02*
 .926
0.0*4*41*7
9.1
          r»f«iM rm
                          ST«TIO»
                                                                 B-10

-------
                                                        r«jTT*»c«

                                                           SITHO
                                                                                                 14110 "OHO*". J4HU4HT «,  IfM
    (TtlT
    Tt«€
»*rci»tTiriON  coo            TS»
               MUIICXM9
               ft* lilt*      ft*
               •MOSFNOIU*
               »IUie»i»e
               H» IITID
                                                           L«D
                                                           «lLl.I
                                                           ft* l|U*
                                                                         town
                                                                         •IU
                                                                         •€•
    04/24/80
    07/08/80
    o7/i7/oo
    07/24/ao
    08/02/00
    08/01/00
    04/10/10
    04/18/80
StTl •€•»
9I7C
NU»(f»
                 nr »««I«TIO»

          fv(*M mi THIS
 •I
 1
.11
 11
                                   .*!••)>!
              t«0
              ID
              at
              •1.10*2)
              0.5TU2I1
                             12?
                             1*
                             12*
                                              .2
                                              .2]
                                              .1*
                                              .52
                                              .If
                                                                               .«*•»•«!
                               ,12
                                15
                               ,11
                               ill
                               ,2
                                                                                                              Ml
                                                                            OM
                                                                            ow
                                                                            I
                                                                            0*
                                                       r>9TT*lCI

                                                          9ITIID
                                                                                                 1411* ODNOtT.  JMUMV «.  IM2    TO
                                                                    >2
    tVJNT
    JT1IT
    rr-f
•*(Ct»TTtTION
(INCNC9)
                                                    IIT«»
                                                               »€• (.'"•
                                             "iLLie»«"J
                                             ft* LItf*
                                                          lUO           CO»*C*
                                                          »t<.us«»"S     »ILLIS«»«§
                                                          K« |.|Tf«      ft» LITII
    OT/IT/IO
    07/24/00
    01/02/10
    Od/OJ/SO
    00/11/00
    04/IO/tO
    04/10/00
    11/20/80
    12/OS/*0

SIT! «€««
9ITt cotrric!C«r
                    V««IIT!ON

       nr fvrNTj rm IHU sntio»
0.1R
LSI
o.i
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.74
l.l«
0.14

0.401244*
i.Ttloit
               101
               .
               r«
               }1
               »7
               170
               IM
                                                I04.4CI1
400
116
oo
211
II
110
740
                              J5I."J»
                              2.012*0?
                                             1.2*
                                             .
                                             0.17
                                             0.5
                                             0.24
                                             1.40
                                             1.S4
                                                                              1.0*4417
                                                          0.31
                                                          0.*
                                                          a. or
                                                          ».J5
                                                          O.lf
                                                          0.4*
                                                          «.77
                                                          1.0141411
                                                          1.0222*
                                                                                                           *.ll
                                                                                                           0.12
                                                                                                           o.o«
                                                                                                           0.11
                                                                                                           0.0*
                                                                                                           0.11
                                                                                                           0.17
                                                                                                           *.lltT||t
                                                                                                           o.«*44«ri
                                                         STtllM L0«r

                                                          tITIIO    »J
                                                                                                 ui la  >(Ma*r. J««U»»T «,  i«w   Tl
    3T1*T
»«tci»i'«rio«i  coo
(i*c>!ca>       "iLL
               f* LtTf*      •€•  t'Tr«
                                                                                  L1TM
                                                          it»o           co»»e»
                                                          ntLiteitoa     «iLLtc*»«s
                                                          ft* LITE*      «• LITI*
    07/17/80
    OK/02/ao
    oa/ii/ao
    04/io/ao
    04/10/00
    04/24/00
    n/28/ao

JITt »f»l<
jltf cocrriCTCNT nr  VHUTION

                 FOB THIS  SHTIOI
.18

ill
.12
.74
.11
.500*041
.•21411
               44
               104
               20*
               HI
              O.**<4«21
711
44
• 7
78
•*l
11
                             217.0774
                                            0.08
                                            0.11
                                            1.1
                                            2.1
                                            I.I
                                             1.227444,
                                             0.7110122
                                                           8.11
                                                           0.14
                                                           0.14
                                                           0.11
                                                           0.41
                                                           8..I1


                                                           0.271*784
                                                           0.472*724
                                                                                                           O.I
                                                                                                           0.11
                                                                                                           o.oai
                                                                                                           o.i
                                                                                                           0.14
                                                                                                           0.00*
                                            0.1071274
                                            0.21048*2
                                                                B-ll

-------
                                                                                                  t*ti8
                                                                                                                        «,  i»*2   rs
                                       ••OJtCT   lit |
                                                           SITtIO    »•
     JT»»T
     tl"t
                coo
                «TLI iejT.f*tc< n«T»
                                       «OJtCT   041
                                                        r>9TT»C«

                                                           SIT110
                                                                                                  1*111 OON04T. JANUARY  4,  1«M    7]
    (VINT
    3TMT
    Tl»€
                                  IIMCMCS)
               eno            TJ$
               «TLLI6»»»9
               »C* LIU*      •€• 1.ITHI
                              »IUIC«4li«
                              PCH LITf*
                                                                                             »II.I.!S»««a
                                                                                             *C*
                                                                                                            eo»»(»
                                                                                                                LI Tin
    0*/20/«0                      0.2*           *•             I*             O.OT           .              .
    o»/;«/eo                      2.1*           i«e            2t             o.li           0.24           o.u
    07/0*/«0                      0.4|           f*             T«             0.2Y           0.24           0,8*
    07/tT/IO                      0.18           46             122            1.41            0.1*           0.11
    OT/2«/80                      I.Rt           7T             42             0.1*           0.2*           0.1]
    0*/02/80                      0.1             It*            17             0.81           0.0*      '     0.1
    0*/01/SO                      O.IS           29             5*             0.82*           O.OT2          0,011
    0«/ll/(0                      0.11           49             4              0.82*           K. 037          0.071

SITE tt»                         0.7o«WO«      71.741*2       ?1.|7>»>       0.1*4114        «.1«»«*7*      0.18*«28)
Hit COC'riCU«T I* »««1«710»     1.78*182       0.*I**I2I       t.«8>*l       1.081112        0.4U2811      O.*}22217

          fv(«T^ rn» THIS SUTinn      •
                                                        rtSTT'tCl  LO*"

                                       MOJtCT    H41        SITtIO     •*
                                                                                                  1*118 •OKOIT. J«NU4*T 4, l«*2   7*
    (VCNT
    9T1IT
••rei»iT»Tjo«  coo            TSI
(IMCNC1)       «1LLIC»«"J     »ILL1*«««S
               »e» Li7f»      »€• L'trii
                              "ILLIO*»»S
                              no tiTt»
                                                                                             "lLLie»««J
                                                                                             •«• Lire*
                                                                                                            co»»t»
                                                                                                            «ILL1S»«S
                                                                                                            »«». tirt*
    0«/10/80
    01/K/80
    II/24/80
    12/01/80
    12/10/88

IttC •€•"
JITf CMFHCH1T Of  «1*I«TTON

                 rn* T»IS ST»TIO«
                                  .7*
                                  .5*
                                  .1*
                                  .»*

                                  .7217*7?
                                  ,7»«!0*
II*
««
H
11
II

*8.171*2
                              31
                              »«•
                              *
                              1
                              I
                              8.78
                              0.71
                              O.OS2
                              0.01*
                              0.82*

                              8.11721*1
                              *.|444*«
                                                                                             0.11
                                                                                             0.1*
                                             0.1*I21«7
                                             O.1181181
                                                                          0.08
                                                                          o.oi
                                                                          0.017
                                                                          0.00*
                                                                          0.01111111
                                                                          2.201*81
                                                                B-12

-------
                                                        F»07T«»C«
                                                                                                  uil*  "xnm, jutuiir t.  i«u   n
                                       MOJCCT   «tl
    l»Hlt
    Jt»»t
                                  (I«CNfS)
                                                 em            T3«
                                                 «UL1C»»M
                                                 n» HTM      rt»
                                                                               •tUIC*<«l
                                                                                         ifto
                                                                                         •«LLU«»M
                                                                                         »€•
                                                                          en*vct
                                                                          HtUIMM*
                                                                          PC* urn
    04/10/74
    10/22/7*
    00/IH/OO
    ot/io/ao
    04/00/00
    0«/0«/00
    0»/I7/00
    «*/IT/IO
    OJ/17/«|
SITf "H«
nit cotrricienT o»
  11
                                    •1
                                                 11
                                                 tl
                                                 •J

                                                 •I. I OK?
                                                            Ilk
                                                            T«
                                                            •I
                                                            •7
                                                            45
                              • t
                              • I
                              •0

                              M.7ZJI*
                                              .5
                                              .1*
                                                                           .1*
                                                                           .U
                                                                           .11
                                                                           .11
                                                                           .21
                                                                                              .11
                                                                                              .IT
                                                                                              .Ml
                                                                                              .*•

                                                                                              .M
                                                                                              .111
                                                                                              • *I
                                                                                              .••T
                                                                                             i.Mtttar
                                                                                                            O.S*l*«t
                 rn* THIS
    M3T.T**CI
                                       MOJCCT   «tl
                                                        F»8TT««C« 10*"

                                                           IITflO
                                                                                                  1411* •MOAT. JtNUMT «,
                                                                                                                                 7»
    CV(NT
    9T»T
    tl"€
••(COIT1TICW  COO            tit            »HOSPNO*M     t«0           COTPt*
(INCHC9)       HILL1CMKI     «ULI»8«I"S     l>IkLU»*M     HlLL IMtMS     H||.L!MM«
               PC* LITtl      »€• 10
    0«/I7/«0
    0«/I7/80 .
    IO/H/60
    l«/24(* <" (VCNTfl rn* THIS ITtrtON •
                               .«
                                    «5
                               ,72*7«4<
                               ,4727«7i
               2*
               2*
               12
               )2
               27
               &
               2*
               24
               ft

               10.7720S
               ». 2111011
                                                                «0
                                                                «0
                                                                47
                                                                «7
                                                                «t
                                                                |«2

                                                                $I.«
                                                                «.«»»«"2
 .11
 .0*
 .07
 .07
 .11
 .11
 .It
 .12
 .11
 .12
 .12
 .It
 .*IS
 .001
 .01
 .00*
 .0*
 .004
 .00*
 .011
O..OI
               0.01000407
               1.410101
                                                                                                            O.OOf
                                                                                                            0.001
               O.OOU72VII-
               I.420H
                                                                                                  14110 KOWXT. Jt*utt* 0, 1»*2   T7
                                       ••cuter   nil
                                                           OITflO    M »CTLlliei  INT
    CVCNT
    SUM
    M«t
                                                 C(N)
                                                 MILLICXMS
                                                 ft* LITf«
                                                                TJ3
                                                                          •HOS*HO»U9
                                                                          DtUICMHS
                                                                          M> LITI»
                                                           LllO
                                                           «IL
                                                           Mil
    00/20/00
    00/20/00
    02/17/01
    01/11/01
    01/22/01
    Of/2*/M
jirt cocrriciCNr no VMMTION

«u»ec» or tvcxrs ro* T«IJ
 .**
 .•5
                                   ,I»I277
                                   .••00407
                                             17

                                             •2
                                             20
                                             24
                                             11
                                             24

                                             !2.0«4<«
                                             0.2011144
                                                                4*
                                                                4*
                                                                o«
                                                                02
                                                                II*
                                                                *»
                                                                17

                                                                7t.4»70A
                                                                0.721»*77
0.17
0.17

0,10
o.io
O.I
0.01

0.1001*00
O.S24414!
0.012
0..02

0.01
0.012
0.004
                                                                                             O.OI»20««2
                                                                B-13

-------
                                       MOJECT   «tl
                                                        FtSTTHtO L0»" "«T»

                                                           SltEJO    7*»v CK *T IN  I
                                                                                                  Iftltl MONBtT, J1NUMY 4, KM   71
    EVE«T
    J7«*T
    fl"t
•*EC«»iT»Tto«  eon            us
               «tLUC»«»S
               »CR LITrH      *(t LUFk
"TLUC«»»»
»CR LITE*
                                                                                         tt«o
                                                                                         *ILLI
                                                                                         ft* LITE*
                                                                                                            co»»c*
                                                                                                            "ILUe»»»8
                                                                                                            »E* LJ7E*
04/11/11                       I.I
04/13/11                       1
04/22/M                       0.45
05/04/M                       t.4
Ok/13/11                       1.5
sue *C*|tTtm

                   » THIS  sm
                                   21
                                   41
                                   1
                                   SI
                                   ,4401557

                                      1
                                                42
                                                70
                                                0.14k|01
                                                           7»
                                                           240
                                                           *1
                                                           J»
                                                           12
                                                           II
                                                               0.»*4<>4«»
O.T5
0.24
0.11
I.I
0.»7
0.2J
0.5*
0.42

O.S47I02!
O.kl4«««7
                                                                                         0.21
                                                                                         0.02T
                                                                                         0.11
                                                                                             O.I70«4fl
                                                                                             I.
                                                                          0.071
                                                                          0.024
                                                                                                        0.04534401
                                                                                                        O.!«414*»
                                                                                                      XWOtT.  U«U««T 4, |«M   10
                                                »TI
                                                          9ITCIO    »0«
                                 »nei»iT»Tio«  cne            TJJ            »MOS»MO*UI
                                                KtLLieoxs     »ILII««»«S      •lu.iaum
                                                *r* LiTf*      »c* I.IT»»       »fn  LtTtn
                                                                                            itio
                                                                                            «ILLIS«««S
                                                                                            »e* tire*
                                                                                                           cam*
04/03/10
04/24/10
05/30/40
Ok/01/90
Ok/05/00
07/05/11
07/tk/iO
01/02/10
OA/IO/10
04/04/10
04/22/10
10/14/10
IO/lk/10
10/17/10
10/21/10 I
SITE "ft* C
SI7E COEFFICIENT <* »««I»TIO» t
•VIIE* f* C»B»T* Ffl* 7«I3 StiTtOH
.H
.21
.21
.41
.kl
.«2
.*»
.14
.51
.22
.44
.•4
.ir
.«!
.41
; 0433404
,4]4kklk
15
                                                TT
                                                III
                                                HO
                                                4»
                                                •«
                                                44
                                                47
                                                •)
                                                44
                                                k
                                                51
                                                44

                                                70.34534
                                                0.1473375
                                                               110
                                                               }4
                                                               MO
                                                               I*
                                                               54
                                                               100
                                                               47
                                                               2*
                                                               kO
                                                               70
                                                               k
                                                               74
                                                               *
                                                               32
                                                               ||

                                                               70.77M*
                                                               1,114'U
                                                                           .14
                                                                           .14
                                                                           • •7
                                                                           .1

                                                                           ^T
                                                                           .01
                                                                           .1'
                                                                           .15
                                                                           .2k
                                                                           .12

                                                                           !»4
                                                                           .11
                                                                           ,n

                                                                           .|44«474
                                                                           .051441
              0.24
              0.15k
              0.02
              0.11
              0.0k3
              0.05k
              0.150454*
              1.154445
                                                                          O.OIk
                                                                          0.015
                                                                          0.01
                                                                          0.001
                                                                          0.012
                                                                          O.Otk
                                                                         0.054
                                                                         0.001

                                                                         0.0|4«7k53
                                                                         0.7144351
                                                               B-14

-------
                                                                 LOt* »«t»
                                                                                                 1*11* "OWOIY. J»U<*T *, |402   *l
    »»a»«T4»c« ROTO
                                       MOJKT
    JTitT
    rim
.PCrCIPITtTIOK  COO
               "ILL
               Pf* HTM
                                                                   LlTM
                                             pxaapMOnua     if«o           eo»»c»
                                             MILLI6ff*M8     MlLLXCPAMa     MILLICPONa
                                             PC* 1.1't«      PC* LITE*      PC* LITE*
04/01/00
04/01/00
07/14/00
00/02/00
01/10/00
n/i«/eo
lO/l'/OO
I0/t*/«0
lire coiMieic»T or
w«i«e* of rvrntn ro* THIS  ITITION
0.4)
0.1]
0.*4
O.M
0.51
0.0«
o.u
0.4J
0.4}

O.S»<0«I
               14
               42
               4*
               4T
               »0
               »7
                                                K.OlBOf
                              1)0
                              110
                              HO
                              •)
                              I|0
                              »«
                              no
                              110
                              to
                                                                              0.10
                                                                              0.1*
                                                                              0.22
                                                                              0.10
                                                                               .IT
                                                                               .11
                                                                               .J»
                                                                               .11
                                                                               .IT

                                                                              t.IITOITS
«.«            o.oti
0.0JZ          O.OtS
                                                           0..4I
                                                                                             I.HTIIS
                                                                                             T.«•<)•!
                                                                          0.011
                                                                                                  I4IIS HOMO**. JMU4HT 4. I«U   M
    r<3t>r»c>
                                                           JITHO
                                                                     '!«
    IVfXT
    ITI*T
                                  »MCI»tT4TIOH
                cno     .
                »HLie»««s
                n»
                                                                TSS
                                                                »e« ii»m
                                                                              »t»
                                                            mo
                                                            »ULI
                                                            •c* Ltn*
                                                                           eo»»e»
                                                                           "ILLJC»««S
                                                                           >t»  uten
    Of/10/00
    04/01/40
    Ot/OI/DO
    04/10/00
    0«/0*/40
    OV/14/00
    10/14/10
    10/17/00
    10/24/00

It Tf HfMl
•ire cotmcie«T
                    »««mio«
  .1*
  .41
  .11
  ,tl
  .41
  .41
  .14MTOI
   4UI4TI
               1 10
               IT
               14
                 i
               H.4I4T1
               1.01*14)
                              120
                              I TO
                              4*
                              loo
                              140
                              210
                              120
                              120
                              ITI.O«44
                              0,T«»«TT«
                                                                          0.11
                                                                          0.24
                                                                          0.14
                                                                          0.44
                                                                          0.12
                                                                          0.24
                                                                          0,12
                                                                          0.21
                                                                          0.1UTI««
                                                                          0.4441111
                                                            0.044
0.24*^412
2.10MII
                0.044
                0.014
                                                                           0.011
0.02918141
0.»1*««T2
    >tar-r»c>
                                                       »4JTT««CK
                                       ••OJfCT    NHI
                                                                                                            f. JMU4CT 4. 1*4,2   41
    tVfNT
    «t«»T
    TI»€
M(CI»!T4TION  COO            TM
               "IIL1C4JHJ
               »c> km*      »e«
                                                                                  citr*
                                                                           CIW*C*
                                                                           «ILLIt««»S
                                                                           »t« LITC*
    OT/1T/40                      O.K            no              170
    OT/2*/<0                       .16            .               14
    oe/oi/oo                       .11            IT              $*
    oa/ii/oo                       .02            101             10
    oa/20/oo                       .14            «e              24
    04/02/00                       .20            14*             144
    04/10/00                       .04            111             14
    OV/14/40                       .10            111             2T
    04/10/08                       .11            im             »!
    04/21/00                       .01            IT              20
    io/01/oo                       .o«            4i              la
    10/10/00                       .«?            21T             104
    10/21/00                       .47            100             4T
    04/21/01                       ,T1            14              41
    04/2*/0|                       .14            144             140
    04/24/01                       .2T            102             111
    01/2«/ai                       .2?            110             222
    01/11/01          •             .14            T2              02
    04/01/01      .                 .2             1)1             114
    04/04/«i                       ,o«            iaa             .
    04/04/01                       .40            04              122

aiTl •€»«                         0.1140124       1)0.4412        41.14«1»
aiu cofrnctciT or  VAOUTIU*     I.OTIOTI        0.4444004       0.444101

»u»8i« or ivfNtu tor TMIS JMTION       21
                                               ,0»4
                                               ,1
                                               ,040
                                               ,104
                                               .11
                                               ,10
                                               ,11

                                               ,20
                                               ,112
                                               ,040
                                               04
                                               2T1
                                               ,141
                                               IT2
                                               110
                                               ,017
                                               ,loa
                                               ITl

                                               1044111
                                               T41440
                                                           0.42
                                                           0.12
                                                           0.10
                                                           0.11
                                                           O.II
                                                           0.01
                                                           0.4
                                                           0.11
                                                           0.01
                                                           O.I
                                                           0.14'
                                                           0.4«
                                                           O.II
                                                           O.tl
                                                           n.l
                                                           0.22
                                                           0.141
                                                           0.14
                                                           0.11
                                                           0.141
                                                           0.121

                                                           0.1I10T14
                                                           1.042124
                                                                          O.I
                                                                          O.I
                                                                          O.I
                                                                          0.1
                                                                          O.I
                                                                          O.I
                                                                          0.2
                                                                           .01
                                                                           .02

                                                                           .0)
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1

                                                                           *2
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1
                                                                           .1
                                                                            1040101
                                                                            0111*74
                                                                 B-15

-------
     M5T.TB«C« n>T>
                                       "OJECT    SOI
                                                         rt9TT*lCB  L0»l"  MT»

                                                            sirrto     »
                                                                                                   Itll*  "OH01T.  Jinu«»r «. |46»   6*
    EVENT
    9T«*T
•*rei*tT«Tiroi  coo
MNCME9)       DILI. ICKHS
               »E» LITE*
                               tss
                               »ILUI»«««J     "ILLIS**")
                               »E* L'TF*      »E* LITE*
                                                            it«o
                                                            »ILLIS«««8      «ILLI6*«N»
                                                            rE« LITE*       FE*  LITER
    97/12/60
    (17/20/60
    07/21/60
    06/20/60
    10/11/60
SITE COirrtciEHT n» v»*t«Tinii

»U"»E» or CVENT^ rnB TMJ $
                1*1
                101
                127
                127
                1*1
                42
                                                 0.1*011*4
                               10700
                               *120
                               17*0
                               »«!
                               1700
                               1120

                               4178.»?1
                                             2.6*
                                             1.1*
                                             1.4]
                                             0.72
                                                                               2. «
                 .4*
                 .21
                 .21
                 .26
                 .1)
                                                                                               .22*
    Fi9T>THtC« OITt
                                       PROJECT   T»l
                                                           3ITEIO
                                                                                                                         «,  i«»2    <•
                                                                          LIKE
    9T»T
    T|«t
                                  »»tCI»1T«TIOM
                                  UNCMC3)
                                                 COO
                                                 ft* LITE*
                              TSJ
                              «ULI"0>«S
                              't« L>Tr*
                                             FN09PHORU3
                                             xtLLIGDtHI
                                             ft* LITE*
                                                                                              lElO
                                                                                              •€• LITE*
                                                                           C0»»t«
                                                                           «ILLIC«»»S
                                                                           'ۥ LITER
    02/0*/61
    02/10/61
    0>/0)/*l
    01/07/61
    OJ/07/61
    01/12/61
    01/12/61
    01/2*/6l
    0
-------
    »»«T-T»«C« HIT*
                                       "OJtCT   ill
                                                        MSTT*4CK

                                                           Jl'flO
                                                                     ?0**eLl01*t
                                                                                                  Itl I* KOMMt. J»"HJ«» 4, |«M   «(
    event
    ttlBT
    ti«e
»»eci»tntio»  con            '59
(JNCHfSI       •1UICRUI*     "IIXI*«««*
               »f» Utf*      »t» L'Tf»
                                                                               •(» LIU*
                                             ieto
                                             •lLlie»»S
                                             *** IITI*
                                                                          catvc*
                                                                          "JLL1M4M
                                                                          t* UTt*
    04/14/10
    04/11/10
    •i/21/io
    H/24/10
    01/27/10
    04/01/00
    04/01/00
    04/14/oc
    ot/24/oo
    ot/21/io
    07/u/eo
    07/14/40
    o«/24/9o
    00/27/80
    0«/01/*0
    o«/ot/*o
    o«/i2/*o
    0*/20/*0
    0«/2*/00
    0«/2*/00
    10/06/10
    10/12/10
    10/24/10
    10/11/10
    11/01/10
    11/01/10
    11/01/10
    11/14/10
    11/20/10
    It/ZS/IO
    1 1 /IT /«0
    ii/2e/«o
    12/02/00
    II/OI/OO
    ll/oi/eo
    12/10/10
    12/20/«0
    12/21 /*0
    !2/2*/«0
    !2/2«/«0
    12/26/90
    12/2V/IO
    01/17/81
    oi/2l/ei
   •01/24/OI
    oi/2«/ai
.If
.11
.11
.2
.00
.20
.00
.11
.12
.It
.21
.1*
,09
.11
• It
.17
.'•
.1*
.11
.•I
.If
.1*
.*!
.22
.1
.•1
.0*
.12
.72
.11
.<•
.It
»7
II
              1*
              II
              110
              •I
              •*
              • 1
10
•T
If
1«
10
10
22
T*
22
(0
•I
»)
H
1*
0]
1*
»
22
I*
21
5«
28
2T
TT
U
11
Of
ff
2!
2?
Of
fT
24
II
                              or
                              01
                              ii«
                              00
                              *2
                              22?
                              f«
                              2S4
                              »»
                              110
                              If
                              I IT
                              04
                              1*0
                              f4
                              40
                              24
                              If*
                              !•»
                              2»00
                              10?
                              It*
                              2T
                              US
                              10*
                              It*
                              If
                              442
                              42
                              T2
                              01
                              »•
                              >a
                              *«
                              42
                              If 2
                              10*
                              111
                              1*0
                              to
                              142
                              Itl
                              II
                              t*
0.2T
O.I«T
0.1**
O.lf
O.llt
o.*»
0.1
o.f*
0.2T5
0.2M
0.21T
0.1T2
O.fT
S.tl
I.OTI
0.2T1
1.10*
0.1
I.MS
I.lot
0.1*
0.2f*
4.202
0.171
0.212
0.101
I. Iff
0.111
O.IT
0.*?
0.2*1
O.S2
O.lfl
0.12*
0.201
*.0*«
0.12!
0.107
I.II*
l.?ll
1.221
1.1*1
1.124
I.Ill
l.fl
0.211
0.2T2
1.047
0.11
O.I
0.1*
0.11
O.It
I.It
 .12
 .0?
 .1*
 .1*
 .21
 .2
 .1*
 .SI
 .1
 .2*
 • I
 .1
 .in
 .7*
 .2*
 .2*
 .1
 .*•
 .1*
 .11
 .1
 .1
 .If
 .21
 .1
 .If
 .1
 .1
 .1
 .2
 .1
 .1
 .?
 .1
 .2
 .1
 • I
 .1
0.2
1.1
I.I
I.I
    »«at-t«»c«
    ST4BT
    »!•€
                                                                                                  Ull* "O«O«». JMUMV I,  1«W   *1
»*OJKT
••eCI»TT4TTO»
ri«c»ij>
•41 ItTrtO ?0*MLL01*t
cne
"ILLI64»«S
ft* LITI*.
T3«
•ILLlW""*
ft* LlT»H
fMnifMOWl
ft* Utf«
ie*e
ft* L»H*
• corn*
•tLLItt»4Kl
ft* L1TC*
    02/11/01
    02/11/11
    02/11/11
    02/lt/H
    02/17/11
    02/11/11
    02/l*/ll
    01/24/01
    04/01/11
    04/Ot/ll
    04/07/01
    04/10/01
    04/12/11
    04/20/01
    04/22/01
    04/21/11
    04/2T/II
    Of/OT/01
    Of/11/01
    Of/14/01
    Of/14/01
lire cocrrtcKNT o» »»«utio«
miKM* of i»ft* me THJ. jT«Tio"
.22
.T*
.1*
.11
.01
.21 .
.14
.11
.14
.21
.1*
.12
.1*
.21
.OT
.11
.21
.1*
.11
.01

.H1J" I
.004*74
4S
2T
71
t*
II
fl
I*
1?
1*
42
42
27
12
2*
fO
It
1*
If
t]
47
t?
TO

41.1442
0.4«t*4?t
                             «0
                             t*
                             1*1
                             2*2
                             Tt
                             2*21

                             71
                             44
                             07
                             I If
                             02
                             117
                             tfT
                             T*
                             Tt
                             01
                             (0
                             121
                             21*
                             Itl
                                                                O.IT2*!"!
.21*
.IS*
.171
.*»*
.!•»
.11*
.11*
.111
.111
.271
.***
.141
.224
.11
.21
.11
.117
.214 1
.241 (
.21* <
.221 (
.14* 1
.2*0*122 I
.4000*41 (
.1ST
.1
.1
.1
.11
.1
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
.1
l.t
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
.2004404
.410110)
                                                                 B-17

-------
                                        MOJICT
                                                         MSTTMCK

                                                           SITtID
                                                                                                  t»ll*
                                                                                                                           t«2   ««
     CVCNT
     JT»*7
     TI"€
Mtei»iT»iio«  coe            TSS
(INCHfS)       "ILLICHMS     "ILl. !•••«»
               •f" 11TI*      *t*
                              "ILL !«»•«»
                                             itio
                                             «ILLIC«««S
                                                                           co**e*
                                                                           «1LLIO»««"S
                                                                           »f» LITt»
     01/12/00
     oi/2*/oo
     04/05/00
     04/00/00
     0«/0*/«0
     04/14/00
     04/10/00
     07/1 1 /OO
     07/10/00
     OI/2»/*0
     00/27/00
     00/20/00
     04/01/00
     0*/0*/*0
     04/12/00
     0«/ll/00
     0*/l*/00
     04/JO/OO
     I «/«•/•«
     ta/!i/go
     10/11 /«0
     ti/«t/*e
     11/01/10
     ii/o«/ao
     ti/oa/*o
     II /!•/•«
     u/i*/*o
    11/25/10
    II/2T/00
    11/21/00
    12/02/60
    U/01/00
    12/K/OO
    I2/20/*0
    12/20/60
    12/20/00
    12/2f/ao
    12/20/00
    oi/tr/*i
    01/20/01
    02/11/01
    02/1 1/01
    02/1 i/ai
    02/17/01
    02/10/01
o.sr
H.2
o.ta
i.i»
0.12
D.lf
0.0*
O.I*
O.IT
o.J
0.2T
0.0*
o.n
0.0*
0.1*
0.01
O.I*
O.I*
O.T«
0.2»
0.*
1.10
o.«l
0.12
0.21
I.M
O.lf
O.TI
o.*»
O.OT
o.«»
0.11
o.«l
0.2*
o.Sl
1.2*
0.10
1.1*
0.22
0.01
O.«l
0.2
0.1
O.I*
0.71
21
7«
SO
1*
«0
54
IT
12*
1*2
11
24
07
2*
«}
1*
7*
02
1«
102
II
0*
12
ft
W
10
01
10
II
2«
1*
42
2*
*«
S*
»2
2*
27
21
l«
47
20
M
10
*4
41
1*
                              7*
                              210
                              112
                              I**
                              01
                              1*2
                              127
                              10*
                              2M
                              144
                              *•
                              *•
                              T2
                              «*
                              02
                              Ik*
                              IIS
                              17*
                              140
                              S7
                              1*0
                              OS
                              n
                              M
                              2SO
                              71
                              »0
                              2«
                              0*
                              SI
                              »a
                              71
                              too
                              »s
                              •a
                              to
                              7*
                              •1
                              «1
                              in
                              t*
                              ••
                              42
                              1*0
                              •0
o.ll
0,11
o.n
0.2*
0.1*
o.»«
0.0«7
0.2«
0.14S
o.w
1.17
0.0*1
0.121
0.10S
O.ll
0.117
0.207
0.1S7
0.177
0.1*
0.24*
O.|4«
O.I*
o.iss
0.0*1
0.1*2
0.227
0,I*S
O.IS
0.2*1
0.112
0.101
0.17
0.0*1
0.21*
0.17*
O.lkl
0.0*<
0.11*
0.21
0.0*2
0.17
0.005
0.1*1
0.211
0.227
0.07
0.294
  .1
  .IS
  .27
  .2
  .2
  .11
  .1
  .21
  .1
  .SI
  .4*
  .2
  .1
  .22
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .24
  .11*
  .2S
  .IS
  .0*
  .1*
  .0*
  .1
  .1
  .2
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .1
0.2
  .1
  .1
  .2
  .1
  .1
  .1
  .2
 .1
 .1
 .1
0.2
O.I
0.2
               O»T»
                      noTTOtcn

                         SITFID
                                                                       r»t»

                                                                     »0«MkLOSM
                                                                                                  uit*  «o«e4r.
                                                                                                                           i«*2
    CV(*T
    ST»»I
    TI"C
                                  ••iei»IT17TON
               COO
               • IU.1M4M*
               »T« LITf*
               TH
               "ILLI***"*
               ft* L»7r»
                                            •KLICatH*
                                            ft* LlttH
                                                            Lf»0
                                                                                              Ml  LITt*
                                                                          •ILLIGMHS
    02/l*/*l
    01/20/M
    01/21/11
    04/02/01
    04/04/01
    04/0*/0|
    04/OT/OI
    04/10/01
    04/I2/*!
    04/22/H
    •4/27/01
    OS/01/01
    OS/07/01
    OS/07/01
    OS/10/01
31H
     coerrtcie*T or V«»UTIO«
       OF evrtiTj ro* TMta  JTITION
.02
.2*
.1*
.1*
.1* .
.1*
.22
.1
.11
.0*
.47
.21
.1*
.11
.2*
0.4154447
1.00104*
12
72
11
too
45
44
21
27
4*
4*
11

•2
41
40
4*. 07021
0.5212444
11*
7*
*2
1*1
SO
107
0*
47
117
12*
72
10*
11*
It*
07
IO*.**I1
0.471144
.04*
.22
.122
.SOS
.172
.SOS
.0**
.2
.2S1

• IA*
.2*1
.10*
.157
.2*2
,21***41 I
.*7**271 <
O.t
t.l
1.1
1.2
I.I
.2
.1
.1
.2
.1
.2
.1
.2
.2
.1
.1544104
.4*12412
                                       *1
                                                                B-18

-------
                                       ••OJECT   Hit
                                                        MITTtlCK

                                                           IITCIO
                                                                                                  1*111 KONOtV. JtNUMT «.  I'M
     STi»T
     tl"t
•«r.e:»I7«7|ON  COD            TJ8
(INCHC3)       MIUIMMS
               rt»
                              »ILLIC»«»a
                              HO 117M
                                                                                              M»
                                             COP»€H
                                                Lie»
                                                 IITI*
     05/21/10
     04/04/10
     04/22/10
     04/22/10
     OS/21/11
     os/24/ei
     04/oi/u
     04/1VII
     04/20/M
     01/24/81
     08/24/81

 SITf neon
 SITE cotrricifNt or VMUTIO*

       or rv(NT/o7 /ao
    oa/ii/ao
    00/1«/«0
    02/22/11
    OI/OK/tl
    oo/tl/ai
    oo/21/ai
    Ok/oa/oi
    o»/2o/ai
    07/12/01
    07/17/J1
    07/20/01
    oe/u/oi
    «*/lf/01
    oa/20/oi
    oa/2*/oi
    00/11/01
    o«/o7/ai

JITC "UK
SITE cot'r:cit«r nr V«»I»TION
•

m
•

•
0.21
o.)
,
9
m
^
t
0.21
0.71
0.72
0.28
0.55
0,10
O.l«
0.17
1.2«
O.'T
0.17
0.05
0.71
0.05
1.00
1.02
4
0.27
0.1
».»«
•0.11
0.14
0,71
0.18

$
a
a
t
^
.
0,S4171«2 .
I.2«7a70
• III
01
150
7|
100
05
2SO
55
210
711
42
78
00
74
71
120
42
110
70
110
100
55
74
01
40
110
170
41
41
41
•4
100
180
74
•2
•2
170
170
42
42
81
«}
41
27
44,5042*
0.0450272
4«
112
00
210
11
072
40
SI2
11
141
2TO
018
108
ISC
01*
2*4
188
101
40
200
72
204
ItO
SI
41
05
112
280
107
82
184
114
54
21
140
240
10]
002
04
281'
120
214
41
00
202. 0010
I. 02072«
.28 .1
.20 .4
.12 .2
.1 .4
.04-
.8
.IS
.74
.14
.22
.17
.17
.01
.24
.00
.27
.24
,2
.17
.14
.10
.24
.2
.12
.10
.14
.24
.18
.01
.!•
.1*
.04
.15
.10
.4
.SI
.25
.10
.14

.IS
.0
.14
.04
.47
.2
.S
.07
.4S
.04
.41
.52
.22
.58
.215
.4
.05
.2
.1
.11
.1
.51

.1
.14
.4
.2
.1
,2
.4
.IS
.4
.10 .2
.24 .4
!ia .1
.20 .4
.12 .2
.1 .05
.2411045 0.4040514
.5747518 0.4004421
                                                                B-19

-------
                                       P«0.1tCT
                                                        f«STT«»C«  10** r«T*

                                                           SITIIO     «H»J1
    ST»»T
    M"f
                                  ••CCI»IT«IIO»  coo            rat            »NOS*      "IU.IOMM     «IlLIG»«"S     "til ««»••
»0"BI» Of
                     TMIJ 3T*TIOX       ••
    €»f«f
    STtlT
                                                                                                  Iklll »0«0«t. J1NU<** «,  |«M
                                       MOJCCT   «tl


                                                 COO
am to    «i$«!2


     TSS
                                                                    Llt»»
                                                                                                 LIU»
    «»/W/«0
0»/OT/IO
    0«/IJ/«0
    o«/i»/ao
    «*/*7
««
OK
1)
11

2*

1«»00««
2»*li*

   11
                                             1*
                                             41
              2T
              It
              n
              M
              1*0
              U4
              2T
              12
                                                o.?«»ir««
                                                            •*
                                                            IT
                                                            It
                                                            »«
                                                            l«0
                                                            !*•
                                                            21
                                                            T2
                                                            12

                                                            »«.1S»«
                    0.11
                    0.2*
                    O.J»
                    O.K
                    O.I*
                    «.n
                    «.2<
                    0.22
                    0.2T
                    «. i«
                    ».«»
                    O.BO
                    0,11
                    0.21
                    0.11

                    0.2T011*
                    o.li*«io«
                                                                                             O.I I
                                                                                             «•!«
                                                                                             0.029
                                                                                             O.OKf
                                                                                             O.Bf
                                                                                             o.i
                                                                                             0.01
                                                                                             O.llf
                                                                                             0.05
                                                                                             o.i
                                                                                             0.2*
                                                                                             0.1
                                                                                             0.01
                                                                                             1.1
                                                                                             0.0*1

                                                                                             0.1111611
                                                                B-20

-------
    r«jT-t«uc« n»n
                                       MtutCT   ill
                                                        ••aTTitei

                                                           SITtlO
                                                                                                   14114 XXI04T. J4«HJ44» 4, !••»  IM
     M«f
                                  (I«C-CS)
                                                 ft* urn*
                              •H.Lf»«««S
                              ft* L»T»M
                                                                                •*«
                                                                                               •*•  Li»e»
                                                                                                              •tLLlS»i«»
                                                                                                              •*• Lite*
    04/06/80
    D4/OT/80
    04/J8/80
    OT/01/00
    07/04/80
    07/14/40
    oa/02/ao
    oa/04/ao
    08/oT/cio
    08/07/80
    08/11/80
    04/14/80
    04/?o/eo
    04/15/so
    IO/OJ/80
    11/24/00
    12/04/00
    12/OR/aO
    02/22/dl
    04/04/81
    04/o«/ei
    (14/10/ai
    04/2J/M
    oi/io/ei
    Ot/08/81
    0»/08/8I
    07/IJ/8I
    OT/1 J/«l
    OT/I8/8I
    OT/20/61
    07/«/8l
    0«/07/8I
    08/I
-------
                                        MOJCCT   nil
                                                            site in
                                                                     <* x»t«
                                                                      «M4is
                                                                                                   1611*
                                                                                                                 J««U««Y «.  !•**   1*2
     »T»»T
Mfci»iT4Tta»  cm            T3S
               »ILLle»«»J     «tL
               »f» U7*«      •£•
                »MOS»NO*US
                HIU.I«*.4MS
                ?(*  lift*
                                                             idn
                                                             nULl
                                                             •«• LITe»
                                                                            co»*t*
                                                                            «tLLI8*MI
                                                                            •€• LITff
     04/01/90
     04/04/60
     04/04/00
     0*/0*/*0
     04/14/90
     04/2R/60
     04/28/60
     95/11/60
     05/19/90
     04/01/60
     04/02/60
     06/05/60
     06/04/60
     04/07/*0
     04/l*/«0
     *7/i6/80
     08/02/80
     09/OJ/90
     09/04/90
     09/11/90
     09/11/90
     Ol/l*/«0
     0«/07/80
     0«/0«/90
     0«/l»/90
     IO/OJ/90
     IO/U/90
     10/16/90
     10/J4/90
     ll/H/90
     II />•/»«
     12/07/80
     li/0»/90
     OZ/U/91
     04/04/91
     04/OJ/9I
     04/09/91
     04/10/91
     04/10/91
     04/11/91
     0»/?0/*t
     OT/1Z/91
                                   0.0*
 O.H
 9.5T
 0.21
0.21
0.11
0.72
O.S)


0.2.
0.2*
2.7*
0.5T
».0f
o.ft
o.<
1.2*
1.17
0.77
0.72
0.0«
0.2«
0.2
0.4*
•

!.28


9.12
0.22
0.21
1.21
                19
                01
                100
                27
                4f
                H
                10
                so
                H
                71
                »•
                1*
                •0
                1«
                110
                1*0
                140
                14(1
                »<
                2>
                20
                2*
                21
                2*
                • 1
                K
                14
                44
                4*
                50
                10
                7»
                7k
               1*0
               l»fl
               1*0
               22
               120
               110
               110
 14
 01
 271
 15
 51
 4*
 20
 240
 27
 51
 •1
 l»»
 124
 •0
 5«
 25
 1*2
 4k
 100
 27
 20
 10
 •
 75
 2*
 25
 t<
 20
 4*
                              IS
                              «
                              72
                              ••
                              10*
                              74
                              5*4
                              10*
    .
11*
1»0
104
47
148
                                              .12
                                              .2
                                              .04
                                              .0*
                                              .11
                                              .0*
                                              .11
                                              .07
                                               1*
                                               11
                                               14
                                               o«
                                               2
                                               0*
                                               1*
                                               11
                                               5
                                               05
                                               07
                                               04
                                               0*
                                               0*
                                               07
                                               0*
                                               15
                                               05
0.95
0.12
0.5
 .1
 .22
 .4
 .1
 .75
 .1
 .1*
 .22
 .15
 .22
 .22
 .21
 .1
 .115
 .14
 .24
 ,975
  175
  05
 .15
 .11
 .1
 .2
 .05
 .1
 .15
 .12
 .12
 .5
 ,4
0.5
A.4
 .*
 .24
 .2*
 .24
 .24
 .12
 .12
 .25
 .14
 .25
               04T4
                                       MOJCCT
                                                 •II
                                                        rtlTTtlCl 104* ntn

                                                           1ITCIO    4|141}
                                                                                                  14118 nO«OiT. J4NUMT 4,  l«*i   181
    IVCN7
    JT1BT
    Tint
»«CCI»tT»TIO«  cne            7SS-
(I*C"tS)       "tH.!S««»S     •KL
               •t* Litt»      ft*
                                                            LC40
                                                            nlL
                                                            »c»
    07/12/81                      0.44           100            10n
    07/11/81                      1.54,           1*0            40
    87/18/81                      .              |7             no
    97/20/81                      0.2T           17             4*
    08/14/81                                     »J             «,
    08/15/81       .                             45             117
    08/24/81                                     45             4]
    0*/27/8l                                     45             25
    06/2V8I                                     42             42
    88/11/61                                     42             45
    M/07/01                                     t*             21

JITf netll                         0.45*001       71.12704       07.70»5?
SI7( cofrricienT or vtiuno*     1.1*214*       0.70106*4      1.204*57

>m>>*f* or f»f«t* rnn TH|
-------
                                       ••OJCCT   .[I
                                                           si'tln
                                                                                                  uiia OOMUV. j»«u»«» «, KM  IM
    SMUT
                                  ••(CI'TTtTlON
                                                 COO
                                                 »ILLle««»S
                                                 •CD LITFO
                              T83
                              "ILL !••«»»
                              »f» L'TfK
                                                                               »M03MOHUS
                                                                               «Jt.LI6»»*8
                                                                               »(B  LITCO
                                                            lEtn
                                                            »lLLle««»S
                                                            •€• LI't»
                                                                                                         CMWC*.
                                                                                                         »lLLlG»»»a
                                                                                                         »C»  L1TI*
    0«/0«/M
    0«/OT/8I
    o*/oa/ai
    0«/IO/8I
OVIO/tl
    06/06/d
    04/04/11
    04/11/01
    04/20/11
    07/12/61
    OT/12/ai
    OT/I4/OI
    07/20/01
    0»/I4
                              0.77
O.IJ
o.la
o.M
o.l«
2.11
O.S2
0.1
0.400«00«
I.OK7114
                                                 JO
                                                 2*0
                                                 MO
                                                 T?
                                                 T?
                                                 »«
                                                 »0
                                                 sao
                                                 1<
                                                 f.
                                                 tjo
                                                 120
                                                 fl
                                                 *2
                                                 14
                                                 j4
                                                 114.2122
                                                 1.244*44
                              1112
                              *T2
                              it*
                                                            100
                                                            Ik
                              402
                              12
                              ••
                              211
                              20*
                              110
                              221
                              JJ
                              147
                              21*
                              jj
                              120
                              10

                              280. Id*
                              I.S42*?'
                                                                            .01
                                                                            .»
                                                                            .44
                                                                            ,S
                                                                            .«
                                                                            .))
                                                                            .»•
                                                                            .«
                                                                            .21
                                                                            .».
                                                                            .22
                                                                            .1
                                                                            .1*
                                                                            ,i«
                                                                            .1
                                                                          0.4«a«*7l
                                                                          0.4142*22
                                                                                               ,*4
                                                                                               .m
                                                                                               .Ji
                                                                                               .1*
                                                                                               .IS
                                                                                                OS
                                                                                                r»
                                                                                                42
                                                                                                1
                                                                                                71
                                                                                                1
                                                                                              0.2
                                                                                                1
                                                                                                JS
                                                                                                )
                                                                                                15
                                                                                                11
                                                                                               .7
                                                                                               .1
                                                                                               .1
                                                                                               .2
                                                                                               .01
                                                                                             O.M1H11«
                                                                                             1.2012*1
«u"ste or CVCN7) rn»
                          STITIOM
                                       21
                                                                  LO"
                                                                                                  1411*  "CWO«».  J««U»»t  4.  |«U   IN
                                                           Sl'tlO
    fyf«T
    ST««T
                              •«eCI»It»TIO«   COO
                              (IIICMC3I        «ILL1S»««J
                                             »f« lite*
                                                                T33
                                                                                              «lLLIC««»S
                                                                                              rf* LITCI
                                                                                                            C0f»e«
                                                                                                                LIT(«
    04/00/01
    04/oa/ai
    04/il/ai
    04/11/01
    04/2o/ai
    oo/24/at
    00/27/01
    oa/2«/*i
    oa/li/ai
O.I I
0.17
o.sz
0.0*
it. i«
IITC •€»»
site
                 or v»«uMm.

       Of tVINT
-------
        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 coocentra-
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),  Jand 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

-------
   S1EU AND LEAF
65 ••
   • MAY REPRESENT UP TO 2 COUNTS
BOXPtOI
  0
, • • *
• '*
.»**••*
• * * *
,•*•••
• * •




• * *
.*•*
.••ft
, •
, •
, •
•
+ *
6 C
4
II
&
21
10



• 41
22
17
4
5
6
2
1
1
1






1
1






0
0
0
         (a)   Stem-Leaf and Box  Plots
                                                                  02   04   06  OS  10  I 02   I 04
                                                                                                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.
       3ca, 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.si nee there undoubtedly are sub-populations with differing variances.
 Indeed, the Bartlett test was run on several  variables (logarithms of EMC's)
 using the OISCRIM 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,

( 2  ) =  495° 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, or , of each test should be determined as

a  = 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  interim'ttance,
 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

-------
                                                            CJ
                                                            00
                                  X
' URBAN \
1 AREA /
URBAN RUNOFF \ . t
QR =FLOW x^.
CR= CONCENTRATION

K»

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) 1s 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:

                         --- (QR CR) + (QS CS)
                         C0 ~      QR + QS


If a dilution factor, 4», is defined as:

                                * =   QR
                                *   QR + QS


CO may be defined in terms of 4> by:

                         CO = [) CS]                          (3)

     The calculated value of the downstream concentration (CO) for an individ-
ual event could be compared to a water quality standard (CL), or to any other
stream concentration which relates water quality to protection or impairment
of beneficial water use.   If the comparisons of CO and CL indicate that water
quality 1s satisfactory,  then it may be assumed that the individual event
would not impair beneficial water usage.   By contrast, if the comparison of
CO and CL indicates that during this event receiving water concentrations of
the constituent 1n question would not protect beneficial usage, the relative
contributions of runoff and upstream sources to the violation could be ascer-
tained from Equation (3) as follows:
                                           Upstream
In principle, this procedure could be repeated for a large number of rainfall/
runpff events.   If. this were done-, the probability that CO violated the level
CL during rainfall/runoff periods could be defined, and the relative contribu-
tion of runoff and upstream quality could also be estimated.
                                   C-ll

-------
     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 $.
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.

      M    refers to the mean (e.g., pCR, uCR').

      a2   refers to the variance  (e.g., o2CR, a2CR') (o 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^CR') - 1                                            (5)

     uCR = CR  exp(l/2 o2CR')                                         (6)

     oCR = 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
                          u   -   aj
                         CRfl = exp (uCR' + Zfl 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:
                            OR + OS  exp(Z   oRS')
                                          o
                                   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
-2.4
-2.3
-2.2
-2.1










P(z 
-------
 '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' = ,/o-2QS' + CT2QR' -  2pRS'  oQS'  oQR'             (10)
PRS' =
                     ' = 1 \
                           i=l         oQS'  cjQR'

 where pRS' is  the  correlation  coefficient between  runoff  and  stream flow and
 i  refers  to rainfall  events  1,  2,  3  .  .  N.

      The  stream  flow  (QS)  may  be correlated to  the runoff flow  (QR) in some
 basins since rainfall  patterns  which cross  the  drainage area  above  the urban
.area will  tend to  produce  increases  in stream flow as well as runoff.   For
 such systems,  larger  runoff  discharges will  tend to be associated with larger
 stream flows.  The correlation  coefficient  (pRS')  accounts for  this tendency.

      Because the dilution  during runoff periods has an upper  bound  of  1,  its
 probability distribution is  in  general  not  log-normal, even with log-normal
 runoff and stream  flow.  The actual  distribution deviates from  log-normal  at
 the  extremes sufficiently  to require the use of a  numerical technique  to
 integrate  the  actual  distribution, or one may use  a log-normal  approximation
 over the probability  range of  interest.   At  this point in the NURP  Project,  a
 log-normal  approximation,  as described below, has  been used for the probabil-
 ity  distribution of <|>.  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:

                           M 50 percent.  To insure
that the estimated dilution falls between 0 and 1.0 somewhat beyond the
95 percentile, 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 (41) can be used to compute the statistics of the  receiving
water concentration just downstream of the urban discharge (i.e.,  immediately
after mixing).  The arithmetic mean is defined by:
                    uCO = [UCR  M$] + [uCS  (1 - u*)]                 (14)

The arithmetic standard deviation of the stream concentration is defined by:
oCO = Vo-z$ (uCR - uCS)z

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:  u*' = In —   - \          (17)
                                                     * v2CO
                log standard deviation:  oV = V*n (1 + vzCO)         (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 or percent! 1e is defined as

                         P = 1 - P[CO < C0a] = 1 - a                  (19)

                          C0a = exp(pCO' + Za oCO1)                   (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

-------
                                                             o
                                                             w
                                                             CO
2 O
55 °
£ *
  O
  P
CO

ll
  8
     CL
ID

HI
                                  NOTE:  LOG-PROBABILITY PLOT
                             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[CO  < CL] = 1 - P[max(CO, .  .  .  COM) < CL]     (22)
                         m ~"                   j.         it  ~

where C0m 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)
                                 7                                    (23)
                        R = 	±53	
                            (1 - FN(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
eutrophication 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  eutrophication
parameters.
                                   C-19

-------
                                                        n
                                                        8
 CO
                                    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
                         x
     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):
                               K   (H/T) + 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:

                            t.i I  — ™  _ i
                                            r  + v
                                             i    s
     where,
          W  =  loading rate of TP (g/yr)

                                    2
          A. =  lake surface area (m )

          p  =  lake TP concentration (pg/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)

          CR = average annual total phosphorus concentration (mg/jd)

          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 = Cy I Ad 3.17 x 10"10.                  (4)
                                   C--21

-------
     where ,
             = average flow as above  (m /sec)
          C  = average annual runoff to rainfall ratio

          I  = average annual precipitation (cra/yr)
                                     2
          A. = urban drainage area (m )

Substituting Equation (4) into Equation (3) yields:
                              W = 0.1 Cy I Ad CR                       (5)
Substituting Equation (5) in Equation (2) yields:
                      -  rti r  T r    A  - _ _    * ,/
                   A"' -01 Cv I CR   d  -jjjjjj  - + vs
                    X.                A£

                                            Ad
Rearranging and defining the area ratio a = j- resu-j^s in.
                              a = P P(" + vs)                         (6)
     where,
          P =	                                              (7)
              10 Cy I CR

Thus for given rainfall (I), runoff/rainfall ratio (Cy), and runoff quality

(C«) data, the quantity 3 is calculated from Equation (7).   Using this value

in Equation (6), the area ratio (or) is calculated directly as a function of
the in-lake TP concentration (p, in M9/D 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

-------
55
cc
<
UJ

8
li-
CC

CO
UJ
X.
cc
<
<
m
oc
D
u_
O

O
    1000
     100
                                  1000
      0.1
        1.0      10      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
     100 -:
     1.0 -
     0.1
     100


     '50

     .30

     •20

     • 10
      tt
                               x
                    T.PHOS. (Mg/jJ)
                1.0      10     100     1000

        (b) RAINFALL OF 24 IN/YR AND vs OF 10 M/YR




                  H/r - UKE DEPTH HYDRAUUC DETENTION TIME (M/YR)
        Figure 4.  Graphs of Area Ratio Versus  Lake Characteristics (H/t)
                                     C-23

-------
<
UJ
GC
<
UJ
o

u.
or

9
UJ
*
<

UJ
O
<
<
CD
CC




&

O
    1000
     100
                                   1000
                                    100
                                             0.1
                                                                    TTTffll
        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-:
                1.0      10     100     1000


        (e) RAINFALL OF 24 IN/YR AND vs OF 5 M/YR
                . H/T - LAKE DEPTH  HYDRAUUC DETECTION TIME (m/yr)
  Figure 4.  Graphs of Area Ratio Versus  Lake  Characteristics (H/t) (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:


                  vs             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,  Chi-a < 260 ug/1);

                    Iog10 Chi-a  = 1.449 log10Ps - 1.136               (8)

     where,

          Chi  a = chlorophyll-a  concentration (Mg/1)

          p     = average total  phosphorus concentration for the  spring
                  period (mg/1)
                                   C-?5

-------
 Letting p  = 0.9p, where p  is  the average concentration for the  summer  period,
 and  rearringing, p is expressed  as:
                                    0.690 1oginCHl-a
                       p =  6.76  x 10        •                          (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 1og,nCh1-a
               a = p (6.76  x 10         1U    ") ((H/t) + vs)         (10)
      The expression relating secchi depth to total phosphorus concentration
 is from Rast and Lee (6):
                       log1QZ  =  -0.359 Iog1()p + 0.925                 (11)
      where,
          Z - the secchi depth (m)
 Solving Equation (11) for p and  substituting into Equation (6) yields
                                 -2.79 log,0Z
                a=3   (380 x 10         1U ) ((H/t) + vs)           (12)
      For sediment oxygen demand  Rast and Lee (6) report:
                       log1QSb = 0.467 log1Qp - 1.07                  (13)
     where,                                 •
          Sb = the sediment oxygen demand (g/m2 per day)
 Solving Equation (13) for p and  substituting into Equation (6) yields:
                                 2.14 1oginSh
                or = p •  (195 x 10        1U D) ((H/t) + vs)           (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 pg/1.
     Graphs of the area ratio versus the lake characteristic (HA) may be
developed for chlorophyll-a, secchi  depth,  and sediment oxygen demand using
Equations (10), (12),  and Tl4), 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

-------
9V »  #y|
             99   9)
                        9}
Figure 1.  Graphical Solution
 tO   70   60   JO   40   30    JO      10     J      71   0.5   07  O.I  0 Oi    0 01




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 Drlscoll 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 /YEAT.
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
Z 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
97.0
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 particulates 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

PCP'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 mg/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
Construc-
tion Site
Erosion
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)
Parameter
Total Solids
Sus. Sol Ids
COO
BOD5
Total N
OPO,,
Pb
Zn
Total Collf.(org)
Fecal Collf.(org)
Street Surface1
Tons/Yr X*
160 33
80 32
2.1 2
1.1 7
0.1 2
0.013 9
1.0 100
0.072 24
8xl010 « 1
8x10* « 1
Kon-Street2
Urban
Tons/Yr X
10 2
60 27
69 72
12 76
2.4 51
0.12 84
0 0
0.23 76
6x10ll» 100
3X101* 100
Undeveloped3
Tons/Yr 2
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
6xlOl"
3X1Q11*
1  From Alameda County measurements In Castro Valley during 208 St.udy
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 Runoff 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

-------
       100 P
                                  .2
.3
.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

          LF - 180 + 0.45 Lj                                      (1)

where     L« = residual load (after sweeping), Ibs/curb mile, and

          LX = 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 -    /    " 1 " 0<45 " °'55
where   L_' • translated value of L_ (i.e., L--327),  Ibs/curb mile, and
        Lj1 - translated value of Lj (i.e., Lj-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
          CN - 1 - LJ./LJ - 1 - 24.7/376.1 - 6.62                  (3)
where     IL «• mean residual load, Ibs/curb mile,
          LY ° 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
          Lp - a + bL-j.              .                              (4)
then sweeping should begin when L_ = L_.   Combining these two equations yields

          'Vmin ' a + b(LI>min
          
-------
      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
0
•H
•g
M
U
V)
a
W
S
§
     1000
        L± = 670 +38.7 t    INDUSTRIAL
      750
500
                 L  - 400 + 20.0 t    RESIDENTIAL
     250
                           300 + 15.0 t    COMMERCIAL
                                                        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
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I
lean
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
'SI
328
302
363
296
353
10,155
376.1
After. Lj,
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
110
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
1<» 7
214
191
310
300
215
5.726
212.1
Difference
50
-2
2«
22
-46
-li
29
-6
2
-24
-17
-13
15
44
2
14
-2.
-13
14
51
-35
73
28
3
-201
-US
-25
-135
-5.0
                                                                    o»
                                                                    CM
                                                                     I
                                                                    £
                        C-43

-------
                                 Table  10.   Estimated Street Cleaner Productivity (Pitt, 1981)

Parking
Conditions
Light

Moderate

Extensive
Short
Term
Extensive
Long
Term
Smooth Asphalt

Range
for
LI
100-250

100-230

~
100-230


Equation
LF - 150+
0.36 L
Lp • 110+
0.54 Lj
~
LF • 55+
0.75 Lj

*
234

239

~
220

Removal
Efficiency
at
max
0.04

<0

**
0.01

Rough Asphalt

Range
for
LI
500-620

500-650

500-670
_


Equat Ion
L " 520+
0.20 L
LF - 360+
0.44 L
L • 290+
0.55 Lj
_


mln
650

643

644
-

Removal
Efficiency
at
(L )A
max
<0

0.01

0.02
_

Oil and Screens (Semi-Improved)

Range
for
L!
1000-1500

1000-1430

1000-1600
1000-1600


Equation
Lp - 340+
0.74 L
Lp • 220+
0.83 Lj
Lp • 200+
0.85 Lj
LF - 200+
0.85 L

  • mln 1310 1290 1330 1330 Removal Efficiency at (L,)a max 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 ? *- * (L.) • a/(l-b) from equation L • a + bL i mln t i A Efficiency- 1- (a+b(Lj)

  • -------
    a
    cr
    o
    UJ
    
    UJ
    in
       SURREY  DONNS  STREET  LOflDINGS-TOTRL  SOLIDS
       800
       70
    UJ
    
    d  600_L,
    
    z:
    
    OQ
    o;
    
    LJ
    
    in
    oo
       50fl __
    ~  40D__L
       301
       20D	
       10D.
       0
    9 101 1 12131 4 15
                                                  2^2526272829303
           O'l 23456789 101 1 12131 4 15 il? 13121 222322526272829303] 32333435
    
    
                    DRTS OF RCCUMULRTION (FOR 04/02/80 70 07/132/81)
    
    
    
              Figure 4. Surry Downs Street Loadings - Total Solids (Pitt, 1981)
    

    -------
        SURREY  DOWNS  TOTflL  SOLIDS  PRODUCTIVITY
    CD
    CJ
    in
    3
    a
    ac
    o
      600
              50  100 150  200 250 300 350  400 450' 500 550  600 650  700 750
                           INITIRL LORD  (LB5/CURB-HILE) - 4
            Figure 5.  Surrey Downs Total Solids Productivity (Pitt, IT.].)
    

    -------
    initial and final loads.  The user only needs to know the mean initial load,
    L_, to estimate overall net efficiency, i.e.,
              £N - 1 - Lp/Lj « 1 - (a + bLj.J/Lj                       (7)
    For example, the regression equation for rough asphalt with moderate parking
    conditions is
              Ly •- 360 + 0.44 Lj                                      (8)
    Assume L, * 600.  Using equation (6), efficiency is
                          360  +  Q.44 (600)
                     1 -
                 - 0.04,
                 N   *         600
    a negative number.  If L_ D 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
              Or).
                            360
    - 643 Ib/curb mile
                I'min    1 - 0.44
    Consequently, it would be unwise to sweep in this case.  Table 10 shows
    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 4Z.  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
    —
    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.   Bellevue 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 STORE!
    
    
    
    
    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.   Therefofe,  of the SO 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
    

    -------
    RUNOFF  CONTROL  BY  STREET  CLEflNING-TOT.SOL
    10.
    0
           1
          3  '4   5 '6  '7  '8  '9  ' 10 ' 11  ' 12 ' 13 ' 14  15
    
             LflKE HILLS (CLEPNEQ) LBS/flCRE/STORM
    
    Figure 6. Runoff Control By Street Cleaning-Total ?olids (Pitt, 1981)
    

    -------
    Ln
    O
                RUNOFF  CONTROL  BY  STREET  CLEflNING-LEflD
            UJ
    
            e
            (X
    
            Ul
            to
            
    -------
    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
     a
     9)
     e
     to
    f
    
    =3
    
    
     o
    
    '£  50
    CO
    3
    O
       25
    Portion of Total Load Emanating From Street
                                           ^  Negative Productivity
    
                                          Due to Street Abrasion
                                                              4000
                                                                        3000
                                                                   U
    
                                                             2000  o.
                                                             1000
                     100          200          300
    
                             Curb miles/year
                                              400
    500
      Figure 8.  Hypothetical Production  Function  for  Street Sweeping
                                      C-53
    

    -------
         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
       2500
       2000
    0)
    O
    u
    § 1500
    c
      1000
       500
                      500        1000        1500
    
                             Lbs. Removed, x
    2000
                                                                          $3.00
                                                                         $2.50
                                                                         $2.00
                    $1.50
                                                                                x
                                                                               •o
                                                                               u
                                                                               H
                                                                                
    -------
        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.  Caatro 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.
    
    
    
            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
    

    -------
    ?
    I
                                 byposs
                                  inflow rote
    precipitation
    outflow rate/
    outlet  structure
                             pollutant
                          characteristics
                                 artificial
                               drawdown
                                or cleaning
                                                                                             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 1.
    
    
            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 (BOO.) 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/q                                                   (1)
    
    
    where   t, = detention time,  sec,
    
    
            S  » detention volume, ft   , and
    
    
            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 IS 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,
            i
    
       t, (1) = point in time that plug i entered  the  basin,  and
    
       td (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 stomwater 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                  .6
    
    
            Events/year                     104                        —
    
    
    
    From these statistics and the methodology developed by Hydroscience, Inc.  ,
    
    
    
    the mean runoff event intensity, QD, is 0.0146 in/hr (0.0371 cm/hr) and the
                                      t\
    
    
    mean runoff event volume, V_, is 0.081 in (0.206 cm).  The coefficients of
                               K
    
    
    
    
                                         C-66
    

    -------
    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 stormuater 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
                 S
    
    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
    I l ~\1 + O.KS/A)/
    (I-A1)
    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
    

    -------
    100
                                                         200
            CAPACITY  WATERSHED RATIO, S/A,ocre-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
                100
                51.6%
                          \1 + 0.1(10 acre-ft/0.
    938 mi )
                                         070
    

    -------
    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
    
                      3 6 27
    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
    

    -------
    rv
                                   II
                                               i     I  i
                                         COARSE
                                         SCUDS
                                                                                     i t i
                0.001    0.003      0.003   O.a    0.02       0.03     O.I     O2        O.S     1.0
    
                                     CAPACITY-INFLOW  RATIO,  acre-ft/acre-ft/yr
    2.0
                                                                                                            I I  I I
    3.O      IO
                                        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 —... ftacre~ \ ,	or 0.024 years.  From
                                      421.0 acre-rt/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
    
                                                   6 7 27
    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
    
    
            SI  = ( — )*{ JH                                    (I-C1)
    
    
                                          2
    where   SI  = sedimentation index, sec /ft,
    
    
             S  - reservoir volume, ft ,
    
    
            0-  a average  runoff  event flow  rate,  ft /sec,  and
    
                                                                  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 .
                 /10 acre-ftV /43560 f t2 \
             c " I   300 ft  /* ^  acre    /
               - 1452 ft2 (135 m2)
    
    
    The average runoff event flow rate is 0.0.46 in/hr.  Converting this value
    
    
    to ft /sec yields
            ,R - (0.0146 i../Hr,      -  (600
    
    
               =8.8 ft3/sec (0.25 m3/sec)
    
    
    The capacity is 10 acre-feet or 435600 ft .   Thus, the sedimentation
    
    
    index is
    
    
                                          C-74
    

    -------
    o
    PERCENT OF INCOMING SEDIMENT
    PASSING THROUGH RESERVOIR, 100-F
    _ c
    - o c
    —
    	 	 1 ii lini
    | 1 I |llil
    .,1.1 1 1 1 III
    | I 1 |IHI
    ,1 1 1 llIM
    1 i i | mi
    1 i linn
    I i 1 1 ' ' 'i-
    1 i 1 1 uK
    
    io* io5 io6 io7 io8 io9
    ocTvimiiTKrrA-rira.1 ikintrv r\c ncoirnwrkiD CT 2..
                                   Figure I-C1.  Churchill's Trap Efficiency Curve (source:  ref. 27)
    

    -------
                  (435600 ft3 \ A / 8.8 ft3/sec \
                  8.8 ft3/sec/   \ 1452 ft2    /
              - 8.2 x 106 sec2/ft (2.7 x 107 aec2/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/[100-r(c,q)] c q p (c)  p (q)  dc dq         (I-D1)
                   qc                        q
    
    where R = long-term average pollutant removal, percent,
    
          c ° runoff event concentration, lb/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
    
                          K
                    (M
                    \Q/
    p,
    -------
    UJ
    5
    E
    I
     V VARIATION  WITHIN EVENTS
                             TIME
       VARIATION  BETWEEN  EVENTS
                             TIME
    H
    IT
    $
    n n
    
    V
    n
    
    
    Figure I-D1.  Representation of Storm Runoff Process (source: ref. 17)
                              C-7'8
    

    -------
    where  < - 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 --/[lOO-r(q)]  q  p(q)dq            (I-D3)
    
    
                     w
    
    
    
    
    The usefulness of equation I-D3 for sedimentation tanks is enhanced by re-
    
    
    
    quiring the average removal for each event to be described by
    
    
             , ,       -bq/A
            rD4)
    
    
    
    
    where a - coefficient, a £ 100,
    
    
    
          b = coefficient, hr/in., and
    
    
    
         A  = surface area of sedimentation tank,  acres.
          s
    
    
    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
    K+1
    
    
                                  (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
    

    -------
           100.
    00
    o
                                  THE CURVES REPORTED BY IMHOFF AND FAIR.^ASCE;1 AND SMITH 2eftRE
    
                                      FOR  SANITARY SEWAGE.
    
                                  THE CURVE BY LAGER etal.20IS FOR COMBINED SEWAGE.
    
                                  THE COMPOSITE CURVE HAS THE  FOLLOWING FUCTIONAL FORM'
    IMHOFF AND FAIR
                                                                                                  18
                                                                                               5000
                                        OVERFLOW RATE,  q/Ag, gal/ft-day
    
    
    
                            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 QD) 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:
           QR = (0.0146 in/hr) (ft/12 in)  (600 acres) (43560 ft2/acre)
                (24 hr/d) (7.48 gal/ft3)
              = 57100000 gal/d
            K - 1/v  - 1/1.73 - 0.578
            a - 80.0
            b = 0.000373 ft2-d/gal
           Ag - 36300 ft2
                                          C-81
    

    -------
                                                           0.578 + 1
    R - 80
                  (0.000373 ft -d/gal)  (57100000  gal/d)
                         (0.578)  (36300 ft2)
        68.71
                                 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, V_,
    to the maximum storage capacity, V_, and the interevent drawdown rate, Q,
                                      o
    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, <5,
             are exponentially distributed and independent (i.e., gamma
             distributions with v  - v, - v. * 1).
                                 q    a    o
         2)  The basin is emptied or drawn down at a constant rate, Q, between
             events.
         3)  Storm volumes exceeding the available basin capacity are by-passed.
         4)  The available storage capacity for any particular storm, V , is
             the difference between the maximum capacity, Vfi, and the volume
             remaining from the previous storm.   The expected value (or long-
             term mean)  of V  is the mean effective storage capacity, V_.
                            e                                          £
         5)  Storm 1 begins with V  - V.
                                  e    £i
         6)  The coefficient of variation for runoff event volumes is /3.
    The curves in Figure I-E2 are normalized over the mean runoff volume, V_,
    to enhance their applicability.
              The long-term fraction of runoff pollutant load not captured (i.e.,
    discharged with by-passed flows) by the storage basin, f,., is calculated
                                         C-83
    

    -------
     as  the  by-passed  load,  divided  by the total  load:
    
    
    
                   00    00
    
    
    
    
          fv - C    /     /        q(J - VE/q)  pd(d) pq(q)   dd dq           (I-E1)
    
    
    
                q  - 0 d  =  VE/q
    
    
    
    
                                  C Qp DP
                                      A  R,
    
    
     where f» = 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,
    
    
    
          QR = mean runoff  flow  for all  events, volume/time, and
    
    
    
          D - mean runoff  event duration, time.
          '  K.
    
    
     Equation I-E1 was ""Tidily integrated to obtain the  curves shown  in
    
    
    
     Figure  I-E3.  The fraction not  captured, f~, is a function of the mean
    
    
    
     effective storage capacity,  V_, and  the  coefficient  of  variation of  the
    
    
    
     runoff  volumes, v _.  Again  the mean effective storage  capacity, V_, is
                      VK.                                               £•
    
    
     normalized over V_ to enhance the  applicability of the  curves.  Note
    
    
    
     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
    
    
    
     pqllutant 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
                                                           Ve
    STORM
                                        Jf-
                                                    STORM
    
                                                     ' 2
    TIME
             Legend
    
    
    
               V_  = maximum  storage capacity
                D
    
    
               V_  = mean effective storage capacity
                £«
    
    
               V  = storm 1  volume
    
    
    
               n  = drawdown rate  between'storms
    
    
    
               V  = available storage at the start  of a storm
                e
    
    
               6  = time between storm midpoints
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
          Figure I-E1.  Conceptualization of Storage Operation (source:  ref. 17)
                                       C-85
    

    -------
                                                           14
         An  approach similar  to  chat  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  B coefficients, and
    
    
    
             DT  • detention parameter, hr
    
    
                                                                     14
     The definition of OT 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
    
    
    
              R - RU -  e"K(DT))                                       (I-E3)
    where     R = long-term pollutant removal efficiency, 0 ^ R >_ R
    
    
    
           R    • maximum efficiency, 0 >. R    >_ 1,
    
    
    
              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
    
    
    
    1-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
    

    -------
                  1.0
       2.0        1.0        4.0
    STORAGE VOLUME (EMPTY)"
    5.0
                             MEAN RUNOFF VOLUME
    Figure I-E2.  Determination of the Mean Effective Storage Capacity,  V
                  (source: ref. 17)
                                    C-87
    

    -------
                                                              3.0
                   VE  [ EFFECTIVE STORAGE CAPACITY
                   Vn  [   MEAN RUNOFF VOLUME
    Figure I-E3.   Determination ot  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
                                         089
    

    -------
    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-E1.
    
    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, n^, is constant.
    
    
    
         (5)  The storage reservoir has a treatment efficiency, n » which is
                                                                 S
    
    
             'due to the residence time of water in it.   This efficiency is
    
    
    
              estimated as
    
    
    
    
                   ng • a log (DT)  + b,             RI  £ RTMIN        (I-F1)
    
    
    
              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/2J2 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
    

    -------
                                         IUINFAU.
                                     WATEMHCO
                                         RUNOrr
                                     RCSEHVOU
                             TKCATMCNT
                               PUNT
                              STORAGE
                              OVERFLOW
    BYPASS
    OVERFLOW
                                 UCCIVINC WATEM
    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/sriowmelt 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 a 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 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-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,
    
    
    
              K • coefficient, 1/hr, and
    
    
    
             DT m detention parameter,  hr.
    
    
    
                                         C-95
    

    -------
    ?
    VO
                           ~^7///'//'/
                           1  > i  '  '  ' /
                           '//./ / '  /  '
                              /  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.15.
                                         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:
    
    
    
    
              ^7^- = I(t) CZ(t) - 0(t) C(t) - K C(t) V(t)               (
               at
    
    
    
    where     V » reservoir volume, ft ,
    
    
    
             C  <• influent pollutant concentration, mg/1,
    
    
    
              C » effluent and reservoir pollutant concentration, mg/1,
    
    
    
              I = inflow rate, ft /sec,
    
    
    
              0 tt 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 Tl + C2 X2       Cl°l + C2°2         C1V1 + C2V2
    C2V2 - C^ -  *  * 2  Z  2  At -  1 X 2  2 2  At - K  il 2  22 At    (I-H2)
    
    
    
    
    where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the beginning and end of the time step,
    
    
    
    respectively.
    
    
    
         From a separate flow-routing procedure (the Puls method  ),  I., I_, 0.,
    
    
    
    0., V., 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
    

    -------
                                                   0(t),C (t)
                         \/
                                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
    FLOW
    
    0. 1675E+08
    0. 0
    0. 167SE+OB
    0. 16SOE-K)3
    0. O
    0. 2189E+06
    0. 3193E+05
    FLOW
    V. TOT X TRT
    0.
    10O.
    98.
    O.
    1.
    0.
    0
    0
    5
    0
    3
    2
    98.
    0.
    1.
    0.
    5
    0
    3
    2
    SUS. SOLIDS
    (LQS)
    OOOOOO
    3571E+06
    0
    3571E+06
    1475E+06
    0
    2094E+06
    SUS. SOLIDS
    '/. TOT V. TRT
    0.
    10O.
    41.
    O.
    58.
    0
    0
    3
    0
    6
    41.
    0.
    58.
    3
    0
    6
    OOOOOO
    	
    DOD
    (LOS)
    5404E+05
    0
    5404E+05
    3600E+05
    0
    1Q02E+05
    DOD
    V. TOT •/. TRT
    0. 0
    100. 0
    66. 6
    0. 0
    33. 3
    66. 6
    0. 0
    33. 3
    

    -------
    o
    N>
    i/>
    M—
    O
    uT
    
    o:
    
    I
            50
            40
    
             20
             10
        HYPOTHETICAL DETENTION BASIN
            MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
           STORM OF AUGUST 31,1971
    DEPTH
    INFLOW
    OUTFLOW
    15
                                         O
                                                                                                     K
                                                                                                     5
    O
                                                                                                        Q
               I2=00am  6:00om   I2=00pm    6:00pm    I2:00am    6:00am    !2OOpm    6:00pm    !2:OOom
                         -AUGUST 31,1971
     SEPTEMBER  1,1971
          Figure I-H2.  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 I2)         Cl°l        K C1V
              C V  +   x  •*•    *     At  -        At  - _J     At
               1            2                2            2
              - : - __ - _
    
          2               v.u+V1)   +   2At
                                           T
         c
    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
                                 t                (               •
    
    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-
    
    
    routing procedure  ) :
    
    
    
                                         C-103
    

    -------
    ?
    I—
    o
    s
    Q
    
    3
    O)
    UJ
    Q.
    (/>
       10,000
        8,000
    6.00C-
         4,000
         2.OOO
                                                                   HYPOTHETICAL DETENTION BASIN
                                                                        MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA
                                                                      STORM OF AUGUST 31, 1971
                                                           INFLOW
    
                                                           OUTFLOW
             l£00 am   6'OOam    I2=00pm   GOOpm   I2=00om    frOOom    1200pm     &00pm    !2OOam
                        -AUGUST  31, 1971-
                                                            -SEPTEMBER 1,1971
     Figure  I-H3.  Detention Facility Quality Performance,  Storm of August 31, 1971, S/T Block  (source: ref.  23)
    

    -------
    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  <, f.  <, 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:
    
    
    
    »' /           V  32              ,   8A         r    i   a6
    R "(a.^expla.x, Jx,   +  a.. .expla-x-Jx,   +  aT-expla^x-lx,
       I *.*•     -Li  f.       J.O      J  J  H •    1.4 •     j J   Q
    
    
                                                 »   a!0    all)a16      ('
    
                                                  X10   Xll   /
    
    
    
    where     x. *> removal  equation variables,
    
    
    
              a. ** coefficients, and
    
    
    
              R • removal fraction, 0 4 R 4 1.0.
                                         C-105
    

    -------
     The  user assigns  Che  removal  equation variables,  x, ,  Co  specific
    
    
    
     program variables (detention  time,  flow race,  etc.)-   If an  equation
    
    
    
     variable is not assigned  iC is  sec  equal Co  1.0 for Che  duration  of Che
    
    
    
     simulation.  The  values of Che  coef ficienCs , a . ,  are  directly  specified
    
    
    
     by Che  users.  There  is considerable  flexibility  conCained in  equation
    
    
    
     I-H6 and, with a  judicious selecCion  of coefficients  and assignment of
    
    
    
     variables, Che user probably  can create the desired equation.  An example
    
    
    
     is given below.
    
    
    
          An earlier version of Che  Storage/Treatment  Block employed Che
    
    
                                                                            12
     following removal equation for  suspended  solids in a  sedimentation  tank  :
              "SS ' RmaX(1 * e"d)                  (
    
    
    where     Rg- » suspended solids removal fracCion, 0 <, RSS 4
             R    » maximum removal fracCion,
    
    
    
               C. « detention time, sec, and
    
    
    
                K » decay coefficienC, sec  .
    
    
    
    This same equation could be built from equation I-H6 by setting a
    
    
    
        - -Rmax» 83 = -K, a16 - 1.0, and letting x- » detention time,
    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 BOD~.  The value of R    was set at 0.65 and 0.35 for suspended solids
    
    
    
    
    and BOD-, respectively, and the value of K equalled 0.0003 sec   in both
    
    
    
    
    cases.  The results are summarized, in Table I-HI.  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.
                                         0107
    

    -------
     Method;  Other  Simulation Methods  (Source:  ref.  23)
    
     Data  Requirements;   Variable;  generally requires basin geometry,  outlet
                         structure,  pollutant removal coefficients  and inflow
                         time  series.
                                                       g
     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
    

    -------
          3.0
    o
    i
          2.0
           1.0 -
    
                                      10
    15
       20          25
    
    
    TIME (Hours)
    30
    35
                                                                   40
                   Figure II-l.   Settleability of Hydrocarbons, Lawrcnccville Shopping Center (source:  ref.  28)
    

    -------
     X
     a
    e O
    I"
     10
    
    
     Q
    
    
    a~
    
    •> 0)
                                               Figure II-2.   Plot of Hydrocarbon
    
    
    
                                                            on Semi-Log Paper
                                   10                    20
    
                                     Detention time,  hours
    e-112
    

    -------
    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:
    where          r • reaction rate,
    
    
    
                   k - rate constant,
    
    
    
                   c • concentration of reactant, and
    
    
    
                   n « reaction order.
    
    
    
    Using equation I 1-3, the reaction order can be found by plotting reaction
    
    
    
    rate, r « dc/dt, versus concentration, c, as shown In Figure I 1-3.  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 I 1-4 yields
    
                                              1
    
    
                   c/c0 - [1+ (n-l)^11'1 kt]1"11    n ^ -1           (II-5)
    
    
    
    For the hydrocarbon data, k - 0.037, n - 1.90 (see Figure 11-3), and c  -
    
    
    
    2.8 mg/1.  Substituting Into equation I 1-5 yields
    simplifying,
                   c/cQ - [1+ (1.90-1)2.8(1<9°"1) (.037)t]1"1'90, or
                   c/c  - [1 + .0842t]~1*U                          (II-6)
                      o
    Equation I1-6 can be spot checked by trying a few trial values of t.
    
    
    
              t. hr.         ^/^meas.         ^
    
    
                 5              0.62                0.68
    
                15              0.36                0.40
    
                25              0.30  ,              0.28
    
    
    
    
                                         C-113
    

    -------
       l.Orn
     tl    4
    o
    •H
    u
    0.001
        o.i
                                                  34587
    T'i.o
      Concentration, c, mg/1
    89
    10.0
                     Figure II-3.  Detenaination 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.  ec  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-44Q/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
    

    -------
                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, a/id 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 metabolite's,  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 LCSOs 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:
          Median  (50  percent!le)
          Mean
          90  percentile
    Storm
    Duration
    (hours)
    
       4.5
       6.0
      15.0
    Time Between Storm
    Midpoints
    (hours)
    
       60
       80
      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 ttere 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 repealed  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 LCSOs (EPA used 48 and 96 hour
    LCSOs).   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
    li
      i
                                  so
                                                         so
            0   24   48   72   96
                                        24   48   72   96
                                                                24   48   72   96
                    (a)
    (b)
    (c)
                           Figure  1.  Ti-me 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 orotection
    implied by the base criteria value,  that is,  that a generally healthy
    aquatic life population will be maintained.
    
    (\ set of factors for converting 24-, 43-,  and 72-hour  LCSO's  to 96-hour
    _C50's were presented in the 18 May  1979 issue of the  Federal  Reqister
    (40 FR 21506).   The factors  are 0.66,  O.S1,  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 ;..)  - 0.123.                       (1)
    
    
    Where v 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 •)  + 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 (CVJ is computed from the maximum
    
    criterion value (MCV) using the equation:
                                     cvt -
    
    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 mortal ity 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 aTlowed 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
    (ng/O1*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 (i.g/-)
    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
    o
    I
    oo
           1  Values specified for "total recoverable" metals
    
    
           2  Values based on a hardness of 100 mg/fc as CaC03
    

    -------
             TABLE 2.  CALCULATED CONCENTRATIONS REQUIRED FOR MORTALITY
                  OF  SOME FISH SPECIES AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO
                                     URBAN RUNOFF
    Event Mean ,. ,
    Concentration^ '
    -.;g/-
    
    Chemical
    Zinc
    Copper
    Lead
    Cadmium
    Urban
    Runoff
    160
    30
    330
    3
    Concentration (-^g/0 for 50 P-orta"! i t/ '
    Urban Runoff
    Storm
    4.5 HR
    1300
    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
    Cadmi um
    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
    9 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/t.  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/e for 16 hours of any 24 hour period and not less  than 4  mg/i1.
    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/i.
    
                TABLE 4.  SUMMARY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE
                      EFFECTS OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION
                                        ON FISH
         Dissolved Oxygen
        Effects Reported
         Reference
        Saturation to
        5 mg/i
        5 mg/C to 2.5 mg/C
        2.5 mg/v.  to
        1.5 mg/.\
        1.5 mg/'.  to  zero
    1.  Generally considered
        adequate for a healty
        population.
    
    1.  Sublethal effects on
        adults observed in
        laboratories.
    
    2.  Reduced growth rate
        associated with con-
        stant exposure of
        adults.
    
    3.  Some increased morta-
        lity of early life
        stages (no direct data
        on population effects).
    
    4.  Time variable exposures
        (8 to 12 hours every 24
        hours) appeared to
        result in reduced
        growth rates.
    
    1.  Possible mortality of
        adult and/or smaller
        fish due to  combina-
        tion of stresses  with
        significant  D.O.  con-
        tribution to mortality.
    
    1.  Fish mortality (short
        exposure).
    USEPA (7)
    (Abernathy) (28)
                                                           (Siefert  et  al .)
                                                           (Moss)  (26)
                                                           (Warren)  (30)
                     (29)
                                                           (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/?. 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/v. 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/2, suspended solids.
    
     The Commission report also stated that exposure to several  thousand mg/e. 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 quaTity 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.
    
                                          0-12
    

    -------
    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
    3.8
    .025
    (40 )3
    25
    5
    MAX
    320
    4,700
    22
    170
    3
    440
    250
    15
    EFFECTS LEVELS2
    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 CaCOa.
    
    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.
    
    **  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
    j 0.  H.  W.,  H.  C.  Carley,  B.  E.  Suta,  Static,  Flow Through and Plug Flow
    jassay Study with the Bluegill  Sunfish Exposed to 10 Chemical  Toxicants, by
    ( International,  For EPA,  contract 68-01-4108, 1979.
    
    ropean Inland Fisheries Commission.   "Water Quality Criteria for European
    sshwater Fish Report on Finely  Divided Solids  and Inland Fisheries."
    ternational  Journal  of Air and  Water Pollution.  Vol.  9.  1965.
    
    ncini, J. L. "Development  of Methods to Define Mater Quality Effects of
    ban Runoff;"  EPA Cooperative Agreement Mo. 806328, (1932, 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, MO
    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, (Disconnections and other sources, and septic  system  leachate inputs
    from unsewered areas.
                                   El-3
    

    -------
    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
    (OAR 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 source  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
                     E4--1.
    

    -------
            sssssssass =====  ====== =======
    
            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  che 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 collform 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  chances in the New York  State standards for certification.
     seeding of open shellfishinj? 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
                            i
            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 3-3
                     feet having a baseflow volume of approximately  900,000 cu. ft.
                     Rectangular in shape,  north, east,  south shore  lines - park-lanes;
                     west shore - residential.
                4)  Effectiveness;  75-95% removal of bacteriological loading (total
                     colifom, 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 stem
                     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 752 removal  of fecal streptococci.
    
    b.  In-line stormwater storage drainage system
        1) Location:  Northeast Nassau County, Inc. Village of Bayville
        2) Drainage Area;  65.6 acres  of which 1002 is medium density residential
             with 152 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 grouridwater.  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 rain
             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
             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  6*  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 rore
            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;  /?£ acres, all medium density residential
     3) Description;   The site is at a trapezoidal shaped recharge basis
                       Just to the north of the Southern State Parkway in
                       South Brentvood, 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.
       	   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 portior.s
                       . 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.
           A) Effectiveness:
                                      E4-7
    

    -------
             6) Note;  SCDHS la dropping the energy dissipation construction at
                       Westviev 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 stonnwater 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
                             tp 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
    
        *•  Stonnwater 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
                    -I impervious - 16
                                           E4-8
    

    -------
         (c) Laurel Hollow,  N. T.
            -land use -  low density residential (2-acre zoning)
            -drainage area  - 100 acres
            -Z impervious - 4.7
         (d) Huntington,  H.  Y.
            -land use -  parking lot and shopping mall
            -drainage area  - 39.2 acres
            -Z 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
            -Z impervious - 6
     (2) Effectiveness:
        (a) Bacteria: virtually 100Z 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 shopping center 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  '
    
          I.  The significance of urban runoff as a contributor of colifonn 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
     collform 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  stonnwater  runoff  modeling  effort developed  for  the
     study has  indicated  that a  reduction of  total  colifonn loads of one  to two
     orders of  magnitude  (90  - 99%) will  lead to surface waters that meet current
     water quality standards  in*many areas.
    
          4.  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  colifonn load  from runoff in Nassau and
     252 of the  total in  Suffolk can be attributed  to overland runoff.
    
         5.  Colifonn removals from runoff of 75 -  952 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.  Direcc overland  runoff, which appears to contribute approximately
     40Z of the bacterial loading  to the bays  in Nassau County and 252  in Suffolk
     County, is generally not  amenable Co  the  sane 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 coliform 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.   GROUNPWATERS
    
          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 coliform 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.
    
         A.   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 stormwater and groundwatcr for priority pollutants, and analysis of water
    and/or sediment in the unsaturated zone beneath the recharge basins to determine
     hov and  where the removal of  certain  stormwater 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-Salem NURP project is located in Winston-Salem, 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 (GIRAS 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-
         November 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 was?highest
         (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-Sal em.
         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 S10.30/curb
    mile, and for CBO 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 Uinston-Salem.   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
    
         M1chigana 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.
    
                                         E7-2
    

    -------
         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
         (frestions 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
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
         ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
            REGION V, EPA
               E8-1
    

    -------
    I.    Project Location
    
         Michigan,  Washtenaw County,  Ann  Arbor
    
    II.   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.
    
         8.    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
    

    -------
          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
                     E-10-1
    

    -------
    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/concerns.
    
         Further Investigation 1s  needed on the  availability of constituent
         pollutants for uptake by  benthlc  organisms.   There  1s concern  that
         pollutant constituents 1n detention  basin  sediments may become mobile
         and available to the water column under changing  conditions of pH, 00
         or chloride,  as well as uptake by lake  bottom benthlc 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 1s pollutant related or habitat
         related.
                                 E10-3
    

    -------
           NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
        ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY DIVISION
    
                   CHAMPAIGN, IL
    
                   REGION V, EPA
                    Ell-I
    

    -------
    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 steering 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.
                                        Ell-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.
                                       El 1-3
    

    -------
     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  REMOVED
    Portion of Load
    
        TOTAL
    Mattis South
    (Commercial)
    
         23
     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.
                                       E11-4
    

    -------
                         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. Terstriepi 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
                                  Ell-5
    

    -------
               NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
       WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL. RESOURCES AND
    SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
    
                        MADISON,  Wl
    
                       REGION V,  EPA
                         E12-1
    

    -------
                       SUMMARY OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY NURP PROJECT
    I.    Project Location
    
         Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
    
    II.   Surmary 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 determination  of 'problem'  netal  concentrations  is based  on the
              proposed 'White Book'  criteria published in the Federal  Register
              (V45, N231,  November, 1900).  'Problem1 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 mg/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  (18) 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.
              Zinc:
                 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 toxidty 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 toxlcity concentration:  52 ug/1.  This concentration 1s
             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 mg/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 mg/1.  Concentrations at the commercial
             areas and at Lincoln Creek (a high density residential area)
             greatly exceeded concentrations at the other areas.
    
         Fecal  Coliform:
    
             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  coll form 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 1s 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 1n 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 fron high levels of suspended solids and fecal  coliform
         draining from most urban areas, and of toxic metals fron 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 najor weakness In interpreting the impacts of high concentrations of
         contaminants lies in the inadequate understanding of on-site  and
         synerglstic 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  1n-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
                                          £12-4
    

    -------
    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 BOO 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.
                                        EU-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 impervious ness 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 tpjaegin 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 de positional 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?
    WTiat 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
    

    -------
    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
    

    -------
    s*
     It.    «,
            0 12
             Nwitfcly
                    1U
        ftMtljr       Tim
                   MMkly
    
    
    •JHUI or STHH OIMIRB nusn
      m  no
     •r
    T1M«
                                          MO
                                                     TIM
                 FIGCRE 1.   IMPROVEMENT IN URBAN RUNOFF QUALITY AS
                            A FUNCTION OF STREET CLEANING EFFORT
                                  I . tawrtdi Nr Urt Mlt Sm4 Frva taMl*1fif Wttr
                                  0 -OelUr Hr t*t* S««td Frv
                                         CMt
                                                 "   Ttan
    
    
                                  CUMIW ncouoa (nasu ra TIM)
               FIGURE 2.  UNIT COST EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROLLING
                          URBAN RUNOFF TOTAL SOLIDS BY STREET
                          CLEANING
                                  E16-5
    

    -------
    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-1970's 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 Bellevue's 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 stprm-
     water management.  Bellevue plans to develop a comprehensive storm  water
     qua!ity 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 30X-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 503. 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 "equilibrium11 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.
                                      El 7-3
    

    -------
            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 Meta.ls 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
        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
                                f-fc
    

    -------
                              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
                                F-1
    

    -------
    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.
    

    -------
                             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.
    

    -------
                                                                               0 SO 100  ZOO 300
    Numbers identify major river basins
    delineated by the United States
    Geological Survey. 1980.
      i = 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
    

    -------
                                                    TABLE 2.
                                    SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY FINDINGS
                                      FROM NORP PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLES'
                                 (includes Intonation received through 10/31/81)
    Pollutant
    Frequency of Range of detected
    Cities where detected0 detection (I) concentrations ( u)/l
    I. PESTICIDES
    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    5.
    
    6.
    7.
    8.
    9.
    10.
    11.
    12.
    13.
    14.
    15.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.
    21.
    Acrolein
    Aldtin
    o-Bexachlorocyclohexane ( o-BHC) (Alpha)
    8-Bexachlorocyclohexane ( 8-BBC) (Beta)
    Y-B«xachlorocyclohexane ( r-BHC) (Gamma)
    (Llndane)
    4-Bexachlorocyclohexane. ( 4-BHC) (Delta)
    Chlordane
    ODD
    DOE
    DDT
    Dleldrin
    o-Endosulfan (Alpha)
    8-Endoaulfan (Beta)
    Endoaulfan aulfate
    Endrin
    End r In aldehyde
    Beptachlor
    Beptachlor epoxlde
    laophorone
    TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenso-p-41oxln)
    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 (Aroelor 1260)
            44.  2-Chloronaphthalene
    
    IV.    RALOGBNATED ALIPBATICS
    
            45.  Methane, bromo- (methyl bromide)
            46.  Methane, ehloro- (methyl chloride)
            47.  Methane, dlchloro- (Mthylene chloride)
                                                      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
    d)
    

    -------
     TABU 2.  (Continued)
               Pollutant
                                                          Cities where  detected6
                               Frequency of
                               detection (%)
                                                                                                    Range of detected
                                                                                                 concentration*  (ig/1)
     IV.
    V.
    VI.
    RALOGENATED AtlPHATICS
    (Continued)
    
     48.  Methane, chlorodibromo-
     49.  Methane, dichlorobrono-
     50.  Methane, trlbroao- (broaoforn)
     51.  Methane, trichloro- (chloroform)
     52.  Methane, tetrachloro- (carbon tetracblorlde)
     S3.  Methane, trichlorofluoro-c
     54.  Methane, dichlorodifluoro-c (Freon-12)
     55.  Ethane, chloro-
     56.  Ethane, 1,1-dlchloro-
     57.  Ethane, 1,2-dlchloro-
     58.  Ethane, 1.1,1-trichloro-
     59.  Ethane, 1.1.2-trichloro-
     60.  Ethane,  1,1.2.2-tetrachloro-
     61.  Ethane,  hexachloro-
     62.  Ethane,  chloro-  (vinyl chloride)
     63.  Bthene,  1,1-dlchloro-
     64.  Ethene,  1.2-tr»ns-dichloro-
     65.  Ethene,  trichloro-
     66.  Ethene,  tetrachloro-
     67.  Propane,  1,2-dichloro-
     68.  Propene,  1,3-dichloro-
     69.  Butadiene, hexachloro-
     70.  Cyciopentadiene, hexachloro-
     ETHERS
    
      71.  Ether, bia(ehoromethyl)
      72.  Ether, bis(2-chloroethyl)
      73.  Ether, bis(2-chloroisepropyl)
      74.  Ether. 2-chloroethyl vinyl
      75.  Ether, 4-oroaophenyl phenyl
      76.  Ether* 4-chlorophenyl phenyl
      77.  Bi*(2-chloroethoxy) Mthane
    
     NONOCICLIC ARONATICS (KXCLODIN6 PBKNOLS.
    , PHTBAUTES)
                                                    CXBSOLS,
    7S.
    79.
    80.
    81.
    82.
    83.
    84.
    85.
    86.
    87.
    88.
    89.
    Bensene
    Benxene ,
    Bensene,
    Benxene ,
    Benxene,
    Benxene,
    Benxene,
    Benxene,
    Benxene,
    Toluene
    Toluene,
    Toluene ,
    chloro-
    1,2-dichloro-
    1.3-dichloro-
    1,4-dichloro-
    1,2,4-trlchloro-
    .hexachloro-
    ethyl-
    nltro-
    2,4-dinitro-
    2,<-4initro
    VII.   PBZROtS AND CBESOU
            90.
            91.
            92.
            93.
            94.
    
    (continued)
           Phenol
           Phenol,  2-chloro-
           Phenol,  2,4-dichloro-
           Phenol,  2,4,6-trichloro-
           Phenol,  pentachloro-
                                                                28
                                                                28
                                                                28
                                                                4,17,20,27,28
                                                                4,20,28
                                                                2,4,24,28
                                                                Not detected
                                                                Not detected
                                                                4,20,28
                                                                28
                                                                4,17,20,22,24.28
                                                                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
                                                               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
                                                                                         12
                                                                                         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
                                                               12
    

    -------
    TABLE 2.  (Continued)
              Pollutant
                                                               Cities where detected6
                              Frequency of
                              detection (I)
                Range of detected
             concentrations  (uj/l:
    VII.   PHENOLS AND CRESOLS (Continued)
    
            95.  Phenol, 2-nitro-
            96.  Phenol, 4-flitro-
            97.  Phenol, 2,4-linitro-
            98.  Phenol, 2,4-dlaethyl-
            99.  m-Cresol, p-chloro-
           100.  o-Cresol, 4,6-dlnitro-
    
    VIII.  PHTHALATE ESTERS
    Not detected
    4,20,28
    Not detected
    Not detected
    4
    Not detected
    10
                    1-19
                   1-2
           101.  Phthalate, dimethyl
           102.  Phthalate, diethyl
           103.  Phthalate, 4i-n-butyl
           104.  Phthalate, di-n-octyl
           105.  Phthalate, bls(2-ethylhexyl)
           10«.  Phthalate, butyl benzyl
    
    IX.    POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
    
           107.  Acenaphthene
           108.  Acenaphthvlen-
           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. ..riuoranthene
           114.  Pluorene
           .119.  Indeno(l,3,3-c,d)pyrene
           120.  Naphthalene
           121.  Phenanthrene
           122.  Pyrene
    
    X.     NITROSAMINES AND OTHER NITROGEN-CONTAINING
           COMPOUNDS
    
           123.  Nltroaamine, dimethyl (DMN)
           124.  Nltrosamine, diphenyl
           125.  Nltrosamine, di-n-propyl
           126.  Benzidine
           127.  Benzidine, 3.3'-dichloro-
           128.  Rydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-
           129.  Acrylonitrile
    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
    5
    11
    2
    24
    1-5
    2.8-11
    1
    1-41.5
    6
    10
    7
                   1-s
                   1-3
                   2
                   4
    
                   1-2
                   0.6-4.5
    
                   0.3-12
    1-13
    0.3-7
    0.3-10
    • Base4 on 68 organic and 46 inorganic sample results received as of 10/31/81,
      review.  Nine cities reporting.
    
    b Cities froa which data are available:
           2.  Lake Quinslganond, MA
           4.  Long Island, NY
          17.  Glen Ellyn, IL
          19.  Austin, TX
          20.  Little Rock, AR
          22.  Denver, CO
          24.  Rapid City, SO
          27.  Bellevue, WA
          28.  Eugene, OR
      Nutibering of cities conform to NURP convention.
    
    e Recently removed from priority pollutant list.
                        adjusted for preliminary quality  control
                                                               13
    

    -------
                                    TABLE 3.
    
                        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS HOT DETECTED
                          IN NURP ORBAN  RUNOFF SAMPLES9
                (includes information received through 10/31/81)
    Pollutant
    
    Reported limits
    of detection11
    (19/1)
    I. PESTICIDES
    1.
    2.
    4.
    8.
    9.
    13.
    14.
    IS.
    16.
    17.
    18.
    19.
    20.
    21.
    Acrolein
    Aldrin
    8- Be xachlorocyc lohexane
    ODD
    ODE
    B-Endosulfan
    Endosulfan sulfate
    Endrin
    Bndrin aldehyde
    Reptachlor
    Beptachlor epoxide
    Isophorone
    TCDD
    Toxaphene
    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
     II.    METALS AND INORGANICS
           35.   Thallium
                                                              1-63
     III.   PCBs  AND RELATED COMPOUNDS
    
           37.   PCB-1016
           38.   PCB-1221
           39.   PCB-1232
           40.   PCB-1242
           41.   PCB-1248
           42.   PCB-12S4
           44.   2-Chloronaphthalene
    
     IV.    HALOGENATED ALIPHATICS
      0.04-10
      0.04-10
      0.04-10
      0.04-10
      0.05-10
      0.5-10
     10
    V.
          45.  Brononethane
          46.  Chloroaethane
          54.  Dlchlorodlfluoroneehanec
          55.  Chloroethane
          61.  Raxachloroethane
          62.  Chloroethene
          69.  Hexachlorobutadlene
          70.  Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
    
          ETHBKS
     10
     10
     10
     10
     10
     10
     10
     10
          71.  Bis(chloronethyl) ether
          72.  Bis<2-chloro«thyl) ether
          73.  Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
          74.  2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
          75.  4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
          76.  4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
          77.  Bls(2-chloroethoxy) methane
    10
    10
    10
     1-10
    10
    10
    10
    VI.   NONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS, CRBSOLS, PHTHALATES)
          80.  1,2-Dichlorooenzene
          81.  1,3-Oichlorobenzene
          82.  1,4-Dichlorobenzene
          83.  1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
    10
    10
    10
    10
    (continued)
                                      14
    

    -------
     TABLE  3.   (Continued)
                                                            Reported Halt*
                                                             of detecttonb
     Pollutant	'	(U|/l)	
    
     VI.   HOHOCTCIIC ARONATICS  (KXCLODING PHEUOLS, CRESOLS, PBTBALATBS)
     (Continued)
    
           84.  Bexachlorobensene                            10
           86.  Nltrobenxene                                 10
           88.  2,4-Dinitrotoluene                           10
           84.  2,6-Oinitrotoluene                           10
    
     VII.  PHENOLS AMD CRESOLS
    
           93.  2,4,6-Trichloiophenol                        10-25
           95.  2-Nitrophenol                                10-2S
           97.  2.4-Dinitrophenol                            25-250
           98.  2.4-OiBethvlphenol                           10-25
           100. 4,6-Dinitro-o-crasol                         25-250
    
     VII.  PHTHALATE ESTERS
    
           101. Dimethyl phthalate-                          10
           106. Butyl benxyl phthalate                       10
    
     IX.   POLXOTCLIC AROWATICS
    
           107. Aeenaphthene                                 10
           108. Acenaphthylene                               10
           113. Benxo(g,h,i)perylene                         10-25
           116. DibenxoUrhlanthraeene                       10-2S
           118. Pluorene                                     10
           119. Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene                      10-25
    
     X.    HITROSMHRES AND OTHER NITROGEN-CONTAINIHG COMPOONDS
    
           123. Oieethyl nitro«««ine                          10
           124. Diphenyl nltrosanine                          10
           125. Oi-n-propyl nlttosaalne                      10
           126. Benxidine                                   100
           127. 3,3'-01chlorobenxidlne                       10
           128. 1,2-Diphenylhydraxine                        10
           129. Aerylonitrlle                               100
    
    
     •  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 aore  than one detection  linit is  applicable because labora-
       tory methodologies differed, a range is given.
    
     e  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:   a-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	
      23.  Arsenic (58%)                 None
      28.  Copper  (91%)
      30.  Lead (93%)
      36.  Zinc (100%)
    
     Pollutants Detected in 20%  to 49%  of the NURP Samples
    
          Inorganics               	Organics	
      26.  Cadmium (38%)              3.  o-Hexachlorocyclohexane (25%)
      27.  Chromium (45%)            51.  Trichlororaethane  (Chloroform)  (24%)
      29.  Cyanides (31%)            58.  1,1,1-Trichloroethane  (35%)
      32.  Nickel  (44%)              78.  Benzene  (34%)
      33.  Selenium (20%)            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 HATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEOAHCES TOR POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN AT LEAST 10  PERCENT
          Or NURP SAMPLES I   NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES IN WHICH POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITERIA*
    Number of tl«ei
    detected /Huabei
    Pollutant of (ample*
    I.
    
    IX.
    
    IV.
    
    vt.
    
    VII.
    
    nn.
    
    PESTICIDES
    3. o-Bexaehloroeyclohexan*
    5. T-Hsxachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)
    NETAU AMD MORGAN I CS
    23. Arsenic
    26. Cadmii»d
    27. Chromium9**
    28. Copper*1
    29. Cyanide*
    30. Ucd*1
    32. Nickeld
    33. S«l«nlua
    36. Sine11
    BALOCEHATED ALIPOATICS
    51. Methane, tcichloro- (chloroform)
    98. Ethane, 1.1,1-trichloro-
    64. Ethan*. 1 . 2-t rans-d lehloro-
    65. Ethene, trlchloro-
    66. Ethene, tetrachloro-
    HONOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLODIHC PHENOLS, CRESOLS,
    78. Benzene
    15. Benzene, ethyl-
    87. Toluene
    PHENOLS AMD CRESOLS
    94. Phenol, pentachloro-
    96. PtMnol. 4-nitro-
    PHTHALATE ESTERS
    103. Phthalate, dl-n-butyl
    105. Phthalate, bi*(2-ethylh*xyl)
    
    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
    P8TBALATES)
    22/65
    8/67
    13/55
    "
    12/67
    7/67
    
    7/61
    14/59
    i Critaria exceedanc**b
    r
    Don* FA ?C OL HH HCC OW
    
    1,13.16
    1 1,2,7
    
    26,26,26
    9 1,7 2 2
    £• 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* T« 1
    X
    
    6*
    13*
     IX.    POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
    
           121.  Phenanthrene
                                                               7/67
                                                                                                  7,7,7
     • Indicate* PTA or PTC value eubetltuted wh«r« PA or PC criterion not available dee  below).
    
     • Ba»ed on 66 organic and 46 inorganic aaaple reaulta received a* of 10/31/81,  adjuated tot prellainary
       quality control revlav.  Nine cities reporting.
    
     0 FA      Preahvater aobient 24-hour Inatantaneoua aaxlmia criterion ('acute* criterion).
       PC      Freshwater aablent 24-hour average  criterion  ('chronic* criterion).
       PTA     Lowest reported freshwater acute  toxic concentration.   (Osed only when PA Is  not  available.)
       PTC     Lowest reported freshwater  chronic  toxic concentration.   (Dsed only when PC la not available.)
      .OL      Taste and odor  (organoleptic)  criterion.
       HH   •   Non-carcinogenic huaan health  criterion  for ingeatlon of contaminated water and organisms.
       HC      Protection of human health  froa carcinogenic effect* for IngestIon of contaalnated water and
               organise.*.
      DH  -    Primary drinking water criterion.
    
    0 Entries  in this column indicate exceedanee* of the human carcinogen value at the ID"5,
      10"*, and 10~* risk level, respectively.  The number* are cumulative, i.e.,  all 10"5
      exceedance* are included in 10~( exceedanee*, end all 10~c exceedances  are Included  in 10~7
      exeeedance*.
    
    d Where hardness dependent, hardness of 100 mg/1 CaCO3 equivalent assumed.
    
    • Different seta of criteria are written for the trlvalent and hexavalent forma  of chromium.
      Por purposes of this analysis, all chromium Is assuaed to be in the trivalent  form.
                                                       18
    

    -------
                                                     TABU 5«.
    
            SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA EXCEEDANCES FOR  POLLUTANTS DETECTED  IM AT LEAST 10 PERCENT
             OF NURP SAMPLES)   PERCENTAGE Or  SAMPLES IN WHICH  POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITERIA*
    Frequency of
    Pollutant detection (%)
    X.
    
    
    IX.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    XV.
    
    
    
    
    
    VI.
    
    
    
    VII.
    
    
    vxxx.
    
    
    PESTICIDES
    1. o»Hexaehloroeyelohexane
    S. ^Bexachlorocyclohaxane (Undane)
    METALS AND INORGANICS
    21. Arsenic
    26. Cadmium11
    27. Chromium0'*
    28. Copper4
    29. Cyanides
    10. Lead*
    31 . Nlckeld
    31. Selenium
    16. line13
    BALOCZNATED ALXPBATICS
    SI. Methane, trichloro- (chloroform)
    56. Ethane, 1 , 1 , 1-tr ichloro-
    64. Ethene, 1.2-trans-diehloro-
    65. Ethene, trlchloro-
    66. Ethene, tetraehloro-
    NOHOCYCLIC AROMATICS (EXCLUDING PHENOLS, CRESOLS,
    78. Benzene
    6 S. Benaene, ethyl-
    87. Toluene
    PHENOLS AND CRESOLS
    94. Phenol, pentaohloro-
    96. Phenol. 4-nltro-
    PHTHALATE ESTERS
    101. Phthalate, dl-n-butyl
    10S. Phthalate, bla(2-ethylhexyl)
    
    2S
    11
    
    58
    18
    45
    91
    11
    91
    44
    20
    100
    
    24
    IS
    12
    12
    22
    PKTHALATES)
    14
    12
    24
    
    18
    10
    
    11
    24
    Criteria exceedanees (l)b
    None PA PC OL HH HC« OH
    
    2,20,25
    2 2,3.11
    
    S8.56.S8
    20 18 4 4
    2« 2
    69 91
    28
    17 91 66 86
    IS 40
    16 16
    11 89
    
    12.24.24
    X
    X
    0,1.12
    6.22,22
    
    X 1.14,14
    X
    X
    
    1* 10* 1
    X
    
    10*
    22*
     IX.    POLTCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
    
            121.  Phenanthrene                                 10                                  10,10,10
    
    
    
     • Indicates FTA or PTC value  substituted where PA or PC criterion not available (see below).
    
     • Baaed on 68 organic and 46  inorganic  sample results received as of 10/11/81, adjusted tor preliminary
       quality control review.   Nine cities  reporting.
    b PA
      PC
      PTA
      nc
      OL
      RN
      HC
               rreshwater  ambient  24-hour  Instantaneous aaxlnui criterion t'acuta* criterion).
               rreehwater  ambient  24-hour  average criterion ('chronic* .criterion) .
               Lowest  reported  freshwater  acute toxic concentration.  (Used only when PA is not available.)
               Loweat  reported  freshwater  chronic toxic concentration.  (Used only when PC Is not available.)
               Taste and odor  (organoleptlc) criterion.
               Non-carcinogenic human health criterion for ingestion of  contaminated water and organism*.
               Protection of human health  from carcinogenic effects for  ingeetion  of contaminated water and
              organlams.
      DM  •   Primary' drinking water criterion.                   "~"
    
    e Entries in this column indicate exceedances of the human carcinogen value  at the 10"s,
      10"*, snd 10"' risk level, respectively.  The numbers are cumulative,  i.e.,  all  10~5
      exceedances are Included in 10~* exceedances, and all 10'* exceedances are included  in  10~7
      exeeedances.
    
    d Hhere hardneaa dependent, hardness of 100 mg/1 CaCOj  equivalent assumed.
    
    • Different sets of criteria are written for the trivalent and hexavalent tons of chroaiua.
      Por 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
           equivalent was assumed.)
    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
    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.
                       P-?&
                       '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 small 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 b'e found  in runoff,
    and that such compounds may require  further investigation
    and control at some time  in the future.
                                 2.1
    

    -------
                                    TABLE 6.
    
                    NON-PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REPORTED IN NURP
                              URBAN RUNOFF SAMPLES
                     Pollutant
    Estimated   Number of times
    concentca-  detected/Number
    tion ( vg/1)   of samples
     6-Methoxy-N,N'-bis(l-methylethyl)-l,3,5-
       triazine-2,4-dione                          64  •
     4-Propoxyphenol                               8
     Methylheptanol                                12
     3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-l-one                   6-9
     l-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol                     5-23
     2,2,4-Trimethyl-l,3-pentanediol               17
     Tributylphosphate                             6
     9,10-Anthracenedione or
       9,10-Phenanthrenedione                      20-29
     2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or 2,4-D       180
     
    -------
                             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),  ot-BHC, chloroform,  1,1,1-
    *A11 findings and conclusions are considered tentative until conpletion
     of thorough quality assurance review-,
                                 23
    

    -------
                                   TABLE  7.
    
          PREDOMINANT SOURCES OP PRIORITY POLLUTANTS WHICH  HAVE BEEN
            DETECTED IN AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OP URBAN RUNOPP 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)
     Possil  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.  1,1,1-Trichloroethane
     64.  1,2-trans-Dichloroethene
     65.  Tcichloroethene
     66.  Tetrachlocoethene
    103.   Di-n-butyl phthalate
    105.   Bis(2-ethylhexyl)  phthalate
     33.   Selenium
     Pesticide  Use
    
     Compounds  commonly  used  in  soil
     treatment  to eliminate neraa-
     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.
    
     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.
    
     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.
    
    Natural Erosion
    
    Element which occurs naturally
     in rocks and soil.
    
    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 NURP 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
    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 dil.ution.
    
        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)
         Beryllium (Be)
         Cadmium (Cd)
         Chromium (Cr)
         Copper (Cu)
         Lead (Pb)
         Mercury (Hg)
         Nickel (Nt)
         Selenium (Se)
         SIIver (Ag)
         Thai HUM (Tl)
         Zinc (Zn)
    Non-Priority Pollutant Metals
    
            Aluminum (Al)
            Barium (Ba)
            Boron (B)
            Calcium (Ca)
            Cobalt (Co)
            Iron (Fe)
            Lithium (LI)
            Magnesium (Mg)
            Manganese (Mn)
            Molybdenum (Mo)
            Potassium (K)
            Sodium (Na)
            Strontium (Sr)
            Tin (Sn)
            Titanium (Tl)
            Vanadium (V)
            Yttrium (Y)
    

    -------
         The three forms of metal are identified and quantified
    becauset  (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 (2) 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
    anrl 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
          MURP Cities Participating In the Special  Metals Sampling Project
                                     Durham, NH*
                               Lake QulnsIgamond,  MA*
                                 Mystic  River, MA*
                                Irondequolt Bay, NY*
                                  Lake George, NY*
                                  Long Island, NY*
                                   Baltimore, MO*
                                  Washington, DC*
                                   KnoxvlIle, TN*
                                     Tampa,  FL*
                                 Wlnston-SaI em, NC
                                ChampaIgn-Urbana,  IL
                                   Ml Ixaukee, Wl
                                   Chicago,  IL*
                                   Trl-County, Ml
                                   Washtenaw, Ml
                                    Austin,  TX*
                                  Little Rock, AR*
                                  Kansas City, MO*
                                    Denver,  CO*
                                  Rapid  City, SO*
                                Salt Lake City, UT»
                                     Fresno, CA
                                   Bellevue. WA*
                                    Eugene,  OR* •
    •Also participating In the NURP priority pollutant sampling program.
                                      35
    

    -------
                                                                                        o so no  100   too
    T)
      Numbers Identify major river basins
      delineated by the United Slates
      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 )
    Beryl 1 luiH (Be)
    Cadmium (Cd)
    Chromium (Cr)
    Copper (Cu)
    Lead (Pb)
    Mercury ( Hg )
    Nickel (Nl)
    Selenium (Se)
    SI Iver (Ag)
    Thallium (Tl)
    Zinc (Zn)
    Aluminum (Al)
    Barium (Ba)
    Boron (B)
    Calcium (Ca)
    Cobalt (Co)
    Iron (Fe)
    Lithium (LI)
    Magnesium (Mg)
    Manganese (Mn)
    Molybdenum (Mo)
    Potassium (K)
    Sodium (Na)
    Strontium (Sr)
    Tin (Sn)
    Titanium (Tl)
    Vanadium (V)
    Yttrium (Y)
    Method Ana lysis
    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)
    243.1 (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)
    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)
    200.7 (4)
    200.7 (4)
    200.7 (4)
    Detection Limit
    ua/l
    10
    2
    5
    10
    20
    40
    1
    20
    10
    10
    10
    10
    50
    10
    10
    100
    10
    20
    10
    too
    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.  1980.  Inductively Coupled
    Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometr1c Method for Trace Element Analysis ef
    Water and Wastes.  Environmental  Monitoring and Support Laboratory.
    Office of Research  and Development.   Cincinnati, Ohio.
    
    'Manual  Cold Vapor  Atomic Absorption Technique.
                                        f7'1
                                        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 on 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 P 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 (%)     (uq/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
    

    -------
                                                                   Tabla II
                                     af *«aaar af Oatactlont,  Maan Concantratlont. Rang*  and  Oatactlo*  Llaltt
                                               Joaclal  Matals  (ten Collected  aa  of Oetobar  IMI
                                        (Coapoalta S«plaa Only - 4» Saaelaa: concantratlona  I*  ua/l)
    tor
    Aol I utant
    
    Vvanlc
    
    
    BarylllgB
    
    form
    Total
    Total Racovarabla
    Dlaaolvad
    Total
    Total Racovarabla
    OlaaolMd
    Nmbar af Qaoaatrlc Maan
    Oataetad valuaa RMK • 0.10 RMK*
    1
    0
    0
    4
    0
    . 1
    Oaoaatrlc Maan Ranga af
    RMK • RMK* Oataetad Valua*
    20 '
    -
    -
    2
    -
    2
    Oataetton
    Limit
    to
    10
    10
    2
    2
    2
    Total
    Cadnlua Total Raco»arabla
    ! Olaaol*^
    Total
    , CTrtjulut Total Haco»arattla
    Olaaolv^
    
    Total
    Coopar Toral Racoovraola
    Oluolv^
    Total
    Uad Total Haco»arabla
    Olaaoiv*d
    Total
    '••reuff Terra 1 9aeo»«raBI«-
    OllJol«»»
    Total
    Nlckal" Total Raeoowatala
    Oliaolvad
    Total
    Salanlg* Total Racooarabla
    OlsaolMd
    Total
    Sllvar Total Raeo«ara»la
    OltlOlvw)
    4
    I
    2
    20
    13
    0
    
    20
    21
    4
    28
    28
    0
    0
    a
    i
    12
    4
    1
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    0
    .
    .
    -
    4
    2
    -
    
    7
    a
    '
    43
    42
    -
    .
    .
    '
    4
    '
    -
    _
    .
    -
    .
    .
    ~
    .
    .
    - •
    14
    12
    -
    
    27
    27
    -
    108
    103
    -
    .
    •
    -
    21
    .
    -
    .
    .•
    -
    .
    .
    •
    1 3
    S S
    J - 10 5
    10-80 10
    10-80 10
    10
    
    20-120 20
    '20-110 20
    20-80 20
    40-740 40
    40 - 740 40
    40
    1
    1
    1 1
    20-60 20
    20-40 20
    UO TO
    10
    to
    10
    10
    10
    10
     •9HK • 9EXWK and Indlcataa non-«ataction.
    
    »*:o«its» I nation  suioactad  In dlsaol»ad  fraction.
                                                               41
    

    -------
                                                 TabI* II  (Cont.l
                                 of Detections,  Jteen Concentration*. Rang* end 0*t*erlon lleltj for
                                 Soeclal  aetala  0*t« Collect**]  *a of October  1981
                                 It* $*•*!•* Only - 48 Se*ol**i concentrations I* ug/l)
    Pollurmt For*
    Torn
    Thai MM Total Recoverable
    Olitolved
    Total
    Zinc Tote) gliiUnariole
    OluolMd
    ' Total
    Mualnua Total fleeei«r*bl*
    ! Olsiolvea
    Tot»l
    .' 3*rli*i Total Heco»erabl*
    ; Olsaol«ed
    ' Total
    j Soron** Total rieeonerable
    Oluolted
    Total
    Caiclua . Total n*ee»*rable
    Olstolwd
    Total
    Cobalt Total %*eoveraol*
    Olsaolved
    Tata)
    Iron Total t*ea»*r*BI*
    Olaaolv^
    Total
    LI r^ lam Total 0*cov*ra6l*
    giuoivM
    Tatal
    <«aon*tluM Total a*cov*r*bl*
    Oluoivea
    Detected value*
    0
    0
    0
    41
    43
    37
    49
    40
    12
    43
    42
    38
    32
    43
    38
    ' 48
    46
    46
    2
    4
    0
    48
    46
    37
    II
    10
    '
    46
    46
    46
    RNK • 0.10 !**(•
    ..
    -
    -
    103
    118
    28
    2.303
    1,487
    II
    43
    34
    28
    13
    27
    22
    20,220
    19.289
    13,923
    .
    .
    -
    3.331
    2.668
    31
    2
    2
    2
    9.339
    9.200
    2.749
    s^'^r
    .
    .
    -
    133
    137
    43
    2.423
    1,487
    98
    50
    41
    42
    27
    32
    33
    20,220
    19,289
    13.923
    .
    .
    -
    3.331
    2.668
    49
    14
    13
    12
    3.339
    9.200
    2.749
    i Sang* of
    Detected Va 1 ue*
    .
    -
    -
    10 - 730
    20-690
    10 - 990
    200 - 74,400
    90 - 44,900
    90-300
    10 - 600
    10-970
    10 - 190
    10 - 180
    10-- 160
    10-230
    3,100 - 121,000
    3.000 - 121.000
    2,300 - 193,000
    20-30
    10-20
    -
    300 - 69.900
    280 - 48,600
    20 - 470
    !0 - I.I4O
    10 - 1,200
    10 - l.JOO
    900 - 26.300
    900 - 29. 100
    300 - 28.300
    Detection
    Unit
    to
    10
    10
    10
    10
    10
    90
    90
    90
    10
    10
    10
    10
    to
    10
    100
    100
    100
    10
    10
    to
    20
    20
    20
    10
    10
    10
    too
    too
    too
    ana indlorn  no»-4«r*erlon.
      »u*Mcr«d in dlnolvvo  fraction.
                                                 42
    

    -------
                                                               T«bl« II  (Cont.)
    
    Pollutant
    
    **jnoanaia
    
    
    HolybdOTtM
    
    
    •otasslua
    
    
    Sodlua
    
    
    Jtrontlua
    
    
    Tin
    
    
    Tltanlv
    
    
    Vanadluaj
    
    
    Yttrlwi
    
    Sumry o» *»
    (O
    form
    Total
    Total Racowerable
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total Rscowrabla
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total ftacoverable
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total Recoverable
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total Recoverable
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total, Kecavei'sble
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total neeo»ersble
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total Recoverable
    Dissolved
    Total
    Total Recuvarsbla
    Dissolved
    •bar of Detections. *een
    Special Motali Data
    aagotlta S«olw Only -
    Huobar of
    Oataetad valuai
    . 43
    43
    30
    4
    0
    1
    46
    46
    46
    46
    46
    46
    •46
    46
    46
    3
    0
    0
    36
    40
    1
    14
    13
    0
    3
    3
    0
    Coneantratloni,
    Collected as of
    16 Saaajlaa: eonei
    iMwrrlc '
    
    -------
      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 1 of Samples
    Arsenic
    Bery 1 1 1 urn
    Cadmium
    Chromium
    Copper
    Lead
    Mercury
    Nickel
    Selenium
    Silver
    Thallium
    Zinc
    60
    60
    60
    .60
    60
    60
    60
    60
    60
    60
    60
    60
    Percentage of Samples In Violation
    Freshwater
    Acute
    0
    0
    3°
    0
    42b,c
    43b
    0
    0
    0
    oc
    0
    37b
    Freshwater
    Chronic
    0
    0
    3C
    2
    Hb,c
    68b'C
    0
    0
    0
    oc
    0
    85 b
    Human
    Health
    0C
    oc
    2
    2
    NCA
    63b
    0C
    I2C
    0
    0
    0
    NCA
    Drinking Mater
    Standard
    0
    NS
    2
    2
    0
    63b
    0
    NS
    0
    0
    0
    0
    in
          Footnotes:
    
          "Violations 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., Hay  II,  1981.
    
                     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)
    1
    i 2 3
    Arsenic RMK - 0
    RMK - RMK
    Beryl 1 1 u« RMK - 0
    ' RMK * RMK
    2
    Cadmium 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
    Selenium RMK • 0
    RMK » RMK
    SI 1 ver 2 RMK - 0
    RMK > RMK
    Thai 1 turn RMK » 0
    RMK * RMK
    Zinc RMK » 0
    RMK - RMK
    Percent Total
    Recoverab 1 e
    .
    -
    —
    -
    —
    -
    61
    77
    93
    94
    94
    95
    _
    -
    35
    85
    •
    -
    ^
    -
    —
    -
    64
    65
    Percent
    D 1 sso 1 ved
    —
    -
    _
    -
    _
    -
    0
    41
    27
    53-
    4
    16
    _
    -
    •
    -
    _
    -
    —
    - .
    _
    -
    27
    28
    Frequency of Detection
    In Total Fraction «)
    2
    
    7
    
    7
    
    33
    
    33
    
    47
    
    0
    
    20
    
    0
    
    0
    
    0
    
    68
    
    'Determined using only those samples with a detectable level of metal  In
    the total  .fraction for greater than 102 of the samples analyzed.
    
    2Fe»er than I0< 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
                fractIons.
     RMK > RMK:  Percentages have been calculated substituting the detectable
                limit for less than detectable values In the dissolved and
                total recoverable fractions.
    
    *0ne data  point eliminated from data  set  due to field contamination.
    
                                      46
    

    -------
                         Table  13b
    Total Recoverable and Olssolv«d Metals  Concentration
        as a Percent of Total  Metals Concentration:
               Non-Priority Pollutant Metals
                   (Based on 60 samples)
    
    A 1 unl num
    Bar 1 urn
    Boron
    Ca 1 cl urn
    Cobalt2
    1 ron
    LI th 1 urn
    Magnes 1 urn
    Manganese
    Mol ybdenum*
    Potassium
    Sod 1 urn
    
    RMK3» 0
    RMK « RMK
    RMK • 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK - 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK - 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK • 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK • 0
    RMK « RMK
    RMK - 0
    RMK » RMK
    RMK • Q
    RMK « RMK
    RMK • 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK - 0
    RMK - RMK
    RMK • 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK > 6
    RMK • RMK
    Percent Total
    Recoverabl e
    64
    64
    as
    86
    100+
    100+
    95
    95
    -
    75
    75
    97
    99
    97
    97
    97
    97
    -
    90
    90
    99
    99
    Percent
    0 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
    In Total Fraction (J)
    75
    72
    53
    77
    i
    3
    77
    18
    77
    75
    7
    77
    77
                           47
    

    -------
                                 Table   13b  (Coot.)
                Total Recoverable and Dissolved Metals Concentration
                    as a Percent of Total Metals Concentration:*
                           Non-Priority  Pollutant Metals
                               (Based on 60  samples)
    
    Stront lun
    Tin*
    Titanium
    Vanad 1 urn
    YttriumZ
    
    RMK • 0
    RMK « RMK
    RMK » 0
    RMK - RMK
    RMK > 0
    RMK » RMK
    RMK - 0
    RMK • RMK
    RMK « 0
    RMK - RMK
    Percent Total
    Recoverable
    96
    96
    -
    59
    59
    63
    71
    -
    Percent
    Dissolved
    93
    93
    -
    0
    5
    0
    32
    -
    Frequency of Detection
    In Total Fraction (J)
    77
    5
    60
    23
    5
     Determined using only those samples with a detectable level of metal  In
    the total fraction for greater than 105 of the samples analyzed.
    
    2Fewer than I0< 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
                fractions.
     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 (I)
                            (In undiluted Urban Runoff)
    Metal
    Bar 1 urn
    Boron
    1 ron
    Manganese
    Criteria
    (uq/l )
    1000 (2)
    750 (3)
    300 (4)
    50 (4)
    Number
    of
    Samp 1 es
    60
    60
    60
    60
    Range of
    Detected Values
    (ug/l)
    10-320
    10-180
    300-69900
    10-1620
    $ of Samples
    In V lol at Ion
    0
    0
    98
    77
    Detect! on
    Limit
    (ug/l )
    10
    10
    20
    10
     Violations based on total  metal  fraction only.
    
    ^Domestic water supply (health)
    
          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 r 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 depositor! 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 L arid 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 foe 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
                   61-1
    

    -------
                                  Introduction
    
    
    The town of Durham, situated in Strafford County, is located in southeastern
    New Hamshire, 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 shellfishing
    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 hydro!ogic 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 occuring 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.
                                           61-2
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
    The town of Durham, situated in Straffprd County, 1s 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 1s 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 Barrington, 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
    
    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 15% complete.   The wastewater
    treatment plant discharges into the low reaches of the Oyster River estuary.
                                            Gl-3
    

    -------
                    Sugarloaf
                    Mountain
                       (3701 ft)
                   o
                  Concord
                       Manchester
    fO Ql
    0> 3
    THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
    
                Gl-4
    

    -------
                                                                                        .IV'UX.--  '-.-•*
                                                                                       •n  .—-» v: •     " • .
                                                                v/v \je«s A,  \' vv
                                                                 >?i. x ••siv) fiv »• -v-\ «-:
                                                                ^^L-VAj-v  VVV
                                                                ' '<—'/m. -S': '—i'.:. u.-\
                                                                            LEGEND
    
                                                                 SEWERED COMMUNITIES  WITH COMBINED  OR P/
                                                                     COMBINED SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
    
                                                                 SEWERED COMMUNITIES  WITH SEPARATE
                                                                     SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
    
    
                                                                 UNSEWERED COMMUNITIES
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.. S
    

    -------
                                   PROJECT AREA
    
    
     I.  Catchment Name - 2 Pte (Pettee Brook at Madbury Road)
    
         A.  Area - 106 acres
    
         B.  Population - 2600 persons
    
         C.  Drainage - Pettee Brook is a tributary draining into the Oyster
             River.  Main channel  is 2800 ft. at approximately 37 ft/mile
             slope in the channel.
    
         D.  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 (19%) 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 (11%) is impervious.
    
             9 acres (8%) is Central  Business District.
             8.55 acres (95%) is impervious.  .
    
             6 acres (6%) is Shopping Center  Area.
             6 acres (100%) is impervious.
    
             55 acres (52%) is Urban  Institution (Univ.  of NH).
             5.5 acres (10%) is impervious.
    
             25 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.
    
         D.  Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment  is 15% 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 «l%) is impervious.
              320 acres (52%) is Forest.
              .96 acres (<1%) is impervious
              11.5 acres (2%) is Water, 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.
                                        61-7
    

    -------
              2 acres (.09%) Central  Business  District.
              1.9 acres (95%) is impervious.
              8 acres (.4%) Shopping  Center.
              8 acres (1002) is impervious.
              380 acres (17%) is Urban Parkland.
              15 acres (4%) is impervious.
              865 acres (40%) is Forest.
              0% impervious.
              21 acres (1%) is Water,  Lakes.
              0% impervious.
              200 acres (9%) is Urban  Institutional.
              20 acres (10%) is impervious.
              270 acres (12%) is Agriculture.
              <5% is  impervious.
               ^3% 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-miles with 62 lane-miles being
             asphalt  in good condition.
         D.   Sewerage - No sewers.  Drainage is all through subsurface systems.
         E.   Land Use
             75 acres (1%)  is .5  to 2  dwelling units per acre urban residential
             3.75 acres (5%)  is  impervious.
             2 acres  (<1%)  is Central  Business District.
             1.9 acres  (95%)  is  impervious.
             11  acres (.1%)  is  Urban Industrial.
             8.25 acres  (75%)  is  impervious.
             110 acres  (1%)  is  Urban Parkland.
             2.2 acres  (2%)  is  impervious.
                                        Gl-8
    

    -------
            5 acres (<1%) is Urban Institutional.
            .5 acres (10%) is impervious.
            26 acres (.2%) is Agriculture.
            .52 acres (2%) is impervious.
            10326 acres (98*) 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  100% asphalt streets.
        D.  See above
        E.  Land Use
            40,000 ft2 ts Commercial Shopping Center of which
            36,000 ft2 (90%) is impervious
                                       Gl-9
    

    -------
    SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING SITES
               Gl-10
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    A.   Local definition  (government)
    
    The present water quality of the Oyster River and Oyster River estuary is
    is good.  The  area  is  slated to expanded in the next decade and the State
    is interested  in seeing if this expansion will affect the water quality.
    
    The state had  recently completed an urban runoff investigation in Concord, NH
    which showed that loads to the receiving water increased during a wet weather
    event.  The State was  interested in comparing the results of the Concord study
    with the Durham study.
    
    The beneficial uses of the Oyster River include freshwater fishing, boating
    and extensive  shellfishing in the tidal flats.  A statement made by the New
    Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission in their proposal to
    EPA hinted that possibly some of these beneficial uses were being denied by
    urban runoff.  The proposal stated that "The largest oyster bed in the estuary
    is no longer considered a significant shellfish resource.  It may be possible
    to demonstrate that this potential resource could flourish once again with
    appropriate upstream controls, which would limit the water quality impact
    associated with significant rainfall events."
    
    After one year of data collection under NURP, the State has identified coliform
    violations during wet  weather events.  There are not numerical values esta-
    blished by the State for heavy metal standards.  Generally, however, the
    heavy metals were below Red Book values.
    
    Analysis is continuing to determine the relationship between" these standard
    violations and any affect on the uses of the receiving water.
    
    B.   Local Perception  (Public awareness)
    
    In an effort to define the significant non-point sources of pollution throughout
    the State, 400 select  individuals representing various local, regional and
    statewide water quality agencies, groups and concerns were requested by New
    Hampshire Water Supply and. Pollution Control Commission to evaluate 22 non-point
    sources of pollution.  The basis of the evaluation was the perceived frequency
    of the occurrence of the pollution, as well  as its socio-economic and health
    impacts.  The summary of the perceptions of  the evaluators indicated that none
    of the 22 non-point sources evaluated were perceived to have a "high" Statewide
    significance.  However, 6 of the 22 non-point sources were preceived to have.a
    "moderate" Statewide significance.   One of the 6 sources singled out was storm-
    water runoff.  In fact, in the individual  non-point source summaries within
    the Section 208 report, stormwater runoff was perceived as a "moderate" to
    "high" significance problem in urbanized areas; especially when located near
    waterbodies.
                                      61-11
    

    -------
                               Project Description
     A.    Major objective
     The final  State of New Hampshire  detailed  208  Water  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,  Swimmable  goal  of
     the Act."
    
     The Durham NURP 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 Water Quality Standards and 3)  model  the  impact
     of  urban runoff upon the receiving estuary stream  and relate this  impact  to
     possible violations of State Water Quality Standards.
    
     One full year's  data base,  encompassing  any seasonal variations which  may
     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 its State Water
     Quality Standards classification and 3) model  the  impact of  urban runoff
     degradation control measures upon  the  receiving estuary and  its State
     Water Quality  Standards  classification.
    
     Phase  II will  also  be one year in duration  in order to encompass any seasonal
     influences  upon  the implemented 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 lower 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.
                                         61-12
    

    -------
    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 stormwater 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 Water
    Quality Standard Violations.
    
    Estuary monitoring is 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  ts one rain gage operated  on  the University  of New Hamsphire campus.
     The gage ts 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 (N02 and NOa),  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,
     pH,  dissolved oxygen  and aklalinity were also included.
    
     Equipment
    
     All  monitoring sites, except those  located in the estuary, have  automatic
     sampling equipment.   Following is a brief summary 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.1
    Equipment is located in gate house for the reservoir with bubbler located at
    the dam.
                                          61-14
    

    -------
      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,  Boy!ton,  and
    West Boylton, plus corners of Grafton and Mill bury.
    
    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 its
    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 Qulnsigamond 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 Boylston,  West Boylston,
    Grafton and Millbury.  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, swimming,
    boating, waterskiing, 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 Millbury are characterized  as areas of slight  decline or very slow
                                          62-3
    

    -------
     population  and  industrial/commerical  growth.  Existing and projected  populations
     or these  areas  are  as  follows:
    
                                          1975                   1985
     Worcester                        171,859                169,400
     Shrewsbury                         21,858                 24,200
     Boylston                            3,318                  4,200
     West Boylston                       6,257                  6,750
     Grafton                            10,584                 11,000
     Mi 11 bury                          12,103                 13,200
    
     The entire  periphery of the lake is densely settled with many private homes
     and some  commercial establishments.
    
     C.   Drai nage
    
     The Lake  Quinsigamond drainage basin  is a headwater basin of the Blaekstone
     River, rising immediately to the east of that river's origin.  The Quinsigamond
     River is  the lake's outlet and flows  to its juncture with the Blaekstone at
     Fisherville pond in the town of Grafton, MA.
    
     The Blackstone River than carries the combined flows southeast into Rhode
     Island and the Seekonk 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
     Quinsigamond 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 fift.een 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:
    
                                      4/26/71        6/30/71            12/17/71
    Outflow (0)                        38cfs           9cfs             47.2cfs
    Evaporation (E)                     3              6.4               1.5
    Tributary Inflow (I)               30.37           9.94             39.63
    0 + E - I    .                       10.63           5.46              9.07
    
    The 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 from the  Shrewsbury  wells  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  the  lake.
                                            .G2-4
    

    -------
    The amount of stormwater 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 stormwater
    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 thermocline becomes trapped and remains in place until the lake
    becomes completely mixed during fall overturn.  The surface inflow generally mixes
    with the epilimnion during stratification.  The detention time of water in the
    epilimnion 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 attempted
    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 may 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.
                                            G2-5
    

    -------
    THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
    

    -------
                       Poor Form
                       Brook —
         Coal Mil*
         Brook——
    Rout* 9- March
                                             — Billinq'i Brook
                                                    -      IO1 Contour interval
    
    
                                                     / \   Samplt Station
                        Lake  Quinsigamond North of  Route 9
                                           62-7
    

    -------
                                                  2000
                                            IO* Contour interval
                                            Sompi* Station
    Lake Quinsigamond  South  of Route  9
                     G2-8
    

    -------
    (cont.).   Bathymetric Map  of Lake  Quinsigamond
                                        ^y~~~~  Depth contour in  feet
    
    
    
    
    
                                        /\    Sample  Station
                 (c)   Flint  Pond
                          G2-9
    

    -------
                               PROJECT AREA
    
      I.   Catchment Name - Jordan Pond (PI)
           A.   Area - 110 acres
           B.   Population -  1042  persons
           C.   Land Use
                13 acres (12%) 1s 1/2 - 2 dwelling units per acre residential
                74 acres (66%) is 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
                18 acres (16%) is commercial
                 4 acres (4%) is Industrial
                 2 acres (2%) 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 (41%) is 2 -8 dwelling units per acre residential
                 21 acres (6%) is 9 + dwelling units per acre residential
                 82 acres (24%)"is Commercial
                 36 acres (11%) is Industrial
                 40 acres (12%) is Parkland
                 22 acres (7%) 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 (85%) is 2 - 8 dwelling units per acre residential
                     2 acres (2%) 1s Commercial
                    12 acres (8%) 1s Industrial
                     7 acres (5%) 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 (60%) is 2 - 8 dwelling  units per acre residential
               33 acres (5%) is 9 + dwelling units per acre residential
               13 acres (3%) is Commercial
                8 acres (2%) is Industrial
              92 acres (15%) is Parkland
              92 acres (15%) 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 (8%)  is  2 - 8 dwelling units per acre  residential
                   63 acres (63%) is Commercial
                    9 acres (9%)  is  Parkland
                   20 acres (20%) is Open Land
                                           62-1L
    

    -------
    VI.  Catchment Name * Tilly Brook at Harvey Place Manhole (P6)
              A.   Area - 1690 acres
              B.   Population- 2845  persons
              C.   Land Use
                   171 acres (10%) is 1/2 - 2 dwelling units per acre residential
                   168 acres (10%) is 2-8 dwelling units per acre residential
                   112 acres (7%)  is Commercial
                    27 acres (2%)  is Industrial
                   893 acres (53%) is Parkland
                    99 acres (6%)  is Open Land
                   210 acres (12%) is Wetlands
                    10 acres (>1%) is Lakes
    Note:  Drainage and Sewerage Information for the Individual  sites was not
    provided in time for inclusion in Report.
                                            G2-12
    

    -------
    
    
    en
    ro
    i
                                                                            M'-TT •bf'S'.^liSSlp ^  ••:••:
                                                                            fUS^^p^>^
                                                                            i1-?! te*****^ - -S
                                                                            "fe^fet^^rr
                                                                      9&J1" \^¥:m^W\
                                                                      i£/y.tei  • k:-,...*: : E?.UM^M
                                                              r?*cw^»lfH   cvr»^s -.?-«-*•
                                                              /8'i-C-^/'*^kt*r*:Wrl^l i   'IP- •? V- viTl,;' V>•"•"• *   **
                                                              S." r <£=-\C ''ff\' ^W A"'.* T   *• **  '  ' V^U-l'.-f  ••"  G<*«^
    
                                                                              ^^S^^:^
    
                                                              ^'%j$^^^i  -    ^/4*^.-;.r
                                                              C^m^-^Sted.U     *•-.:•••. •pS^r.
    -------
                                                                 1-290
    COAL MINE BRK.
                                                            R19	
    
                                                            SHREWSBURY
                                                 JORDAN PONOXOYERFLOW
                                                             ..Rt.20	
    
                                                             FLINT PONO
    
                                                            IRISH 0AM
       MEDICAL SCHOOL
        STORM DRAIN
    WORCESTER
    
       BELMONT HILL
       STORM DRAIN
    FITZGERALD BRK.
        BIRO ST. BRK.
           BRIDLE PATH
           STORM DRAIN
            i
            • N-
            i
          •Utt '• '(IT
                              Lake Oulnslgamond Drainage Basin
                                          G2-14
    

    -------
    Clark St.
                                                               Newton Pond
         Rte.  70
      Boylston St.
                        Convent
    
                  Coal  Mine Brook
    
    
                 Plantation St.
    
    
                 Mohican St:
             North Quinsigamond
             Poor Farm Brook
    
           Eastmountain St.
            9S2
          -]\  Shirley Rd.
    
    V  I£-V\Main  St.
                                                                           Rte 9
                                                               Edgewater  Ave.
                                                               Ridgeland  Ave.
                           Col bum Ave.
                             Anna St.
                    South Quinsigatoond
       SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS
                                  Southmeadow
                                     Brook
                                                                                 Lake St.
                        Sunderland Rd.
                                                                 To Mass Pike Exit 11
    

    -------
                               LAKE QDINSIGAMDND
    
                               SAMPLING STATIONS
                               Lake Qulnsiganond
    STA fl - Lake - 90'
    STA n - Lake - 60'
    STA 93 - Lake - 80*
    STA M - Lake - 50*
    STA 05 - Lake - Surface @ 290 Bridge
    STA 06 - Lake - Surface <§ Rte. 9 Bridge
    STA v8 - Fitzgerald Brook
    STA 09 - Coalnine Brook
    STA 010 - Poor Farm Brook
                                                STA 011- Newton Pond Outlet
                                                STA 012- Laks @ Lincoln Sc.
                                                STA 013- Billings Brook
                                                STA 015- O'Hara Brook
                                                STA 016- Medical School Drain
                                                STA #17- Tilly Brook
                                                STA #18- Jordan Pond Outlet
                                                STA 919- Belmont Street Drain
                                                STA #20- Channel below Belmont
                                                         Street Drain
                               Flint  Pond
    STA 01 - Pond - 3m, 1.5»
    STA 02 - Pond - <§ surface
    STA 03 - Pond - Am, 2m
    STA 04 - Pond - @ surface
    STA 05 - Pond -> 
    -------
                        LAKE QUINSlGAaOND HCRP PROJECT
                          TRIBTJTAR7 WATERSHED SURVEYS
                               SAMPLING STATIONS
    Poor Farm Brook
    Coalmine Brook
                    STA ffl :  at staff gags behind Shrewsbury Industrial Park
                    SIA 02 :  at Route 70 bridge
                    STA #3 :  at staff gage be lev Clark Street
                    STA 04 :  at East Mountain Street,  below golf course
                    STA 05 :  at Hospital Drive (West Boylston)
                    STA 06 :  at Lake Avenue at gage
                    STA 07 :  at Plantation Street
                    STA 03 :  below culvert at Notre Dame convent entrance
                    STA 09 :  confluence with 1-290/Lincoln Plaza drain -
                              Notre Dane property
                    STA 010:  at culvert below 1-290
    Fitzgerald Brook
    O'Hara Brook
    Tilly Brook
                    STA #11:  at staff gage on Lake Avenue
                    STA #12:  below Coburn Avenue
                    STA 013:   at staff  gage on culvert behind 17 Whitla Drive
                    STA 014:   West Brook at Main Street
                    STA 015:   Outlet of  Hill Pond
                    STA 016:   at culvert above  Spag's  parking lot
                    STA 017:   at staff gage on  Harvey  Place drain
    Souph Meadow Brook
                    STA 018:
                    STA 019:
    at Route 9
    at Oak Street between Dalphen Ed. and Judick St.
                    STA 020:   at staff  gage  at South Quinsigamond Avenue
                                       G2-17
    

    -------
              TlO Poor  Farm  Erook
       L12  10 Lake  Ouinsigamond
    LOS 40 Lake Ouinsiganon
                         1-290
    
           T09 Coalmine  Broo
                                               Til Newton Pond Outlet
           rtain Street
    
        -L01 90  Lake Ouinsigamond
      T16 Medical  School Dra
    
    
     T19  Belraont Street Drain
    
                       RI  9"
     720  Channel below
       Belmont Street drain
    
            T08 Fitzgerald  Brook
    
    
    
            T21 Dird Street r;rcok
    
    
    
    
          F07  Inlet from L.Quinsig.
    
         L04 50 LaV** Ouinsigamond-.
       T22 Briddle Path Storm Drain
    
    
                F05 5 Flint -»ond
    
                     T1S O'Hara Brook
           P13 Billings Brook
    
          •L02 60 Lake Ouinsigamond
    
            T 17 Tillt Brook
    
             •L06 10 Lake Ouinsigamond
           L03 80 Lake Ouinsigantond
               T1S Jordan Pond Outlet
                    T23 Stoneland Brook
    
                        F01 15 Flint Pond
    
                           K06 Southmeadow Brook
    
                                      F02 5 Flint Pond
    
    
    
                                          F04 5 Flint Pond
    F03 15 Flint Pond'
    
          H0° Ronnie Urook-
                                                                       FOB Irish Dam Outlet
            LAKE AND TRIBOTARY SAMPLING STATION LnCZTIONS
                                           G2-18
    

    -------
               LAKE QUIHSIGAMOND SEDIMENT SAMPLING STATIONS
    Lake Qulnsigsaond at Deep Station 01
    
    Lake Quiasigamond at Deep Station '$2
    
    Lake Quinsigamond at Deep Station 03
    
    Lake Quinsigamond at Deep Station #4
    
    Lake Qulnsigamond above Lincoln Street
    
    Medical School Drain
    
    Channel below Belmont Street Drain
    
    Mouth of Fitzgerald Brook
    
    Mouth of Coalmine Brook
    
    Confluence of Coalmine Brook and NDA. culvert
    
    Mouth of Poor Farm Brook
    
    Flint Fond at Station $1
    
    Flint Fond at Station 03
    
    Flint Fond at Station $4
    
    Open water in pond below South Meadow Brook
    
    Bonnie Brook above railroad tracks, below railroad tracks, and at
        Creeper Hill Road
                                     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 Quinsigamond Basin to a  system
        which conveys  the  wastes  southward and out of the basin.  A major point
        source tn  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 Water  Pollution Control (MDWPC)  selected Lake Quinsigamond
        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 and  lake sediments.
    
        The 1971  study concluded that  significant impact was being caused by
        urban  runoff  entering Lake Quinsigamond.  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.
    
                                           62-20
    

    -------
        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
        of 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 Quinsigamond 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 limnological  factors.   Lake Quinsigamond
        is centrally located in the largest of these regions, termed the acidic
        facies of the central  and coastal  areas.   By far the most common type
        in the State, this facies is characterized by low pH, low total hardness,
        high iron, and high manganese.   The general  cause for these characteristics
        is the near absence of CaCOs in the rocks and sediments.   Considering that
        the majority of the state's 2,859 lakes and  ponds lie in these facies, the
        regional significance of knowledge gained on lakes of the general  limnological
        type of Lake Quinsigamond 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 Quinsigamond 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.   Ma.lor Objective
     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 stormwater 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 stormwater runoff and to understand
     the  land use/beneficial use interrelations mediated by stormwater runoff.  A
     full range of viable stormwater 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 stormwater
     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 stormwater
     sampling program was identified.   This program was designed to provide sufficient
     information on the quality and mass loadings  of pollutants discharged to Lake
    Quinsigamond  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 stormwater
    runoff on lake water quality.
                                             62-22
    

    -------
    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,  hydrologic 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 hypolimnion 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 Stormwater 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 "P".
    
    Designation                                  Location
    
        PI                                       Storm drain discharge to Jordan
                                                 Pond (Shrewsbury at Lakewood
                                                 Drive and Edgewood Avenue)
                                               G2-23
    

    -------
         P2                                      Rt. 9 manhole (within Regatta Point
                                                 fence at Police Station upstream of
                                                 Belmont 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).
    
         P5                                      Coal Mine Brook at Notre Dame Convent
                                                 (Worcester).
    
         P6              •                        Tilly Brook at Harvey Place Manhole
                                                . (Shrewsbury).
    
    There are ten secondary stormwater 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'Hara Brook at Whitla Ave.
    D.   Coalmine Brook at Plantation St.   I.   Billings Brook at N. Quinsigamond
    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.
    
    Water quality, flow and rainfall  records were collected over a period from June
    to December, 1980.  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
    time.  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
    The Aberjona River Basin Is located to the north of Boston, Massachusetts and
    comprises the largest tributary area to the Mystic River watershed.  Aberjona
    River empties Into the Upper Mystic Lake which In turn becomes the headwaters
    of the Mystic 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 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 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 Hater 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.
                                      G3-2
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
         The Mystic River basin 1s 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, 1s drained by the Aberjona River and Us 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 1s 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 1s also
         a private swimming facility at the Medford Boat Club near the outlet.
         Boating 1s 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, hunid, 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 1s 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.
                                     G3-3
    

    -------
     Upper Mystic  Basin
    
     The Aberjona  River  Basin  covers  the northern half 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 1n  a marshy area to the north of  Reading Center
     and then flows In a southerly direction towards Wbburn.  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 1s channelized
     through the commercial/Industrial  area currently undergoing re-development
     1n the vicinity of  the Old Mishawun 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 Its confluence with Willow Brook.
     It then turns east-northeast until It reaches New Boston Street  In Woburn, where
     It again turns and  flows  southeast until Its confluence with the Aberjona River.
     The drainage  area of Halls Brook Is 2.9 square miles of generally mild topo-
     graphy with some swampy areas In the upper reaches.
    
     Halls Brook and the Aberjona River formerly flowed Into the Mishawum Lake but
     the recent construction 1n that  area has altered that drainage pattern.  Mishawum
     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 Immediately north of Mishawum
     Road.
    
     Below Halls Brook the Aberjona flows south, passes under Route 128 and Olympla
     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 Montvale 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 Stoneham.  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 thetsouth 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,
    Cumrnings and Sucker Brooks.  Gummings Brook  and  Shaker Glen  Brook rise in
                                      G3-4
    

    -------
    marshy areas to the north and west of Horn Pond, respectively.  Gumming's Brook
    meanders 1n a southerly direction, while Shaker Glen Brook generally flows
    northwest until Us confluence with Cummlngs Brook to form Fowle Brook.  Fowle
    Brook flows due east where 1t empties Into Horn Pond.  Sucker Brook rises to
    the south and flows northeast to Horn Pond.
    
    Horn Pond covers a surface area of roughly 120 acres and 1s used for limited
    recreational purposes and as a water supply source for the Town of Uoburn.
    In the recent past Us capacity was Increased by raising Us normal water
    surface approximately six feet.  Horn Pond discharges through a weir structure
    into Horn Pond Brook, which then flows 1n a southeasterly direction through
    Wedge Pond to the Aberjona River.
    
    Below Its confluence with Horn Pond Brook, the Aberjona enters Judk1ns Pond
    and Hill Pond 1n Winchester Center.  The outlet of Mill Pond 1s configured
    as a semi-circle step spillway that falls approximately six feet.  The river
    continues to travel 1n a southerly direction to the United States Geological
    Survey guage located a short distance downstream.  An elevation change of
    approximately ninety feet 1s recorded over a distance Slightly more than eight
    miles from the headwaters In Reading to Upper Mystic Lake 1n Winchester.  As
    the Aberjona River nears the end of Us length It makes a final bend to the
    west, gaining depth and width as it enters the Upper Mystic Lake.
    
    D.   Sewerage System
    
         The upper Mystic Lake watershed is served entirely by separate storm
         sewers.
                                        63-5
    

    -------
    THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    
    I.   Catchment Name - EOPA (36'  storm drain  outfall  draining a 50 acre
         residential area).
    
         A.   Area - 50 acres.
    
         B.   Population - 240 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - Station 1s  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 1s 70% separate storm sewers
              and 20X curbs and gutters.   BOX  of this  area has swales and ditches.
              3W Is not separately  sewered.  There are  no combined sewers 1n  the
              area.   Streets consist of 2.5  miles of asphalt,
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              50 acres (100X) 1s .5  to 2  dwelling units/acre.           '
    
              8 acres (16X) 1s Impervious.
    
    II.   Catchment Name - EOPB (manhole Installation 1n  30"  pipe draining an
         18 acre office park).
    
         A.   Area - 18 acres
    
         B.   Population - 0 persons live 1n the catchment
    
         C.   Drainage - Station 1s  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 1s 70X separate storm sewers
              and 30X 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 (691) Is Impervious.
                                        63-7
    

    -------
                                  fi?£--! - L- ""%;"; / jj
                                  &d£-~"~;i.:  -vir/ «
    yt
    >
    teproduced  from
    >est  available copy.
    MYSTIC  RIVER LAND  USE SITES
    
         G3-8
    

    -------
                 63-9
                                             O  End of Dice
    
                                                In-stream
    
                                                Rainfall
                                                recorder
    MYSTIC RIVES WATERSHED
    

    -------
               UPPER
               MYSTIC
               LAKE
                                                                           UPPER BASIN
                    LOWER
                    BASIN
    ARLINGTON
         Dora tram DWPC 1981
         MoMMdby Ot he. «f Plvw>9 a fny
              C«pl of Cnnranmcilal QuoMy
                                                                     rtrr
                                             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 1s the basic driving for runoff,  infiltration and streamflow.
         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 contibuting acreage defined 1n terms  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,  D.O.,  phosphorus  and coliform.   The
         results of this simulation can be expressed  as  loadings to the Upper Mystic
         Lake.  RWQM will also be used to evauate a number of control  options.
                                      G3-11
    

    -------
         The objectives of the lake processes component are:
    
         1)   to Increase understanding of the chemical, physical and biological
              processes which control water quality conditions 1n 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; 1n-lake circulation patterns; relative thermal
         resistance to mixing; 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 1n the watershed.  The
         Instream sites segment the Aberjona Into subbaslns for the runoff model and
         reaches for the river quality.   The sites for 1n-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 1s being  monitored using Weather Measure,  Inc. P521 event
         recorders,  P501-I  tipping ticket bucket  rain  gauges and  Balfour  gauges.
         At the  end  of pipe and  instrean stations,  permanent installations are
         maintained  consisting of Manning S4040-2 discrete  samplers  and Manning
    
                                        G3-12
    

    -------
         UTL 2102A ultrasonic level recorders,   lake samples were taken manually
         at various time Intervals using a Kemmerer sampler.  In the shallow
         upper portions of the Upper Mystic Lake where maximum depths are less
         than 15 feet, samples were taken from  two depths.   In the main body of
         the lake, where depths up to 82 feet may be encountered, samples were
         taken at three depths 1n five locations.
    0.   Control
         Evaluation of control  technologies and management strategies will  be
         carried out using the  same package of simulation models as described
         above.
                                        G3-13
    

    -------
    Site
      Description
     TABLE 2:  SamplIng Strategy Summary
    
    	Equipment	
    End-of-Plpe/Instream
    
     Sampling	
    Composition (Chemistry)
    EOP A
    EOP s
      36'  storm dtaln  outfall
      draining a SO  acre
      residential  area
    outfall  installation  in
    30* pipe draining  an  13
    acre  office park
                 flow; automatic liquid
                  level sonic sensor
                 quality: modified
                  Manning automatic
                  sampler: Field
                  measurement of bac-
                  teria, 0.0., and
                  temperature.
    
                  same as above
     chemistry
      duration - S hours
      frequency - 5 mln.
     bacteria/0.0./temp.
      5 SJmples-3 on rising
      limb, 2 on recession
      limb.
      sane as above
    baseline and 3 flow
    weighted composites based
    on total runoff volume -
    first 25X, second 25X,
    last SOX.
    IS 1
    IS 2
    IS 3
    
    
    
    
    
    IS 4
    
    
    IS S
    
    
    
    
    
    IS 6
    Aberjona River at Mishawun   s-we as  above
    Rd. with an upstream drain-
    age area of 4,157 acres
    which  isolates the  impacts
    of past industrial waste
    disposal practices  in the
    upper  basin
    
    Aberjona River at Mill
    Street, approximately 2 1/2
    miles  downstrean of IS 1
    with the intervening reach
    characterized by a shallow
    swampy area.
    
    Sweetwater  Brook  at  laple
    Street which drains  1490
    acres and  is the  most
    heavily urbanized sub-basin
    within the  study  area.
    
    Aberjona River at Washington
    Street 2 1/2 miles above IS 6.
    
    Outlet of  Horn Pond  ap-
    proximately 1.1 miles  above
    the confluence of Horn  Pond
    Brook (6272 acre  sub-basin)
    and the Aberjona.
    
    Aberjona River at the  USGS
    gauge located approximately
    1/2 mile above the Upper
    Mystic Lake.
                                            chemistry
                                             duration-24 hours
                                             frequency-IS min.
                                            bacteria/D.O./ttmo.
                                             5  samples-J on  ris-
                                             limb,  2 on recession
                                             limb.
                             baseline on 4 flow weigh-
                             ted composites based on
                             total river volume-first,
                             second, third and fourth
                             25X.
                 quality:
                 flow: Is minute stage
                  reaoingj are recorded
                  it  the USGS gauge.
                                                              63-14
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    A.   Local Definition
    
         The extensive residential development and ever-Increasing business and
         Industrial growth which have occured In the basin, have given rise to
         many water quality problems which have totally or partially Impaired
         water related recreational opportunities In the basin.
    
         The Upper Mystic Lake was used for public water supply until 1895 and
         supports game fish and outdoor recreational activities such as swimming,
         sailing and boating.  Although there Is no present need to utilize the
         lake for water supply purposes, the Importance of Us Recreational
         potential has grown tremendously.  Sail-boating Is very popular and the
         Metropolitan District Commission maintains a park and beach/swimming
         area.  Unfortunately, the water quality conditions 1n the Mystic Lakes
         have deteriorated and game fish can no longer be supported.  At present
         the Upper Mystic Lake suffers from a variety of water quality problems.
         Nitrogen concentrations are approaching toxlclty levels -for fish and
         other aquatic organisms; this may have contributed to the failure of
         previous attempts to stock the lake with trout.  Phosphorus 1s far less
         abundant but concentrations are still In the range of those suggested
         as sufficient for eutrophication.  Low transparency may be a cause for
         the present absence of severe algal blooms.  Although water quality
         improves somewhat from Influent to effluent, the Upper Mystic Lake is
         still In violation of Its Class B standard.
    
         The Aberjona River 1s considered to be the major source of nitrogen and
         zinc, and mainly responsible for existing eutrophic conditions in the
         Upper Mystic Lake.  Stormwater discharges,  Industrial discharges, combined
         sewer overflows of raw sewage, landfill leachate and wetlands alteration,
         combined with low flow problems, have prevented the use of the river for
         any form of contact recreation.
    
    8.   Local Perception
    
         Because of these water quality problems and a recognition of the value of
         the Basin's waterbodies, many resources have been expended at the local,
         regional, state, and federal  levels for the study and control of the
         various water pollution sources.  A brief summary of the efforts pertain-
         ing to the Aberjona River Basin and the Upper Mystic Lake are presented
         in the following paragraphs.
    
         The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control had conductd 1 week
         long intensive surveys 1n 1967-1973,  of the Aberjona River, Mystic River,
         and tributaries.  These were In-stream, usually dry-weather surveys.
    
         The MDC also has 1n-stream water quality data for the Basin from 1975
         to 1978, bi-monthly in spring/simmer months; monthly in winter months.
         These surveys basically offer dry-weather data but some wet-weather
         1n-stream data are available from these surveys.
                                         G3-15
    

    -------
    The 208 progran, undertaken by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
    (MAPC), Investigated storm-related (combined sewer overlfows and urban
    runoff) water quality problems In the Mystic River Basin.  Under this
    effort, the stormwater collection systems 1n the Mystic Basin communities
    were Inventoried and mapped.  An attempt was then made to quantify the
    water quality Impacts of these collection systems 1n order to Identify
    the most significant systems and discharges.
    
    The DWPC 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
    DWPC conducted a one-year Intensive study of the Upper Mystic Lake with
    monthly samplings at Us Inlets, deep hole, and outlet.  The study focused
    on the limnology of the lake and the causes of Us eutrophlc state.
    
    The above survey 1s 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.
                                  G3-16
    

    -------
         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 is 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.
    
    When 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 finfish.
    
    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 War 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 materials1
    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 hydrogeologic 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
    Bi-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
    

    -------
                             Reproduced from
                             besf available copy.
                             \ Hunlington
                                                   - 55^,- — .   I
                                                   dry"--"  X^r"C/^"
                                                   £Z^Q^r/
     MUNICIPALITIES and C.D.P.'s
    (Census Designated Places)  -1980
                                 turtle* »tl«f »ln>
       NASSAU COUNTY
       SUFFOLK COUNTY
    
       in {"TTia  "M *•«•
       « •  •  • •  IK (III
                                                 •I.
                                                 ti.
                                                 II. Ctrllt t. (CMirtl *n.)
                                                 •4. Cirllt I. (•••ItUn »t«.|
                                                 «J.  Orowoc Ct«ik
    ui> mill ituint ntinii
    Cl. ruln*U (till
    ct. tr*»»i (c»«7 it.I
    Cl. Uw«l Ikllw
    C4. ••!! IkllM* Mill
    •i. C»l*r»ck (WT|
    
    •B  • Arrv cloxd
     Figure 1  -  Project Area and Sampling Sites
    

    -------
                                     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 100% 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 - CarlIs 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  100?  separate storm
              sewers.
              Streets consist of 9.5 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
              73 acres (100%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling  units  per  acre urban residen-
              tial, of which 14.5 acres (20%) is  impervious.
    IV.   Catchment Name - CarlIs 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 (100%) 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, 85% served with curbs and gutters.   The channel
              approximates a 22 feet/mile slope and extends 1,700 feet.
                                           G4-7
    

    -------
         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, 10% 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 per acre urban residential,
             14 acres (8%) is  urban institutional,  and  18  acres (10|) is the  stream channel.
             26.3 acres (14%)  is impervious.
    
    VI.   Catchment Name - Huntington (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.
    
          D.   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 100% 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.
    
                                            64-8
    

    -------
    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, 10035 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.
    
          0.  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
    (Mercenaria mercenaria) 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 coliform 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 is 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 exfiltration, 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 chemcials.
    
    New York State's concern was clearly indicated in its New York State Water
    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 nonpoint 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.
                                           G4-11
    

    -------
    B.  Local Perception (Public Awareness)
    
    The forced closing of shellfish beds and occasional beach closings for health
    reasons have caused storms of protest at the time the actions were taken.
    There is contining 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 stormwater runoff.   Consequently there is growing concern
    for the need to control  stormwater, resulting in a very active publich advi-
    sory group for NURP and a high degree of citizen interest in the results.
                                        G4-12
    

    -------
                                 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.  Major Objectlves
    This project comprises sampling programs conducted at nine representative
    sites to monitor the impact of different land uses upon stormwater 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 in 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 (LIRPB)
    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 Water Authority and
    Department of Health Services.
    
    Nassau County is evaluating control measures at two sites.  The runoff
    generated along Perry Avenue, Bayville was previously uncontrolled and
    flowed overland, south along Perry Avenue, directly into Mill  Neck Creek,
    contiguous to a bathing beach.  The majority of Mill  Neck-Creek had been
    closed to shell fishing due primarily to stormwater 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.
                                         64-13
    

    -------
     At Unqua  Pond,  Massapequa,  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 stormwater  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.
                                         G4-14
    

    -------
    C.  Monitoring
    
    The Bayvilie 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 Merrick Road, adjacent to Marjorie
    Post Park.  The drainage area contiguous to Unqua Pond is 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 stormwater 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 is 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'(l) Central  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.
                                         64-15
    

    -------
                                   iUitf     clt* .*&£&
                                   W£-      C^'-.-^rrr::]'
                                    .i -rK    r.^^.r^rm;
      TN-LIVE.STORAGE SYSTEM
           TPERRY  AVE. BAYVILLE J
    Reproduced from
    besl available copy.
                                           G4-16
    

    -------
    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 dissipator.   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 Needs Study (FANS) for streams with-
    out augmentation.
    
    The parameters analyzed in samples from the above sites include:   TKN, NH3-N,
    N02-N, TOC, COD, TSS, Chloride, BOD, Total  Coliforms,  Fecal  Coliforms, Fecal
    Strep, lead, chromium, cadimium, zinc,  copper, iron, and mangenese.
    
    The five recharge basins being monitored by U.S.G.S. are as  follows:  (Sample
    site shown in Figure 6):
    
        •   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  New York State Department of
           Transportation Highway Basin 66,  is  located at  the intersection of.
           Washington Avenue and Executive  Drive in  Plainview, 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 Gary 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  Walt  Whitman
           Shopping  Center on Route 110 at  South Huntington,  N.Y.   This  basin
                                        64-17
    

    -------
            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 stormwater recharge basin is located near the north-
            west corner pf the  intersection of Oak Street and Middle Country Road
            (N.Y. 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 stormwater 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
    # 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
                 Weather Measure
                 Bel fort
                 Marsh-McBirney
                 Marsh-McBirney
    Model #
    P501-I
    Site
    Bayville,
    Massapequa
    U.S. Weather  Bayville,
    Bureau Spec-  Massapequa
    ification
    #4502301
    VMFM 265
    201
                 ISCO
    2100
    Bayville,
    Massapequa
    
    Bayville,
    Massapequa
    
    Massapequa
    Bayville,
    Massapequa
                                         G4-18
    

    -------
    Equipment
    # of Pieces  Manufacturer
    Model f
                                                               Site
    II.   SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
    
    How Meter         3        Marsh-McBirney      VMFS 265
    Conductivity
    Meter
    Cone Sample
    Splitter
    pH Meter
    or
    pH Meter
    D. 0. Meter
    Temperature
    Standard 8"
    meter Manua,!
    Rain Gage*
    Tipping
    Bucket Rain
    Gage*
    III. U. S.
    Automatic
    Sampler
    Velocity
    Modified
    Row Meter
    Mini graph
    Event
    Recorder
    1
    1
    1
    
    1
    1
    Dia- 1
    1
    GEOLOGICAL
    4
    5
    4
    Horizon Ecology
    Company
    Leonard Mold &
    Die
    Horizon Ecology
    Company
    
    Leeds & Northrup
    Yellow Springs
    Instruments
    Science Associates
    Weather Measure
    Corporation
    SURVEY
    Manning
    March-McBirney
    Esterline Angus
    1484-10
    -
    5995
    
    7417-L2
    57
    
    
    S-6000
    250
    none
    Tipping Bucket
    Rain Gage
    w/Recorder
    Atmospheric
    Deposition
    Water-Level
    Recorder
                 Leupold & Stevens   7012
                 N-Con
    none
                 Leupold & Stevens    Type  F
                                                  Carlls  River-Energy
                                                  Dissipation
    
                                                  Sampling  Vehicle
                                                               Sampling  Vehicle
                                                               Sampling  Vehicle
                                                                Sampling  Vehicle
    
                                                                Carlls  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
    Plainview Health
    Center
    
    Five basins, four
    instrumented at any
    given time
                                     G4-19
    

    -------
     Controls
    
     The  In-line storage system in Bayville, New York, consists of a series of
     Teaching-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 (where 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 Mill Neck Creek.
     Figure 7 shows cross sectional views of a typical leaching pool, Teaching-
     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 85% of the Rainfall
     events in the Long Island area.
    
     Unqua Pond is located in the Village of Massapequa between Sunrise Highway
     and  Merrick Road adjacent to Marjorie 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 NURP
     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 SuffoTk County Flow Augmentation
     Needs Study for several of the streams without augmentation.  In addition,
     there is a storm drain  which discharges into the basin from a smaTT  residen-
     tiaT area.  The stream channeT and the recharge basin are heaviTy overgrown,
     the  Tatter 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
    
    
                                        64-20
    

    -------
    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 Westview
    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 SCDHS1 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
        dissipator and wetland has been operating for many years.
    
    The Westview 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,
                                        G4-21
    

    -------
           ^^••^I^.T/1W
    ifeslF&^P
    JM^ff^tna'iJ^bis-** s*t,r <&7&rrr*
    hfJU^l.:
                   	 , . . -  - -i-rrr -*-..«•..»«•. V, .
     PLAI.V SKnT>t£NTTATTO\!^yATtmAL IMPOUXDMENT SYSTEM  A
           1"^ UNQUA >'O.VD;MASSAPEQUA   64-22      iJO
    

    -------
      SAMPLING
      SITE (21
       SAMPLING
    
       SITE(I)
    U.S.G.S.  GAGE
                                                                               SOUTHWEST SEWER
                                                                               DISTRICT BOUNDARY
                                          Figure 4
                                            G4-23
    

    -------
     NOTE:   The following  section  is excerpted  from  the  Long  .Island Regional  Planning  Board's  208 Comprehensive
              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'those 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
                       Landfills
    
    
                       Animal wastes
    
    
                       Cemeteries
      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.
      Category IV
    Causes of ground
    weter contamin-
    ation which are
    not discharges.
    Highway deicing and   Airborne
    sail storage           pollution
    Fertilizers and
    pesticides
    Product storage
    tanks and pipelines
    
    Spills and incidental
    discharges
    
    Sand and gravel mining
    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
    

    -------
        threat—are 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 SPOES 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
      K
                    ;   i>-W-:\'..
                    V./ri.y •.:.-/.   '
                                                                                                                                      LEGEND
    
                                                                                                                       GREATER THAN 40 LBS OF NITROGEN/ACRE/YEAR
                                                                                                                       FROM CESSPOOLS AND SEPTIC TANKS
                                         FIGURE 2—14   Areas ot Major Concentrations ot On-Site Domestic Waste Disposal Systems.
                                                                                                                    G4-27
    

    -------
    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 (Pim, 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 SCOEC states that
                                                                              long    island    sound
                                                                                     a t I i " I i ;:     " r. i; .1 n
                                                                                                                                  LEGEND
    
                                                                                                                              DOMESTIC WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
                                          FIGURE 2-15    Domestic Waste Treatment Plants Discharging to Ground Water,  1978
    
                              G4-28                                                                            G4-29
    

    -------
    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 NPOES program was established in  1973 and the
    SPOES  program in  January  1975; the SCOEC and the NCDH derive  their
    enforcement powers fro'm these.
    
    2.2.4 Sanitary Sewert
          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 SPOES 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
                                                                                      11 ,i ii 11 c    .) r. i .1 n
                                                                                                                                           tecEND
                                                                                                                                            SEWERED AREA
                                                            FIGURE 2-16    Presently Sewered Areas,  1978
    

    -------
    
    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 BO 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,  Kicksville,  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 NPOES and SPOES
     discharges  are  documented  in a 1976 report prepared  by Roy F. Weston
                                                                                   a 11 j ii 11  c     ocean
                                                                                                                                           LEGEND
    
                                                                                                                                           • INDUSTRIAL SITE
                                                FIGURE 2-17    Major Industrial Sites Discharging to Ground Waten  1978
    
                             G4-32                                                                                  G4'33
    

    -------
    (Weston. July 1976). According to the report, in Nassau  1.2 million gallons
    per day ol 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 (Pim, 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 152.189'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 NPOES and subsequent
     enactment of the  SPOES, a NYSOEC 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 SCOEC. These agencies also enforce  sludge disposal rules.
                              G4-34
    2.2.6 Storm Water Baiint
         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 salts, 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  analysis 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 loads 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 (TOO. 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 SCOEC 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).
                                                                                                                         G4-35
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
     NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
      ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.
    
            LAKE GEORGE, NY
    
            REGION II, EPA
                 G5-1
    

    -------
                                   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.  Most 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 Bolton 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.
    
          A1 though 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.
                                             G5-2
    

    -------
    FIGURE  1 - STATE LOCUS  AND PROJECT AREA OF
    
              LAKE GEORGE  NURP
                               NORTH
                               UKE
                               GEORGE
                                                 LAKE  GEORGE
                                                 BASIN
                                            SCALE IN  MILES
                                 G5-3
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    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 morphometric and circulation basis;
         each contains a very deep section and several shallower areas.  The deep Sout'h
         basin is also called Caldwell Basin.
    
         Lake George has a lake surface which stands at 97 m above sea-level and en-  '
         compassess 71 km .  The drainage basin surface area, is 492 km.  The lake
         averages 18.3 m in depth and varies in width from 1.6 km 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,
         Bolton, Fort Ann, Hague, Queensbury, Oresdan, 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
         landjwith numerous conifers also present.
    
    8.   Population
    
         According to Hetling (1974), the population of the Lake George watershed in
         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 (lU.ToTJT.
    
    C.   Drainage
    
         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 and groundwater,  and development of the area by man.  The shallow
         soil  cover,  abrupt topography,  steepness of "slopes, and short travel  of rundff
         make  storm runoff very rapid and tunultuous.   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 streams 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.
                                           G5-4
    

    -------
    0.   Sewerage System
    
         The Village of Lake George is totally sewered with separate sewers and 1s
         served by a secondary sewage treatment plant utilizing trickling filters and
         sand beds.  Phosphorus is removed by passage of the sewage through the sand
         beds whereupon the effluent is released as a subsurface discharge.
    
         The Village of Bo 1ton 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.
                                            G5-5
    

    -------
                FIGURE  2  - LAKE  GEORGE MONITORING BASINS AND  SAMPLING  SITES
    N
    /I
                                                                    ?.eoo
                                                          meters'
                                      ! » direct runoff
    
                                        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.
         0.   Sewerage - 9.^456 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 in poor condition.
         E.   Land Use
              4.48 acres (655) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which .62 acres (14%) is impervious.
              27.52 acres (3656) is Linear Strip Development,
              of which 3.38 acres (1256) is impervious.
              44.16 acres (5856) is Forest.
              556 imperviousness 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 - 0.2756 of the drainage area is served by separate storm
              sewers; 99.7356 of the catchment has no sewers.
              15.29 lane-miles of streets are asphalt (9256 in good condition, 556
              in fair condition and 3% in poor condition); 18.7 lane-miles of
              streets are concrete (10056 in good condition); .36 lane-miles are
              of other materials (5356 in good condition and 4756 in poor condition).
         E.   Land Use
              22.04 acres (< 156) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 2.91 acres (1356) is impervious.
                                           G5-7
    

    -------
              119.37 acres (2%) is Linear Strip Development,
              of which 18.43 acres (15%)  is impervious.
              15.60 acres (< 1%)  is Urban Parkland or Open  Space,
              of which .33 acres  (2%)  is  impervious.
              166.20 acres (3%) is Urban  Inactive, of which
              0.62 acres (< IX) is impervious.
              75.29 acres (1%)  is Urban (other),
              of which 23.57 acres (31%)  is impervious.
              2.75 acres (< IX) is Agriculture.
              4894.17 acres (92%) is Forest,
              of which 19.50 acres (<  1%)  is  impervious.
              42.24 acres (1%)  is Water,  Lakes.
    III.  Catchment Name - Sheriff's Dock  Storm  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.
         0.    Sewerage - 3.66%  of the drainage  area is served by separate  storm
              sewers;  96.34% of the drainage area  has no sewers.
              9.75 lane-miles of  streets  are asphalt  (74% in good condition,  24%
              in fair  condition,  2% in  poor condition); 5.11 lane-miles of streets
              are concrete (100%  in good  condition).
         E.    Land Use
              71.32  acres  (13%) is 0.5  to 2 dwelling  units  per acre urban  residential,
              of which 18.10 acres (25%)  is impervious.
              32 acres (6%)  is  Linear Strip Development,
              of which  12.23 acres (38%)  is impervious.
              7.04 acres  (1%) is  Urban  Parkland or Open Space,
              of which  0  acres  (0%)  is  impervious.
              14.08  acres  (3%)  is  Urban Inactive,
              of which  0 acres  (0%)  is  impervious.
                                        G5-8
    

    -------
              26.60 acres (5%)  1s Urban  (other),
              of which 4.63 acres (17%)  is  impervious.
    
              401.28 acres (73%)  is Forest.
              of which 2.07 acres (1%) 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 - 7.31%  of the drainage  area is served by separate sewers;
              92.69% has no sewers.
    
              6.78 lane-miles of  streets are  asphalt  (60% in good condition,
              40% in fair condition); 3.31  lane-miles are concrete (100%  in good
              condition}; .26 lane-miles are  of other materials (100% in  fair
              condition).
    
         E.    Land Use
    
              35.84 acres (22%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per  acre urban residential,
              of which 12.38 acres (35%) is impervious.
    
              17.28 acres (11%) is Linear Strip Development,
              of which 6.55% acres (38%) is impervious.
    
              15.36 acres (9%)  is Urban  Parkland or Open Space,
              of which 0.42 acres (3%) is impervious.
    
              14.72 acres (9%)  is Urban  Inactive,
              of which 0.14 acres (1%) is impervious.
    
              42.24 acres (26%) is Urban (other),
              of which 25.99 acres (62%) is impervious.
    
              37.76 acres (23%) is Forest,
              of which 0.48 acres (1%) is impervious.
                                         G5-9
    

    -------
    V.   Catchment Name - English Brook (41)
    
         A.   Area - 5248 acres.
    
         8.   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 is served by separate
              sewers;  99.9% of  the area has no  sewers.
    
              24.4 lane-miles of  streets or highway  are asphalt  (100%  in  good
              condition);  35.03 lane-miles  of streets or  highway are concrete
              (100% in good condition).
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              32  acres (1%)  is  0.5 to 2  dwelling  units per  acre  urban  residential,
              of  which 3.96 acres (12%)  is  impervious.
    
              62.28 acres  (1%)  is Linear Strip  Development,
              of  which 7.29 acres (12%)  is  impervious.
    
              8.96 acres (< 1%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
              of  which 0 acres  (0%)  is  impervious.
    
              11.52 acres  is  Urban Inactive,  of which
              2.09 acres (18%)  is impervious.
    
              135.68 acres  (3%) is Urban (other),
              of  which 39.89  acres (29%)  is impervious.
    
              23.68 acres  (<  1%)  is Agriculture.
    
              4956.77  acres (94%)  is  Forest,
              of  which  20.56  acres  (< 1%) is  impervious.
    
              1.84  acres (< 1%) is Water, Reservoirs.
    
              14.69 acres (<  1%)  1s Wetlands.
                                      G5-10
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    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 eutrophication is not the only problem facing the Lake.  Or. 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
         coliform 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 coliform counts ... the
         southern basin of Lake George has supported a noticeable growth
         of planktonic blue-green algae during  the summer 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 human
         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 lakeshore silting.   Perhaps the most dramatic example of sedimentation
    is the emergence of deltas at the mouth of  feeder streams.  Sediments deposited
                                        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 ^ significant part  of any program to preserve  the  Lake's  high
     water quality 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 them 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 summer months.   The Lake  George
     Association, with a current membership of 3000 residents of the Lake  George area,
     has been working since 1885 solely  to preserve the quality of the  Lake.   A  Lake
     George NURP Advisory Group comprised of 15 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
     rounding the Lake.
                                        G5-12
    

    -------
                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    
    
    A.   Major Objectives
    
    The major technical activities taking place in the Lake George study are:
    
         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 stormwater 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
    Bolton landing and, 2) the major highways (Interstate 87 - the Adirondack
    Northway - and New York State routes 9,  9L and 9N), 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.
    
    B.   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 al., 1973)  and 1976 aerial  photographs.
                                         65-13
    

    -------
     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/commerical;
         *     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 samples 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 NYSDEC personnel and sample  analysis wil.l  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.   Water  quality in the near-shore area has received  little
     previous attention.  Most 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.   Monitoring
    
     The  study area consists of two   stream 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 Sheiff'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 (42.0%), 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 parameters listed in
    the USGS/EPA Urban Hydrology Studies Program will be analyzed for as necessary.
    Equipment
    
    Location
    
    Lake"George V.
      Village
    West Brook
    English Brook
    Type
    
    Atmospheric
    Fallout
    Streams
    Cedar Lane
    Stormsewer
    Sheriff's
    Dock
    Marine
      Village
    Stormsewer
    Stormsewer
     Equipment
    
     Aerochemetrics,  Inc.,  wet/dry
     deposition  collector,  buTk
     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-Bowl us
     Flume.
    
     Manning S-4050-2 automatic
     sampler,  liquid-level  actuated
     or flow proportional,  Marsh-
     McBirney  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.
                                     G5-16
    

    -------
    IRONDEQUOIT BAY,  NEW YORK
                   G6-1
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
     Irondequolt Bay 1s one of many bays of Lake Ontario located within New York
     State.   It 1s a prime water resource for Monroe County 1n terras 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 1s truly an urban receiving water body, being completely sur-
     rounded  by rapidly expanding urban development.
    
     The Bay  1s 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 a progressive eutrophlcation
     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 1s classified as Class "8" waters by the New York State Department
     of Environmental  Conservation (NYSDEC).  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 1s well underway.  The expected
     Improvement 1n water quality should move the Bay a long way toward restoration
    of Its Identified  best uses - fishing and swimming.  However, there 1s concern
    by local  officials that urban stormwater runoff,  1f allowed to continue to
    enter the Bay uncontrolled, will deter the full restoration process.
                                        G6-2
    

    -------
              FIGURE 1  -  STATE AND COUNTY LOCUS OF IRONDEQUOIT BAY
                                  NURP*PROJECT
    Monre* County  -
    
    Qty of  Rodwcttr
    
    G«n«aw Rlvtr x"
                                                                       HRONOEQUO:
                                                                             BAY
                                        G6-3
    

    -------
                               PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
     A.    Area
    
     Irondequolt  Bay-Is  an  impoundment  4 miles  in  length  and  between  0.25 and 1.25
     miles in  width located  3.7 miles northeast of the center of  the  City of
     Rochester.   At the  north  end,  it is separated from Lake  Ontario  by a sandbar.
     Its  scenic value  enhances neighboring  real estate, its hillsides have great
     potential as public parks and, despite large  stormwater  and  CSO  inputs, it is
     heavily used for  various  recreational  purposes.  The urban area  of the basin
     generally comprises that  portion north of  the NYS Barge  Canal  (cf. Figure 2).
     Suburban  tract development is  rapidly  advancing  into former  agricultural areas
     in the portion of the basin  immediately south of the Canal and extending to
     Interstate 90.  Farming dominates  in the eastern portions of Penfield and
     Perinton, the southern half  of Pittsford,  and essentially all of Mendon, Victor,
     and  West  Bloomfield.
    
     B.    Population
    
     The  southeast portion of  the City  of Rochester and nine  Monroe County townships
     lie  in the Irondequoit Bay (IB) drainage basin.  The population  of the basin
     is difficult to determine accurately because:  (1) boundaries of  the watershed
     and  of the census districts  never  coincide, and  (2)  the  East Side Trunk Sewer
     (within the  City of Rochester) diverts * portioruof  the  sanitary and storm
     runoff towards the  Genesee River away  from the Bay,  which reduces the IB drain-
     age  basin population.  Based on 1970 U.S. census data, total basin population
     was  estimated at 240,000.  Assuming complete  diversion of Rochester sewerage,
     the  effective population  would be  about 140,000.
    
     C.    Drainage
    
     The  drainage area is characterized by gently  rolling countryside  laced  with
     streams of various  sizes, all of which feed into Irondequoit Creek.   The Bay
     itself is bordered  by steep, wooded hillsides.   The  Irondequoit  Bay Drainage
     Basin (Figure 2) measures 22 miles on the north-south axis and 13 miles  in
     width, with a total  drainage area of about 168 square miles  in Monroe,  Ontario
     and  Wayne Counties.   The major hydrologic features, of the basin  are 1800-acre
     Irondequoit JJay and  its tributary, Irondequoit Creek.  The Creek  is  about  37
    miles long, 'drains  an area of 136 square miles,  and flows from 770 feet  to 246
     feet elevations with gradients of about 20 feet/miles above the  Barge  Canal  and
     about 11 feet/miles  below.  The lower 2-1/2 miles of the Creek pass  through  a
    narrow, marshy valley.  Some 40 streams are tributary to Irondequoit  Creek,
    the  largest being Allen Creek and Thomas Creek.  Continuous records  for  stream
    flow in Irondequoit  Creek are not available,  but a stage gauge has  existed
    on Allen Creek about 1 mile upstream from Irondequoit Creek since  1959.  An
    average discharge rate of 168 cubic feet per  second near the mouth of the
     Irondequoit Creek may be calculated based on the ratio of the Allen Creek  and
     Irondequoit Creek drainage areas.
                                        G6-4
    

    -------
                   FIGURE 2  - PROJECT  AREA
    
    IRONDEOUOrr L«,  •f
    CREEK BASIN \T     r
      | URBANIZED AREA
                                   WEST /
                                BCBOMFIEUO
                                                        SCALE IN FEET
                                   ^'
                                   66-5
    

    -------
    Irondequoit 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-glacial 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 50t 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 Irondequoit Creek.  Mixing 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-in-five-year frequency.  The  urbanized
    areas outside the City of Rochester and excluding the township of Mendon  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 dinectly inte 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
                                              •r^RONOEQUOIT!
                                              ^ BAY                          1
                                                              	-I
    
      LEGEND
    Basin Boundary -*•*•
    Town* UIM — —
    County UIM — — i—
    Qty Urn — ---
    Land UM MooHorinq
       Site Qrainoa* Bain
    Honttarin? Locorton
                                                                          IN rerr
                                          G6-7
    

    -------
                                  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, 90% served with curbs and gutters and 10% served with
              swales and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 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 miles of asphalt,  75% of which is in
             . good condition, 20% of which is in fair condition,  and 5% of which
              is in poor condition.  There is no concrete or other roadway in the
              catchment.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              384 acres (1001)  is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per  acre urban residential,
              of which 146 acres (38%) is impervious?
    
    II.   Catchment Name - Baird 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, 8% served  with curbs and gutters and  2%  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 10% separate storm sewers
              arid 90% unsewered.
    
              Streets consist of  186.37 lane miles of asphalt,  90% of  which  is in
              good condition  and  10% of which is in fair  condition,  and 19.03 lane
              miles of other  material, 90%  of which is  in good  condition and 10% of
              which is 1n  fair  condition.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              18,240 acres  (100%) is < 0.5  dwelling units per  acre urban residential,
              of which 1920acres (11%)  is  impervious.
                                           G6-8
    

    -------
    III. Catchment None - Southgate
         A.    Area - 177.2 acres.
         B.    Population - 260 persons.
         C.    Drainage - This catchment  area has a representative slope of 300.96
              feet/mile, 582 served with curbs  and gutters and 32 served with swales
              and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 36.96 feet/mile slope
              and extend 2150 feet.
         0.    Sewerage - Drainage  area of the catchment 1s 602 separate storm sewers
              and 401 no sewers.
              Streets consist of 2.75 lane miles of asphalt,  952 of which Is 1n
              good condition and 5% of which 1s 1n fair condition.
         E.    Land Use
              177.2 acres (1002) is Shopping Center
              of which 37.7 acres  (21%)  is impervious.
    IV.   Catchment Name - Thome 11  Road
         A.    Area • 28,416 acres.
         B.    Population - 5950 persons.
         C.    Drainage - This catchment  area has a representative slope of 279.84
              feet/mile, .25X served with curbs and gutters and 4.752 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 5% separate storm sewers
              and 952 no sewers.
              Streets consist of 255.75  lane miles of asphalt,  902  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 902 1s in
              good condition and 102 is  in fair condition,  and 25 lane miles of
              other material, of which 902 is in good condition and  102 is in
              fair condition.
         E.    Land Use
              28,416 acres (1002)  is Agriculture,  of which
              1051 acres (42) is impervious.
                                          66-9
    

    -------
    V.   Catchment Name - Cranston Road
         A.   Area - 167.6 acres.
         B.   Population - 900 persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 174.24
              feet/mile, 68% served with curbs and gutters and 22% served with
              swales and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 84.48 feet/mile
              slope and extend 2850 feet.
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 89.6% separate storm
              sewers and 10.4% no sewers.
              Streets consist of 8.67 lane miles of asphalt,  100% of which is in
              good condition.
         E.   Land Use
              167.6 acres (100%)  is  0.5 to 2 dwelling  units  per acre urban residential,
              of which 36.3  acres (22%)  is impervious.
                                          G6-10
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
     A.    Local  Definition (Government)
    
     A dense algal  crop occupies  the surface waters of the Bay continuously from
     early May to mid-October.  Deep sediments  (characterized by citizens  as
     "black muck")  underlie the Bay waters.  Spring mixing 1n the Bay  1s often
     Incomplete and 1n the fall 1s  often delayed.  These conditions have been related
     to  the accumulation of roadway de-Icing salts 1n 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
     1n  the bottom  waters and generate high concentrations of ammonia, phosphate,
     and hydrogen sulfide.
    
     A comprehensive sewer study  conducted during the late 1960s recommended a
     water quality  management program to enhance water quality 1n 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  limnological 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 Irondequoit Bay was beginning to approach a
     nutrient  limiting condition  and that a significant reduction 1n phosphorous
     loadings  would be necessary  to arrest and reverse the water quality deg-
     radation  of the Bay.
    
     Figure 4  Indicates the dramatic reduction  1n 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 1s 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, 1t 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 1t.
    
     While much  is  known  about Irondequoit 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, 1f 1t 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.
                                           G6-11
    

    -------
              300- •
                                                                                                          33
                          23d
    
    
    -------
    B.   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 $80 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 1s a matter
    of re-education as water quality 1n the Bay has been on the decline for
    many years and Us widespread use for contact recreation 1s beyond the personal
    memories of most of Its current citizens.  As word of the NURP study has spread,
    however, citizen Interest 1n the future Improvement of the Bay has grown markedly.
                                        66-13
    

    -------
                              PROJECT  DESCRIPTION
     A.    Major  Objective
    
     Simply  stated, the  primary objective of the  Irondequolt Bay National  Urban
     Runoff  Program (IBNURP)  1s to establish the  significance of the Impact of
     urban runoff upon the  water  quality of Irondequolt Bay and to put  It  Into per-
     spective with other nonpoint sources.  The problems associated with
     Irondequolt Bay  - hypo11mnet1c 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 million and are presently operating.
     Controls for reducing  CSOs to a once-in-five-year frequency have been designed
     and  are presently under construction.  The amount of reversal In Bay
     eutrophlcatlon 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 eutrophlcatlon.
    
     A second, and equally  Important objective, 1s to determine the effectiveness
     of primarily non-struct1onal controls in reducing the impact of urban runoff.
     Accordingly, various management options involving Best Management Practices
     (BMPs)  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
     1s 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.
                                         66-14
    

    -------
      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 Irondequoit Bay
      basin and  at a wetlands site a few hundred yards from the point where
      Irondequoit  Creek  discharges into the Bay and which effectively drains the
      entire basin.  The sane monitoring program will be continued for a second year.
    
      In  conducting  this project, the Vallenweider eutrophication 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 advective 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
    
      Sample collection  and analysis for the Irondequoit Bay NURP are being performed
      by  the U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS) and the Monroe County Health Department
      (MCHD).
    
      Table 1 summarizes the land uses and relative sizes of the five primary
      sampling sites:
    
    
    	TABLE I.   LAMP USE HOHITORIMG  SITES	
    
    
                                                  Oralnag* Area
     Monitoring  Location    Basin Tributary         «i                Land Use
    
    
     Thornell Road            Irondequoit Cr«ek       44.4      Rural
    
    
     Balrd Road  (BOCES)        ThoMS  Creek            28.5      Mixed
                                   •
     Cranston Road      '      Irondequoit Creek        0.31      Middle density residentia
    
     Southgate Road            White Brook              0.36      Coonerclal
    
     East Rochester            Storm sewer to           0.51      High density residential
                              Irondequoit Creek
                                            G6-15
    

    -------
     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 1s determined  at three sites using an  Aerochemetrics Inc.
     Model  301 wet/dry fall  collector. A minimum of  one continuous  precipitation
     quantity gage  1s located 1n  each watershed  sampled.   Because of the large
     basin  area,  a  network of dally gages for rainfall  quantity are  operated In the
     Irondequolt  Bay NURP to supplement continuous precipitation  data.
    
     The constituents analyzed In each sample are:
    
         Suspended solids,                       Dissolved Magneslum-Mg,
         Particle  size analysis,                Dissolved Potassium-*,
         Specific  conductance,                   Dissolved Chloride-Cl
         pH,                                     Dissolved So.
         Dissolved Sol Ids,                       Alkalinity at  CaCo3,
         Dissolved NO.,  NO.-N,                   Dissolved Organic carbon,
         Dissolved KJeldahf-N,                   Suspended Organic Carbon,
         Total Kjeldahl-N,                       Chemical Oxygen  Demand,
         Dissolved Phosphorus-P,                 5-Day  BOD,
         Total Phosphorus-P,                     Ultimate BOO,  and
         Dissolved Sodium-Na,                    Fecal  Co 11 form.
         Dissolved Calclum-Ca,
    
     Sampling  and streamflow equipment at the Irondequolt 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 1s  computed directly by a Marsh-McBirney 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 tipping-bucket rain gauge.  A
    sujnmary of the type of sampler and recording procedure used for runoff  flow
    monitoring and water quality sampling is presented 1n Table 2.
                                      G6-16
    

    -------
                  TABLE 2.   FLOW MOHITORING AND SAMPLING METHODS
       Monitoring
        Location
                   How Monitoring
        Sampling
    Rainfall
       Thornell Road  Mercury manometer     Manning Sampler
                      bubbler gaga-records  stage-activated   5 min digital
                      in graphical  and 15-  or flow-           output
                      •in digital  fora.     proportional
                                             saaples.
                      Stilling well-float
                      method-records in
                      graphical and IS ain
                      digital  form
    
                      Saffle as  Thornell Road -
                      except records in 5 ain
                      digital  form
    
       Southgate      Same as Cranston Road  •
    Baird Road
    (BOCES)
    Cranston Road.
                                                     'Sam as Thomell  Road
                                                     • Same as Thomell  Road
       East
          Rochester
                    Marsh-McSirney
                    floMwter
    Same.as Thomell  Road
    Controls
    
    A wide variety of control measures have been Investigated  for  possible use  1n
    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, miscroscreenlng 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 time 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 removal  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.
                                      66-17
    

    -------
              NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
      METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
              Water Resources Planning Board
                    In Association With
      Northern Virginia Planning District Commission
                          Arid The
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    
                      REGION III, EPA
                         G7-1
    

    -------
                                     INTRODUCTION
    
                                                                   j
     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
     eutrophic 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
     BMP'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 (DEP).   DEP   is responsible  for all  of the project's program
     management activities.   Other COG participating  departments include its Office o'f
     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.  NVPDC 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.
    
    
                                      G7-2
    

    -------
    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
    The Washington, D.C. 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).  Its principal urban areas are situated at
    the head 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, Occoquan 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 loam soils, found on both formations, are
    considered severely erosion prone.  Figure 2 depicts the region's generalized soil
    groupings.
    
    B.  Population.
    
    The Washington, D.C. 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
    jurisdictional boundaries.
                                                 •
    
    D.  Sewerage.
    
    The urban area is served by a separate sanitary sewer system with the exception of
    14,000 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
    

    -------
    cr>
    ~4
    i
    in
                                                                                 CHMHMOOC.
    
                                                                                 MM) or forouAC IIIUMT
                                                                                                                o.c.
                                                                                                  MflMOrOlllAMAMEA
                                 Figure 1.   The Washington Metropolitan  Area and Potomac River Basin
    

    -------
    I
    a\
                                   Figure 2.  Generalized Soils of Metropolitan Washington
    

    -------
    TABLE 1.  LAND COVER IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
    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 (Min. till)
    Cropland (Conv. till)
    Pasture
    Tended Areas
    Estimated Total
    Percent
    Imperviousness
    6%
    25%
    40%
    70%
    60%
    70%
    90%
    95%
    1%
    1%
    1%
    1%
    1%
    1%
    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
    48,332
    23,642
    48,029
    6,133
    436,935
    271,982
    54,323
    22,743
    185,176
    53,083
    1,506,641
                            67-7
    

    -------
    Figure 3.  Major Washington Area Watersheds
                     G7-8
    

    -------
    STORE! AGENCY CODE FOR RETRIEVAL (A) « 22 DC CITY
    STORET STATION COOES FOR RETRIEVAL (S) « shown below for each catchnent
    
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   Catchment Name • DC1, Catchment 001, Stratton Woods, Roadside Swale BMP
         CS= DC151UR06)
         A.   Area - 8,461 acres.
         B.   Population - No data.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 84.5 feet/
              mile, 100X 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
         (S= DC151UR18)
         A.   Area - 11.84 acres.
         B.   Population - No data.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 449.8 feet/
              mile, lOOt served with swales and ditches.  The drainage channels
              approximate a 343.2 feet/mile slope, and extend 450 feet.
         D.   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/iwelling units per acre urban residential
    III. Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 103, Westleigh Retention Pond (wet)
         Inflow BMP
         (Inlet S "DC151UR15; Outlet S MJC151UR16)
         A.   Area - 40.952 acres (Inlet); Outlet Area - 47.9 acres
         B.   Population - No data
                                        67-9
    

    -------
         C.   Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 195.4 feet/
              mile, 83.7% served with curbs and gutters and 16.30% served by no
              sewers.  The drainage channels approximate a 127.25 feet/mile slope,
              and extend 1800 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 83.7% separate storm
              sewers and 16.30% no sewers.
              Streets considt of 3.26 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent lanes.
              Curbs consist of 2.58 curb miles.
         E.   Land Use
              37.96  acrs is 0.5 o 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
          (S= DC151UR09)
         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 50.83% served with
              swales and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 190 feet/mile
              slope, and extend 375 feet.
         0.   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.   Land Use
              16.54 acres is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
              2.24 acres is Urban Institutional
    V.   Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment   , Burke Ponds
         Clnlet  S * DC151UR03; Outlet S = DC151UR04)
         A.   Area - 18.3 acres.
         B.   Population -     persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of 238 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.
                                      G7-10
    

    -------
          E.   Land Use
              18.3 acres  1s 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
    VI.   Catchment Name - DC1, Catchment 106, Stedwick Detention (dry) BMP
          (Inlet S = 151UR10; Outlet S = 151UR11)
          A.   Area - 27.44 acres  (Inlet); Outlet Area - 34.4 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 .
          (Inlet S = DC151UR07; Outlet S = DC151UR08)
          A.   Area - Inlet*- 77.69 acres; Outlet - 97.8 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 6ilO curb miles.'
          E.   Land Use
              Not available
    VIII.  Catchment Name - DC1,  Catchment 008,  Dandridge  Infiltration Trench BMP
            (S= DC151UR05)
         A.   Area - 1.96 acres
    
                                        G7-11
    

    -------
          B.    Population - No  data
          C.    Drainage - This  catchment has a representative  slope of 190.1 feet/
               mile,  93.87% served  with  curbs and  gutters  and  6.12% served  with
            .   swales and ditches.   The  storm sewers  approximate a 113 feet/mile
               slope, and extend  540 feet.
          0.    Sewerage  -  Drainage  area  of the  catchment 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 - DC1, Catchment 009,  Rockville City Center Porous  Pavement BMP
          CS=  DC151UR19)
          A.   Area - 4.2 acres
          B.   Population - No data
          C.   Drainage - This catchment has a representative slope of  135 feet/
              mile,  74.3% served with curbs and gutters and 25.7% served with  no
              sewers.  The storm sewers approximate a 135 feet/mile slope,  and
              extend 390 feet.
          D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 74.3% separate
              storm sewers, and 25.7% is no sewers.
              Streets consist o 1.82 lane miles of 12 foot wide equivalent  lanes.
              Curbs consist of 0.25 curb miles.
          E.   Land Use
              3.12 acres is urban institutional
              1.08 acres is urban parkland or open space.
    X.   Catchment Name - OC1,  Catchment Oil, Burke Village Shopping Center Infiltration
         Trench BMP
          (S? DC151UR17)
         A.   Area - 4.5 acres
         B.   Population - No  data
         C.   Drainage - This  catchment  has a representative  slope of 85 feet/
              mile,  82% served  with curbs and gutters and  18% served with no sewers.
              The storm sewers  approximate a 30.6  feet/mile slope, and extend
              585 feet.
                                      67-12
    

    -------
    0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 82X 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.
    
    E.   Land Use
    
         3.69 acres is urban commerical shopping center
    
         0.81 acres is urban parkland or open space.
                                     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 valleys
            has decreased due to stream channel  destruction resulting from uncontrolled
            storm runoff in urbanizing areas.   This has also resulted in declines in
            the diversity and range of acquatic and water associated species-inhabiting
            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.
                                      G7-14
    

    -------
         •  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.
                                      G7-15
    

    -------
                                 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.  Major Objective.
    The 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 nonpoint 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, D.C.
    region as part of the Metropolitan Washington Water Resources Planning Board's
    (WRPB) initial 208 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 (BMPs) for nonpoint pollution
            control.
          s
            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
            208 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.
    
    
                                      G7-16
    

    -------
         •  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
            BMPs 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 most 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, D.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,  D.C.  area.
    
    More recent studies by the Council  of Governments  have been directed at assessing
    the total  annual pollutant loading (BOD, N,  P) reaching the upper 50 miles of the
                                      G7-17
    

    -------
    Potomac Estuary, 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 NPDES
    discharge permits.
    
    Study Findings
    
    These initial 208-related studies resulted in the following conclusions regarding
    urban nonpoint pollution, its impact and control in the Washington, O.C.  area:
    
         1.   The concentration of pollutant loads in runoff from urban sites was sig-
             nificantly higher than runoff from rural/agricultural sites on a per acre
             basis.
    
         2.   Urban runoff contained significant loadings of BOO,  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 stormwater runoff loadings represented roughly one-half the current
             total annual  pollutant loading of BOO,  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 nonpoint) upstream of the  Washington,  O.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.
                                      G7-18
    

    -------
                     TABLE  2.  AVERAGE ANNUAL  SURFACE  RUNOFF  SIMULATED FOR URBAN AND  RURAL  LANS  BY  SOIL TEXTURE
    Land Use
    Estate Single Family
    Low Density Single Family
    Medium Density Single Family
    Townhouse/Garden
    Hi-Rise Residential
    Institutional
    Forest
    Idle
    Minimum Tillage
    Conventional Tillage
    Pasture
    Tended Grass
    Industrial
    Suburban Commercial
    CBD
    Percent
    Impervious
    3
    12
    25
    45
    70
    35
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    7
    75
    90
    95
    Clay
    Loam
    6.1
    9.2
    12.9
    18.5
    25.8
    15.7
    4.4
    6.0
    6.6
    6.9
    7.3
    6.1
    
    
    
    Clay
    Loam
    With Pan
    9.1
    11.8
    15.1
    20.2
    27.0
    17.2
    7.0
    8.9
    9.4
    9.8
    10.1
    9.1
    
    
    
    S1lt
    Loam
    4.0
    7.2
    11.0
    17.7
    25.3
    15.7
    2.7
    3.8
    4.1
    4.4
    4.7
    4.0
    
    
    
    Silt
    Loam
    With Pan
    6.0
    9.0
    12.7
    18.4
    25.7
    15.5
    4.2
    5.8
    6.2
    6.6
    6.9
    6.0
    
    
    
    Sandy
    Loam
    1.3
    4.4
    8.8
    15.5
    24.0
    12.2
    0.5
    0.7
    0.8
    0.9
    1.0
    1.3
    
    
    
    Sandy
    Loam
    With Pan
    1.9
    5.0
    9.3
    15.9
    24.2
    12.6
    0.9
    1.3
    1.5
    1.6
    1.6
    1.9
    
    
    
    Loam
    3.6
    6.7
    10.7
    16.9
    24.8
    13.8
    2.3
    3.2
    3.6
    3.8
    4.1
    3.6
    
    
    
    Undiffer-
    entiated
    Soil
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    20.0
    32.7
    34.2
    I
    I—"
    10
            NOTE:  Surface Runoff was simulted with EPA's Nonpoint Sources (NPS) Model using a continuous rainfall
                   record (NWS raingage at National Airport) for calendar year 1967.  Total rainfall for the year was
                   38.14 Inches.   Includes only surface runoff from pervious and impervious areas and does not include
                   interflow and baseflow.
    

    -------
     I
    
    
     I -
      a
    eT»
    
     . «4
    
    
    | "
    
    1
                          Biochemical
                       Oxygen Demand
                          
    -------
         8.  Uncontrolled urban stormwater 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 stormwater 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 BMPs are being monitored to determine mine
    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 politcal 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
            meteorologic conditions.
    
         •  Refine the region's 208 "desktop" nonpoint 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 DATA ON BMP CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING
             COSTS
    
    Itemized unit cost information is being developed for BMPs used throughout the
    Metropolitan Washington area.   This information will allow for projection of
                                      G7-21
    

    -------
     anticipated  capital  costs  of BMPs  as  well  as  projections  of  manpower and equip-
     ment expenditures  required to maintain  BMPs in proper  operating condition.   Data
     will  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 medium 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 CBD.  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.   (NVPDC1s  original  runoff studies  for
     the WRPB developed relationships for  highly impervious  areas, but they were  more
     suburban in nature than  the  CBD.)
    
     Task  5.  MONITORING AND  ANAYLSIS 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 locational 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 participates, 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
                                      G7-22
    

    -------
    atmospheric loads delivered by rainout, washout and dryfall; determine the influ-
    ence of seasonal and rainfall variations on atmospheric loads; assist in Identify-
    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 other
    data from four wetfall/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
    

    -------
     Task  7.   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
    
     This  task contains a broad  range of public participation activities geared  to  in-
     forming and involving the public in urban runoff evaluations.  The objectives  of
     composite subtasks are as follows:
    
          •  To inform the public about the problems of urban runoff, the objectives of
            the NURP 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 formulation 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 Committee 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 Controls
    
    Programs  that are  designed to minimize  the accumulation of pollutants  on the land
    surface during dry periods between  rainfall events,  and subdivision  site design
                                      G7-24
    

    -------
    CD
    -J
    ro
    ui
                                   KEY
                                   ®  DHP monitoring site
    
                                     SlriUon Voodi (|ril«)
                                     Oulltl
                                     ««(rld9> {4r, font}
                                      Dl«drH9i (UllltrltlM |>llt)
                                      loct4)
                                   II. im»« «IIU«I Shnmlnq Itnlrr (Inflllr.ll
                                                                Figure  5.    Location of  BMP  Monitoring  Sites
    

    -------
    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 swales 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.
    
         •  Fairidge (Swale Drainage and Reducted Pavement Width)
    
         •  Stratton Woods (Swale Drainage)
    
         •  Dufief (Swale Drainage and Reduced Pavement Widths)
    
    Volume Controls
    
    Volume Control BMPs 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:
    
         •   Westleigh (Wet Pond)
    
        '•   Burke Village (Wet Pond)
    
         •   Stedwick (Dry Pond)
                                      G7-26
    

    -------
         2.  The priority pollutant scan sites are divided into two sets.  The first
    set consists of three paired stations:
             1.  Fairidge/Stedwick;
             2.  Dufief/Westleigh; and
             3.  Burketown Center/Burke Pond.
    The close arrangement of these stations allows for sampling to take place at both
    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 wetfall/dryfall (WO) sampling stations have been established as
    shown in Figure 6 within the COG area as part of this NURP program.  These 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
                                      G7-27
    

    -------
    i
    ro
    00
                                                                                                              CM-VCHT CO.
                                        Figure 6.  Location  of Wetfall/Dryfal1 Monitoring Sites
    

    -------
    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.
    
             Hadley Hospital, Southeast D.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.   This 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 (MSL) 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-Manor and Chester associations.   These are well
    drained silt loam 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 Trias sic sandstone common to the area.   These are silt loam (Penn) and sandy
    loam (Lewisberry) 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 model under existing land use conditions.   Following the
    calibration of this model, the project land use changes will be inputed.   From
                                      G7-29
    

    -------
    CO
    o
                                                                          FALLS CHURCH
    
    
                                                                               ARLINGTON ClVirQ
                                                                                                                   CALVfttf CO.
                            Location of Hi-Vol Sampling
    
                            Stations
                                               Figure  7,   Location  of Hi-Vol  Sampling  Stations
    

    -------
    Seneca.Creek
     Watershed
                                 Metropolitan Washington
        Ptecataway .Creek
           Watershed
        Figure 8.  NURP Watershed  Study Areas  and Monitoring Sites
                                G7-31
    

    -------
     these  changes, the  impact  of development on water quality within  the  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.
    
     Piscataway  Creek
    
     The Piscataway 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 280 ft MSL 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 Croom Association.  These are gravelly loam and sandy loam  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-Leonardtown-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 Piscataway 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 0.01"  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 voltage.   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 may be determined.
                                      G7-32
    

    -------
                          DATA LOGGER WITH
                             TAPE DRIVE
                                                         TIPPING BUCKET
                                                           RAIN GAGE
                                                                FLOWMETER
                                                               DATA LOGGER
                                                             SAMPLER INTERFACE
                                        RAIN GAGE
                                   EVENT ACCUMULATOR
    to
    CO
                           fL
    n
                        12 ndc BATTERY
                     (POWERS ALL DEVICES)
                    (CONNECTIONS NOT SHOWN)
                                                      BUBBLER TYPE
                                                    SECONDARY DEVICE
                                                   PRIMARY
                                                   DEVICE
    SAMPLER
    INTAKE
                                        Figure 9.  Schematic of NURP Monitoring  Station
    

    -------
     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.
                                      67-34
    

    -------
    Wetfall/Dryfall Sampling Station Instrumentation
    
    The wetfall/dryfall (WD) sampling stations have been equipped with table mounted,
    12 vdc battery operated units that collect material that 1s 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
    ^^^^•^^^^M^^^^M^fc^^-V^V^V^^^K                          *
    
    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 flowmeter 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.
                                      G7-35
    

    -------
                                           TABLE  3.   FIXED SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF BMP MONITORING SITES
    O
    
    
    GJ
    NONI1OIIIM 1
    IIU |
    
    A.
    8.
    C.
    
    A.
    B.
    
    A.
    B.
    C.
    
    A.
    
    
    Stratton Hoods
    Ouflef
    Westlelgh
    
    Falrldge
    
    Inflow:
    Outflow:
    
    
    Burke Ponds Inflow:
    Outflow:
    
    Stedwlck*
    Lakerldge
    Dandrldge
    
    Rockvllle
    Center
    
    Inflow: .
    Outflow:
    Inflow:
    Outflow:
    
    
    City
    .NATERSHED. AVMAtt
    AREA IpCnSIIV
    | l«rn) |(DU/ACKE)
    
    8.S
    11.8
    40.9
    47.9
    
    18.8
    18.3
    27.1
    
    27.4
    34.4
    68.3
    68.4
    2.0
    
    4.2
    
    1.8
    2.2
    1.2
    
    2.8
    3.0
    
    6.1
    9.0
    56.0
    
    N/A
    |jsjj;ja.w,K!ja;jj.
    
    22.
    18.
    21.
    21.
    
    14.
    32.
    30.
    
    33.
    30.
    32.
    30.
    54.
    
    69.
    1.
    2 •
    5
    2
    7
    II.
    1
    7
    1
    
    8
    5
    6
    0
    4
    
    5
    IMP CHARACUKISIICI t „. ,..,.„ 	
    
    LARGE-LOT SINGLE
    16.5
    11.1
    14.0
    13.7
    MEDIUM
    21.0
    25.1
    21.1
    III.
    22.1
    19.2
    27.2
    24.0
    34.0
    
    69.5
    grassed
    swale
    grassed
    swale
    wet
    pond
    S10RACE 1
    leu in 1
    „„„ -1 HUH StfAMIE
    °'KM I MORM SIKHS
    FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
    —
    —
    191.400
    DEHSJIV SINGLE FAMILY
    grassed
    swale
    wat
    pond
    —
    135.000
    — too
    — too
    Surface Area: 100
    35.500 sq. ft.
    RESIDENTIAL
    — 100
    Surface Area: 100
    41.400 sq. ft.
    yi or CAUIMENI A«A|j OF CA1CHMJHI A»fA
    IIH CIM1 1 CUITEM | NI1H NO SENEM
    
    0 0
    0 0
    83.70 16.30
    
    0 0
    100 0
    TOUNIIOUSE/CARDEN APARTMENTS
    dry
    pond
    38.000
    (NPS)
    dry 210.000
    pond (10 yr/Zhr)
    Infiltra-
    tion pits
    IV.
    porous
    pavement
    4.060
    (void
    space)
    OFFICE
    27.400
    (void
    space)
    5.5* 36" riser 100
    7.5* riser 100
    Perforated 6" 100
    tile drains
    
    Perforated 6' 100
    drains
    79.67 20.33
    68.26 31.74
    100 0
    
    74.30 25.70
    V. INDUSTRIAL
    A.
    Bulk Hall
    Center '
    Inflow:
    Outflow: '
    19.0
    20.1
    N/A
    N/A
    83.0
    78.5
    83.0
    78.5
    dry
    pond
    68.000
    (NPS)
    1.5* 8* dlam. 100
    riser
    * *
    VI. SHOPPING CENTER
    A.
    Burke Village
    Shopping Center
    4.S
    N/A
    79.2
    79.2
    Infiltra-
    tion pits
    11.240
    (void
    space)
    " •"
    
                 •Steuwlck has been Modified to function as i BMP dry pond  (see features affecting the monitoring sites at the end of Section IV  for • complete discussion
                  of nod)f(cations).
                                                                      G8-1
    

    -------
     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
    
    
     In over 375 years,  the Baltimore metropolitan area has developed into one of
     the nation's largest urban centers.   This growth,  spawned primarily by commercial
     and industrial interests centered upon maritime  activities,  has been a major
     factor of the degradation in quality of the surrounding waters.  The region's seven
     major watersheds provide rapidly flowing freshwater to numerous estuarine
     embayments 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;
     financed  algal  propagation with resulting eutrophication  in  fresnwater  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  (JFURP)  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 U.  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 U. 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.
                                        G8-2
    

    -------
                                   PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.  Area
        The Baltimore metropolitan region is an area of approximately  2,200 square
        miles.  The area  is situated in east central Maryland to the west  of the
        Chesapeake Bay and approximately 40 miles northeast of Washington,  D. C.
        The urbanized portion of the region is 589 square miles (26% 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
        (1980).  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.
    
    C.  Drainage
    
        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.  Sewerage
    
        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 201  studies are directed  at  correcting these
        problems.
                                         68-3
    

    -------
    FIGURE 1 - THE BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN AREA
               AND JONES FALLS WATERSHED
                     G8-4
    

    -------
                                     PROJECT AREA
      I.  Catchment Name  - MD1, 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 - 34,581 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                 Total Acreage            % of Total Drainage Area
             Urban
             - Residential               15,082                           44
             - Commercial                 1,586                            5
             - Industrial                   825                            2
             - Institutional              1,452 .                          4
             - Expressways                  461                            1
             - Cemetary/Recreational      1,955                            6
             + Total  Urban               21,361                           62
             Non-urban
             - Agriculture                4,192                           12
             - Brush/Grass                1,059                     .       3
             - Woodlands                  7,672                           22
             - Reservoir                    155                           .4
             - Quarry/Landfill              142                           .4
             + Total  Non-urban           13,220                           38
    II.  Catchment Name - MD 1,  008,  Lake Roland
         The Lake Roland catchment area comprises  the  upper  Jones Falls Watershed and
         is approximately 35 square miles.
         A.  Area - 22,142 areas
         B.  Population - Not yet compiled
         C.  Drainage - Subsurface and  surface conveyance to the Jones  Falls and
             Lake Roland.  Representative slope of overall drainage basin is 63.32
             feet per mile.
                                           68-5
    

    -------
               -LEGEND-
    •   RECEIVING WATERS STATION
    O   SMALL HOMOGENEOUS CATCHMENT
    &   AIR DEPOSITION STATION
    O   SUPPLEMENTAL RAlNGAGE
    FIGURE 2 - JONES FALLS WATERSHED
                AND SAMPLING STATION
                LOCATIONS
                                       G8-6
    

    -------
          D.  Sewerage - Not yet compiled
          E.  Land Use                 Total Acreage            % of Total Drainage Area
              Urban
              - Residential                7,846                             36
              - Conmercial                   428                              2
              - Industrial                   212                              1
              - Institutional                831                              4
              - Expressways                  276                              1
              - Cemetary/Recreational        843                              4
              Total urban                 10,436                             47
              Non-urban
              - Agriculture.                4,192                            119
              - Brush/Grass                  732                              3
              - Woodlands                  6,575                             30
              - Reservoir                     92                             .4
              - Quarry/Landfill              115                             .5
              Total Non-urban             11,706                             53
              Percent of impervious area not compiled.
    III.  Catchment Name - MD1, 007, 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 small 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  100% separate  storm sewer.
                                           G8-7
    

    -------
         E.  Land Use                 Total Acreage            % of Total Drainage Area
             Urban  •
             - Residential                1,472                             72
             - Commercial                    95                              5
             - Industrial                     0                              0
             - Institutional                172                              8
             - Expressways                    0                              0
             - Cemetary/Recreational        118                              6
             Total Urban                  1,857                             91  .
             Non-urban
             - Agriculture                    0                              0
             - Brush/Grass                   83                              4
             - Woodlands       .101                              5
             - Reservoir                      6                             .3
             - Quarry/Landfill                0                              0
             Total Non-urban                190                              9
             Percent of.impervious area not compiled.
    IV.  Catchment Name T MD1, 006, Biddle Street
         The 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
         B.  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.
                                           G8-8
    

    -------
        E.  Land Use            •    . Total Acreage            % of Total Drainage Area
            Urban
            - Residential               14,797            .                 44
            - Conmercial                 1,425                              4
            - Industrial                   744                              2
            - Institutional              1,407                              4
            - Expressways                  442                              1
            - Cemetary/Recreational      1,943                              6
            Total Urban                 20,758                             61
            Non-urban
            - Agriculture                4,192                             12
            - Brush/Grass                1,059                              3
            - Woodlands                  7,672                             23
            - Reservoir                    155                             .5
            - Quarry/Landfill              142                             .4
            Total Non-urban             13,220                             39
            Percent of impervious area not compiled.
        There are five small homogeneous catchments:  Reservoir Hill, Hampden,
        Mt. Washington, Bolton Hill, and Homeland.  These areas are located within
        the Jones Falls watershed and range in size from 10 to 23 acres. ' The" areas
        are predominantly residential.
    V.  Catchment Name - MD1, 001, 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 102.7 feet per mile.
        D.  Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
            10O% is served by curbs and gutters.
        E.  Land Use
            - Residential
              + High (9 more more du/ac) = 10.42 acres, 100% of total drainage
                area.
                                        68-9
    

    -------
       VI.   Catchment Name  - MD1,  002,  Hampden
    
            A.  Area -  17.02 acres
    
            B.  Population  - 681 persons
    
            C.  Drainage -  Subsurface conveyance to the Jones Falls.  Main  channel
               is 875  feet  at a slope  of approximately 274.56 feet per mile.
    
            D.  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, 28% of total drainage area
    
     VII.   Catchment Name - MD1, 003,  Mt. Washington
    
            A.  Area -  16.58 acres
    
            B.  Population - 195 persons
    
            C.  Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to 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 100% 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,  004,  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.
    
           D.  Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment  is  100% separate storm sewers.
               100% is  served by curb  and gutter.
                                            G8-10
    

    -------
         E.  Land Use
             - Residential
               + High (more than 9 du/ac) = 13.28 acres, 95% of total drainage
                 area
             - Recreational = .73 acres, 5% of total drainage area.
    IX.  Catchment Name - MD1, 005, Homeland
         A.  Area - 23.03 acres
         B.  Population - 204 persons
         C.  Drainage - Subsurface conveyance to Stony Run a tributary of the
             Jones Falls.  Main channel is 350 feet at a slope of approximately
             181.02 feet per mile.
         D.  Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 100% separate storm sewers.
             100% is served by curb and gutter.
         E.  Land Use
             - Residential
               + Low (J4 to 2 du/ac) = 23.03 acres, 100% of total drainage area.
                                          G8-11
    

    -------
                                        PROBLEM
    A.  Local Definition (Government)
        Section 208 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 (RPC),  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 208 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 of 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 60-acre impoundment  completed in 1861 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 NPOES
       discharges from industrial/commercial users, sanitary sewer  overflows, illegal
       connections, and increased runoff volumes due to impervious  areas.
    
    
                                         G8-12
    

    -------
        To recover and maintain 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 signficant levels of
        nonpoint pollution entering the receiving streams in the watershed.  The
        direct impacts upon receiving streams and relative magnitude comparisons to
        other pollutant 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 JFURP,
        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 be 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  Falls outflow.
                                        G8-13
    

    -------
     2.   Strong  local  community interest  in  neighborhood  "cleanliness" and
         nearby  streams  via clean-up campaigns,  stream  "watchdogs",  and other
         actions.
    
     3.   Independent stream monitoring  and revitalization  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.
                                    G8-14
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    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 "208" Program.
    
        7.   Provide a basis for transfer of project findings to the related  techni-
            cal public  and private communities for  future stormwater 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.
                                         G8-15
    

    -------
    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  surrniarized'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 pre-
           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/commercial 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.
    
     '10.  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 the 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 flowmeter 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 0.01 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  USGS; 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 are 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 U. 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.
                                      68-17
    

    -------
        The study of urban  housekeeping practices  (including street, alley,  and
        stormdrain cleaning; animal litter control; and general sanitation)  will
        examine the feasibility of applying these methods in low to high density
        commercial 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 the city are, for the most part,
        well-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
        being 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 the various aspects of the Project is summarized below:
    
        1.   The collection of  base-flow and storm event samples occurs regularly
            at the stream monitoring stations;  activities were initiated in
            October,  1980.
    
        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 raingages.
    
        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/commercial discharge monitoring awaits
           implementation.
    
        8.  Instream 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
    

    -------
    10.  Field sampling associated with the Lake Roland Clean Lakes Project
         has been completed and a draft final report is nearing 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
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
    
    
    The 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for Waccamaw Regional Planning
    and Development Council (WRPOC) 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.
                                      G9-2
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    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.
    D.   Sewerage System
    The Myrtle Beach area is served entirely by separate sewer systems.
                                    69-3
    

    -------
                          /\
              1«UIO«9  /  \
                                             NORTH    CAROLINA
                    '   9 I W U 0
      x      —
                       I
          SOUTH    CAROLINA
    
    xf                 *     *
                                J     CONWAY
                                                  SCAOIAN  SHORES
                                               MYRTU2 3EACH
    
    
    
                                            SURPS10E 3 EACH
                                              LOCATION    MAP .
                                                       TOWN  LOCATION
                                G9-4
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    A.   Local Definition (Government)
    
    The Waccamaw Regional Planning and Development Council received a grant from
    the USEPA in June 1375 to prepare an areawide water quality management plan
    for the Waccamaw region.  The Waccamaw Regional 208 Areawide 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, stormwater runoff,
    groundwater pollution abatement-and placed the responsibility for planning
    and implementing these requirements with regional and local agencies.
    
    The 208 Areawide Water 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 Beach'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
    trade, which is the. prime revenue producing "industry" of the Grand Strand.
    The local  decision makers felt that the water quality problems  that they
    felt existed potentially threatened the source of tourist expenditures in
    South Carolina.
    
                                   69-5
    

    -------
     In  addition to the water quality problem, another major  area of concern  to
     the  local government was the beach erosion.  Stormwatar  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 Tine 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 from 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 stormwater 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,
    Waccamaw RPOC, EPA and South Carolina DHEC 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 program.  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 sources of the coliforms were to also be defined.  The  ratios of fecal
    coliform 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
    pools.
    
    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 and random sampling
    stations are shown in the following maps.
    
                                   69-7
    

    -------
     The  City of Myrtle Beach was divided  into  six  contigious  sections  according
     to predominant'land use.  A brief description  of each  section  is  shown  in  the
     following table:
     Section
    Location
    
    North Myrtle
    Beach City
    Limits to
    69th Ave.
    North
    
    69th Ave. North
    To Sunset Trail
    
    Sunset Trail to
    Hampton Circle
    
    Hampton Circle to
    29th Ave. North
    
    29th Ave. North to
    2Cth Ave. South
    
    20th Ave. South to
    South Myrtle Beach
    City Limits
    Predominate Land .Use
    
         Open Space
    Direct Beach Discharge No.
    
            1-12
                                          Mixed Residential
                                          and Commercial
    
                                          Residential
                                          Mixed Residential
                                          and Commercial
    
                                          Commercial
                                          Mixture of Commercial,
                                          Residential, and Open
                                          Space
                                       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 a rainfall event.
    Samples were also collected during dry weather as a means of comparison.  The
    samples were analyzed for fecal coliform 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-
    effective 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 Myrtle
    Beach's runoff were: ocean discharges, collection and diversion,  disinfection
    and infiltration.
                                     G9-8
    

    -------
    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 7/8%,
    an evaluation period of 20 years, service life of the pumping facilities  of
    30 years, and service life of structures and piping of 50 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              Construction Cost with Interception Sewer in Beach
    
    Ocean Discharge from                         32*800,000
    one outfall pipe with
    disinfection
    
    Ocean discharge from                         37,700,000
    four outfall pipes with
    disinfection
    
    Ocean discharge from                         40,000,000
    four diffusers
    
    Intracoastal  Waterway                        41,300,000
    d i scharge
    
    Ocean discharge from                         44,500,000
    one diffuser
                                       G9-9
    

    -------
    
    DIRECT 9EACH DISCHARGES
    MYRTLE 2EACH
    .G9-10
    

    -------
    f-
    DIRECT SEACH DISCHARGES
    — ton«iMa irireta
    - rr»tf Mcx>«cts
    MYRTL£ =EACH
    STORM sewes »«!ojecT
    

    -------
    SAMPLING  ST4710W3
    Reproduced from
    best available copy
                                                   MYRTLi   SEACH
    
    
                                                  STOHM
        69-12
    

    -------
    _
    

    -------
    RANDOM SAMPLING STATIONS
                                       MYR7L-   =£>iCH
                                       STORM sr*63 »«OJCT
            G9--14
    

    -------
                          MYRTLE  3EACH
    G9-15
    

    -------
    Reproduced from
    best  available copy.
    -69-16-
    

    -------
         ^   2EACH
    
    
    
    
    STCRM JCWEA
    

    -------
                             S7SETT UNO  SOURCE SAMPLING S.CCSTIONS
    Reproduced from
    best available  copy.
                                                                            MYRTLi    3EACH
    
    
                                                                                        STUOT
    69-18
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
     NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
          NATURAL RESOURCES
    
          WINSTON-SALEM, NC
    
           REGION IV, EPA
              G10-1
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
     In  North Carolina, the industries and overall population are relatively dispersed.
     Consequently, water pollution effects characteristic of large urban cities in
     other  parts of the nation are not pronounced.  Only 37.3 percent of North Carolina s
     1970 population of 5,082,059 lived in standard metropolitan statistical areas (5M5A s)
     Nationally, 68.5 percent of the population 1s centered in SMSA populations.
    
     Seven  SMSA's are designated in North Carolina:  Asheville, Burlington,
     Charlotte-Gastonia, Fayetteville, Greensboro-Winston-Sal em-High 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 portion 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 termed 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 Metrolina area (centered in
     Charlotte), the Triad (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point), and the Research
     Triangle (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill).
    
     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-Sal em area was designated by DEM 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 Winston-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  (CBD)  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 quarterly basis in Tar Branch,  the stream the Central
    Business District discharges  into.
                                          610-2
    

    -------
    The results of this study were consistent with earlier studies.  That is, concen-
    trations of most pollutants were higher in the Central  Business District during
    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 stormwater 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 Winston-Sal em urban runoff project was to evaluate some of the
    techniques mentioned in this plan under a variety of real  world conditions.
                                           'G10-3
    

    -------
                               PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
     A.    Area
    
          The Winston-Sal em NURP  project  encompasses several jurisdictions  including
          Forsyth  County and the  city of  Winston-Sal em.
    
          Located  in  north  central  North  Carolina in the middle Piedmont Plateau,
          Forsyth  County is characterized by a foothill terrain.  Elevations  range
          from a low  of about 700 feet along the Yadkin River to points of  about
          1100 feet along the divide between the Dan-Roanoke Basin and the  Yadkin
          River Basin, with an average elevation of about 870 feet.
    
          The 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,  erodability, and other factors.
    
          The quality of the groundwater  for Forsyth County is good and the mineral
          content  is  low.   The dissolved  solids content ranges from about 30 to 160
          mg/1, but is generally  between  50 and 100 mg/1.
    
          Winston-Sal em 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 miles.
    
          Approximately 81%  of the  land area in Winston-Salem is in residential and
          related uses.  Industry accounts for about 7% of the area.  Commercial use
          accounts for another 7%,  and the remaining 51 is in vacant lots.
    
          The average annual  temperature  is 50.5°F, with an average monthly temperature
          of  41°F in  December to  78°F in July.  Precipitation averages "about 44.2 inches
          per year.
    
          Summer rainfall  is  characterized by thunderstorms with occasional  hail.
          Winter rainfall  results mainly from low-pressure storms  and is less variable
          than summer rainfall.  The total snowfall  in Forsyth County every winter
          ranges from one inch to two feet with an  average total  amount of nine inches.
    
    B.    Population
    
         The 1978 population estimate for Forsyth  County is 233,600.   Future projections
         done in 1976 were 238,200 by 1980 and 260,900 by 1990.
    
    C.   Drainage
    
         Drainage patterns in Forsyth County follow three main directions.   A very
         small fraction flows eastward and is received by the Cape  Fear River.
         Approximately 22% of the county's drainage flows north  and is  contained
         within the Dan-Roanoke River basin.   Southwestward flow  into the Yadkin
         River accounts for approximately 78% of the drainage.
    
                                            G10-4
    

    -------
         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 miles in Forsyth County), and
         Muddy Creek (drainage 159.2 square miles in Forsyth County).  The Muddy
         Creek basin drains a major portion of urban Forsyth County, including
         all of Winston-Sal em, portions of the municipalities of Kernersville
         and Rural Hall, and portions of the unincorporated communities of Walkertown
         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 Haw and Deep Rivers, and northeastward into
         the Dah-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
    

    -------
                 O Winston-Sal em
    OCharlotte
                                               O
    Durham
                                                        Raleigh
                                                O  Fayettevllle
                              THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
    

    -------
                    NOKIH CAROLINA
                     RIVER BASINS
    01
    02
    03
    04
    05
    06
    07
    07A
    liaad
    Capa Faar
    Catavba
    Chowan
    Fianch Bioad
    Hiwassaa
    Llltla  Tan.
    Savaaaak
     01    lombei
     09    Meusa
    10114 Naw-Watauia
     11    Pasquolank
           Roaaoka
           Tar-Pamllco
           Wbila  Oak
    12
    13
    15
    16
                                                     WILMINGTON
    Vadkln-Pii Dia
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   Catchment Name - NC 1023 Ardmore
         A.   Area - 324 acres.
         B.   Population - 1846 persons.
         C.   Drainage - Burke Branch is a tributary draining the Ardmore
              residential district.
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment is 97.7% separate storm
              sewers.  2.32 is served by on-site systems.  All of the separate
              storm sewered area has curbs and gutters.  Streets consist of
              26 miles of asphalt.
         E.   Land Use
              38.9 acres (12%)  Urban Parkland.
              5.73 acres (2X)  is Light Industrial.
              6.28 acres (2X)  is Linear Strip Development.
              .95 acres (< IX)  is 78 dwelling units per acre residential.
              269.36 (832)  is  2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
    II.   Catchment Name - NC  1013 Central  Business District
         A.   Area - 22.7 acres.
         B.   Population -  0 persons.
         C.   Drainage  - Site  is  a storm sewer draining into Tar Branch  Tributary
              to Muddy  Creek.
         0.   Sewerage  - Drainage area of  catchment is 100X separate storm sewers.
              All  of the separate storm  sewered  area has  curbs and  gutters.  Streets
              consist of 3.68 miles  of asphalt.
         E.   Land Use
              22.7 acres  (100%)  is Central Business District
                                       G10-8
    

    -------
    LOCATION OF WATERSHEDS TO'SE MONITORED
                          G10-9
    

    -------
    .
    
    
            Winston-Salem,  N.C.
             Central Business District  Site
    Reproduced from
    best available  copy.
                 G10-10
    

    -------
    Winston-Salem, N.C.
     Ardmore Residential Site
             610-11
    

    -------
                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.   Major Objective
         The primary objective of the Winston-Sal em NURP 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.  Tymco Regenerative Air Sweepers and various cleaning
         frequencies were investigated in small-scale field tests and large-scale
         program tests in selected watershed.   Small-scale tests included  determination
         of accumulation rates of street surface solids by weight and particle size
         distributions and associated, attached contaminants.
    
         Larger scale programmatic 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 of the pollutant contributions washed out
         of the atmosphere by precipitation were made.
    
         The watersheds monitored are representative of about  88% of the land area
         of Winston-Sal em, and a large percentage  of most  urban areas in North
         Carolina.  The CBD 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 the city area and thus a large overall  pollution potential.
    
    B.   Methodologies
    
         The full  scale tests of Best Management Practices was divided into four
         subtasks. 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 Rate Determinations
    
         A  knowledge of  the accumulation rates 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.
                                             G10-12
    

    -------
     Solids accumulations within each 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 subsamples
     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 subsamples 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 dfferent 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.
                                           G10-13
    

    -------
          3.   Street Cleaning Equipment Performance Determinations
    
          Vacuum 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.   Catch-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  BMP's.  Total loads  washed off and concentrations  were
          compared to 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 s-ites.
    
         Aerochemetrics Model  301 wetfall/dryfall samplers were used to  collect  the
         atmospheric deposition samples.  Wetfall samples were collected on  an event
         basis.  Dryfall samplers were collected on a monthly basis.
    
    D.   Controls
    
         As described in the Methodologies section, both street sweeping practices
         and catch-basin cleaning practices were evaluated.  The  methods used  for
         these evaluations are described in Section B.
    
    
                                             G10-14
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    A.   Local  Definition
    
         Several  studies have been conducted  1n North  Carolina  to  determine  the extent
         of degradation of urban streams.   These studies  in  Durham,  Raleigh, Asheville,
         and Winston-Sal em have shown that, under present conditions,  almost all  urban
         streams  will be unable to meet the 1983 water quality  goals.
    
         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 load-
         ings for most of the pollutant parameters monitored.   Significantly high
         concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals,  notably  phosphorus  and lead,
         respectively were observed.  Additionally, work  conducted by  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  be
         severely biologically degraded.
    
         The Winston-Salem area was designated by 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-Salem
         as a study  area lies  in the fact that the city is the  first major urban  center
         below  the headwaters  of the Yadkin River.  Runoff 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
         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 stormflow conditions for
         nutrients,  heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, BOD and fecal coliforms.   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  pollutant 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  exist during
         dry weather (low flow)  conditions.  During high flow conditions,  concentrations
         exceeding proposed  North Carolina standards were demonstrated for lead,  mercury,
         iron,  and fecal  coliform bacteria.  Elevated  levels associated  with  high  flows,
         but 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  coliform
         concentrations  were also found  during  low flow conditions.
    
         In  addition  to  the  monitoring  for physical/chemical  parameters, biological
         sampling was conducted which  showed the  urban streams to have "poor water quality
         conditions".
                                           G10-15
    

    -------
         The urban stormwater section of the North Carolina Water Quality Management
         Plan identified various techniques that possibly could be used to reduce
         urban runoff pollution.  These techniques include both structural and
         non-structural  practices.  The objective of the Winston-Sal em study is
         to evaluate some of the non-structrual  techniques for relative pollutant
         removal  effectiveness potentials under a variety of real  world conditions.
    
    B.   Local Perception
    
         The "North Carolina Stormwater Manager" is a publication put  out bi-monthly
         by the Water Resources Research Intstitute at North Carolina  State University.
         The purpose of  the newsletter is to help consultants,  city engineers and public
         works directors in North Carolina who are concerned with stormwater management
         communicate with each other.  The state has always been a leader in the field
         of stormwater 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
         NURP project.
                                          610-16
    

    -------
     NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    
    
    TAMPA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
    
    
    
             TAMPA, FLORIDA
    
    
    
             REGION IV, EPA
                   611-1
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
    
    
    The City of Tampa Department of Public Works is charged with solving the, at
    times, 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 RPC classified all land areas within the City limits as segments
    with serious water quality problems.  The Florida Department of Environmental
    Regulation (OER) 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
    DPW 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 and  partially
     encompasses the Hillsborough  Bay System  (Figure  1).   Hillsborough  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 Tampa
     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,  60% 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 16.2*C  (61.2*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 extreme northeastern parts of the City.  The remnants of three
     shorelines  and four  marine terraces, attributed to the rise and fall  of  the
     sea during  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 (NSL).  This low coastal
     area, which originates  at  the  Bay margin, varies considerably in configuration
     and  is extremely  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 be 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 with  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.
                                          Gll-3
    

    -------
    HILLSBOROUOH COUNTY
                                                           Basin Boundaries
    
                                                              HILLSBOHOllGH RIVER
                                                              DRAINAGE UASiN
    
                                                           Basins Wilhin Cily Liniils
    
                                                              IliLL'JQOntHlGH RiVER
                                                              RESERVOiH
    
                                                              LOWER
                                                              HILLSElOnoi.lCiH RIVER
                                                               UHPtM
                                                               HILL5UOIU)l)(,M MAY
    

    -------
    111  III
     ,   1  I  -    i   R
    • . I U^  jj'  ••'
                                                                                             Reproduced from
    
                                                                                             best available  copy
    

    -------
                FIGURE 2 - TAMPA NURP PROJECT MONITORING SITES.
    1 TV  of TAMPA
                 3
                                            CHARTER & HARDING  ST.-&F
                                         9  J- L. YOUNG ARTS. - ME
                                            NORMA PARK DITCH-COMM.
                                            N. JESUIT HIGH SCH.- HWY.
                                            WILDER DfTCH- MIXED
                                         6 ] INTERCONNECT DITCH- BMP
    
    
                                       17  IN. POND OUTFALL -BMP
    

    -------
     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 few 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  "runs 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 land  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 Hooker's  Point.
     Another large concentration of  industrial usage which exists apart  from the port
     facilities  is  located  just  north of Busch 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 Hillsborough Avenue, Kennedy Boulevard,
     East Broadway, Busch  Boulevard, Dale Mabry 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.  The 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.
                                        fill-7
    

    -------
     C.   Drainage
    
     The City of Tampa is  divided  Into  three major  drainage  areas:   the Hillsborough
     River,  Hillsborough Bay,  and  Old Tampa Bay.  Old  Tampa  Bay  1s  not  addressed at
     all in  this study,  (see  map)
    
       Hillsborough  River
    
     The Hillsborough  River  originates  approximately 50 miles northeast of  the
     City of Tampa in  the  Green  Swamp.   The Green Swamp is a large,  ill-defined,
     wetland area situated in  Sumter, Polk, 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
     Withlacoochee and Oklawaha.   The watershed for the Hillsborough River  is
     generally considered  to be  approximately 630 square miles; however, exact
     delineation of  the basin's  area 1s  difficult due to the lace of readily  defined
     interfluves in  the Green  Swamp headwaters.  Under certain high water conditions,
     the Hillsborough  River  receives drainage that would normally be considered  as
     being part of the Withlacoochee basin.  The Army Corps  of Engineers estimates
     that intermittent overflows as high as 35,000'cfs have  occurred in the past
     (1934)  but that the annual  average  overflow is about 30 cfs.
    
     Proceeding downstream from  the Withlacoochee "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
     Hillsborough  at this  point.  Fox Branch extends roughly 8 miles to  the southeast,
     to its  origin near the  settlement of Socrum.  Most 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
     Hillsborough  through  a  half mile run.  The 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.
    
     Downsteam,  an 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.  This 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 Hillsborough River  1s  associated  with a vast hardwood swamp.
    Two tributaries, the New River and  an unnamed tributary, also enter at this point.
    The New River drains an  extensive  area of improved pastures  and rangeland, and
    has been channelized over much of  its length.   The unnamed tributary to the west
    of New River has similar characteristics.
                                        Gll-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
     Hillsborough 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
     Holloman's Branch, Flint Creek, Cow House Creek, Clay  Gully  and  Trout Creek.
     Holloman'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 Thonotosassa 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) from
     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  hardwood  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 Hillsborough River as a  surface reservoir
     of raw water for  potable uses.  The Tampa water system pumps  approximately
     65 mgd of water from the reservoir and  has a plant capacity of 94 mgd.   The
     City of Tampa reservoir is formed by the 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.
                                        Gil-9
    

    -------
     The majority of the annual  low flow 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  dam; 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 Anheuser Busch both discharge cooling water.   Several  residential  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 river.
    
     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 Hillsborough/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 Tampa Bay, approximately eight miles long and four
    miles wide.  McKay Bay  is an extension of Hillsborough Bay.  Hillsborough Bay
     has three major  freshwater tributaries, the Hillsborough River, the Palm River,
     and the Alafia River.   Improved channels  are maintained at 34 foot depths.
     The surface  area of Hillsborough 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.
    
    
                                        Gll-10
    

    -------
     Several major  dredge  and  fill  projects have dramatically altered  natural
     configuration  of  the  Hillsborough/McKay  Bay system.  Davis  Islands,  situated
     in  northern  Hillsborough  Bay,  were dredged in the Florida land boom  of  the
     1920's.  Land  use on  Davis  Islands is primarily residential, with a  small
     commercial strip, a general  aviation airport, and Tampa General Hospital.
     Seddon  Island, directly east of  Davis Islands, is currently undeveloped.
     Hooker's Point, a natural pensinsula, 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 Hillsborough Bay.  Before extensive  dredging
     and  filling  took  place in Hillsborough Bay, there was no distinct dividing
     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  Sutton, McKay has
     become  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 Hillsborough/McKay Bay systems 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 Hillsborough 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 Alafia River drains approximately 460 square miles of Hillsborough 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 .
    
    Starmwater runoff enters the Bay through  closed  urban  systems,  open urban
    systems, open rural  systems, and natural  sheet flow!
                                          611-11
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   Catchment Name - J.I. Young Apartments
         A.   Area - 8.76 acres
         B.   Population - 26,000
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 124
              feet/mile, 100% curbs and gutters.  The complex is extensively
              sewered and has a direct pipe outfall to the Hillsborough River.
         0..  Sewerage - Drainage from roadway surfaces is collected through
              inverted crown roadway sections draining to roadway inlets.  Storm-
              water generated by the impervious roof surfaces in the complex is
              collected in roof drains and piped directly to the stormwater system.
              Additionally, some yard drains collect runoff from small  swales in
              the landscaped areas and is directed into the stormwater  system.
              The asphalt surface in the street section is approximately .99 lane
              miles and is in good condition.
         E.   Land Use
              8.76 acres (100%) is High-Density Residential  of  which Effective
              Impervious area is 5.32 acres (60.7%).
    II.   Catchment Name - Wilder Ditch System
         A.   Area -  193.8 acres
         B.   Population - 19,361
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative  slope of  19
              feet/mile.   44.8% is served  by curbs and  gutters,  44.8% grass
              gutters and  11.2% ditches and swales.   The  ditch  flows  into the
              Horizon Park System.
         D.   Sewerage - The area is 100%  served by stormwater  sewers.   Streets
              in  the  basin are generally asphalt.
         E.   Land  Use
              105.65  acres  (54.5%)  is  Low-Density Residential.
              48.01 acres  (24.8%)  is Commercial.
              14.41 acres  (7.4%)  is  Institutional.
              25.82 acres  (13.3%)  is Open.
              Effective  Impervious Area  is  55.35  acres (28.5%).
    
                                    Gll-12
    

    -------
    III. Catchment Name - N. Jesuit High School
         A.   Area - 29.52 acres.
         B.   Population - 19,361
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 15
              feet/mile.  1002 is curbs and gutters.  The basin drains through
              a large diameter park and flows into the South Pond in the Horizon
              Park System.
         D.   Sewerage - The basin is 1002 served by storm sewers.  The streets
              are asphalt and comprise approximately 2.3 lane miles.  Roadway
              sections are traditional crowns with street runoff collected along
              curbs and gutters.
         E.   Land Use
              14.1 acres (47.82)  is Low-Density Residential.
              15.42 acres (52.2%) is Institutional.
         Effective Impervious area is 8.2 acres (28%).
    IV.   Catchment Name - Charter and Harding Streets
         A.   Area - 42.16 acres.
         B.   Population - 9,331
         C.   Draiange - This catchment area has a representative slope of 16
              feet/mile.  Stormwater collected in the basin  is transported
              directly to the Hillsborough River through the storm sewer system.
         D.   Sewerage - The basin is 100% served by a storm sewer system.
              13.32 is served by  ditches and swales, 11.42 is served by curbs
              and gutters and 75.32 is served by streets having grass gutters.
         E.   Land Use
              37.55 acres (89.IX) is Low-Density Residential.
              4.6 acres (10.92) is Open
              Effective Impervious Area is 5.95 acres (14.12).
                                      Gll-13
    

    -------
    V.    Catchment Name - Norma Park System
         A.    Area - 46.59 acres.
         B.    Population - 23,343
         C.    Drainage  - This  catchment  area  has  a  representative  slope  of 7
              feet/mile.  Runoff generated  is primarily derived  from  highway
              surfaces  and parking  lots.  The collection  system  consists of
              standard  inlets  in the parking  lots and  catch  basins  along the
              highway system.   21.7% is  served by curbs and  gutters,  5.8% by
              grass  gutters and 72.52 by ditches and swales.
         0.    Sewerage  - The conveyance  system combines open ditches  and culverts
              for  conveying the water generated to  the basin outlet.
         E.    Land Use
              4.34%  acres  (9.32) is  Medium-Density  Residential.
              42.25% acres  (90.7%) is Commercial.
              Effective  Impervious Area  is  42.07 acres (90.3X).
                                       Gil-14
    

    -------
                                     PROBLEM
    
     A.    Local  Definition
    
     The Hillsborough  River/Hillsborough  Bay 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  H111sborough County Environ-
     mental  Protection Commission rated Hillsborough Bay  as  undesirable for any
     form of body  contact.  A once significant  shellfish  industry estimated in
     1969 to be  valued at $1.5 million, is now  gone.  Aesthetically,  enjoyment of
     the river and bay led  to the development of desirable residential  areas along
     the waterfront.   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 of Tampa utilizes the Hillsborough River as a  potable water supply.
     State water quality  standards are the highest for such  potable water bodies.
     Urbanization  has,  however, extensively  impacted  this segment of  the Hillsborough
     River.   Two cities,  Tampa 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.  Water 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  collform  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  Terrace will  probably have to  be  treated  to at least maintain present
     water quality  of  the reservoir.
    
     B.    Local  Perception
    
     Several studies were undertaken over  the past few years to evaluate the conditions
     of the  Hillsborough  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 stormwater 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 storm sewer systems.  The majority of the systems were constructed well
     before  urban runoff  was  considered to be a possible  source of water  quality
     problems.  The City of Tampa has Identified over 300 drainage problem  areas  and
     is concerned with taking care of these yet satisfying the State standards.
                                        Gll-15
    

    -------
                               PROJECT DESCRIPTION
     A.   Major Objective
         Goals of the Tampa urban runoff study are to characterize the stormwater
         flows and loads from urban drainage basins, analyze the effectiveness
         of selected stormwater controls, determine the impact of storm
         generated loads on the lower Hillsborough River and develop a stormwater
         management plan for the City of Tampa.  The stormwater management plan
         will address receiving water quality, the quantity and quality aspects
         of stormwater 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 were selected
         for detailed monitoring during storm events to assess rainfall-runoff
         relationships and stormwater flows and loads.   Stormwater controls were
         selected and are being monitored during storm events to assess their
         effectiveness in reducing stormwater loadings.  Stormwater flows and
         loads will be determined for the entire study area under design conditions
         and used in development of the city-wide stormwater management plan.
    
         A receiving water study is ongoing currently,  funded by the city of Tampa.
         This study consists of a data collection effort intended to better char-
         acterize water quality in the lower Hillsborough  River and analysis of
         these data to determine the impact of stormwater  runoff.  Specifically,
         the data collection effort consists of continuous monitoring of stage,
         temperature,  conductivity and dissolved oxygen in the lower river, synoptic
         sampling conducted during distinct hydrologic  conditions,  continued
         collection of long-term background data, collection of sediment oxygen
         demand,  sediment chemistry data,  and biological sampling.
                                            \
    C.   Monitoring
    
         Five basins  were selected for runoff characterization in the city of Tampa.
         Following is  a brief  simmary of each basin and the type of equipment
         installed at  each site.
    
         J.L.  Young Apartments
    
         The J.L. Young Apartments complex  comprises  an entire basin draining
         directly to  the Hillsborough  R-iver.   This  basin represents  high-density
         residential development  in  Tampa.   The complex is  extensively sewered and
         has a direct  piped outfall  to the  river.
    
         The primary control device  at this site  is a 36 inch  diameter Palmer-Bowlus
         flume located  in the  basin  discharge pipe.   A  Sigmamotor flow meter,
         Sigmamotor  automatic  sampler  and a Belfort Universal  rain  gage  are
         located  in an  instrument  shelter approximately 75  feet  due  west of the
         monitoring point.
                                        Gll-16
    

    -------
    Wilder  Ditch  System
    
    This basin contains  predominantly residential areas and a mixture  of
    commercial and  institutional  areas draining  into the Wilder  Ditch  system.
    A storm sewer system has been constructed  in the area to alleviate
    flooding traditionally  associated with low spots in this area of the
    city.  The area is 100X served by stormwater sewers.
    
    The monitoring  site  for the Wilder Ditch Basin is located on the western
    side of the drainage area where the ditch basin flows into the Horizon
    Park System.  The primary control section  is a ten-foot long sharp crested
    weir immediately downstream from a double 3' by 10' box culvert.   Instru-
    mentation at the site includes a Sigmamotor flow meter interfaced  with  a
    Sigmamotor automatic sampler.  Precipitation measurements are accomplished
    with a rain gage in  Horizon Park.
    
    North Jesuit High School
    
    This basin contains  some low-density residential areas and arterial
    highway but consists predominantly of the northern portion of Jesuit High
    School.  The basin is located adjacent to Horizon Park and south of the
    Wilder Ditch System.  The basin is 100X served by storm sewers due to
    the relatively  flat  terrain and previous flooding problems.
    
    The basin drains under  Himes Avenue through a large diameter pipe  and
    flows into the  South Pond in the Horizon Park system.  The primary control
    section is a 6  foot  sharp crested weir located in a weir bay at the end
    of the pipe.  A Sigmamotor flow meter is interfaced with a Sigmamotor
    automatic sampler.   Both pieces of equipment are located in an instrument
    shelter approximately 15 feet east of the control section.   Precipitation
    measurements are obtained with a Belfort Universal  Rain Gage located
    approximately 700 feet  north of the site.
    
    Charter and Harding  Streets
    
    Low-density residential housing is contained within this basin with
    drainage directly to the Hillsborough River.  The basin is 10055 served
    by a storm sewer system.  Stormwater collected in the basin is transported
    directly to the river through the storm sewer system.  Monitoring
    activities are  conducted at the basin outlet prior  to direct discharge
    to the Hillsborough River.  The primary control  section is a 36-inch
    Palmer-Bowl us flume  located in a 36-inch diameter pipe at the intersection
    of. Charter and  Harding  Streets.  Instrumentation includes a Sigmamotor
    automatic flow meter interfaced to a Signamotor  automatic sampler.  A
    Belfort Universal rain gage is installed on the  instrument shelter located
    adjacent to the primary control section.
    
    Norma Park System
    
    Runoff generated in the Norma Park Basin  is primarily derived from
    highway surfaces and parking lots.   Highway sections are concrete with
    a standard crown construction and parking lots are  typically asphalt
    cement surface coarse construction.   The collection system  consists of
    
    
                                   611-17
    

    -------
         standard inlets in the parking lots and catch basins along the highway
         section.  The conveyance system combines open ditches and culverts for
         conveying the water generated by both highway and commercial areas to the
         basin outlet.
    
         Flow monitoring and sampling is conducted at the basin outlet located on
         the western side of the drainage area.  The primary control section
         combines an 8-foot low head, sharp-crested weir and 2 rip-rapped trape-
         zoidal sections.  Instrumentation consists of a Sigmamotor flow meter
         interfaced to a Sigmamotor automatic sampler.  A Belfort Universal rain
         gage is located on the instrument shelter.
    
    D.   Controls
    
         Two detention ponds have been selected.to evaluate the mitigation of
         hydraulic impacts and reducing pollutant loads.   The ponds are located in
         Horizon Park, a recreational facility owned and  operated by the city.
    
         The two ponds in Horizon Park (designated North  Pond and South Pond)  are
         located in an area which was poorly dr'ained and  seasonally wet.   When
         the Tampa Sports Authority began  building Tampa  Stadium, the need for fill
         was solved by excavating the North and South Ponds.   Coincidentally,  the
         resultant ponds provided a means  for solving drainage problems in the
         low-lying areas immediately east  of the  park. This  drainage area has
         been divided  into three distinct  basins  that are each tributary to the
         Horizon Park  pond system.   Two basins drain into the South Pond  and
         subsequently  flow into the North  Pond.  The other area discharges directly
         to  the North  Pond which,  in turn,  discharges to  a major ditch  system
         along the eastern right-of-way of Dale Mabry Highway, eventually flowing
         into the north end of Old  Tampa Bay.
    
         The South Pond is located  in the  southern  one-third  of  the 126 acre
         Horizon Park  area.   This  pond has  a surface area of  approximately 2.4
         acres,  relatively large by comparison to other detention/retention ponds
         in  the City which  generally are one acre or less in  surface  area size.
    
         Hydraulically,  the south pond operation  is analogous  to  a  surge  tank.
         Sheet flow  enters  the pond  directly from a 32.5  acre  sub-basin surrounding
         the pond  and  two  basins located to  the east  have storm  sewer outfalls  to
         the south pond.
    
         The south pond  discharges  to  the north pond  through  a 1,125 foot  ditch
         having  an approximately trapezodial  shape  with a bottom  width of  approxi-
         mately  ten  feet.
    
         Water quality monitoring in  the pond  is  conducted  at  two sites.   The  first
         site  is on  the  storm  sewer outfall  from  the  north  Jesuit High School  basin.
         A corrugated metal sheet pipe  structure  has  been  constructed around the
         pipe which  serves  as  a  weir bay.  Flow from  the  North Jesuit basin  enters
         the weir bay and discharges across  a  six foot long sharp-crested  aluminum
         weir with end contractions  into the South  Pond.   A corrugated sheet pile
         dam has been constructed across the existing channel  and this structure
         forms a second weir bay.  Flow from the  South Pond enters the bay and
         discharges across the weir of the North  Pond.
    
    
                                        Gll-18
    

    -------
     Instrumentation at  each monitoring  site consists of  a  Sigmamotor  automatic
     flow meter interfaced  to  a Sigmamotor  automatic sampler.   Precipitation
     is measured  by a Belfort  Universal  rain gage  located on top of  an instrument
     shelter  approximately  15  feet  northwest of the South Pond  discharge control
     structure.  Additionally, water  levels in the South  Pond are monitored  by
     a Stevens  ADR  punch tape  recorder equipped with a  15 minute cam and a
     quartz clock.
    
     The  North  Pond in Horizon Park,  is  substantially larger than the  South
     Pond and  is  located in the central  portion of the  northern two-thirds of
     Horizon  Park.   The  surface is  approximately 9.12 acres (0.014 square miles),
     approximately  four  times  larger  than the South Pond.  Therefore,  the North
     Pond is  also substantially larger than the majority of ponds in the City.
    
     Flow enters  the north  pond from  three  areas.  Indirect sheet flow enters
     all  portions of the pond  from  the 36.9 acre sub-basin surrounding the
     lake.  Significant  flows  enter the  North Pond from the Wilder Ditch Basin
     stormwater system discharge and  the-South Pond discharge.  The  Wilder
     Ditch basin  is located east and  North  of Horizon Park pond across Himes
     Avenue.
    
     The  North  Pond discharges through a ditch connecting the west bank  of
     the  pond to  the FOOT ditch  along the eastern  right-of-way  of Dale Mabry
     Highway.
    
     Water quality  sampling for  flow  passing into  and out of the north pond
     is by automatic monitoring  equipment located  at each inflow and outflow
     point.   Inflow from the Wilder Ditch basin is measured at  a monitoring
     site located immediately  downstream from the double 3*  x 10* box  culverts.
     The  primary device  was constructed  in  the downstream concrete spillway,
     it consists of an 18 inch  by 18  inch sill section with an  attached  29'-4"
     aluminum plate dam  section, which creates a weir bay.  The dam  section  was
     fabricated in  seven  sections,  attached to the sill section with lag  bolts
     and  anchors, and  supported  by  eight aluminum struts.  A ten foot  long,
    .sharp-crested  weir  with end contractions was milled into the center  of
     the  plate.
    
     Discharge  from  the  Wilder  Ditch  system flows over the weir and, immediately
     downstream, strikes  the concrete spillway, enters Wilder Ditch  and  flows
     to the North Pond.
    
     The control section  for measuring discharge from the North Pond to  the
     Dale Mabry ditch system was constructed with corrugated sheet piles.
    
     Instrumentation at both sites  involves a Sigmamotor automatic flow meter
     electrically interfaced to  a Sigmamotor automatic sampler.   Precipitation
    measurements for the north pond utilize a Belfort Universal rain gage
     located adjacent to  the south pond discharge control structure.   Additionally,
     water levels in the  north pond are measured and recorded by a Stevens ADR
     punch tape recorder  equipped with a 15 minute punch cam and quartz clock.
                                  Gll-19
    

    -------
    There are two stormwater management practices being evaluated for attenuation
    of hydraulic load associated with runoff only.  The quantity only type of
    management practices include drainfall/trench systems and open bottom inlet
    systems.  The approach involves simulating inflow to the basin from a
    specific precipitation event and evaluating the ability of an individual
    management practice to reduce and/or attenuate the simulated stormwater
    inflow.  Measured flow from city fire hydrants will be utilized to simulate
    stormwater inflow.  Schematics of the two practices are shown in the
    following figures.
                                   Gil-20
    

    -------
      NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    KNOXVILLE/KNOX COUNTY METROPOLITAN
           PLANNING COMMISSION
    
              KNOXVILLE, TN
    
              REGION IV, EPA
                 G12-1
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
    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
    SMSA.
    
    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 rause
    of these water quality problems and the solutions.
                                           G12-2
    

    -------
                               PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
     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"N.
     to  36°10'30"N. latitude, and 83'39'W. to 84°16'W. 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.
    
     Most  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                          Population
    
                        1960                          250,523
                        1970                          276,293
                        1975                          303,900
                        1980                          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.
                                           G12-3
    

    -------
     First  Creek  Drainage Basin
    
     The  First  Creek drainage basin encompasses an area of 22.04 square miles, the
     largest  in the Knoxville metropolitan area.  Seventeen percent of the area
     (3.78  square miles) drains into sinkholes.  These sinkhole areas are 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), shale 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 soil 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 in shape and is
     the  smallest major drainage basin in the Knoxville urban area.  The creek originates
     on Blackoak Ridge north of Inskip and Norwood communities and drains into a gently
     rolling area.  It has no major tributaries unlike the other principal streams in
     Knoxville.  The creek -Plows into central  Knoxville 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
    

    -------
                 0 SURFACE DRAINAGE DIVIDE
                   GROUNOWATER DIVIDE
                        FIRST CRE£K
                      GROUNDWATER
                     ELEVATION MAP
    Figure 1
            612-5
    

    -------
                                      30
                               0° Vv Yy
                               1 IM< \  V X« /   •
                                 "  	\J '***
       MO:
    •
    8
      ?tS*Nf»AL STSSi-M
                            JC^      FIRST CREEK
                            X-7
                            V   \A/FI I   AMH CDC
    WELL AND  SPRING
    
       DISTRI5UTION
                Figure 2
                     G12-6
    

    -------
    0
    *—•
    ISJ
    I
    -J
                                                           TABLE 1
    
                                           LAND USE IN FIRST CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                                                                   Total
                              Single Family  Hultl-Family   Commercial   Industrial    Open    forest   Total   jmperylou
    
            Percent of total
            area (f)                  45           6              6            1         28       14      100      17.5
    
            Extent (Acres)         6.347         846            846          141      3.949    1.975   14.104   2.468
    

    -------
                                N
    Wy^SW?' u.«
                               SECOND  CREEK
                           DRAINAGE  NETWORK
                  Figure 3
                   G12-8
    

    -------
    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 Impermeable and not highly soluble, elevation 1s high, and
    slopes are steep.                        '
    
    Elevations in Second Creek basin range mostly between 900 and 1,100 feet. The maxim;
    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 1s 810 feet.  The local relief is 590 feet.
    
    Second Creek basin 1s more urbanized than First Creek.  Commercial  developments
    are located downtown, along Central  Avenue, and along Clinton Highway.  Industrial
    use 1s 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.
                                        G12-9
    

    -------
                                                   TABLE 2
    
    
    
                               PERCENTAGE OF LAND USE  IN SECOND CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN
    ,,,                                                                 forest   Total
    
    
    
               ^
             ,                              8           12             «        11        7       100        26
             (Acres)    2.454             «4          c.c
    
                                         3M                                         318     4.5«     ,.,81
    ro
    i
    

    -------
                                  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.
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment  1s 89.92% separate storm
              sewers.  81.921 of this area has curbs and  gutters and 18.062 has
              swales and ditches.  10.08* 1s not  served by separate storm sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              46.17 acres (85X) 1s 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per  acre residential.
              4.04 acres (7%) 1s urban Institutional.
              1.41 acres (3X) 1s urban parkland.
              2.62 acres (5X) 1s linear strip development.
    II.   Catchment Name - SC (Strip Commercial  Site)
         A.   Area - 187.04 acres.
         B.   Population - 464 persons;
         C.   Drainage - Drainage ditch draining  strip commercial  site.   Main
              channel  1s 1330 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment  1s 23.471 separate storm
              sewers.   1004 of this area has curbs and gutters.   76.53* of the
              area does not have separate storm sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              1.08 acres (IX) 1s urban Institutional.
              65.40 acres (35X) 1s linear strip development.
              101.02 acres (54*) 1s  .5 to 2 dwelling units  per  acre residential.
              18.8 acres (10X)  1s <  5 dwelling  units per  acre.
              .70acres (
    -------
     III. Catchment Name • RS2 (Residential Site Two)
         A.   Area - 89.34 acres.
         B.   Population - 333 persons.
         C.   Drainage - End-of-p1pe site draining residential land use.  Main
              channel Is 1600 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - 100X of the area has no separate storm sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              66.40 acres (741)  1s .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 (2IX)  is < .5 to dwelling units per acre residential.
    IV.   Catchment Name - CBO (Central  Business District)
         A.   Area -  25.8 acres.
         B.   Population - 0  persons.
         C.   Drainage  - End-of-pipe site draining central  business district.
         D.   Sewerage  - 100X of  the area 1s  served by  separate  storm  sewers.
              100X of that area has curbs and  gutters.
         E.   Land Use
              25.8 acres (100X) 1s  Central Business District.
                                   G12-12
    

    -------
                                     PROBLEM
     A.    Local Definition
    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 0.36 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 Knoxville, 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  stream-flow 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 stream-flow 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 .36 to .36.  Increased  storm 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 loadings.
                                       612-13
    

    -------
     The  concentrations  and  loadings of some metals  were  found to be well 1n excess
     of recommended water  quality criteria 1n two  of the  project watersheds.  High 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  streanrflow loadings of organics 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 1n  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.
    
    
     B.    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 1s 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 Indictnient  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
    

    -------
    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 Knoxville and is used as a drinking water source by downstream
    communities (as well as Knoxville) 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.
                                     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 man's urban  activities and to determine what manage-
     ment practices  might be  Implemented to  mitigate  the present water quality
     problems  and prevent others  from occurring  as  the area of urban development
     expands.  The major objectives  are the  following:
    
          1)   Determine sources  of  pollutants  In urban  streams that result from
              storm events and threaten,  Impact or deny their designated beneficial
              uses.
    
          2)   To further characterize the urban stream  systems.
    
          3)   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.
    
          5)   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 1n the First Creek basin is included to help establish
     the transferability  of the data.
                                                                •
     8.   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
                                         G12-16
    

    -------
     Central  Business  District  SUe
    
     The  C80  sampling  site  1s  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  Palmer-Bowl us flume is installed  in the outflow
     pipe.  An  ISCO model 1S70  flow meter 1s  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  1s  located  near Woodland Avenue  and Central Street.   The
     sampling 1s done  in a  drainage ditch tributary to Second Creek.  A  46 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 1710 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 1n a drainage ditch tributary
     to Second Creek.  The  data collected at  this  site is limited to  flow data.   The
     primary flow measuring device  is  a 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-terrain.   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 1s 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-3owlus flume.   An  ISCO
    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.
                                        G12-17
    

    -------
     Strip  Commercial  Site
    
     The  strip commercial site  1s  located  in  a  drainage  ditch  behind the Clinton
     Plaza  Shopoing Center.
    
     A  54 inch Palmer-3ow1us  flume  is  installed in  the ditch.   An  ISCO model  1700
     flow meter  is used  to measure  the flow going through  the  flume.   An ISCO model
     1710 digital printer records total flow  values  and  a  modified  Friez water
     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 ssnpllng  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 stormwater pollution impacts are being evaluated in the Bogus
    Swamp Drainage District, Ingham County, which is drained by storm sewers into
    the Grand River.  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) stormwater 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 has 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 stormwater quality enhancement.
                                            G13-2
    

    -------
    LAKE
    MICHIGAN
    LAKE
    HURON
                                                    ANN ARBOR
                                                         LAKE
                                                         ERIE
                      STATE LOCUS
                MICHIGAN NURP PROJECTS
    
                       FIGURE 1
                       G13-3
    

    -------
               UNITED STATES
       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
            GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
     GRAND
     	   —
    
    "lIVER
    84'37'30"
                  LANSING 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 (BMPs) for the  control of  stormwater
               pollution.  These are (a) two in-line upsized tiles, (b) an in-line retention
               basin,  and  (c) an  off-line  detention  basin.    Figure  1  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
    Station No.  and Location	BMP Type
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    Main Outlet
    West Subdistrict Drain
    Dryer Farms
    - outlet
    - inlet
    Golf Course Pond
    - outlet
    - inlet
    Upsized tile
    - outlet
    - inlet
    Upsized tile
    - outlet
    - inlet
    
    Detention Pond
    Retention Pond
    %1' Sump
    96" Sump
       11        River
                                       G13-5
    

    -------
                              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  stormwater  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.
    
    D.   Sewerage System
    
         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.
                                          G13-6
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   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
              1s 49,500 feet at a slope of approximately  32 feet  per mile.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of catchment 1s 100% separate storm  sewers.
              Forty-nine percent 1s served by curbs and gutters,  and 51% 1s served
              by swales and ditches.
         E.   Land Use
              126.5 acres (28%) 1s 0.5 to 2 dwelling units  per  acre  urban residential,
              of which 37.4 acres (30%) 1s Impervious.
              76.9 acres (17%)  1s 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 23.4 acres (30%) 1s Impervious.
              14.3 acres (3%)  1s > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 8.3 acres (58%) 1s Impervious.
              13.2 acres (2.9%) 1s Linear Strip Development,
              of which 10.1 acres (78%) 1s Impervious.
              10.1 acres (2.2%) 1s Shopping Center,
              of which 10.1 acres (100%) 1s Impervious.
              3.3 acres (0.7%)  1s Urban Industrial  (light),
              of which 2.2 acres (67%) 1s Impervious.
              83.2 acres (18.4%) 1s Urban Industrial  (heavy),
              of wlch 52.7 (63%) is Impervious.
              91 acres (20.1%)  1s Urban Parkland or Open Space,
              of which 5.6 acres (6%)  1s Impervious.
              Approximately 37% 1mperv1ousness  in entire catchment area.
    II.   Catchment Name - MI 1,002, Bogus Swamp  Drain
         A.   Area - 63 acres.
         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,  and extend 9,450 feet.
                                       613-7
    

    -------
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area  of  the  catchment  1s  100%  separate  storm
              sewers,  and 1s  completely provided with curbs  and  gutters.
    
              Streets  consist of 17 lane miles of  asphalt all  1n fair  condition
              and  2.2  lane miles of concrete,  all  1n good condition.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              63 acres (100%) is Urban  Industrial  (heavy),
              of which 40.4 (64%) Is Impervious.
    
    III.  Catchment Name - MI  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 1s  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  in  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%) 1s 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%) is 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 - MI 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 1s 100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets consist 10.1 lane miles of asphalt, of which 62% Is 1n good
              condition and 385 is in fair condition, and 5.8 lane miles of concrete,
              54% of which is 1n 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%) 1s 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 1,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 1s 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 (15.1%) 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% imperviousness in  the entire catchment  area.
    VI.   Catchment Name - MI l.GCI, 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% 1n 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.
                                      613-10
    

    -------
     VII. Catchment Name - MI 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 79.0t having swales
              and ditches, the total extending 15,530 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment 1s 1001 separate storm
              sewers.
              Streets consist of 14 lane miles of asphalt which are all 1n 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 (261) Is Impervious.
              0.6 acres (0.4%)  1s Linear Strip Development,
              of which 0.6 acres (100%) 1s Impervious.
              16.4 acre (10%) 1s 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%)  1s Impervious.
              22.8 acres (13.9%) 1s Urban Institutional,
              of which 8.7 acres (38%) 1s Impervious.
              Approximately 26% imperviousness 1n  the entire  catchment area.
    VIII.   Catchment  Name - MI  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 1s 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.
                                       613-11
    

    -------
    E.   Land  Use
    
         1.8 acres  (2.4%)  Is  0.5 to  2  dwelling units acre urban residential,
         of which  1.3 acres  (72%)  1s Impervious.
    
         33.9  acres (45.3%) 1s  2.5 to  8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
         of which  5.5 acres  (16%)  1s Impervious.
    
         16.4  acres (21.9%) 1s  Urban Industrial (heavy)
         of which  12.3 acres  (75%) 1s  Impervious.
    
         22.8  acres (30.4%) 1s  Urban Institutional,
         of which 8.7 acres (38%)  1s Impervious.
    
         Approximately 37% 1mperv1ousness 1n the entire catchment area.
                                   613-12
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    A.   Local definition (government)
    
         The present water quality of the Grand River is capable of supporting a fishery
         in pike, bass, catfish and bluegill.  Contact recreation use is denied primarly
         due to the high levels of coliform 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 eutrophication 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 stormwater for recharge, from
         the Red Cedar River, which is underlain by sand/gravel.
    
    B.   Local Perception (public awareness)
    
         With 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
         are 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.
                                          G13-13
    

    -------
                               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 practice
          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-si zed 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 procedure
          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, MI.  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, pH, total  alkalinity, specific conductance,
    choride, turbidity, total organic carbon, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite
    nitrogen, soluble and total  Kjel dahi 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.  Wetfall  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.
                                    613-15
    

    -------
          NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
             OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN
    
                   DETROIT, MI
    
                  REGION V, EPA
                     G14-1
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments project 1s 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. Clair.
    
    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-induced 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 extreme 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 3503! 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 nonpoint
    sources, especially in southeast Michigan.  SEMCOG studies have identified
    urban  stormwater runoff as an important factor In water quality degradation.
                                          G14-2
    

    -------
                                                 K
                                                 A
    LAKE
    MICHIGAN
    LAKE
    HURON
                                                   :ANN ARBOR
                                                        LAKE
                                                        ERIE
                        FIGURE 1
                         G14-3
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
    
    The City of Troy, located  in Oakland County, is about 15 miles to the northwest
    of Detroit, or about 5 miles southeast of Pontiac, 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 106.8% from
    1960 to 1970, and 70.21 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.
    
    D.   Sewerage System
    
    The existing sewerage system is completely separate, with suitable treatment of
    the collected sanitary sewage,  and discharge of the effluent.
                                          G14-4
    

    -------
    MAJOR RIVER BASINS IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN
                          CLINTON RIVER BASIN
    
    
    
                               FIGURE 2
                                 G14-5
    

    -------
    OAKLAND COUNTY COMMUNITIES
    
    
    
             FIGURE 3
             G14-6
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    I.   Catchment Name - MI 2, Catchment 100, VILLAGE GREEN
         A.   Area - 55.1 acres.
         B.   Population - 275 persons.
         C.   Oralnge - 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 1s 75X separate storm
              sewers and 28% with no sewers.
              Streets consist of 1.05 lane-miles of asphalt, 100X of which 1s in
              good condition.
         E.   Land Use
              2.8 acres (5.IX) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential*
              of which 1.8X acres (64.3X) is  impervious.
    II.   Catchment Name - MI, 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.
         D.   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) 1s 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 12.3 acres (9.7X)  is impervious.
              20.4 acres (16X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
                                           G14-7
    

    -------
    III. 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.
         0.   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 (12%)  is impervious.
              18.2 acres (18.82) is Urban Parkland or  Open Space.
    IV.   Catchment Name - MI  2,  400,  CITY OF TROY, RECORDING RAINGAGE
         A.    Area - 279.4 acres.
         B.    Population - 1,787 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 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 100% is  in  good condition.
                                          G14-8
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    A.   Local Definition  (Government)
    
    SEMCOG Identified stormwater generated pollution as a problem within their
    area of jurisdiction during the Initial Section 208 planning work.  Earlier,
    stormwater quantity problems had resulted 1n requirements for runoff control
    In subdivision developments to prevent downstream damage.  In the rapidly
    urbanizing areas In southeastern Michigan, the topography 1s 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 stormwater 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.
                                          G14-9
    

    -------
    VILLAGE
     GREEN
     S I TE ^
    «IPIE
         SQUIRE im
           LOHJ LIKE
           TR
          IITHES
         BIS ICAVCR
                 .SYLVAN
                  GLEN
                  S.ITE
                   RECORCX
                  1040
         1 7J
                          R010
                          ROiD
                                    S RAIN  GAUGE
                          8010
                         RfllD
                                   NORTH
     TROY,   MICHIGAN
    
    
    GENERAL  LOCATION MAP
             FIGURE 4
                                              BEAVER
                                              TRAIL
                                              SITE
              614-10
    

    -------
                              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 stormwater
     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 systems, used in control of
     stormwater 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 systems 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.
                                            614-11
    

    -------
     The proposed  effort  in Southeast  Michigan has  been  organized  in  conjunction
     with the Oakland  County Drain Commissioner in  order to  incorporate the ex-
     perience gained by the Commssioner 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 stormwater  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  nonpoint
     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 288  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 out particulates;  these are:  (1)  influent particle  size distribution,
     (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  stormwater  conveyance system.
    
     Previous  SEMCOG studies  have  focused on the problem of  characterizing runoff
     pollutant  loads from different  land uses.  From 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 stormwater-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 snowmelts 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 are 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 requirements of the Oakland County3Drain
     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,
     well 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 a 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-site.  These existing structures show promise for
    use as sampling stations.
    
    The Village Green of Troy retention basin has a capacity of 1,466,000 ft3.
    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 tne
    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
    

    -------
     Stormwater runoff from the three basin  catchments  for  17  events  planned to be
     collected  at  the  inlet and outlet of  each  of  the three stormwater  retention
     basins  will 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 weather service Indicates a  reasonable  probability of an  ap-
     propriate  storm 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 11st:
    
                        Biochemical Oxygen  Demand (BOO)
                        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 (TDS)
                        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
                                           G14-14
    

    -------
     is 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 be 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 storm 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 chemical  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, In, Cr, Cd, Cu,  Ni,  As,  Hg)
              pH
              Chloride
    
    D.    Controls
    
    As previously described,  this project is evaluating existing stormwater
    detention basins installed for quantity control, and  modified for quality
    control,  for effectiveness and costs.
                                         614-15
    

    -------
         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 Washtenaw 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-river  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.
    
     Water  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 107rOOO in 1980,  a rate of 60* 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 would 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 Management  Plan, identified the reach of the  Huron  River between
     the Argo and Geddes Dams as one of three problem 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.
                                       615-2
    

    -------
    LAKE
    MICHIGAN
    LAKE
    HURON
                                                   ANN ARBOR
                                                        LAKE
                                                        ERIE
                        FIGURE 1
                        G15-3
    

    -------
     N^r-?^
                                                                     •  •••            fn» ~.^
                                                                     V-" .'. "< :.
                                       •"*"•>!   W- '--'Si •""
                                        ,  -*ll  J\M—  . f    /
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
    ANN ARBOR STREETS
     USGS  QUAD SHEET
                                            G15-4
    

    -------
    tn
    
    in
       A
              m,tr^  >LU^
              ^Mrorl^^i^
              ™j®t?&
                   ANN ARBOR STREETS, USGS QUAD SHEET
    
    
    
                       FIGURE 2B
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
    The City of Ann Arbor, situated  in Washtenaw County,  is located  in  southeastern
    Michigan, approximately 60 miles west of Detroit.  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 River.  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 7% 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 requirement 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  Pittsf1eld-Ann Arbor Drain Drainage District comprised the  sub-
              watershed lying between the Allen Creek and Swift Run Drain Drainage
              Districts.  This drain has been modified by straightening, deeping,
              widening and enclosing some portions.  In addition, on-line retention
              basins have been constructed.  The Pittsfield-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 Dam.  Although a separate sanitary sewer system was developed,
    in the Allen Creek Drain prior studies suggest that crossconnections exist
    within certain sub-districts.
                                       G15-7
    

    -------
    The following station codes and descriptors Identify the locations of  the
    monitoring stations:
    
         Descriptor                                   Station Code
    
         Pittsfleld-Ann Arbor Drain
              South Inlet                             PITAARETBNSINLT
              North Inlet                             PITAARETBNNINLT
              Basin Outlet                            PITAA RET BN OT
              Outlet to River                         PITTS-AA OR OT
    
         Swift Run Drain
              Inlet                                   SR WETLANDS INT
              Outlet                                  SR WETLANDS OT
              Outlet to River                         SWIFT RUN OR OT
    
         Traver Creek Drain
              Outlet to River                         TRAV CK OR OT
              Basin Inlet                             TRAV CK RT BN I
              Basin Outlet                            TRAV CK RT BN 0
    
         North Campus Drain
              Outlet to River                         N  CAMPUS OR OT
    
         Allen Drain
              Outlet to River                         ALLEN DR OUTLET
                                       G15-8
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
     I.   Catchment Name - MI3, PITAARETBNSINLT
         A.   Area - 2001 acres.
         B.   Population - 3800 persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 33.8
              feet/mile, SOX served with curbs and gutters and 7OX 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 1002 separate storm
              sewers.
              Streets consist of 35 lane miles of asphalt, 54X of which is in
              good condition and 46X of which is in fair condition.  In addition
              there are about 15 lane miles of concrete,.al1  of which is in good
              condition, and 2 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 (5.8X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units  per acre urban residential,
              of which 5 acres (4.3X) is impervious.
              62 acres (3.IX) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per  acre urban residential,
              of which 30 acres (48.4X) is impervious.
              92 acres (4.6X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre  urban residential,
              of which 64 acres (69.6X) is impervious.
              457 acres (22.8X) is Commercial,  of which
              264 acres (57.8X) is impervious.
              138 acres (6.9X) is Industrial, of which
              12 acres (8.7X) is impervious.
              485 acres (24.2X) is Parkland,  of which
              42 acres (8.7X) is impervious.
              305 acres (15.2X) is Agriculture,
              of which 4 acres (1.3X) is impervious.
    II.   Catchment Name - MI3,  PITAARETBNNINLT
         A.   Area -  2871 acres.
         B.   Population -  18,800 persons.
                                        G15-9
    

    -------
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 60.7
              feet/mile, 68% 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.
    
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets consist of 89 lane miles of asphalt, 58% of which is in
              good condition, 40% of which is in fair condition,  and 2% 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 (0.4%) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 1 acre (9.1%) is impervious.
    
              241 acres (8.4%)  is 0.5 to 2 dwelling  units per acre urban residential,
              of which 17 acres (7%) is impervious.
    
              938 acres (32.7%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 293 acres (31.2%) is impervious.
    
              378 acres (13.2%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 220 acres (58.2%) is impervious.
    
              293 acres (10.2%) is Commercial,  of which
              150 acres (51.2%) is impervious.
    
              80 acres (2.8%)  is Industrial,  of which
              40 acres (50%)  is impervious.
    
              618 acres (21.5%) is Parkland,  of which
              26 acres (4.2%)  is impervious.
    
              312 acres (10.9%) is Agriculture,  of which
              6  acres  (1.9%)  is impervious.
    
    III.  Catchment  Name - MI3,  PITAA RET BN OT
    
         A.    Area  - 4872 acres.
    
         B.    Population -  22,600 persons.
    
         C.    Drainage  - This catchment  area  has  a representative  slope  of 45.5
              feet/mile, 52%  served  with curbs  and gutters  and 48% served with
              swales and ditches.   The storm  sewers  approximate a  14.1 feet/mile
              slope and  extend  20,000 feet.
                                      G15-10
    

    -------
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets consist of 124 lane miles of asphalt, 57% of which is in
              good condition, 41% of which is in fair condition, and 2% 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 (7.335) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 5 acres (1.4%) is impervious.
    
              358 acres (7.4%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 22 acres (6.2%)  is impervious.
    
              1000 acres (20.5%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 323 acres (32.3%) is impervious.
    
              470 acres (9.6%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 284 acres (60.4%) is impervious.
    
              750 acres (15.4%) is Commercial, of which
              414 acres (55.2%) is impervious.
    
              218 acres (4.5%) is Industrial, of which
              52 acres (23.8%) is impervious.
    
              1103 acres (22.6%) is Parkland, of which
              68 acres (6.2%)  is impervious.
    
              617 acres (12.7%) is Agriculture,  of which
              10 acres (1.6%)  is impervious.
    
    IV.   Catchment Name -  MI3, PITTS-AA DR OT
    
         A.    Area - 6,363 acres.
    
         B.    Population - 27,700 persons.
    
         C.    Drainage - This  catchment area  has a representative  slope  of  61.6
              feet/mile,  75%  served with curbs and gutters  and  25% 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  100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets  consist  of 209 lane miles  of asphalt, 49% is  in good  condition,
              50% of which is  in fair condition,  and  1%  of  which is  in poor condition.
              In  addition,  there are about  26 lane miles of concrete, all  in good
              condition, and 8 lane miles of  other materials, all  in  good condition.
                                           G15-11
    

    -------
         E.   Land Use
              356 acres (5.6%) Is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 5 acres (1.42) is impervious.
              483 acres (7.6%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 29 acres (6X) is impervious.
              1714 acres (26.9%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential
              of which 462 acres (27X) is impervious.
              510 acres (8X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 314 acres (61.6X) is impervious.
              861 acres (13.5X) is Commercial, of which
              499 acres (58X) is impervious.
              218 acres (3.4%) is Industrial,  of which
              52 acres (23.8X) is impervious.
              1604 acres (25.2%)  is Parkland,  of which
              88 acres (5.5X) is impervious.
              617 acres (9.7X) is Agriculture, of which
              10 acres (1.6X) is  impervious.
    V.   Catchment Name - MI3, 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 87X 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  100X  separate
              storm sewers.
              Streets consist of  5 lane miles  of asphalt, 20X of which is in  good
              condition and  SOX 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 (42.2Xf is <  0.5 dwelling  units per acre urban residential,
              of  which 5 acres (IX)  is impervious.
                         r
              30  acres (2.5X)  is 0.5  to 2 dwelling  units per acre  urban  residential,
              of  which 3 acres  (10X)  is impervious.
                                      G15-12
    

    -------
              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 (7.5%) 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.
    
              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 - MI3,  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 t.o 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.-13
    

    -------
              14 acres (1.1%) is Industrial,  of which
              3 acres (21.4%) is impervious.
              187 acres (15.2%)  is Parkland,  of which
              2 acres (1.1%)  is  impervious.
              360 acres (29.3%)  is Agriculture, of  which
              3 acres (0.8%)  is  impervious.
              20 acres (1.6%) is Wetlands.
    VII.  Catchment Name - MI3, SWIFT RUN OR OT
         A.    Area - 3075 acres.
         B.    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 58% served with
              swales and ditches.   The storm  sewers approximate 17.8 feet/mile
              slope and extend 24,000 feet.
         D.    Sewerage - Drainage  area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
              sewers.
              Streets  consist of 63 lane miles of asphalt, 38% 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 (1%)  is impervious.
              151 acres (4.9%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 10'acres  (6.6%) is impervious.
              574 acres (18.7%)  is  2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 103 acres (17.9%)  is impervious.
              319 acres  (10.4%)  is  >  8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 140 acres (43.9%)  is impervious.
              123 acres  (4%)  is  Commercial, of which
              97 acres (78.9%) is impervious.
              14 acres (0.5%) is Industrial, of which
              3 acres  (21.4%) is impervious.
              1005  acres  (32.7%)  is  Parkland,  of which
              63 acres  (6.3%) is  impervious.
              360 acres (11.7%)  is Agriculture, of which
              3 acres  (0.8%)  is  impervious.
              20 acres (1.6%)  is  Wetlands.
    
                                      R15-14
    

    -------
    VIII.  Catchment Name - MI3, 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 82% served with
              swales and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 37.8 feet/mile
              slope and extend 25,700 feet.
         0.   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 100X is in good
              condition, and 18 lane miles of other materials, all in good
              condition.
         E.   Land Use
              125 acres (2.8X) 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 (4X) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 32 acres (18.4X)  is impervious.
              192 acres (4.4X) is > 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 114 acres (59.8X) is impervious.
              49 acres (1.1X)  is Commercial,  of which
              38 acres (77.6X) is impervious.
              96 acres (2.2X)  is Industrial,  of which
              3 acres (3.IX) is impervious.
              1530 acre's (34.8X)  is Parkland,  of which
              70 acres (4.6X)  is impervious.
              1862 acres (42.3X)  is Agriculture,  of which
              130 acres (  7X)  is impervious.
              213 acres (4.8X) is Forest.
    IX.   Catchment Name -  MI3, 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
              feet/mile, 100X served with swales and ditches.  The storm sewers
              approximate a 28.5 feet/mile slope and extend 9,500 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100X 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 (5.4SK) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 6 acres (4.82) is impervious.
              52 acres (2.3X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 2 acres (3.8%) is impervious.
              10 acres (0.4X) is Commercial,  of which
              3 acres (30X)  is impervious.
              37 acres (1.6%) is Industrial,  of which
              1 acre (2.7X)  is impervious.
              4 acres (0.2X)  is Parkland,  of  which
              1 acre (25%)  is impervious.
              1862 acres (80.8X)  is Agriculture,
              of which 130 acres (7%) is impervious.
              213 acres (9.2X) is Forest.
    X.   Catchment Name - MI3, 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,  100X served  with  swales and ditches.   The storm sewers
              approximate a  28.5  feet/mile slope and extend 9,500  feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of  the catchment  is 100X 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  100X 1s in good condition,  and  10 lanes miles
              of other materials,  all  1n good condition.
         E.   Land  Use
              125 acres  (5.42)  is  < 0.5  dwelling units per  acre  urban  residential,
              of which 6  acres (4.8<)  1s 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 (301) 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 storm sewers approximate a 53.3.feet/mile
              slope and extend 15,500 feet.
         0.    Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
              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.
                                       615-17
    

    -------
    XII.  Catchment Name - MI3,  ALLEN DR OUTLET
    
         A.    Area - 3,800 acres.
    
         B.    Population - 35,700  persons.
    
         C.    Drainage - This catchment area has  a representative slope of 82.0
              feet/mile, 791 served  with curbs and gutters  and  21% served with
              swales and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a 57.9 feet/mile
              slope and extend  11,200 feet.
    
         0.    Sewerage - Drainage  area of the catchment  is  100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets  consist of 123 lane miles of asphalt,  20* of which is in
              good condition and 80% of which is  in fair condition.   In addition
              there are about 11 lane miles  of concrete, of  which 100% is in
              good condition, and  9  lane miles of  other  material, all  in good
              condition.
    
              139  acres (3.7%)  is  0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 5 acres  (3.6%)  is impervious.
    
              1682 acres  (44.3%) is  2.5 to 8 dwelling units  per acre urban residential,
              of which 318  acres (18.9%)  is  impervious.
    
              390  acres (10.3%) is >  8 dwelling units per acre  urban residential,
              of which 300  acres (76.9%)  is  impervious.
    
              344  acres (9%)  is Commercial,  of which
              300  acres (87.2%) is impervious.
    
              65 acres  (1.7%) is Industrial,  of which
              45 acres  (69.2%)  is  impervious.
    
              1180 acres  (31%)  is Parkland,  of which
              345  acres  (29.2%) is impervious.
                                       G15-18
    

    -------
                                    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-Ypsilanti reach was point sources and
    urban stormwater runoff.  This reach has no point source discharges, and
    five major urban stormdrain discharges.  State standards for ammonia and
    phosphorus concentrations and fecal coliform 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
    

    -------
    U1
    I
                                                   PITTSFIELU - ANN ARBOR DRAIN
    
                                                     SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
    
                                                             FIGURE 3
    

    -------
    CT
    ^-a
    tn
    I
    fs)
                                                      PITTSFIELD - AUN ARBOR DRAIN
    
                                                            RETENTION BASIN
    
    
                                                                FIGURE 4
    

    -------
    -*"-i< *  T -IP-
          '
       V4 ,
                1
                        SWIFT RUN DRAIN
    
                    SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
    
    
                            FIGURE 5
                           G15-22
    

    -------
    >"2*   <"•<»,    '  -    "^T;
    ^    r>  -  -•%"••
                             .
                          i  .°o Tfaver Credt
                     r- ftSftfftxliS .'a.--AsS
                    TRAVER  CREEK DRAIN
    
                 SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
    
    
    
                        FIGURE 6
                                          Reproduced from   grsi
    
                                          best available copy. \|al
                       615-23
    

    -------
                               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  stormwater
     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  stormwater  pollution abatement.
    
          c.    Subjecting major regional development projects  to a  review  of
               stormwater 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-Ypsilanti)  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 during 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
    on 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 BMP'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 stormdrainage 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  being 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 stormwater  runoff.   Existing land
     use  data  will be collected  and  evaluated and supplemented 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 during 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 storm 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 and 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 during the study period.
    The by-pass structure was finished during  the end of  the summer 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.  Water 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 measurements  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 for
     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 program 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 program 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)
              COD3(sol, snol, Chemical Oxygen Demand)
                                        615-26
    

    -------
              Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen (sol, insol)
              Nitrate
              Phosphorus (sol, insol)
              Iron (sol, insol)
              Lead (sol, insol)
              Particle Size
    
         One half of the samples
    
              Grease and Oil
              Cadmium
              Zinc
              Chromium
              Fecal Coliform
    
    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.  COO was added because of the seemingly highly variable nature of the
    BOD levels monitored in the various drains.  The COO 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 stormdrains 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.  Wet 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 stormwater 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 be 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 dwellings.
         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
         joins 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 BMP investigated was the capability of natural wetlands to reduce
         TSS,  BOD and nutrients contained  in stormwater 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
         determined  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.
                                  G15-28
    

    -------
           NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
        ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY DIVISION
    
                   CHAMPAIGN, IL
    
                   REGION V, EPA
                      G16-1
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
     The 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 Vermillion
     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 (SMSA) 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 SMSA 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 SMSA 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.
                                       G16-2
    

    -------
                 GLEN ELLYN
    
           DuPAGE COUNTY
          STATE LOCUS
    ILLINOIS NURP PROJECTS
    
           FIGURE 1
                                   LAKE
                                   MICHIGAN
        G16-3
    

    -------
    N
    A
          Reproduced  from
          best available copy.
                                    CHAMPAIGN STREETS
                                    USGS QUAD SHEET
                                        FIGURE 2
                                          G16-4
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
         The City of Champaign situated in 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 streetsweeping areas.
    
    B.   Population
    
         The rate of growth of population in the Champaign-Urbana Standard Metropolitan
         Statistical Area, and in Champaign,.itself, has approximated 31 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 58%, 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 Misissippi  River.
    
    D.   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.
                                         G16-5
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   Catchment Name - B 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
              feet/mile, with a representative storm sewer slope of 28.4
              feet/mile, extending a total of 3,255 feet.
         0.   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 (31%) 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 (100X) 1s Linear Strip Development,
              of which 2.5 acres (902) is impervious.
    
              Approximately 40X is imperviousness in entire catchment area.
    
    III. 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 1002 curbs and guttes.  The storm sewers
              approximate a 90 feet/mile slope and .extend 350 feet.
    
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 1002 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 (142) is impervious.
    
    IV.   Catchment Name - B 04, John Street  South Basin 4
    
         A.   Area - 39.2 acres.
    
         B.   Population - 720 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative catchment slope
              of 62 feet/mile, and 912 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 1002 separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Street consist of 0.23 lane miles of asphalt in good condition,
              and 3.1 lane miles of concrete, 202 in good condition and SOX in
              fair condition.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              35.6 acres (90.92) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units  per acre urban
              residential,  of which 6.84 acres (192) is impervious.
    
              3.6 acres (9.IX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space,
              all    pervious.
                                       G16-7
    

    -------
    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 (18%)  is impervious.
                                      G16-8
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
    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 stormwater 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 in the recreational lakes,
    rather than the urban drainage streams, where concerns related basically to
    flood control.
                                         G16-9
    

    -------
    
                                 \
                     BONEYARD CREEK
        STUDY AREAS
                         CHAMPAIGN
    URBANA
    GENERAL STUDY AREA IDCATION
            FIGURE 3
              G16-10
    

    -------
    0>
                            MATTIS NORTH BASIN
                                   NO. 1
                                                                                                If
                                                                                            JOHN
                                                                                           STREET
                                                                                           NORTH
                                                                                            BASIN
                                                                                            NO. S
    MATTIS
    SOUTH •*-
    BASIN
    NO. 2
                                                                     MICRO-
                                                                     BASIN
                                                                     NO. 3
                                                                                                      JOHN
                                                                                                     STREET
                                                                                                     SOUTH
                                                                                                      BASIN =
                                                                                                      NO. 4
                                                                                CHAMPAIGN. ILLINOIS STUDY AREA
                                                                               IEPA-ISWS URBAN  STORM RUNOFF STUDY
                                                                                NATIONWIDE URBAN  RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
                                                                                                    B Automatic Sample/ Silci
                                                                                 SCALE               • W«! »nd Orr F»lloul Sj»ipl«
                                                                                                    A Rilngag*
                                                                  too «oo  eoo  BOO  woo »«
                                               BASIN BOUNDARIES AND INSTRUMENT LOCATIONS
                                                               FIGURE 4
    

    -------
                                     t_
                                     o
                                                      I/)
    BASIN BOUNDARY AND  GAGTNG  LOCATIONS
    
                 FIGURE 5
                616-12
    

    -------
                              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 qf 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 remaining four basins  are similar 1n
                                        616-13
    

    -------
     size and have a uniform land use consisting of single family residential.  The
     final  two basins are similar in size and consist  primarily of heavy traveled
     4-lane 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 QUAL-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 ILLUDAS model to  simulate  washoff  by particle  size  and  runoff quality
     on a continuous basis.   This version of the model will be known  as  Q-ILLUDAS.
    
     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 removal 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 demonstrating the degree of similarity between the
              experimental and control basins with a model.
    
    Evaluation of the pollutant  impacts of the urban stormwater  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  sampling
    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.   All  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 such 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
     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
     Chr omi um
     Cadmium
     Manganese
     Chloride
     Sulfate
     Organic Carbon (as C)
     Chemical Oxygen Demand
     Biochemical Oxygen Demand
     Fecal Coll form 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.
    
     Equi pment
    
     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 raingages 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 raingage are on loan from ISWS.  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
            Dissolved, Total
    
            5-day, Ultimate
    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 remote  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 remote station
     is  usually 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
               from 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,  program,
    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  256  K byte's  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 remote Sangamo Weston, a device capable of receiving  hard wire
    signals with at least 8 separate addresses of the following types:
    
                                         616-17
    

    -------
          1.    Status/Alarm:  8 Status/Alarm  inputs  for  relay closure.
    
          2.    Analog:  6  points,  0 to  5V,  0-4ma, and 4-20ma, 8 bit coding  accuracy
               through  the  central station ^ 0.51 or better.
    
          3.    Control: 4 two-state or  8 unitary controls, contact closure rated
               at  least 200ma 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-motor  LMS-300 level recorder.   It operates on 110  volt AC,
     has its own compressor and has an  accuracy of +_ 1% 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-door  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 Tan for temperture control  in the summer.
                                         G16-18
    

    -------
     Raingages —        .
    
     Three Weather 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 ISWS.  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 vehicle 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 Hild 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:
                                        G16-19
    

    -------
          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 15  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 streetsweeping  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 Lake 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 eutrophication 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
    population of 5,000/rm'2, resulting in an approximate population of 4,200 in the
    watershed.   DuPage 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
    employed.   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.
                                        G17-2
    

    -------
    N
                                                GLEN ELLYN
    
                                          DuPAGE COUNTY
                                                                  LAKE
                                                                  MICHIGAN
                                         STATE LOCUS
                                   ILLINOIS NURP PROJECTS
    
                                          FIGURE 1
    
                                       G17-3
    

    -------
    GLEN ELLYN STREETS [/£«*
     USGS QUAD SHEET   »• '*'''''!/
         FIGURE 2
        G17-4
    

    -------
    Ol
                                                                                                       LEGEND
                                                             LAKE  ELLYN WATERSHED
                                                                   FIGURE 3
    L
                                                                                              •5*v
                                                                                     Reproduced from
                                                                                     best  available  copy.
    

    -------
                                 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
     A.  Area
         The City of Glen Ellyn, situated  in OuPage 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.
                                           617-6
    

    -------
                                     PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   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 1s 952 served by separate storm sewers;
            98% of the streets have curb and gutter drainage, and 2% have ditch and
            swale drainage.
            Street density 1s 21.6 miles/square mile.
        E.   Land Use
            427  acres (80%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
            16 acres (3%) is  8 dwelling units per acre urban residential.
            27 acres (5%) is  central business district urban commercial.
            10 acres (2%) is  wetlands.
            27 acres (52) 1s  urban parkland.
                              •
            27 acres (5%) is  urban institutional.
                                          G17-7
    

    -------
                                        PROBLEM
    A.  Local 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 recreational 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 DuPage 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.
    
    B.  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.
                                          G17-8
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.  Major objectives
        Previous evaluations have stated that the watershed contributary to
        Lake Ellyn has so 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-bottom detention facilities,
        represented by Lake Ellyn, in removing pollutants from stormwater 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 +_ 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 analysis 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 moni'toring, 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
                                            G17-9
    

    -------
     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 Water  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.   Surficial 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.
                                       617-10
    

    -------
                        LEGEND
    • • Atmo»ph«ric Dtpotition
    ®- Roof Runoff
    B• Snow
    [»1- Bottom Mittrial
             [•]• WitM Column
             ^^" Runoff Flow
             ©• Pracipititfon
            ry^» Rod Din
                 Sampling StrMti
    SAMPLING  AND MONITORING  POINTS
                  FIGURE  4
                                                                       Six County Location VUp
                                            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 snowmelt  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
                        G18-1
    

    -------
                                   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 Kinnickinnic 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  Michigai
     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  11.3% decline from 717,100 in  1960.  The  1980 urbanized area
     population  declined 3.6%,  and the SMSA declined 0.5% 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.
                                       G18-2
    

    -------
    LAKE
    SUPERIOR
                                                LAKE
                                                MICHIGAN
                                             MILWAUKEE  CY
    
                                             MILWAUKEE
                 STATE LOCUS    •
    
            WISCONSIN NURP PROJECT
                   FIGURE 1
                618-3
    

    -------
    /
                                           I
                                          CA/ITJU. courr awn.,
    
                                         CA/ITJU. cam loan
    
                                       nor LIKOU cun
    
                                          vm cawusi STUIT
                                   MRP STUDY SITES IN THE
    
                                 MILWAUKEE  RIVER  WATERSHED
    
                                           FIGURE  2
                                          618-4.
    

    -------
    
                                   Reproduced from
                                   best available  copy.
     NURP  STUDY SITES  IN THE
    
    MENOMONEE RIER WATERSHED
    
              FIGURE 3
                    G18-5
    

    -------
                               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
    % 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, 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.
    
              Streets  consist of 2.9 lane miles of asphalt,  31% of which is in
              good condition, and 69% of which is in poor condition.  In addition,
              there are about 0.6 lane miles of concrete, of which 83% is in good
              condition and 17% of which is in poor condition.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              7.54 acres (26%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which 5.9 acres (78.2%) is impervious.
    
              21.46 acres (74%)  is Linear Development,
              of which 16.4 acres (76.4%) is impervious.
    
    II.   Catchment Name - WI  1,  631,  WOOD CENTER
    
         A.   Area - 44.9 acres.
    
         6.   Population - 540 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.
    
              Streets  consist of 4.2  lane miles of asphalt,  14% of which is  in
              good condition,  and 86% of which is in poor condition.  In addition
              there is about  1 lane mile of concrete, of  which  80% is  in good
              condition and 20%  of which is in poor condition.
    
         E.   Land Use                           .                               .
    
              13.84 acres  (30.8%) is  2.5 to 8 dwelling  units  per acre  urban  residential,
              of which 11.22  acres (81.1%)  is impervious.
    
              25.28 acres  (56.3%) is  Linear Strip Development,
              of which 20.5 acres (81.1%)  is impervious.
    
              5.6 acres (12.5%)  is Urban Industrial  (heavy),
              of which 4.54 acres (81.1%)  is impervious.
                                        G18-7
    

    -------
     III.  Catchment  Name  - WI  1,  632,  N.  Hastings
          A.   Area  -  32.84  acres.
          B.   Population -  560 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.
              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 - WI 1, 633,  N. Bur-bank
          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.
          D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
             tsewers.
              Street consist of 4.1 lane miles of  concrete, 97% 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 - WI 1,  634,  Rustler
         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.
         0.   Sewerage -  Drainage area of the catchment  is 100%  separate storm
              sewers.
                                        G18-8
    

    -------
              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 (99.6%) is impervious.
    VI.  Catchment Name -  WI 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.
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 1002 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 - WI 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 1002 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 miles
              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.
                                        G18-9
    

    -------
    VIII.  Catchment Name - WI 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, 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.
              Streets  consist of 100  lane  miles of concrete,  54X of  which is in
              good  condition  and 46%  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,
     Kinnikinnic and Menomonee  River Watersheds.   Most of the study areas for  the
     proposed  project  are in  the Menomonee River Watershed.  A large amount of
     water quality data was collected for the evaluation of urban pollution in the
     Menomonee River Watershed.  The sources of water quality data  include: The
     SEWRPC-ONR  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, BOD, phosphorus,  fecal coliform
     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 nonpoint
     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 Minneapolis-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 Menomonee and
    the Milwaukee River watersheds.
                                       618-11
    

    -------
     - - ^--f*^^ >>*• «Vs> --
     •*t -.Cil*?rs." P-r'cfJr'-;
     Aa^smss.-*
                      WEST LINCOLN CREEK PARKWAY
                             STUDY SITE
                 (PAIRED WITH W.  CONGRESS ST. STUDY SITE)
    
                              FIGURE 4
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
                              618-12
    

    -------
    wfcs&r
                                sirowiiaf
    
    
    
          55 .5i54SS.'nt:'i??.T?;iSS:jS5SL-MaS';:
             WEST CONGRESS STREET STUDY SITE
      (PAIRED WITH W. LINCOLN CREEK PARKWAY STUDY SITE)
    
                     FIGURE 5
                       618-13
    

    -------
    /
                              NORTH BURBANK STREET  STUDY SITE
    
    
                                           FIGURE  6
          Reproduced from    K™
          best available  copy. fiSf
                                            618-14
    

    -------
    , •   •  •.	 ^^ .  •.  ^^M
        NORTH HASTINGS STREET  STUDY SITE
    
    
    
                    FIGURE 7
                      618-15
    

    -------
             ' 'rs
             iii
                              i
    
                                         jga^i^jt.l-'fJi:^-
                              i^W                '^?V
                                        f fe teftfe Hw
    Reproduced from
    
      available copy
         WOOD CENTER STUDY SITE
    
    
    (PAIRED WITH SOUTH 77th STREET STUDY SITE)
    
    
    
            FIGURE 8
    

    -------
    .v2?-"S..-r ,'. •-..**;• OREEW
    Sj*::ft>fl£&
    i£ iffi ETe
                      SOUTH 77th STREET STUDY SITE
    
                  (PAIRED WITH WOOD CENTER STUDY SITE)
    
                              FIGUTE 9
                                 G18-17
    

    -------
                      ••l:»---.,*7*ftsa>.UJ
    
                      _2_\NLli?r™ - ?
           rf-jj^'Stf
    
    
    
        -*j3lS53f>££i^K±
                                   m^^
    l^'-g^M^(irZ3ji^3iM'-"'^**®!:i'-Jt£?£i'
    sa^sMgStv^MpBSEr^^i^^^fe
    .- M. ^=-J=aL.«.iMi.  ^r-*-/:l- -aagaasHf  T^V^;-';:; .--^c^b, ?*
                     -'        ~~
                                         .
    
                                   CAPITAL COURT SOUTH '~^
     Reproduced from
    
     j>es> available
    CAPITAL COURT NORTH
    
         AND
    
    CAPITAL COURT SOUTH
    
     PAIRED STUDY SITES
    
    
    
        FIGURE 10
                            618-18
    

    -------
                               PROJECT DESCRIPTION
     A.    Major  Objective
    
     The Areawide  Water  Quality Management  Plan  for  Southeastern  Wisconsin contains
     the recommendation  that  a 25 percent reduction  in  urban nonpoint  source
     pollution be  achieved  for 84 percent of  the urban  area within  the region.   The
     recommendation  for  the remaining  16 percent of  the area is a 50 percent re-
     duction  through implementation of appropriate practices.
    
     Among practices that may be implemented  to  achieve the 25% reduction  is
     street sweeping.  The  need to know the effectiveness of improved  street-
     sweeping programs in the region will become critical if regulatory mechanisms
     for urban nonpoint  source controls are to be considered seriously.  At  the
     time this project was  developed,  the percent reduction in urban nonpoint source
     pollution reduced by improved street sweeping programs was unknown for  the
     Southeast Wisconsin  Regional  Planning  Commission area.
    
     One of the  objectives  of this project  is to evaluate the effectiveness  of the
     timing and  frequency of  street sweeping  in  Milwaukee County.   A second  object-
     ive is to develop a  methodology usable by municipalities to  design urban non-
     point source  control programs to  meet  water quality objectives.   In addition,
     this project  will evaluate the contribution  of  pollutants from rooftops,
     atmospheric dry and  wet  deposition, and winter  accumulation  to urban  watersheds.
    
     B.    Methodologies
    
     Street sweeping  as a practice has most often been  used for the aesthetic
     improvements  resulting,  and  in coordination  with stormdrain  catchbasins  cleaning
     programs to prolong  the  time  between required cleanings.
    
     The  primary purpose  of this project is to evaluate the potential  improvement
     in  stormwater quality caused  by an accelerated  street sweeping program.  To
     evaluate this management  technique, a  test  and control  study design was  select-
     ed.   To  assess  the impacts of street sweeping on various land  uses, pairs of
     small, homogeneous watersheds were selected for study.   The selected  land uses
     include  pairs of medium  density residential, high density residential, commercial
     strip  and parking lot areas.  One of the watersheds of each pair was  designated
     the  test area,  and the other  the control area.
    
     Each  control  area is regularly swept using the same baseline frequency at which
     it has customarily been  swept.  For the residential control areas the base-
     line  frequency  is once per month, for the commercial strip control area  it  is
     once per week,  and for the parking lot control area it  is  every two months.
    
     Conversely the test  areas have alternating sweeping frequencies.   For some
     periods,  the  sweeping frequencies in the test areas are identical  to the sweeping
     frequencies in the corresponding control areas.   These  periods are called
     control periods.  At other times the sweeping frequencies  in the test areas
     are  higher than  in the control areas.   These are called test periods.   The
     accelerated sweeping frequencies were selected to represent the possible range
    of sweeping frequencies that might be socially and economically acceptable.
                                              G18-19
    

    -------
     The increased frequencies in the residential  areas are once and twice per week,
     in the commerical  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,  1981 and 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 storm-
     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 20% 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 30%  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.
    
     Ideally 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 will 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  unmonitored  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.
                                             G18-20
    

    -------
                                                        TABLE  2
                                                STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
    INCLUSIVE
      DATES
    PERIOD
    SWEEPING FREQUENCY (TIMES/MONTHS)
                                   Residential
                                                      Commercial
                                TesT:
                                Areas
                        control
                        Areas
                               TesF
                               Area
    Control
    Area
       Parking Lots
    Te si      Contro1
    Area      Area
    5/18/80-7/5/80
    7/6/80-8/23/80
    8/24/80-10/11/80
    10/12/80-11/29/80
    3/15/81-5/2/81
    5/3/81-6/20/81
    6/21/81-8/15/81
    8/16/81-10/3/81
    10/4/81-11/28/81
    3/7/82-4/17/82
    4/18/82-5/22/82
    5/23/82-7/3/82
    CONTROL
    TEST
    CONTROL
    TEST
    TEST
    CONTROL
    TEST
    CONTROL
    TEST
    TEST
    CONTROL
    TEST
    1
    4
    1
    4
    8
    1
    8
    1
    8
    4
    1
    4
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    1
    4
    12
    4
    12
    8
    1
    8
    1
    8
    12
    4
    12
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    4
    .5
    4
    .5
    4
    2
    .5
    2
    .5
    2
    4
    .5
    4
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    .5
    

    -------
     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.  We 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.
    
    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
                                            G18-22
    

    -------
     required  to  get  a good  seasonal  loading  estimate, but  the  resultant  loading
     estimates will not have associated  error terms.  A report  of  this  analysts,
     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
     recombined 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 genera.1 characteristics of  the study sites,  including the
     primary land use designations.
                                           G18-23
    

    -------
                                     TABLE  3
                     GENERAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  STUDY  SITES
                         NATIONWIDE  URBAN  RUNOFF  PROGRAM
                          MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
    Study Site
    W. Lincoln
    Creek Parkway
    W. 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 stormwater quality constituents and parameters scheduled, and their frequency,
    are indicated in Table 4.
                                            G18-24
    

    -------
                                    TABLE 4
                         STORMUATER 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 Day
    
    Multi-element Scan
    
    Fecal Coliform
    
    Fecal Streptococcus
    
    Particle Size
    
       Total Phosphorus
       Available Phosphorus
       Total Lead
    *A11 samples are composite samples except for the fecals.
                                             618-25
    

    -------
     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 Commisssion.
    
     Controls
    
     This project is evaluating the effectiveness of streetsweeping as a practice
     for controlling pollution from urban stormwater 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
                     619-1
    

    -------
                                   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
     Matagorda  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 stormwater 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 SMSA population  was  536,450,  a 10 year change of
    81.2%.   The city population,  itself, went from  186,524 in 1960 to 251,808
     in 1970, an increase of 35%.   In the next decade it further increased to
    345,496, or an increase of 37.2%.   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 43.4%, following a 41.3% increase between
    1960 and 1970.
                                     G19-2
    

    -------
       STATE LOCUS
    
    
    
    TEXAS NURP PROJECT
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
         FIGURE 1
       G19-3
    

    -------
    RECEIVING WATER STUDY AREA
    
    
    
             FIGURE 2
             G19-4
    

    -------
    N
                                                                 \ \
                             THE ROLLINGWOOD SITE
    
    
    
    
                                   FIGURE 3
                                 G19-5
    

    -------
    THE NORTHWEST AUSTIN SITE
    
    
    
            FIGURE 4
          G19-6
    

    -------
                              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 85X 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 Dawson 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, Seminole
    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.
                                      G19-7
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
     I.   Catchment Name - TXl, 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/mile, 100* 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  (60%) is impervious.
    
              2.5 acres  (100%)  is Shopping Center,  of which 1.5 acres (60%) is
              impervious.
    
              Approximately 40.2% imperviousness in the entire catchment.
    
    II.   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 (3.6%) is < 0.5 dwelling units per acre urban  residential,
             of  which 0.9 acres  (1.9%)  is impervious.
    
             400 acres (30.8%) is Rangeland.
    
             850 acres (65%) 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, 100* served with curbs and gutters.  The  storm 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, 100% of which is  in
              good condition.
    
         E.    Land Use
    
              60.2 acres (100X) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre urban residential,
              of which  12.9 acres  (21.4%) 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
     stormwater 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'.  Th» 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, is  a popular  recreation  area.
    
     Data collected by both TDWR and USGS will  be used to supplement that collected
     in 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 stormwater 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 limnologies! 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 contigous
     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) daily 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 coliforms, and fecal  coliforms.  Total and fecal
    coliform 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.
                                                                           fl«
          (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 ?"e 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
                                                                 ROBERT MUELLER
                                                                 MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
    NOTE:
         A-E ARE USGS  SAMPLING STATIONS
         ES IS NURP  DESIGNATION OF
         SAMPLING  STATION
                                                                           I mile
                            WATER QUALITY  SAMPLING POINTS
                                     ON TOWN  LAKE
    
                                       FIGURE 5
                                     619-14.
    

    -------
    WATER 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 in  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.6.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  analysis list as necessary.'
    
     The  ultimate direction of the receiving water program for water quality
     constituents will be  related to whether or not tox'ic  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.
                                      619-16
    

    -------
     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 limnological 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 humans 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 midchannel  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 inital  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  plume can be  represented
    properly.  The  initial phase of the biological  progran 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.
                                       619-17
    

    -------
                                                TABLE 1
    
                                  CONSTITUENT ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED
                                      DURING INITIAL LAKE SAMPLING
                                                                   Environmental Media
                         Parameter                     Water             Sediment               Tissue
    
    
     General
    
        Specific conductance, in situ                    x
        pH,  in situ                                      x
        Temperature, in situ                             x
        Dissolved oxygen (DO), In situ                   x
        Sediment volatile fraction                                          x
        Sediment particle size distribution                                 x
    
     Light-Intensity-Related
    
        Transparency (Seech 1 disk),  in situ              x
        Color                                             x
        Filter photometer - light extinction,  in  situ     x
    
     Organic Pollution
    
        Five-day biochemical oxygen  demand  (BOO,),  total
        Fecal  collforms
        Total  chemical  oxygen demand (COD)
        Total  suspended solids  (TSS)/turbid1ty
        Total  dissolved solids  (TOS)
        Total  organic carbon (TOO)
    
     Nutrients
    
        Nitrate-nitrogen                                  x
        Nitrite-nitrogen                            :      x
        Ammonia-nitrogen          .                        x
        Total  KJeldahl-nitrogen  (TKN)                     x
        Alkalinity  (HCO ~   CO,')                          x
        Total  phosphorus                                  x
        Dissolved orthophosphate                          x
    Metals
       Arsenic
       Copper
       Lead
       Mercury
       Zinc
       Cadmium
    
    Total Organics
       Total hydrocarbons                               x                                      x
       Defoliants
         Total 2.4-0 (2,4-dlschlorophenoxyacetic acid)  x                                      x
         Total 2,4.S-T (2.4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetlc ac1d)x                x                   x
         Total d1»2lnon                                 x                  x                   x
         ODD                                                               x
         OOE                                                               x
         DOT                                                               x
    Polychlorinated biphenyls                                              x                   x
                                           G19-18
    

    -------
     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 multifaceted biological sampling program that includes bacterio-
     logical, plankton and macroinvertebrate 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 lake 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
     limnological 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 macroinverte-
     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 within Town  Lake Watershed, representing low  and high  impervious cover
    developments,  respectively.  The Woodhollow site is below the dam  at the outlet
    of Woodhollow 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.
                                        619-19
    

    -------
     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 nonpoint 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 HL 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.
                                      G19-20
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
              METROPLAN
            LITTLE ROCK, AR
            REGION.VI,  EPA
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    
    
     The  City of  Little Rock, situated in Pulaski County is located in the approximate
     center of  the State of Arkansas.  The local topography consists of gentle hills and
     wetlands,  drained by the mainstem 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 W.  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 1950 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
     SMSA 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'
    

    -------
                         N
    ARKANSAS
                                                      PULASKI
    
                                                      CY
    ro
    o
                                                                         ITTLE ROCK
                                                        STATE  LOCUS
    
                                                 ARKANSAS  NURP  PROJECT
                                                         FIGURE  1
    

    -------
    
    [Reproduced from    JP|
    best available copy. ^ffi|
    
    LIHLE  ROCK STREETS
     USGS QUAD SHEET
    
         FIGURE 2
    
    
          G20-4
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
    
    The City of Little Rock, situated in Pulaski 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 capitol, 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.  Most 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.
    
    D.   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 coliform counts
    in the streams.
                                        G20-5
    

    -------
    CD
    
    
    O
    
    
    tr>
           O
    
    
           JO
    -n     o
    •-•     50
    en     m
    cz     m
    70     ;*:
                                                                                                          y""»»»»Jl^rj—j-gT l\f, ^X
                                                                                                                                     fri»
                                                                                                                                                                tr i«
    

    -------
                                   OS
                                   u
                                                         7, Little.
                                                            Fourths-
                                                            65th
    . .      .   #3, 9 Asher
    Coleman Creek
                                          #8,  Fourche  Creek  9
                                              University Avenue
                                                ?5, Fourche Creek
                                                    9 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 - 537  persons.
          C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a  representative  slope  of 24.7
              feet/mile, 35%  served with  curbs and  gutters  and  6555 served  with
              swales  and ditches.  The storm sewers approximate a  24.7 feet/mile
              slope,  and extend 60,720 feet.
          0.   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 10% 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  (8.4%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban
              residential, of which 164.6 acres (37%) is impervious.
              19.8 acres (0.4%) 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 (12%) is impervious.
              175.4 acres  (3.3%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
              3.5 acres (2%) is impervious.
              405.2 acres  is Agriculture.
              4,081.9 acres is Forest.
              14.8 acres (0.3%)  is Water,  Reservoirs.
              111.2 acres  (2.1%) 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  ana  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 sto'rm
              sewers.
    
              Streets consist of 53.5 lane miles of asphalt, 90% of which is in
              good condition, 5% 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 90% is in good condition, 5% is in fair
              condition, and 5% 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 acres (5%) is impervious.
    
              1,210.7 acres (25.2%) is Forest.
    
              7.4 acres (0.2%) is Water,  Lakes.
    
              7.4 acres (0.2%) 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, 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.
    
         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, 5% is fair  condition, and 5% 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 (25%) is impervious.
                                      G20-9
    

    -------
               259.4 acres (36.7%) is Central  Business District,  of which
               220.5 acres (852)  is impervious.
    
               49.4 acres (7X)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space, of which
               0.5 acre (IX)  is impervious.
    
               111.2 acres (15.7X) 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,  90X served  with curbs and gutters and 10X served  with
               swales and  ditches.   The storm  sewers  approximate  a  32  feet/mile
               slope  and  extend 21,120  feet.
    
          D.    Sewerage -  Draiange area of the catchment is 100X  separate storm
               sewers.
    
               Streets  consist  of  70.9  lane miles of  asphalt, 90X of which  is  in
               good condition,  5X  is  in fair condition, and 5X is  in poor condition.
               In addition  ther are about 17.7 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'
    
               1571.5 acres (64.6%) is  2.5 to  8 dwelling units per  acre  urban
               residential, of  which  581.5 acres (37X) is impervious.
    
            •   276.4 acres  (11.4X) is Shopping Center, of which
               226.5 acres  (82%) is impervious.
    
               306.4 acres  (12.6X) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
               15.3 acres  (5X)  is  impervious.
    
               185.3 acres  (7.6X)  is Forest.
    
              17.3 acres (0.7) is Water,  Reservoirs.
    
              76.6 acres (3.IX) 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 - AR1 Catchment 031,  Co Ternan 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 100% 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.
                                      620-11
    

    -------
              593.0 acres (27.9%) is Shopping Center, of which
              486.3 acres (82%) is impervious.
              227.3 acres (10.7%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space, of which
              22.7 acres (10%) is impervious.
              117.6 acres is Forest
              12.4 acres is Water, Reservoirs.
              7.4 acres is Barrens.
    VII. Catchment Name - AR1 Catchment 032,  Coleman Creek
         A.    Area - 128.5 acres.
         B.    Population - 89 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 22,968 feet.
         D.    Sewerage - Drainage  area  of the catchment  is 100% 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 conditions,  and  5% is in poor
              condition.
         E.    Land  Use
              56.8  acres (44.2%)  is  Shopping  Center, of which
              48.3  acres  (85%)  is  impervious.
              71.7  acres  (55.8%)  is  Wetlands.
                                      620-12
    

    -------
                                    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 if full  benefits to the communtiy
    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 problems include excessive
    fecal and total coliform concentrations, low pH, 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.
                                          G20-13
    

    -------
                               PROJECT DESCRIPTION
     A.    Major Objective
    
     Water 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 NURP  project, being conducted  by Metroplan, 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 times, 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 prioritj
     pollutants  will be determined, and  pollutant contributions from the Fourche tributarie:
     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.   Monitoring
    
     The  study area consists  of a portion of the Fourche Creek  drainage  system in Little
    Rock.  In addition to  the mainstem,  Grassy Flat Creek,  Rock Creek,  Coleman Creek and
     Little Fourche Creek are part  of the study.
                                          G20-14
    

    -------
    MARKHAM   ST
                        AR O22
      GOLF  COURSE
        a  PARK
                         O
    AR 1240
                                                            CHECK  DAMS
                                                            SODDING a
                                                            STABILIZED AREAS
                                                            SAMPLING  srre
                                                       (No Scale)
                            SODDING  AND  CATCH  BASINS
    
                               WAR MEMORIAL  PARK
    
                                     FIGURE  5
                                      G20-15
    

    -------
          CHANNEL  CLEARING,BANK RELOCATION
    
    
    
    ^£3  RIP RAP  8  VEGETATION
    
    
    
    O   SAMRJNG  SITE
                                                       (No  Seal*)
                   STABILIZATION OF ROCK CREEK
    
    
    
                             FIGURE 6
                              G20-16
    

    -------
                                   RIP  RAP BANK
                                 (No  Sealt)
       RIP RAP BANK
    GRASSY FLAT BRANCH
         FIGURE 7
    
          G20-17
    

    -------
    o
             LOW WATER BRIDGE
             ACTING AS 0AM
    SAMPLING SITE
                       LOW WATER BRIDGE ACTING AS  DAM
    
                           ROCK CREEK, BOYLE PARK
    
                                  FIGURE 8
    
    
                                   620-18.
    

    -------
    The list of parameters and consHuents examined in each sample includes:  BOD ,
    total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen,  fecal coli, lead, zrnc,
    chromium, aluminum, chemcial oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, rainfall, flow,
    and temperature.  For a few samples, the presense of priority pollutants will
    be analysed.
    
    0.   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  management 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.
                                       G20-19
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
     MID-AMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL
    
       KANSAS CITY, KANSAS AND
       'INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI
    
           REGION VII, EPA
             G21-1
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    
    
    The Water 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.
                                     621-2
    

    -------
                              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 54% 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,  numerou
         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 orginates near Olathe  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.
                                          G21-3
    

    -------
         Rock 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.
    
    D.   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)
                                         G21-4
    

    -------
    oWka
                   O Independence
    Kansas Citn  Q  Kansas City
                tarland Park
    
          O 01 the
                                                               O
                                                          Jefferson City
                                                            Missouri
                          THE STATES  OF KANSAS AND MISSOURI
                                           621-5
    

    -------
                                                          Rock Creek
                                                          Study Area
    Indian Creek
     Study Area
        LEGEND
        Urban Subwatershed
      :; Combined Sewer System
    MARC 208  AREA
                          G21-6
    

    -------
                                  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 (100%) is Medium Density Residential.
    II.  Catchment Name - Rock Creek Commercial (RC)
         A.   Area - 36 acres.  -
         B.   Population - 122 persons.
         C.   Land Use
              18 acres (50%) is Medium Density Residential
              18 acres (50%) 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 (74.6%) is Mediun Density Residential.
              1,260 acres (5%) is  Commercial
              806 acres (3.2%) is  Industrial
              957 acres (3.8%) is  Parkland
              3,276 acres (13%)  is Vacant Land
              100 acres (.4%) is  Urban Area Under Construction
    IV.  Catchment Name - RS 2 (In-stream Site)
         A.   Area - 4624 acres.
         B.   Population - 40,190  persons.
         C.   Land Use •
              3436 acres (74.3%)  is Medium Density Residential
              203 acres (4.4%) is  Commercial
              102 acres (2.2%) is  Industrial
              305 acres (6.6%) is  Parkland
              569 acres (12.3%)  is Vacant Land
              9 acres  (.2%)  is Urban Area Under Construction
                                       G21-7
    

    -------
    V.    Catchment Name - RS 3 (In-stream Site)
    
         A.    Area -  5566 acres.
    
         B.    Population - 51,237 persons.
    
         C.    Land Use
    
              4,035 (72.5%)  is Medium  Density Residential
              245  acres (4.4%) 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
                                      621-5
    

    -------
    INDEPENDENCE, MO STUDY SITES
               G21-9
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
    

    -------
            1-3 - Hater Quality Stations
                   Missouri
                    River
    CO
    ro
    i
    I—•
    o
                                           Strip
                                         Gbntnercial
                                            Site
    Rock Creek Study Area
    
     City of Independence
    

    -------
     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)  is 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 (44X)  is Vacant Land
     III.  Catchment  Name -  Indian Creek  Residential  (IR)
          A.   Area  -  63 acres.
          B.   Land  Use
              56  acres  (89%)  is Medium  Density Residential
              2 acres (3X) is High Density Residential
              5 acres (8%) is Parkland
     IV.   Catchment  Name -  IS  1  (In-stream Site)
          A.   Area  -  11,005 acres.
     V.    Catchment  Name -  IS  2  (In-stream Site)
              This  site is currently being moved.
     VI.   Catchment  Name -  IS  3  (In-stream Site)
          A.   Area  -  16,862 acres.
     VII.  Catchment  Name -  IS 4  (In-stream Site)
          A.   Area  -  1372  acres.
     VIII.  Catchment  Name  - 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.
                                        621-11
    

    -------
    CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA & MONITORING SITES,  INDIAN CREEK
                              G21-12
    

    -------
                           SHAWNEE
                                         OVERLAND
                                           PARK
                     Light
                   Industrial
                      Area
                                                             Residential
                                                                Site
         Metcalf
         Shopping
          Center
    o
    ro
    I
    I—*
    to
        i-8  •  Tfater Quality Stations
    
          B  »  Denthic Organism Stations
                                                                                               N
                   OLATHE
    Indian Creek Study Area
    
         Johnson County
    

    -------
                                    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.  Results
         of several years of macroinvertebrate study on Indian Creek indicate that
         stressed conditions exist in stream reaches receiving urban runoff.  The
         macroinvertebrate 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
         N'JRP 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 hydrological  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.
                                          621-14
    

    -------
                               PROJECT DESCRIPTION
     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
     Bedient.   Graphs of areal  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-stream  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.
                                             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 will 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 pre-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 geomorphic 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 stormwater study.
    
     C.   Monitoring
    
     Automatic flow recording and sampling equipment 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 (IR) - The catchment being monitored contains a
    trapezoidal concrete channel that receives direct runoff from back yards.  An
    H-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  In-Stream Sites (IS 1-IS 5) - The instream sites all have Sigma-
    Motor automatic samplers and ISCO flow meters installed.  Rating curves were
    developed for the sites.
    
    Rock Creek
    
    Rock Creek Residential Site (RR) - 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 H-flume was installed at this
    point.  A Sigma-Motor automatic sampler and ISCO flow meter were installed.
    
    Rock Creek Commercial Site (RC) - 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 meter were installed.
    
    Rock Creek In-Stream Sites (RS 1-RS 3) - RS 1 has a USGS float type flow gage
    with a five minute punched paper tape recorder.  A broad 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
                  G22-1
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
    The Denver Regional Council of Governments Clean Water Plan completed under
    Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
    92-500, Section 208) identified nonpoint 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
    erodible 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 mainstem 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 Water Plan recommended that additional  studies and data were needed.
    The Denver NURP project was initiated to fill  in these data gaps.
                                        G22-2
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    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 15% of the days of the year, individual storms are typically
    of short 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 depositional  areas with much accumulated sediment.
                                         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.
    
    0.   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.
                                        G22-4
    

    -------
                -_. Vtounuin, Vi{w
    INSTREAM BASIN BOUNDARY
    TRIBUTARY BASIN BOUNDARY
          QUALITY MONITORING STATION
    PROPOSED WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATION
    SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT SOTH AVE.
        AT DENVER
       AT DENVER. CO
    AT DENVER CO
    SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT 19TH ST
    CHERRY CREEK AT WAZEE ST
    LAKEWOOD GULCH AT DENVER. CO
    WEIR GULCH AT DENVER. CO
    SANDERSON GULCH AT DENVER CO
          PLATTE RIVER AT FLORIDA AVE. AT DENVER CO
    HARVARD GULCH AT DENVER
    LITTLE DRY CREEK AT ENGLEWOOO, CO
               MOUTH AT SHERIDAN. CO
    BIG DRY CREEK AT ENGLEWOOD
    SOUTH PLATTE RIVER AT LITTLETON, CO
                             Figure  I
          MAP OF DRURP STUDY AREA SHOWING INSTREAM AND TRIBUTARY BASINS.
                                G22-5
    

    -------
                                   PROJECT AREA
    
     8.    Instream  Sites
     I.    Catchment Name  -  South  Platte River at  50th Avenue at Denver,
          A.   Area  - 119,900  acres.
          6.   Population  -  581,882  persons.
          C.   Land  Use
              45,628 acres  (38%)  is  Single-Family Residential.
              6,409 acres (5%)  is Multi-Family Residential.
              15,403 acres  (132)  is  Commercial.
              7,181  acres (6%)  is Industrial.
              8,725  acres (7%)  is Parkland.
              29,846  acres  (25X)  is  Vacant Land.
              6,708  acres (6%)  is Agricultural.
     II.  Catchment  Name -  South Platte River  at  19th Street at  Denver.
         A.  Area -  108,329 acres.
         8.  Population - 464,942 persons.
         C.  Land Use
             40,398  (38X)  is Single-Family Residential.
             5,299 acres (5%)  is Multi-Family Residential.
             13,341 acres (12%) is Commercial.
             5,596 acres (5%)  is Industrial.
             7,775 acres (7%)  is Parkland.
             29,212 acres (27%) is Vacant Land.
             6,708 acres (6%) is Agricultural.
    III.  Catchment  Name - Cherry Creek at Denver.
         A.  Area - 15,817  acres.
         8.  Population - 98,397 persons.
                                        G22-6
    

    -------
         C.   Land Use
              4,629 acres  (29%)  is Single-Family Residential.
              1,929 acres  (12%)  is Multi-Family Residential.
              2,509 acres  (16%)  is Commercial.
              772 acres (5%) is  Industrial.
              2,314 acres  (15%)  is Parkland.
              3,664 acres  (23%)  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 (49%)  is Single-Family Residential.
              628 acres (6%) is Multi-Family Residential.
              2,402 acres (23%)  is Commercial.
              211 acres (2%) is  Industrial.
              457 acres (4%) is Parkland.
              1,672 acres (16%)  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 (58%) is Single-Family Residential.
              321 acres (7%) is Multi-Family Residential.
              455 acres (10%)  is Commercial.
              54 acres (1%) is Industrial.
              587 acres (12%)  is Parkland.
                                       G22-7
    

    -------
              534 acres  (11%)  is Vacant Land.
              54  acres  (1%)  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
              160 acres  (3X) is  Multi-Family Residential.
              590 acres  (13%)  is Commercial.
              107 acres  (2%) 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 (65X)  is  Single-Family Residential.
              192 acres  (7X) is  Multi-Family Residential.
             459 acres  (16X)  is Commercial.
             38  acres (IX)  is Industrial.
             267 acres  (9X) is  Parkland.
             39  acres (2X)  is Vacant Land.
    VII.  Catchment Name - Bear  Creek at Mouth
         A.  Area -  14,603 acres.
         B.  Population - 42,534 persons.
                                        G22-8
    

    -------
         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 (2X) is Industrial.
              1,428 acres (10*) is Parkland.
              6,507 acres (45X) 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 for instream sites.
                                       G22-9
    

    -------
    Reproduced irom
    best available copy.
                ....-:._._
                                                                      URBAN RUNOFF
                                                                    • TRIBUTARY
                                                                    • IN3TREAM
                                                                    • RAIN GA6E
           LOCATIONS OF URBAN, INSTREAM AND TRIBUTARY MONITORING SITES,
                   AND RAINGAUGE NETWORK IN DRURP STUDY AREA.
                                          G22-10
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
         A.   End-of-Pipe Sites
         I.    Catchment Name - Big Dry Creek  Tributary  at Easter Street, near
              Littelton, CO.
              A.    Area - 33 acres
              B.    Population - 637
              C.    Land Use -
                   33 acres (100%) is Multi-Family Residential
                   13.6 acres (41.3%) 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 (100%) is Open Land
                   2.43 acres (.6%) 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 (14%) is Commercial
      IV.     Catchment Name - Asbury Park Storm Drain  at Asbury Avenue
              (outflow to detention basin)
              A.    Area - 127 acres
              B.    Population -  1,177'
                                        G22-11
    

    -------
              Ct   Land Use
                   109 acres (86%) is Single-Family Residential
                  17.8 acres (14%) is Commercial
    V.   Catchment Name - North Avenue Storm 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 (30%) is Commercial
                   25.4 acres (37%) is Open Land
    VI.  Catchment Name - North Avenue Storm 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 (30%) 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
                                           G22-12
    

    -------
              L.   Land Use
                   57.1 acres (100%) is Multi-Family Residential
                   21.4 acres (37.5%) is impervious
    VIII.     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 (23.9%) 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.
                                           62 2.-13
    

    -------
        Reproduced from
        best available copy. ^H
    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.
                                 G22-15
    

    -------
                    «-N-
                        *£**•
      - *
          '-*"i^*"-'jr • — '.-.
          '•i-* *-.f^*:-:
    
           -'>
                       •M*H^.^^_^
                       S32
                          m
    3&M%&
    ^> .. •*V» -•^*7*^Hf'\^^V!J ••^'-^^ ^^**fc. .  •iJ?"»uj-i=af^u -*^f- ^F^" V
    
    ^B^®1*-**^^
    »t-i-j  ^ \ *^"^ ^^r'*--»n,v^ "'^i rr~ ^ A w^'-ik !L."\ ->^
    s^. v,^ v.fV,v^fc±J t^l^;!^
    -I   1: ?>Vf\\ v- ••vgln-i u^ii/ &•'•:.'
        -.ifiS^-.rt^Si-;'  r, ^irr\^
                             * *r* »^^ * i
                             r i K\ A
     . ;., v -^t^^;.  'i i.^^> % 3  1 .|V^
    i- :VL-- "^ V^l ^  ,> rt^jBi^Tj ^-i. stlkL: x'
    «C ?*CT
     I -I .   Ljj»sy« =* ..., i,
      ^   i =*SQ^-_i r!
                          " ••   i4
                               •*
       MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASIN AT EASTER ST. (SOUTHGLENN).
                 AREA = 30 ACRES.
                    G22-16
    

    -------
            ^^^^
      itasfaSsciiEL
                     feLr'JiS
    i? * * -»»• j. T^^^K
    
    HSSiHS^P^^T ~*-t»;
                   -*'
                  '^ liiji
    
                   '
       B 2 1W rT^^S ^.-i v
       B-i le^a^Ti-i^
    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 = 148.4 ACRES.   G22-18
    

    -------
                                 *"  ".?v^i  >  . W+"•%2sr-*'»'
    COMMERCIAL BASIN AT VILLA ITALIA SHOPPING CENTER STORM DRAIN.
                         AREA = 73.5 ACRES.
                                  G22-19
    

    -------
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
    NATURAL GRASSLAND BASIN AT RCONEY GULCH. AREA = 405 ACRES.
    
                                   G22-20
    

    -------
                                    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 nonpoint
    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 eutrophication.  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 nonpoint sources.
    These watersheds are presently less than 5% 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 nonpoint 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 par£s of the local governments and citizen
    groups to gather more information on the extent of the urban runoff problem
    in Denver.
                                          G22-21
    

    -------
                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.   Major Objective
    
    The  basic objectives of the urban runoff program are to assess the nature,
    causes, seventy and opportunities for the control of urban runoff problems
    in 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 nonpoint
              source pollution loads on receiving waters
         4)   determine the technical and institutional opportunities
              for the control of nonpoint 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,  precitation 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  concent'rations  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
                                            G22-22
    

    -------
         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 BMP'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 in the
    Denver region with those found in studies across the country, and determination
    of the relationship between flow-proportioned composite sampling and discrete
    sampli ng.
    
    
    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, system control units, recording  rain gages and
    wetfal1/dryfal1 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-integrating the flow will be
    the sampling technique.  A USDH-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 nonpoint source pollution  ordinance in identifying
    institutional  implementation opportunities  and  problems.
                                          G22-23
    

    -------
    In addition to this, two detention basins have been instrumented  in 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.
                                       G22-24
    

    -------
         NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    SALT LAKE COUNTY DIVISION OF FLOOD CONTROL
                       AND
                  WATER QUALITY
               SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
                 REGION VIII, EPA
                         G23-1
    

    -------
                                   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.
    
    As discussed in the Salt Lake  County Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan,
    a principal reason for non-attainment of beneficial uses is the aaverse impacts
    from urban runoff pollution.   These impacts are not localized-they occur county
    wide and because of the complexity of the surface hydrologic 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.
                                         G23-2
    

    -------
                               PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
     A.    Area
     Salt  Lake  County  is bounded on  the  east by the Wasatoh Mountains, on the West
     by  the  Oquirrh .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 to  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 an 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 ge.logy is largely a product of ancient Lake Bonneville, which through
     centuries of rising and falling, carved a linear north-south corridor of steep
     shorelines and associated shore facies.  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-Tayer .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 depos-tts eroded material over a large area referr-
     ed to as "Salt Marsh."
    
     Geolog.ic 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 unconfined aquifer reservoirs surfaces.
    
     The geologic elements of combined alluvium,  talus,  and till  form a well
    drained 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.
                                         G23-3
    

    -------
     B.    Population
    
     Presently,  Salt  Lake  Valley accornodates  about  620,000  people,  living  in
     approximately 200,000 homes.   These homes  occupy  a  total  area  of  apout  37,000
     acres.
    
     Since  1847,  the  population  of  the County has steadily  grown  until  it  now
     serves  the  intermountain  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               1970                1980
    
          Population                383,035            458,607             620,000
          Household Size                3.5                3.4                 3.1
          Occupied  Dwelling Units   108,007 •           134,926             200,000
          X  Population  Increase                           19.7                35.2
    
     C.    Drainage
    
     The major hydrologic  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 summer 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
    

    -------
    D.   Sewerage System
    
    There are no combined sewers in the Salt Lake study area.  The drainage  is  all
    through storm sewers and canals.
                                         G23-5
    

    -------
    
    G23-P
    

    -------
    TOPOGRAPHY-
                  'J. S.
    
    1376.
                       ,5.1. co. ica
                      ?sr. 75
                         G23-7
    

    -------
    GEOLOGY
                      et
                                     LJ
                    G23-8
    

    -------
                      •icure IV
                                Reproduced from
                                best available copy.
    SURFACE HYDROLOGY
    
                          G23-9
    

    -------
                 Fieure V
    SUBSURFACE HYDROLOGY
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    -------
                                  PROJECT AREA
    There are forty-four (
    -------
                  TABLE 1
    ASSESMENT SITES AND TYPE OF SAMPLING
    STATION
    NUMBER
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    STATION
    LOCATION
    East Jordan Canal 9 Little Cotton-
    wood Creek (upstream)
    East Jordan Canal 9 Little Cotton-
    wood Creek (downstream)
    East Jordan Canal 9 Pump House
    East Jordan Canal 9 Tanner Ditch
    Upper Canal 9 Tolcate Lane
    Upper Canal 9 Holladay Drain
    Upper Canal 9 Wild Rose Lane
    Upper Canal 9 Mill Creek (upstream)
    Upper Canal 9 Mill Creek
    (downstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9 Little
    Cottonwood Creek (upstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 1? Little
    •Cottonwood Creek (downstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9 Big
    Cottonwood Creek (upstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9 Big
    Cottonwood Creek (downstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9 Mill
    Creek (upstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9 Mill
    Creek (downstream)
    Jordan & Salt Lake Canal 9
    Zenith Ave.
    90th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    STATION STATION
    IDENTIFICATION TYPE
    10167105
    10167106
    10167115
    10167118
    10167122
    
    10167125
    10167127
    10167128
    10167141
    10167142
    10167145
    10167146
    10167147
    10167148
    10167149
    10167240
    WG
    WG
    >R
    WG
    WG.
    
    WG,
    SG
    SG
    WG
    WG
    WG
    WG
    WG
    WG
    CG,
    WG,
    
    
    
    
    AS
    
    AS
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    AS
    AS
                     G23-12
    

    -------
                       TABLE 1
         ASSESSMENT SITES AND TYPE OF SAMPLING
    STATION
    NUMBER
    13
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    29
    
    30
    
    31
    32
    STATION
    LOCATION
    Little Cottonwood Creek 9
    Canyon Mouth
    Little Cottonwood Creek 9
    2050 East
    Little Cottonwood Creek 9
    Jordan River
    Big Cottonwood Creek @
    Canyon Mouth
    Big Cottonwood Creek 9
    Cottonwood Lane
    Holladay Drain 9 Big
    Cottonwood Creek
    Big Cottonwood Creek. @
    Jordan River
    Mill Creek 9 Canyon Mounth
    Mill Creek 9. Jordan River
    2100 South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    Parley's Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
    13th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    (SOUTH CONDUIT)
    13th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    (NORTH CONDUIT)
    Emigration Creek 9 Canyon Mouth ;
    Red Butte Creek 9 Fort Douglas
    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
    WG
    WG
    WG,
    WG
    WG
    CG,
    WG,
    WG
    WG,
    CG,
    WG
    WG
    CG,
    
    CG,
    
    WG
    WG
    
    
    AS
    
    
    AS
    AS
    
    AS
    AS
    
    AS
    
    AS
    
    
    
    (below reservoir)
                            G23-13
    

    -------
                                         TABLE  1
                           ASSESSMENT SITES AND  TYPE  OF  SAMPLING
    STATION
    NUMBER
    33
    34
    STATION
    LOCATION
    City Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
    8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    STATION
    IDENTIFICATION
    10172500
    10172511 Pre-1981
    STATION
    TYPE
    WG
    CG, AS
       35
    
    
    
    
       36    •
    
    
    
    
       37
    
       38
    
       39
    
       40
    
       41
    
       42
    
       43
    
      44
    
    *STATION TYPE
     (SOUTH CONDUIT)
    
     8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
    
    
     (MIDDLE CONDUIT)
    
     8th South Conduit 9 Jordan River
                                                       10172371 Post-1981
    10172512 Pre-1981   CG, AS
    10172372 Post-1981
    10172513 Pre-1981   CG, AS
    10172373 Post-1981
    (NORTH CONDUIT)
    
    North Temple Conduit 9 Jordan River  10172520
    
    Neff Creek 9 Canyon Mouth
    
    Jordan River 9 Narrows
    
    Jordan River 9 90th South
    
    Jordan River 9 58th South
    
    Jordan River 9 17th South
    
    Jordan River 9 5th North
    
    Decker Lake Outfall
    10172520
    
    10167001
    10167230
    10167300
    10171000
    10172550
    10170350
    CG,
    SG
    WG,
    WG,
    WG,
    WG,
    WG,
    SG
    AS
    
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    
         WG = well gage, recording
         PR » pump records,  intermittent records
         AS » automatic sampler
         SG * staff gage,  non-recording
         CG = conduit gage (Marsh-McBirney type),  recording
                                           G23-14
    

    -------
                    ./  .
                                            Reproduced from
    
                                            best available copy.
                                                X
                                     .^1
    f ,   /	 ^^.-j^rrjO*   ' -^ :      '   j :  S
                                                 •23
                      -Tr^fe^rii^Sr^&A ^x"
                        M?"  i? ?i'i^=^=O.SS-§!P^:-'21
                     -—j?T^r:?:=:^<"-.^-v^'^-o^r7  '.
                                            -^
                              3T^^S=sM*UGU--i8
                             . i r L\ -i ; cgr^^f^^   !£
                            ^JJ U"-^^..  Jl
    
                        --4^W^
                                     i~7~^ ;      I /
                                    s-^S'
                                        J
    SALT LJ.SZ CCUNTY Y/ATeR GUAUTY & WATES POLLUTION CONTrtCL
    
    
    NATIONAL URSAN  nUNOrr FROGrlAM
    
                                      ' G23-15
    

    -------
                     TABLE 2
    DESCRIPTION OF ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLING STATIONS
    STATION
    NUMBER
    A-l
    A-2
    A-3
    A-4
    A-5
    A -6
    A-7
    A-8
    A-9
    A-10
    A-ll
    A-12
    A-13
    A-14
    A-15
    A-16
    A-17
    A-18
    A-19
    A-20
    STATION
    LOCATION
    Dixie Valley Atmospheric
    Bell Canyon Atmospheric
    Fire Station #7 Atmospheric
    USGS Administration Bldg Atmospheric
    Sandy Public Works Atmospheric
    Fort Douglas Atmospheric
    Liberty Park Atmospheric
    Suburban Sanitary District No. 1
    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 #42 Atmospheric
    1-215 9 Mill Creek Atmospheric
    Olynpus Cove Atmospheric
    Holladay Drain Atmospheric
    1-215 9 1050 West Atmospheric
    STATION
    IDENTIFICATION
    403758111585501
    40330611514201
    40463211551001
    404356111562400
    403538111543101
    404600111493801
    404442111523000
    404220111544300
    404024111541300
    403829111514500
    404636111572800
    404607111530700
    404600111505000
    10172510
    404355111500100
    404205111500600
    404138111474300
    404034111463700
    10168840
    403818111551000
    STATION
    TYPE
    RR, AD (#49)
    RR, AD
    RR, AD
    RR, AD
    RR, AD
    RR, AD
    RR
    RR
    RR
    RR
    RR
    RR
    RN
    RR
    RN
    RN
    RR
    RR
    RR (#2)
    RR
                        G23-16
    

    -------
                                      TABLE 2
    
    
                     DESCRIPTION OF ATMOSPHERIC SAMPLING.STATIONS
    STATION
    NUMBER
    A-21
    A-22
    A-23
    STATION
    LOCATION
    Cottonwood Weir Atmospheric
    Union Atmospheric
    Little Cottonwood Plant Atmospheric
    STATION
    IDENTIFICATION
    403708111465800
    403602111510600
    403512111475600
    STATION
    TYPE
    RN
    RN
    RN
    *RR = Rainfall, recording
     RN = Rainfall, non-recording
     AD » Atmospheric wet-and dry-fall deposition
                                        G23-17
    

    -------
    
                                                          xj-yy :
                                                          — — — • s  *l' "'•
    
                                                                       ^s
              Al^SX^^i^^PrSP^^S j_^—-^V;
    
              ," "> ii^^^Sl^^^iU^^^^VC^^r- A - 3\~. l-i=^
            N
    
    
    
    
            /
                          -.               —.
                         , X ••• - ..••.^  . ~i^~ J  ~*g~~^«^^ ^,.T^ *^ J
    
                         LjriJS*51' • rr-f^vcja."ir-'ij'?.=s
                          *V^- — T-T- .: .fTTr^—'--*-1--.
      V
                      7-   •    |   ._; i I ^~ n, ii~^^-ja- '   A - -«•
    
                   	_.£:	 i fiTTiJa I T^-     !
     I
    
    
    
    >'
    S^J-" LAXS COUNTY WATZ3 G'JALJTY & V/AT23 PCL1UT1CN CONTROL
    
    
    NATIONAL USBAN RUNCFr  PROGRAM
    
                   Reproduced from   »• =
    
                   best available copy, ^fiji   G23-18
    

    -------
                                        TABLE 3
                               SAMPLING SITES AT BMP LOCATIONS
    STATION
    NUMBER
    B-l **
    B-2
    B-3
    B-4
    B-5 to
    B-7
    STATION STATION
    LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
    Overland How BMP Inlet @ Jordan 10167240
    River (90th South)
    Overland flow BMP Outlet 9 Jordan 10167244
    (Bell Canyon)
    Public Education/Information BMP 10167220
    (Jackson Comrn)
    Catch Basin Modification BMP 10172552
    (Dixie Valley)
    Detention Basin Modification BMP
    (COMBINED INLETS (3)
    STATION*
    TYPE
    W6t
    WG,
    WG,
    CG,
    CG.
    
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    AS
    
    B-8
     (Dixie Valley)
    
    Detention Basin Modification BMP
    (Outlet)
    10167184
    CG, AS
         *Station Type
          WG - well gage, recording
          AS - Automatic sampler
          CG s Conduit gage, recording (Marsh-McBirney type)
    
         ** Also listed as Assessment Site
                                              623-19
    

    -------
                                    PR03L-M
    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 the entire length in the county which means that waaer quality  for
    designated benef-icial 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 hydrologic 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)  BOD
    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 tne other studies.
    
    8.   Local Perception
    
    The U.S.  Geological  Survey and the Salt Lake County Public Works  .Department-
    Division  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,
                                            623-20
    

    -------
                               PROJECT  DESCRIPTION
    A.   Major Objective
    The Salt Lake City NURP progran  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 in1abating 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:
                                           G23-21
    

    -------
                                  PARAMETER LIST
     Particle Size  Analysis*                       COO
     TS»                                 '          Fecal  Coliform*
     TOS                                           Fecal  Streptococcus*
     TSS    .                                       Hardness
     pH                                            Non-Carbonate  Hardness
     Temperature
    Ca  (d)                                       Alkalinity
    Mg  (d)                                       S04 (d)
    Na  (d) (X)                                   cr(d)
    SAR                                          F (d)
    K (d)                    .                    Si02  (d)
    
    
    NO  (t) (d)                                  Ba (d)
    NO^ (td)                                      "Be (d)
    NO^-f NO. (t)                                Cd (tr)  (sr)  (d)
    NH< (t) fd)                                  Cr (tr)  (d)
    Organic N (d)                                Co (d)
    N (T)                                        Cu (tr)  (d)
    ? (t) (d)                                     Fe (d)
    0-PO, (d)*                                   Pb (tr)  (d)
        4                                        Li (d)
                                                 Mn (d)
                                                 Mo (d)
                                                 Ag (tr)
                                                 Sr (d)
                                                 V (d)
                                                 Zn (tr)  (sr)  (d)
    NOTES: * = Not run for a14 stations :and all sample dates.
               Most of other analyses run for all sites at least for
               1/2 the samples collected.
    
               (d) * dissolved              (tr) = total  recoverable
               (t) = total                  (sr) = suspended recoverable
                                         G23-22
    

    -------
    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 catchbasin 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 Sogth 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 is measured at a location within the basin.
    
         3)   Public Education/Information - Bell Canyon
    
              The strategy for th'is 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  will  be the
              target approach.                                         '
    
         4)   Catchbasin 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  sunp below the
              flow  line of the pipe system.   These simps  are filled  witn  sand  and
              capped with asphalt to affect  a aepth of flow at  0.0 fee: oelow  the
                                          G23-23
    

    -------
              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 eauipped 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-McBirm
    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-McSirney 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;
    
    0.   Controls
    
    For a detailed description of the Best Management Practices to be monitored,
    see Section  B.
                                      G23-24
    

    -------
       NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    
    
    SIXTH DISTRICT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
    
    
    
               RAPID CITY, SD
    
    
    
              REGION VIII, EPA
                  624-1
    

    -------
                                 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 Meade St. drainage
    basin, a developed area which has a contributing drainage area of 1,723 acres.  The da
    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 contribute
    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.
                                          G24-2
    

    -------
                                             t
    
                                   PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    
    
    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 landforms, with the forested Black
        Kills 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.
    
    C.  Drainage
    
        Rapid  Creek originates within the Black Hills from snowmelt, 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.
                                        G24-3
    

    -------
        The Meade Street drainage is one of the 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 Wastewater
        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.
    
    D.  Sewerage
    
        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
    

    -------
    tr>
    r\>
                                                                         o
                                                                        PIERRE
                       RAPID CITY
                                                                                                                  SIOUX
    
                                                                                                                    FALLS
                                                        THE STATE OF  SOUTH  DAKOTA
    

    -------
                                       PROJECT AREA
    
    
    I.   Catchment Name - Rapid Creek above Canyon Lake (06412500)
    
         A.   Area - 33,574 acres.
    
         B.   Land Use
    
               1,340 acres (4%) 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% imperviousness 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
                77.4 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 (202) is Residential
              562 acres (35%) is urban parkland, open space,  institutional, etc.
              305 acres (19%) is Grassland and Agricultural
              10% imperviousness in entire drainage area
    
    VI.  Catchment Name - Meade Street Drain at Rapid City (06416300)
    
         A.   Area - 1,760 acres
    
         B.   Land Use
    
              968 acres (55%) is Residential
              123 acres (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
    

    -------
                                                           Reproduced from
    
                                                           best  available copy.
    CD
    r-o
    -P..
    i
    oo
                                                              RAPID  CITY,  S.D. MONITORING  SITES
    

    -------
                                        PROBLEM
    A.  Local Definition
        From past work done under 208,  the Sixth  District Council  of Governments
        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 being
        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 reclassification 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,
        wi'ldlife 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 NURP 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-stream water quality
         standards as related to water quality during storm events and to assess the
         impact of urban runoff on downstream beneficial uses.
    
    6.  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 term 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  (DRsM) and
        2) DRaM-QUAL.   The DR3M provides detailed simulation of a storm runoff
        hydrograph from short time interval rainfall  data.   DRaM-QUAL is an urban
        runoff quality model  which is linked with DR3M.   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 #1     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 #2     This station  is located on Rapid Creek, in the western
                       part of town  below some major urban discharges.
    
        Station #3     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
                       Meade 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.
    
        Water 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 in 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.
                                          G25-2
    

    -------
    N
    /I
                          4- CASTRO
                             VALLEt
                             WATERSHED
          •SAN
          JOSE
            40
                     SCALE
              VtCINITY \  MAP
                               SEAVIEW AVENUE
                               STREAM GAGING STATION
                            RAIN GAGING STATION
                            PROCTOR SCHOOL
                          r
                         I
         CASTRO VALLEY WATERSHED
    
    y   OUTSIDE STUDY AREA
    
                    \
                       \ KAJN
                       \  (FII
    
                         ~N
             KNOX  STREET STREAM
             GAGING STATION
                            RAIN GAGING STATION
                            (SYBNEY  SCHOOL)
    
       RAIN  GAGE  STATION
        (FIRE  STATION!
                             *
                                                        SAN  LORENZO CREEK
    
                                                        SCALE:  1"» 2000'±
          FIGURE  1 -  STATE  LOCUS,  PROJECT AREA AND SAMPLING SITES  FOR
                                 CASTRO VALLEY NURP PROJECT
                                          G25-3
    

    -------
                               PHYSICAL  DESCRIPTION
     A.    Area
     Castro  Valley is  an  unincorporated  community within Alameda  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
     family  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.
    
    Most 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
    
     100% of the drainage area is served  by separate storm  sewers.
                                        G25-4
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
    
    
     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 the Bay Area, the problems investigated included
     fish  kills, shellfish  contamination, toxic pollutants, eutrophication,
     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, we11-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 stormwater 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 stormwater 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 prioritization tasks.
    However, the magnitude and technical/institutional  complexity of Bay water
    quality problems tend to discourage remedial  action by any one community.
                                            G25-5
    

    -------
                              PROJECT  DESCRIPTION
     A.   Major  Objectives
    The  Castro  Valley  study was directed towards developing  information on  three
    subjects which were of particular concern to local decision makers.  The
    objectives  were to:
    
          *    demonstrate the effectiveness of street cleaning in improving
              water qual ity;
    
          *    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  (Seaview) 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
     subsample  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 subsample 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.
                                          G25-7
    

    -------
     Each 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 particulates 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  Flowmeter 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-horsepower (hp)  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-hp
     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 remove 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.
    
     Most 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 m.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.
                                          G25-8
    

    -------
    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 40%.  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 street 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.
          1!;
    
          S2S
          B ^ w
            —    °J
                                  wmti or JTKET O.UMINC MSSCS
                                                          nu
        FIGURE 2 - IMPROVEMENT IN URBAN RUNOFF QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF STREET
                   CLEANING EFFORT.
                                           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 (80*) of the street surface samples contained detect-
    able asbestos fibers.  Street cleaning was found capable of achieving 10% re-
    moval of asbestos during weekly street cleaning and up to 50% removal when
    street cleaning was carried out three times per week.
                                          625-10
    

    -------
         NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    
    
    FRESNO METROPOLITAN FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
    
    
    
                FRESNO, CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
                 REGION IX, EPA
                     G26-1
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    
    
     The  Fresno  NURP  Project  is  being  conducted  in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan
     Area of  Fresno County, California.  The study area, containing approximately
     166  square  miles and  an  estimated population of 330,000 persons,  lies.within
     a  small, virtually  closed drainage basin which has no significant water
     courses  available to  carry  off  storm water  runoff.  This fact, together with
     the  extremely flat  terrain  characteristic of the San Joaquin Valley floor,
     has  necessitated virtually  total  retention  of local storm water runoff gene-
     rated  by the urban  development  of the metropolitan area.
    
     Such retention is accomplished  through the  use of the retention/recharge
     basins into which all urban runoff is directed.  Once impounded within the
     basins, the storm water  runoff  waters are allowed to percolate into the ground-
     water  reservoir.  Because the area's annual rainfall is concentrated  in the
     months from November  to  April,  with little  or no summer rainfall, the basins
     are  available for multiple off-season uses.  These uses include recreation
     and  the importation of surface  water to recharge the groundwater reservoir.
     The  recharge of  both  storm water runoff and imported surface water is an
     extremely important function due to the fact that the groundwater reservoir,
     recently determined to be a "sole-source acquifer", has dropped to an average
     distance of some  100 feet below ground level.
    
     At the present time some 67 retention/recharge basins are either completed
     or are being developed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.
     These basins total  approximately 810 acres  and receive annual urban storm
     water runoff estimated to be in excess of 7,000 acre-feet.   An additional
     58 basins are proposed to meet future urban runoff needs associated with the
     anticipated continuation of the area's growth.  When the system is fully com-
     pleted, it is estimated  that the total runoff received from the subject
     basins will exceed 13,000 acre-feet.
    
     The  questions which will  be addressed by the project relate to the degree of
     filtering accomplished by the soils and/or turf within the  basins, the types
    of contaminants which may reach the acquifer, the speed with which such con-
     taminants reach the acquifer, the impact upon the quality of the receiving
     groundwater and to the mitigation measures which  would be effective in control-
     ling potential  contamination.
                                      G26-2
    

    -------
                 FIGURE 1 - NATIONAL AND STATE LOCUS OF THE FRESNO  NURP
    
                                       PROJECT.
    N
    A
                          SAN FRANCISCO
                                        G26-3
    

    -------
                              PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
    A.   Area
    The study area is located in the north central portion of Fresno County,
    California.  Fresno County, with an area of about 3,840,000 acres or 6,000
    square miles, is the largest county in the San Joaquin Valley and embraces
    a wide range of climatic and topograhic conditions.  The county is situated
    in the geographical center of the state between the metropolitan regions of
    San Francisco and Los Angeles.
    
    The San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley to the north combine to form
    the great Central Valley, an elongated trough between the Coast Range and the
    Sierra Nevada which is over 500 miles long and 55 miles wide.  The valley is
    enclosed by mountain ranges except for one opening into San Francisco Bay.  The
    major drainage for the Central Valley is provided by the Sacramento and San
    Joaquin Rivers.
    
    The study area contains approximately 166 square miles and is characterized
    by a tremendous variety of land uses within the general headings of urban,
    rural, residential, and agricultural.  It includes the cities of Fresno and
    Clovis and contigous unincorporated lands.  The City of Fresno is divided
    into seven Community Plan Areas which comprise 152.3 square miles (97,469
    acres).  The City of Clovis Plan Area contains 14.5 square miles (9,263 acres).
    Table 1 indicates the approximate number of acres devoted to various land
    uses in the two cities.
    
                                    TABLE 1
    
                     LAND USE ACREAGES IN CLOVIS AND FRESNO
    LAND USE TYPE
    Agriculture
    Vacant
    Residential
    Open Space
    Industrial
    Commercial
    Public Facilities
    Transportation
    TOTALS
    CLOVIS (acres)
    
    
    7,675
    
    970
    618
    
    
    9,263
    FRESNO (acres)
    33,883
    7,372
    26, 728
    6,561
    5,516
    3,660
    7,038
    6,711
    97,469
                                       G26-4
    

    -------
     B.    Population
    
     Population in  the  Clovis/Fresno  Metropolitan Area  in  1970 stood  at  218,400 persons.
     The 1980 population  is  estimated to  have  been  slightly more than 300,000  persons.
     The 1990 population  is  expected  to rise to more than  400,000 with most  of the
     gains taking place in the  northern and eastern fringe areas, the latter of which
     includes Clovis.
    
     C.    Drainage
    
     The topography .of  the study  area is  similar to that of the rest of  the  San
     Joaquin  Valley, essentially  flat with no  distinguishable land forms.  Only slight
     changes  in elevations occur  across the entire  study area.  Older alluvial  terraces
     east of  Fresno develop  an  undulating relief of rounded hills, while the granitic
     and metamorphic rocks of the Sierra  Nevada foothills  develop moderate to  steep
     slopes.   Elevations  across the area  range from 370 feet above sea level at Herndon
     Avenue on the  northeastern extremity of the project area to 260 feet at Church
     Avenue on the  southwestern extremity of the area, indicating an average south-
     westerly surface slope  of  approximately 8 feet per mile.
    
     The study area is  traversed  by several low-elevation  streams draining a part of
     the western slope  of the Sierra  Nevada.   The drainage basins of these streams all
     lie between the San  Joaquin  and  Kings Rivers.  The combined drainages have an
     area of  approximately 175  square mile s,  or 112,000 acres,, and elevations  range
     from 300 feet  to approximately 4,700 feet.  All of the streams are  either  inter-
     mittent,  i.e., they  flow for  a portion of the year, or ephemeral, i.e., they flow
     only during and immediately  following a precipitation event.  Streamflow  is at
     a very low level during the  summer months and  increases in late fall in response
     to  precipitation.  Annual  peaks  are typically reached during January and  February
     but  storm peaks may occur  at  any time during the winter.  The Streamflow of these
     low elevation  streams is in  contrast to that of snowmelt streams, such  as  the
     Kings  River 'and San  Joaquin  River, where most of the runoff occurs during  the
     period April through July.
    
     D.    Sewerage  System
    
     The  166-square-mile  area managed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control   District
     is  divided  into discrete watersheds,  .each with its own,  self-contained  stormwater
     sewerage 'system.   Each watershed averages approximately one square mile and all
     but  a  few utilize  a retention/recharge basin for ultimate storm runoff disposal.
     The  basins average 10 to 15  acres in  size and are designed to encourage perco-
     lation of the  captured runoff into the groundwater reservoir.   The basins   are
     designed  to hold runoff from the 100-year event while the pipeline systems convey-
     ing  runoff into the basins are sized  to carry the runoff from a 2-year event.
    
     Stormwater runoff  is introduced  into  the basins by means of an  underground
     pipeline  network with pipes ranging in size from 18" to  96" in  diameter.   Each
     basin  has  an average of 3 incoming pipes.   Each incoming pipe averages approxi-
    mately 36" to 48"  in diameter.   Basin depths range from  10 to  15 feet in
     residential areas  and 25 to 30 feet in industrial  areas.   Similarly, side   slopes
     range  from 6:1 to 8:1 in residential  areas and  from 3:1  to 4:1  in industrial
     areas.  The shallower basins with gentler  side  slopes, many of  them  turfed,
     allow off-season recreational use. Many other  basins are used  for  the inten-
     tional recharge of the groundwater reservoirs using off-season  imported  surface
    water.  Some basins are equipped with pumps to  remove excess storm  water to
    canal systems or other basins if desired.
    
                                         626-5
    

    -------
    Virtually the entire metropolitan area is served by a single sanitary sewer
    system which is composed of a gravity flow collection network and two inter-
    connected treatment plants located half a mile apart, southwest of the city.
    The plants provide primary and secondary treatment and dispose of effluent
    through percolation to the groundwater reservoir.  The current capacity of
    the system is 60 million gal Ions,per day.
    
                                  PROJECT AREA
    
    I.   Catchment Name - Barton Avenue (001)
    
         A.   Area - 94 acres.
    
         B.   Population - 1000 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 7.9
              feet/mile, 100% served with curbs  and gutters.   The storm sewers
              approximate a 28.6 feet/mile slope and extend 645 feet.
    
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets  consist of 9.66 lane-miles of asphalt,  90% of which is in
              good  condition and 10% of which is in fair condition.
    
         E.   Land  Use
       •
    
              87 acres (93%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban  residential.
    
    II.   Catchment  Name -  Maple Avenue (002)
    
         A.   Area  - 46 acres.
    
         8.   Population - 1180 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area  has a representative slope  of 7 feet/
              mile,  96.3%  served  with curbs  and  gutters and 3.7% served  with swales
              and ditches.  The storm sewers  approximate 10 feet/mile slope  and
              extend 1440  feet.
    
         D.    Sewerage - Drainage  area of  the  catchment is 100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets  consist of  2.79 lane-miles of asphalt,  100% of which  is in
              good  condition.
    
         E.    Land  Use
    
              40 acres (87%)  is >  8 dwelling units  per  acre urban  residential  of
              which 26.3 acres  (66%)  is  impervious.
    
    
                                         G26-6
    

    -------
                     FIGURE 2 - FRESNO NURP MONITORING SITES
    N
                           NURP MONITORING SITE
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
                                         G26-7
    

    -------
    III. Catchment Name - North Fresno Street (003)
    
         A.   Area - 56.6 acres.
    
         B.   Population - 0 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 13.2
              feet/mile, 100% served with curbs and  gutters.   The storm sewers
              approximate a 11.3 feet/mile slope and extend 620 feet.
    
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment  is  100% separate storm
              sewers.
    
              Streets  consist of 1 lane-mile of asphalt,  95%  of which  is in
              good condition and 5% of which is in fair  condition.
    
         E.   Land Use
    
              54.6 acres (96%)  is Shopping Center, of  which 54.6 acres  (100%)  is
              impervious.
                              »
    
    IV.   Catchment Name -  Commerce Avenue (004)
    
         A.   Area - 278 acres.
    
         B.   Population.-  0 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment  area has  a representative slope  of 8.4
              feet/mile, 40% served  with  curbs  and gutters and 60% served with
              swales and ditches.   The storm sewers  approximate  a 11 feet/mile
            .  slope  and extend 3470  feet.
    
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of  the catchment  is 100%  separate storm
              sewers.                t
    
              Streets  consist of  7 lane-miles of  asphalt, 85% of which  is in
             'good condition  and  15% of which is  in  fair condition.
    
         E.    Land Use
    
              184  acres  (66%) is  Urban  Industrial  (moderate),
              of which  147  acres  (80%)  is  impervious.
                                          G26-8
    

    -------
                                    PROBLEM
     A.    Local  Definition  (Government)
    
     The  design  of  Fresno's  urban drainage system causes the area's high quality
     groundwater reservoir  to  be the receiving waters for stormwater runoff from
     the  entire  metropolitan area.  Previous studies have identified the presence
     of certain  contaminants in the stormwater runoff.  Studies have also  shown
     relatively  high  rates of  percolation within many of the area's retention/re-
     charge  basins.   Still further research has shown that filtering of portions
     of the  identified contaminants is achieved by the soils under such basins.
    
     The  previous studies, however, have not been closely coordinated and  for the
     most  part have been conducted by different groups at different times  for varying
     purposes.   As  a  result, there is a clear need to evaluate previous data, to
     fill  in data gaps and to  subject both old and new data to rigorous, care-
     fully designed analysis in order to obtain an up-to-date, thorough and reli-
     able  assessment  of whether or not and to what extent recharging the aquifer
     with  stormwater  runoff  poses a threat to the quality of the groundwater
     reservoir.
    
     The groundwater  reservoir underlying the Fresno-Clovis area has been disignated
     by EPA as a "sole-source  acquifer" and is presently of such quality that treat-
     ment  prior  to consumption is not necessary.  Obviously, the potential for degra-
     dation of such a reservoir is a matter of significant importance to the local
     community.  Further, because the underlying groundwater reservoir is common to
     virtually the entire Central Valley of California and because many other com-
     munities are proposing  similar urban runoff disposal  systems, the potential for
     contamination by urban  runoff is of importance to the entire State.  The
     importance of such a study is also magnified by the difficulty of correcting
     underground contamination once it has occurred and by the need to develop manage-
     ment  practices which can be implemented at acceptable levels of cost.
    
     Additionally, Section 1421 of Public Law 93-523 requires EPA to promulgate
     regulations to control  underground injections so as to protect drinking water
     sources.  This project  will provide EPA with critical  data indicating both the
     potential threat to groundwater represented by recharged surface runoff and se-
     lected ways to design control  measures to reduce and/or eliminate that threat.
    
     8.    Local Perception (Public View)
    
     The unique stormwater drainage system employed in the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan
     Area, i.e., diverting all  runoff to recharge basins,  creates a unique problem
     with  regard to public awareness.   The stormwater runoff is carried off into
     recharge basins  which are not used for other water-related purposes,  e.g.
     fishing, swimming, boating, although some are used for ballfields or  play-
     grounds during'the dry  season.   In most cases,  the runoff "disappears" from
     sight into the ground, with no impact upon water quality which is obvious and
     highly visible to the average man-on-the-street as would be the case  were the
    runoff flowing into a lake, embayment or stream which  was heavily used for
    contact recreation.   Coupled with the fact that the dynamics of recharge, soil
    filtration and the movement of water within the sole-source aquifer itself are
                                    G26-9
    

    -------
     technically complex  and  therefore difficult for the  layman to  appreciate  full}
     the  lack  of a  visible  problem has resulted in  little,  if any,  public  awareness
     of a threat to the quality of the underground  water  supply.  At this  point  in
     time,  concern  for the  problem remains primarily the  province of the profession
     als  -  city  planners, engineers, water resource specialists and the elected
     officials who  have been  "educated" about the potential threat.
    
                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    
     A. ~  Major  Objective
    
     The  Fresno  NURP  Project  involves, first, the analysis of runoff from  four
     (4)  urban watersheds of  approximately one (1)  square mile each.  The  areas
     were selected  to identify variables affecting  urban runoff quantity and
     quality from four different and distinct land  uses.  In addition, air
     pollutant fallout will be analyzed to assist in the  identification of the
     types, sources,  and concentrations of contaminants.
    
     The  second  major task of the Project will focus on analysis of the soils
     within the  receiving retention/recharge basins to determine the accumu-
     lation of contaminants (the ability of the soils to act as a filter), the
     rate of accumulation relative to land use factors (contaminant loadings), and
     the depth of penetration of the filtered contaminants into the recharge zone
     beneath the basin floor.  Also to be examined  are any observed differences
     between basins which have been covered by turf and landscaping and those with
     surface areas of bare earth.
    
     The third major task of the Project will be to identify those contaminants
     which are not  immediately filtered by basin soils and to trace their movement
     into the  groundwater reservoir.   This task will attempt to measure the quanti-
     ties of contaminants reaching the groundwater, the rate of accumulation within
     the groundwater and the ultimate uptake of the contaminants by users of the
     groundwater.  Lastly, this task  will  attempt  to determine,  if contamination
     is occurring, what type or degree of risk is  being created  for users of the
     groundwater.
    
     The final  major task of the Project will be to identify those management
     practices which will  mitigate or alleviate any observed degradation resulting
     from the  retention and recharge  of urban runoff.
    
     B.   Methodologies
    
     The individual  steps  to be taken in carrying  out  the overall  project workplan
     are as follows.
    
    Task  1, determining the characteristics of urban  stormwater runoff from four
     land  uses and the air,  requires  activities to:
    
         *    determine the basic urban hydrology for  various  land  uses,  i.e.,
              residential (single-family  and multi-family),  industrial,  and
              commercial;
                                     G26-10
    

    -------
          *     identify the differences in types and concentrations of contaminants
               produced by the various land uses and carried from them by runoff;
    
          *     determine the types and concentrations of storm runoff contaminants
               which are directly attributable to air-borne pollutant fallout;
               and
    
               determine runoff quantity-quality-time relationships.
    
    Tasks 2 and 3, determining the effects of retention and recharge of urban
    stormwater runoff on the soils and receiving groundwater, require activities
    to:
    
               identify background (natural) levels of the contaminants found
               in urban storm runoff which naturally occur within the soils of
               the recharge zones of the various basins;
    
               identify the degree to which the contaminants within urban runoff
               are settled out during the retention of the storm runoff within the
               retention/recharge basins;
    
               identify the rate at which such settled contaminants accumulate and
               reach levels determined to be harmful  or hazardous;
    
         *    determine and describe, both, qualitatively and quantitatively, if
               possible, the physio-chemical processes relating to tasks 1, 2,
               and 3;
    
         *     identify the types and concentrations  of contaminants which
              penetrate the immediate surface soils  of the retention/recharge
              basin, entering the recharge zone thereof;
    
              determine the degree to which those contaminants entering the
              recharge zone are leached  downward to  the receiving groundwater;
               and
    
              determine the rates at which leached contaminants accumulate within
              the receiving groundwater  and reach levels determined to be
              harmful  or hazardous.
    
    Task 4,  identifying management practices  which allow safe, controlled disposal
    of urban stormwater runoff into  the  groundwater  aquifer by means  of retention/
    recharge basins, requires activities to:
    
         *     identify retention/recharge basin design features which reduce to
               acceptable levels the  types and volumes of contaminants which might
              penetrate the basin's  recharge  zone and enter the receiving ground-
              water;
    
              identify alternative urban  storm runoff system designs  which would
              minimize the introduction  of runoff-related  pollutants  to receiving
              waters;
                                    G26-11
    

    -------
          "    identify techniques and/or  methodologies  which  would  result in the
               introduction of reduced  levels  of  contaminants  into urban  storm
               runoff;
    
               identify urban  storm runoff system operations and maintenance
               techniques  which would reduce the  level of  contaminants  reaching
               the retention/recharge basin, penetrating the recharge zone
               and entering the receiving  groundwater; and
    
               determine effectiveness  of  turf  and  turf management in attenuating
               the build-up of contaminants in  the  soils of the basin or  in  reducing
               the penetration of  contaminants  into  the recharge zone.
    
     C.    Monitoring
    
     Much  of  the  sample gathering,  particularly with respect to street  sweeping
     accumulations, soil and groundwater,  are being done manually.   There  is con-
     stant monitoring of automatic  equipment used  in sampling  stormwater discharges
     to  the basins.  The most  concentrated efforts are directed at wet  samples
     during the rainy season,  with  lesser  activity during  summer months.
    
     A minimum of  four  but  a goal of eight storms per year are sampled.  Storm
     events spaced  throughout  the  storm year, beginning with the first  event of
     the season, are included.
    
     Prior to the  beginning of  the  1BBI-82 rain year, soil  samples, both shallow
     and deep, have been taken  to  identify existing or background levels of-con-
     taminants.  These  were taken  in areas adjacent to basins, close enough  to the
     sites to indicate  background  levels prior  to each site's becoming  a storm-
     water retention basin, but far enough away not to be influenced by contami-'
     nants brought  to the sites by  stormwater runoff from previous years.
    
     In addition to the background  samples, samples of soil within each site are
     taken at eight depths below the ground surface.  Most  samples are  at  shallow
     depths.  At least one  is taken from the saturated zone.  These tests  are  con-
     ducted before  and  after each rain season,  to determine the effectiveness of
     the soil medium in filtering out contaminants.
    
     In addition to soil samples, samples of percolating  water are obtained  when
     possible at 3 or 4 depths below the basin  surface,  including the saturated
     zone.  These tests are used with the soil  tests to  determine filtering
     qualities of the soil  and to determine more precisely  the existing groundwater
     quality.
    
     In an  attempt to define gutter build-up of contaminants in the non-rainy
     season and during periods between storms,  dry-samples  are taken  during  the
     summer and during dry periods between storms  by vacuum.
    
     Atmospheric samples, both wet and dry, are collected by automatic  samplers
    placed at several  representative points within the  study area.
                                      G26-12
    

    -------
    The constituents for which samples are being analyzed are those set out in
    the USGS/USEPA Urban Hydrology Studies Program Technical Coordination Plan as
    we'll as nitrite, orthophosphorus, turbidity and additional metals.  Some
    constituents may be eliminated in the second year of sampling if first -
    year results indicate concentrations to be so low as to present no possible
    environmental impact.  Sampling for priority toxic pollutants will occur in
    the first year only.
    
    0.   Equipment
    
    Storm water sampling is occurring at four sites, each of which consists of a
    small equipment building constructed above a storm drain manhole.  A velocity
    probe which operates on the principle of Faraday's Law and a bubble which
    determines head are situated in the pipe invert.  Output from these devices
    feeds an Marsh McBirney Model 250 which computes and plots discharge.  A
    Schneider Model UHMS control unit receives input from the Marsh McBirney
    and an electronic rain gage and outputs to a digital punch.  The control unit
    is set to trip at a certain discharge level  to begin output to the punch and
    initiate'sampling of the discharge which is accomplished by a Manning Sampler
    capable of taking 24 one-gallon samples automatically.
    
    Groundwater samples are obtained by means of plastic tubing which runs from
    ground level  to the sampling level within a two-inch PVC pipe which is mounted
    with a ceramic  trip.
    
    E.   Controls
    
    As indicated  earlier, part of the soils analysis has been designed to try to
    discover whether or not turf or other landscaping cover filters out contaminants
    to a significant degree.   Apart from that particular management practice and
    general  maintenance procedures of a housekeeping nature, no specific controls
    will actually be evaluated by the project.   As  more data on the presence,
    quantity and  behavior of  specific contaminants  becomes available,  however,
    current  literature on nonpoint source best management practices (BMPs)  will be
    reviewed to try to identify those with the most promise of mitigating or
    alleviating any water quality problems uncovered by the Fresno NURP study.
                                    G26-13
    

    -------
    NATIONWIDE URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM
    
    
    
         BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
    
    
    
             REGION X,  EPA
               G27-1
    

    -------
    BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON
                G27-2
    

    -------
                                  INTRODUCTION
    
    
    One of the most significant outgrowths of the P.I. 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 jurisdictional 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 Sammamish, (Figure 1) has already moved in that
    direction.  The City embarked on a program of urban storm water quantity and
    qua!ity management in 1970, well before the passage of P.L.  92-500,  by
    establishing a Storm and Surface Water Utility within its 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-site 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 1imits.
    
    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.
                                          G27-3
    

    -------
                             FIGURE  1  - STATE LOCUS OF BELLEVUE  NURP
    N
    /I
    CANADA
              (NT*-' I «-!!	      1 MnNTANA
                   oriTand
                • Eugene/Springfiald
                                                                    •I F///A.1 _B_ELL£VUE I
                                                                               ake Sammamisn
                                                                               Washington
                                    ABERDEEN
                                                    G27-4
    

    -------
                              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 employees 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, the two primary catchments monitored during
    the Project.  These results indicate that the population in Lake Hills is
    approximately 44X higher than .that in Surrey Downs.  These differences are
    due in large amounts  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 Mercer Slough although Phantom Lake and one other
    stream flow east into Lake Sammamish (Figure 2).  The surficial geology is
    typically relatively shallow, sandy soil  overlying glacial-till hardpan.
    
    D.   Sewerage System
    
    The existing sewerage system serving the  City of Bellevue is totally separated.
    The structural  storm drainage system - streets, curbs and gutters,  storm inlets,
    swales, catchbasins and culverts-are in good condition.
    
    The City is served by the Renton wastewa'ter treatment plant which has a current
    capacity of 36 MGD, provides a secondary  level  of treatment and discharges
    into the Duwamish River.   Construction to expand the  plant's capacity to  72
    MGD is nearing completion.   A second expansion will then be initiated to
    carry the plant to its ultimate capacity, 105 MGD.
                                          G27-5
    

    -------
    Reproduced from
    best available copy.
                             FIGURE 2  -   BELLEVUE  STREAM SYSTEMS
                                                                          teutons
                                               G27-6
    

    -------
    FIGURE 3 -   BELLEVUE SAMPLING SITES
                                         KDMONO
                G27-7
    

    -------
                                  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 samples and enters data
         under "12119725".
    
         A.   Area - 101.7 acres.
    
         8.   Population - 1185 persons.
    
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representatie slope of 317
              feet/mile, 1005! served with curbs and gutters.   The storm sewers
              approximate a 211 feet/mile slope and extend  3400 feet.
    
         D.   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 (10%) is Urban Institutional,
              of  which 3.6 acres(37%)  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 samples 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 8  dwelling units per  acre residential,
              of  which  27.7 acres  (29%)  is  impervious.
    
    
                                            G27-8
    

    -------
    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 - Main 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 its 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 fair-to-good condition.
                                           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 its inception,  the  Utility  has  been under con-
     stant pressure from  citizens'  groups  and  the general public  (details below)
     to  focus  its 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
     NURP study  is directed  at identifying  the  pollutant  loadings  from  urban runoff.
    
     Additionally,  while  best management practices (BMPs) were  tentatively  identified
     in  many Areawide 208 plans and  preliminary studies of  selected BMPs 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 its 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.
    
    8.   Local Perception (Public)
    
     In  part due to the presence of a  large number of citizens .of  Scandanaviah •
    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
    siltation reduced the survival of salmon eggs by approximately 50%  but  incubation
    will continue at this and two other sites less vulnerable to siltation.  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, Overlake Fly Fishing, and Bellevue Kiwanis) have assisted with site
    preparation, box installation and stream clean-ups.  Elementary school groups
    (Somerset, Wilburton, 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 attention-
    gettin vehicle for educating citizens and local officials about the impacts of
    stormwater runoff upon water quality and for rallying their support for programs
    to improve and protect stream 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 posting 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.
                                           G27-11
    

    -------
                              PROJECT DESCRIPTION
    A.   Major Objectives
    This study provides a well documented assessment of the application, cost
    and effectiveness of SMP'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 availabe 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 unsampled 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 particulate 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.
    
    An  important element of the Bellevue urban runoff project is the study of
    sewerage system particulate 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 particulate
    studies involve both observation and sampling of catchbasin particulates arid
    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 mass 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.
                                           G27-13
    

    -------
     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 amount 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 family 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 tipping-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 samples  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 Sellevue 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 measurenent 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 were 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
     flowmeters,  except for the volatile samples 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-
     chloric 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 samples.  Interstitial  water
     samples from the stream-bed in Kelsey Creek are  collected through aluminum stand-
     pipes set in the stream gravel, using a Manning  S3000T sampler to draw the water
     up from the  perforated base of the standpipe.' This sampling is in conjunction
     with the "Ecological  Impacts of Stormwater Runoff in Urban Streams"  project of
     the University of Washington.
    
     D.    EquIgment
    
     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 flowmeter  with an ultrasonic stage sensor
     (UF-1100)  and a  12 volt  power  converter.   The  samplers were factory  modified
     for priority pollutant sampling.   All surfaces contacting the.sampler are
     either glass or  teflon.
    
    
                                            G27-15
    

    -------
     For the USGS sampling  effort  at  Lake Hills,  Surrey Downs and  148th  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
     computing  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-Max  unit.   The standard  "reference"  system 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  vacuums 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  vacuum 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, OREGON
    
    
    
            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, drainage, recreation and irrigation.
    Significant portions of the runoff so collected discharge secondarily to the
    Willamette River inside the metro area.  Eugene and Springfiled 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 downstream beneficial uses.   In-stream water quality standard violations have
    been observed as a  regular result of this contamination.   Under an intitial 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.
                                       G28-2
    

    -------
    
    N
    A
    VIAS/II
    STAT- OF VIASPIHGTON
                   ortTand
    
                  £ugene/Springfia>1(J
                  FIGURE  1 - STATE LOCUS OF EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD NURP  PROJECT
                                                 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 semi-
     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 man.   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-MGD  advanced
     secondary wastewater treatment facility to serve the whole Metropolitan Area
    will be completed  in 1983.
                                         G28-4
    

    -------
    ro
    CO
           N
                       FIGURE 2 - MONITORING BASINS AND SAMPLING SITES FOR
    
                                  EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD NURP PROJECT
    

    -------
             MONITORING STATIONS, CATCHMENTS, AND RECEIVING WATERS
    
    I.   Catchment Name - Amazon at Oakpatch (limited data)
         A.   Area - 6951 acres.
         8.   Population - 45,210 persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slopeof 320
              feet/mile.  The storm sewers approximate a 19.6% feet/mile slope
              and extend 30,140 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 60% separate storm
              sewers and 40% with no sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              2000 acres (29%) is 0.5  to 2 dwelling units  per acre Urban Residential,
              1500 acres (22%) is 2.5  to 8 dwelling units  per acre Urban Residential,
              300 acres (4%)  is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              200 acres (3%)  is Linear Strip Development.
              41 acres (<1%)  is Urban  Industrial  (moderate).
              400 acres (16%)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              460 acres (7%)  is Urban  Institutional.
              550 acres (8%)  is Agriculture.
              1500 acres (22%) 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 26.1%  feet/mile slope
              and extend 19,730 feet.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of  the catchment  is  55%  separate  storm
              sewers  and 45% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              1400 acres (30%)  is 0.5  to 2  dwelling units per acre Urban  Residential.
              810 acres  (17%)  is  2.5 to 8 dwelling  units per  acre Urban  Residential.
              280 acres  (6%) is  >  8 dwelling  units  per  acre Urban  Residential.
                                          G28-6
    

    -------
              125 acres (3%) is Linear Strip Development.
              270 acres (6%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              260 acres (5%) is Urban Institutional.
              400 acres (8%) is Agriculture.
              1200 acres (25%)  is Forest.
    III. 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.
         D.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is  40% separate storm
              sewers and 60% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              730 acres (44%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre urban Residential
              115 acres (7%) is Linear Strip Development.
              30 acres (2%)  is  Urban Industrial  (moderate).  .
              250 acres (15%) is Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              280 acres (17%) is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              100 acres (6%) is Urban Institutional.
              150 acres (9%) is Agriculture.
    IV.   Catchment Name - A-3 at Wall 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  30% separate storm
              sewers and 70% without sewers.
                                          G28-7
    

    -------
         E.   Land Use
              4 acres (1%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              2 acres (<1%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              74 acres (13%)  is Linear Strip Development.
              127 acres (22%) is Urban Industrial (light).
              85 acres (15%)  is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              190 acres (34%) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
              85 acres (15%)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
    V.   Catchment Name -  Q Street at Garden Way
         A.   Area - 4428  acres.
         8.   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.
         D. •   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 50% separate  storm
              sewers and 50%  without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              670 acres (15%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units  per acre Urban  Residential.
              1305 acres (29%)  is 2.5 to 8  dwelling units per  acre Urban Residential,
              219 acres (5%)  is >  8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              180 aces (4%) is  Linear Strip Development.
              45 acres (1%) is  Shopping Center.
              110 acres (2%)  is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              240 acres (6%)  is Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              810 acres (18%)  is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              199 acres (5%)  is Urban Institutional.
              650 acres (15%)  is Agriculture.
                                            G28-8
    

    -------
    VI.  Catchment Name - Q Street North Branch
         A.   Area - 575 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 100% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              40 acres (7%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              5 acres (IX) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              70 acres (12%)  is Urban Industrial (heavy).
              135 acres (23%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              26 acres (5%) is Urban Institutional.
              300 acres (52%) 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 is 80% separate storm
              sewers and 20% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              450 acres (38%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per  acre Urban Residential.
              95 acres (8%) is > 8 dwelling  units per  acre Urban  Residential.
              95 acres (8%) is Linear Strip  Development.
              25 acres (2%) is Shopping Center.
              100 acres (9%)  is Urban Industrial (heavy).
              80 acres (7%) is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              300 acres (26%) is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              25 acres (2%) is Urban Institutional.
                                        G28-9
    

    -------
    VIII.  Catchment Name - Q Street at Quinalt (monitored.under previous 208 Study)
         A.   Area - 2985 acres.
         8.   Population - Approximately 23,000 persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of a 15
              feet/mile.  The storm sewers approximate a 10 feet/mile slope and
              extend 23,800 feet.
         0.   Sewerage - Drainage area of the catchment is 90* separate storm
              sewers and 10% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              230 acres (8%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              1105 acres (37%)  is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              139 acres (5%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              145 acres (5%) is Linear Strip Development.
              45 acres (2%)  is  Shopping Center.
              100 acres (3%) is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              190 acres (6%) is Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              610 acres (20%)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              121 acres (4%) is Urban Institutional.
              300 acres (10%) Agriculture.
    IX.   Catchment Name -  Q  Street  at Centennial
         A.    Area -  4736  acres.
         8.    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 50% without  sewers.
         E.    Land  Use
              670 acres (14%) is  0.5  to 2 dwelling  units  per  acre Urban  Residential.
                                           G28-10
    

    -------
              1305 acres (28%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              219 acres (5%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              215 acres (5%) is Linear Strip Development.
              45 acres (IX) is Shopping Center.
              110 acres (2%) is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              240 acres (5%) is Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              885 acres (19%)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              250 acres (5%) is Urban Institutional.
              787 acres (173!)  is Agriculture.
    X.    Catchment Name - Q Street at Second
         A.    Area - 2793 acres.
         8.    Population - 14,840 persons.
         C.    Drainage - This  catchment area has  a representative slope  of  13
              feet/mile.  The  storm 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 5% is without sewers.
         E.    Land Use
              190 acres (7%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre  Urban Residential.
              1020 acres (37%)  is 2.5 to 8  dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              137 acres (5%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
           .   140 acres (5%) is Linear Strip Development.
              45 acres (2%) is Shopping Center.
              100 acres (4%) is Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              190 acres (7%) is Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              550 acres (20%)  is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              121 acres (4%) is Urban Institutional.
              .300 acres (11%)  is Agriculture.
                                          G28-11
    

    -------
    XI-XII.   Catchment Name - Amazon Vegetation 1,2,3 - Downstream, Mid-Site and Upstrean
         A.   Area - 11,321 acres.
         8.   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.
         0.   Sewerage- Drainage area of the catchment is 60% separate storm
              sewer and 40% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              2800 acres (25%)  is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              1860 acres (16%)  is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              420 acres (4%)  is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              350 acres (3%)  is Linear Strip Development.
              81 acres (1%)  is  Urban Industrial  (moderate).
              60 acres (1%)  is  Urban Industrial  (heavy).
              650 acres (6%)  is Urban Parkland  or Open Space.
              600 acres (5%)  is Urban Institutional.
              2400 acres (21%)  is Agriculture.
              2100 acres (19%)  is Forest.
    XIII.   Catchment  Name  - A-3 at Bertelsen
         A.    Area -  1056  acres.
         8.    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  25%  separate  storm
              sewers  and 75% without sewers.
         E.    Land Use
              2  acres  (<1%)  is 0.5 to 2 dwelling  units per acre  Urban Residential.
                                          G28-12
    

    -------
              4 acres (<1%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              2 acres (<1%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              93 acres (9%) is Linear Strip Development.
              165 acres (16%) is Urban Industrial (light).
              116 acres (11%) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
              239 acres (23*) is Industrial (heavy).
              435 acres (41%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
    XIV. Catchment Name - Polk Stormsewer
         A.   Area - 771 acres.
         8.   Population - 6600 persons.
         C.   Drainage - This catchment area has a representative slope of 5.3
              feet/mile.
         E.   Land Use
              254 acres (33%) is 2.5 to 8 dwelling units  per acre Urban Residential,
              50 acres (6%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              227 acres (29%) is Central  Business District.
              114 acres (15%) is Linear Strip Development.
              32 acres (5%) is Urban Industrial (light).
              34 acres (5%) is Urban Industrial (moderate).
              50 acres (6%) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              10 acres (1%) is Urban Institutional.
    XV.   Catchment Name - Marcola Ditch 2 - Above E. Bale
         A.   Area - 16 acres.
         B.   Population - 0 persons.
         E.   Land Use
              16 acres (100%) is Urban Industrial (heavy).
                                         G28-13
    

    -------
     XVI. Catchment Name - Marcola Ditch 3 - Above W. Bale
         A.   Area - 4 acres.
         B.   Population - 0 persons.
         E.   Land Use
              4 acres (100%) 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 (100%) 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 40% separate storm
              sewers and  60% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              1120 acres  (37%)  is  0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential,
              160 acres (5%)  is >  8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              33 acres (1%)  is  Linear Strip Development.
              38 acres (1%)  is  Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              145 acres (5%)  is Urban Institutional.
              400 acres (13%)  is Agriculture.
              1170 acres  (38%)  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 40% separate storm
              sewers and 60% without sewers.
         E.   Land Use
              1120 acres (37%) is 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential,
              160 acres (5%) is > 8 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential.
              33 acres (1%) is Linear Strip Development.
              38 acres (IX) is Urban Parkland or Open Space.
              145 acres (5%) is Urban Institutional.
              400 acres (13%) is Agriculture.
              1170 acres (38%) is Forest.
    XX.  Catchment Name - 72nd at Thurston (discharge to  McKensie River)
         A.   Area - Approximately 700 acres.
         B.   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 15% separate storm
              sewers and 85% without sewers.
    XXI.  Receiving Waters - Springfield  Mill Race near Willamette River.
    XXII.   Receiving Waters - Eugene Mill  Race at Mill Street (limited data).
    XXIII.   Receiving Waters - Willamette  River at Valler River  Footbridge.
    XXIV.   Receiving Waters - Williamette  River at Autzen Footbridge.
    XXV.  Receiving Waters - Williamette  River at Highway  126  Bridge.
                                       G28-15
    

    -------
                                      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 problem 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 Mi 11 races,
      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 Mil Traces 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  same cost  factor.   Until morespecific answers to these
      questions can be provided, the jurisdictions are unlikely to adopt effective
      and implementable 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 management options, pollution  impacts and the present state of
      knowledge.   These matrices pointed 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.
    
     6.   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  "208"  planning effort,  a broadly
     representative Citizens Advisory  Committee  was  closely  and  actively involved
     in the identification and assessment  of  stormwater  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  is  more  oriented  to policy  formulation.
    
                                         G28-16
    

    -------
    Two documents  in particular received wide distribution and attention.   The
    "Urban Stream  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 mailout 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 a 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 among 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 required 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 stream 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;
    
    
                                          G28r18
    

    -------
         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 nearing 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.  Wetfall/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-stream 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 Springfield is aimed
    at evaluating the effectiveness of existing ordinances in controlling pollution
    from erosion, track-out and increased runoff, the enforceabili.ty of such ordi-
    nances and the extent to which they allow fixing the responsibility for such
    probi ens 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
    enhancement 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-strean 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,  BOD,  COO,
     Nitrogen, Phosphorus,  lead,  zinc, chromium,  mercury,  copper,  iron, arsenic,
     coliforms, 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)
                                              UdtfiM  T»Ul
                                      WOT- CO  Simon mttny*  ph»TM   ""V^    t>*d
      AltMU. Cw?U          . «    —   "»    «•    «-»    «•«*   "•»    —    ••«    •=»
      BM I*I.B. ta* .          41»    TC*   »   _    JJ»    3.U   •-»    C.»-    ....    «_
      ferfu.. tortt Urvltiu      1XZ3    TS^ITO    «,M    ^-   OJZ    ^.   .O.U     7JO
      bnimi. TMKII.        4S9    _    7    »    W    «    "»•    «J»-   -«.17-    »»
      Ci1<6aM Cl^. Ctlt)wi§       '147    ^.   S   111    Ut    US   UO    1.00    OJ(    VOO
      Thiu. ai«MM            irr    _   iz    u    eaj    .^.   '.—^    o_a    ^_^     ao
      SMU n»«. bllfaniU       »1     13   13   147    _    S.I    OJ3    «_    0.7$    ^_
                           isa    .u   n   m    _~    ...    —    —    ~..    —
                           4»     a   »   in    i.«i    xn   o.s    o.tt    6.3*    usn
                          147-1 «3  SJ-ia  7-$«  «»-»7a O.S7-Z.C* O.S7-J.I 0-JJ-i.oo O.IS.I.BO o:is-o.7j
      *.• Orjulua/133 0..
                                                              Reproduced  from
                                                              best available copy,
    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 META.L CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN  STORMWATER  RUNOFF  (4,  5)
    
                                     Concentration Ranges  in- Urban
                      Metal            Stormwater Runoff,  ng/1*
    
                    Antimony                   20 - 60
                    Arsenic                   0.2 - 100
                    Beryllium                 1.0 - 4.0
                    Cadmium                   0.6 - 9000
                    Chromium                    4 - 10000
                    Copper                      2-700
                .    Lead                        3 - 5000
                    Mercury                   0.1-60
                    Nickel                      9-400
                    Selenium                  0.8 - 10
                    Silver                      2-10
                    Thallium                  0.2 - 10
                    Zinc                       10 - 780
    
                    *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 BODC AND COD LOAD COMPARISONS* (4)
    TVPt
    COMBINID
    rronM
    UNSIYVlftfD
    TOTALS
    •ASSUMING
    
    eso
    UK IAN
    STOHMWA7IM
    OHY-
    WtATXtft
    PINCtNT
    or
    orveiorio
    An (A
    14 J
    3iJ
    47.4
    1OO
    ANNUAL OWf"
    ioos
    MIL IB.
    34O
    710
    310
    U30
    
    BOO,
    IMO/U
    100
    20
    30
    COO
    IMC/U
    300
    11»
    •0
    COO
    MIL LI.
    910
    1IM
    UO
    3(30
    ANNUAL WV»r-
    100,
    MIL LO.
    110
    440
    UO
    W40
    coo
    MIL LI.
    2*40
    2SOO
    323O
    13*0
    rtnciKTAvwr
    BOO,
    72
    31
    S4
    n
    coo
    7*
    57
    7T
    C7
    ~U • Ojt*» KG
     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 nonurbamzed 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.
                          X
                          o
    
                          »•
                          I
                          <
                                                           .s
                                       TATIOPIS (ratetiv* 1
                   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).
    
    Typically, 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.
                                             HI/
    

    -------
    In Coyote Creek (15), urban sediment compared to non-urban sediment contained
    higher concentrations of lead, arsenic, BOD5 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 stormr
     water quantity and quality during a storm event.   Its benefits for detailed plan-
     ning and des'ign 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/Semistructural 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  storn 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.
       u
                          TREATMENT
                             PLANT
                 W* R£WLATCX.I
                   '-.;• CflMZWl
                                    SANITARY
                                  ' INTERCEPTOR.
                                  SMALL
                                • :  ;;.;^ . '.'-TANK
                                                 ••.-*••••'
                                                 .tV1 ' :
    .^SilTS^
                                ~- .;•>* •  ^::  ; '.:..•
                                  .'•'.. .* '. .11. : . '  - ^^
                                     •«"' " •"'-•; '  '  ^.
                            ^J STORM DRAIN _1
                            ^^   NETWORK .
    
    
                                                                    i-*Tv.--- -*?v
                                                   :^-::-i>
                                                   ?^^
                                                   •Ji:r_r..:%r,"\:-;:
    
    Storage
                     Figure 2.  Regulator-Regulator/Concentrator Urban
                               Stormwater Control  Devices
    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
    facilities during 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 philisopny 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, et al.'.
                              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 al_., Metcalf & tddy,
                              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, NJ.
                              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,  NO.
    
    
     6.   EPA-600/2-76-244   -   Proceedings of Workshop on Microorganisms in Urbar^
                              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
    
     8.   EPA-600/2-79-050a  -   Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
                              Community - Executive Summary:  by W.G. 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,  PL,
                              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_.»  Tne 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, O.C.
                              No NTIS
    
    14.  EPA-600/2-78-135  -  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 al.,
                              (Rexnord) Metropolitan Sewage District of County  of
                              Milwaukee, WI.
                              No NTIS
    
    17.  Stormwater Management to Improve Lake Water Quality:   by  M.P.  Wanielista,
         et aK, 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, et al_., Municipality  of Metropolitan
                              Seattle and University of Washington.
    
    19.  Evaluation of Urban Runoff and Combined jewer Overflow Mutagenicity:
         Cooperative Agreement No. CR-806640.
                                                            •
    20.  EPA-600/8-80-035  -  Urban Stormwater Management & Technology;  Case
                              Histories;  by W.G. Lynard, et jil_.,  Metcalf & Eddy,
                              Inc., Palo Alto, CA.
                              NTIS PB 81-107153
    
    21.  WPD 03-76-04      -  Water Quality Management Guidance -  Proceedings Urban
                              Stormy/ater 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 J.A. Lager and  W.G.  Smith, Metcalf 4 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. HcPherson, American Society of Civil
                              Engineers, Marblehead,  MA.
                              No NTIS
    
    26.  EPA-600/2-80-013  -  Select Topics in Stormwater Management Planning for Mew
                              Residential Developments:  by R. Berwick, et^T., Meta
                              Systems, Cambridge, MA.
                              NTIS PB 80 187479
    
    27.  Storage/Sedimentation Facilities for  Control of  Storm and Combined Sev/er
         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, NO.
                              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
                              Flowrateslby 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, EiifiG Washington
                              Analytical Services Center, Inc., Rockville, MD.
                              NTIS PB 250 371
    34.  EPA-600/9-76-014  -
    35.  EPA-600/2-76-286  -
    36.  EPA-600/2-78-035  -
       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
    
       Cost Estimating Manual— Combinee' Sewer Overflow  Storage
       and Treatment:  by H.H. Benjes, Jr., Gulp, Wesner, Gulp,
       Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA.
       NTIS PB 265 359
    
       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,
         Pullman, WA.
    38.  EPA-670/2-74-045
    -  Manual for Deicing Chemicals:  Application Practices:
       D.L. Richardson, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
       NTIS PB 239 694
    39.  EPA-670/2-74-033  -
    40.  EPA-660/2-74-073  -
    41.  EPA-600/8-76-OOU -
    42.  EPA-600/8-76-001b -
       Manual  for Deicing Chemical Storage and Handling:   by
       D.L. Richardson, e£al_., Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.,
       Cambridge, MA.
       NTIS PB 236 152
    
       An Executive Summary of Three EPA Demonstration Programs
       in Erosion and Sediment Control:   by B.C.  Becker,  et a!..
       Hittman Associates, Columbia, MD.
       GPO EP  1.23/2:660/2-74-073
    
       Erosion and Sediment Control Audio-Visual  Training Program:
       Instruction Program:  by the State of Maryland Hater
       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
    
       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 Con.trol  Planning  and
                              Implementation:  by the Oept. of Water Resources,  State
                              of Maryland, and Hittman Assoc., Inc., Columbia, MO.
                              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 1.23/2:650/2-74-071
    
    45.  150300TL05/70     -  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, II.
                              NTIS PB 242 001
    
    47.  EPA-R2-73-145     -  A Thermal Wave Flowmeter for Measuring Combined Sewar 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 Vlastewater FT.--./ 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:  b;
                              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 Flowmet;
                              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.  FPA-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-570/2-75-067  -  Automatic Organic.Monitoring System for Storm and
                              Combined Sewers:by A. TU1umello,  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 Oischar-?s.  Volume  II - Cost Assessment
                              and Impacts;  by J.P. He'aney, et aj_., 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.  Hear.ey,  et. a_K, University of Florida,
                              Gainesville, FL.
                              NTIS PB 259 916
    
    57.  EPA--600/2-77-083  -  Stormv/ater Management Model Level  I, Comparative Evaluation
                              of Storage Treatment  and Other Management Practices:   by
                              J.P. Heaney, et a_K,  University of Florida,  Gainesville, FL.
                              NTIS PB 265 671
    
    58.  EPA-600/2-76-218  -  Development and Application of a Simplified  Stormwater
                              Management Model:   by John A. Lager, et^ajL, 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 Mo.  R-806357, (Publication Pending).
    
    60.  Macroscopic Planning Model (EPAMAC) for Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow
         Control:  Application Guide and User'c  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
                              Stbrmwater 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, £t_al_., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Grant No.
         R-802411.
    
    63.  EPA-600/2-80-011  -  Quantity-Quality Simulation (QQS): A Detailed Continuous
                              Manning 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.
                              NTIS PB 242 290
    
    66.  EPA-670/2-75-017  -  Stormv/ater Management Model User's Manual - Version  II:
                              by W.C. Huber, et al., University of Florida, Gainesville,
                              FL.            ~~~
                              No NTIS
    67.  11020FAQ03/71
    68.  F.PA-670/2-74-022  -
    69.  11022ELK12/71
    70.  EPA-670/2-75-041   -
    71.  EPA-670/2-75-065  -
    72.  EPA-600/2-77-065  -
    73.  EPA-600/2-76-175a -
    74.  11034DUY03/72
    75.  EPA-600/2-79-050C -
    Dispatching Systems for Control of Combined Sewer Losses:
    by Metro. Sewer Board, St. Paul, MM.
    NTIS PB 203 678
    
    Computer Management of a Combined Sewer System:  by
    C.P. Leiser, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,
    Seattle, WA.
    NTIS PB 235 717
    
    Maximizing Storage in Combined Ssvjer Systems;  by
    Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, ..A.
    NTIS PB 209 861
    
    Storm Water Management Model:  D.issemination and User
    Assistance:  J.A. Hagerman and F.R.S. Dressier, University
    City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA.
    NTIS PB 242 544
    
    Short Course Proceedings, Applicat.ons of Stormwater
    Management Models:  by F. DiGiano, et a_l_., University
    of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
    NTIS PB 247 163
    
    Short Course Proceedings, Applications of Stormwater
    Management Model - 1976:  by F. DiGiano, et aj_..
    University of MA, Amherst, MA.
    NTIS PB 265 321
    
    Assessment of Mathematical Models for Storm and Combined
    Sewer Management:by A. Brandstetter, Battelle, Pacific
    Northwest Lab., Richland, WA.
    NTIS PB 259 597                       '
    
    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
    
    Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
    Community - Application of the Stormv/ater 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 for Separation of Sediment from Storm Water at
                              Construction Sites;  by J.F. Ripken, et a]_., University
                              of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
                              NTIS PB 262 782
    
    79.  EPA-600/2-79-076  -  Laboratory Evaluation of Methods to Separate Fine Grained
                              Sedirrent 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 Sv/irl Concentrator as a Grit Separator Device: by
                              R.H. Sullivan, et aj_., American Public Works Association,
                              Chicago, IL.
                              NTIS PB 233 964
    
    81.  EPA-600/2-75-271  -  The Sv/irl Concentrator for Erosion Runoff Treatment:   by
                              R.H. Sullivan, et a_L, American Public Works Association,
                              Chicago, IL.
                              NTIS PB 266 598
    
    82.  EPA-600/2-77-185  -  Field Prototype Demonstration of the Sv/irl Degritter:  by
                              R.H. Sullivan, et_ £l_., 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, e_t aj_., American Public
                              Works Association, Chicago, IL.
                              NTIS PB 286 339
    
    84.  EPA-R2-72-081     -  VJater 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  l-rancisco, 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, e_t al_.,  Eugene  A.
                              Hickock and Associates, Wayzata, MN.
                              NTIS PB 278 172
    
    90.  Treatment of StonTiwater Runoff by a Harsh/Flood Basin - draft final  report:
         by Y.J.  Litwin, 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, e_t al_.,  Association of Bay Area Governments, Berkeley, CA, and
         RAMLIT Associates, Berkeley, CA, Grant No. R-80S357.
    
    92.  EPA-600/2-77-051   -  Catchbasin Technology Overview and Assessment:   by
                              J. 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 a\_.,  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.  11022DKU07/70     -  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 Overflov/
                              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  Pub!ic
                               Works Association, Chicago, IL.
                               NTIS PB 234 646
    
    TOO.  Design Manual-Secondary Flow Pollution Control Devices - draft .final  report:
         •by R.H. Sullivan, et_a]_., API/A, Grant No. R-803157.
    
    101.  EPA-600/2-75-062  -  The Helical Bend Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator:
                               by R.H. Sullivan, et aK, American Public Works
                               Association, Chicago, IL.
                               NTIS PB 250 619
    
    102.  Demonstration of Swirl  and Helical  Bend Regulatory as Storm Sewer Control
          Devices. Cooperative Agreement Demonstration No. CS-805795.
    
    103.  11020FAL03/71
    104.  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 Chlorination
    Station. Cambridge, HA:  by Commonwealth of MA Metro-
    politan District Commission, MA.
    NTIS PB 263 292
    
    Retention Basin Control of Combined Sewer nverf1ows:
    by Springfield Sanitary District, Springfield, IL.
    NTIS PB 200 828
    
    Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows:
    by the City of Chippewa Falls, WI.
    NTIS PB 214 106
    
    Detention Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow - Milwaukee.
    HI 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, e£ a_l_.,  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
    

    -------
    112.  EPA-600/2-76-272  -
    113. . 11020—02/71
    114.  EPA-R2-73-242
    115.  EPA-600/2-80-OH  -
    116.  EPA-600/2-77-069a -
    117.  EPA-600/2-79-106a  -
    118.   11020FDC01/72
    119.   EPA-600/2-79-085  -
    120.  11023FDD07/71
    121.  11023FDD03/70
    122.  11020EXV07/69
    Demonstration of Void Space Storage with Treatment and
    Flow Regulation:  by Karl R. Rohrer Assoc., Inc.,
    Akron, OH.
    NTIS PB 263 032
    
    Deep Tunnels in Hard Rock:  by College of Applied Science
    and Engineering and University Extension, University of
    Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
    NTIS PB 210 854
    
    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
    
    Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System-Interim Report-
    Planning and Construction:  by I. Koncza, £t a_l_., City
    of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
    NTIS PB 81-145708
    
    Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows,
    Volume I - Bench-Scale and Pilot Plant Investigations:  by
    M.K. Gupta, et_£l_., Envirex, Environmental Science Div.,
    Milwaukee, WI.
    NTIS PB 272 834
    
    Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows;
    Volume II:  Full-Scale Oper-'-tion, Racine. HI:   by T.L.
    Meinholz, Envirex, Inc., Milwaukee, WI.
    NTIS PB 80-130693
    
    Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows:
    by the Ecology Division, Rex Chainbelt,  Inc.,  Milwaukee, WI
    No NTIS
    
    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
    
    Demonstration of Rotary Screening for Combined Sev/er
    Overflows:  by City of Portland, Dept. of Public Works,
    Portland, OR.
    NTIS PB 206 814
    
    Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of Combined Sewer
    Overflows:  by Cornell, Howland, Hayes and Merryfield
    Corvallis, OR.                                       '
    NTIS PB 195 168
    
    Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows:
    by Fram Corporation, East Providence, RI."'
    NTIS PB 185 949
                                           R-ll
    

    -------
    123.  11023EYI04/72
    124.  EPA-600/2-79-015  -
    125.  EPA-600/2-75-033  -
    126.  EPA-600/2-78-209  -
    127.  EPA-600/2-77-015  -
    128.  EPA-R2-73-149
    129.  11023EV006/70
    130.  EPA-R2-73-124
    131.  EPA-67'0/2-74-049  -
    132.  EPA-670/2-75-021  -
    High-Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows;
    (Cleveland):  by R. Nebols'ine, jit. a]_., Hydrotechnic
    Corp., New York, NY.
    NTIS PB 211 144
    
    Dual Process High-Rate Filtration of Raw Sanitary
    Sewage and Combined Se-./sr Overflows:  (Newtowif Creek),
    by H. Innerfeld, £t al_., New York City Dept. of
    Water Resources, New York, NY.
    NTIS PB 296 626/AS
    
    Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by Dissolved
    Air Flotation:  by T.A. Bursztynsky, et aj_., Engineering
    Science, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
    NTIS PB 248 186
    
    Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by High Gradient
    Magnetic Separation - Cm-Site Testing with Mobile  Pilot
    Plant Trailer:  by D.M. Allen, Sala Magnetics, Cambridge,
    MA.
    NTIS PB 292 329
    
    Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows by High Gradient
    Magnetic Separation:  by J. Oberteuffer, et_al_., Sala
    Magnetics, Cambridge, MA.
    NTIS P3 264 935
    Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined and Municipal
    Sewage:  by A.O. Shuckrow, et_ aj_., Pacific NW Lab.,
    Battelle Memorial Institute, Richland, V/A.
    NTIS PB 219 668
    
    Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sev/er
    Overf1ows:  by Cochrane Div., Crane Co., King of
    Prussia, PA.
    NTIS PB 195 67
    
    Microstraining r^d Disinfection of Combined Sev/er
    Overflows-Phase  il;  G.E. Glover, and G.R. Herbert,
    Crane Company, King of Prussia, PA.
    NTIS PB 219 879
    
    Microstraim'ng and Disinfection of Combined Sewer
    Overflows-Phase  III:  by M.B. Maher, Crane Company,
    King of Prussia, PA.
    NTIS PB 235 771
    
    Bench-Scale High-Rate Disinfection of Combined Sev/er
    Overflows with Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide:  by P.E,
    Moffa, e_t al_., O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.,
    Syracuse, NY.
    NTIS PB 242 296
                                           R-12
    

    -------
    133.  EPA-600/2-79-134  -  Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows.
                               Syracuse. New York:  by F. Drehvring, et_ al_., 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 Uet-Weather Flows:  by P. Homack, et.al_., E.T.
                               Killam Assoc., Inc., Millburn, NO.
                               NTIS PB 231 251
    
    135.  EPA-670/2-75-019  -  Biological Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflow at
                               Kenosha, WI:  by R.U. Agnew, et.ll.. 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.J. 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 Stonnwater:  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,
                               Spalding, DeDecker Associates, Inc., Madison Heights, MI.
                               NTIS PB 242 914
    
    141.  Storm and Combined Sev/er Section Publications Bibliography, U.S. Environmental
          Protection Agency, Edison, New Jersey, March, 1981.
                                                           •D.S.COVCTSMEST PHIXT1SC OTTICt: 19>2—361-Oe2/J26
    

    -------
                      Reproduced by NTIS
     ««§.!»
       "
    u. a
    fi    0 C
     EEs-0
     u O 3+*
     0) O OS
          ;«
    *n c ® e
     " 3T3 C
    CO^iSW
    Hi:5'
    Z o w c
    •i W ••• !!•
                       National Technical Information Service
                       Springfield, VA 22161
                                   repor/ was printed specifically for your order
                            from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
    For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
    collection of technical reports.  Rather, most documents are printed for
    each order.  Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
    from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
    available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
    order you have placed with NTIS, please  call our Customer Service
    Department at (703) 487-4660.
    
    About NTIS
    NTIS collects  scientific, technical, engineering,  and business related
    information — then organizes,  maintains,  and  disseminates  that
    information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
    The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles  includes reports describing
    research  conducted  or  sponsored  by federal  agencies  and  their
    contractors;   statistical and   business  information;  U.S.  military
    publications; audiovisual  products;  computer software and electronic
    databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and technical
    reports  prepared by research  organizations  worldwide. Approximately
    100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS collection
    annually.
       For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
        at (703) 487-4650 and request the free NTIS Catalog of Products
             and Services, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
                          http://www.ntis.gov.
                                NTIS
          Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
                    information—U.S. and worldwide
    

    -------