&EPA
United States
Environmental Protectior
Agency
EPA/6Q0/R-21/093 | June 2021
www.epa.gov/emergency-response-research
AnCOR Task 2.1
Phase I Modeling Report
Fate and Transport of Spores
on Outdoor Surfaces
Office of Research and Development
Homeland Security Research Program
-------
EPA/600/R-21/093
June 2021
AnCOR Task 2.1
Phase I Modeling Report
Fate and Transport of Spores on Outdoor Surfaces
by
Kurt Picel, Eugene Yan, Getnet Betrie, Jeremy Feinstein
Environmental Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
Argonne, IL, 60439
Interagency Agreement DW-89-92439001-B
Anne Mikelonis
US EPA Task Lead
Homeland Security Materials Management Division
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
Research Triangle Park, NC, 2771 1
-------
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) through its Office of Research and Development's Homeland
Security Research Program, funded and managed the research described herein under Interagency Agreement
DW-89-92439001-B with Argonne National Laboratory. US EPA funds were from an Interagency Agreement
entitled Analysis of Coastal Operation Resiliency (AnCOR) with the Department of Homeland Security's Science
and Technology Directorate (IA #: 70RSAT18KPM000084 / RW-070-95937001). This report has been peer and
administratively reviewed and has been approved for publication as an US EPA document. Note that approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. Any mention of trade names,
products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the US EPA. The US EPA does
not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises. The contractor role did not include establishing
Agency policy.
Questions concerning this document, or its application should be addressed to:
Anne Mikelonis, Ph.D., P.E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response (CESER)
Homeland Security Materials Management Division (HSMMD)
Wide-Area and Infrastructure Decontamination Branch (WAIDB)
109 T.W. Alexander Dr. (MD-E-343-06)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919-886-0812
mikeloni s. anne@epa. gov
-------
Executive Summary
This report documents Phase I of Task 2.1 of the Interagency Agreement entitled Analysis of Coastal Operation
Resiliency (AnCOR) between the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The overall objective of the AnCOR project is to address
preparedness and response gaps related to a wide-area contamination incident involving Bacillus anthracis
spores, the causative agent of anthrax, at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) bases. Task 2.1's objective is to evaluate the
potential impacts on USCG stormwater systems by water-driven contamination following dispersal of B.
anthracis within the surrounding watersheds.
This report assessed USCG preparedness to respond to a wide-area biological contamination incident impacting
stormwater infrastructure and evaluated modeling tools available to assist in characterization and remediation
of the contamination. Overall, there was a high confidence of base personnel in leading a response to a
contamination incident, moderate to high availability of equipment, and a broad range of available personnel.
Basic hand tools and absorbant materials were widely available across bases, but there was a range in
availability of flood control barriers and temporary culverts that may be instrumental in containing or redirecting
contamination. Further, it was shown that some bases have a robust network of existing NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) sampling locations that may be potentially leveraged to monitor the
spread of contamination in stormwater while other bases do not have such a starting point.
Over half of facility engineers surveyed said they could and would use a stormwater model for both incident
response and routine maintenance if one were provided. A wide range of stormwater modeling tools exist, but
none of the models reviewed for this project contained all the desired features to quickly provide predictions of
spore transport during a wide-area biological contamination incident. Key required modeling capabilities include
2-D/l-D runoff modeling, surface and subsurface pollutant fate and transport modeling, real-time updating,
evaluation of scenarios using real time controls, fast computation speed and visualization, and uncertainty
quantifications. Out of the models evaluated by the team, the MIKE suite, SOBEK suite, Infoworks ICM,
RiverFlow2D, PC-SWMM (Stormwater Management Model), InfoSWWM and XPSWMM, EPA-SWMM, and TREX
were ranked from first to last choice based on their capabilities. However, the price of these models ranged
substantially, with the highest-ranked software being the most expensive due to inclusion of more features
and/or technical support. Thus, the choice of the model involves tradeoffs between available budget and
required capabilities to meet the needs of the response. A less expensive long-term option would be to invest in
developing loose or tight coupling tools for the free, open source programs such as EPA-SWMM that add missing
capabilities such as 2D modeling to this software. This investment in coupling two free software products would
result in a tool without an annual fee that could be more easily maintained by USCG civil engineering units and
would be more likely to be ready to use at the time of an incident.
A five base sample set was analyzed for watershed characteristics including rainfall, flow
accumulation/streamlines, watershed boundaries, and stormwater infrastructure statistics. This information was
gathered to get a better sense of the size and diversity of the USCG stormwater systems and to determine the
feasibility of a field study at one of the locations. Four of the facilities (Portsmouth, Elizabeth City, Baltimore,
and Mobile) had similar sized stormwater systems in terms of the number of lines and equipment compared to a
much smaller sized system in Houston. All bases were in relatively flat areas, with elevation ranges spanning 4.5
to 15 feet. The bases experienced similar 2-yr 24-hour average rainfall events (approximately 3-5 inch), but
Mobile and Houston experienced more extreme quantities of rainfall for 100-year 24-hour rainfall estimates
(approximately 15-18 inches compared to 8-9 inches). The project team recommended moving forward with
building a model and conducting a field study at base Elizabeth City, North Carolina, due to its representative
watershed characteristics, the cooperation from base personal, and the proximity to the project team for
sample collection.
iii
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage
our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency response (CESER) within the Office of research and
Development (ORD) conducts applied, stakeholder-driven research and provides responsive technical support to
help solve the Nation's environmental challenges. The Center's research focuses on innovative approaches to
address environmental challenges associated with the built environment. We develop technologies and
decision-support tools to help safeguard public water systems and groundwater, guide sustainable materials
management, remediate sites from traditional contamination sources and emerging environmental stressors,
and address potential threats from terrorism and natural disasters. CESER collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that improve the effectiveness and reduce the cost of compliance,
while anticipating emerging problems. We provide technical support to EPA regions and programs, states, tribal
nations, and federal partners, and serve as the interagency liaison for EPA in homeland security research and
technology. The Center is a leader in providing scientific solutions to protect human health and the
environment.
The Analysis of Coastal Operational Resiliency (AnCOR) project sponsored by the Department of Homeland
Security is a multi-year collaborative initiative bringing together cutting-edge research projects related to waste
management, decontamination, sampling, data management, and fate and transport. This report highlights how
stormwater asset management and modeling are key components to emergency preparedness and response. It
is an example of support that CESER researchers routinely provide to interagency partners.
Gregory Sayles, Director
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
iv
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ii
Executive Summary iii
Foreword iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations viii
Acknowledgments ix
1 Introduction 1
2 Facility Summaries 2
2.1 Five-Base Study Set 3
2.1.1 Baltimore Yard, Maryland 3
2.1.2 Portsmouth, Virginia 8
2.1.3 Elizabeth City, North Carolina 13
2.1.4 Mobile, Alabama 18
2.1.5 Houston, Texas 23
2.2 Stormwater Infrastructure 27
2.3 USCG Facility Engineer Survey 29
3 Model Roadmap 33
3.1 Modeling Scenarios 33
3.2 Key Transport Processes 35
3.3 Software Evaluation 36
3.3.1 Model Summaries and Comparisons 36
3.3.2 Discussion 45
3.3.3 Model Coupling 46
4 Phase II Site Selection 48
4.1 Selection Criteria 48
5 Quality Assurance 51
References 52
Appendix A: Facility Engineer Survey 53
V
-------
Figures
Figure 2.1. USCG bases and precipitation zones 2
Figure 2.2. Baltimore Yard stormwater system 4
Figure 2.3. Land use and cover around Baltimore Yard 5
Figure 2.4a. Baltimore Yard's topography and potential flow lines 6
Figure 2.4b. Baltimore Yard's base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour
point (yellow triangle) 6
Figure 2.4c. Baltimore Yard's 2-year maximum one-day precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 7
Figure 2.4d. Baltimore Yard's 100-year maximum one-day precipitation event (NOAA 2017).. 7
Figure 2.5. Portsmouth stormwater system 9
Figure 2.6. Land use and cover around Portsmouth 10
Figure 2.7a. Portsmouth topography and potential flow accumulation lines 11
Figure 2.7b. Portsmouth base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour points
(yellow triangles) 11
Figure 2.7c. Portsmouth 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 12
Figure 2.7d. Portsmouth 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 12
Figure 2.8. Elizabeth City stormwater system lines and nodes 14
Figure 2.9. Land use and cover around Elizabeth City 15
Figure 2.10a. Elizabeth City topography and potential flow accumulation lines 16
Figure 2.10b. Elizabeth City Base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour
points (yellow triangles) 16
Figure 2.10c. Elizabeth City 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 17
Figure 2.10d. Elizabeth City 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 17
Figure 2.11. Mobile stormwater system 19
Figure 2.12. Land use and cover around Mobile 20
Figure 2.13a. Mobile Aviation Center topography and potential flow accumulation lines 21
Figure 2.13b. Mobile boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour points (yellow
triangle) 21
Figure 2.13c. Mobile Aviation Center 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 22
Figure 2.13d. Mobile Aviation Center 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017)... 22
Figure 2.14. Houston-1 (SW- top) and Houston-2 (NE-bottom) stormwater system 23
Figure 2.15. Land use and cover around Houston 24
Figure 2.16a. Houston Air Station topography and potential flow accumulation lines 25
Figure 2.16b. Houston boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour points (yellow
triangle) 25
Figure 2.16c. Houston Air Station 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 26
Figure 2.16d. Houston Air Station 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017) 26
Figure 2.17a-d. Responses to USCG Academy survey question on leading a response 29
Figure 2.18. Responses to USCG Academy survey on decontamination equipment (error bars
represent standard deviation) 30
Figure 2.19. Number of NPDES permitted sampling points by USCG facility 32
Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of water-driven transport of surface distributed bacterial spores.
35
Figure 3.2 Loose model coupling schematic 46
Figure 3.3 Tight model coupling schematic 47
Figure 4.1 Comparison of base 24-hour average rainfall 50
vi
-------
Tables
Table 2.1. Stormwater Equipment at the Five Candidate Bases 27
Table 2.2. Statistics on the Diameter and Length of Stormwater Pipes at the Five Bases 27
Table 2.3. Stormwater Equipment Statistics at the Five Bases 28
Table 3.1. Scenario Givens and Key Variables 33
Table 3.2. Previous Modeling and Field Scenarios of Biological Incidents 34
Table 3.3. Model Evaluation based on Operational Questions: Top Nine Contenders1 38
Table 3.4. Cost and Licensing Information for Selected Hydrodynamic Models 43
Table 4.1 Criteria for Site Selection 48
Table 4.2. Threshold Criteria Evaluation of Five USCG Installations for Desired Site
Characteristics for Phase II Field Study 49
Table 4.3. Balancing Criteria Evaluation of USCG Installations for Desired Site Characteristics
for Phase II Field Study 49
vii
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AnCOR
Analysis for Coastal Operational Resiliency
API
application program interface
CMAD
Consequence Management Advisory Division
CDR
Commander
CESER
Center for Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
1-D
one-dimensional
2-D
two-dimensional
DWMB
Drinking Water Management Branch
GPU
graphical processor unit
HSMMD
Homeland Security Materials Management Division
IA
Interagency Agreement
ICAM
Inventory, Condition, Assessment, and Mapping
ICIS
Integrated Compliance Information System
10
Immediate Office
LiDAR
light detection and ranging
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
OLEM
Office of Land and Emergency Management
OpenMI
open modeling interface
ORD
Office of Research and Development
RTC
real time control
SIVA
Shore Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment
STMMB
Systems Tools and Materials Management Branch
SWMM
Stormwater Management Model
TREX
Two-dimensional Runoff, Erosion, Export
USCG
U.S. Coast Guard
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WAIDB
Wide-Area & Infrastructure Decontamination Branch
WID
Water Infrastructure Division
viii
-------
Acknowledgments
Contributions of the following individuals and organizations to this report are gratefully acknowledged:
US EPA Project Team
Terra Haxton, Ph.D., Office of Research and Development (ORD)/Center for Environmental Solutions
and Emergency Response (CESER)/Homeland Security and Materials Management Division
(HSMMD)/Systems Tools & Materials Management Branch (STMMB)
Robert Janke, M.S., ORD/CESER/ Water Infrastructure Division (WID)/ Drinking Water Management
Branch (DWMB)
Anne Mikelonis, Ph.D., P.E., ORD/CESER/HSMMD/ Wide-Area & Infrastructure Decontamination
Branch (WAIDB)
Katherine Ratliff, Ph.D., ORD/CESER/HSMMD/WAIDB
Coast Guard Project Team
Commander Corinna Fleischmann, Ph.D., P.E., C.S.B.A., Coast Guard Academy
Cadet Owen Gibson, Coast Guard Academy
Argonne National Laboratory Team
Kurt Picel, Ph.D.
Eugene Yan, Ph.D.
Getnet Betrie, Ph.D.
Jeremy Feinstein
US EPA Technical Reviewers
Joe Wood, M.S., P.E. ORD/CESER/HSMMD/WAIDB
Leroy Mickelsen, M.S., P.E. Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)/Office of
Emergency Management (OEM)/Consequence Management Advisory Division (CMAD)
US EPA Technical Edit
Marti Sinclair, GDIT
US EPA Quality Assurance
Ramona Sherman, ORD/CESER/HSMMD/Immediate Office (10)
ix
-------
1 Introduction
This report documents Phase I of Task 2.1 of the Interagency Agreement entitled Analysis of Coastal Operation
Resiliency (AnCOR) between the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). The overall objective of the AnCOR project is to address
preparedness and response gaps related to a wide-area contamination incident involving Bacillus anthracis
spores, the causative agent of anthrax, at U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) bases. Task 2.1's purpose is to evaluate the
potential impacts on USCG stormwater systems by water-driven contamination following dispersal of B.
anthracis within the surrounding watersheds. The task is divided into two Phases of work: Phase I is site and
model selection and Phase II is model construction and spore wash-off field study. A better understanding of the
movement of spores in stormwater may enhance emergency response by increasing the effectiveness of
responders conducting sampling and decontamination activities. In addition, understanding spore transport may
be used to help mitigate impacts though the identification of flow-paths, contaminant movement rates, and
potentially impacted infrastructure and environmental media.
Impacts of concern regarding stormwater systems and infrastructure include surface contamination of pipes and
equipment with spores. Such contamination would require decontamination to prevent spores from penetrating
into stormwater systems, infiltrating into groundwater, discharging into receiving waters or surface areas, and
reaching residential areas via off-base migration. Capabilities, resources, and strategies to respond to and
remediate such impacts currently do not exist at USCG bases and represent a preparedness gap this project aims
to narrow. In addition, impacts to stormwater systems and the required response actions could adversely
impact base operations due to the intrusive nature of such actions on base infrastructure.
Phase I of Task 2.1 focused on researching USCG stormwater systems to summarize differences in
meteorological/terrain features and operations of USCG assets by location. This information was used to
develop a modeling framework that identified which hydrodynamic models could be used during a response for
key fate-and-transport-related decisions. This report reviews and evaluates five USCG bases for suitability to
build a detailed stormwater model. Fieldwork during Phase II will collect data that parameterizes the
stormwater model. This report also contains a summary of the results of a survey of USCG facility engineers, and
a modeling roadmap. The development of the modeling roadmap included an evaluation of available
hydrodynamic models with respect to capabilities, cost, and applicability to support operational decisions during
an incident. The five USCG bases were used by the project team to characterize USCG stormwater systems in
general for the purpose of the modeling framework and to represent a range of meteorological conditions and
terrain, stormwater system design and complexity, and vulnerability to changing environmental conditions. The
information contained in this report is intended to document the research involved in selecting the location and
models for Phase II of Task 2.1. It is also intended to provide the emergency planners and facility engineers at
the USCG with a sense of the resulting remedial impacts across the climatic and infrastructure diversity of their
systems and to lay out the current state of stormwater modeling options available during a response.
1
-------
2 Facility Summaries
The USCG is the principal federal agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental
stewardship in U.S. ports and most navigable waterways. In this capacity, the USCG protects and
defends more than 100,000 miles of U.S. coastline and inland waterways. The USCG maintains a fleet of ships
and aircraft to protect the coast. Associated with these assets, the USCG maintains and operates many facility
installations that are exposed to a range of climatic conditions including a wide range of precipitation
(approximately 2-5 inches for a 1-day duration 2-year return event) (Figure 2.1).
2-Yr Precipitation Frequency Estimates (Continental US)
Legend
o Base
Precipitation data courtsey of NOAA National Weather Service PFDS
Service Layer Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA
he Bahamas
La Habana ©
Cuba
Republics
Dominicana
© B| "
Kingston
Ciudad HonduCAl
Oiudad ^
de Mexico v
J
Figure 2.1. USCG bases and precipitation zones.
The scope of Task 2.1 did not budget for a detailed review of all USCG facilities. Therefore, the USCG Academy
partners were instrumental in selecting candidate bases for watershed evaluation/infrastructure summaries and
surveying of facility engineers. The Academy used the following criteria to recommend a subset of sites to
investigate during this project:
Availability of utility data (part of the USCG Inventory, Condition, Assessment and Mapping (ICAM) project
Phase I or II)
Vulnerability score from a USCG Shore Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment (SIVA)
Availability of on-base partners
Size of system
Dual purpose use of study (i.e., ongoing USCG capital improvement projects)
Ability to obtain permission to release a tracer for model verification.
2
-------
2.1 Five-Base Study Set
Per USCG Academy recommendations, the set of candidate facilities considered and evaluated as locations for
Task 2.1 included five USCG installations. These installations were Coast Guard Yard, Baltimore, Maryland
(Baltimore Yard); USCG Base, Portsmouth, Virginia (Portsmouth); USCG Air Station, Elizabeth City, North Carolina
(Elizabeth City); Aviation Training Center, Mobile, Alabama (Mobile); and USCG Air Station, Houston, Texas
(Houston). These installations represent a reasonable cross-section of USCG facilities, with a range of
precipitation rates, size and complexity of stormwater infrastructure, land use and surface types, and coastal
and inland locations. They do not include sectors or stations where staffing may be more limited, however
smaller facilities may also not require a model to determine the best locations to sample or decontaminate; it is
realistic to imagine the entire facility may be decontaminated. Topography, while relatively flat for all the
facilities, includes some sites with greater levels of elevation change, particularly when considering offsite
watersheds. Each base was evaluated using Esri base map imagery and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data
from different sources noted below for each base. The watersheds and streamlines were generated using flow
accumulation pathways generated using ArcGIS's spatial analyst toolbox. The flow accumulation pathways were
determined based on an accumulation threshold, which was the sum of the mean plus standard deviation of the
watershed area and mean plus 0.1 percent of the standard deviation of the base area. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlas 14 data was used for the precipitation data source (NOAA 2017).
2.1.1 Baltimore Yard, Maryland
Baltimore Yard is located on Arundel Cove and Curtis Creek, which empty into the Patapsco River and on into
Chesapeake Bay, south of the city of Baltimore. The stormwater system at the base covers roughly 113 acres
(Figure 2.2), an estimated 70% of which is impervious surfaces, buildings, or other structures. The stormwater
outfalls are submerged. Land use and cover in the immediate area includes open water, open space to high
intensity development, forest, and wetlands (Figure 2.3). Figures 2.4a-d present watershed boundaries and
topography for Baltimore Yard. Figure 2.4 b illustrates ArcGIS pour points. The figures were generated using 0.5
m resolution Esri imagery provided by DigitalGlobe and captured on 9/28/2017 and LiDAR data from the
National Geospatial-lntelligence Agency of 1.0 m resolution captured on 9/10/2012. It is an active industrial
shipyard with copper and zinc being the primary stormwater pollutants of concern due to activities related to
paint blasting. The base is also an active Superfund Site and contains associated long-term monitoring wells.
3
-------
[Guard Yard!
"O Stormweter Equipment
¦ Catch Basin, Stormwater
A Culvert End
if Discharge, Stormwater
Downspout, Stormwater
¦ Infell. Stormwater
A Inlet, Stormwater
¦ Oil/Water Separator
¦ Other - See Comments
¦ Pollution Control, Stormwater
Pump Staton, Stormwater
Storm Manhle
¦ To Be Determined
Valve, Stormwater
Other
~Q Stormwater Lines
Custom
Stormweter Pipe
Open Dra nage
Utility Owned Stormwater
Abandoned Stormwater
Other
"D Stormweter Ponds
Figure 2.2. Baltimore Yard stormwater system.
4
-------
Baltimore 2016
Land Cover
Legend
Flowlines
Other (1.2%)
Developed, high intensity (13.4%)
1 I Watershed
Open water (22.0%)
Deciduous forest (7.8%)
Base
Developed, open space (18.2%)
Mixed forest (3.9%)
Developed, low intensity (142%)
Woody wetlands (3.2%)
Developed, medium intensity (16.0%)
00 15 03 06 09 12 Source: National Land Cover Data base 2016, courtesy of M RLC
I Miles
Figure 2.3. Land use and cover around Baltimore Yard.
5
-------
Figure 2.4a. Baltimore Yard's topography and potential flow lines.
Figure 2.4b. Baltimore Yard's base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and
pour point (yellow triangle).
6
-------
Figure 2.4c. Baltimore Yard's 2-year maximum one-day precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
Figure 2.4d. Baltimore Yard's 100-year maximum one-day precipitation event (NOAA
2017).
7
-------
2.1.2 Portsmouth, Virginia
The USCG Base at Portsmouth, Virginia, is located on an inlet off the James River, south of and adjacent to the
US Navy Craney Island Base just west of Norfolk, Virginia. The stormwater system at the base covers
approximately 135 acres (Figure 2.5), roughly 50% of which is covered with structures, parking lots, or other
impervious surfaces. Stormwater discharge points are located mainly along the river inlet. Land use and cover in
the immediate area includes open water, open space to high intensity development, woodlands, and wetlands.
A large wharf and container yard lie immediately to the south of the base (Figure 2.6). Figures 2.7a-d present
watershed boundaries and topography for Portsmouth USCG Base. These figures were generated using 0.5 m
resolution Esri imagery provided by DigitalGlobe and captured on 11/29/2018 and LiDAR data from NOAA's
Office of Coastal Management of 1.0 m resolution captured in 2013.
8
-------
-B Stormweter Equipment
I Catch Besin. Stormweter
Culvert End
if Discharge Stormweter
Downspout, Stormweter
¦ Infall, Stormweter
A Inlet. Stormweter
¦ Oil/Water Separator
¦ Other See Comments
¦ Pollut on Control, Stormweter
Pump Station, Stormweter
Storm Wenhle
¦ To Be Determined
Valve, Stormweter
Other
'B Stormweter Lines
Custom
Stormweter Pipe
Open Dre neoe
Utility Owned Stormweter
- Abendoned Stormweter
Other
"B Stormweter Ponds
h
w i :
Figure 2.5. Portsmouth stormwater system.
9
-------
Legend
Base
Flowlines
|__| Watershed
Cither (1.6%)
Open water (24.7%)
Developed, open space (16.8%)
Developed, low intensity (8.0%)
Developed, medium intensity (14.9%)
Developed, high intensity (7.9%)
Evergreen forest (5.6%)
Mixed forest (1.2%)
m Woody wetlands (14.8%)
1 Emergent herbaceous wetlands (4.6%)
0 0.2 0 4 0.8 1 2 1 6 Source: National Land Cover Database 2016, courtesy of M RLC
l Miles
Figure 2.6. Land use and cover around Portsmouth.
10
-------
Figure 2.7a. Portsmouth topography and potential flow accumulation lines.
Figure 2.7b. Portsmouth base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour
points (yellow triangles).
li
-------
Figure 2.7d. Portsmouth 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
12
-------
2.1.3 Elizabeth City, North Carolina
The USCG Air Station, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, is located southeast of Elizabeth City on the southwest site
of the Pasquotank River inlet to Albemarle Sound. The Air Station stormwater system covers approximately 950
acres (Figure 2.8) and shares the site with the Elizabeth City Regional Airport, which is operated separately. This
large site is estimated to include only about 15% impervious surfaces, mostly concrete runways. Stormwater
discharge points are located mainly along the Pasquotank River inlet or along conduits to the river. Land use and
cover in the immediate area includes mainly open or lightly developed space, cropland, and wetlands (Figure
2.9). Figures 2.10a-d present watershed boundaries and topography for the Elizabeth City Air Station. These
figures were generated using 0.15 m resolution Esri imagery provided by North Carolina Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis and captured on 1/30/2016 and LiDAR data from the North Carolina Floodplain
Mapping Program of 1.5 m resolution captured in 2014.
13
-------
Data Source: USGC ICAM Data
Last Accessed 03/21
Figure 2.8. Elizabeth City stormwater system lines and nodes.
14
Stormwater Equipment
¦ Catch Basin, Stormwater
A Culvert End
if Discharge, Stormwater
Downspout, Stormwater
¦ Infall, Stormwater
A Inlet, Stormwater
¦ Oil/Water Separator
¦ Other - See Comments
¦ Pollution Control, Stormwater
Pump Stat on, Stormwater
# Storm Manhle
¦ To Be Determined
Valve, Stormwater
Other
-{3 Stormwater Lines
Custom
Stormwater Pipe
Open Drainage
Utility Owned Stormwater
Abandoned Stormwater
Other
'D Stormwater Ponds
-------
Legend
Flowlines
Value
Developed, high intensity (1.6%)
Base
Developed, open space (23.1%)
Evergreen forest (1.8%)
I | Watersheds
Developed, low intensity (7.1%)
Cultivated crops (54.4%)
Developed, medium intensity (5.3%)
Woody wetlands (4.9%)
0 0.25 0.5
^ g 2 Source: National Land Cover Database 2016, courtesy of MRLG
Miles
Figure 2.9. Land use and cover around Elizabeth City.
15
-------
Figure 2.10a. Elizabeth City topography and potential flow accumulation lines.
Figure 2.10b. Elizabeth City Base boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and
pour points (yellow triangles).
16
-------
Figure 2.10c. Elizabeth City 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
Figure 2.10d. Elizabeth City 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
17
-------
2.1.4 Mobile, Alabama
The Aviation Training Center, Mobile, Alabama, is located inland, due west of Mobile, about 12 miles northwest
of Mobile Bay. The facility is co-located and shares runways with the Mobile Regional Airport. The stormwater
system serving the USCG facility covers approximately 300 acres (Figure 2.11). The site is covered with about
33% impervious surface, mostly concrete runways. Stormwater discharge points are in low areas downgradient
of runoff areas. Land use and cover in the immediate area includes mostly open space or lightly to moderately
developed space, forest, and wetlands (Figure 2.12). Figures 2.13a-d present watershed boundaries and
topography for Mobile Aviation Training Center. These figures were generated using 0.31 m resolution Esri
imagery provided by DigitalGlobe and captured on 12/29/2017 and LiDAR data from the City of Mobile of 0.61 m
resolution captured on 12/9/2015.
18
-------
ISDA FSA. GeoEye, Maxar | Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Mob' e <
Stormwster Equipment
¦ Catch Basin, Stormwater
A Culvert End
It Discharge, Stormwater
Downspout, Stormwater
¦ Intell, Stormwater
A Inlet. Stormwater
¦ OlA/Vater Separator
¦ Other - See Comments
¦ Pollution Control, Stormwater
Pump Station, Stormwater
Storm Manhle
¦ To Be Determined
Valve, Stormwater
Other
¦'H Stormwater Lines
Custom
Stormweter Pipe
Open Dra rage
Utility Owned Stormwater
Abandoned Stormwater
Other
""D Stormweter Ponds
Figure 2,11. Mobile stormwater system.
19
-------
Legend
Flowlines
Watershed
Base
Developed, open space (24.2%
Developed, low intensity (9.7%)
Developed, medium intensity (7.8%)
Developed, high intensity (3.2%)
Barren (1.1%)
Evergreen forest (24.3%)
Mixed forest (5.5%)
Shrub/scrub (2.4%)
Grassland / herbaceous (3.3%)
Pasture (5 9%)
Woody wetlands (11.0%)
0 0.25 0.5
1.5
Source National Land Cover Database 2016. courtesy of MRLC
i Miles
Figure 2.12. Land use and cover around Mobile.
20
-------
Figure 2.13a. Mobile Aviation Center topography and potential flow accumulation lines.
Figure 2.13b. Mobile boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour points
(yellow triangle).
21
-------
Figure 2.13c. Mobile Aviation Center 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
Figure 2.13d. Mobile Aviation Center 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA
2017).
22
-------
2.1.5 Houston, Texas
The USCG Air Station, Houston, Texas, is located at Ellington Air Force Base, about 16 miles southeast of Houston
city center and inland about 10 miles west of Upper Galveston Bay. The stormwater system for the USCG facility
covers only about 28 acres total, at two locations about a half mile apart in the developed area on the west side
of the runways (Figure 2.14). Ground surfaces at the USCG site are roughly 70% impervious, composed mainly of
asphalt and concrete roads, parking lots, buildings, and other structures. Land use and cover in the immediate
area includes mostly developed open space (runways) and low to highly developed space, with only roughly 20%
combined of pastureland, grass and shrubland, cropland, and wetlands (Figure 2.15). Figures 2.16a-d present
watershed boundaries and topography for Houston Air Station. These figures were generated using 0.31 m
resolution Esri imagery provided by DigitalGlobe and captured on 9/9/2017 and LiDAR data from the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency of 1 m resolution captured on 1/17/2010.
Data Source:
USGC ICAM Data
Last Accessed 03/21
* Q Stormwater Ecu pmeflt
¦ Cite!" Besirt, Stormweter
4 Culvert End
it D'schsroe, Stormwater
Downspout, Siormweter
¦ lrfa)i, SwjmvivaEer
A lnlet,StDrmwater
¦ 0l/Wttw Seoars:o'
¦ Other - See Comment
¦ Po!'jton Coitro , Stormwater
Pump Station Stormwater
0 Storm Menhle
¦ To Be Determnec
Valve Stormwater
Ortier
-Q StormwaterUnes
Custom
Sto«nw»ier Pipe
Open D'c 'ace
UtTiy Owned Stomiweter
Asandonec! Storninaie'
Otfier
"Q Stormwater :'c-ds
Figure 2,14. Houston-1 (SW- top) and Houston-2 (NE-bottom) stormwater system.
23
-------
Legend
Flowlines
Other (2.3%)
Barren (1.1%)
| | Watershed
Open water (1.2%)
Shrub / scrub (3.3%)
Base
Developed open space (29.4%)
Grassland / herbaceous (4.1%)
Developed, low intensify (16.6%)
Pasture (7.5%)
Developed, medium intensity (24.2%)
Cultivated crops (2.0%)
Developed, high intensity (6.5%)
Woocfy wetlands (1.9%)
2 Source: N ational Land C over Database 2016, courtesy of M RLC
¦ Miles
Figure 2.15. Land use and cover around Houston.
24
-------
Figure 2.16a. Houston Air Station topography and potential flow accumulation lines.
Figure 2.16b. Houston boundary, watersheds, flow accumulation lines, and pour points
(yellow triangle).
25
-------
Figure 2,16c. Houston Air Station 2-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
Figure 2.16d. Houston Air Station 100-year maximum precipitation event (NOAA 2017).
26
-------
2.2 Stormwater Infrastructure
Stormwater system infrastructure at the five candidate bases is characterized in this section using January 2020
data available in the USCG's ICAM WebGIS application. Given the complexity of the systems and differences in
design and size as well as the differences in the topography and hydrogeology of their respective sites, detailed
characterizations are not possible in this report. Instead, the systems were characterized statistically,
enumerating the equipment types and infrastructure units at the various sites and computing size range and
averages. Table 2.1 presents the stormwater equipment and pipe counts at the five bases. Equipment includes
catch basins, culvert ends, discharges, infalIs (where storm runoff enters a storm drain), inlets, manholes,
pollution control units, pumping stations, and other equipment. Table 2.2 presents statistics on the diameter
and length of stormwater pipes at the five bases and Table 2.3 presents the range and average sizes of
manholes, catch basins, and inlets, as well as the range and average elevations of stormwater nodes at the bases
as reported in ICAM.
Table 2.1. Stormwater Equipment (#) at the Five Candidate Bases
Silo Name
hiv
( aleli
IJasiii
( ul\ eri
i :m<.i
Dis-
charge
Inlall
Inlel
Manhole
l\'l llll ION
( onirol
himpinu
Sialion
Oilier
Portsmouth
325
170
11
20
1
62
2
6
Houston-1
25
10
1
2
4
2
Houston-2
71
11
13
13
13
8
Elizabeth City
403
183
29
15
5
4
37
6
Baltimore
413
171
3
30
9
96
2
Mobile
311
13
38
39
3
174
28
2
4
19
Table 2.2. Statistics on the Diameter and Length
1 .ocalion
SialNies
pipe si/e mi
pipe lenulli li
Portsmouth
MIN
2.00
1.23
MAX
36.00
654.53
AVG
13.59
76.01
STD
7.55
86.68
Houston-1
Min
4.00
4.34
Max
24.00
392.01
AVG
14.60
83.44
STD
6.13
90.80
Houston-2
MIN
2.00
2.00
MAX
36.00
36.00
AVG
14.59
14.59
STD
9.39
9.39
Elizabeth
MIN
4.00
6.32
City
MAX
72.00
886.31
AVG
17.78
136.45
STD
10.80
135.07
Pipes at the Five Bases
1 .oealion
SialNies
pipe si/e mi
pipe lenulli li
Baltimore
MIN
1.00
1.78
MAX
60.00
689.74
AVG
12.07
69.38
STD
8.33
74.52
Mobile
MIN
4.00
2.22
MAX
240.00
1756.37
AVG
21.84
98.98
STD
27.52
162.01
27
-------
Table 2.3. Stormwater Equipment Statistics at the Five Bases
Sue Name
Sialisiics
Manhole si/e in
Calelihasin si/e in
Inlel si/e mi
\otle aliunde fl
Portsmouth
Min
13.00
0.50
Max
32.00
60.00
AVG
23.86
24.88
STD
3.28
6.98
Houston-1
Min
23.00
10.00
-17.78
Max
24.00
32.00
-17.25
AVG
23.50
26.27
-17.47
STD
0.58
8.13
0.27
Houston-2
Min
24.00
17.00
-19.84
Max
33.00
32.00
-15.34
AVG
31.08
29.30
-16.92
STD
2.56
4.99
1.14
Elizabeth
City
Min
22.00
10.00
-40.25
Max
48.00
55.00
-31.32
AVG
27.55
30.99
-35.88
STD
5.51
6.13
0.74
Baltimore
Min
20.00
15.00
Max
36.00
714.00
AVG
26.10
42.20
STD
1.89
71.00
Mobile
Min
23.00
6.00
4.00
25.00
Max
27.00
70.00
232.00
40.20
AVG
24.48
41.09
48.62
34.44
STD
1.37
21.68
42.80
3.17
The data in Tables 2.1-2.3 reflect the wide variety in the size and design of the stormwater systems at
the five bases. Portsmouth, Elizabeth City, Baltimore and Mobile have stormwater systems with similar
numbers of lines and equipment, while Elizabeth City covers a much larger area than any of the other
bases. Houston's USCG stormwater system is much smaller in size and numbers of components and lies
in two separate areas. Mobile has the maximum pipe diameter and length of 240 in and 1,756 ft,
respectively, which are outliers that may need to be confirmed. Of the three bases with stormwater
elevation data, Houston has the least elevation range, with about 4.5 ft at Houston-2, and Mobile the
greatest, with about 15 ft range in elevation. Elizabeth City has a range of about 9 feet.
28
-------
2.3 USCG Facility Engineer Survey
As part of AnCOR Task 2.1, the USCG Academy conducted a survey in 2019 of USCG facility engineers on
the topic of preparedness for responding to a water-driven biological contamination incident. The
survey content and full responses are provided in Appendix A. There were a total of 43 questions
requesting yes/no, scale rating, or open-ended descriptive responses regarding stormwater
management at their facility, with an emphasis on system monitoring, permitting, and preparedness to
respond to a contaminant spill. The survey was sent to 23 facility engineers, as determined by the USCG
Academy, out of which 13 responded. Regarding preparedness, several questions addressed available
response equipment and personnel, as well as the engineer's confidence in the ability of their base to
respond to a contaminant incident. Responses to these summary questions for the responding bases are
shown in Figure 2.17a-d and Figure 2.18.
a)
Comfort Leading Response
b)
Adequacy of Equipment
0) O
u o
c)
Adequacy of Personnel
d) Protection of Stormwater Infrastructure
3 5
"c j
< o
1 i
hI
II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Base Number
c M
Figure 2.17a-d. Responses to USCG Academy survey question on leading a
response.
29
-------
Decontamination Equipment Availability
£
3
O
£
<
CD
CuO
(O
&_
CD
>
<
105
90
75
60
45
30
15
illl
Figure 2.18. Responses to USCG Academy survey on decontamination equipment
(error bars represent standard deviation).
Out of the 13 bases that responded, 9 consistently answered all the questions, and 4 of the bases
answered a subset of questions. On the question of comfort leading a response (Figure 2.17a),
responses were all 7 or greater except for one base with a response of 4. On the question of adequacy
of equipment on base (Figure 2.17b), responses ranged from 5-10, with 5 the most frequent response,
indicating moderate to high assessment of available equipment across bases. On the question of the
adequacy of sufficient personnel to respond to an incident (Figure 2.17c) values ranged from 1-10,
indicating a broad range of estimated personnel availability to respond across the bases. Lastly, on the
summary question of how well equipped you believe the Coast Guard is to prevent a large-scale
contaminant event from entering stormwater infrastructure, considering what you know about your
own base and other USCG bases, responses ranged from 1-10, with 6 being the most frequent response
(Figure 2.17d). Overall, there was a high confidence of base personnel in leading a response to a
contamination incident, moderate to high availability of equipment, and a broad range of available
personnel. Taken together, base engineers feel only moderately confident that USCG bases are prepared
to prevent a contamination incident from entering stormwater infrastructure.
30
-------
Another set of survey questions focused on availability of specific equipment (Figure 2.18). The
responses (10/13 bases) illuminated several interesting points. First, none of the responding bases had
(or facility engineers do not have access) to oil mops, controllable dams, and skimmers. Second, there
was a wide range in availability of flood control barriers and feet of temporary culverts between bases.
On the other hand, basic hand tools and absorbent materials were more widely available across all
facilities, although in moderate quantities. These questions illuminate that new equipment would likely
need to be brought in during a response and that some bases are equipped with more resources than
others from the onset.
One of the survey questions asked about the existing number of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) point source locations monitored by the bases. This question was asked
because during a response these locations may be useful stormwater monitoring points since a program
already exists to take samples and historical water quality data could be used for comparison pre and
post incident. The responses varied from 0 to 9 locations in the Coast Guard Academy Survey. To get a
more comprehensive view of NPDES locations across the entire USCG, the project team queried the US
EPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) for effective, administratively continued, or
pending permits. The system contained a total of 270 locations, 33 of which were categorized as an
industrial stormwater permit and one each of publicly owned treatment works (POTW), stormwater
construction, and small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4s). The category information was
left blank within the ICIS system for 234 of the sampling locations (Figure 2.19). While more information
would need to be gathered about the spatial distribution of these sampling locations and the monitored
water quality parameter(s) to ascertain if they would be helpful during an incident, Figure 2.19 does
demonstrate that several bases potentially have a robust existing sampling program that might be
leveraged.
The open response style questions provided some additional relevant feedback. Only one base
responded that they currently used stormwater modeling software (Bentley FlowMaster and TR-55), but
54% of the surveyed bases said they could and would use a stormwater model if one were provided. All
bases that chose to answer said they had somewhat rigorous maintenance of their stormwater
infrastructure (monthly to annual maintenance monitoring) and one of the bases had conducted an
inflow and infiltration study. In conclusion, the use of stormwater models during incident response
would require the USCG to invest in a robust campaign to build stormwater models at bases ahead of
time, but there is an indication that these models would have multiple purposes (e.g., permitting, capital
improvement project planning) and may be used routinely, not just for emergency response.
31
-------
USCG NPDES SAMPLING POINTS
O)
-Q
E
3
30
20
Unlabeled
Stormwater Industrial
1
sF jP '^////// *
mmsssm
jmmssss %&&& //%4w &
^ 4-4?
* '£ d5
rO .C?
v7"
x$>s°
V
^
*w
s
Location
Figure 2.19. Number of NPDES permitted sampling points by USCG facility.
32
-------
3 Model Roadmap
A biological contamination incident could have effects on stormwater infrastructure if contaminated
water were to enter a stormwater system. A stormwater system model could support recovery efforts
following a biological contamination incident by addressing the potential effects on stormwater
infrastructure. A primary objective of this portion of the project was to develop a modeling framework
that would expedite development of such a stormwater model. The model selected for this project
would be applicable to a specific scenario: potential effects of a biological contamination incident on
stormwater infrastructure at USCG bases. This Model Roadmap is intended to be used for the
identification, evaluation, and testing of available hydrodynamic models during Phase II of Task 2.1. The
following sections present the elements of the Model Roadmap, which include selecting stormwater
model scenarios, defining key governing transport processes, and evaluating software.
3.1 Modeling Scenarios
The AnCOR program gave project teams flexibility regarding the specifics of the wide area event. Effort
was invested into crafting meaningful scenarios for use with a stormwater model. Scenario givens and
key decision points are summarized in Table 3.1. To define relevant and useful modeling scenarios,
previous modeling and field studies were reviewed. Applicable contamination bounds were developed
that considered biological properties of spores (e.g., practical limitations on the available quantity of
spores) and quantities used in historical releases such as the 2001 Amerithrax incident and in
demonstration field studies. Table 3.2 presents a synopsis of these previous scenarios.
Table 3.1. Scenario Givens and Key Variables
AnC'OU Sronsirio (iivons
T;isk2.l kcv Decision Points
Source and mass of spores
Type of release
mechanical dispersive device
explosion
Release specifics
Number of locations
Height of release
Biological agent: Bacillus anthracis
Time
Form: weaponized
Meteorological conditions
Location of incident: U.S. Coast Guard Facility
Duration
Concentration profile
Rainfall timing
Identification of atmospheric/water models
Areal extent of event
o Base only
o Base and some surroundings
o Draw shape file vs. modeled plume
33
-------
l>re> ions Modeling Scenarios
l*ro> ions Held Scenarios
Legrand, J., et al. "Estimating the location
and spatial extent of a covert anthrax
release." PLoS computational biology 5.1
(2009): el000356.
1010 spores
5.0 m/s wind speed
100 m height of release
Serre, S. and L.Oudejans. Underground
Transport Restoration (UTR) Operational
Technology Demonstration (OTD). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-17/272, 2017.
Mock subway system at Fort A.P. Hill
Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii (Bg)
spores
Target Deposition: 106CFU/ft2
Actual Stainless Steel RMCs 1.6 xlO4 -
1.1 xlO5 CFU/ft2
Chen, L.-C., et al. "Model alignment of
anthrax attack simulations." Decision
support systems 41.3 (2006): 654-668.
3000 g of spores (150 g effective)
4.617 m/s wind speed
5 m height of release
Public stadium release location
during event
U.S. EPA. Bio-Response Operational
Testing and Evaluation (BOTE) Project -
Phase 1: Decontamination Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/168,
2013.
Indoor Building Release at Idaho
National Lab
1st Floor: 1.0 xlO4-1.0 xlO6 CFU/ft2
2nd Floor: 1.0 xlO2 - 2.0 xlO2 CFU/ft2
Isukapalli, S. S., P. J. Lioy, and P. G.
Georgopoulos. "Mechanistic modeling of
emergency events: Assessing the impact
of hypothetical releases of anthrax." Risk
analysis: an international journal 28.3
(2008): 723-740.
100 g spores
1.5 m/s & 0-3 m/s
Van Cuyk, S., et al. "Transport of Bacillus
thuringiensis var. kurstaki from an
outdoor release into buildings: pathways
of infiltration and a rapid method to
identify contaminated buildings."
Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense
strategy, practice, and science 10.2
(2012): 215-227.
B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki spores
5.7 x 107 CFU/ft2
Mikelonis, A. M., et al. "Comparison of
surface sampling methods for an extended
duration outdoor biological contamination
study." Environmental monitoring and
assessment 192.7 (2020): 1-13.
Bg spores
~106 CFU/ft2
DHS BOSS study in Chilocco (never
occurred)
10g
2001 Amerithrax Incident
1 -2 g spores
~ 1012 spores per gram
34
-------
Recommendation: Based on the previously used modeling and field scenarios, we propose a modeling
scenario using 10-100g of Bacillus atrophaeus spores, surrogate for B. anthracis, uniformly distributed
over the base footprint for a stormwater model of a USCG base. The plume should extend beyond the
base boundaries to the full extent of watersheds running on to the base. The plume may be generated
without specifying type of release, release specifics, or conducting atmospheric modeling to avoid
generating restricted for-official-use-only information. This information is not necessary for
demonstrating the process of stormwater model building and output generation and use. It is
recommended that the rainfall used in the modeling scenarios include a) a standard design storm, b) an
extreme weather event (e.g., hurricane level rains), and c) any rainfall data that is collected during an
onsite field study.
3.2 Key Transport Processes
A conceptual model of rainwater runoff-driven transport of surface-distributed bacterial spores within a
stormwater system following a contamination incident provides a framework within which
hydrodynamic models would operate. Figure 3.1 shows the conceptual model for the scenarios of
interest.
Fate and Transport Conceptual Mode!
Primary Sources Release Mechanism Pathways Sinks
Figure 3.1. Conceptual model of water-driven transport of surface distributed
bacterial spores.
Overland flow with contaminant transport could be modeled with an individual hydrodynamic model or
several coupled models originally developed for stormwater runoff. As shown in Figure 3.1, modeling
would address the hydrology of overland flow, infiltration into groundwater and subsurface
contaminant transport, including into aquifers, and flow through stormwater infrastructure. Adherence
35
-------
to and wash-off of spores from ground surfaces, stormwater pipes, structures and equipment would be
modeled for several purposes: to understand spore transport, to identify potentially affected
stormwater infrastructure, to map level and extent of contamination, and to help determine
decontamination/sampling/waste staging locations of top priority.
As many the USCG bases are in coastal areas, the potential coincident effect of storm surge associated
with large storms and its potential effects on stormwater flow and the functioning of the stormwater
system is of further interest. Some of the available hydrodynamic models or coupled models can include
storm surge combined with overland runoff. Such capabilities are included in the assessment of
available hydrodynamic models.
The following section reviews and compares available commercial and open source hydrodynamic
software products that could model bacterial spore transport and fate within this conceptual model.
Since a complete modeling of the framework might require the coupling of multiple models, for example
to combine the best features of a hydrodynamic focused software with a program developed with a
focus on contaminant transport model coupling is also described, both in theory and with examples
applicable to the scenarios of interest.
3.3 Software Evaluation
USCG Commandant Instruction 5200.38A endorses and encourages the use of modeling and simulation
to support many key functions of USCG operations. The stated vision underlying the Instruction for the
USCG is for models and simulations to provide a pervasive set of tools and capabilities to support
decision making, discovery, operations, analysis, training, and acquisition throughout the USCG. Several
of these functions are relevant to the objectives of the current project, particularly analysis and decision
making. To this end, we have evaluated hydrodynamic models available commercially and from U.S. EPA
for applicability and functionality regarding the needs of the current project. A complimentary model
review may also be found in the survey by Chen et al. (2018). Since the USCG performs frequent
maintenance, repair and recapitalization on its' stormwater systems the model summaries and
comparisons may also be helpful in these efforts. The adoption of modeling software for these routine
purposes may also help preparedness planning by documenting existing conditions to facilitate
examination of system changes due to the contamination incident.
3.3.1 Model Summaries and Comparisons
Hydrodynamic models were selected for evaluation based on the authors' expert working knowledge of
available options and were reviewed preliminarily with respect to general capabilities and intended use.
Models were ranked, and top performing models reviewed in detail using criteria for the specific needs
of AnCOR Task 2.1 including functionality outlined in Section 3.2 and costs. Qualitative assessment terms
of "poor," "good" and "excellent" were used when comparing models. Poor was assigned when a model
used basic empirical equations or did not contain a specified feature. Good was used when the software
contained the feature, but in a basic sense without several different options. Excellent was used when
the software contained the feature with multiple options or was implemented in a very user-friendly
manner.
36
-------
The needs of Task 2.1 included the ability to model contaminant transport, spore wash-off, changing
precipitation conditions, and diversion of flow within the stormwater system. To develop these criteria,
operational questions expected to arise following an incident were formulated. Cost and licensing
considerations addressed the practicality of implementing the models at USCG bases. In addition,
computing power and processor requirements were considered, which are related to the computational
requirements of the underlying simulation models, whether 1-dimensional (1-D) or 2-dimensional (2-D).
A key aspect of this evaluation was whether a GPU (graphical processor unit) is required to run the
model or if it has built-in visualization capabilities. Lastly, the ability to couple models to achieve all the
desired capabilities in a single system was reviewed, identifying the individual capabilities of the models
to be potentially coupled. Table 3.3 presents the full comparison of the top contending models and
narrative text about each model is provided after the table.
37
-------
Table 3.3. Model Evaluation based on Operational Questions: Top Nine Contenders1
Model
()
)oi'iilioiiiil Question
Keniiirk
\\ liicli. when. iiiid lc\ol
< 11° :i i v:i s/i it IV:i si i'ii clu it
are impiicled?
\\ hill is llio
sliilus ol° 1 ho
C'M'lll?
\\ liiil is Mk- ofIVcI
of response
iiclions?
\\ liiil is (ho
iincoi'liiinl> of (he
model ouipuis?
How I'iisl will 1 «el
iin iinswer iind
how is il
p ivsen led?
EPA-SWMM
https://www.epa.go
v/water-
research/storm-
water-management-
model-swmm
^ Poor pollutant washoff
S Poor integrated 2D/1D
surface /subsurface
flow transport
^ Poor storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Poor pollutant
transport
¦S Poor real time
updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
^ Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Poor speed and
visualization
v It needs further
improvement in
washoff, 2D flow
routing, pollutant
transport, RTC,
uncertainty,
visualization, and
speed capabilities
PC-SWMM
https://www.pcswm
m.com/
^ Poor pollutant washoff
^ Excellent integrated
2D/1D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
^ Poor storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Poor pollutant
transport
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
^ Good uncertainty
analysis module
S Good speed
(CPU-
Parallelization)
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
washoff, pollutant
transport and RTC
capabilities
InfoSWMM
https://www.innovy
ze.com/en-
us/products/infosw
mm
^ Poor pollutant buildup
and washoff
^ Excellent integrated
2D/1D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
^ Poor storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Poor pollutant
transport
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
S Same as EPA-
SWMM
S Poor speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
washoff, pollutant
transport, RTC,
speed, and
uncertainty
capabilities
XPSWMM
https://www.innovy
ze.com/en-
us/products/xpswm
m
^ Poor pollutant washoff
^ Excellent integrated
2D/1D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
S Same as EPA-
SWMM
S Poor speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
washoff, pollutant
transport, RTC,
speed, and
38
-------
S Poor pollutant
transport
uncertainty
capabilities
IRIX
https://www.engr.co
lostate.edu/~pierre/
ce old/Projects/TR
EX%20 W eb%20Pa
ges/TREX-
Home.html
^ Excellent pollutant
washoff
^ Excellent integrated 2-
D/l-D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
^ Poor storm surge
transport
^ Excellent groundwater
flow transport
^ Excellent pollutant
transport
¦S Poor real time
updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
^ Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Poor speed
S Poor
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement for
urban areas,
uncertainty,
visualization and
speed capabilities
RiverFlow2D
http://www.hy droni
a. com/riverflow2d
^ Poor pollutant washoff
^ Excellent integrated 2-
D/l-D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
^ Good 2-D storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Good pollutant
transport on surface
flow
S Poor (SAME as EPA
SWMM) pollutant
transport on subsurface
flow
¦S Poor real time
updating
capabilities
^ Poor advanced
real time
control (RTC)
module
^ Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Excellent speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
washoff, adsorption,
real-time updating,
RTC, and uncertainty
capabilities
SOBEK
https://www.deltare
s. ni/en/software/sob
ek/
^ Poor pollutant buildup
and washoff
^ Excellent integrated 2-
D/l-D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
^ Poor storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Good pollutant
transport
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
S Excellent
advanced real
time control
(RTC) module
Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Excellent speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
washoff, adsorption
and uncertainty
capabilities
Info Works ICM
https://www.innovy
ze.com/en-
^ Excellent pollutant
buildup and washoff
^ Excellent integrated 2-
D/l-D surface
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
S Excellent
advanced real
time control
(RTC) module
^ Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Excellent speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
dispersion, adsorption
39
-------
us/products/infowor
ks-icm
/subsurface flow
transport
S Poor 2-D storm surge
transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Good pollutant
transport
and uncertainty
capabilities
MIKE Suite
http://manuals.mike
poweredbydhi.help/
2017/MIKE Urban,
htm
^ Excellent pollutant
buildup and washoff
^ Excellent integrated 2-
D/l-D surface
/subsurface flow
transport
S Excellent 2-D storm
surge transport
^ Poor groundwater flow
transport
^ Good pollutant
transport
¦S Excellent real
time updating
capabilities
S Excellent
advanced real
time control
(RTC) module
^ Poor uncertainty
analysis module
S Excellent speed
S Excellent
visualization
^ It needs further
improvement in
adsorption and
uncertainty
capabilities
1. Where will the spores reach to at a particular time and at what level of concentration? Which infrastructure will be affected?
(a) spatially distributed flow and pollutant transport (2-D surface - 1-D subsurface network);
(b) spatial resolution at infrastructure/building level;
(c) pollutant transport: washoff, advection-dispersion, adsorption.
2. What is the status and predicted changes from a potential meteorological event?
(a) real-time weather information updates;
(b) real-time spores release updates.
3. What is the uncertainty of the model predictions?
(a) ability to implement uncertainty characterization within the modeling software
4. How fast can we have the model output and how are the results are presented to decision makers?
(a) computational time, any advanced parallel computing (GPU, CPU);
(b) visualization capabilities.
5. What is the effectiveness of proposed response actions?
(a) ability to evaluate scenarios of the proposed response actions (e.g., decontamination) and help make decisions on operational control management.
40
-------
EPA-SWMM (EPA Storm Water Management Model): EPA-SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff
simulation model used for single event or long-term (continuous) simulation of runoff quantity and
quality from primarily urban areas (Rossman 2015). The hydrology component simulates rainfall-runoff,
subsurface flow and snowmelt for each homogeneous subcatchment area that receives precipitation
and generates runoff and pollutant loads. The hydrodynamic component of the model uses 1-D
kinematic routing (nonlinear reservoir routing) for surface runoff and dynamic flow routing to transport
runoff through pipes, channels, storage/treatment devices, pumps, and regulators. The water quality
component of the model simulates pollutant buildup and washoff from impervious surfaces. EPA-
SWMM uses power, exponential and saturation equations to simulate buildup. For washoff simulation,
exponential, rating curve, event mean concentration approaches are used by the model. Pollutant
transport is simulated using a simplified mixed reactor equation. The primary purpose of the model is
planning, analysis, and design of storm-water runoff, for combined and sanitary sewers.
PC-SWMM, Info-SWMM, and XP-SWMM: These commercial software products exploit all capabilities of
EPA-SWMM. In addition, all three products provide integrated 1- and 2-D flow routing, advanced real-
time control strategies, decision-making tools, and GPU-based parallel code to speed up simulations.
TREX (Two-dimensional Runoff, Erosion, Export): TREX provides a framework to simulate hydrology,
sediment transport, and pollutant fate and transport from distributed watershed areas (Velleux et al.
2008). The hydrology component simulates rainfall-runoff, subsurface flow and snowmelt for distributed
catchment areas that receive precipitation and generate runoff and pollutant loads. The hydrodynamic
component of the model uses 2-D diffusive flow routing for surface runoff and 1-D diffusive flow routing
to transport runoff through channels. Soil erosion is simulated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation.
Transport of sediment in overland and channel flows are simulated using 2-D and 1-D advective-diffusive
equations, respectively. The chemical transport and fate component of the model simulates chemical
partitioning and phase distribution using the equilibrium partition coefficient approach, transport of
chemical through advection-diffusion equation. Mass transfer and transformation through hydrolysis or
oxidation reactions is represented by chemical partitioning coefficient.
RiverFlow2D: This software provides hydrology, sediment transport, and a pollutant fate and transport
modeling framework. The hydrology component of the model simulates rainfall and runoff. The
hydrodynamic part of the model simulates transport of overland flow through the 2-D diffusive wave
equation. The water quality component of the model simulates sediment and pollutant transport
through the advection-dispersion equation. It can be used for single event or long-term (continuous)
simulation and provides GPU-based parallelization to speedup computations. Moreover, it has recently
been coupled with EPA-SWMM for simulation of urban stormwater networks.
SOBEK Suite: This software simulates hydrology, hydrodynamics, water quality, and real-time control
from paved and unpaved areas in an integrated manner. In the hydrology module, the rainfall runoff
process is simulated in urban areas and various unpaved areas by taking into account land use, the
unsaturated zone, groundwater, capillary rise, and the interaction with water levels in open channels. In
the hydrodynamic module, transport of water is simulated using an integrated 1-D and 2-D dynamic
wave routing through all kinds of cross sections, control structures, and any network configuration (e.g.,
branched and looped). In the water quality module, transport and fate of pollutants including
conservative tracers, bacteria, organic and inorganic contaminants, heavy metals and others are
41
-------
simulated using the advection-dispersion equation and kinetic-rules. Moreover, it provides virtually any
real-time control option for pumps, weirs and gates in an urban system.
InfoWorks ICM: This software is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model used for single event or
long-term (continuous) simulation of runoff quantity and quality from primarily urban areas. The
hydrology component simulates rainfall-runoff, subsurface flow and snowmelt for each homogeneous
subcatchment area that receives precipitation and generates runoff and pollutant loads. The
hydrodynamic component of the model provides 2-D flow routing for surface runoff and 1-D flow
routing runoff in pipes and channels, storage/treatment devices, pumps, and regulators. It also provides
real time control for remote manipulation of control structures within a drainage system, based on
conditions at any point in the system, to optimize storage and operation. The water quality component
of the model simulates sediment transport, fate of pollutants (dissolved oxygen, nitrite, nitrate, pH, salt,
water temperature, coliforms, etc.) from washoff and point sources. The primary purpose of the model
is designing and operation of drainage systems in urban and rural areas. Note that it does not have good
free documentation to properly evaluate this model.
MIKE Suite: Mike Urban provides several types of surface runoff computation for modeling urban
catchments. The models run with well proven default hydrological parameters, which can be adjusted
for better accuracy. The computed hydrographs are used as input to the MOUSE Pipe Flow model.
MOUSE solves the complete St. Venant (dynamic flow) equations throughout the drainage network
(looped and dendritic), which allows for modeling of backwater effects, flow reversal, surcharging in
manholes, free-surface and pressure flow, tidal outfalls, and storage basins. The water quality engines
provide several modules for the simulation of sediment transport and water quality for both urban
catchments and sewer systems. It simulates build-up and wash-off of sediment particles on the
catchment, surface transport of pollutants attached to the sediment particles using advection-dispersion
in pipes, and pipe sediment transport and deposition. It is worth noting that the EPA-SWMM
computational engine is embedded in the Mike Urban package. MIKE FLOOD integrates the 1-D models
MIKE URBAN (MOUSE), MIKE HYDRO River, MIKE 11 and the 2-D model MIKE 21 into a single,
dynamically coupled modeling system.
42
-------
In addition to comparing models based on operational questions (Table 3.3), models were compared based on
cost and licensing considerations, which affect how practical they are for use at USCG bases. Table 3.4 presents
these comparisons for the models that require a license fee to operate (EPA-SWMM and TREX are open source).
Table 3.4. Cost and Licensing Information for Selected Hydrodynamic Models
PC-SWMM
Package
Price (Single User)
Professional 2-D
$2,160 per user annually
XPSW.M.M
< ilie compaiis offers lliree l> pes of license as show n in ihe lahle helou i
Fundamental Bundle
Essential Bundle
Premium Bundle
Small scale projects: 100 Nodes - Includes
10Kxp2D, Sanitary, DTM, import/export
to SWMM5, WQ
Small scale projects: 500 Nodes -
Includes 30Kxp2D, Viewer, Sanitary,
DTM, import/export to SWMM5, WQ
Medium to large projects: 2000
Nodes - Includes 300Kxp2D,
Viewer, Sanitary, RTC, DTM,
import/export to SWMM5, WQ
Pricing: Standalone $6,300 plus InfoCare
(annual maintenance and support) $1,260
Pricing: Standalone $13,125 plus
InfoCare $2,625
Pricing: Standalone $21,005 plus
InfoCare $4200
IiiI'oSW MM iiml InloWoi ks
InJbSIIH 1,\ 1 Suite Package
InJbSI 11\L\ 1 Executive Suite Package
InJbWorks-lCM
Small scale projects: 500 links - Includes
calibrator, dry weather flow allocator,
conduit storage synthesizer, and
subcatchment manager
Small scale projects: 500 Links - Includes
Pond Design Manager, RDII Analyst
(Rainfall-Derived Inflow and Infiltration),
and NetVIEW
Pricing: 1000 Nodes $13,905 plus
InfoCare $2,780
Pricing: Standalone $7,355 plus InfoCare
$1,475
Pricing: Standalone $7,355 plus InfoCare
$1,575
Pricing: 5000 Nodes $35,535 plus
InfoCare $7,105
InfoSWMM: https://www.innovyze.com/en-us/products/infoswmm/infoswmm-additional-options
InfoWorks ICM: https://www.innovyze.com/en-us/products/infoworks-icm/infoworks-icm-additional-options
Ri\crllo\\2l)
Package
Base Price Single User
(Annual Maintenance is an additional 15% of base price per
year)
RiverFlow2D model CPU/GPU
$3,650
Urban Drainage and Water Quality Modules
$2,950 per module
Pollutant Transport Module
$1,650
43
-------
SOIJI-'.K Suite
Fundamental Bundle
Initial Year Fee
(Euro)
Annual Fee After Initial Year
(Euro)
SOBEK Full Basic Service Package
(single user)
7,100
5,850
SOBEK Hydrodynamics-Hydrology Basic
Service Package (single user)
3,550
2,925
SOBEK Full Advanced Service Package
(max. 4 network users)
14,175
11,700
SOBEK Hydrodynamics-Hydrology
Advanced Service Package (max. 4
network users)
6,750
5,850
SOBEK Professional Service Package
(max. 8 network users)
21,260
17,550
SOBEK Premium Service Package (max.
32 network users)
33,750
29,250
Mlkl. Suite
(has loin'opiioiial modules and pan ides iwo i\ pes of license as show ii in the lahle below i
Perpetual license
Modules
List Price*
Boost price**
MIKE 21 FM 2D Overland
$7,200
$10,800
MIKE URBAN
(Model Manager, Pipe flow)
$6,360
$3,240
Optional Modules
List Price*
Boost price**
Optional 1: Control module
N/A
$4,800
Optional 2: MIKE HYDRO River Hydro
Dynamics
$2,800
$7,200
Optional 3: MIKE 21 FM HD (upgrade
price on the MIKE 21 FM 2D Overland)
$12,340
18,490
Option 4: MIKE URBAN and MIKE
HYDRO River Rainfall-Runoff
$1,920
$4,800
*List price provides network license; 1 concurrent simulation; and 8 CPU cores per simulation.
**Boost price provides network licenses; 4 concurrent simulations; and unlimited CPU cores and 4 GPU cards per simulation.
Subscription license
This is a FLOODING subscription package that includes MIKE 21 FM 2D Overland, MIKE URBAN (Model Manager, Pipe
flow and rainfall-runoff) and MIKE HYDRO River (Hydrodynamics & rainfall-runoff. The configuration of users, number of
concurrent simulations and prices are as follows. The licenses are internet licenses and offer unlimited CPU cores and 4 GPU
cards per simulation.
Concurrent Users
Concurrent editors
Concurrent simulations
Price per month*
Price per year
1
1
4
$1,080
$10,800
2
2
Unlimited
Not available
$19,440
*minimum initial subscription of 2 months and monthly continuous subscription thereafter. 20% surcharge applies to monthly
subscriptions
44
-------
3.3.2 Discussion
The models have a unique combination of strengths and weakness for modeling surface pollutant buildup and
wash-off/pollutants fate and transport in drainage networks, integrated 2D/1D capability, RTC and real-time
updating, computation speed, and uncertainty capabilities. A discussion of each aspect with regards to the
models is provided below.
Pollutant Transport: PC-SWMM, InfoSWMM, XPSWMM, and RiverFlow2D have poor surface water quality
capability because they use the build-up and wash-off module of EPA-SWMM, which is empirically based rather
than derived from a fundamental process. SOBEK does not have buildup and wash-off module capabilities. MIKE
has the most sophisticated capability to simulate pollutant buildup and wash-off. Accumulation of particles in a
catchment is simulated using linear and power buildup functions. Wash-off of particles is simulated as erosion
by raindrops and overland flows. Pollutants are simulated as fraction of mass attached to fine and course
sediment particles.
2-D Modeling: EPA-SWMM and its derivates lack capability for full 2-D surface water quality routing (quasi-2-D
simulations are possible in some products), and their 1-D water quality transport in drainage networks is poor
due to the use of a simplified mixed reactors equation. RiverFlow2D has an excellent pollutant transport
capability in overland flow, but a poor transport capability in drainage networks, as it uses EPA-SWMM.
InfoWorks ICM, MIKE and SOBEK have integrated 2-D/l-D transport capabilities in paved and unpaved areas and
open channel and pipes, but are very expensive to maintain a license.
Real Time Control (RTC) and Updating: Real-time updating of inputs (e.g., weather, spore load, water level from
sensors) plays a critical role during emergency response and recovery. RiverFlow2D and EPA-SWMM do not have
real-time updating capability. However, EPA-SWMM provides an add-in tools option to easily call a script that
fetches data from servers and databases. The derivatives of EPA-SWMM exploit this option and have added
excellent real-time capability. The MIKE, SOBEK, and Infoworks ICM software also have real-time updating
capability. RTC provides capability to automate hydraulic structures in drainage networks such as gates and
pumps. An advanced RTC is useful to evaluate scenarios for response actions during an emergency event. EPA-
SWMM provides a basic RTC capability based on control rules (if-then statements) at a structure level or local
control. PC-SWMM, InfoSWMM, XPSWMM, RiverFlow2D, and Infoworks-ICM have the same capability as EPA-
SWMM. SOBEK and MIKE provide an advanced RTC capability to control the overall water system and to couple
with online information (e.g., water level sensor data through SCADA communication).
Uncertainty Analysis: Uncertainty analysis is useful to communicate to decision-makers the variability
associated in the model outputs due to input, parameter, and model structure. Most of the models are
deterministic and lack the capability to conduct uncertainty analysis. The exception is PC-SWMM, which
provides a simple tool to quantify input uncertainty. Despite most software lacking this uncertainty analysis
functionality, it is worth noting that it is possible to couple this software with more advanced uncertainty
analysis tools.
Execution: Speed and visualization capabilities are needed to facilitate quick decision-making during emergency
response applications. EPA-SWMM has poor capabilities because it is a sequential code with a basic input and
output visualization capability in drainage networks. The EPA-SWMM derivatives have an excellent visualization
for overland flow, but do not track the overland pollutant plume. Only PCSWMM reports the availability of a
parallel version of the model, whereas other SWMM family derivatives use a serial code. MIKE, SOBEK, and
45
-------
Infoworks ICM have excellent visualization and speed capabilities.
Recommendation: For incident response and management, key modeling capabilities required include 2-D/l-D
runoff, surface and subsurface pollutant fate and transport modeling, real-time updating, evaluating scenarios
using RTC, fast computation speed and visualization, and uncertainty quantifications. Considering the above
factors, the top contenders ranked from the first to last choice based on the current modeling capabilities are as
follows: the MIKE suite, SOBEK suite, Infoworks ICM, RiverFlow2D, PC-SWMM, InfoSWWM and XPSWMM, EPA-
SWMM, and TREX. Note that the models are also ordered from the most expensive to the least expensive. Thus,
the choice of the model involves tradeoffs between available budget and required capabilities to meet the
needs of the response. If there is a budget constraint to purchase the commercial software, there will be a need
to couple EPA-SWMM with other open source models, the mechanisms of which are discussed in the next
section.
3.3.3 Model Coupling
Three types of coupling approaches exist for hydrologic and hydrodynamic models (Betrie et al. 2011). These
coupling approaches include loose coupling, tight coupling, and fully integrated coupling. In loose coupling,
models are separate and intemperate through an intermediate program that exchanges data between them,
often in ASCII or binary file formats (Figure 3.2). For example, Debele et al. (2008) used an intermediate program
to couple the SWAT and CE-QUAL-W2 models. The program extracts hourly SWAT outputs (runoff and its
constituents) at required locations (reach and subbasin outlets) and converted them into CE-QUAL-W2 model
input format. The loose coupling approach has the advantage of not changing the existing model code and
involves lower cost. Its limitation is that it requires developing data conversion programs between each set of
coupled models and can be slower computationally.
Figure 3.2 Loose model coupling schematic.
In tight coupling, each model computes parameters using its own engine, exchanges data through an application
program interface (API) at each time-step and shares one of the models' graphical user interfaces or a coupling
interface. An open modeling interface (OpenMI) is an API that can be used to couple components (i.e., models
or databases customized into the OpenMI standard) exchange data at run time (Figure 3.3). The OpenMI
standard is a defined software component interface for the computation core (the engine) of hydrological and
hydraulic models (Gregersen et al. 2007). It potentially allows the development of a completely integrated
modeling system consisting of GUI, engines, and databases. Betrie et al. (2011) implemented an OpenMI version
of SWAT, a hydrologic model and coupled it with SOBEK, a hydrodynamic model to exchange flows and sediment
at watershed outlets. Its limitation is that it requires substantial effort to make both models OpenMI compliant
to talk to each other during coupling. The good news is most hydrologic and hydrodynamic models have OpenMI
compliant versions including EPA-SWMM.
46
-------
Figure 3.3 Tight model coupling schematic.
In fully integrated coupling, a model is embedded as a routine in the one of the models. For example, Refsgaard
et al. (1998) presented a fully integrated coupling between MIKE SHE and MIKE 11, where simultaneous
simulations in each model were done, and data transfer between the two models takes place through shared
memory at each time-step. MIKE 11 calculates water levels in rivers and floodplains. The calculated water levels
are transferred to MIKE SHE, where flood depth and areal extent are mapped by comparing the calculated water
levels with surface topographic information stored in MIKE SHE. MIKE SHE calculates water fluxes in the
remaining part of the hydrological cycle. Finally, water fluxes calculated with MIKE SHE are exchanged with MIKE
11 through source/sink terms in the continuity part of the Saint Venant equations in MIKE 11. The limitation of
fully integrated coupling is that it is time consuming and lacks flexibility.
Recommendation: None of the models reviewed for this project contained all the desired features to quickly
provide predictions of spore transport during a wide-area biological contamination incident. The lack of
uncertainty analysis in even the most comprehensive software warrants investment into model coupling.
Further, the most comprehensive options are very expensive to maintain licenses, which would potentially limit
the number of modelers/bases that would be able to develop and maintain these models in preparation for an
incident without substantial annual investment from the USCG. An option going forward would be to invest in
developing loose or tight coupling tools for the free, open source programs such as EPA-SWMM. For loose
coupling this would require procedures identifying spatial locations where the 2-D cells and 1-D nodes would be
overlapped, running the 2-D models for a given simulation period at prescribed time-steps, extracting output
variables from a 2-D model, formatting the output variables into EPA-SWMM input formats, and running EPA-
SWMM with the extracted input files. These procedures can be implemented in a high-level programming
language (e.g., R, Python) by a skilled coder with modest effort. Tight coupling could also be developed for
models that provide their source code, but would require a much larger investment of time and money to
develop. Either way, the result of coupling of open source software would be a tool without an annual fee that
could be more easily maintained by USCG civil engineering units and would be ready to go at the time of an
incident.
47
-------
4 Phase II Site Selection
Phase II of AnCOR Task 2.1 will be split into two initiatives: 1) creating a detailed stormwater model to
demonstrate contaminant hotspot identification and mapping and 2) conducting a pilot tracer study to quantify
spore washoff coefficients for use in model parameterization. Ideally, these two components would be at the
same USCG facility so that the model parameterization developed from the field study data is used in a model of
that site. Using the information in sections 1-3, this portion of the report presents the rationale for the base
selection.
4.1 Selection Criteria
The desired characteristics of a USCG site on which to conduct the Phase II field study and model construction
were developed in consideration of both the technical objectives of the project and the practical requirements
of carrying out a field study at a USCG installation. Threshold requirements are practical go/no-go criteria that
must be met if a field study is to be conducted at a site. Balancing requirements are represented by technical
criteria that the researchers would prefer to have but do not render the base infeasible if only one item is
lacking (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Criteria for Site Selection
'I'll its It ol (1 Uc(| ii i rem on 1 s
Itahincing Requirements
Whether or not base leadership will allow
our study
Ability to obtain a NEPA categorical
exclusion for a tracer (preferably Bacillus
globigii spores)
Site access that does not disturb base
operations
Availability of underground pipe data
Availability of observation data
Availability of high-resolution DEM
Availability of facility engineer to check on
sensors
Number of watersheds in site (>2 for control and
test area)
Number of site major flow path lines/key outfalls
(<5 to match # of available sensors)
Adequate rainfall (rainy season that will produce
runoff)
Ocean Connection
NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act
Through the coordination of the USCG Academy, telephone calls with the base facility engineers were
established to discuss the threshold requirements. Table 4.2 summarizes the conclusions of these conversations.
Unfortunately, schedules did not align during the project timeline to connect with the facility engineer in
Houston. Since there were four potential bases this was not pursued any further and the team focused their
evaluation of the balancing requirements on the Baltimore, Portsmouth, Elizabeth City, and Mobile locations.
Table 4.3 summarizes the balancing requirement from the data presented in the facility summary section of this
report.
Considering both the threshold and balancing criteria, it was decided that Baltimore and Mobile would not be
considered further for the field study because of uncertainty about the state regulatory agencies support of
using a spore tracer on base (or what the approval process would be). Additionally, the Mobile site was inland
48
-------
and the team decided to pursue a site that includes tidal influence for the modeling effort. The two remaining
sites, Portsmouth and Elizabeth City had similar profiles, including rainfall (Figure 4.1). Ultimately, the project
team decided to pursue Phase II of the project in Elizabeth City because it was an easy drive for the project team
from the US EPA's Research Triangle Park facility, which would facilitate the most efficient sensor maintenance
and sample collection.
Table 4.2. Threshold Criteria Evaluation of Five USCG Installations for Desired Site Characteristics for
Phase II Field Study
Selection
Baltimore Yard
Portsmouth
Elizabeth Citv
Mobile
11 oust Oil
Criterion
Maryland
Yir«inia
North Carolina
Alabama
Texas
Unable to
Base
cooperation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
connect with
facility
engineer
NEPA
Categorical
Exclusion
Challenging;
(contacted MD EPA
and did not receive a
TBD
Yes
Challenging:
(AL EPA
concerned with
reply)
use of Bg)
Site Access
Challenging due to
industrial operations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bg, Bacillus atrophaeus also referred to as globigii; NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act
Table 4.3. Balancing Criteria Evaluation of USCG Installations for Desired Site Characteristics for Phase II
Field Study
Sclcclion
( rikTion
Baltimore Yard
Mar\ land
Porlsmoulh
\ iiijinia
1 ili/alvlh ( its
\orlh ( arolina
Mobile
Alabama
ICAM Pipe Data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Observation data
No
No
No
No
High DEM
resolution
1.0m
1.0m
1.5 m
0.61 m
Facility Engineer
availability
Willing to help
with
coordination
Willing to help
with
coordination
Willing to help
with coordination
Willing to help with
coordination
No. watersheds (<
or >2)
<2
>2
>2 (but base has a
drainage canal
isolating it)
>2
No. major flow
paths/key outfalls
(< or > 5)
>5
>5
>5
>5
Ocean connection
yes
yes
yes
no
49
-------
24-Hour Average Precipitation
20
Baltimore Yard Portsmouth Elizabeth City Mobile Houston
Figure 4.1 Comparison of base 24-hour average rainfall.
For the modeling, the team decided to pursue a two- pronged modeling approach: a) a coupled RIVER2D +
SWMM stormwater model and b) a PCSWMM stormwater model. The RIVER2D + SWMM model will be, to the
knowledge of the team, the first fully 2D modeling demonstration for wide area spore contamination. Since this
option requires a proprietary license to build and run the simulations, it will be limited in the number of
simulation runs by the project budget. The PCSWMM model is a proprietary quasi-2D model, but after
construction can be run using EPA-SWMM, an open source software. Therefore, EPA personnel will be able to
continue using the model for future work and it may be repurposed by Base Elizabeth City engineers for local
needs after completion of the AnCOR project.
50
-------
5 Quality Assurance
The data in this report were subject to the following quality assurances: an evaluation of secondary data
for soundness, applicability/utility, clarity/completeness, uncertainty/variability, and the extent of
evaluation and review (e.g. appearing in peer reviewed publications). All data quality objectives were
met for the work presented.
51
-------
References
Betrie G. D., Van Griensven A., Mohamed Y. A., Popescu I., Mynett A. E., and Hummel S. 2011.
Linking SWAT and SOBEK using open modeling interface (OPENMI) for sediment transport
simulation in the Blue Nile River basin. Transactions of the ASABE. 54(5): 1749-1757. (doi:
10.13031/2013.39847)
Chen L., Roy S., Boe T., and Mikelonis A. 2018. Survey and assessment of fate and transport models for
use following a wide-area urban release to inform mapping, characterization, and site clearance. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-18/282.
Debele B., Srinivasan R., and Parlange J.-Y. 2008. Coupling upland watershed and downstream
waterbody hydrodynamic and water quality models (SWAT and CE-QUAL-W2) for better water
resources management in complex river basins. Environ. Model, and Assess. 13(1): 135-153.
Gregersen, J. B., Gijsbers P. J. A, and Westen S. J. P. 2007. OpenMI: Open modeling interface. J.
Hydroinform. 9(3): 175-191.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. Precipitation frequency data server.
Silver Spring, ND: U.S. Department of Commerce Retrieved from
https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/precipitation-frequency-data-server-pfds. Last Accessed 4/16/2021.
Refsgaard J. C., Sorensen H. R., Mucha I., Rodak D., Hlavaty Z., Bansky L., Klucovska J., et al. 1998.
An integrated model for the Danubian lowland: Methodology and applications. Water Resources Mgmt.
12(6): 433-465.
Rossman L. 2015. Storm water management model user's manual version 5.1 - manual. US EPA Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-14/413 (NTIS EPA/600/R-14/413b).
Velleux M. L., England Jr J. F., and Julien P. Y. 2008. TREX: Spatially distributed model to assess
watershed contaminant transport and fate. Sci.Total Environ., 404(1): 113-128.
52
-------
Appendix A: Facility Engineer Survey
Survey Introduction:
Through a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funded research study, the US Coast Guard is working with
the National Homeland Security Research Center at the US EPA Office of Research and Development on an effort
to build capabilities to predict water-driven biological contaminant movement in a wide-area environment. Such
predictive capabilities will enhance response operations (time, cost, effectiveness, etc.) by allowing responders
to more effectively utilize sampling, decontamination, and mitigation resources. This effort will focus on
landforms and terrain characteristics of USCG facilities and adjacent maritime areas.
To gather information about current USCG facility capabilities with respect to stormwater response, the Coast
Guard Academy has developed a survey aimed to gather information from FEs at facilities throughout the Coast
Guard. The information collected will inform the study and assist the research team in understanding the
current capabilities of USCG facilities in terms of controlling stormwater and mitigating pollutant dispersion.
Both the Coast Guard and DHS have already identified the ability to respond to a wide-area biological
contamination event as a gap, and it is expected that no base would currently be fully prepared should such an
event occur. The goal of this survey is to gain an understanding of the current status of contaminant response
capabilities. Your responses will be used to inform the research team so that they may provide an informed
recommendation as to what stormwater modeling tools and containment strategies would be rapidly
deployable during an incident.
For this survey, assume the spill on your facility could not have been foreseen and was out of the control of the
base, such as a terrorist attack. Please answer the following survey to the best of your knowledge. If you have
any questions or concerns with the survey, please contact the USCG member of this team, CDR Corinna
Fleischmann in the USCG Academy Civil Engineering Program.
53
-------
Q1 What Coast Guard unit are you currently attached to?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Base New Orleans
8/20/2019 9:40 AM
2
Air Station Clearwater
8/16/2019 10:40 AM
3
Training Center Cape May
8/16/2019 7:54 AM
Coast Guard Yard
8/15/2019 10:32 AM
5
BASE Elizabeth City
8/15/2019 6:25 AM
6
Base Cape Cod
8/12/2019 6:40 AM
7
Base Cape Cod
8/12/2019 6:10 AM
8
Base Boston
8/6/2019 9:50 AM
9
Air Station Miami
7/31/2019 5:51 AM
10
Base Alameda
7/26/2019 7:30 AM
11
TRACEN Petaluma
7/26/2019 7:13 AM
12
Base Miami Beach
7/25/2019 11:33 AM
13
Aviation Training Center, Mobile, AL
7/25/2019 10:50 AM
1 / 43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q2 What is your title?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Facilities Engineer
8/20/2019 9:40 AM
2
Facility Engineer
8/16/2019 10:40 AM
3
FE
8/16/2019 7:54 AM
Facility Engineer
8/15/2019 10:32 AM
5
II IE
8/15/2019 6:25 AM
6
Assistant Facility Engineer
8/12/2019 6:40 AM
7
Deputy Facilities Engineer
8/12/2019 6:10 AM
8
Environmental Protection Specialist
8/6/2019 9:50 AM
9
Facilities Engineer
7/31/2019 5:51 AM
10
Assistant Facilities Engineer
7/26/2019 7:30 AM
11
Environmental Protection Specialist
7/26/2019 7:13 AM
12
Facilities Engineer
7/25/2019 11:33 AM
13
Environmental Protection Specialist
7/25/2019 10:50 AM
2/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q3 Are you familiar with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) point source collection sites in your area?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Yes
76.92%
10
No
23.08%
3
TOTAL
13
# OPTIONAL COMMENT
DATE
1 the question below depends on if you consider the MS4 outfall monitoring a point source 8/15/2019 10:32 AM
monitoring
2 i have not been involved but if needed i have a POC 7/31/2019 5:51 AM
3 TRACEN Petaluma is located in a rual agricultural area approximately 10 miles West of the City of 7/26/2019 7:13 AM
Petaluma. TRACEN Petaluma curently holds a waiver from the NPDES General Permit/Waste
Discharge Requirements for Storm Water Discarges from Small Municipal Seperate Storm Sewer
System Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ (Small MS4 General Permit). Due to the waiver TRACEN
Petaluma has not properly identified any point source collection sites. TRACEN Petaluma has
several tributarties to Stemple Creek (that flows northwesterly for approximately 26 miles and
discharges into the Cordell Banks Marine Sanctuary in the Bodega Bay area) and most all of them
converge to one discharge point on the Northern side of the property, with the exception of one
other discharge point on the West corner of the property. TRACEN Petaluma also receives
discharges from several neighboring properties that flow through the TRACEN property.
3/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q4 If so, how many NPDES point sources are you currently monitoring?
(scale 0-25 for participant to select)
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
2
29
13
Total Respondents: 13
#
DATE
1 1 8/20/2019 9:40 AM
2 6 8/16/2019 10:40 AM
3
0
8/16/2019 7:54 AM
4
3
8/15/2019 10:32 AM
5
0
8/15/2019 6:25 AM
6
4
8/12/2019 6:40 AM
7
4
8/12/2019 6:10 AM
8
9
8/6/2019 9:50 AM
9
0
7/31/2019 5:51 AM
10
0
7/26/2019 7:30 AM
11
0
7/26/2019 7:13 AM
12
0
7/25/2019 11:33 AM
13
2
7/25/2019 10:50 AM
4/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q5 Has your unit conducted an Infiltration and Inflow (l/l) Survey?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 0
¦
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Yes
7.69%
1
No
92.31%
12
TOTAL
13
# OPTIONAL COMMENT
DATE
1 Not that I know or have record of 8/20/2019 9:40 AM
2 we have a partial understanding 8/15/2019 10:32 AM
3
In progress some SW and WW sys
8/15/2019 6:25 AM
4
Last Survey conducted in 2000 by 102nd Air National Guard.
8/12/2019 6:40 AM
5
Last survey was conducted in 2000 when previously owned by the 102nd Air National Guard.
8/12/2019 6:10 AM
6
No formal survey has been conducted.
7/26/2019 7:13 AM
7
We had a storm water Master Plan completed in 2015, but don't have an Inflow l/l Survey.
7/25/2019 10:50 AM
5/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q6 What was the number efficiency of your l/l Survey?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 12
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
0 0
Total Respondents: 1
# DATE
1 0 8/15/2019 6:25 AM
6/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q7 Who owns the stormwater system at your unit?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
#
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
DATE
1
NASA (landlord of the facility)
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
most of the infrastructure is ours, although some of the outfalls have other sources contributing.
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
7/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q8 How rigorous is the maintenance plan for your stormwater
infrastructure?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
N/A
20.00%
2
Somewhat
80.00%
8
Very
0.00%
0
Extensive
0.00%
0
TOTAL
10
8/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q9 How often is your stormwater system monitored? (i.e. what is the
maintenance cycle)
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
weekly
0.00%
0
monthly
20.00%
2
semi-annually
20.00%
2
annually
30.00%
3
never
30.00%
3
TOTAL
10
9/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q10 Has your stormwater infrastructure been monitored or modeled in
the past? (if "yes," please write the software or monitoring equipment
used in the comment box).
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Yes
50.00%
5
No
50.00%
5
TOTAL
10
#
COMMENT
DATE
1
We conducted testing on one outfall, but everything else is visual
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
2 Video and ICAM 8/15/2019 6:46 AM
3
CAD, topography
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
4
an ICAM survey was conducted with GIS
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
5
There is no monitoring, model, software or equipment with the exception of the fixed water
measuring device at the lake recreation area to provide periodic reports to the California State
Water Resources Control Board.
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
6
iCAM survey from CEU Providence
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
7
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) TR-55. Flomaster (by Bentley). Rational Method
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
10/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q11 If you were provided a model of your stormwater infrastructure, how
would you use that information?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Stormwater is managed by the landlord, it would be cool information to see, but we wouldn't have
any forward action from the results.
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
Planning for a spill and how to respond to it.
8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
We have several industrial stormwater permits that is would help us better understand and meet.
Also for our MS4 permit it would be good to guide our restoration projects.
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
To repair inflow infiltration, area of concerns, rating condition, and projects for PC&I consideration.
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
Refine management of stormwater to increase on site infiltration.
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
N/A
a'6/2019 9:55 AM
7
to identify location in case we have to dig near a stormwater line, it can also be used to identify the
cause of a sink hole
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
Due to the Storm Water Permit Waiver, TRACEN was not required to develop and submit a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). TRACEN Petaluma would welcome a model of our
storm water infrastructure and would apply it to the SWPPP.
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
Program projects to replace/repair degraded sections.
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
Ensure any future development is done within the guidelines of the USCG, The State of Alabama,
and the Mobile Regional Airport. nA Provide stormwater management limiting the post-developed
flows to pre-developed flows, at a minimum. nA Verify the proposed finished floor elevation is
above the 100-year storm elevations for the area where the building is located. nA Stormwater
runoff should be prevented from flowing onto adjacent facilities, and should be directed toward the
lake / trapezoidal concrete channel via storm sewers and/or channels constructed specifically for
the new area. nA Low Impact Development (LID) methods should be explored for any new
construction. nA The provided survey is an update for the entire site, therefore, it should be held as
the existing conditions that all new development can be measured again
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
11 / 43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q12 What body of water (stream, lake, river, etc.) does your stormwater
infrastructure drain into?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
#
1
RESPONSES
Intracoastal Waterway/Gulf of Mexico
DATE
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
Cape May Harbor & Inlet
8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
Arundel Cove, Curtis Creek, the to the Patapsco River into the Chesapeake Bay
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
Pasquotank River
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
Osborn pond, Edmunds pond, Spit pond
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
Boston Harbor
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
stormwater drains into an exfiltration pond next to the runway.
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
Stemple Creek
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
Bay
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
Pierce Creek
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
12/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q13 To your knowledge, is that body of water impaired?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Yes
30.00%
3
No
60.00%
6
Unknown
10.00%
1
TOTAL
10
# OPTIONAL COMMENT
DATE
1
The Louisiana Water Quality Assessment Report map did not load, but it appears the local waters
have not yet been assessed.
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
Copper
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
3
a lab analysis was conducted following test method EPA 8151 A, the results came back as "not
detected at levels equal or above the method detection limit"
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
4
Stemple Creek is a listed CWA 303d impaired waterway due to excessive nutrients and silt runoffs
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
13/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q14 What regional or federal regulations are placed on your stormwater
effluent? If none, please state N/A.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Unknown
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
N/A
8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
12SW Permit, Industrial Stormwater NPDES, 11HT Permit, MS4 Permit, Executive Order on
Chesapeake Bay, The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
NCAC 150000
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
N/A
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
EPA Multi-Sector General Permit for ship/boat building and repair
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
N/A
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
N/A
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
California State Water Resources Control Board
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
NPDES Permit
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
14/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
If your discharge waterway is impacted, how many times per month
do you test your effluent?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
I
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
0
4
10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 0 8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2
0
8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
0
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
0
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
0
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
0
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
0
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
4
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
Q15
15/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q16 Please estimate the percentage of surface area on your base that is
impervious (inhibits the absorption of water).
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
50
498
10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 25 8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2 20 8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
70
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
15
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
40
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
95
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
85
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
35
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
80
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
33
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
16/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q17 The impervious surfaces on your base are primarily composed of
what material?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
asphalt
20.00%
2
concrete
50.00%
5
buildings or other structures
30.00%
3
exposed rock or clay
0.00%
0
TOTAL
10
17/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q18 In the event of a contaminant spill, how comfortable do you feel
about leading a response? (scale 1-10, 1 being uncomfortable, 10 being
very comfortable)
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
7
73 10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 7
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2 9 8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
8
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
10
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
10
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
7
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
8
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
4
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
10
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
18/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q19 In the event of a contaminant spill, do you possess adequate
equipment to conduct a potential response? (scale 1-10, 1 being
inadequate, 10 being more than adequate)
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
6
63 10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 7
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2 5 8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
5
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
7
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
10
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
5
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
9
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
5
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
10
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
19/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q20 In the event of a contaminant spill, are there enough personnel
available to staff a large containment effort? (scale 1-10, 1 being totally
under staffed, 10 being more than adequately staffed)
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
6
59 10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 8
8/20/2019 10:37 AM
2 1 8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
10
8/15/2019 6:46 AM
5
8
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
6
4
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
9
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
8
5
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
9
4
7/26/2019 7:46 AM
10
10
7/25/2019 11:16 AM
20/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q21 In the event of a contaminant spill, do you have the ability to readily
train volunteers to assist with a containment effort?
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Yes
40.00%
4
No
30.00%
3
Unknown
30.00%
3
TOTAL
10
# OPTIONAL COMMENT:
DATE
1 The technicians who are able to train would be busy with containment efforts
8/16/2019 8:02 AM
2 Not sure what you are looking for here. Our ICP and SPCC is written to lean on contracted support 8/15/2019 11:02 AM
3
Volunteers would not be qualified for containment spill response. We have resources in place to
not require volunteers. Our staff is trained incidental spills and cleanup and we would rely on
contractor for follow on efforts.
8/12/2019 6:53 AM
4
aviation staff and facilities can respond to a contaminant spill.
7/31/2019 6:13 AM
5
In dealing with the scenario of a biological hazard spill, the TRACEN Fire Department personnel
are the first responders that may have the proper equipment and capability to respond to a spill.
7/26/2019 8:05 AM
21 / 43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q22 Level A Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for responders and
volunteers. Please estimate how many sets of PPE you have at your
disposal.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
5
50 10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 0
8/20/2019 10:39 AM
2 10 8/16/2019 8:02 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 11:02 AM
4
20
8/15/2019 6:51 AM
5
0
8/12/2019 6:57 AM
6
0
8/6/2019 9:55 AM
7
0
7/31/2019 6:14 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 8:11 AM
9
20
7/26/2019 7:47 AM
10
0
7/25/2019 11:17 AM
22/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q23 Hand shovels for manual removal. Please estimate how many hand
shovels you have at your disposal.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
25
250
10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 10 8/20/2019 10:39 AM
2 50 8/16/2019 8:03 AM
3
50
8/15/2019 11:03 AM
4
30
8/15/2019 6:52 AM
5
10
8/12/2019 6:57 AM
6
10
8/6/2019 9:56 AM
7
20
7/31/2019 6:14 AM
8
50
7/26/2019 8:14 AM
9
10
7/26/2019 7:47 AM
10
10
7/25/2019 11:18 AM
23/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q24 Brooms and squeedgees for contaminant spills. Please estimate
how many brooms and squeedgees you have at your disposal.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
20
200
10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 0 8/20/2019 10:39 AM
2 10 8/16/2019 8:03 AM
3
50
8/15/2019 11:03 AM
4
20
8/15/2019 6:53 AM
5
10
8/12/2019 6:58 AM
6
10
8/6/2019 9:56 AM
7
20
7/31/2019 6:15 AM
8
50
7/26/2019 8:19 AM
9
10
7/26/2019 7:48 AM
10
20
7/25/2019 11:19 AM
24/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q25 Granular adsorbent for contaminant spills. Please estimate how
many tons of granular adsorbent you have at your disposal.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
2
15
10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 0 8/20/2019 10:45 AM
2 0 8/16/2019 8:04 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 11:04 AM
4
10
8/15/2019 6:54 AM
5
0
8/12/2019 6:59 AM
6
0
8/6/2019 9:56 AM
7
0
7/31/2019 6:16 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 8:22 AM
9
5
7/26/2019 7:48 AM
10
0
7/25/2019 11:19 AM
25/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q26 Adsorbent sawdust for contaminant spills. Please estimate how
many tons of sawdust you have at your disposal.
Answered: 10 Skipped: 3
I
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
1
7 10
Total Respondents: 10
#
DATE
1 0
8/20/2019 10:45 AM
2 0
8/16/2019 8:05 AM
3 0
8/15/2019 11:04 AM
4 5
8/15/2019 6:55 AM
5 0
8/12/2019 6:59 AM
6 0
8/6/2019 9:56 AM
7 1
7/31/2019 6:16 AM
Co
o
7/26/2019 8:26 AM
9 1
7/26/2019 7:48 AM
10 0
7/25/2019 11:20 AM
26/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q27 Floating adsorbent pads for contaminant spills.Please estimate how
many floating adsorbent pads you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
722
6,500
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 1000 8/16/2019 8:05 AM
2 500 8/15/2019 11:04 AM
3
1000
8/15/2019 6:58 AM
4
2000
8/12/2019 6:59 AM
5
100
8/6/2019 9:57 AM
6
1000
7/31/2019 6:16 AM
7
0
7/26/2019 8:30 AM
8
800
7/26/2019 7:49 AM
9
100
7/25/2019 11:21 AM
27/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q28 Oil mop for small spill containment. Please estimate how many oil
mops you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
Total Respondents: 9
0
0 9
#
1
0
DATE
8/16/2019 8:06 AM
2
0
8/15/2019 11:04 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 6:59 AM
0
8/12/2019 7:00 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:57 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:17 AM
/
0
7/26/2019 8:37 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:49 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:21 AM
28/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q29 Drain seal in the event of a contaminant spill. Please estimate how
many drain seals you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
5
45
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 2 8/16/2019 8:06 AM
2 5 8/15/2019 11:05 AM
3
15
8/15/2019 6:59 AM
4
2
8/12/2019 7:00 AM
5
2
8/6/2019 9:57 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:17 AM
7
5
7/26/2019 8:58 AM
8
10
7/26/2019 7:49 AM
9
4
7/25/2019 11:22 AM
29/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q30 Insert-able basin filter. Please estimate how many basin filters you
have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
5
42
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:07 AM
2 30 8/15/2019 11:05 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:04 AM
4
2
8/12/2019 7:01 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:58 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:17 AM
7
10
7/26/2019 8:59 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:49 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:22 AM
30/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q31 In line booming for contaminant spills. Please estimate how many
feet of boom you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
911
8,200
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 400 8/16/2019 8:08 AM
2 500 8/15/2019 11:05 AM
3
2000
8/15/2019 7:05 AM
4
4000
8/12/2019 7:01 AM
5
100
8/6/2019 9:58 AM
6
100
7/31/2019 6:17 AM
7
600
7/26/2019 9:00 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:50 AM
9
500
7/25/2019 11:23 AM
31 / 43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q32 Media filtration in the event of a contaminant spill. Please estimate
how many tons of media filters you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
2
20
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:08 AM
2 20 8/15/2019 11:05 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:05 AM
4
0
8/12/2019 7:02 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:58 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:17 AM
7
0
7/26/2019 9:00 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:51 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:23 AM
32/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q33 Portable pools and spill berms in the event of a contaminant spill.
Please estimate how many pop-up pools or berms you have at your
disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
1
9
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 0
8/16/2019 8:09 AM
2 0 8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:05 AM
4
4
8/12/2019 7:03 AM
5
2
8/6/2019 9:58 AM
6
1
7/31/2019 6:18 AM
7
0
7/26/2019 9:01 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:51 AM
9
2
7/25/2019 11:23 AM
33/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q34 Cleaning stations in the event of a contaminant spill. Please estimate
how many cleaning stations you have at your disposal, (scale 0-10 for
participant to select)
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
1
6
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 0
8/16/2019 8:10 AM
2 0
8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3 2
8/15/2019 7:06 AM
4 0
8/12/2019 7:04 AM
5 0
8/6/2019 9:58 AM
6 0
7/31/2019 6:18 AM
7 2
7/26/2019 9:02 AM
8 0
7/26/2019 7:51 AM
9 2
7/25/2019 11:24 AM
34/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q35 Controllable flow dams for contaminant containment. Please
estimate how many controllable flow dams you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
9
2
0
8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:06 AM
0
8/12/2019 7:04 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:19 AM
/
0
7/26/2019 9:02 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:51 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:24 AM
35/43
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
0 0
Total Respondents: 9
# DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:11 AM
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q36 Flood control barriers in the event of a contaminant spill. Please
estimate how many feet of flood control barriers you have at your
disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
22
200
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 0
8/16/2019 8:11 AM
2 0 8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:09 AM
4
0
8/12/2019 7:05 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:19 AM
7
0
7/26/2019 9:03 AM
8
200
7/26/2019 7:52 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:24 AM
36/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q37 Weir skimmers for contaminant collection. Please estimate how
many weir skimmers you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
9
2
0
8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:10 AM
0
8/12/2019 7:05 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:19 AM
/
0
7/26/2019 9:03 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:52 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:25 AM
37/43
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
0 0
Total Respondents: 9
# DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:11 AM
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q38 Oleophilic skimmers for contaminant collection. Please estimate how
many oleophilic skimmers you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
0 0
Total Respondents: 9
# DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:11 AM
2
0
8/15/2019 11:06 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:10 AM
0
8/12/2019 7:05 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:19 AM
/
0
7/26/2019 9:04 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:52 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:25 AM
38/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q39 Vacuum skimmer for contaminant collection. Please estimate how
many vacuum skimmers you have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
9
2
0
8/15/2019 11:07 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:10 AM
0
8/12/2019 7:05 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:20 AM
/
0
7/26/2019 9:04 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:52 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:25 AM
39/43
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
0 0
Total Respondents: 9
# DATE
1 0 8/16/2019 8:12 AM
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q40 Temporary culvert (black tube) for redirecting flooding with
contaminant. Please estimate how many feet of temporary culvert you
have at your disposal.
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
33
300
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 100
8/16/2019 8:13 AM
2 0 8/15/2019 11:07 AM
3
0
8/15/2019 7:11 AM
4
0
8/12/2019 7:06 AM
5
0
8/6/2019 9:59 AM
6
0
7/31/2019 6:25 AM
7
200
7/26/2019 9:05 AM
8
0
7/26/2019 7:52 AM
9
0
7/25/2019 11:26 AM
40/43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q41 Considering your answers to the previous questions and what you
know about other Coast Guard bases, how well equipped do you believe
the Coast Guard is to prevent a large scale contaminant from entering
stormwater infrastructure? (scale 1-10; 1 being totally unprepared, 10
being totally prepared)
Answered: 9 Skipped: 4
ANSWER CHOICES
AVERAGE NUMBER
TOTAL NUMBER
RESPONSES
5
49
9
Total Respondents: 9
#
DATE
1 6
8/16/2019 8:17 AM
2 6 8/15/2019 11:07 AM
3
6
8/15/2019 7:14 AM
4
8
8/12/2019 7:09 AM
5
1
8/6/2019 10:01 AM
6
4
7/31/2019 6:27 AM
7
5
7/26/2019 9:13 AM
8
3
7/26/2019 7:53 AM
9
10
7/25/2019 11:30 AM
41 / 43
-------
Water-driven Biological Contaminant Movement
Q42 This survey has been sent to all Coast Guard Facilities Engineers.
Can you think of any other CG personnel who we should ask to take this
survey?
Answered: 6 Skipped: 7
#
RESPONSES
DATE
1
Strike Teams, or Sectors
8/16/2019 8:17 AM
2
Environmental, First Responders (large units), Air Stations, TRACENs near water, and Fire
Departments.
8/15/2019 7:14 AM
3
none
8/12/2019 7:09 AM
No
8/6/2019 10:01 AM
5
I would consider talking to the National response Center www.nrc.uscg.mil and the CG Strike
Teams.
7/26/2019 9:13 AM
6
We are fortunate to have the Gulf Strike Team (GST)as a Tenant on our base. ATC has an MOD
with them for spill response. In the event of a large spill, either the GST or their contractors would
assist ATC with spill clean-up.
7/25/2019 11:30 AM
42/43
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |