Stormwater Management Practices

How do they work and where should they

be used?
October 25, 2010
James Houle, CPSWQ, Robert Roseen, PE, PhD, Thomas Ballestero,
PE, PhD, PH, CGWP, PG, Alison Watts, PhD, Tim Puls
Environmental Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering
University of New Hampshire
2
Why the Center Was Created
Three-Year Study of Conventional Systems
3
Study Found That
Systems failed
2/3 of the time!
26%
Of the time
systems did
nothing
34%
Of the time
systems offered
some kind of
treatment
40%
Of the time systems
exported more
pollutants
UNHSC Third-party evaluation
5
It Cleans!
It Will Get
You the Job!
It Disinfects!
Imagine the Ultimate System
Sonic Swirl Enforcer
eliminating everything in its path
6
No Need to Reinvent this Wheel
Physical Operations
Biological Processes
Chemical Processes
Hydrologic
Operations
Use Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Watershed Impacts:
Major Stormwater Contaminants
Sediment
Pathogens
Nutrients
Toxic Contaminants
Debris and Floating Litter
Temperature Alterations
Chloride
Economic impacts of land use change
(increased runoff)
1.) Loss of revenue due to impacts to
tourism and natural resources
2) Expenses from stress to municipal
infrastructure
Great Bay
August 2009
the Great Bay
was added to
the 303 d list
for Nitrogen
Estimates
range in the
tens of millions
to comply with
effluent limits
Primary Causes of Runoff Increase
CAUSES
Land Use ChangesIncrease in
impervious cover
Changes in storm depth, duration,
and frequencyIncreased rainfall
depth and runoff volume
ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS
Land use management strategies
to mitigate runoff volumes
combination of Gray and Green
infrastructure
10
The Three Components of
Effective Stormwater Management
1. Site Planning/Land Use
2. Source Controls
3. Structural BMPs
Effectiveness
Structural BMPs
1. Appropriate Design
2. Installation
3. Maintenance
Research examining impacts of climate change on rainfall
depths (28-60% increase) demonstrated existing urban
infrastructure (culverts) will be under-capacity by 35% (Guo, 2006)
This in addition to stressed stormwater infrastructure from land
use change
15
Dedicated to the protection of water resources through
effective stormwater management
Research and development of stormwater treatment systems
To provide resources to stormwater communities currently involved in design
and implementation of Phase II requirements
Gregg Hall 35 Colovos Road Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3534
603.862.4024 http://www.unhsc.unh.edu
17
Who We Are
scientists engineers educators
18
What We Do
BMP
Performance
Monitoring
Targeted
Research
Outreach
Outreach Materials
Annual Reports
Journal Articles
Fact Sheets
Design
Specifications
Design Drawings
Web Resources
http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev
or just google UNHSC
20
BMP Performance Monitoring
Research Field Facility at UNH
Tc ~ 19 minutes
Watershed
Boundary
Tree
Filter
Porous
Asphalt
Bioretention
Retrofit
UNHSC
Research
Facility
Parallel
Performance
Evaluation
Each system uniformly sized
to treat 1 runoff for 1 acre of
impervious area
WQV=3300 cf
Q
wqv
=1 cfs
Uniform contaminant loading
Uniform storm event
characteristics
Systems lined for mass
balance
Long term record of
hydrology and contaminants
Hydrodynamic Separator
Subsurface Infiltration
Filter Unit
Porous Asphalt
Retention Pond Stone Swale
Gravel Wetland Sand Filter
Bioretention Unit
Tree Filter
Pervious Concrete
Isolator Row
Veg Swale
Performance
TSS Removal Efficiencies
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T
S
S

%

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
DIN Removal Efficiencies
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
I
N

%

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
TP Removal Efficiencies
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T
P

%

R
e
m
o
v
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
TSS Removal Performance
Nitrogen Removal Performance
Phosphorous Removal Performance
Hydrologic
Performance Results
Swale Flow and Volume Attenuation
Average Annual Peak Flow Reduction is 48%
Average Annual Lag Time is 19 min
Porous Asphalt Flow and Volume
Attenuation
Average Annual Peak Flow Reduction is 68%
Average Annual Lag Time is 790 min
34
Lag Time (k
L
) Peak Reduction (k
P
)
5 2 1 0.5 0.1
Hydraulic Performance
Questions
36
Targeted Research
pavement
sealants
cold
climate
thermal
impacts
Cold Climate
Performance Results
Seasonal Variations in Performance
Gravel
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TSS TPH-D DIN Zn TP
Summer
Winter
Annual
Bioretention II
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TSS TPH-D DIN Zn TP
Summer
Winter
Annual
Vegetated Swale
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TSS TPH-D DIN Zn TP
Summer
Winter
Annual
Retention Pond
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TSS TPH-D DIN Zn TP
Summer
Winter
Annual
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 50 100 150 200
Particle Diameter [microns]
S
e
t
t
l
i
n
g

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

[
c
m
/
s
]
T = 30 C FreshWater
T = 0 C Hi [Cl] Stormwater
The effect of T and [Cl
-
] is to nearly double
the settling time from 1.6 to 3.4 cm/sec
Hydrodynamic Separators
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TSS TPH-D DIN Zn TP
Summer
Winter
Annual
39
Frost Penetration
Can be related to pavement failure
Measured with a field-assembled
frost gauge (Ricard et al., 1976)
Show relationships between
pavements and soils
40
Filtration Systems Frost Penetration
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1/13/05 1/25/05 2/4/05 2/16/05 2/25/05 3/8/05 3/15/05 3/28/05
F
r
o
s
t

D
e
p
t
h

(
c
m
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
T
e
m
p

(
C
)
Sand filter Bioretention I Gravel Wetland
Rain Freezing Ave. Temp
41
Porous Asphalt Frost Penetration
Chloride Levels in First Order
Receiving Stream (Durham, NH)
Chronic
Acute
There are now 5 chloride
TMDLs in the US
Chloride is toxic to aquatic life
No BMP targets removal
Where should reductions occur?
Sources of Salt Loading
From Vehicular Surface Deicing
(Rockingham County, NH)
(NHDES 2007)
50%
3%
27%
9%
11%
Parking Lots
Private Roads
Municipal Roads
State Roads
Other
PC in shade
44
Lots one-hour after plowing, -4*C
PA/DMA Snow & Ice Cover
PA
PC in sun
PC in partial
sun
DMA
Weighted Skid Resistance (BPN)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 50 25 0
% Salt Application
S
k
i
d

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
B
P
N
)
Dense Mix Asphalt
Porous Asphalt
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 50 25 0
%

I
c
e

C
o
v
e
r
% Salt Application
% Ice Cover
Dense Mix Asphalt
Porous Asphalt
Weighted Skid Resistance (BPN)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100 50 25 0
% Salt Application
S
k
i
d

R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
B
P
N
)
Dense Mix Asphalt
Porous Asphalt
Effective Salt Reductions
Pavement
Type
2006-2007 2007-2008
Reductions Possible
when compared to
DMA with
100% App. Rate
Anti-
Icing
Apps.
Deicing
Apps.
Anti-
Icing
Apps.
Deicing
Apps.
App.
Rate
Average
Mass
Reduction*
(06-08)
DMA 15 14 23 22 100% 0%
PA 15 6 23 27 25% 75%
PC -
shade
- - 23 31 100% -20%
PC - sun - - 23 23 100% -2%
* Reduction possible with no loss in skid resistance (safety)
Maintenance
What is Maintenance
Often Maintenance
only occurs when there
is failure
There is a perception
that LID systems require
more maintenance
Some claim LID
systems fail and will
require expensive repairs
Our current practices
have a high degree of
failure and significant
cost impactshowever
we are familiar with it
Long-Term Maintenance
All advanced stormwater systems require maintenance
LID maintenance is often simple, low cost consistent with
standard landscaping practices
Homeowner/landscaper education
Consider requiring permanent sureties
Fine filter media systems may have reduced service life due
to cloggingeasily servicedsand filters and bioretention
Factor of safety for clogging 3-4 reduces maintenance
sensitivity
Current installations for Bioretention up to 15 years
Gravel wetland large diameter stone reduces maintenance
sensitivity
PAHs And Parking Lots: A Field Study on PAHs
Exported From Sealed and Unsealed Parking
Lots at the UNH Stormwater Center
Sealcoat What is it, and why do we
care?
Thin, non-permanent layer, applied to
enhance appearance
Two common types
Asphalt-based (asphalt resin, ball
clay, silica)
Coal tar-based (coal tar, ball clay)
Coal tar - High PAHs - 50,000 mg/l total
PAHs (City of Austin, 2005)
Asphalt sealant 50 mg/l total PAHs
5,890 g/L
642 g/L
4.39 g/L
First Flush samples collected during the first rain event
EPA Surface Water Quality Criteria for total PAHs = 300ug/l
Sediment Samples
Unsealed control
9 acres
Coal tar sealant
0.3 acres



0.69
1.61
4.32
0.4
27.1
4.18
1.3
10.9
4.62
3.6
Sample locations, concentrations in mg/kg
Pre sealant - Oct 2007
9 months after sealant June 2008
12 months after sealant Oct 2008
30 months after sealant April 2010


3.08
51.2
58.3
27.8

1.58
95.7
89.6
9.96



4% of watershed sealcoated
NOAA Effects Range Median = 44.7 mg/kg
55
4% of surface sealed
109-162 mg/kg
(Gravel Wetland, Bioretention, Detention Pond)
100% of surface sealed
390 1,700 mg/kg
(Tree Filter)
Unsealed
1.6 mg/kg
(Bioretention)
Total Mass of PAHs (16)
C-Unsealed
9 acre
A-Sealed
0.3 acre
B-Sealed
0.25
1. Oct-Dec 07 0.05 0.59 0.09
2. Dec-June 08 0.18 0.27 0.06
3. July-Dec 08 0.1 0.18 0.15
4. Jan-June 09 0.4 0.16 0.12
5. July-Dec 09 0.5 0.21 0.12
Total per lot 1.23 1.41 0.54
Mass Balance
Wear: Approximately 25% of sealant remaining on A lot, 50% remaining on B lot.
B Lot:
Mass of PAHs applied: 9 kg
1,000 liters applied
(by volume estimates, and contractors estimate)
Concentration (dried) 18,000 mg/kg => 9 kg PAHs
50% remaining on lot: 4.5 kg lost
Mass in stormwater runoff: 0.5 kg
Verified by volume: 1,000 liters applied
volume of sealant particles in tree filter
less than 100 liters.
Where did the rest go?
Mass Balance Stormwater

















PAH Concentrations in Surface Soil and Dust
Total PAH (EPA 16)
<10 mg/kg
10-100 mg/kg
>100 mg/kg
Total PAH = 411
Benzo(a)pyrene = 29.2
EPA PRG Industrial screening level
for benzo(a)pyrene = 0.21 mg/kg
Just what
exactly is your
point?
100% Removal???
There are no silver bullets
Designs should be based on
regional watershed and water
quality objectives. (think locally
act locally!)
We are moving beyond 80% TSS
removal:
Nutrients, PSD, effluent
concentrations
LID systems function well in cold climates, seasonal
variations are observed for conventional BMPs and
Manufactured systems
Infiltration and filtration systems have the highest removal
efficiency
The standard of practice is moderate at best, and low
especially for stone lined swales
Cost of advanced SWM can often be balanced with related
savings
Qualified engineering oversight is needed to assure proper
installation and construction

Summary Conclusions
Funding
Funding is provided by the Cooperative Institute for
Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology
(CICEET) whose mission is to support the
scientific development of innovative technologies
for understanding and reversing the impacts of
coastal and estuarine contamination and
degradation.
Questions?
Porous Pavements
Porous Pavements
Aggregate gradation: No fines
added to mix
Air voids: 18-20%
Cold climate and WQ functionality
dependent on sub base design
Long-term FX dependent on
production, not maintenance
Pervious Concrete
Placement is challenging and
requires certified installers
Compressive strength:
3000 psi at 7 days
Concrete is very resistant to aging
Porous Asphalt
Modification of Open Grade
Friction Course (OGFC)
Asphalt binder often modified
(polymers, fibers) but not
necessary
QC production at plant is crucial,
install is simple
6
64
Porous Asphalt Path, Grey Towers
National Historic Site, PA
(Source: CH2M HILL)
Porous Asphalt Commercial Parking Lot,
Greenland Meadows, Greenland, NH
(Source: UNHSC)
Porous Asphalt Section of State Highway,
South Portland, ME (Source: ME DOT)
Porous Asphalt Basketball Court,
Upper Darby, PA
(Source: CH2M HILL)
Porous Asphalt Residential Lane, Pelham, NH
(Source: UNHSC)
Parking Lot with Standard Aisle and
Porous Asphalt Stalls, Morris Arboretum,
Philadelphia, PA (Source: CH2M HILL)
Typical Porous Pavement Parking Lot
System Cross-Section

4 thickness of crushed stone

4 of porous asphalt
8-12 thickness of open graded
reservoir subbase

Soil permeability >0.5 in/hr
4 thickness of > crushed stone for frost protection

Diverged from design guidance for use of filter coarse for
improved water quality function
Common base stone is 1-3 minus bank run sand and gravel used
here
How Do They Really Work?
43 in rainfall event in 3 minutes!
State of the Practice
Significant advancements in PA strength,
durability, an cost have been achieved
Large increase in significant PA installs for
light duty, residential, commercial, and
state road applications
However, a large number of installations
STILL continue to be sub-standard
67
Why So Many Poor Installations?
Porous pavements are an filtration/infiltration
system as well as a transportation surface.
Because of dual functionality:
Greater site evaluation and design effort
Strict engineering oversight and skilled
personnel through all phases of the project
Requires a comprehensive maintenance
schedule
68
Common Pitfalls
Inappropriate PA mix selection WRT to
durability leads to raveling and low durability
Poor subbase compactiontendency to
under-compact due to concerns regarding
infiltration leads to rutting
Poor asphalt compactiontendency to
under-compact due to weaker subbase
leads to low pavement durability
69
All issues can be addressed through qualified
engineering oversight
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Time (min)
F
l
o
w

(
g
p
m
)
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
5
-
M
i
n

P
r
e
c
i
p

(
i
n
)
D-Box Flow
Effluent Flow
Precip
0.6 in depth
70
Hydrologic Performance
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Time (min)
F
l
o
w

(
g
p
m
)
0
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
0.15
5
-
M
i
n

P
r
e
c
i
p

(
i
n
)
D-Box Flow
Effluent Flow
Precip
2.96 in depth
Repairs and Replacement
Damage can occur to PA from non-design
loads
Repairs may be needed from cuts for utilities
Repairs can be made with standard HMA for
most damages up to 15% of surface area
PA can be repaired by heating and rerolling
at $2000/day at approximately 500 of trench
When pavement reaches end of life, it is
replaced by milling to choker coarse.
71 March 25, 2010
Used for repairs
around manholes,
catch basins, and for
reworking rough
pavement areas
Asphalt in the repair
area can be raked and
rolled back into place
and additional hot mix
can be added when
Repairs cost ~$2000
72 March 25, 2010
73
Cost Information
~10-20% more for materials
2009, DMA $75-100/ton, PA $89-125/ton placed
by machine for parking and residential road and
driveways
Complicated jobs with handwork are more
expensive
DMA $2.25/sf, PA $2.80/sf, not including
subbase
Costs offset by lack of stormwater infrastructure
Cost break even is achieved when designing for
quantity management ~Q10-Q25
Project Objectives:
Assess flood risk associated with combined land use and
climate change scenarios in the Lamprey River watershed.
Produce maps at the municipal scale of the 100-year flood
risk boundaries and river discharge at specific locations.
Demonstrate the use of associated products to support land
use decision-making in coastal communities.
Serve as a model for other watersheds across New England.
Lamprey River 100 Year Flood Risk Project
Current Newmarket 100 Year Floodplain
Lamprey River 100 Year Flood Risk Project