stormwater reuse design calculator · stormwater reuse design calculator meghan jacobson, phd brett...

Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR) / www.eorinc.com

Stormwater Reuse Design Calculator Meghan Jacobson, PhD Brett Emmons, PE, LEED AP BD+C Funded by: Mississippi WMO Minnehaha Creek WD

Outline

Old Technique Rediscovered Stormwater & Water Use The Need for a Tool The Reuse Calculator Applications & Conclusions

Old Technique Rediscovered

Common practice globally Forgotten in the U.S.

Intersecting Stormwater & Water Use

Evolving stormwater standards

Intersecting Stormwater & Water Use

Unsustainable water use

Source: Minnesota Public Radio News

The Need for a Tool

Consume stormwater &

reduce potable water uses

The Reuse Calculator

Relatively simple Incorporates timing of rainfall

& irrigation Estimates quantity & quality

Model Setup

Irrigation Area

Off-site Source

Water & Phosphorus Budget

Watershed & Storage Inputs

Airrigation ft 2

Dirrigation in/dayBegin/End 5 to 9 monthAwatershed acres

%Imp, connected %%Imp, disconnected %CNImp, disconnected

CNpervious

CW-TP ppbCW-orthoP ppb

Vbasin ft 3

Vstorage ft 3

Lbasin ftWbasin ftDbasin ft

Side slope ratioEvaporation 1=on; 0=offVbasin, initial ft 3

250109,700

8,554

106

250131

174,2400.5

INPUTS

WATERSHED

IRRIGATION

STORAGE

1

8.841%

57410

0%

54,850

Tabular Output Summary

100% 0% 71% 36% -7% % Total Vol163,250 0 116,688 58,539 -11,977 Vol (ft3/yr)

100% 0% 51% 52% -4% % Total P1.90 0.00 0.97 0.99 -0.07 TP (kg/yr)


100% 0% 60% 52% -12% % Total P2.22 0.00 1.33 1.16 -0.27 TP (kg/yr)

100% 0% 74% 21% 5% % Total Vol276,629 0 204,051 58,783 13,795 Vol (ft3/yr)

100% 0% 47% 52% 1% % Total P3.21 0.00 1.50 1.68 0.04 TP (kg/yr)


100% 0% 53% 52% -5% % Total P2.44 0.00 1.27 1.27 -0.10 TP (kg/yr)

To Overflow

To Irrigation

To Evaporation

To Sedimentation

Change in Storage

OUTPUTSFrom the

WatershedUnits

ALL

WET

DRY

AVERAGE

Rainfall Year

Tabular Output Summary

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

DRY AVERAGE WET ALL

Volu

me

(ft3 /y

r)

Change inStorage

Evaporation

Irrigation

Overflow

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

DRY AVERAGE WET ALL

P (k

g/yr

)

Change inStorage

Sedimentation

Irrigation

Overflow

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

DRY AVERAGE WET ALLVolu

me

(% W

ater

shed

Flo

w)

Change inStorage

Evaporation

Irrigation

Overflow

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

DRY AVERAGE WET ALL

P (%

Wat

ersh

ed L

oad)

Change inStorageSedimentation

Irrigation

Overflow

Graphical Output Summary

Dry Year

Ave. Year

Wet Year

SUMMARY:Annual Basin Dynamics

05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

DRY YEAR (2009)

Overflow Volume at Overflow Minimum Volume Basin

05,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

AVERAGE YEAR (2011)


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

WET YEAR (2007)


SUMMARY:Annual Basin Dynamics

00000111111

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

DRY YEAR (2009)


00000111111

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

AVERAGE YEAR (2011)


00000111111

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1/1 4/11 7/20 10/28

Ove

rflow

Vol

ume

(cub

ic fe

et)

Volu

me

in B

asin

(cub

ic fe

et)

WET YEAR (2007)


Modeled Volume Benefits

Highly Developed

Increasing benefits up to 1” Residential

Increasing benefits up to 2” Suburban

Increasing benefits up to 2.5”

Modeled Phosphorus Benefits

Highly Developed

Maximum removal of ~50% Residential

Maximum removal of ~80% Suburban

Maximum removal of ~95%

Conclusions

1. Retrofit existing ponds and

developments for LID

2. Achieves more volume reduction in less space

3. Tool effective for optimizing storage size

4. Green space is often limiting

Many thanks to:

October 16, 2013MN Water Resources Conference

Restoring the Balance: Water Supply Planning in the Twin Cities

Metropolitan Area

Ali Elhassan, Lanya Ross, Brian DavisMetropolitan Council

“And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.”

John Steinbeck, East of Eden

Council Role in Water Supply Planning

o 2005 legislation - “Carry out planning activities addressing the water supply needs of the metropolitan area” (MN Statutes, Sec. 473.1565)

o Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Master Water Supply Plan – 2010

o Ensure a sustainable water supply for current and future generations

o 2005 legislation - Advisory Committee (MAWSAC)

o State agencies, Counties, Municipalities/utilities

32

Water Supply Planning Unit- Capabilities• Technical Studies

– Groundwater- Surface Water Interaction– Sensitivity of Glacial Aquifers– Recharge Potential

• Tools– Metro Model 2– Conservation Toolbox– Stormwater Reuse Guide– Groundwater Recharge Map

• Collaboration– State: Natural resources, Health– MAWSAC– U of M, US Geological Survey, MN

Geological Survey– Municipalities and Utilities– Consultants

Findings

• Current approach to water supply management and development is unsustainable

• Aquifer levels declined –depleted

• Lakes, Stream and wetlands damaged

Average Metro WaterUse (Million Gallons

per Day)

333 M

113 M

Metro Region in 2010Population: about 3 Million

Ground-water

Surface Water

Total Use = 446 MGD

Aquifers are Impacted

Surface Waters are Impacted

Example - White Bear Lake

Av Metro Water Use(MGD)

450 M

130 M

Metro Region in 2030 Projected Population: about 3.5 Million

Ground-water

Surface Water

Total Use = 580 MGD

Metro Model 2

10/16/2013

o U.S. Geological Survey Code

o 9 geology layers

o 33 streams

o 962 lakes & wetlands

o DNR pumping data

2030 Prairie du Chien – Jordan: Business as Usual

Aquifer Drawdown< 5 feet

5-10 feet

10-20 feet

20-30 feet

30-40 feet

2030 Drawdown > 50% Available Head: Prairie du Chien-Jordan

8

• “Business As Usual” is not a solution

– Recognizing limits on regional groundwater supplies

– Balanced use of surface water, groundwater, and reclaimed water

Future Directions

Surface Water

Communities can potentially switch to Surface Water

Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer

Surface Water Sources9,500 cfs( 2.2 Trillion GPY)

4,900 cfs(1.1 Trillion GPY)

6,000 cfs(1.4 Trillion GPY)

4.7 Trillion Gallonsof river water flowing in the metro area

39 Billion Gallonsdiverted annually

5 MinutesTurn off the faucet

5 HoursFix a leak

5 DaysAudit your water use

5 WeeksUpdate your home

5 MonthsLearn your landscape

Water Conservation Tips

• Region needs to– Restore Balance among water

sources– Maintain and enhance recharge

capability– Conservation

• Council needs in partnership with stakeholders to– Develop plans and projects that

ensure sustainable water supply

Conclusion

10/16//2013

Ali [email protected]

651-602-1156

10/16/2013

Questions

Designed by Nancy Ellefson

Wayne P. Anderson P. E. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Jennifer Olson Tetra Tech David Wall, MPCA ; Kellie DuBay, Tetra Tech

September 2013

Interagency Coordination Team

Strategy includes…. • Goals and milestones • Nutrient monitoring/trends • Estimates of recent progress • Priority nutrient sources and watersheds • Scenarios to meet 1st milestones • Agricultural strategies • Wastewater strategies • Tracking progress into future

Goals and Milestones

Basin Pollutant

Phase 1 Milestone (by 2025)

Phase 2 Milestone

Phase 3 Milestone

Mississippi River Phosphorus 35% reduction

45% reduction

No net increase

Nitrogen 20% reduction 30% reduction

45% reduction

Red River (Lake Winnipeg)

Phosphorus 10% reduction Adapt goals as necessary

Nitrogen 13% reduction Adapt goals as necessary

Lake Superior Phosphorus 3% reduction No net increase

Nitrogen Maintain protection Statewide Groundwater/ Source Water

Nitrogen Meet the goals of the 1989 Groundwater Protection Act

How to Meet Goals and Milestones?

Approach… • Focus Strategy on high priority sources • Estimate recent progress • Develop possible scenarios • Identify program-related activities needed to

implement strategy • Use adaptive management

Recent Progress…BMPs Since 2000 • Quantify progress made

using data on BMPs o 16 programs o Needed outcomes + spatial

data

• Spatial and loading data compiled o NRCS EQIP o RIM o BWSR’s eLINK o Wastewater

• Used to inform Milestones

Phosphorus

Nitrogen

Recent Progress is the percent of baseline load remaining after accounting for reductions

27% reduction

Sources and Priority Sectors

Basin Priority phosphorus sources Priority nitrogen sources

Mississippi River

Cropland runoff, permitted point sources, and stream bank erosion

Agricultural tile drainage and cropland groundwater

Lake Superior

Nonagricultural rural runoff, permitted point sources, and stream bank erosion

Permitted point sources

Lake Winnipeg

Cropland runoff and nonagricultural rural runoff

Cropland groundwater

Agriculture + Wastewater

Ag Best Management Practices Phosphorous • Increasing Fertilizer Use

Efficiencies o Achieve target soil test

phosphorus (P Index) o Subsurface banding

• Field Erosion Control • Conservation tillage

• Increase and Target Living Cover o Riparian buffers o Cover crops o Conservation reserve

Nitrogen • Increasing Fertilizer Use

Efficiencies o Use recommended fertilizer

application rates • Drainage Water Retention

and Treatment o Wetlands o Controlled drainage

• Increase and Target Living Cover o Riparian buffers o Cover crops o Conservation reserve

Ag BMP Scenario - Phosphorus

BMP category Example BMP

Mississippi River Red River

Future adoption

rate

Total new acres

(million acres)

Future adoption

rate

Total new acres

(million acres)

Increasing Fertilizer Use Efficiencies

Achieve target soil test phosphorus and use subsurface banding

90% 1.9 0% 0

Increase and Target Living Cover

Riparian buffers 25% 0.3 60% 0.3

Cover crops 10% 0.3 20% 0.2

Conservation reserve 3% 0.2 0.6% 0

Field Erosion Control

Conservation tillage 91% 7.2 64% 1.4

Ag BMP Scenario – Nitrogen

BMP category Example BMP

Mississippi River Red River

Future adoption

rate

Total new acres

(million acres)

Future adoption

rate

Total new acres

(million acres)

Increasing Fertilizer Use Efficiencies

Use recommended fertilizer application rates 80% 13.2 95% 6.0

Increase and Target Living Cover

Cover crops 10% 0.3 20% 0.2

Riparian buffers 25% 0.3 60% 0.3

Conservation reserve 3% 0.2 0.10% 0

Drainage Water Retention and Treatment

Wetlands and controlled drainage 18% 1.1 25% 0.001

Agricultural Strategies – Increased Adoption of Ag BMPs • Optimization – State and federal program Step Up

Plans, track industry-led BMPs • Economic – Crop yield insurance program, markets

and technologies for use of perennials, trading • Education and Involvement – Targeted campaign,

focus on co-op agronomists and certified crop advisors, producers help develop solutions, AWQCP

• Research – Cover crop establishment, soluble phosphorus, removing nutrients from tile drainage waters

• Demonstration – On-farm trials

Wastewater Scenarios

62% Reduction Since 2000

Wastewater Strategies • Continue Existing Phosphorus Strategy

o Expect additional 50 MTs P reduced (1% of total)

• Develop Nitrogen Strategy based on successful Phosphorus Strategy o Monitoring, management plans, effluent limits

(from standards), trading o Expect 3,100 MTs N reduced (2% of total basin

reduction)

Miscellaneous Source Strategies • Sewage Treatment Systems – Existing program • Stormwater – Existing permits and MIDS • Feedlots – Existing program • Sediment – Statewide sediment reduction

strategy currently under development

Protection Strategies • Red River Tiling and Lake

Superior Loads – Watershed Approach requires protection strategies as part of WRAP development

• Vulnerable Groundwater

Drinking Water Supplies – MDA’s draft Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan

Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations

Reduction Scenario to Meet Phase 1 Milestones

Reductions

Mississippi Phosphorus

Mississippi Nitrogen

Progress since Baseline

1,600 0

Agriculture 330 19,600 Wastewater 60 3,100 Miscellaneous 30 0

TOTAL 2,020 22,700

Mississippi River Basin 35% Reduction in P and 20% Reduction in N

Units = Metric Tons

Conversation starts now

Finalize for public review

60-day public review

Public outreach

Address comments

Release final

Present to legislature

End of 2013

Oct 7

Comments are due December 18, 2013

Ackn

owle

dgin

g Strategy Development Team - MPCA • Wayne P Anderson P.E., Strategy Manager • David Wall • Dennis Wasley

Strategy Development Team - Tetra Tech • Jennifer Olson, Consultant Project Manager • Kellie DuBay • Jon Butcher • Heather Fisher • Kevin Kratt

Funding/ support provided through EPA grants & contracts

• EPA Cooperative Agreement CA Number: MX00E0100 • EPA Consultant Contract: EP-C-12-055

Ackn

owle

dgin

g Steering Committee and Work Group Rebecca Flood (Chair), Mark Schmitt, Gaylen Reetz, Jeff Stollenwerk, Wendy Turri, Marni Karnowski, Randy Hukreide, Doug Wetzstein, Glenn Skuta, Katrina Kessler, Steve Woods, Tim Koehler, Marcey Westrick, Mike Schmitt, Carl Rosen, John Nieber, Gary Sands, Greg Buzicky, Rob Sip, Dan Stoddard, Mary Hanks, Bruce Montgomery, Ron Struss, Steve Hirsch, Steve Colvin, Dave Wright, Tom Hogan, Randy Ellingboe, Jeff Freeman, Leisa Thompson, Judy Sventek, Mary Gail Scott, Larry Rogacki, Don Baloun, Myron Taylor, Carissa Spencer, Wanda Garry, Jim Stark, Dave Lorenz Wastewater Focus Group -- Marco Graziani, Dennis Wasley, Casey Scott, Aaron Luckstein, Larry Rogacki, Mary Gail Scott, Judy Sventek, Steve Weiss, Nicole Blasing, Bruce Henningsgaard, Bill Priebe, Mike Trojan

Agricultural Focus Group -- John Nieber, Bill Lazarus, Joe Magner, Bruce Wilson, Al Kean, Chris Lenhart, Bobbi Hernandez, John Lamb, Fabian Fernandez, David Mulla, Bruce Montgomery, Gary Sands, Dave Wall, Wayne Anderson, Carissa Spencer, Larry Baker, John Baker, Mike Schmitt, Forrest Izuno, Heidi Peterson, Joshua Stamper, Nick Gervino, Larry Gunderson, Bill Thompson, Greg Johnson

Designed by Nancy Ellefson

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/zihy1146

stormwater reuse design calculator · stormwater reuse design calculator meghan jacobson, phd brett...

Documents