wes urisa v1

Susan OttersenGIS Analyst/Engineer Tech IIIWater Environment ServicesClackamas County4/16/2012

A: System--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4

1. Name of the System and ESIG™ Award Categories:-----------------------------------------------------------4

2. Executive administrator letter:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

3. Summary:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

4. Three user testimonials:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

B: Jurisdiction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5

1. Name of jurisdiction:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

2. Population served by the organization:---------------------------------------------------------------------------5

3. Annual total budget for jurisdiction:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

4. Chief elected official:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

5. System Contact:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

C: System Design----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

1. What motivated the system development?---------------------------------------------------------------------6

2. What specific service or services was the system intended to improve?--------------------------------6

3. What, if any, unexpected benefits did you achieve?----------------------------------------------------------7

4. What system design problems were encountered?-----------------------------------------------------------7

5. What differentiates this system from other similar systems?--------------------------------------------10

D: Implementation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

1. What phases did you go through in developing the system?---------------------------------------------11

2. Were there any modifications to the original system design? Why? What?-------------------------11

E: Organizational Impact-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12

1. What user community does the system serve and how?--------------------------------------------------12

2. What are the ultimate decisions/operations/services being affected? If appropriate, provide a few examples including, but not limited to: screen input/output forms, paper products, or other descriptive graphics------------------------------------------------------------------------12

3. What were the quantitative and qualitative impacts of the system?-----------------------------------14

4. What effect has the system had on productivity?------------------------------------------------------------15

1 | P a g e2012 URISA AWARD APPLICATION

WES Biosolids Program GPS & GIS Implementation

5. What, if any, other impacts has the system had?------------------------------------------------------------16

6. How did the system change the way business is conducted with and/or service delivered to clients? Give specific examples comparing the old way with the new----------------------------16

F: System Resources------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16

1. What are the system’s primary hardware components? Give a brief list or description of the hardware configuration supporting the system .-------------------------------------------------------16

2. What are the system’s primary software components? Describe the primary software and, if a commercial package, any customizations required for the system.-------------------------------16

3. What data does the system work with? List and briefly describe the database(s)------------------17

4. What staff resources were required to implement the system? (approximate staff and consultant time as FTE’s)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17

5. Comment on anything unusual about the resources used to develop your system, such as data, software, personnel and financing.----------------------------------------------------------------------17

APPENDIX A:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

APPENDIX B:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

APPENDIX C:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24


Application for 2011 URISA ESIG™

A: System

1. Name of the System and ESIG™ Award Categories:

Single Process System

2. Executive administrator letter:

See Appendix A.

3. Summary:

Water Environment Services (WES) began its Biosolids program in the 1980’s. Then, environmental requirements were more lenient and record maintenance sporadic where now greater attention to environment safety has produced stricter standards from the program’s regulator, Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). In 2009, an internal assessment revealed that WES was not meeting the regulator’s record keeping and soil testing standards and, from a management perspective, was not managing program risk associated with land application of liquid biosolids. Compelled by the risk of scraping the Liquid Biosolids Program altogether unless practices were brought into compliance and risk managed, WES took steps to ensure compliance and mitigate program risk. WES achieved that due, in part, to this GPS/GIS project, which provided for greater internal controls that enhanced field management and narrowed the variance associated with spraying onto fields and for stakeholders, strengthened customer service and documentation for the farming community, neighbors, and regulators.

Biosolids spreading is not a precise application and, as discovered with WES’ internal audit / assessment, can generate land-application risk. DEQ has strict guidelines for application of Biosolids to agricultural land with specific distances from buildings, water supply wells or springs, streams, ditches, roads, and other features. Given those regulatory guidelines, WES faced several issues:

Lacking in WES’ liquid Biosolids program was a method to track all land-application updates at the farms that were receiving the liquid Biosolids on their fields.

Needed was a system that recorded precisely where biosolids were applied and, more importantly, identified the location of land-sensitive buffered zones and if buffer violations occurred during application.

The only system that made sense as a solution which identified and tracked data was implementing a GPS system with mapping in ArcGIS.

The GPS/GIS project used Trimble GPS technology (handheld devices for field mapping and dashboard devices for truck drivers) and ArcGIS mapping software to manage all steps associated with the application of liquid biosolids onto agricultural fields. Included was the education of staff who mapped the fields using the Trimble 2008 GeoXt handheld unit equipped with TerraSync software and the Biosolids drivers, responsible for liquid land application, who used the EZ Guide 500 dashboard truck device.


Lack of field staff buy-in and active participation would have rendered this project a failure. Staff that mapped the agricultural fields with the handheld devices and drove the land-application trucks with the dashboard truck device were the end users of this technology and identified the obstacles in using this GPS/GIS application.

4. Three user testimonials:

See Appendix B.

B: Jurisdiction

1. Name of jurisdiction:

Clackamas County Service District No. 1, Water Environment Services of Clackamas County (WES)

2. Population served by the organization:

Clackamas County Water Environment Services (WES) manages sanitary sewer and surface water services for over 150,000 people in two special districts located within Clackamas County and operates seven wastewater treatment facilities; three of these facilities produce biosolids. Facilities that produce liquid biosolids are located in Clackamas County Service District No. 1: Kellogg Wastewater Treatment Plant and Hoodland Treatment Plant.

Clackamas County Service District No. 1 provides retail sanitary sewer and surface water management services to unincorporated portions of North Clackamas County as well as the City of Happy Valley, Damascus, Boring, the communities of the Hoodland corridor, Fischer’s Forest Park near Redland, and wholesale wastewater treatment services to the cities of Milwaukie and Johnson City. These services are largely funded by revenues derived from rates and fees for development.

3. Annual total budget for jurisdiction:

Clackamas County Service District No. 1: Proposed FY2012-13 Operating Budget of $27,232,000 and Capital Budget of $11,361,000.

4. Chief elected official:

Mike Kuenzi, Director150 Beavercreek RoadOregon City, Oregon 97045

5. System Contact:

Susan Ottersen, GIS Analyst/Engineer Tech III150 Beavercreek Road


Oregon City, Oregon 97045Phone: 503-742-4613Fax: [email protected]

C: System Design

1. What motivated the system development?

Water Environment Services operates a liquid biosolids program out of the Kellogg Creek (KC) Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Hoodland (HD) Sewage Treatment Plant. WES’ liquid program is the largest liquid biosolids land application program in the state of Oregon. WES generates 13,000,000 gallons of liquid biosolids annually serving over 100 different fields. WES also manages a cake biosolids program out of the Tri-City (TC) Wastewater Treatment Plant. Both KC and TC require biosolids to be removed daily from the plant do to capacity issues, which has been occurring since the 1980’s. With the increased DEQ requirements, it compelled WES to implement a more accurate and stringent monitoring program.

The land application of liquid biosolids is particularly challenging. The liquid land application program serves farmers within 15 miles of the KC plant. This area is mostly zoned residential/rural, where the agricultural land application sites are adjacent to homes, schools, roads, and other denser populated areas. It is a patchwork quilt of fields in an ever expanding populated area that provides little room for error. For example, the largest field is a mere 33 acres. In contrast, our cake program in Eastern Oregon serves farmers with areas in the 200 – 500 acre ranges.

The land application of biosolids in Oregon is regulated by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) which authorizes all sites for biosolids application. Every site must be authorized by DEQ and each site has unique requirements based on its location.

After an internal audit / assessment in 2009, it was clear that there were opportunities to improve our compliance with DEQ rules and our relationship with neighbors adjacent to land application sites. Key findings included:

Application on unauthorized land Over application of biosolids on some fields resulting in elevated Nitrates in the soil Subjective boundaries around sensitive features resulting in repeated buffer violations Soil samples not taken or sampling sites not recorded Daily spreading records not being maintained Interruption of field application because of rain, equipment problems, staffing, etc. There was

no clear record of where spreading had stopped.

2. What specific service or services was the system intended to improve?


WES provides a service of delivery and land application of liquid biosolids to privately owned agricultural land. The land owner in the past was defined as our customer; now the adjacent neighbors and community at large are included in this definition of customer. Our service extends to them by assuring protection of their wells, surface water and minimizing odors.

The ability to continue this service is dependent on maintaining compliance and gaining reasonable acceptance in the community. The use of GPS/GIS guided land application has allowed us to achieve both.

3. What, if any, unexpected benefits did you achieve?

A. Better customer service, less customer complaints and educational opportunities. This required on the ground mapping of the land to locate all sensitive features, including adjacent wells. This resulted in contact with neighbors and the opportunity to talk with them about the program and provide contact information if they have any concerns before, during or after the land application. We believe the increased contact with neighbors, in combination with respecting buffers, reduced complaints during and after land application events. Now, when complaints do occur, we respond with a site visit to share with the complainant how we run our program, and assure them we are doing the land application as safely as possible to protect human health and the environment. This provides an opportunity to educate the community on our program and to share how we use GPS/GIS in the protection of health and the environment.

B. Land-owner financial support. We are now able to recover a portion of land-application costs from the farming community where before, politically, this would have been unlikely.

C. Better regulatory relationship. CCSD#1 now realizes a stronger relationship with the regulating agency, DEQ due, in part, to this GPS/GIS application.

4. What system design problems were encountered?

Problem 1a: Blank screen with initial ArcGIS created shapefile when used in EZ Guide 500 GPS unit.

Cause:The EZ Guide 500 directory files are hard coded into the system.

Initial Solution: Create an easy file in the EZ Guide 500 resolved the hardcoded directory file structure and the hardware bridging. (\AgGPS\Data\template\templateFarm\templateField)


Problem 1b: Blank screen with initial ArcGIS created shapefile when used in EZ Guide 500 GPS unit.

Cause: The shapefile created in ArcGIS was based on the Oregon State plane Zone 15 coordinate system. EZ Guide 500 GPS unit uses the geographic coordinate system of WGS NAD 1984 which in the shapefile created in the truck GPS unit creates a positional (.pos) file for the unit to properly determine its real world location.

Solution: Create an original template shapefile within the EZ Guide 500 unit and transfer the positional file into each ArcGIS created field shapefile. Note: there is a distance restriction from the original .pos file. In order to read shapefiles for instance, in another county, a new positional file must be created.

Problem 2: EZ Guide 500 GPS unit distorts/warps true circle buffers around point features, i.e., wells.

Cause: The reason for the distortion is that the truck hardware does not allow for the mathematical computation of circles labeled as buffered zones around any point feature found within geographic field boundaries. ArcGIS map software reads true circle objects, while Trimble truck GPS hardware does not, thus creating distorted buffers in shapefiles.

Solution: Within ArcGIS, vertices were added to the arc of the true circle giving the GPS unit in the truck the ability to convert the arc to its true geographic position, mitigating the chance of land-application error risk. See Image D.


Shapefile of RSA viewed in ArcGIS

Warped shapefile over SDE file

Problem 3: The truck Trimble GPS hardware misplaces and repositions ArcGIS created vertices that provide ghost polygons and false areas, which, again, as in problem 2, creates land-application error risk.

Cause:The truck GPS unit cannot read a complex multipart polygon possibly do to (a) compute the longitude and latitude of vertices created in ArcGIS (b) Truck GPS unit character field truncates the character length of the ArcGIS vertices positional location causing an accuracy issue.

Solution:Explode a multi-part polygon into separate shapefiles which are then applied as separate shapes that constitute one field. Once land-application is completed and the spread data are downloaded, data are merged as one multipart polygon.


Scrambled boundaries because of vertices relocations

Original RSA boundaries of 1 field with 3 associated polygons.

5. What differentiates this system from other similar systems?

Every stage, from field mapping to regulatory reporting, uses GPS technology and ArcGIS mapping software to comply with regulatory requirements. Mapping process is comprehensive, robust, updating and analyzing field application changes that enable WES to manage every step associated with liquid biosolids land application.

Other agencies use GIS or GPS in various forms.

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 1. Post Biosolids Spray: Walks outline of spray to calculate total acreage using a handheld device for billing purpose.

Virginia Beach, VA 1. Maps fields with GPS handheld device and creates GIS maps to record soil types and features.

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, CO

1. Uses GPS technology to map swaths where liquid biosolids have been applied.

Clackamas County Service District No. 1, Water Environment Services, Clackamas County

1. Maps fields with GPS handheld device and creates GIS maps to record sensitive features .

2. Creates shapefiles in ArcGIS to use in truck GPS unit with all required buffers.

3. Maps swaths where liquid biosolids have been applied

4. Uses spread maps for post-application to analyze any buffer violations

5. Creates reports using maps for regulatory documentation showing compliance

Program comparisons.


D: Implementation 1. What phases did you go through in developing the system?

a) Reviewed current processes that included the development of process maps for current practicesb) Examined regulatory requirements on land-application constraints (buffered land zones) and

reporting proceduresc) Accessed accuracy needs for field application and recommended a 1-meter accuracy variance for

handheld devices based on land-application spraying methods and equipment costd) Discussed data and equipment needs with end userse) Analyzed time-line requirements with program managers f) Researched fleet GPS systems for driver useg) Trained myself on handheld GeoXT, handheld device software TerraSync & truck GPS unit EZ Guide

500 and related softwareh) Developed TerraSync Data Dictionary to represent all required DEQ sensitive featuresi) Trained staff for on handheld device application (handheld GeoXT device and software TerraSync)j) Trained BAT II Supervisor on the uploading & downloading of data onto EZ Guide 5000k) Trained drivers in use of GPS unit and calculating spray width. l) Mapped new processes associated with GPS and GIS application in liquids biosolids program

2. Were there any modifications to the original system design? Why? What?

A. Python programs were developed to execute command-line programs that were once done manually. Before the Python programs, each command for BUFFER, ERASE, etc for each applicable sensitive feature for each field, which for agricultural field could contain up to 20 buffers per field. As a result of incorporating the Python programs for command lines, the buffering process become a 15-minute task or less where before it would take from 3 hours to 5 hours to execute per field.

Python buffering program interface


B. The completion of uploading and downloading data onto and off of the truck GPS unit became more efficient when that task was shifted from the GIS specialist / Engineer Technician 3 to the Biosolids Application Technician. A savings of 1 - 3 hours per field was generated from this task shift for the GIS Analyst as the BAT 2 was already in the field for pre-field application authorization.

E: Organizational Impact

1. What user community does the system serve and how?

User Community How servedBiosolids Application Technicians (land-application truck drivers)

Provide guided land application via truck mounted units that display field and its buffer zones.

On-going mapping updates field’s annually to capture site usage changes that affect buffer zones and spreadable acres.

Assures proper agronomic loading rates due to actual spreadable acres vs. acreage of the entire site.

BAT 2 and Supervisor

Assure staff are performing as requested Eliminates manual flagging of sensitive areas Identify needs for training Knowledge transfer of field locations and unique requirements

Manager Overall program management including Selecting sites Understanding potential problems based on mapping; locating potential new

sites that meet select criteria (slope, soil type, adjacent properties, etc) Assuring all sensitive features are accounted for and mapped.

2. What are the ultimate decisions/operations/services being affected? If appropriate, provide a few examples including, but not limited to: screen input/output forms, paper products, or other descriptive graphics

A: The imagine below shows the technology process that Water Environment Services developed for managing field application of liquid Biosolids. Affected was staff and data flow because, before this GPS and GIS project, all processes were done manually. Before this project, burden for reporting compliance fell upon the shoulders of the drivers and the manager who supervised the drivers. This included ‘coloring in’ of vague maps of farm fields of areas that where biosolids had been spread. With the implementation of this project, this tracking transferred from the drivers to other staff such as the engineer, source control technician, the surface water technician and water quality analyst.

Two Major DecisionsThe first decision related to the field mapping that had to be conducted before spraying began using GPS and GIS technology. For end-users, WES had to guarantee that data flowed smoothly from the hand-held device to the truck dashboard device and then to ArcGIS and finally back to the truck dashboard device where sensitive land areas identified buffers that would not be sprayed with liquid Biosolids. The process itself guaranteed the smooth flow of data and thus the process map serves as the solution for timely, smooth data flow.


The second decision centered on determining eligible fields using the data results from the initial field mapping that had been performed by the surface water technician and water quality analyst. Before any liquid biosolids was applied onto a field, analysis results determine if a field was still viable for land application by calculating a final spreadable acreage. An analysis of the final size of the field and the ‘cutting up’ of the field do to buffers would determine if the cost and risk of spread violations was still beneficial for WES and farm.

Application of Liquid Biosolids using GPS Units

Eng

inee

ring

Tec

hnic

ian

3A

noth

er s

ourc

e co

ntro

l te

chni

cian

SW

Tec

h an

d W

ater

Q

ualit

y A

naly

stB

ioso

lids

App

licat

ion

Tec

hnic

ian

Determining Eligible Farms GPS Data

Makes differential corrections to *.ssf.

Creates *.COR file

GPS Pathfinder

Office Software

Converts *.cor file into *.SHP shape file

Produces polygon showing boundaries of field (to be sprayed) using the *.SHP shape file

Buffers for and excludes water wells, ditches, roads,

low points, > 12˚ grades and residential development

from agricultural field.

Scrubs data for topology errors

Maps the agricultural field using Trimble Geo-XT unit

Selects fields to spray (Applies rating

methodology. Sets priority on the order of agricultural fields that

will be sprayed.)

Identifies eligible agricultural fields

START

Maps soli sampling site using Trimble Geo-XT unit

Imports into Spatial Data

Engine (SDE) Software

Exports to .shp formatted specifically for Easyguide

500 unit

Uploadsdata

of field to be

sprayed

ArcGIS Software: Creates farm and

Remaining Spreadable Acreage map

Creates soil sampling map

Files the following: Farm and Remaining

Spreadable Acreage map Soil sampling map

EXPAND

(Kathryn, Janet & Bob)

TAZ\import\Biosolids_GPS\ Soils

`TAZ\import\Biosolids_GPS\

GPS Pathfinder

Office Software

GPS Pathfinder

Office Software

Downloads *.SSF files

Downloads *.SSF files

Downloads closed fields

Uploads new fields Deletes fields where

swath data has been mapped

TAZ\import\Biosolids_GPS\ A_FieldVeri\field

Digital copies of maps

Taz\Import\BioSolids_GPS\JPGs\

<farmname>RSA.jpg = Map of Remaining Spreadable Acres<farmname>SS.jpg = Map of Soil Sampling Locations<farmname>Spread.jpg = Map of Application Spread

TAZ\import\Biosolids_GPS\B_Uploads to EZ\AgGPS\data\WES

Application of Liquid Biosolids using GPS Units

En

gine

erin

g T

echn

icia

n 3

Bio

solid

App

lica

tion

Tec

hnic

ian

Spraying of Biosolids on Field Data Analysis

Down loads

previous data

`

Imports shape file into SDE

Swath Map

ArcGIS Software:

Creates swath map

CON’D

TAZ\import\Biosolids_GPS\DownLoads


B: An established set of maps for each step of the process is created, reviewed and finalized by both the BAT II Supervisor and the Biosolids Manager.

The series of maps include:

A soil sampling location map An RSA map And a Spread map

See Appendix C for examples.

3. What were the quantitative and qualitative impacts of the system?

Quantitative:

Complaints are resolved between WES and the complainant rather than being elevated to the County Commissioners level. Zero complaints were elevated to mayors or Council members since implementation. While historical data is incomplete, staff recalls this happening on numerous occasions.

Year Total number or recorded complaints

Estimated complaints to elected officials

2004* 4 unknown

2005 6 unknown

2006 7 unknown

2007 9 3

2008 9 5

2009 14 unknown

2010 11 0

2011 6 0

*First year the complaint database went on-line

Qualitative:

A more professional program that considers risk management as a critical component to program management.


Enhanced dialog with neighbors as a result of well mapping. This results in an opportunity to share this technology and reassure them WES was managing the Liquids Biosolids Program as safely as possible.

Knowledge transfer regarding field locations and buffered areas. Validation of acres spread for billing purposes Validating correct spreading occurred if compliance or complaint situation presents Land Application Technicians appreciate hard buffers; subjective buffers cause problems.

4. What effect has the system had on productivity?

A. A processing time line has been set for each step of the biosolids tracking once the land application has been completed.

a) BAT 2 downloads spread data and advises GIS Analystb) GIS Analyst has 2 days to create spread map and then advises BAT 2c) BAT 2 has 3 days to do post-application check using ‘Spread Map’.d) Biosolids manager has 5 days to finalize all data and maps are in farm binder for that

particular land application

These turn around dates are tracked by the Biosolids Manager and analyzed/reviewed quarterly. Biosolids team has a meeting to review timeline productivity.


* The 2nd and 3rd Quartiles represent the bulk of the data points. The quartiles are divided by the median.

**

B. The BAT 2 Coordinator no longer has to take time to walk the field marking sensitive features with flags for each field. This has added 1-3 hours of extra time for tracking and properly recording information for post-application procedures.

C. The drivers now have quicker turn around times on the land application as there is no longer the issue of reapplying biosolids on already sprayed areas. They now know exactly where to start or stop the application procedure without having to wait and discuss with other drivers at the field.

5. What, if any, other impacts has the system had?

Risk management and general confidence in the land application component of the program.

6. How did the system change the way business is conducted with and/or service delivered to clients? Give specific examples comparing the old way with the new

1. This system had significant changes to the way business is conducted. In the past, before the implementation of this GPS/GIS application, the drivers were limited to using a printed tax map and then colored in the areas where they applied Biosolids. Consequently, biosolids were land applied with little consideration for buffers and correct acreage (resulting in fields being overloaded and risking groundwater contamination or runoff to surface water). In addition, Technicians were persuaded by farmers to apply on land that was not authorized by DEQ to receive biosolids. With mapping, all of these challenges are now under control.

2. There was also no review of the field after application to assess proper spreading. Now with the mapping, field inspections are made with the spread map, and closure can occur with confidence that the driver applied correctly. This has provided a mechanism for the Supervisor to know when training might be needed.

F: System Resources

1. What are the system’s primary hardware components? Give a brief list or description of the hardware configuration supporting the system .

Trimble EZ-Guide 500 Lightbar Guidance SystemTrimble GeoXT 2008 with TerraSync

2. What are the system’s primary software components? Describe the primary software and, if a commercial package, any customizations required for the system.

ArcGIS 9.3 – after outlining the processes, a series of small python programs were developed to speed up processing.


3. What data does the system work with? List and briefly describe the database(s)

Wells Roads (public & private) Power Lines Wind MillsBuildings Ravines Trees StreamsWater Slope Septic Tanks Drain FieldsCulvert Ditches Field Boundary Special RequestsBuffers

4. What staff resources were required to implement the system? (approximate staff and consultant time as FTE’s)

It was a significant undertaking to get this operational. Equipment and software needed to be purchased; our GIS Technician required some time to resolve problems in the field with recording and/or downloading and all fields required GPS mapping; all fields required mapping. Estimated FTE to become fully operational with few problems was 2.0 over the course of 1 year.

5. Comment on anything unusual about the resources used to develop your system, such as data, software, personnel and financing.

Did not have an immediate buy-in by drivers, as they were not favorable of computer tracking. Did not want to deal with ‘electronic’ equipment and thought the system was going to be complex and cumbersome and waste time. After a few field applications, the drivers now are very favorable of the spread tracking and with training have found the units to be easy to use. The truck GPS units were chosen mainly for the general simplicity of the unit and the larger screen. There was also a cost issue determinant, but if needed a higher end unit could have been purchased. The EZ Guide GPS unit is a mid-level Agricultural GPS system.


APPENDIX A:


APPENDIX B:


APPENDIX C:


Soil Sampling Location Map


RSA (Remaining Spreadable Acres) Map


Spread Data Map


wes urisa v1

Documents

system contact

system development

original system design

system design problems

user community

user testimonials

esig award categories

annual total budget