LID & Detention Pond Sizing Tool to Address Hydro- modification and Water Quality in Clackamas County Leah Johanson, Water Environment Services Andy Thayumanavan, Brown and Caldwell Janice Keeley, Brown and Caldwell
Feb 24, 2016
LID & Detention PondSizing Tool to Address Hydro-modification and Water Quality in Clackamas CountyLeah Johanson, Water Environment ServicesAndy Thayumanavan, Brown and CaldwellJanice Keeley, Brown and Caldwell
Agenda
» Background» Hydro-modification» Tool Criteria Development» Low Impact Development (LID) Sizing Tool» Detention Pond Sizing Tool» User Interface» Next Steps» Questions
2
WES Surface Water Program Evolution
» Past emphasis on meeting regulatory requirements» Stormwater management at the “site level”» Movement toward goal of improving overall health of the
watershed» WES can best achieve this through effective and efficient
stormwater management» Partnering with others on non-stormwater-related
activities that will help WES meet this goal
Watershed Action Plans Project Purpose
» To develop basin specific plans that prioritize District activities and future investments for watershed management
Watershed Action Plans Study Area
Key Outcomes of WAP
» Better understanding of the conditions in the watersheds» Identification of high priority areas » Prioritized CIP/ programmatic changes» Early action items
– Update Stormwater Design Standards
Purpose of Sizing Tool
» Stormwater design standards updated to promote the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, to promote infiltration and reduce hydro-modification impacts to streams
» Develop a simplified tool for development engineers to easily size LID and Detention BMPs to implement the new design standards
What is Hydro-modification?
The frequency and duration of geomorphically significant flows are the primary factors that control channel stability or instability
» Geomorphically significant flows range between:• Lower Threshold – bed material is mobilized• Upper Threshold – channel bank over-topping event
8
Hydromodification Criteria Development
» Lower Flow Threshold – 0.42Q2 (ODOT)
» Upper Flow Threshold – Q10 (ODOT)
» HSPF Modeling Parameters (2006 SWMP MP, PWR)
» Rainfall Record
9
Sizing Strategy – Flow Duration
10
Upper Threshold Flow
Lower Threshold Flow
Sizing Strategy – Peak Flow
11
Upper Threshold Flow
Lower Threshold Flow
Sizing ToolComputational Methods: Site Hydrology
» Developer Enters:– Site specific infiltration rate– Planned impervious area– Pre-developed land use– Drainage area hydrologic soil group – B, C, D
12
LID Sizing Tool
» Facility Types (7 options)– Planter (Infil & Fil)– Rain Garden (Infil & Fil)– Vegetated Swale (Infil & Fil)– Infiltrator
13
LID Sizing ToolComputational Methods: Facility Geometry
» Rain Garden Example
14
Sizing Tool Results
» Finished Product – Web-based interface with underlying look-up table containing sizes for each possible iteration of drainage area land use, soil type, facility type and site specific infiltration rate
15
Detention Pond Sizing Approach
» The detention pond sizing tool performs the following functions
– Configure pond geometry– Design outlet structure– Route post-project runoff– Compare pre-project and mitigated flow duration– Size the facility automatically to meet the WES HMP
requirements
16
Computational Methods: Pond Geometry
» User inputs initial pond configuration including area, depth and side slopes
» Alternatively, the tool automatically provides initial pond geometry
17
3:1
Overflow Weir
Bottom Orifice
Upper OrificeInfiltration
Depth
Length
Width
Detention Pond Interface
18
Stage-Storage-Discharge Table
Example stage-storage-discharge table constructed by the PondConfig subroutine
Depth Index
i
Stage/Depth
(ft) D
Surface Area (ft2) SA
Volume Increment
(ft3) S
Cumulative Storage Volume
(ft3) S
Bottom Orifice
Discharge (cfs) Qbo
Middle Orifice
Discharge (cfs) Qmo
Weir Discharge
(cfs) Qw
Exfiltration Loss (cfs) Qinfilt
Total Discharge
(cfs) Qtotal
Storage-Indication
Term 2S/t+Q
1 0 6,457 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0
2 0.14 6,591 900 900 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.031 0.06 0.6
3 0.28 6,726 918 1,818 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.031 0.10 1.1
4 0.41 6,862 937 2,755 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.032 0.13 1.7 . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30 4.00 10,890 1,490 34,310 0.50 0.70 19.53 0.050 20.68 39.7
19
Flow Duration Analysis
» Flow duration comparison is performed for pre- and mitigated time series hydrograph
» Complete time series is analyzed
» Range of interest is between lower and upper threshold flows
20
Resizing the Pond
» If flow duration criteria is not met then the pond is resized iteratively
» The user can use the option to resize by either adjusting the area or depth
» Pond sizing is completed when hydro-modification performance requirements are met
21
Next Steps
» Beta testing» Meetings with co-permittees» Testing and training
– ODEQ 319 Grant Funding» Web-based tool rolled out with new design standards» Continued monitoring and adaptive management
22
Questions?
Sensitivity Analysis
» Slope» Thresholds» Time steps
24
Computational Methods: Outlet Structure
» Use pre-defined outlet configuration that include two orifices and an overflow weir.
» The bottom orifice is sized to discharge lower threshold flow, QLT
» The orifice is sized to discharge the upper threshold flow, QUT.
25
Compare Histograms
» Direct comparison between pre- and post-project durations for each flow bin is performed.
» A “Pass” or “Fail” result is generated for each flow bin within the lower and upper threshold flows.
» Results take into account the allowable 10% variance over the length of the curve (0.42Q2 to Q10).
26
Flow Duration Comparison
27