1

EWRI CURRENTS

V O L U M E 1 7 , N U M B E R 1

W I N T E R 2 0 1 5

oxidant by workers and 4) It extends the release of an oxidant without the need to re-inject the gas or liquid solutions.

To date, two patented controlled release chemox prototypes (CRP) are being stud-ied for their ability to remediate bacteria in agricultural wastewater (1). The first CRP structure consists of potassium permanga-nate blended into a polymer matrix (Figure 1). Potassium permanganate is a purple oxidant, which results in treated water having a light pink color. A 100-mL sample of CRP treated swine lagoon waste-water exhibited a 2.8-log10 reduction of E. coli within 24-hours and no detection of E. coli after 48-hours. The 200 mL treated sample resulted in 2-log10 reduction within 24-hours and complete inactivation within 72-hours. A 500 mL continuous stirred tank reactor containing CRP completely disinfected the wastewater sample by day 5 of the experiment while the 500 mL batch treated system demonstrated little to no reduction in E. coli levels. Non-treated

Effective, low cost, and low maintenance methods for wastewater treatment and water-to-water reuse are needed for agri-cultural practices. Poor agricultural waste management practices, lagoon storage, land distribution, and run-off is suspected to cause the release of waste such as manure, urine, chemical and pathogenic contamina-tion from liquid and solid fractions of ani-mal wastes. Therefore, the ability to release low doses of oxidants using a controlled release delivery system has the potential to be an effective in-situ remediation method for various biological and chemical con-taminants. A controlled release polymer system has been designed and developed to safely deliver chemical oxidants for extended periods of time with several ad-vantages: 1) It stabilizes the solid oxidants for emplacement in the subsurface for in-situ remediation or packed in a reactor for a pump and treat system, 2) It reduces the need for maintenance associated with the gaseous and liquid oxidants, 3) It reduces the dangers associated with handling the

CONTROLLED RELEASE CHEMICAL OXIDATION FOR WASTEWATERStephanie Luster-Teasley, Ph.D.

controls demonstrated no reduction in bacteria levels in the swine wastewater.

The second CRP structure consists of a potassium peroxymonosulfate and polymer matrix. Potassium peroxymonosulfate is a triple salt that is colorless when dissolved into water. It is effective at the remedia-tion of bacteria and various organic and inorganic compounds (2 - 4). Potassium peroxymonosulfate CRP in 200 – 300 mL of swine lagoon wastewater resulted in 2 to 5-log10 reduction of coliform forming units over a 3-day treatment period. Ad-ditionally, the CRP system resulted in im-proved color and odor of the wastewater. E. coli, Enterococci, and total coliform inactivation in dairy lagoon wastewater exhibited a 1.1 to 3.5-log10 reduction over 24-hour treatment.

A 2 – 4 day treatment period for 200 mL of dairy lagoon wastewater resulted in up to a 6.3-log10 reduction and complete inactivation within 3-days when treated

(continued on page 4)

Figure 1. Time-lapse photo showing potassium permanganate diffusing from a CRP pellet

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents Volume 16 Number 4 Fall 2014

EDITOR’S CORNER Are you interested in getting involved with a committee within EWRI? Joining a techni-cal committee is a great way to expand your knowledge of a particular specialty area within the water resources and environmental fields of research and practice, and to collaborate with like-minded professionals. Also available are committees under the “Member Services Execu-tive Committee”; these committees are involved with promoting member services, for example this issue of Currents you are reading right now! Check out what’s available at http://www.asce.org/environmental-and-water-resources-engineer-ing/environmental-and-water-resources-institute/. You can click on any committee you may be interested in, and a list of members, including committee chairs. Contact the Committee Chair if you would like to learn more. Their names typi-cally include a hyperlink to their email address; if not, try looking them up using the EWRI Collabo-rate “Directory” tool.

EWRI Collaborate (http://collaborate.ewrinsti-tute.org/home/), which was initially rolled out to membership in June 2014 is still in its infancy and we plan to expand the information available through this site. The EWRI committees’ link included above is on EWRI’s website, and this information will soon be expanded to Collabo-rate. Watch out for updates on Collaborate as we expand its offerings.

Please check out EWRI Collaborate when you get a chance - the more active users we have, the more dynamic our portal will be! Consider joining Communities – this is a great way to find out the latest news on upcoming events, such as the 2015 EWRI World Congress in Austin, TX from May 17-21, 2015. We continue to be interested in interesting and relevant content for Currents, as well. Please contact me at jweiland@wadetrim.

com as well as Veronique Nguyen of ASCE at VNguyen@asce.org

with your articles, announce-ments, and other content you would like to share. We look forward to hearing from you!

John WeilandCommunications

Council Chair

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Controlled Release Chemical Oxidation for Wastewater.....................................................1

Five Years Later: A Comparison of Flow Measurement Techniques during the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill.............5

Agriculture Deputy Secretary Announces Funding for Conservation Projects in Great Lakes Region............................................................9

EWRI Hosts Seminar on Long Term Performance Monitoring of Green Infrastructure in Philadelphia....................................................10

California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.............................................11

ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS

BECOME AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER TODAY!To become an OM, please contact Gabrielle Dunkley, EWRI Adminis

(gdunkley@asce.org) or call (703)295-6296

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON WATER RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENTColombo, Sri Lanka I January 4-6, 2016

CALL FOR ABSTRACTSASCE-EWRI invites you to submit abstracts to IPWE 2016. This conference will cover a wide variety of topics on sustainable environmental and water resources management. While technical sessions will include topics on developed and developing countries, much of the focus of this conference will be on water resources and the environment in developing countries.

IMPORTANT DATESAbstract Submissions deadline: May 28, 2015

Author notification of acceptance/rejection: July 10, 2015

Author registration & final paper deadline: October 16, 2015

Conference Begins: January 4, 2016

CONFERENCE CHAIRSDr. Sharika Senarath, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., PMP, D.WRE, M.ASCEAIR Worldwide CorporationProfessor S. B. WeerakoonUniversity of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

www.ipweconference.org

The Environmental & Water Resources Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE-EWRI) is pleased to continue the International Perspective on Water Resources & the Environment (IPWE) conference series. These events create offer a platform for professionals to share knowledge, network, and gain perspective of water resource issues unique to the conference destination. Furthermore, ASCE-EWRI prides itself on making these events accessible to participants from a wide range of cultural, socio-economic, and professional backgrounds.

COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

Submit your abstract to the IPWE Conference today!Deadline for abstract submission is May 28, 2015. For more

information visit the conference website at www.ipweconference.org

3

PRESIDENT’S ARTICLE -Thanks to Everyone

ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS

BECOME AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER TODAY!To become an OM, please contact Gabrielle Dunkley, EWRI Adminis

(gdunkley@asce.org) or call (703)295-6296

I’ve just returned from Council Weekend in beautiful San Antonio, Texas, and it has me looking forward to seeing many of you in Austin for our annual Congress. It was a great weekend - much was accom-plished, and we kicked off several new activities. In addition, both David Dee (next year’s president) and Brian Parsons invested in new boots… Make sure you ask to see them at the Austin Congress…

As you may recall from my first missive, as your Governing Board works through the next fiscal year, these are my three primary goals:• Improve our integration of new pro-

fessionals into the Institute• Expand the involvement of our mem-

bers who work in the municipal sector• Enhance the relevancy of our organi-

zation to Institute members who are not active

In my first letter, I talked primarily about the first goal. This progressed significantly during Council Weekend. The Member Services ExCom approved three new Councils that deal directly with this is-sue. Curt Elmore and Monica Palomo have taken the lead on our new Students Council, which will have a focus on better integrating EWRI with students beginning in high school and continuing through col-lege. I’m especially excited that they have lined up several current students to serve in leadership roles on the Council. Our current SANPAC group will continue to function as a committee under this Coun-cil, leading the on-going Student Competi-tions at our Congresses. Thanks to Jamal Nagamia, Balu Bhayani, and others for their past and future efforts with these compeitions.

As I noted previously, Jeanne VanBriesen has put together a New Professionals Council, which will be undertaking several new activities at the Congress weekend. Again, these will have a direct impact on involving new professionals into our In-stitute Activities. Finally, our new Profes-sionals Practice Council was approved by the ExCom. Thanks to Sheila Carpenter-van Dijk and the many others who have

worked so hard to expand this outreach to new professionals.

Sheila has also asked me to remind every-one that she is looking for new members who are interested in serving in these areas. This is an outstanding way to get active in the National EWRI organization and to help reach out to serve our members. If you are interested in being part of these efforts, e-mail your interest area, whether it’s technical- or people-related to Sheila at ASCESCV@tampabay.rr.com.

We also are making real strides in achieving my second goal. We have been approached by various entities, and have four new stra-tegic opportunities which will be managed by our Technical Activities ExCom and our technical committees. These include:• Presidential Green Infrastructure

Initiative• Federal Urban Waters Program• EPA Region 6 Municipal Stormwater

Conference• Biosolids Road ShowEPA, both nationally and regionally, has recognized EWRI as an important partner in dealing with infrastructure issues, and we have the opportunity to provide our expertise in areas such as Green Infrastruc-ture, LID, and wastewater engineering. This is opening new opportunities for our members who are involved in municipal and private consulting to get involved. If you have interest in any of these programs, we’ll be talking more about them at the Congress, or you can contact Charles Rowney or I, and we’ll be glad to get you hooked up.

Another example of this focus is our upcoming Municipal Infastructure and Biosolids symposia at the Austin Con-gress. Our Municipal Water Infrastructure Council, working with our Austin Chapter, has come up with a new, one-day sympo-sium for Thursday of the Congress. This Symposium, which will focus specifically on municipal issues, is being offered at a one-day registration rate of $150, with discounts for municipal employees. Simi-larly, our Residuals Management Technical Committee has put together an outstand-

ing workshop on Biosolids and the 503 regulations for Thursday of the Congress. Again, this workshop will focus on munici-pal issues, and will feature speakers from EPA, TCEQ, and the San Antonio and Austin treatment facilities. Again, the $150 registration rate will be available for this workshop. Both these events are outstand-ing opportunities for members who haven’t been to a Congress to come, gain current technical information, and meet other pro-fessionals dealing with the same issues.

During the Council weekend, we also had a “State of the State” discussion. Some interesting facts:• Since 2010, our membership has in-

creased by almost 10,000 members.• Since 2010, we have founded five new

EWRI Student Chapters• Since 2010, we have founded 19 new

EWRI Local Chapters• Since June 2014, when Collaborate

went live on a limited basis, there have been over 2000 log-ins.

These are exciting times as we continue to grow. Thank you to everyone who helps us make EWRI a better organiza-tion. Next letter, we’ll talk about the third strategic goal. I hope you’ll join me in my enthusiasm as we continue to implement the new Strategic Plan, and I look forward to helping renew and grow the Institute as the preeminent group for environmental and water resource engineers.

wwww.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents Volume 17 Number 1 Winter 2015

(continued from pg. 1)

using the CRP. For the 300 mL batch studies, E. coli was reduced by 0.82-log10 over 24-hours, 1.94-log10 reduction within 48 hours, and 3.77-log10 reduction by the 96-hour time point. Enterococci reduction (Figure 2) ranged from a 2.4 to 5.2-log10 reduction from 24 – 96 hours (5). (see graph on page 4)

Non-treated controls exhibited no reduc-tion in bacteria concentration over the initial 2-days of the study and a 1-log reduction by day 3. The final pH for the treated water ranged between pH 6.8 – 7.9. Future research studies will evaluate the toxicity of the oxidants in treated wastewa-ter and impaired water.

References

1. S. Luster-Teasley, U.S. Patent and Trade-mark Office, Patent #8,519061 (Washing-ton, DC, US, 2013).

2. G. P. Anipsitakis, D. D. Dionysiou, Tran-sition metal/UV-based advanced oxidation technologies for water decontamination. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 54, 155 (2004).

3. C. A. Delcomyn, K. E. Bushway, M. V. Henley, Inactivation of Biological Agents Using Neutral Oxone-Chloride Solutions. Environmental Science & Technology 40,

Figure 2. Reduction of bacteria using controlled release polymer in 200 mL and 300 mL of dairy lagoon wastewater.

2759 (2006/04/01, 2006)..

4. M. Teodorescu et al., How Feasible is Packing Oxidants for Their Use in Treat-ment of Contaminated Sites. REVISTA DE CHIMIE 64, 95 (2013).

5. S. Luster-Teasley, C. Jackson, C. Rogers, in Reston, VA: ASCE Proceedings of the 2011 World Environmental and Water Re-sources Congress; May 22. 26, 2011, Palm Springs, California. (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2011).

This article is one of a regular series of reports on emerging and innovative

technologies in the area of environ-ment and water resources produced by EWRI’s Emerging and Innovative

Technologies Committee (EITC). EITC’s mission is to advance the develop-

ment, knowledge, and application of emerging and innovative technologies for the planning and management of

water resources and the protection and enhancement of the environment. If you are interested in contributing an article or becoming a member of this Commit-tee, please contact Walter Grayman at

grayman@fuse.net.

Written for water efficiency professionals

responsible for minimizing water loss in municipal,

industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural

settings. Get your free subscription today by scanning

the QR code

Follow & Tweet us @ ASCE_EWRI

Connect, Engage & Share with your colleagues

through

www.collaborate.ewrinstitute.org

5

FIVE YEARS LATER: A COMPARISON OF FLOW MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES DURING THE 2010 GULF OIL SPILLRobert B. Sowby, Hansen Allen & Luce, Inc., Salt Lake City

On April 20, 2010, BP’s oil rig Deepwa-ter Horizon was drilling a test well in the Gulf of Mexico, about 200 km (120 mi) southeast of New Orleans, when a fatal explosion occurred. Within two days the damaged rig sank and left the unfinished well on the seafloor spewing oil into the gulf. Early attempts to plug the well failed, and oil continued to leak for several months. The spill was capped in July 2010, but the aftermath continues on local and global scales, some five years later. Accord-ing to The New York Times, BP has spent $28 billion on damage claims and cleanup costs since the disaster, and a September 2014 court ruling opened the possibility of another $18 billion in penalties under the Clean Water Act.

During the summer of 2010, many govern-ment agencies, university researchers, and independent scientists were on site to study

the spill. The complicated spill phenom-enon, coupled with a large geographic area and a 1,520 m (5,000 ft) ocean depth, made data collection difficult. Throughout the disaster, one prominent question had the attention of almost every interested party: How much oil is spilling?

As soon as a leak was discovered from the blowout preventer at the ocean floor, initial estimates suggested a flow of 1,000 BPD (barrels per day; 1 barrel = 42 gal = 159 L). Within a few days, reports of up to 5,000 BPD made world headlines. Others sus-pected much more, but no one knew how to accurately measure such a complicated flow since nothing of the sort had been done before. The actual flow rate—later determined to be approximately 60,000 BPD—was an order of magnitude greater than the initial worst estimates.

The U.S. Department of the Interior soon organized a Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG) comprised of scientists, engineers, and oceanographers to investigate the issue. Other groups also made estimates, but the FRTG was the primary authority. Because of the nature of the flow—an unknown mixture of oil and gas in a deep-

Controlled oil-burning fires in the Gulf of Mexico, May 6, 2010 (U.S. Navy)

Figure 1: Oil slick in Gulf of Mexico on May 24, 2010, observed by satellite (NASA)

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents Volume 16 Number 4 Fall 2014

sea environment—no direct measurements were possible. The group employed several methods, some experimental, to estimate flow rates and later refine the numbers. The methods are discussed below.

Mass Balance(McNutt et al. 2011; Labson et al. 2010)

The FRTG’s first approach was to perform a mass balance to quantify inflows, out-flows, sources, sinks, and accumulations. This was pursued with a combination of remote sensing and surface observations.

The team examined a multichannel satellite image to estimate the extent of the total surface oiling on May 17. The image covered an area of about 18,000 km2 (7,000 mi2) in the Gulf with a pixel size of 250 m × 250 m (820 ft × 820 ft). The determination was based on higher signal return from areas with oil sheens, slicks, and floating plumes than from clean ocean areas. The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Coast Guard categorized the oil coverage as “thick” (2%), “dull” (10%), or “sheen” (88 %).

To refine the estimates of “thick” oil volume, the team used NASA’s Airborne Visible InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to calculate the amount of oil on the surface. AVIRIS produced images with 8.5 m × 8.5 m (28 ft × 28 ft) pixels; laboratory measurements of “thick” oil collected earlier were used to develop an algorithm to convert AVIRIS signals into oil volume per pixel. Thicknesses for this category varied over several orders of magnitude, depending on the oil-water ratio, leading to considerable uncertainty in the figures. For the “dull” and “sheen” areas, scientists applied an ASTM standard method for estimating oil thickness based on color. Combining all three categories, the team reported a minimum of 129,000 to 246,000 barrels of oil visible in the time and area described.

With estimates of the snapshot volume on May 17, the scientists proceeded with the mass balance. The Coast Guard and NOAA, which had been making other measurements since the beginning of the spill, provided information about the amount of oil evaporated, dissolved, skimmed, or burned up to that date. These were added to the previous estimates to

give a total volume. The total volume was divided by the 22 days since the spill began to give an average daily flow rate of 13,000 to 22,000 BPD.

However, the team recognized that since this was a surface-based method, the estimate missed a potentially large amount beneath the surface (whether it returned to the subsurface or never reached the surface) and amounts accumulated in tar balls. In this approach, the FRTG was only able to examine one side of the mass bal-ance control volume; the majority of the control volume—anything being produced or accumulated under the surface—was essentially a black box.

Acoustic Analysis(McNutt et al. 2011; Read 2011; Camilli 2010)

The second method employed by the FRTG was to examine the oil plume itself with Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) technology. While primarily used to quantify flows in rivers, streams, and canals, ADCPs can also measure a velocity profile in a column of water. Since a high-frequency acoustic signal sent upstream travels slower than a signal sent down-stream, the average flow velocity can be calculated from the transit times of signals sent in both directions. By measuring the Doppler shift returned by moving particles in the flow, velocity can be combined with geometry to produce an accurate flow measurement.

The FRTG, along with scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-tion, equipped a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) with an ACDP and sent the ROV

to the ocean floor on May 31 to get mea-surements.

Using traditional sonar (a separate instru-ment from the ADCP, but on the same ROV), over 1,000 plume cross-sections were recorded above each of the two leak locations. This gave average cross-sectional areas of 0.87 m2 (9.4 ft2) and 0.61 m2

(6.6 ft2) over the main leak and blowout preventer, respectively. With the cross-sectional areas known, the acoustic analysis could proceed.

As shown in Figure 3, the ADCP recorded thousands of pings at preset distances from three locations. The intersection of the acoustic beams allowed scientists to generate a representative velocity field for the plume.

Considerable uncertainty about the physi-cal composition of the plume prevented the team from publishing an estimate im-mediately. On June 21 the team returned to collect a plume sample with the purpose of determining the proportions of oil and gas in the flow. The earlier installation of the so-called “Top Hat #4,” an enclosure over the wellhead, enabled the ROV to collect a small sample of plume material before it escaped and mixed with the ocean environ-ment. Analysis of the uncontaminated sample indicated a mixture of 57.2% gas and 42.8% liquid hydrocarbons. With an accurate composition, the team reported a flow of 60,000 BPD. This turned out to be the most accurate estimate.

Figure 2: Acoustic Doppler current profiler mounted on remotely operated vehicle

(Camilli 2010)

Figure 3: Reconstruction of 42,000 velocity field measurements recorded at riser leak site. Each dot represents the location of a Doppler ping ensemble, with the dot color describing the estimated velocity in m/s.

The black circles indicate the location of the ADCP instrument. (Camilli 2010)

7

Video Analysis(Plume Calculation Team 2010; McNutt et al. 2011; Read 2011)

With the availability of underwater video from the ROVs, the scientists were able to visually analyze the plume and estimate flow rates. The technology is called Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and is well estab-lished for applications of fluid dynamics. In PIV an identifiable feature, such as a particle or eddy, is observed in two con-secutive frames; the velocity is computed by measuring the distance traveled over that time interval, after correcting for view angle and other factors (Figure 4). The process is repeated at multiple points until a representative velocity field is defined.

The process is simple in principle, but difficult to execute in reality. Such observa-tions are only possible at the exterior of the plume, and assumptions about internal flows must be made. The volumetric flow rate is also sensitive to the gas-oil ratio, since the plume composition is very different from actual oil volumes at the surface. In a 10-day period, the gas-oil ratio fluctuated between 22% and 56%. The cross-sectional area of the plume is also transient and must be calculated for each instantaneous observation.

With PIV analysis applied to video foot-age from the main leak and the blowout preventer (Figures 4 and 5, respectively), the FRTG estimated a flow rate of 35,000 to 50,000 BPD in early June 2010.

Reservoir and Well Modeling(Guthrie et al. 2010; Hsieh 2010; McNutt et al. 2011)

The FRTG derived other estimates from computer models (MODFLOW and oth-ers) of the hydrocarbon reservoir beneath the seafloor and the well fluid mechanics. Model parameters included temperature,

volume, pressure, and geologic and fluid data from drilled cores. The estimates cover a wide range due to uncertainty in the data and methods. Enlisting the help of scientists at five Department of Energy laboratories, the reservoir team reported 27,000–102,000 BPD and the well team reported 30,000–118,000 BPD. The esti-mates are meant to represent conditions immediately after the explosion. After the well was shut off and an accurate flow rate was available, researchers worked to improve and calibrate the models.

Gas-Oil Ratio Correlation(McNutt et al. 2011)

After Top Hat #4 was in place over the wellhead, BP was able to route the discharge to a surface vessel, where gas and oil were separated and measured. This produced good data about the gas-oil ratio over time. Comparing this ratio to the ratio obtained from a seafloor sample provided another method for estimating flow. With the correlation applied, the FRTG reported a flow rate of 48,000–66,000 BPD in July 2010.

Pressure Measurements(McNutt et al. 2011)

In its final report, the FRTG pointed to studies by the Department of Energy. While not part of the FRTG’s original investigations, the Department’s measure-ments provided conclusive and very ac-curate estimates of the oil flow rate. As the well was ultimately capped on July 12, three Department of Energy teams used pres-sure instruments to record the pressure difference after the valve was closed. The pressure difference enabled the teams to Figure 4: Illustration of video analysis method for main leak (Plume Calculation Team 2010)

Figure 5: Imagery of oil leak at blowout preventer used for video analysis (Plume Calculation Team 2010)

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents Volume 16 Number 4 Fall 2014

calculate the most precise estimate of the flow to date. The teams then used other calibrated well and reservoir data from the U.S. Geological Survey to backcalculate the flow at the beginning of the spill. The initial flow was estimated at 62,000 BPD, and decreased over the duration of the spill to 53,000 BPD just before capping. By integration, the FRTG reported that a total volume of 4.9 million barrels of oil was spilled.

Conclusions

The development of the several flow rate estimates is summarized in Figure 6. The best method for estimating the flow during the spill was the acoustic analysis. Notice that it predicted the actual flow rate very accurately, and with better precision than other methods. It was also the most data-intensive and comprehensive approach, requiring ADCP and sonar technology as well physical plume samples. The mass balance underestimated the flow rate since only one side of the control volume was observable; oceanographers later dis-covered massive underwater oil plumes that never reached the surface and large amounts of oil that dissolved in the ocean. However, the mass balance was more use-ful for assessing shoreline impacts since it was an inherently surface-based approach. The PIV analysis, while elaborate, also

underestimated the flow. The actual flow was within in the range of the computer models, though this method was the most uncertain. The gas-oil ratio correlation, though covering a wide range, also proved to be relatively accurate.

The 2010 Gulf Spill was a disaster of unprecedented scale, and one would hope that something like it does not happen again. Moving forward, however, we can recognize that the event was an opportuni-ty to further the science of flow measure-

Figure 6: Development of flow rate estimates (McNutt et al. 2011)

ment in extreme environments and extend existing techniques to new applications.

References

Camilli, Richard. 2010. Final Oil Spill Flow Rate Report and Characterization Analy-sis, Deepwater Horizon Well, Mississippi Canyon Block 252. Woods Hole Oceano-graphic Institution report to the U.S. Coast Guard, Aug. 10.

McNutt, Marcia, Richard Camilli, George Guthrie, Paul Hsieh, Victor Labson, Bill Lehr, Don Maclay, Art Ratzel, and Mark Sogge. 2011. Assessment of Flow Rate Estimates for the Deepwater Horizon / Macondo Well Oil Spill. National Incident Command, Interagency Solutions Group, Flow Rate Technical Group, Mar. 10. U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

Guthrie, George, Rajesh Pawar, Curt Old-

enburg, Todd Weisgraber, Grant Bromhal, and Phil Gauglitz. 2010. Nodal Analysis Estimates of Fluid Flow from the BP Macondo MC252 Well. Nodal Team report to the Flow Rate Technical Group.

Hsieh, Paul. 2010. Computer Simulation of Reservoir Depletion and Oil Flow from the Macondo Well Following the Deep-water Horizon Blowout. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1266. Reston, Va.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Labson, Victor F., Roger N. Clark, Gregg A. Swayze, Todd M. Hoefen, Raymond Kokaly, K. Eric Livo, Michael H. Pow-ers, Geoffrey S. Plumlee, and Gregory P. Meeker. 2010. Estimated Minimum Dis-charge Rates of the Deepwater Horizon Spill—Interim Report to the Flow Rate Technical Group from the Mass Balance Team. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1132. Reston, Va.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Plume Calculation Team. 2010. Deepwa-ter Horizon Release, Estimate of Rate by PIV. Plume Team report to the Flow Rate Technical Group, July 21.

Read, Collin. 2011. BP and the Macondo Spill: The Complete Story. Palgrave Mac-millan.

Robertson, Campbell , and Clifford Krauss. 2014. “BP May Be Fined Up to $18 Billion for Spill in Gulf.” New York Times, Sept. 4.

Rudolf, John. 2010. “BP Oil Spill Flow Rate Vastly Understated For Weeks, Emails Show.” Huffington Post, Dec. 8.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 2012. “Ocean Instruments: Acoustic Dop-pler Current Profiler (ADCP).” Oct. 23. http://www.whoi.edu/instruments/vie-wInstrument.do?id=819.

9

TOLEDO, Jan. 16, 2015 – Agriculture Deputy Secretary Krysta Harden today announced $17.5 million in Federal fund-ing for a tri-state project to help protect water quality in the western basin of Lake Erie. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown joined local NRCS staff and project partners for the announcement.

“This project demonstrates what RCPP is all about; it’s about putting partners in the driver’s seat and helping them achieve their natural resource goals. The diverse partner-ship that crafted this proposal and pledged their financial and technical resources to leverage Federal funds shows their strong commitment to improving Lake Erie water quality for the 11 million residents that rely on it for drinking water,” Deputy Secretary Harden said.

This multi-state RCPP project includes more than 40 collaborating public and

private sector organizations with represen-tation from Michigan, Indiana and Ohio state and local governments, as well as non-profit entities, universities and private sector businesses. These organizations have committed resources to leverage $17.5 million in federal funds for the re-duction of phosphorus and sediment load-ing, and harmful algal blooms in western Lake Erie.

Project partners will use NRCS conserva-tion practices and innovative demonstra-tion practices that farmers can implement with Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Agricultural Con-servation Easement Program (ACEP) funds to protect soil health, water quality and quantity, and prevent fish and wildlife habitat degradation.

The targeted approach focuses efforts on 855,000 acres, bringing access to public and private technical assistance, new and on-going innovative conservation practices and expertise for modeling and evaluating

AGRICULTURE DEPUTY SECRETARY ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN GREAT LAKES REGIONPartners More than Double Financial Impact, New Era for Conservation efforts through Farm Bill Program

Source: United States Department of Agriculture News Release

outcomes to farmers in these sub-water-sheds.

On Wednesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that this project, along with more than 100 other high-impact projects across all 50 states, will receive more than $370 million in Federal funding as part of the new USDA Regional Con-servation Partnership Program (RCPP). In turn, these projects will leverage an estimated $400 million in additional part-ner contributions to improve the nation’s water quality, support wildlife habitat and enhance the environment.

More than 600 pre-proposals were submit-ted for RCPP in 2014. The next announce-ment of program funding for fiscal year 2016 will be made later in the year.Today’s announcement was made possible by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for taxpayers. Since enactment, USDA has made significant progress to implement each provision of this critical legislation, including provid-ing disaster relief to farmers and ranch-ers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Of-fice of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).

USDA is investing funds to help improve the water quality of Lake Erie. USDA Photo by Garth Clark. Image Source: Creative Commons Licensed Flickr photo by USDAgov

wwww.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents Volume 17 Number 1 Winter 2015

EWRI HOSTS SEMINAR ON LONG TERM PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN PHILADELPHIAThomas Batroney

Stephen WhiteIn order to mitigate combined sewer overflows, cities throughout the nation are making significant financial investments to the implementation of green infrastructure as a viable solution. Some notable cities include: Syracuse ($78 million), Buffalo ($93 million), Cleveland ($42 million), St. Louis ($100 million), Kansas City ($109 million), Milwaukee ($1.3 billion projected total cost), New York City ($1.56 billion in 2010 dollars) and Philadelphia ($1.67 billion project total cost). The investments from the latter cities (Milwaukee, New York, and Philadelphia) are not a typo - cit-ies are planning to invest billions on green infrastructure. The City of Philadelphia made headlines in 2011 when the Phila-delphia Water Department unveiled their green infrastructure combined sewer over-flow plan, “Green City, Clean Waters.” At the time, Philadelphia’s plan was the largest financial commitment ever in United States history to green infrastructure implementa-tion as part of an EPA approved long-term combined sewer overflow solution. Milwaukee soon followed thereafter in 2013 with their plan. New York City was next planning to spend $1.56 billion of public funds on green infrastructure. The nature (no pun intended) in which cities are investing their capital on the combined sewer overflow issue is clearly headed in a green direction.

With such large investments being made in green infrastructure, monitoring long-term performance of constructed sites has become critical to protect the financial investments and ensure proper operation and lifespan of the facilities. To varying degrees, each of the cities above are setting aside some of the committed dollars for monitoring the local performance of green infrastructure sites.

On September 4, 2014 the Pittsburgh Chapter of the Environmental and Water Resources Institute hosted a lunch-time seminar with Stephen White, EIT A.M.ASCE from the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) to give a presenta-tion on the department’s long term green infrastructure performance monitoring

program and the results to date. A key component of Philadelphia’s “Green City, Clean Waters” plan is to collect long-term performance monitoring data that would help PWD understand and characterize the functionality of the green infrastruc-ture over time. Monitoring activities have helped PWD determine design and geo-technical investigation changes for future green infrastructure projects, and insights for coordinating maintenance activities.

Some highlights from Mr. White’s presen-tation included:

• Since 2011, PWD has constructed 337 green infrastructure facilities throughout the city (does not include private development). Out of the 337, approximately 154 of the sites are stormwater tree trenches. The remain-ing sites are a mixture of swales, rain gardens, pervious pavements, and infiltration trenches. A rendering pro-vided by PWD of a typical stormwa-ter tree trench is shown in Figure 1.

• Out of the 337 installations, PWD is monitoring approximately 50 sites for long term performance. Monitoring equipment consists of water level/temperature pressure transducers within the storage basins of each facil-ity. The water level within each site is

Figure 1 Typical Stormwater Tree Trench (http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/gsdm)

continually monitored on 5 minute in-crements to measure infiltration rates and volume capture. At the time of the presentation, only water quantity is being monitored by PWD (no water quality monitoring). A typical water level and temperature monitoring sensor installed at many PWD sites is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Typical Water Level Sensor (Courtesy of PWD)

• Data from seven stormwater tree trench sites were presented. Long term data from three of trenches indicate a distinct seasonal fluctuation in hydraulic conductivity with values ranging from 0.1 in/hr to 2.5 in/hr depending on the site and season. An example of the seasonal variation of the hydraulic conductivity from one

11

of the presented trenches is shown in Figure 3.

• Data from one pervious pavement installation was presented. Data indicates a decrease in infiltration rates of the pervious surface. However, the decreased infiltration rate is equal to 50 in/hr, far exceeding design storm rainfall intensities.

• Groundwater impacts of GSI are also of interest to PWD. PWD is currently monitoring groundwater levels in and around several green infrastructure installations to better understand the impacts of green infrastructure on the local groundwater hydrology.

Following the presentation there was a lively question and answer session with the audience. The event was attended by a diverse group of professional backgrounds such as: consulting engineers, watershed organizations, community planners, landscape architects, academia, and local government agency/sewer authority repre-sentatives. EWRI Pittsburgh will continue to bring the latest updates on green infra-structure findings throughout the nation as part of future events

Figure 3 Observed Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) and Temperature over time (PWD)

CALIFORNIA’S SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACTEWRI Sustainability Committee

On September 16, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package, composed of AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively known as the Sustain-able Groundwater Management Act. The Governor’s signing message states “a central feature of these bills is the recognition that groundwater management in California is best accomplished locally.” This new legislation defines sustainable groundwater management as the “management and use of groundwater in a man-ner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.” “Undesirable results” are defined in the legislation as any of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin:

• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply; • Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwa-ter storage;

• Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion; • Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality; • Significant and unreasonable land subsidence; and

• Surface water depletions that have signifi-cant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water. The legislation requires high- and medium-priority basins subject to critical condi-tions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan by January 31, 2020, and requires all other groundwa-ter basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan by January 31, 2022. The legislation authorizes formation of local groundwater sustain-

ability agencies with the authority to imple-ment specified actions to achieve sustainable

management of groundwater.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act accomplishes a num-ber of goals described in the California Water Action Plan, a five year plan to sustainably manage California’s water resources.

Governor Brown signs historic groundwater legislation. Photo Credit: Justin Short, Office of the Governor.

1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston, VA 20191-4400

Editor: John Weiland (636) 399-2588jweiland@wadetrim.com

NEWS CORRESPONDENTSIrrigation and Drainage CouncilRobert Evansrobert_evans@ncsu.edu

Watershed CouncilJeff RiekerJRieker@usbr.gov

Hydraulics & Waterways CouncilKit Ngkyng@bechtel.com

Sustainability Task CommitteeRick Johnsonrick.johnson@seattle.gov

WR Planning & ManagementTim Feather feathertd@cdmsmith.com

Meetings to Watch For...

World Environmental & Water Resources Congress 2015 May 17-21, 2015 Austin, Texas

Watershed Management Conference 2015 August 5-7, 2015

8th International Perspective on Water Resources & the Environment January 4-6, 2016 Colombo, Sri Lanka

Do you know someone who is not receiving their quarterly issue of Currents, the EWRI Newsletter? If so, please send an email to ewri@asce.org with the member’s mailing and email address. Feel free to invite them to visit www.asce.org/myprofile (or call 800-548-2723) to verify and/or update their contact information today!

Environmental CouncilWendy Cohenwcohen@dcn.davis.ca.us

Standards Development CouncilJeroen Olthofjolthof@wsc-inc.com

Urban Water Resources Research CouncilShirley Clarkseclark@psu.edu.

Urban Stormwater CommitteeChristine Pomeroychristine.pomeroy@utah.edu

Emerging & Innovative Technology Council Sean McKenna, Ph.D. seanmcke@ie.ibm.com

EWRI Currents is written and published by the EWRI Communications Council, part of Membership Services. For membership opportunities, contact John Weiland at jweiland@wadetrim.com