<%BANNER%>

Developing Methodologies to Evaluate Decentralized Stormwater Best Management Practices in Gainesville, Florida

HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Best management practices in today’s...
 Cyberinfrastructure for centralizing...
 Site simulation and best management...
 Site simulation and best management...
 Site simulation and best management...
 Summary and conclusions
 Appendices
 References
 Biographical sketch
 

PAGE 1

METHODOLOGIES TO EVALUATE DECENTRALIZED STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN GAINESVILLE, FL By RUBEN ALEXANDER KERTESZ A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Ruben Kertesz

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to all those who helped foster my interest in the beyond all around us. I would especially like to thank my parents for encouraging me to try new thingsand to never stop trying.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee me mbers for providing a positive learning environment and guiding my research. I woul d specifically like to recognize Dr. James Heaney (principal investigator), Dr. Mark Clark, Dr. Angela Lindner, and Dr. John Sansalone.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................xvii i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN TODAYS URBAN ENVIRONMENT...4 Literature Review: Low Impact Development Practices Used for Urban Stormwater Management..........................................................................................4 Low Impact Development I nventory of an Urban Watershed in Gainesville, Florida.....................................................................................................................10 Redeveloped/Redeve loping Properties................................................................13 Heritage Oaks...............................................................................................13 Campus View I, II, III, & North...................................................................21 Oxford Terrace.............................................................................................25 Delta Zeta sorority house.............................................................................34 Estates at sorority row..................................................................................38 Visions..........................................................................................................40 Royale Palm apartments...............................................................................42 Windsor Hall................................................................................................44 Taylor Square apartments.............................................................................48 Stratford Court apartments...........................................................................55 Alligator Crossing........................................................................................57 Woodbury Row............................................................................................62 West University Avenue Lofts.....................................................................67 Opportunity Sites.................................................................................................71 Shands Alachua General Hospital................................................................71 South parking lot, Shands AGH...................................................................74 East Shands parking lot................................................................................77 909 SW 5th Avenue......................................................................................78 Ayers complex..............................................................................................79

PAGE 6

vi Ayers parking lot..........................................................................................82 809 SW 9th St. parking lot............................................................................83 1122 SW 3rd Ave.........................................................................................83 SW 10th St. and SW 1st & SW 2nd Avenues.................................................84 SW 1st Ave house.........................................................................................85 923 SW 1st Ave............................................................................................85 926 SW 2nd Avenue......................................................................................86 104 SW 8th St..............................................................................................89 2nd Ave & 7th St parking lot..........................................................................90 112 SW 6th St..............................................................................................91 117 SW 7th St..............................................................................................92 20 SW 8th St................................................................................................93 810 SW 1st Ave............................................................................................94 Cone property...............................................................................................96 1206 W University Ave................................................................................97 Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................98 3 CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FO R CENTRALIZING AND MINING CONTENT................................................................................................................110 Introduction...............................................................................................................110 Computation Services...............................................................................................112 Information Management.........................................................................................112 Collaboration Services..............................................................................................113 Centralized File Manage ment and Communications........................................114 Centralized File Management and Computational Analyses............................115 Ontological Development.........................................................................................116 Currently Available Cyberinf rastructure Institutions...............................................121 Content Management and Collaborative Authoring Environment Experiment.......121 Conclusions...............................................................................................................123 4 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED...................................126 Introduction...............................................................................................................126 Low Impact Development Center BMP Planning and Evaluation Process..............126 Goals..................................................................................................................127 Site Characteristics............................................................................................127 Evaluate Candidate Practices............................................................................128 Determine Cost Effectiveness...........................................................................128 Case Study 1: Larger Scale Lake Alice Watershed..................................................129 Introduction.......................................................................................................129 Goals..................................................................................................................129 Characterize Site................................................................................................134 Geography..................................................................................................134 Land cover..................................................................................................137 Soils............................................................................................................140

PAGE 7

vii Hotspots......................................................................................................142 Evaluate Candidate Processes...........................................................................143 Conclusions...............................................................................................................143 5 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE EAST CREEK WATERSHED..................................145 Introduction...............................................................................................................145 Goals.........................................................................................................................1 45 Characterize Site.......................................................................................................146 Evaluate Candidate Processes...................................................................................149 Capabilities........................................................................................................150 Input Attributes..................................................................................................151 Rain gauge..................................................................................................155 Subcatchments............................................................................................155 Connectivity...............................................................................................170 East Creek Watershed Drainage Network.........................................................176 Runoff Analysis.................................................................................................178 Observed rainfall-runoff relationship.........................................................179 Calculated rainfall-runoff relationship.......................................................183 Calculated vs. observe d results comparison...............................................184 Conclusions...............................................................................................................185 6 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE LA-2B WATERSHED...............................................188 Introduction...............................................................................................................188 Goals.........................................................................................................................1 89 Characterize Site.......................................................................................................189 Evaluate Candidate Processes...................................................................................190 Single Event Simulation....................................................................................191 Methodology..............................................................................................191 Results........................................................................................................197 Discussion..................................................................................................204 Annual Simulation.............................................................................................207 Methodology..............................................................................................207 Results........................................................................................................209 Discussion..................................................................................................210 Conclusions...............................................................................................................211 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................214 APPENDIX A REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LAKE ALICE...............................................218 Clean Water Act.......................................................................................................218 Florida Statute 373............................................................................................219

PAGE 8

viii Florida Statute 403............................................................................................220 Florida Administrative Code 62-3.....................................................................220 Florida Administrative Code 62-25...................................................................220 Florida Administrative Code 62-520.................................................................221 Florida Administrative Code 62-522.................................................................222 Florida Administrative Code 62-40...................................................................222 B PROGRAMMATIC CODE......................................................................................224 CODE 1....................................................................................................................224 CODE 2....................................................................................................................253 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................255 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................262

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Urban Runoff Management Objectives Checklist.....................................................6 2-2 Structural Stormwater C ontrols and Associated Funda mental Process Categories...7 2-3 Summary of Groups of Pollutants and Relevant BMPs Listed Based on Fundamental Process Categories................................................................................9 2-4 Proprietary BMPs in Curre nt Use by Treatment Type.............................................10 2-5 Oxford Terrace Drainage Area Characteristics........................................................27 2-6 Oxford TerraceCalculation of Post Development CN Values.............................28 2-7 Mean Annual Storm Event (MASE) Rainfall Distribution......................................30 2-8 Oxford TerraceParameters Used to Create a Runoff Hydrograph.......................30 2-9 Oxford TerraceSoil Characteristics Used for Storm Event Simulation...............31 2-10 Oxford TerraceStormwater Management Facility (SMF) Dimensions Used for Storm Event Simulation...........................................................................................31 2-11 Oxford TerraceSDII Soil Testing Infiltration Results..........................................31 2-12 Oxford TerraceWater Quality Treatment Volume Recovery...............................34 2-13 Taylor SquareStormwater Site Conditions Pre/Post Development......................51 2-14 Taylor Square Infiltration Trench Volume Calculations..........................................53 2-15 Onsite Controls Used on Redeveloped Sites in the Universi ty Heights District...100 2-16 Onsite Controls Used on Non-Redeve loped Sites in the University Heights District....................................................................................................................101 2-17 Land Use Information Provided in Alachua County Tax Assessors Database.....103 2-18 Parcel Information for Redevelopm ent Sites in University Heights......................105

PAGE 10

x 5-1 Data Input File for SWMM Run of ECW..............................................................154 5-2 11/9/1990 Precipitation in ECW............................................................................155 5-3 Areas of ECW Subcatchments...............................................................................157 5-4 Estimated Subcatchment Widths............................................................................157 5-5 Subcatchment Percent Slope..................................................................................158 5-6 Impervious Area per Subcatchment.......................................................................159 5-7 Mannings n Values for Im pervious Area Categories............................................159 5-8 Mannings n Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment....................................162 5-9 Mannings n Values for Pervious Area Categories................................................162 5-10 Mannings n Values for Grasses............................................................................163 5-11 Mannings n Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment....................................164 5-12 Ranges of Typical Depression Storage..................................................................165 5-13 Dstore Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment..............................................165 5-14 Curve Numbers for Soil Types a nd Land Uses Commonly Found on Campus....166 5-15 Curve Numbers for East Creek Watershed Subcatchments...................................167 5-16 Land Use Type Percent Breakdown per Subcatchment.........................................169 5-17 Drainage Structure Specifica tions as Determined by CH2MHill..........................173 5-18 Stage-Storage-Discharge for Major Dr ainage Facilities in the East Creek Watershed...............................................................................................................174 5-19 Newell Drive Box Culvert Stage vs Storage vs Discharge....................................175 5-20 Catchment-wide Rainfa ll vs Runoff Comparison..................................................181 6-1 GIS Geodatabase Feature Layer Layout................................................................192 6-2 Run Conditions.......................................................................................................197 6-3 Geodatabase Information for 390 Parcel Simulation.............................................197 6-4 Geodatabase Information for 8-Parcel Simulation.................................................198 6-5 Geodatabase Information for 1 Parcel Simulation.................................................198

PAGE 11

xi 6-6 Rainfall-Runoff & Percent Onsite Control vs Aggregation Level.........................202 6-7 Percent Onsite Control Values for Each Subcatchment in 8 Parcel Simulation....202 6-8 Detailed Geodatabase Information for Site Owner2..............................................203 6-9 SWMM Simulation Runoff for Functional Units for Site Owner2........................204 6-10 Annual Simulation BMP Comparison Matrix........................................................208 6-11 BMP Performance Matrix Output from Annual SWMM Simulation....................209 6-12 Annual Evaluation of Bioretention Perf ormance with Varying Contributing Area ............................................................................................................................... .210

PAGE 12

xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Three Scales Studied in Lake Alice Watershed.........................................................3 2-1 Map of Tumblin Creek Waters hed and University Heights.....................................11 2-2 Selected Redevelopment Projects In or Near the Tumblin Creek Watershed..........12 2-3 Heritage Oaks View From East................................................................................14 2-4 Heritage Oaks Refurbished Building, Facing West.................................................15 2-5 Heritage Oaks Bioretention Area.............................................................................15 2-6 Heritage Oaks Pervious Parking Lot........................................................................16 2-7 Heritage Oaks Roof Draining to Pe rvious Parking via No-Mortar Patio.................16 2-8 Heritage OaksNew Building Downspout.............................................................17 2-9 Heritage Oaks Infiltration Pits..................................................................................18 2-10 Heritage Oaks Cul-de-sac.........................................................................................20 2-11 Campus View IPre Redevelopment.....................................................................21 2-12 Campus View IRedeveloped Site Map................................................................22 2-13 Campus View I and II (Under Development)..........................................................23 2-14 Campus View II (Under Development)...................................................................23 2-15 Oxford TerraceGIS Representation of Pre-redevelopment Lot...........................26 2-16 Oxford Terrace After Redevelopment......................................................................27 2-17 Oxford Terrace Auger Map / SDII Land Use Characteristics..................................28 2-18 Delta Zeta Sorority House Landscaped Area...........................................................36 2-19 Delta Zeta Sorority House Sidewalk........................................................................36

PAGE 13

xiii 2-20 Delta Zeta Sorority House Rain Garden..................................................................37 2-21 Delta Zeta Sorority House Parking Lot Drain..........................................................37 2-22 Estates at Sorority RowCurrent Building.............................................................39 2-23 Estates at Sorority Row Current Building Parking Lot.........................................40 2-24 VisionsDisconnected R oof and Dirt Alleyway....................................................41 2-25 VisionsChannelization of the Parking Lot...........................................................41 2-26 Royale Palm Apartments Onstreet Parking..............................................................42 2-27 Royale Palm ApartmentsRoof Drain Entering Planter.........................................43 2-28 Royale Palm ApartmentsVegetative Site Cover..................................................43 2-29 Windsor HallDCIA Rooftop Drain......................................................................45 2-30 Windsor HallRain Garden....................................................................................45 2-31 Windsor HallFlow Distribution Pipe....................................................................46 2-32 Windsor Hall Parking Lot........................................................................................48 2-33 Taylor Square Courtyard with Oak Tree..................................................................49 2-34 Taylor Square Asphalt Driveway with Infiltration Pit Beneath...............................50 2-35 Taylor Square Drainage Area and Infiltration Trenches..........................................52 2-36 Taylor Square Construction Debris and Sediment Washoff....................................54 2-37 Stratford Court Apartments Sidewalk and Grass Strip............................................56 2-38 Stratford Court Apartments Streetside Parking........................................................56 2-39 Alligator CrossingPreexisting Site Conditions....................................................57 2-40 Alligator CrossingNew Addition.........................................................................58 2-41 Alligator CrossingGra ss Strip and Sidewalk........................................................59 2-42 Alligator CrossingBackyard.................................................................................60 2-43 Alligator CrossingForested Strip..........................................................................60 2-44 Alligator CrossingSouthern Side of Grass Swale................................................61

PAGE 14

xiv 2-45 Woodbury RowPreexisting Site Condition..........................................................62 2-46 Woodbury RowPreexisting Garage......................................................................63 2-47 Woodbury RowLandscaped Sidewalk Strips.......................................................64 2-48 Woodbury RowRetention Pond...........................................................................64 2-49 Woodbury RowBike Rack and Retention Pond...................................................65 2-50 Woodbury RowParking lot and Tree Island.........................................................67 2-51 West University Ave. Lofts Build ing Faade as photographed on 10/25/2005.......68 2-52 West University Ave. Lofts Building Plan...............................................................69 2-53 West University Ave. Lofts Stormwater Drainage Network................................70 2-54 Shands AGH Parking Lot Catchbasin......................................................................72 2-55 Shands AGH Curbed Landscape Area.....................................................................72 2-56 Shands AGH Sidewalk and Vegetation Strips.........................................................73 2-57 Shands AGH South Parking LotLooking West....................................................74 2-58 Shands AGH South Parking LotDraining to Tumblin Creek...............................75 2-59 Drainage to South Sha nds Parking Lot and 909 SW 5th Ave. House........................75 2-60 Shands AGH South Parking LotSoutheast...........................................................76 2-61 Shands AGH South Parking LotChildrens Play Center......................................76 2-62 Shands East Parking Lot..........................................................................................77 2-63 Shands East Parking Lot BMP.................................................................................78 2-64 909 SW 5th AveFront Lot.....................................................................................79 2-65 Ayers ComplexStormwater Conduit....................................................................80 2-66 Ayers ComplexLandscaping................................................................................80 2-67 Ayers ComplexParking Lot..................................................................................81 2-68 Ayers ComplexDepression Area..........................................................................81 2-69 Ayers Parking LotTree Island..............................................................................82

PAGE 15

xv 2-70 Ayers Parking LotInfiltration Swale....................................................................82 2-71 Parking Lot East of the Estates................................................................................83 2-72 1122 SW 3rd AveHouse and Perimeter Vegetation..............................................84 2-73 SW 10th St. & SW 1st/2nd AveParking Lot...........................................................84 2-74 SW 1st Ave HouseDriveway................................................................................85 2-75 SW 1st Ave HouseLawn.......................................................................................85 2-76 1st Ave HouseForested Landscape.......................................................................86 2-77 Second Avenue HouseBuilding...........................................................................87 2-78 SW 2nd Avenue HouseShallow Gulch..................................................................88 2-79 SW 2nd Avenue HousePervious Paving...............................................................88 2-80 SW 2nd Avenue HouseRain Garden / Retention Pond.........................................89 2-81 104 SW 8th StHouse and Shed.............................................................................89 2-82 104 SW 8th Stst Ave. Streetscape........................................................................90 2-83 SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lot.....................................................................90 2-84 SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lotdepression................................................91 2-85 112 SW 6th St.Office Space..................................................................................91 2-86 112 SW 6th St.Swale.............................................................................................92 2-87 117 SW 7th St...........................................................................................................93 2-88 20 SW 8th St.Unpaved Parking.............................................................................93 2-89 20 SW 8th St.On-site Ponding..............................................................................94 2-90 810 SW 1st Ave........................................................................................................94 2-91 810 SW 1st AveDriveway.....................................................................................95 2-92 Cone PropertyParking Lot....................................................................................96 2-93 Cone PropertyWest Side......................................................................................96 2-94 Cone PropertyTree Island.....................................................................................97

PAGE 16

xvi 2-95 Cone PropertyUniversity Ave..............................................................................97 2-96 1206 W University Ave.Gas Station....................................................................98 3-1 Integrated Cyberinfrastructure Services to Enable New Knowledge Environments for Research and Education............................................................111 3-2 Ontology of an Investigative Experiment..............................................................118 3-3 Hierarchic Divisi on of Hydrologic Units...............................................................119 3-4 Basic Ontology of Research Project.......................................................................120 4-1 5-step Prototype LID Planning Process.................................................................127 4-2 Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975....................................................135 4-3 Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 2001....................................................135 4-4 Comparison of Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975 and 2001............136 4-5 Lake Alice, Tumblin Creek, a nd Sweetwater Branch Watersheds........................137 4-6 Land Use In and Around the LAW........................................................................138 4-7 Density in the LAW...............................................................................................139 4-8 Rainfall-Runoff Relationship fo r HC01 Presented in Korhnak.............................140 4-9 Soil Drainage Classification...................................................................................141 4-10 Soil Type Classification.........................................................................................141 4-11 Stream Incision in East Cr eek, University of Florida............................................142 4-12 East Creek Watershed Highlighted within Lake Alice Watershed........................143 5-1 East Creek Watershed Study Area.........................................................................147 5-2 Each Creek Watershed Subcatchment Names........................................................147 5-3 Topography of East Creek Watershed...................................................................148 5-4 2000 Delineation of the East Creek Branch...........................................................149 5-5 SWMM Schema tic of ECW...................................................................................152 5-6 General Attribute Layout.......................................................................................153 5-7 Yulee Pit in LA-3...................................................................................................156

PAGE 17

xvii 5-8 Steep Slopes of LA-4 along Newell Drive.............................................................158 5-9 University Auditorium in LA-2..............................................................................160 5-10 An Example of the Layout of Walkways in LA -3................................................161 5-11 An Example of Open Space in LA-2.....................................................................164 5-12 Soil Type Classification.........................................................................................167 5-13 Land Use Characterization Map in Subcatchent LA-4..........................................169 5-14 Land Use in LA..................................................................................................170 5-15 Curb and Gutter Draining to East Creek in LA -4.................................................171 5-16 Newell Drive Box Culvert Stage vs Discharge Curve...........................................175 5-17 Newell Drive Box Culvert......................................................................................178 5-18 Map of Korhnak research area...............................................................................179 5-19 Catchment-wide Rainfa ll vs Runoff Relationship.................................................182 5-20 Storm Event Used to Calibrate SWMM Results....................................................183 5-21 Volumetric Runoff Comparis on (calculated vs observed).....................................184 6-1 LA-2b Study Site in Context of Larger ECW........................................................190 6-2 GIS2SWMM Interface...........................................................................................192 6-3 Visual Representation of UF Study Area in GIS with High Detail Inset...............193 6-4 UF GIS2SWMM Tool Conn ecting ArcGIS to SWMM.........................................195 6-5 Rainfall Pattern for Detailed Rainfall-Runoff Analysis.........................................196 6-6 GIS Representation of Functional El ements for 390 Parcel Simulation................199 6-7 GIS Representation of 8 Parcel s and Estimated % Runoff Control.......................200 6-8 GIS Representation of 1 Parcel Simulation and % Runoff Control......................201 6-9 Detailed Spatial Representation of site Owner2....................................................203 6-10 Chart of Percent Onsite Contro l per Functional Un it in Site Owner2....................206 6-11 Contributing Watersheds for Three Different BMPs.............................................208

PAGE 18

xviii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science METHODOLOGIES TO EVALUATE DECENTRALIZED STORMWATER BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICES IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA. By Ruben Kertesz August, 2006 Chair: James P. Heaney Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences A wide variety of best management practi ces (BMPs) are available for controlling urban stormwater quantity and quality. Best management practices are tailored for many applications, from particle size alteration to sorption or flow attenuation. Low impact development (LID) methods are often classi fied as BMPs tailored for use in urban environments. From a functional perspective, LID can be thought of as onsite stormwater control, controlling runoff close to the sour ce in a disaggregated and distributed network. Two issues arise when trying to implement LID controls in an urban environment. The first issue is the need to control runoff volume within tight spat ial constraints. The second issue is closely related. It is difficult to determine th e net utility of decentralized BMPs within a watershed or even one parcel My study documents cases in which one or more BMPs are implemented within parcel s ranging from 1 to 1000 acres. My study addresses how to assess the ne t effect of these onsite co ntrol methods by presenting a methodology which steps the read er through the process of de termining watershed goals,

PAGE 19

xix obtaining data, building a geographic data base, moving the spatial and physical information from the geodatabase to a hydraulic/hydrologic modeling program, and evaluating BMPs by manipulating functional unit parameters. Results indicate that BMPs are ubiquitous a nd that they function as control areas as well as sources of runoff in what can be a l ong chain of storage-infi ltration-runoff steps. These BMPs can be represented explicitly by simulating a parcel or watershed at the functional unit scale. An efficient method for building a strong stormwater model is to perform analyses at a focused scale. Scal es of site redevelopment seen in urban watersheds such as the Tumblin Creek Waters hed in Gainesville, FL, are desirable. Simulations were created for the adjacent Lake Alice Watershed, on the University of Florida campus, at three scales: 1,000 acr es, 300 acres, and 7 acr es. Modeling at the micro-scale level both captures the spatial reality of the site of interest and promotes a modular approach to modeling the larger wate rshed by aggregating t hose spatial data and combining the associated analysis with other micro-scale models to form a larger macro model that is still true to the spatial realit y of the watershed. Results indicate that even a small increase in the depression storage of a functional land unit can reduce annual runoff volume measurably if placed in a strategic location. Results also demonstrate the need to orga nize data and reference publications in a centralized, secure, and accessible manner. Fu ture research opportunities include the production of a rapid simulation tool to select an optimal onsite control method using multiple criteria such as cost, social bene fit, and longevity, s imulating water quality benefits by changing functional land uses, a nd implementing an ontology to increase the value of current stormwater information.

PAGE 20

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Two conflicting issues arise in trying to implement and determine the performance of low impact development (LID ) controls in urban watersheds. The first conflict exists between spatial constraints in urban envi ronments and water quantity/quality control needs as described by Lewis (University of Florida 2006a, p 9-8): In general, the most effective stormw ater treatment techniques come from traditional stormwater systems that retain as much water as is being displaced by new impervious surface. Therefore, these systems are large in area and require a great deal of additional la nd to treat runoff. This f actor contrasts with the documented benefits of compact urban deve lopment (shorter distances for utilities, mass transit, walk-ability, fire and pol ice protection, school busing neighborhood schools and other energy-related sustainabi lity factors). Thus, redevelopment and infill projects face a difficult task mee ting todays stormwater requirements. The second issue is that of managing or assessing the performance of disconnected controls. A major management concern is th at while regional solutions for a watershed range from 1 to about 5 BMPs per 1,000 acres, as supported by the Lake Alice (University of Florida 2006a ) and Tumblin Creek (Jones Ed munds & Associates 2006) watersheds, a network of thousands of LID controls within the same watershed can perform similar water quantity and quality control functions. Hist orically, it has been relatively easy to evaluate the net performan ce of centralized best management practices (BMPs), but it is much more challenging to evaluate numerous disconnected BMPs in a manner that allows locales to compare their effectiveness alongside centralized solutions. My study describes a methodology to evaluate de centralized LID controls in watersheds with largely centrali zed quantity controls.

PAGE 21

2 Chapter 2 begins with a lite rature review of methods used to select BMPs in context of urban runoff management goals followed by a second section summarizing how onsite control BMPs are integrated into the urban landscape t oday in part of the Tumblin Creek Watershed in Gainesville, Florida, known as the University Heights Redevelopment District. This section show s redeveloped/redevel oping properties and opportunity properties as identi fied in the City of Gaines ville's University Heights Redevelopment Master Plan. Each redeveloped property is presented in four parts: preredevelopment site condition, cu rrent site condition, stormwater control calculations, and onsite BMP alternatives. Chapter 3 discusses how to leverage da ta, models, and tools to make better decisions by developing a cyberinfrastru cture as coined by the National Science Foundation (National Academy of Sciences 2001). The chapte r is divided into three sections: computation services information management, a nd collaboration services. It concludes with a demonstration of how an information management and collaboration system called Drupal can be used to share lotlevel site data described in Chapter 2 in a collaborative environment. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 focus on the Lake Alice Watershed, directly west of the Tumblin Creek Watershed. Each chapter contai ns one of three case studies, progressing from a large watershed (1000 acres) in chapte r 4, to a medium scale (300 acres) in Chapter 5 to a fine scale watershed analysis and simulation study (7 acres) in Chapter 6, as shown in Figure 1-1. The goal of each case st udy is to simulate stormwater flow within the watershed and select a cost-effective BMP solution to increase onsite stormwater volume control.

PAGE 22

3 Figure 1-1: Three Scales Studi ed in Lake Alice Watershed The hypotheses considered in these chapters are: 1. Watershed runoff can be simulated quickly a nd easily, provided that the site is well characterized and the data are organized in a minable cyberinfrastructure. 2. It is possible to select BMPs that incr ease onsite stormwater control by mining site data for critical flowpaths and using simulation tools to augment strategic functional land units within the watershed The gradual progression towards increasin gly focused case studies shows what difficulties are raised in simulating the behavior of the watersheds at each scale. The optimal simulation scenario involves creating a number of small, manageable simulations for subwatersheds (e.g., 7 acres) within a la rger watershed (e.g., 300 acres). Componsents of each simulations can be aggregated into a simplifiied model (ideal for creating a larger aggregate model) and disaggregated to simula te the local influence of BMPs on a given site. Best management practices can be chosen based on desire d goals and first principles. Chapter 7 summarizes my study and discusses research findings as well as future research needs.

PAGE 23

4 CHAPTER 2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN TODAYS URBAN ENVIRONMENT Literature Review: Low Impact Developm ent Practices Used for Urban Stormwater Management A wide variety of best management practi ces (BMPs) are available for controlling urban stormwater quantity a nd quality. Low impact devel opment (LID) options are now considered valid BMPs along with more traditional ponds, pits, and wetlands. Researchers from Oregon State University, th e University of Florida, Geosyntec, and the Low Impact Development Center have crea ted a guidebook on the effectiveness of stormwater BMPs (including LID) in th e context of management objectives and fundamental processes ( Geosyntec Consultants et al. 2006 ; Low Impact Development Center et al. 2006; Oregon State University et al. 2006 ; Strecker et al. 2005 ). Low impact development is a method of managing urban st ormwater management close to the source of runoff. Stormwater management systems trad itionally direct stormw ater away from the site via a conveyance system to a centralized storage/treatment system or directly to a receiving water without any treatment. Dete ntion has been a popular storage/treatment system since the 1970s. One example of a detent ion system in Gainesville is Lake Alice, on the University of Florida campus. Dete ntion systems accumulate pollutants from stormwater runoff which need to be re moved periodically and sometimes become unattractive or serve as mosquito breeding areas. Dissatisfaction with detention systems led to the idea

PAGE 24

5 of LID, beginning in Prince Georges Count y Maryland. Detailed information can be found at the website of The Lo w Impact Development Center (www.lowimpactdevelopment.org). Urban stormwater management has three primary and numerous ancillary purposes. The three primary purposes are Flood control Drainage control Water quality control Ancillary purposes include aesthetics, public greenspace, and other social or ecological elements which are often considered when siting BMPs. Stormwater control has traditionally meant moving the excess water offsite as fast as possible so as to prevent onsite floodi ng and associated damages. A large scale example of this phenomenon is the Southeast Florida canal system that links multiple fields, farms, and storage reserv oirs. It is only in the last 30 years that stormwater quality control has become a recognized issue in the United States. Urban runoff management needs to address the combination of objectives shown in Table 2-1. There are some technical conflicts betw een the objectives of flood control and water quality control. Detention systems are traditionally designed for flood control, and so drain quickly in order to be available for the next storm. From a water quality perspective, it is desirable to hold water in these detention systems for a longer period of time to better reduce pollutant load through primary or second ary removal. It is possible to achieve both water quantity and qualit y requirements by focusing on the fundamental processes a given BMP performs and placing two or more in series if necessary. Table 2-

PAGE 25

6 2 organizes BMPs according to their fundame ntal processes and Table 2-3 organizes BMPs according to pollutant control objectives. Table 2-1: Urban Runoff Mana gement Objectives Checklist Category Typical Objectives of Ur ban Runoff Management Projects Hydraulics Manage flow characteristics upst ream, within, and/or downstream of treatment system components Hydrology Mitigate floods; improve runoff characteristics (peak shaving) Reduce downstream pollutant loads and concentrations of pollutants Improve/minimize downstream temperature impact Achieve desired pollutant concentration in outflow Water Quality Remove litter and debris Reduce acute toxicity of runoff Toxicity Reduce chronic toxicity of runoff Comply with NPDES permit Regulatory Meet local, state, or fede ral water quality criteria Implementation Function within mana gement and oversight structure Cost Minimize capital, opera tion, and maintenance costs Aesthetic Improve appearance of site and avoid odor or nuisance Operate within maintenance, and repair schedule and requirements Maintenance Design system to allow for retrof it, modification, or expansion Longevity Achieve long-term functionality Improve downstream aquatic environment/erosion control Improve wildlife habitat Resources Achieve multiple use functionality Function without significa nt risk or liability Function with minimal environmental risk downstream Safety, Risk and Liability Contain spills Public Perception Clarify public understanding of runoff quality, quantity and impacts on receiving waters Source: Oregon State University et al. 2006

PAGE 26

7 Table 2-2: Structural Stor mwater Controls and Associ ated Fundamental Process Categories FPC** UOP+ TSCs* Chosen to Provide UOP+ Flow Attenuation Extended detention basins Retention/detention ponds Wetlands Tanks/Vaults Hydrologic Operations Volume Reduction Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins Porous pavement Bioretention cells Dry swales Dry well Extended detention basins Particle Size Alteration Comminutors (not common for stormwater) Mixers (not common for stormwater) Size Separation and Exclusion (screening and filtration) Screens/bars/trash racks Biofilters Porous pavement Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins Manufactured bioretention systems Media/sand/compost filters Hydrodynamic separators Catch basin inserts Density Separation (grit separation, sedimentation flotation and skimming, and clarification) Extended detention basins Retention/detention ponds Wetlands Settling basins Tanks/vaults Swales with check dams Oil-water separators Hydro-dynamic separators Aeration and Volatilization Sprinklers Aerators Mixers Physical Treatment Operations Physical Agent Disinfection Shallow detention ponds Ultra-violet systems

PAGE 27

8 Table 2-2 continued. FPC** UOP+ TSCs* Chosen to Provide UOP+ Microbially Mediated Transformation Wetlands Bioretention systems Biofilters Retention ponds Media/sand/compost filters Biological Processes Uptake and Storage Wetlands/Wetland Channels Bioretention systems Biofilters Retention ponds Sorption Processes Subsurface wetlands Media/sand/compost filters Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins Coagulation/Flocculation Detention/retention Ponds Coagulant/flocculant Injection Systems Chemical Processes Chemical Disinfection Custom devices for mixing chlorine or aerating with ozone Advanced treatment systems **FPCFundamental Process Category *TSC-Treatment System Components +UOP-Unit Operation and Processes Source: Geosyntec et al., 2006

PAGE 28

9Table 2-3: Summary of Groups of Pollu tants and Relevant BMPs Listed Based on Fundamental Process Categories BMPs Pollutant Class Constituents Gravity Settling Filtration/ Adsorption Infiltration Biological Chemical Others/ Proprietary BMPs Particulates Sediments Solids Heavy metals Organics Nutrients Retention ponds Detention basins Wetlands Tanks/vaults Biofilters Media filters Compost filters Wetlands Inf. trenches Inf. basins Porous pavement Swales Biofilters/ Bioretention Biofilters/Compost filters Wetlands/Wetland channels Wet vaults VortexSeparators Constructedw etlands Solubles Heavy metals Organics/ BOD Nutrients Media filters Compost filters Wetlands/ Wetland channels Retention ponds Inf. trenches Inf. basins Porous pavement Biofilters/compost filters Wetlands/wetland channels Precipitation/ flocculation Activated carbon Inert/media filters Trash/ Debris Trash/ Debris Screening Continuous deflective separation Floatables Oil and Grease Retention ponds Wetlands Hooded catchbasins Catch basin inserts Vault filters Compost filters Biofilters/compost filters Wetlands Oil/water separators Source: Geosyntec et al. 2006

PAGE 29

10 When a fundamental process category (FPC ) view is taken, MPs/LID principles are everywhere. Indeed, most existing urban deve lopments include some form of on-site control, whether proprietary, as shown in Table 2-4, or otherwise. A survey of the Tumblin Creek Watershed in Gainesville, FL (d escribed in the next section) shows that a wide range of control methods are bei ng utilized at various scales of urban redevelopment. Table 2-4: Proprietary BMPs in Current Use by Treatment Type Proprietary BMP Trade Names Stormceptor BaySaver StormVault Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) Unit Wet vaults ADS Retention/Detention System Constructed wetlands StormTreat Vortechs Aquafilter V2B1 Vortex separators Downstream Defender Inert/sorptive media filters StormFilter High-flow bypass StormGate Modular pavement Various Source: Oregon State University et al. 2006 Low Impact Development Inventory of an Urban Watershed in Gainesville, Florida University Heights is a rede velopment district within the Tumblin Creek Watershed (TCW). The redevelopment district has its boundaries defined and is managed by the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), part of the City of Gainesville. The CRA lays out a master plan for the site and provides funding fo r redevelopment within that area. University Heights is pictur ed in the 1,400 acre TCW (Figure 2-1).

PAGE 30

11 Figure 2-1: Map of Tumblin Creek Watershed and University Heights The author performed an inventory of LI D currently used in this redevelopment district under contract with Jones Edmunds & Associates for the City of Gainesville. A report that includes much of the following data is scheduled to be released within the year. Extensive portions of the upper TC W are undergoing redevelopment that will significantly intensify land use. From a stormwater management perspective, questions have arisen as to the extent to which this redevelopment will change the quantity and quality of runoff from these areas. There is inte rest in applying LID-t ype controls as part of the management strategy. The following sections within this ch apter describe existing and planned stormwater controls and the extent to which LID practices have been applied. This is an important step in identifying the ease of integrating LID practices into the urban

PAGE 31

12 landscape, and it provides an i ndication of what is already ca rried out onsite. Some of the redevelopment projects are show n in Figure 2-2. Please refer to Table 2-18 for addresses and parcel information associated with each development. Figure 2-2: Selected Redevel opment Projects In or Near the Tumblin Creek Watershed (Community Redevelopment Association, 2005)

PAGE 32

13 In an effort to condense this chapter wh ile still providing useful BMP information, the next section entitled R edeveloped/Redeveloping Properties will focus on each of the redeveloped properties separa tely, discussing pre-existing site conditions, current site conditions, stormwater calculation informa tion, and alternative stormwater control measures. Next, Opportunity Sites will focu s on current site conditions only, followed by a brief summary and conclusion section. Redeveloped/Redeveloping Properties Heritage Oaks Preexisting site conditions. Prior to 2002, this 0.89 acre site contained five twostory residential structures, a storage sh ed, concrete sidewalks, and brick paved driveways. Stormwater drained from the site to the City of Gainesville storm sewer system via curb and gutter drainage at NW 12th Terrace and NW 12th Street. A large grassy area around the houses infiltrated runoff from most roofs, sidewalks, and a patio. Driveways were generally dire ctly connected impervious ar eas (DCIA), draining to the city streets as were a portion of some roofs. Current site conditions. The re-development of Heritage Oaks integrates both new construction and historic buildings into an apartment complex with many low cost stormwater control BMPs. Existing impervious surfaces on the site (such as sidewalks and driveways) were razed prior to cons tructing three 2-story multi family homes, totaling 16 units. New concrete sidewalks and asphalt parking accompany the new buildings. All five existing residential st ructures were refurbished. Water quality treatment for the three new buildings and the parking lot is now provided by an infiltration trench beneath th e parking lot while runoff from the older buildings drains onto the landscaped area surrounding each.

PAGE 33

14 The old brick houses shown in Figure 2-3 represent houses that existed prior to reconstruction. The buildings with colored side paneling (back of photo) are newer construction. A majority of the stormwater draining from the roofs of older buildings continues to drain to the landscaped area ar ound them as pictured in Figure 2-4. The concrete sidewalk around the perimeter of th e property has been narrowed by one half of its width. A streetside bioret ention strip infiltrates runoff generated from the sidewalk hardscape, and provides an aesthetically pleasing separation between sidewalk and roadway. The bioretention area pictured in Fi gure 2-5 is designed to treat runoff from a no mortar brick sidewalk and from the di sconnected roof. The complex incorporates pervious parking next to the older buildings (see Figure 2-6) with asphalt parking at the new buildings. Flow from the roof travels to a pervious (no mortar) brick patio and parking lot as pictured in Figure 2-7. Runoff from the newe r buildings drains into a centralized infiltration trench system locat ed under the hardscape parking lot. The downspouts from the roof drains disa ppear underground. The landscaping around the buildings is watered by sprinkler, not r oof runoff, as shown in Figure 2-8. Figure 2-3: Heritage Oa ks View From East

PAGE 34

15 Figure 2-4: Heritage Oaks Refurbished Building, Facing West Figure 2-5: Heritage Oaks Bioretention Area

PAGE 35

16 Figure 2-6: Heritage Oaks Pervious Parking Lot Figure 2-7: Heritage Oaks Roof Draining to Pervious Parking via No-Mortar Patio.

PAGE 36

17 Figure 2-8: Heritage Oaks New Building Downspout The largest single BMP onsite is the dual module infiltration system shown in Figure 2-9. The medium-gray area at the bottom of the image is the infiltration system (divided into two trenches). The trench sy stem, called the Atlantis Water Management System (AWMS) and designed by the Atlantis Corporation ( http://www.atlantiscorp.com.au/ ) is located beneath the parking lot. This system is described in greater detail in the Oxfo rd Terrace site review. This underground pit temporarily stores and treats rooftop and pavement runoff be fore infiltrating into the subsurface.

PAGE 37

18 Figure 2-9: Heritage Oaks Infiltration Pits (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2002) Stormwater calculation information. Water quality treatment for the new buildings and parking lot is provided by an in filtration pit beneath the parking lot. Runoff from two of the proposed buildings and the majo rity of the parking area will drain to the infiltration trench system by sheet flow and roof drains. Runoff from a building denoted Building B by the design engineers cannot feas ibly be routed to the treatment system due to its location on the site; however the building area was used as part of the infiltration trench design calculations. Ther efore, water quality treatment compensation via "over-treatment" is provided for the pr oposed impervious surface from Building B that cannot be routed to the proposed treatment system (SJRWMD 2002a). The remainder of the site follows pre-developm ent drainage patterns with some notable changes such as reduced sidewalk hardscape area. The SCS CN method was used to estimate runoff. Open area was estimated to have a coefficient of runoff (C) value of 0.15 while impervious area had a C value of .95 and semi-impervious area was given a C value of 0.75. Using these estimates, 1,878 cu. ft

PAGE 38

19 was determined as the water quality treatme nt volume (WQTV), defined as the first 1.25 inches of impervious runoff plus an additional 0.5 inches of overall runoff by the SJRWMD. Using the FDOT/SJRWMD Modified Rational Method, a peak stage of 169.9 ft MSL (of a max 170 ft MSL) was estimated. A stormwater analysis was performe d using PONDS software. The PONDS software automates the process of developi ng a hydrograph and routes the runoff to a pond, infiltration pit, or other re tention facility (Seereeram, 2003). It can iteratively solve intra-storm drawdown during each time st ep under both unsaturated, transitory, and saturated conditions and will measure drawdown after the storm event. Transient vertical unsaturated flow is modeled using an algor ithm developed by Seereeram, the software developer. The details of this algorith m are described in help documentation accompanying the latest version of POND S (Seereeram, 2003). Transient, lateral saturated-flow ground water discharge is mode led using a modified version of the USGS MODFLOW numerical technique The following parameters are necessary for the program. 1. Base of aquifer 2. Seasonal high water table elevation 3. Horizontal saturated hydraulic c onductivity (safety factor of 2) 4. Fillable porosity [n] 5. Safety factor for vertical in filtration rate (unsaturated) 6. Maximum area for unsaturated infiltration 7. Equivalent pond length & equivalent pond width 8. Stage area relationship Calculations show a full recovery of th e WQTV within 2 hou rs, calculated using PONDS. The geotechnical report estimates the SHWT at 7 feet below land surface, leaving enough space to install an infiltration trench without extensive backfill and/or lowering the local water table. Site soil an alysis measured permeability between 17 and

PAGE 39

20 18 ft/day, with one boring (B-5 ) at 11.6 ft/day. The infiltra tion system is considered online, and as such, satisfied SJRWMD criteria to tr eat the first 1.25 inches of impervious runoff plus an additional 0.5 inches of ove rall runoff, which produced a higher runoff volume than the first 1 inch from the site. Th e cost to install the infiltration system at Heritage Oaks was $45,066. This equates to $2,146 per dwelling unit for the 21 dwelling units. Alternative stormwater control measures. Heritage Oaks integrates both old and new houses in a way that is both environmen tally conscious and aes thetically pleasing. Many on-site BMPs were put in place at th is complex. However, this is a medium intensity development and probably will not be used in the core of new development in University Heights. Although not technically owned by Heritage Oaks, the tree island in the cul-de-sac (Figure 2-10) can be converted to a notched and recessed design when the road is repaved to further reduc e runoff adjacent to the lot. Figure 2-10: Heritage Oaks Cul-de-sac

PAGE 40

21 Campus View I, II, III, & North Preexisting site conditions. No photographs are currently available for preexisting site conditions; however, the lot now known as Campus View I used to contain a onestory stucco house with disconnect ed roof drainage, a DCIA dr iveway that drained to the sidewalk and city stormwater system, a shed area, and a grassy tree d area surrounding the house. Figure 2-11 shows the drainage path from the 0.5 acre property NW towards the city stormwater system. There is a significan t elevation change from 122 ft to 117 ft. Figure 2-11: Campus View IPre Redevelopmen t (North is left) (Causseaux & Ellington 2004a) While no explicit on-site controls have b een in place, the pervious area on the property was large enough to infiltrate impe rvious area runoff from the shed and house with a greater than 2:1 pervious to imper vious area relationship. Runoff to the city stormwater system was likely close to predev elopment conditions, with the exception of added peak flow from the driveway. At the time of writing, preexisting condition

PAGE 41

22 information is unavailable for Campus View II, III, and North which neighbor Campus View I to the East, far East, and North, re spectively. However, based upon neighboring properties, lot conditions are likely similar, with a single family home on a pervious lot. Current site conditions. Campus View II, III, and N are currently under planning and development. The redeveloped site layou t for Campus View I is shown in Figure 212. Drainage area two covers most of the pr operty, while drainage area one covers the northwest corner of the site. Figure 2-13 is a photograph of Campus View I to the right and Campus View II to the left; Figure 214 is a photograph of Campus View II. The facades of these buildings look very similar to the Oxford Terrace apartment complex. These buildings are three stor ies tall with no parking underneath. The land was converted from dense trees, ivy, underbrush, and grass that sloped to the nor thwest to a more impervious area with higher land use intensity and flow away from the property in both northern and southern directions Figure 2-12: Campus View IRedeveloped Site Map (North is up) (Causseaux & Ellington 2004a)

PAGE 42

23 Figure 2-13: Campus View I and II (Under Development) Figure 2-14: Campus View II (Under Development) Stormwater calculation information. At Campus View I, two stormwater control facilities are used on site, one for each of two drainage ar eas. Drainage area one (DA-1)

PAGE 43

24 is serviced by a dry retention basin. Drai nage area two (DA-2) is serviced by an infiltration pit beneat h the parking lot called the Atlantis Water Management System (AWMS); this system is described in greater detail in the Oxford Terrace site review. According to Causseaux and Ellington (2004), th e retention basin receives and infiltrates 100% of the DA-1 runoff volume. They also st ate that the AWMS sy stem infiltrates 1005 of the runoff from DA-2. Therefore, Causs eaux & Ellington considered both retention systems as offline. However, SJRWMD said that the systems must be analyzed as an online system because there is no bypass opportunity and a second analysis for DA-1 and DA-2 was submitted to SJRWMD in response to an RAI. Causseaux & Ellington used a stormwater program called PONDS to assess WQTV recovery time and intra-storm water ta ble mounding. Programmatic methods are as described in the Heritage Oaks calculation su mmary. The general anal ytical process used by Causseaux & Ellington can be summari zed as follows: Predevelopment runoff calculations were performed. A weighted pr e-redevelopment curve number (CN) of 46 was used; post-redevelopment CNs of 76 and 89 were used for DA-1 and DA-2, respectively. The post-redevelopment time of concentration was stated as less than 10 min but the engineers assumed it to be ten minutes in the PONDS simulations. Upon contacting the PONDS developer, the devel oper made it clear that PONDS can perform analyses with <10 min timesteps. Soils information was gathered by SDII, a geotechnical consulting firm in Gainesville. The average depth to the seasona l high water table (SHWT) was determined to be 3.5 feet below land surface at the si te of the infiltration BMPs. This caused

PAGE 44

25 problems in installation of the AWMS, as many feet of cut and backfill were necessary to provide enough water volume treatment. A discussion surrounding the placement of an infiltration system above such a high water table can be found in SJRWMD RA I 92642-2-987426 (2004a) and the reply can be found in SJRWMD RAI Response 92642-2-15 4598 (2004a), wherein SJRWMD stated that It [was] unclear how the seasonal high groundwater table elevation was determined (SJRWMD 2004a). Causseaux & Ellington was asked to demonstrate how undercutting would lower the groundwater table to the n eeded 115.02 ft. A series of assumptions and conservative estimates were made to prove th at the system would function as performed. A sediment sump was included in the design for both East and West ends of SMF-2 to assist in removing particulates and th eir associated metals and pathogens. Alternative onsite control measures. Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show construction materials and mounds of overburden c overing and possibly compacting the ground surface. During construction, the contractors could avoid putting heavy items on pervious surfaces that do not need soil augmentation. If th is is not possible, th en grading could be used to minimize the time of concentration (T c). This could increase soil water capacity and decrease the need to irrigate. Currentl y, Campus View I, after being completely redeveloped, produces overland flow to the no rthwest corner of the property and onto the sidewalk during sprinkling. Oxford Terrace Preexisting site conditions. Oxford Terrace formerly consisted of a 1-story office building and asphalt parking lot with forest ed land area covering rest of the property. This is represented in the GIS image in Figure 2-15.

PAGE 45

26 Figure 2-15: Oxford TerraceGIS Repres entation of Pre-redevelopment Lot Current site conditions. The 0.72 acre site is located at 847 Depot Avenue. The redevelopment plan involved demolishing a ll existing structures including a 1-story office building with surface parking, and constructing a 3-story, 36 unit multifamily residential complex with parking underneath, two sidewalks, and two new paved drives (Causseaux & Ellington 2004b). This resulted in an impervious area of 0.54 acres, as calculated by Causseaux & Ellington. The site can be divided into three drainage areas. Two of the drai nage areas drain to infiltration pits beneath the parking lot while the southernmost draina ge area drains to a surface dry retention basin at the southern end of the property. Post redevelopment conditions are repres ented in Figure 2-16.

PAGE 46

27 Figure 2-16: Oxford Terrace After Redevelopment Stormwater calculation information. Drainage area characteristics such as size, infiltration BMP size, and curve number ar e summarized in Table 2-5. A CN of 32 was chosen for pervious area in DA-3 that charac terizes a wooded or gra ssy area type A soil group. (CH2MHill, 1987) The post redevelopment CN calculation methodology is shown in Table 2-6. Soil boring and auger informa tion is shown on a map of the site in Figure 2-17. Table 2-5: Oxford Terrace Dr ainage Area Characteristics Drainage Area DA-1 DA-2 DA-3 Location on Property North Central South Acres .281 .216 .217 Stormwater Management Facility SMF-1 Online, closed, dry pond SMF-2 Infiltration basin SMF-3 Infiltration basin Cubic feet of SMF 2,908 2,343 2,435 Predevelopment CN 77 77 32 Postdevelopment CN 89 93 80

PAGE 47

28 Table 2-6: Oxford TerraceCalculation of Post Development CN Values Drainage Area CN Soil Area Soil (acres) CN Impervious Area Area Impervious (acres) Runoff CN =(Col2*Col3+Col4*Col5)/ (Col3+Col5) SMF-1 77 .11 98 .17 89 SMF-2 77 .05 98 .16 93 SMF-3 32 .06 98 .16 80 Figure 2-17: Oxford Terrace Auger Map / SD II Land Use Characteri stics (SDII 2004a)

PAGE 48

29 Causseaux & Ellington determined the st ormwater management facility (SMF) dimensions shown in Figure 2-17 by sizing them to capture the 100 year critical storm as well as the 25-year 24-hour storm and the mean annual storm event, or the annual rainfall divided by the number of storm events in th e year (EPA 1986). Then they checked to ensure that the SMFs also provided the pr oper WQTV. The method used to size the SMF to retain the 100 year criti cal storm (that storm which pr oduces the greatest runoff) as well as the 25 year -24 hour storm and the mean annual storm event was as follows. The engineer first generated rainfa ll hyetographs using Florida De partment of Transportation distributions for all the 100-y ear frequency storms and the 25 year -24 hour storm. The mean annual storm event hyetograph was created by multiplying the NRCS Type II modified dimensionless rainfall distribution by the total rainfall depth of the mean annual storm event (MASE). The MASE rainfall di stribution is shown in Table 2-7. Runoff hydrographs were then generated follow ing the NRCS method (NRCS 1986). The hydrographs were routed through th e modeled stormwater system. Traditionally, predevelopment runoff is perf ormed first, and then compared to post development runoff, but in this case, wher e all the systems are closed basins, predevelopment calculations were not performe d for SMF-2 or SMF-3 because they were sized to produce no post-development overf low for the aforementioned design storms. Parameters needed to create the runoff hydrograph for each drainage area are the watershed area, CN, and time of concentrati on (Tc) values for each drainage area, as shown in Table 2-8. The time of concentra tion used for all drainage areas was 10 minutes, which is a common practice for small basin sites. Tc is a function of overland flow length, slope, and roughness.

PAGE 49

30 Table 2-7: Mean Annual Storm Ev ent (MASE) Rainfall Distribution Duration MASE Duration MASE Duration MASE Duration MASE Hours P (in) hours P (in) hours P (in) hours P (in) 0 0 6 0.0123 12 1.107 18 0.0123 0.25 0.0082 6.25 0.0164 12.25 0.2624 18.25 0.0123 0.5 0.0082 6.5 0.0123 12.5 0.2091 18.5 0.0123 0.75 0.0041 6.75 0.0123 12.75 0.1189 18.75 0.0123 1 0.0082 7 0.0164 13 0.0943 19 0.0123 1.25 0.0082 7.25 0.0164 13.25 0.082 19.25 0.0123 1.5 0.0082 7.5 0.0164 13.5 0.0697 19.5 0.0082 1.75 0.0082 7.75 0.0164 13.75 0.0451 19.75 0.0123 2 0.0082 8 0.0164 14 0.041 20 0.0082 2.25 0.0082 8.25 0.0205 14.25 0.0369 20.25 0.0123 2.5 0.0082 8.5 0.0205 14.5 0.0369 20.5 0.0082 2.75 0.0123 8.75 0.0205 14.75 0.0328 20.75 0.0082 3 0.0082 9 0.0205 15 0.0287 21 0.0082 3.25 0.0082 9.25 0.0328 15.25 0.0205 21.25 0.0123 3.5 0.0082 9.5 0.0328 15.5 0.0205 21.5 0.0082 3.75 0.0123 9.75 0.0328 15.75 0.0205 21.75 0.0082 4 0.0082 10 0.041 16 0.0164 22 0.0082 4.25 0.0123 10.25 0.0451 16.25 0.0164 22.25 0.0082 4.5 0.0082 10.5 0.0492 16.5 0.0164 22.5 0.0082 4.75 0.0123 10.75 0.0738 16.75 0.0164 22.75 0.0082 5 0.0123 11 0.0861 17 0.0164 23 0.0082 5.25 0.0082 11.25 0.1066 17.25 0.0123 23.25 0.0082 5.5 0.0123 11.5 0.1353 17.5 0.0164 23.5 0.0082 5.75 0.0123 11.75 0.4469 17.75 0.0123 23.75 0.0082 24 0.0041 Table 2-8: Oxford TerraceParameter s Used to Create a Runoff Hydrograph Area Predev. CN Postdev. CN Tc (min) SMF 1 .281 77 89 10 SMF 2 .216 77 93 10 SMF 3 .217 32 80 10 PONDS software was used to route the runoff hydrograph through each of the three SMFs in separate discrete analyses. As a safety factor, Caussea ux & Ellington chose to design using infiltration values reduced by one half from those measured by SDII. The saturated flow conductivity was reduced by an additional one half, resulting in a safety factor of 4. In SMF-1, it appear s that a K of 7.5 was used instead of 22.5, resulting in an

PAGE 50

31 even higher safety factor. Ma ximum area is the area at the widest dimension of the pond. Equivalent pond length and width are determin ed by measuring the effective perimeter of the pond and ensuring that 2 (width + length) is approximately equal to the perimeter while the volume is equal to the maximum volum e of the SMF. It is used to approximate the pond as a rectangular prism to simplify cal culations. General soil characteristics for the entire site are shown in Table 2-9. De tailed dimensions for each SMF are shown in Table 2-10. Table 2-9: Oxford TerraceSoil Character istics Used for Storm Event Simulation Measured Value Safety Factor of 2 Value used for SMF-1 Base of Aquifer 115 ft NGVD --SHWT 115.5 ft --Vertical Infiltration 37 ft/day 18.5 ft/day -Horizontal Conductivity 45 ft/day 22.5 ft/day 7.5 ft/day Fillable Porosity 25 % --Table 2-10: Oxford TerraceStormwater Mana gement Facility (SMF) Dimensions Used for Storm Event Simulation SMF Invert (ft) Area at invert (ft2) Max. elev. (ft) Area at max depth (ft2) Storage Volume (ft3) SMF-1 121 1689 122 2907 2309 SMF-2 118 2183 119.48 2183 3460 SMF-3 118 2435 119.48 2435 3615 Soil auger tests performed by SDII in drainage areas 1, 2, and 3 suggest all three areas consist mainly of a M illhopper/Urban land mix that is moderately well drained, with some Kanapaha sand interspersed th roughout. The permeabilities of augers A-1, A2, and A-3 with locations shown on Figur e 2-17 are tabulated in Table 2-11. Table 2-11: Oxford TerraceSDII Soil Testing Infiltration Results Auger Permeability (cm/s) A-1 (DA-3) 1.96 E-02 A-2 (DA-2) 1.31 E-02 A-3 (DA-1) 4.09 E-02 Soil boring tests were also performed by SDII, and while most of the borings indicated clayey sand soils, one boring, located in DA-2 indicated an expansive clay soil

PAGE 51

32 only 3 ft below the surface. Their recommenda tions were to undercut the soil in that location and backfill it in order to reduce the pos sibility of swelling of the partially clay substrate and therefore heavi ng of the foundation. They also indicated that removal of tree stumps will likely cause consolidation in the clay soils underneath the foundation but that it couldnt be avoided. SMF-1 is optimized to rise to 121.90 ft for the 100 year -1 hr storm (using a value of 7.5 ft/day saturate d infiltration). It would overflow at >122 ft. SMF-2 and SMF-3 are sized to attenuate the peak fo r the 100 year -24 hour stor ms (using 22.5 ft/day saturated infiltration). SMF-2 rises to 119.45 ft and SM F-3 rises to 119.06 ft out of a possible 119.48 ft. All facilities provide post-developmen t peak discharge rates that do not exceed pre-development rates for both the 100 year critical storm event, the 25 year -24 hour storm event, and for the mean annual st orm event (1 day, 24 hours) (Causseaux & Ellington 2004b). After sizing the SMFs to hold and infiltra te the 100 year critical and 25 year 24hour storms, Causseaux & Ellington checked th at water quality volume regulations were satisfied. In sizing the retent ion pond to capture and treat the WQTV, one must calculate the runoff from applying an instantaneous rainfall depth according to the aforementioned SJRWMD guidelines. Calculations of the n ecessary water quality treatment volume for each drainage area are shown below. Note th at SJRWMD (2005) states that an online infiltration trench (called exfiltration trench in publication) discharging into a Class III receiving water bodies, should store the firs t one-half inch of runoff or 1.25 inches of runoff from the impervious area, whichever is greater, and an addi tional storage of onehalf inch of runoff from the total area. Sample calculations are as follows.

PAGE 52

33 SMF-1 WQTV = 0.5 Drainage Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = .5/12 .281 acres + .5/12 .281 acres = 0.023 ac-ft = 1020 ft3 OR WQTV = 1.25 Imp Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = 1.25/12 .17 acres + .5/12 .281 acres = 0.029 ac-ft = 1269 ft3 This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.) SMF-2 WQTV = 0.5 Drainage Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = .5/12 .216 acres + .5/12 .216 acres = .018 ac-ft = 783 ft3 OR WQTV = 1.25 Imp Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = 1.25/12 .16 acres + .5/12 .216 acres = 0.026 ac-ft = 1124 ft3 This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.) SMF-3 WQTV = 0.5 Drainage Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = .5/12 .217 acres + .5/12 .217 acres = .018 ac-ft = 789 ft3 OR WQTV = 1.25 Imp Area + 0.5 Drainage Area = 1.25/12 .16 acres + .5/12 .217 acres = 0.026 ac-ft = 1117 ft3 This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.) The WQTV calculation method does not use the maximum possible retention of the soil (S), or initial abstractions. The method of determining WQTV drawdown is to apply a slug load of the WQTV to the basin at ti me zero and use PONDS to iteratively solve for drawdown over time. Because the SMFs are size d to capture and infiltrate a large volume storm, they can hold the entire WQTV sl ug and thus provide the necessary WQTV treatment. WQTV drawdown results are shown in Table 2-12. All three SMFs recover the WQTV within 3 days. Results from running complete basin recove ry analyses (not s hown) indicate that each SMF, when filled to capacity, will rec over its total volume well within 14 days. SMF-3, which is almost identical in size and shape to SMF-2 has a total recovery time

PAGE 53

34 that is 25% shorter than SMF-2 (not shown) probably because of the clay layer that is encountered only 3 feet below the surface on the west side of DA2. A-2 was reported by SDII to have a permeability of 1.31E-02 cm/s while A-1 had 2.96E-02 cm/s. Table 2-12: Oxford TerraceWater Quality Treatment Volume Recovery SMF* WQTV+ volume (ft3) Recovery time (days) SMF-1 1269 <= .10 SMF-2 1124 <= .10 SMF-3 1117 <= .10 SMF Stormwater Management Facility + WQTV Water Quality Treatment Volume Alternative onsite control measures. Oxford Terrace is very innovative in the placement of parking underneath the building an d use of some strategic landscaping as a retention pond. Other options available at the site are somewhat limited by site conditions. Bioretention cells al ong the right of way could be used to capture relatively clean sidewalk runoff. Green roofs are anothe r option. Due to the bu ildout of the site, no other form of retention is possible without installing cisterns or other above surface retention devices. An alternativ e to controlling runoff directly onsite is for the developer to buy into the swale directly south of the s ite, across Depot Ave. This swale drains road runoff and may have extra capacity to acco mmodate runoff that would exceed storage capacity onsite. The soil in the swale could be engineered to increase treatment capacity. Another alternative is connec ting to a centralized treatment system while storing and infiltrating smaller daily storm events onsite A regional solution would allow for storage within the system, increasing the time of concentration. Delta Zeta sorority house Preexisting site conditions. The 70-acre project site located on the southeast intersection of SW 13th Street and SW 9th Av enue used to consist of one story houses, a

PAGE 54

35 carport, and dirt driveways. Cars could drive over the curb to get on the property. Although no images are available for the prope rty prior to redevelopment, neighboring houses provide good examples. Most of them ha ve severely compacted pervious area and one to two story structures on the majority of the property Current site conditions. The Delta Zeta sorority site drains from the northwest to the southeast, and was mistakenly stated by the SJRWMD as being inside the Tumblin Creek Watershed, discharging to Biven's Arm (SJRWMD 2003). It actu ally drains into Campus Creek (also known as Hawthorn Creek or East Creek) which flows west, through the University of Florida campus to Lake Alice as discussed in Korhnak (1996). The site contains a 9,280 squa re foot three story apartment complex, a parking lot, sidewalks, and a driveway. The three story building uses the area efficiently compared to its neighbors, providing many bedrooms in a compact footprint; this allowed the developers to provide a large landscaped ar ea that makes it look more like an estate (Figure 2-18). The wide landscaped area provid es a large infiltration capacity that treats the runoff from the sidewalk inside the propert y, but not the sidewalk along the street due to the slope of that sidewalk towards the road (Figure 2-19). Runoff from the roof and parking lot is c onveyed via stormwater surface inlets and roof drains to a retention area on the S.E. si de of the building. The rain garden provides enough vertical storage capacity to temporarily store very large storms infiltrating it into the soil gradually. Excess volume generated dur ing the peak of large events flows over a weir into Campus Creek. The retention/deten tion area appears to infi ltrate fast enough to keep from ponding as evidenced by the sepa ration of bark chips and grass implying no

PAGE 55

36 floatation (Figure 2-20). Water drains from the parking lot into this dry retention basin as well (Figure 2-21). Figure 2-18: Delta Zeta Soro rity House Landscaped Area Figure 2-19: Delta Zeta So rority House Sidewalk

PAGE 56

37 Figure 2-20: Delta Zeta Soro rity House Rain Garden Figure 2-21: Delta Zeta Soror ity House Parking Lot Drain Stormwater calculation information. The engineers developed a retention area with a stem wall to hold water onsite, slow ly infiltrating and discharging over a weir.

PAGE 57

38 Drawdown was modeled without infiltration for post re-developed conditions. Using PONDS software, they found that the WQTV recovers in 48 hours (<72 hours), using a horizontal conductivity rate of 3.6 ft/day; this value is 10 % of the value measured by the geotechnical firm. The reason for doing this wa s because the stem wall is 2 ft below the ground surface and PONDS initially was modeled us ing a horizontal flow lens that could rise all the way to the ground su rface. This technique seems to work well creek side, just as it did at Windsor Hall. It may be more be neficial than an infiltration trench because there is more material for the pollutants to flow through, adsorb to, and for some species degrade in than for an infiltration trench. Alternative stormwater control measures. The location of the DZ house lends itself to using the detention/infiltration syst em adjacent to the creek because the water table flows directly into the stream, allowi ng quick drainage of the rain garden. The system is easy to maintain but infiltration ma y decrease because foot traffic is allowed in the area, possibly causing compaction. The sidewalk adjacent to the street could be either removed while creating a swale or turned into a pervious pavement materi al. The meandering sidewalk in front of the house could serve as the main sidewalk, with the grassy area as a buffer between the people and the road, moving the setback away from the road and extending the DOT ROW to cover the grassy area. The grass c ould provide great treatment capacity for a portion of the road runoff if it were not curb ed. Unfortunately, curre ntly, the road runoff travels directly into the East Creek portion of UF's Lake Alice feeder system, untreated. Estates at sorority row Preexisting site conditions. No information is available as to site conditions prior to the current state. This site is scheduled for redevelopment.

PAGE 58

39 Current site conditions. The site currently has no sophisticated stormwater control. All the prope rties purchased for the Estates, including the building shown in Figure 2-22, have roofs that drain directly onto the ground a few feet away from of the foundation. The parking lot for th is building is a small four car lot of gravel and a concrete slab (Figure 2-23). The driveways for the single family homes on the properties to the South are also a dirt/gravel mix. The only hardscape present on any of the properties is the park ing lot concrete slab and the sidewalk. Stormwater calculation information. No information is currently available. Alternative stormwater control measures. There currently is no DCIA on the property. Drainage is in a mo stly southerly direction, towa rds a large pond connected to Campus Creek (Korhnak 1996). Future prope rties could take advantage of the pond/stream and drain large volume storm events into it, while smaller ones could be treated onsite. Figure 2-22: Estates at Sorority RowCurrent Building

PAGE 59

40 Figure 2-23: Estates at Sorority RowCurrent Building Parking Lot Visions Preexisting site conditions. No information of site conditions prior to the current state is available. This site is scheduled for redevelopment. Current site conditions. This property, called Visions, currently has single story buildings with roofs that drain onto packed sandy soil (Figure 2-24). The soil has been compacted by vehicles and is very firm to walk on; however there are 3-5 inch deep channels that range from 3-10 inches wide which may indicate eros ion (Figure 2-25). The buildings have no roof drains but th e land around them has little vegetation. Stormwater calculation information. No information is currently available. Alternative stormwater control measures. While disconnected roof drains are often considered a cost effec tive onsite stormwater control method, in this case it doesnt work well due to lack of vegetation in the pe rvious area. If the si te were not to be redeveloped, then the sandy soil could be stabilized using hardy grasses or other

PAGE 60

41 groundcover. Furthermore, automobile traffic could be confined to a smaller zone to prevent further soil compaction and erosion. Even a low cost permeable paving solution would help in curbing erosion and promoting infiltration. This site could be improved by redevelopment. Parking for the new developm ent could be undernea th the building or, due to the small area of the parcel, lo cated elsewhere in a central lot. Figure 2-24: VisionsDisconnected Roof and Dirt Alleyway Figure 2-25: VisionsChanneli zation of the Parking Lot

PAGE 61

42 Royale Palm apartments Preexisting site conditions. No information is currently available. Current site conditions. The Royale Palm apartments are one of a cluster of four completed new developments on SW 7th Ave a nd SW 9th Street. The project is located in the Alachua County Sensitive Karst Area (SJRWMD 2002b). Some parking for this three story development is on the road (Fi gure 2-26), with most of the parking in a hardscape lot behind the build ing. There are numerous hard scape sidewalks throughout the complex The sidewalks along the road ar e not sloped into the landscaped areas. Landscaped areas are sprinkler ed. The landscaped areas use native vegetation. As shown in Figure 2-28, broad-leafed trees dot the site but are not dense enough to provide considerable interception before rain hits the pavement. The piping from the rooftop appears to be directly connected. In some cases it appears to drain in to concrete planters at the surface as pictured in Figure 2-27. Ho wever, this was not permitted as a BMP in SJRWMD (2002b) possibly because runoff bypasses the planter. Figure 2-26: Royale Palm Apar tments Onstreet Parking

PAGE 62

43 Figure 2-27: Royale Palm Apartmen tsRoof Drain Entering Planter Figure 2-28: Royale Palm Apartm entsVegetative Site Cover

PAGE 63

44 Stormwater calculation information. Stormwater control te chniques used at this property consist of an infiltration trench that was installed at the cost of $102,350. In this case, roof runoff and parking lot runoff are mi xed. Stormwater routing calculations were not available at the time of th is report, however SJRWMD ( 2002b) states that runoff from preexisting impervious areas a nd the newly constructed para llel parking area along SW 7th Avenue is collected by roadside gutter improvements and conveyed to the City of Gainesville storm sewer network. The infiltrati on trench has capacity to compensate by overtreatment of the areas connected to the trench. Alternative stormwater control measures. It could be cost effective to exfiltrate roof runoff into the planters if this is not being done at present if it would not compromise the foundation. Windsor Hall Preexisting site conditions. The 1.2 acre lot where Windsor Hall is now located used to contain small one story single family homes like those below. These lots, located close to the creek, had grass/forested areas that buffered the flow rate and time of concentration from the site, w ith the exception of a one stor y concrete complex that was located on the south side of the property. Current site conditions. Windsor Hall, located just west of Lake Alices Campus Creek, is a 3-story complex, with connected bu ildings that create the atmosphere of a small community. Stormwater from the impervi ous surfaces is piped to the east side of the property, where a walled in dry retention system is being used to store the peak of major storm events, not unlike at the Delta Zeta house. The image below (Figure 2-29) shows the roof draining into the underground drainage network that empties into the retention basin.

PAGE 64

45 There are approximately 2 feet of freeboard at the retention area, which discharges into Tumblin Creek during high flow and infiltrating into Tumblin Creek during low flows. The entire treatment area drains to the basin via an 8 inch pipe, shown in Figure 2-30. Water flows out of the basin either by infiltra tion or, during high flows, by flowing over a weir and into a distributor pi pe that carries flow down towards Tumblin Creek. This pipe is shown below in Figure 2-31. Figure 2-29: Windsor Ha llDCIA Rooftop Drain Figure 2-30: Windsor HallRain Garden

PAGE 65

46 Figure 2-31: Windsor Hall Flow Distribution Pipe Stormwater calculation information. Windsor Hall currently has two large detention basins that treat both roof and road runoff. A permit was previously issued by SJRWMD in 1997 for two retention areas a nd 3 buildings with 21 units; however in

PAGE 66

47 January 2000, a permit was issued to modify the previous permit by constructing only one building of connected row houses, movi ng the retention areas, and adding a pool. The modification increased the project area from 0.98 acres to 1.14 ac res. The half-acre project called Phase II added a detention area and an addition al 7,800 sq ft building with associated paving and parking. Roof runoff flow s to the retention area from roof drains and the parking lot via an underground pipi ng network. The two 3-story buildings and their retention areas drain dire ctly into Tumblin Creek. The building area and pavement area fo r the 0.49 acre site (7802 and 4070 sf, respectively) are given C values of 0.9, while a smaller greenspace (755 sf) is given a C value of 0.15. The dry storage pond drains over a weir. The stage di scharge curve shows that most of the storage is available from a stage of 128 to 130 ft. Infiltration capacity was not assessed. Alternative stormwater control measures. This stormwater design appears to be a cost-effective small surface area solution. Additional improvements could have been made when developing this site, namely in creating more parking sp aces in the lot and reducing the amount of hardscape, as with the bike racks. This walled basin solution cannot be used to collect water from parki ng lots at many properties because they do not provide enough driving head to fill the basin. However, it could be us ed to drain roofs. The parking lot could be designed to have a porous paving turnaround or use a design that requires less impervious area per sp ace. No car can park in the driveway of the current lot, which as represented in the photograph below (Figure 2-32) is a significant portion of the park ing lot. It may be be cost effective to provide porous

PAGE 67

48 concrete or no-mortar brick bi ke parking (Figure 2-29) as th is is a low load-bearing area and not likely to degrade as quick ly as a high traffic area would. Figure 2-32: Windsor Hall Parking Lot Water quantity control is very important when contributing dire ctly to a stream riparian habitat. The weir design serves well to distribute the wate r slowly, but the pipe does not appear to have holes drilled into it and thus only provides two drainage points rather than an even distributor. Taylor Square apartments Preexisting site conditions. The 0.48-acre site developed in Phase II formerly contained a parking lot and a single building surrounded by a grass and forested area. The runoff from this site flowed to a retention area, and then to the S.W. 7th Avenue storm sewer system. No further information could be obtained of preexisting site conditions at the time of this report.

PAGE 68

49 Current site conditions. The Taylor Square apartmen t complex is located on the east side of SW 9th St., across the street fr om the Stratford Court Apartments. Taylor Square uses two infiltration trenches to infilt rate parking lot and roof runoff into the soil and eventually the surficial aquifer. The tr enches used are the same Atlantis Water Management Rain Tank systems discussed in other properties. The turnkey system has a sump to capture sediment entering the system, which will help increase the lifespan of the system and prevent the introduction of pollu tants associated with the sediment. The complex is designed such that the courtyar d surrounds a large oak tree in the center. While the tree has a large potential to transpir e water, the infiltration area is not very large, nor are the sidewalks designed to drain towards it. The tree can be seen in the center of Figure 2-33. Figure 2-33: Taylor Square Courtyard with Oak Tree

PAGE 69

50 The infiltration system used at this site wa s placed underneath a broad driveway shown in Figure 2-34, presumably to increase accessibility to the pit in addition to allowing two way traffic. Figure 2-34: Taylor Square Asphalt Driveway with Infiltration Pit Beneath Stormwater calculation information. The Atlantis Water Management System Rain Tank is marketed as part of a treatm ent solution for PAHs and various metals, but literature regarding its treatment mechanism c ould not be found at the time of this report. Product information for the AWMS can be found in SJRWMD (2004a). The results of 4 soil borings that penetr ated to a depth of 15 feet below ground surface show mainly clean sands with a layer of higher fines content at depths of 7.5, 9.5, 15 and 12.5 feet. (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004) These have been reported as possible confining layers by Universal Engineeri ng Services (UES). The following design

PAGE 70

51 parameters are recommended by the geotechnical report provided by UES: 1. Average depth to confining layer 11 ft 2. Average Vertical Infiltra tion Rate 14 ft per day 3. Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 21 ft per day 4. Drainable Porosity 30% 5. Average Depth to SHWT (perched) 6.0 ft The SHWT is perched at 133.3 ft.-MSL. Th e Green & Ampt equation was used to model infiltration. The drainage area for the proposed basin is composed of 8,572 ft2 of roof and carport area, 6,275 ft2 of parking lot, 1,600 ft2 of sidewalks and 457 ft2 of open area as shown in Table 2-6. The hatched areas in Figure 2-35 are the infiltration trenches. A C value of 0.93 was calculated for the drai nage area as shown in Table 2-13 and the Modified Rational Method was used to genera te and route a hydrograph to the infiltration basins. Table 2-13: Taylor SquareStormwater S ite Conditions Pre/Post Development Originally produced in SJRWMD 2004b, pg 31

PAGE 71

52 Figure 2-35: Taylor Square Drainage Area a nd Infiltration Trenches (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004) The FDOT rainfall distribution was used to analyze the 100-year critical storm. With an impervious area greater than 50%, the criteria for water quality treatment for the site is 1.25 across the impervious area pl us 0.5 across the entire drainage area, generating a grand total of 2,418 ft2 of runoff as shown in Table 2-13 above. The area between the basin bottoms and the SHWT is shown to be 3.75 ft, or a volume of 2,430 ft3 assuming a 30% porosity. Recovery time is estimated to be 4 hours. The bottoms of the infiltration trenches are at 133.5 ft and th e tops are 136.4 ft MSL providing a volume of 5,940 ft3 as calculated in Table 2-13. Design calculations show the system as retaining the 100 year critical storm event as modeled using a 14.0 ft/day infiltration rate. (B rown & Cullen Inc. 2004)

PAGE 72

53 Table 2-14: Taylor Square Infiltra tion Trench Volume Calculations Originally produced in Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004, pg 12 Alternative stormwater control measures. One way to decrease the volume of runoff and volume of infiltration is to crea te a larger area around the large oak tree. A common method is to leave an undeveloped area as broad as the crown of the tree. While this is not possible with the design of the building, some more room can be created by thinning walkways and/or provi ding partially pervious or ti led walkways. Such a decision would also help prevent crack ing and buckling in the pavement. Another option would be to create a curbside biofiltration planter sy stem that would nouris h the roots during small storm flow events and blowoff into the inf iltration basin or another treatment system during more significant flows. Washoff from building construction (Figure 2-36) indicates that the ground is being disturbed and topsoil is likely being washed away. This can lead to reduced performance for surface water retention than that suggested by the engineers. An important BMP to

PAGE 73

54 incorporate is to provide bette r construction sediment capture and to keep from disturbing topsoil wherever possible. If it has not alrea dy been done, it may be beneficial to develop a maintenance schedule to remove leaves fr om the property and sidewalks, to reduce the entrance of organic material into the streets stormwater system. Figure 2-36: Taylor Square Construc tion Debris and Sediment Washoff

PAGE 74

55 Stratford Court apartments Preexisting site conditions. No information is currently available on preexisting site conditions for the Stratford Court Apar tments; however the houses that surround the development are largely one story with disc onnected roof drains, concrete/grass strip driveways and large pervious grassy areas. Current site conditions. The Stratford Court apartments have just recently been completed. The three story ap artment building was developed among restored historic buildings. Stormwater calculation information. The Stratford Court apartments use an infiltration trench underneath th e parking lot on the west side of the new building. Unlike at the Heritage Oaks apartments, the older hist oric buildings do not dr ain directly onto the ground and parking is not pervi ous. The infiltration trench wa s installed at the cost of $74,000. Soils information can be found in SDII (2004b). Alternative stormwater control measures. The wide landscaped area on both sides of a narrow concrete sidewalk can be us ed to infiltrate runoff from the sidewalk (Figure 2-37). However, the curb prevents th is area from infiltrating runoff from the road. In order to keep the landscap e green, sprinklers have been installed. If runoff from the road is infiltrated by the landscaped si dewalk area, it may reduce the demand for irrigation water but it will not eliminat e the need for sprinkling systems. The use of brick paving may help infiltrate some water from the sidewalk. The few parking spaces alongside the road could be made of brick or a porous concrete material, possibly a sorptive concrete media (Figure 238). A number of other onsite infiltration techniques could also be app lied at the property such as xeriscaping, usin g a rainwater cistern combined with an evaporative c ooling system or irrigation system, etc.

PAGE 75

56 Figure 2-37: Stratford Court Apartm ents Sidewalk and Grass Strip Figure 2-38: Stratford Court Apartments Streetside Parking

PAGE 76

57 Alligator Crossing Preexisting site conditions. The Alligator Crossing apartments formerly consisted of two 2-story buildings with a total of five dwelling un its on the corner of SW 10th Street and SW 2nd Avenue as shown in Figure 2-39. Figure 2-39: Alligator CrossingPreexisting Site Conditions Current site conditions. A permit was recently granted to expand Alligator Crossing. The petitioners kept the old two story apartment buildings and expanded by adding a 3-story apartment building with six 1-bedroom apartments, resulting in a grand total of 11 dwelling units on the entire property. A very wide strip of landscaping surrounds the building. While the site is park ing exempt, there are 7-8 gravel parking spaces on site. The total impervious area is 1,695 ft2. The stormwater management summary sheet shows two retention basins on the property, one North, and one South, each with 70 c.f. of retention volume (City of Gainesville 2002).

PAGE 77

58 Figure 2-40 is an image of the new additi on to the east side of Alligator Crossing. Drainage from the roof flows off the edge s, onto the landscape surrounding the building, just as all the other buildings do. There is no directly connected impervious area, and a strip of forested area approximately 20 feet wi de is used to infiltrate water between this property and a property to the South duri ng and subsequent to storm events. The vegetative buffer between the road and sidewa lk shown in Figure 241 is functioning as a passive infiltration system for bot h. It is likely, however, that a curb will be placed on the road edge. The central picnic area in Figure 2-42 receives a majority of the runoff from the back of the older buildings. Figure 2-43 shows the bioretention area just south of the new 3-story building. It is narro w but very dense and that it is quite close to the building. The thick biostrip is also shown in Figur e 2-44 at the right of the photograph, while a house sits on a property directly downhill from Alligator Crossing. Figure 2-40: Alligator CrossingNew Addition

PAGE 78

59 Figure 2-41: Alligator Crossi ngGrass Strip and Sidewalk

PAGE 79

60 Figure 2-42: Alligator CrossingBackyard Figure 2-43: Alligator CrossingForested Strip

PAGE 80

61 Figure 2-44: Alligator CrossingSouthern Side of Grass Swale Stormwater calculation information. While it was not possible to locate the stormwater calculations submitted to the City of Gainesville or SJRWMD, a stormwater summary indicates that the post development impervious area is 1,695 sq ft and the northern and southern "basins" are 70 ft3 each. The total area of th e parcel is not stated, and thus stormwater runoff calculations cannot be reproduced. Residents living in this complex and in the complex directly sout h (downstream) did not identify ponding issues, with the exception of some minor ponding during the 2005 hurricane season. The owner of the Woodbury Row apartments stated that a large quantity of runoff from Alligator Crossing is captured by the retention p it on the Woodbury Row pr operty, specifically making note of the parking spaces.

PAGE 81

62 Alternative stormwater control measures. With only 7 parking spaces on the property, and 11 dwelling units, some individuals must park on the road. The reduced provision of parking per dwelli ng unit greatly reduces stormw ater impacts per dwelling unit. However, off-site availability of parking will be important. Woodbury Row Preexisting site conditions. Until February of 2003, Woodbury Row was a paved and limerock parking site on SW 5th Avenue with one two-story house and a covered garage. The large two-story, eight bedroom house with a large grassy area shown in Figure 2-45 was part of the 0.27 acre site be fore redevelopment. Figure 2-46 shows the garage (right) and a grass parking lot adjacent to the house. Figure 2-45: Woodbury RowPreexisting Site Condition

PAGE 82

63 Figure 2-46: Woodbury RowPreexisting Garage Current site conditions. The Woodbury Row apartment complex retains the old 2story house with 8 bedrooms and adds seven 3-story single family attached units (4 bedrooms each) for a grand total of 36 bedr ooms. Strategic landscaping and one small pond are used to drain the site. The roof drai ns onto a sidewalk and runs off into the landscaped area (one foot wide ) on both sides of the sidewalk as shown in Figure 2-47. The landscaped areas then drain to a pond located behind the covered bike parking (Figure 2-48). This may introduce fines, sedi ments, and eventually clog the conduit (blue pipe) leading to the pit; however the pond is resourcefully constructed to treat runoff from the alleyway. The covered bike area show n in Figure 2-49 drains directly into the infiltration basin. The parking lot slopes towards the basin.

PAGE 83

64 Figure 2-47: Woodbury RowLand scaped Sidewalk Strips Figure 2-48: Woodbury RowRetention Pond

PAGE 84

65 Figure 2-49: Woodbury RowBike Rack and Retention Pond

PAGE 85

66 Stormwater calculation information. The geotechnical report states that soil borings shown predominantly silty sands. (Fet ner 2003) Thus, one would assume that the pond has a high infiltration capacity and a rela tively short retention time. The seasonal high water table is eight feet below grade. However, the pond is three feet deep, so the SHWT is about five feet below the bo ttom of the pond. The geotechnical engineers estimated a conservative infiltration rate of 3.1 feet per day. Using that infiltration rate, a square pond would be estimated to drain entire ly within 24 hours; however calculations made by Fetner found the recovery time to be about 55 hours. The entire volume of the pond is calculated to be 1,016 cf with an area of 573 ft2 at an elevation of 97.7 feet. Recovery calculations were performed us ing infiltration only through the bottom of the pond, not taking into account saturated flow or flow through the side slopes of the basin. The required treatment volume is 1 inch over the total area or 1.25 inches over the impervious area, according to SJRWMD. One inch over the entire site (11,993 sq ft) is the larger volume of the two methods: 980.3 ft3. Therefore, the volume provided by the pond (1,016 cu ft) is sufficient. Alternative stormwater control measures. The pond used is narrow but deep. It may easily fill with organic matter as shown in Figure 2-48. A good maintenance schedule is needed to prevent it from filling i n. Some steps could also be taken to make it more aesthetically pleasing. However, from a functional standpoint, it is well designed to treat alleyway runoff as well as runoff from the Woodbury Row property. The tree island shown in the bottom left of Figure 2-50 is not notched and therefore must be irrigated using a sprinkler system. It could be designed to function as a small depression, providing some treatment volum e and reducing the need for irrigation.

PAGE 86

67 Similarly, the ditch at the Southern-most location of the site (not pict ured) is cut off from the property by a curb. This may be available for infiltration during and after storm events but it is not known whether alleyway runoff already exhaus ts all the capacity. Figure 2-50: Woodbury RowParking lot and Tree Island West University Avenue Lofts Preexisting site conditions. The West University Avenue Lofts used to contain a single story storefront building with asphalt parking on the S outh side and an old building that was destroyed by fire. Current site conditions. The West University Avenue Lofts are located on the Southwest corner of SW 6th St and Universi ty Avenue. Construction is underway at the 0.67 acre site to produce a 3-story apartment building with 31 units and a total of 37 bedrooms on the top two floors. The bottom floo r will contain four commercial units with over 3,114 sf of commercial space. From the stre et, the building appears to cover nearly the entire site, but there is a large parking lot behind it covering over 50% of the property

PAGE 87

68 as shown in Figure 2-51 and Fi gure 2-52. Stormwater from th e roof and the parking lot drains away from the property to a centralized detention pond (SW 5th Ave. Pond). A schematic of the drainage network is shown in Figure 2-53. This site is a prime example of a ~100% DCIA buildout with no treatment onsite. Stormwater calculation information. The Lofts drain into the three acre SW 5th Avenue Stormwater Pond. The pond was develo ped by the city and it drains various properties such as a downtown parking ga rage, Alachua County Criminal Courthouse, Alachua County Courthouse South lots, and West University Avenue Lofts. It has the capacity to receive stormwater runoff from an entire 50.6-acre urban drainage area in southwest downtown Gainesville. More in formation on the stormwater basin can be found at SJRWMD (2002c, 2004b). This large wet pond has the capacity to treat runoff from this site, which is not much more im pervious than pre-redevelopment conditions. Each user of this pond contributes a prorated share of its cost. Figure 2-51: West University Ave. Loft s Building Faade as photographed on 10/25/2005

PAGE 88

69 Figure 2-52: West University Ave. Loft s Building Plan (Causseaux & Ellington 2003)

PAGE 89

70 Figure 2-53: West University Ave. Lofts Stormwater Drainage Network (Causseaux & Ellington 2003)

PAGE 90

71 Alternative stormwater control measures. Many onsite control possibilities could be performed. These possibilities include the use of partially pervious brick paving or permeable paving, the use of a small bi oretention strip surrounding the buildings, the use of an exfiltration pipe draining and c onnecting surface planters, or planning changes such as siting parking centrally and usi ng the onsite space for other purposes. As of the time of writing, while buying into the pond provides some or all runoff peak and/or quality control, a redevelope d property that does not provide stormwater retention onsite before leaving the lot lines will continue to be charged a stormwater utility fee per volume of runo ff, even after having bought into the regional detention pond. This provides added incentive to cont rol stormwater runoff onsite within the Tumblin Creek Watershed. Opportunity Sites Each of the opportunity sites could incur ma ny onsite stormwater control strategies if redeveloped, limited by site conditions su ch as soil type, Kars t conditions, seasonal high water table, topography, vegetation, and land use. For the following opportunity sites, current site conditions will be discusse d. For some sites, notable alternative BMPs are mentioned. Shands Alachua General Hospital Current site conditions. Shands AGH is a large, sprawling, multi-story complex with a very large parking lot. Fully gr own trees have cracked hardscape surfaces surrounding the lot (Figure 2-54). Parking lot runoff drains dir ectly into the stormwater system without being treated. Nicely trimmed grassy areas (Figure 2-55) are sprinklered with fresh water and are curbed off from pa rking lot runoff but still provide infiltration capacity for sidewalks.

PAGE 91

72 Figure 2-54: Shands AGH Parking Lot Catchbasin Figure 2-55: Shands AGH Curbed Landscape Area

PAGE 92

73 Alternative stormwater control measures. Many alternative stormwater control measures could be retrofitted on the current de velopment. One of the easiest solutions is to channel runoff into grassy areas to inf iltrate. A curbside planter system could be installed along the street corri dor (Figure 2-56); one that is designed to treat runoff before it enters the stormwater system. In fact, if the curb was notched and the road was sloped toward the grass and less pitched towards th e inlet, then a sign ificant amount of the MASE could be treated. The mature trees th at dot street sides and the AGH campus such as those shown in Figure 2-56 could be inte grated into the rede velopment plan. If a treatment pond or stormwater park is built acr oss the street, then the parking lot water could be piped there to be treated. One of the most advanced solutions, but one that would require mandatory periodic maintenan ce would be to indeed pipe parking lot runoff to the green spaces on site but also to amend their soils to capture metals, organics, and nutrients. Figure 2-56: Shands AGH Side walk and Vegetation Strips

PAGE 93

74 South parking lot, Shands AGH Current site conditions. This parking lot, just South of Shands AGH (Figure 2-57) drains into a large gully which provides trea tment and storage of the runoff. There are over 200 parking spaces on this lot. The drainage channel for the parking lot is shown in Figure 2-58. There is no treatment of parking lot runoff before it reaches the headwaters of Tumblin Creek. There are signs of sediment deposition at the end of the lot and some signs of erosion cutting into the vegetate d slope. Figure 2-59 show s how a major portion of the citys stormsewer network co nfluences here and east of 909 SW 5th Avenue. There are two buildings on the property, shown in Figure 2-60 and Figure 2-61. One is an office building (Figure 2-60) and th e other a child daycare center (Figure 2-61). The grassy play area at the child care center is not affected by the water quality from the parking lot to the North or South because it is raised and curbed. Figure 2-57: Shands AGH South Parking LotLooking West

PAGE 94

75 Figure 2-58: Shands AGH South Park ing LotDraining to Tumblin Creek Figure 2-59 Drainage to South Shands Parking Lot and 909 SW 5th Ave. House

PAGE 95

76 Figure 2-60: Shands AGH South Parking LotSoutheast Figure 2-61: Shands AGH South Park ing LotChildrens Play Center Alternative stormwater control measures. If this site is redeveloped, city planners or others involved in regional stormwater control may want to note its location as a confluence of a 160 acre drainage system (see Figure 2-59).

PAGE 96

77 East Shands parking lot Current site conditions. This parking lot located just east of Shands is large, with over 200 spaces (Figure 2-62). One feasible onsite BMP is shown in Figure 2-63. The parking area is asphalt with tree islands betw een each facing row of cars. The tree islands have small notches cut into them, presumably to allow the transfer of stormwater between the islands and the asphalt. However, because the islands are elevated, runoff travels to the hardscape surface rather than towards the greenspace. Figure 2-62: Shands East Parking Lot Alternative stormwater control measures. The parking lot has wide roads and straight spaces. One way to reduce the imperv ious area per space is to reduce the width of the lanes. The notched parking spaces at th e tree island potentially allow flow into and out of the grassy islands. However, this coul d be improved if the is lands were depressed. Currently, the notches serve little beneficial function. The BMP area currently in service is silted in from all the parking lot runoff. Th is is an example of the need for continuous BMP maintenance.

PAGE 97

78 Figure 2-63: Shands East Parking Lot BMP 909 SW 5th Avenue Current site conditions. The 909 house (Figure 2-64) is located directly next to a steeply sloped hillside of native vegetati on that drains down to the headwaters of Tumblin Creek. There is no treatment of runoff from the East side of the house before it enters the drainage area. The parking lot on the West side is dirt a nd there currently is no DCIA on the property.

PAGE 98

79 Figure 2-64: 909 SW 5th AveFront Lot Ayers complex Current site conditions. The building, as it currently ex ists, is three stories. Figure 2-65 is a photograph taken on the west side of the property which s hows a large grate and wall to channel storm events away from th e property. However, the gradually sloped landscape is shallow enough to allow most rain events to infiltrate before going into the city stormwater system. The well manicured gr assy areas (Figure 2-66) do not appear to receive stormwater runoff from adjacent areas The storm drain pictured in Figure 2-67 accepts stormwater runoff from a heavily tr eed parking lot on the Ayers property. The planters shown in the photograph currently se rve aesthetic and safety purposes; they are curbed off from the asphalt lot. This is in sharp contrast to a la rge depression shown in Figure 2-68. The depression leaves a large ar ea for infiltration and root nourishment but still provides a conduit to convey la rge flows away from the property.

PAGE 99

80 Figure 2-65: Ayers ComplexStormwater Conduit Figure 2-66: Ayers ComplexLandscaping

PAGE 100

81 Figure 2-67: Ayers ComplexParking Lot Figure 2-68: Ayers ComplexDepression Area

PAGE 101

82 Ayers parking lot Current site conditions. The parking lot shown in Figure 2-69 is used for the Ayer's medical plaza. It has over 200 spaces. Th e parking lot is fully asphalted with no stormwater retention in tree islands. The stormwater swale shown in Figure 2-70 was ponded 3 hours after a typical af ternoon storm on August 10th. It was recently mowed with heavy mowing equipment. Figure 2-69: Ayers Parking LotTree Island Figure 2-70: Ayers Parking LotInfiltration Swale

PAGE 102

83 809 SW 9th St. parking lot Current site conditions. This small 20 space lot is bordered by a single family home with dense vegetation to the east. Wate r drains from the lot into the landscaping between it and the house. The grass strip to the west (Figure 2-71) receives very little water because the slope of the lot is away fr om it and the road is curbed off from it. Figure 2-71: Parking Lot East of the Estates 1122 SW 3rd Ave Current site conditions. This house, located on the corner of SW 12th Street and SW 3rd Avenue, is of unknown planning status The property is currently in very good condition with a maintained garden (Figure 2-72). This home is hidden by large hedges and trees. There appears to be no direc tly connected surface on this property.

PAGE 103

84 Figure 2-72: 1122 SW 3rd AveHouse and Perimeter Vegetation SW 10th St. and SW 1st & SW 2nd Avenues Current site conditions. This property forms a contiguous grassy parking lot that extends southbound from SW 1st to SW 2nd Ave along SW 9th street as shown in Figure 2-73. The lot is highly vegetated with a variety of large tree s. The spaces between them are just wide enough for small cars to pass through. The main driveways have been worn and are sandy. Figure 2-73: SW 10th St. & SW 1st/2nd AveParking Lot

PAGE 104

85 SW 1st Ave house Current site conditions. The third of four parcels marked for redevelopment along the south side of SW 1st Ave. appears to have no DCIA (Figure 274). The driveway is composed of two concrete strips with a center grass path to infiltrate some storm volume (Figure 2-75). Figure 2-74: SW 1st Ave HouseDriveway Figure 2-75: SW 1st Ave HouseLawn

PAGE 105

86 923 SW 1st Ave Current site conditions. West on the 1st Avenue stre etscape, this property has manicured ground cover and trees which have presumably been left from pre-initial development conditions (see Fi gure 2-76). Redeveloping aro und the natural area seems a good choice as there is likely high infiltration, storage, and evapotranspiration potential. Figure 2-76: 1st Ave HouseForested Landscape 926 SW 2nd Avenue Current site conditions. This is a continuation of the previous property but on the south side, along SW 2nd Avenue. This lot is home to a doctor's office (Figure 2-77). Roof runoff drains into a small landscaped area and overflows ont o an asphalt parking

PAGE 106

87 lot. The parking lot drains to both a shallow gulch to the east and a treatment pond to the north (Figure 2-78). The parking lo t is otherwise curbed off. Figure 2-77: Second Avenue HouseBuilding At the north side of the lot, which actu ally faces SW 1st Av enue, there are two parking spots that are pervious (Figure 2-79) Regular maintenance is necessary to keep these spots from collecting sediment. No in formation is currently available as to a maintenance schedule for these spaces. The area shown in Figure 2-80 drains many bu ildings and parking lots from parcel 13274 and its associated subparcels as well as many portions of parcel 12893 and its associated subparcels. The developers left a tr eed area separating this part of the property from SW 1st Avenue. The drainage systems (bot h the gulch and the pond) may have enough freeboard to treat and infiltrate runoff from most major storm events.

PAGE 107

88 Figure 2-78: SW 2nd Avenue HouseShallow Gulch Figure 2-79: SW 2nd Avenue HousePervious Paving

PAGE 108

89 Figure 2-80: SW 2nd Avenue HouseRain Garden / Retention Pond 104 SW 8th St Current site conditions. This house, located on the south side of SW 1st Ave., is a simple design with no sophisticated stormwat er treatment. Like many of the other houses on this block, there is no DCIA present. Fi gure 2-81 shows that the ground is relatively flat, with a slight slope to th e west (right). The streetscape along SW 1st avenue is curbed with 3 ft sidewalks and a high pitched crown road with onstreet park ing as pictured in Figure 2-82. Figure 2-81: 104 SW 8th StHouse and Shed

PAGE 109

90 Figure 2-82: 104 SW 8th Stst Ave. Streetscape 2nd Ave & 7th St parking lot Current site conditions. The parking lot located on SW 2nd Avenue and SW 7th Street is surrounded by a two-la ne road, a commercial build ing, and an historic home. Water drains from the parking lot to two swal es, one adjacent to the road and the other between it and a neighboring building as shown in Figure 2-83 and Figure 2-84. The swale on the East side of the parking lot is 15-20 ft wide. Figure 2-83: SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lot

PAGE 110

91 Figure 2-84: SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lotdepression 112 SW 6th St. Current site conditions. This parcel located on the corner of 6th St and SW 2nd Avenue, South of the Smith office property, co ntains a 1-story offi ce space (Figure 2-85) with a grassy swale to infiltr ate parking lot, rooftop, and road runoff. The building shows no external DCIA drainage and like ly only drains into the swale. Figure 2-85: 112 SW 6th St.Office Space

PAGE 111

92 The swale is largely disconnected from the road except for some breaks in the curb. The top of Figure 2-86 shows the large dr ain that empties into the city stormwater system during heavy storm events. This swal e shows good infiltration capacity as it is completely dry after a typical summer rainfall earlier in the day (August 10th 2005). Figure 2-86: 112 SW 6th St.Swale 117 SW 7th St. Current site conditions. This house is nestled between the Smith office property, the Henderson property, and Ayers medical plaz a, just north of a parking lot (Figure 287). There is no directly connect ed impervious area. Instead, rain fall runs off of the roof to the landscaped area surrounding it, with no noticeable foundation settling or other signs of water logging.

PAGE 112

93 Figure 2-87: 117 SW 7th St 20 SW 8th St. Current site conditions. This large open corner lot has bare ground adjacent to the building. It appears compressed as can be shown by the ponding in the lower photographs (Figure 2-88, Figure 2-89). Figure 2-88: 20 SW 8th St.Unpaved Parking

PAGE 113

94 Figure 2-89: 20 SW 8th St.On-site Ponding 810 SW 1st Ave Current site conditions. This house, located on SW 1st Avenue, West of 8th Street (Figure 2-90), is next door to the large open corner lo t discussed elsewhere in this document as 20 SW 8th St The area around the driveways paving strips (see Figure 2-91) is completely dry (after a brief storm on August 11th, 2005), which is a good sign of high infiltration capacity even with little vegetation. It may also be that the stormwater is draining to the empty lot east of this property. Figure 2-90: 810 SW 1st Ave

PAGE 114

95 Figure 2-91: 810 SW 1st AveDriveway

PAGE 115

96 Cone property Current site conditions. The Cone property is a totally developed parcel that is a candidate site for redevelopment. The 3.04 acre lot (Figure 292) currently has no stormwater BMPs in place. On the southwes t side of property, the roof drains connect directly to street as shown in Figure 2-93. A tree island on th e northwest side of property is disconnected from street. Runoff from the road drains onto the grassy area shown at right in Figure 2-94 and then flows southbound to a city stor msewer inlet as shown in Figure 2-95. Figure 2-92: Cone PropertyParking Lot Figure 2-93: Cone PropertyWest Side

PAGE 116

97 Figure 2-94: Cone PropertyTree Island Figure 2-95: Cone PropertyUniversity Ave 1206 W University Ave Current site conditions. This vacant lot, located on th e North side of University Avenue, presents many opportunities for redevelo pment. Currently, a la rge concrete slab covers 1/3 of property while the remaini ng space is grass/sand and autonomous abandoned islands. The green area in the cen ter of Figure 2-96 is connected to the pavement, while the tree islands on the edges of the property are not. There appears to be some ponding in the sandy grass covered ar ea due to rains the same day (August 11).

PAGE 117

98 Figure 2-96: 1206 W Univers ity Ave.Gas Station Summary and Conclusions During redevelopment, many sites are changed from low intensity single family homes with low cost (albeit large area infi ltration solutions) to multifamily structures with higher cost and higher maintenance systems but less greenspace requirements. While infiltration trenches appear to be the most commonly chosen onsite control methods for redeveloped sites in the TCW, some sites have incorporated unique techniques in order to retain water onsite. Existing properties exhibit a wide range of on-site and off-site controls. Observed control methods are summarized in Table 2-15 and Table 2-16 for postand preredevelopment conditions, respec tively. Many of the on-site c ontrols were not designed as such. Non-redeveloped sites use relativ ely simple LID soluti ons like disconnected roofs and permeable parking. On-site infiltrati on controls for new developments require relative sophisticated engineer ing analysis and design. Most onsite controls in use today

PAGE 118

99 serve to store, infiltrate, a nd evapotranspire stormwater a nd can be classified under the hydrologic unit process category in Table 2-2. Many of the properties offer opportunities for stormwater control by localizing parking, creating stormwater parks and ponds, wisely landscaping, carefully grading the site, and using low compaction construction t echniques. The collectiv e expertise of urban planners, urban foresters, landscape archit ects, stormwater engineers, developers, transportation engineers, and loca l government officials is need ed to ensure that the best decisions are being made. The most difficult task in determining the effectiveness of BMPs is the process of gathering data on their function (including calculation, image, land uses, location, etc), much as was performed for this chapter. Th is is also a fundamental component of a cyberinfrastructure as defined in Chapter 3. For more property information, access the Alachua County Tax Assessors Database ( http://www.acpafl.org ). Tax parcel information is also summarized in Table 2-17 and Table 2-18 for the readers convenience. Caution must be taken in verifying that the following informa tion is current before using it.

PAGE 119

100Table 2-15: Onsite Controls Us ed on Redeveloped Sites in th e University Heights District Onsite Control Techniques Used Project Status Redevelopment Site Name Disconnected Roof Forest Infiltration Dry Ret Pond Wet Det Pond Permeable Parking Infiltration Trench Rain garden Xeriscaping / Natural Swale Porous Paving Woodbury Row yes Royale Palm Apartments yes Windsor Hall yes Heritage Oaks Apartments yes yes yes yes yes yes DZ sorority house yes yes Complete Alligator Crossing yes yes yes yes West University Avenue Lofts central Taylor Square yes Stratford Court Apartments yes Oxford Terrace yes yes Campus View I yes yes Under Construct. Campus View II

PAGE 120

101Table 2-16: Onsite Controls Used on Non-Redeveloped Sites in th e University Heights District Onsite Control Techniques Used Project Status Redevelopment Site Name Disconnected Roof Forest Infiltration Dry Ret Pond Wet Det Pond Permeable Parking Infiltration Trench Rain garden Xeriscaping / Natural Swale Porous Paving 1122 SW 3rd Ave. yes yes yes Visions yes yes Campus View North yes Campus View III yes yes Planning Estates Sorority Row yes yes 10th St & 1st yes SW 1st Ave House yes yes Ayers Medical Plaza yes yes 117 SW 7th St yes yes 2nd Ave & 7th St Lot yes Smith Office Property Opportunity 112 SW 6th St. yes yes

PAGE 121

102Table 2-16. Continued. Onsite Control Techniques Used Project Status Redevelopment Site Name Disconnected Roof Forest Infiltration Dry Ret Pond Wet Det Pond Permeable Parking Infiltration Trench Rain garden Xeriscaping / Natural Swale Porous Paving Shands AGH West Univ. Ave. Mall 810 SW 1st Ave. yes yes 20 SW 8th St yes 104 SW 8th St yes yes 923 SW 1st Ave yes yes 926 SW 2nd Ave yes yes yes yes yes E. Shands Parking Lot yes Shands S. Parking Lot 909 5th Ave yes yes yes 809 SW 9th St Lot yes yes Cone Property Opportunity 1206 W Univ. Ave yes

PAGE 122

103 Table 2-17: Land Use Information Provided in Alachua County Tax Assessors Database Parcel Area Building Footprnt Paving Drive/ Walkway D/W Brick Project Status Description (acres) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) Woodbury Row 0.52 6824 6875 876 Royale Palm Apartments 0.54 13526 8237 1888 Windsor Hall 1.65 19256 7046 2328 120 Heritage Oaks Apartments 0.68 15167 3986 1499 2073 DZ sorority house 0.22 8639 9459 1880 Complete Alligator Crossing 0.27 3118 West University Avenue Lofts 0.48 Taylor Square 0.50 Stratford Court Apartments 0.63 4510 725 Oxford Terrace 0.73 Campus View I 1.08 Under construct. Campus View II 0.50 1122 SW 3rd Ave 0.36 2129 Visions 0.26 3648 110 Campus View North 0.62 4117 666 Campus View III 0.47 Planning Estates at Sorority Row 0.47 5289 1565 SW 1st Ave House 10th St & 1st/2nd Ave 2.00 16695 Ayers Medical Plaza 5.19 99436 77006 2350 117 SW 7th St 2nd Ave & 7th St Parking Lot 0.85 8835 Smith Office Property 0.25 9000 112 SW 6th St 0.77 14000 4600 Shands AGH 10.77 10000 810 SW 1st Ave West University Avenue Mall 2.05 33499 38200 1505 20 SW 8th St 0.17 104 SW 8th St 0.70 2837 923 SW 1st Ave 0.26 2402 100 926 SW 2nd Ave 0.45 3750 12000 600 East Shands Parking Lot 2.75 48667 Shands South Parking Lot 909 5th Ave 3.60 6476 89294 809 SW 9th St Parking Lot 0.15 Cone Property 2.82 64295 66180 Opportune Site 1206 W Univ. Ave / Vacant 0.60 14596 unknown Henderson Property 0.29 7167 4100 Data accesses 12-15-05, Alachua County Tax Assessor http://www.acpafl.org Note that some property changes have not yet been reflected in the database.

PAGE 123

104 Canopy Garage Lab Patio Deck Slab Pool (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) 509 400 1400 384 690 100 264 360 216 120 684 540 817 240 360

PAGE 124

105Table 2-18: Parcel Information for Rede velopment Sites in University Heights Project Status Description Parcel ID Street Address Zoning Parcel Area (ac) Land Val ($) Total Val ($) Woodbury Row 13143-010-008, 13143-010-000, 13143-010-005, 13143-010-002, 13143-010-001, 13143-010-007, 13143-010-006, 13143-010-004, 13143-010-003 1025 SW 5TH AVE RHD 8-100 u/a 0.52 79000 1230000 Royale Palm Apartments 13190-000-000 1015 SW 7TH AVE RHD 8-100 u/a 0.54 144000 1172900 Windsor Hall 13439-000-000, 13430-000-000 609 SW 9TH ST, 802 SW 7TH AVE RHD 8-100 u/a 1.65 432000 3094800 Heritage Oaks Apartments 14003-000-000, 14002-000-000 117 NW 12th Ter RHD 8-43 u/a 0.68 197400 1577400 DZ sorority house 15534-000-000 903 SW 13TH St RHD 8-100 u/a 0.22 206500 1265900 Complete Alligator Crossing 13143-000-000 1123 SW 5TH AVE RHD 8-100 u/a 0.27 72000 252800

PAGE 125

106Table 2.18. Continued. Project Status Description Parcel ID Street Address Zoning Parcel Area (ac) Land Val ($) Total Val ($) West University Avenue Lofts 12936-000-000 609 W UNIVERSITY AVE Planned Dev. 0.48 216000 216000 Taylor Square 13163-000-000 621 SW 10TH ST RHD 8-100 u/a 0.50 125300 125300 Stratford Court Apartments 13179-000-000, 13180-000-000, 13181-000-000 321 SW 13 ST, 608 & 620 SW 10 ST RHD 8-100 u/a 0.63 165600 322000 Oxford Terrace 13446-001-000 847 SW Depot Ave 0.73 Campus View I 15519-000-000 975 SW 13TH ST RHD 8-100 u/a 1.08 282500 282500 Under const. Campus View II 15520-000-000 1245 SW 9TH RD RHD 8-100 u/a 0.50 98800 98800 1122 SW 3rd Ave 13058-000-000 1122 SW 3RD AVE RHD 8-43 u/a 0.36 97200 184000 Visions 13198-000-000 1016 SW 8TH AVE RHD 8-100 u/a 0.26 72000 155700 Campus View North 15512-000-000, 15511-000-000 1208 & 1142 SW 9TH RD RHD 8-100 u/a 0.62 163100 355700 Campus View III 15521-000-000, 15520-001-000 1229 & 1237 SW 9TH RD RHD 8-100 u/a 0.47 123900 272800 Planning Estates at Sorority Row 15567-007-000, 15567-006-000, 15567-005-000 811 & 815 & 817 SW 11TH ST RHD 8-43 u/a 0.47 121500 368700

PAGE 126

107Table 2.18. Continued. Project Status Description Parcel ID Street Address Zoning Parcel Area (ac) Land Val ($) Total Val ($) SW 1st Ave House 10th St & 1st/2nd Ave 12893-000-000 902 SW 2ND AVE OR 20 u/a 2.00 688700 949100 Ayers Medical Plaza 12928-000-000, 12921-466-000, 12921-258-000, 12921-250-000, 12921-170-000, 12921-458-000, 12921-464-000, 12921-350-000, 12921-151-000, 12921-555-000, 12921-468-000, 12921-452-000, 12921-160-000, 12921-454-000, 12921-155-000, 12921-252-000, 12921-180-000, 12921-254-000* 704 SW 2ND AVE, 720 SW 2ND AVE Med Services 5.19 1107800 10300900 117 SW 7th St Opportune 2nd Ave & 7th St Parking Lot 12933-000-000 117 SW 7TH ST Commercial 0.85 289800 298300

PAGE 127

108Table 2.18. Continued. Project Status Description Parcel ID Street Address Zoning Parcel Area (ac) Land Val ($) Total Val ($) Smith Office Property 12937-000-000 0 W UNIVERSITY AVE* Planned Dev. 0.25 92000 97200 112 SW 6th St 12938-000-000 112 SW 6TH ST Commercial 0.77 260900 340000 Shands AGH 13036-000-000 801 SW 2ND AVE Med Services 10.77 1680700 18241500 810 SW 1st Ave 810 SW 1ST AVE Commercial West University Avenue Mall 13203-000-000, 13201-000-000, 13200-000-000 805 & 903 W UNIV. AVE OR 20 u/a 2.05 846300 2158000 20 SW 8th St 13209-000-000 20 SW 8TH ST OR 20 u/a 0.17 44100 44100 104 SW 8th St 13265-000-000, 12892-000-000 104 SW 8TH ST, 112 SW 8TH ST OR 20 u/a 0.70 165400 384500 923 SW 1st Ave 13271-000-000 923 SW 1ST AVE OR 20 u/a 0.26 72600 163900 926 SW 2nd Ave 13274-000-000 926 SW 2ND AVE OR 20 u/a 0.45 152200 328200 East Shands Parking Lot 13327-001-000, 13327-000-000 606 SW 3RD AVE Med Services 2.75 681700 809200 Shands South Parking Lot 410 SW 8TH ST Med Services 909 5th Ave 13337-000-000 909 5th Ave RHD 8-100 u/a 3.60 573500 834300 Opportune 809 SW 9TH ST Parking Lot 13443-000-000 809 SW 9TH ST RHD 8-43 u/a 0.15 --

PAGE 128

109Table 2.18. Continued. Project Status Description Parcel ID Street Address Zoning Parcel Area (ac) Land Val ($) Total Val ($) Cone Property 13659-000-000 10 NW 6TH ST Commercial 2.82 994500 1218000 1206 W Univ. Ave / Vacant 13996-000-000 1206 W Universtiy Ave Commercial 0.60 280000 288400 Unknown Henderson Property 12929-000-000 621 W UNIVERSITY AVE Commercial 0.29 130000 316200 Data accesses 12-15-05, Alachua County Tax Assessor http://www.acpafl.org ) Note that some property changes have not yet been reflected in the database

PAGE 129

110 CHAPTER 3 CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR CENT RALIZING AND MINING CONTENT Introduction As shown in the previous Chapter, in the Tumblin Creek Watershed many properties incorporate functional land areas that perform the functions of infiltration and temporary storage without being considered BMPs. In order to properly evaluate the utility of disaggregated onsite controls, whet her or not they are deemed BMPs, the data must be collected in a cent ralized, easily accessible, ma nner. The question of how to organize data into a cyberinfra structure that allows analysts to effectively evaluate these complex systems is addressed in this chapter. Cyberinfrastructure has been defined as the coordina ted aggregate of software, hardware and other technologies, as well as human expertise, requi red to support current and future discoveries in science and engi neering (Berman et al. 2005). A recent NSF report provides a more tangible definition. The term infrastructure has been used sin ce the 1920s to refer collectively to the roads, power grids, telephone systems, br idges, rail lines, and similar public works that are required for an industr ial economy to function. Although good infrastructure is often taken for grante d and noticed only when it stops functioning, it is among the most complex and expensive thing that society creates. The newer term cyberinfrastructure refers to infra structure based upon distributed computer, information and communication technology. If infrastructure is required for an industrial economy, then we could say that cyberinfrastructure is required for a knowledge economy (Atkins et al. 2003, p 5). There currently exists a great network of in formation that is readily shared in what is called Web 2.0 (OReilly 2006) and many resources have been developed that help foster academic research (CyberInfrastructu re Partnership 2006). However, Web2.0 is

PAGE 130

111 largely a business and entertainment model, and the resources available to academics are often disparate and methods are necessary [to] provide a useful, usable, and enabling framework for research and discovery ch aracterized by broad access and end-to-end coordination (Atkins et al. 2003). In the c ontext of BMP analysis, there does not yet exist a solid decision support system that houses geospatial BM P performance data, analysis tools, and publications in one location. A cyberinfrast ructure is designed for just such a research environment that supports: data acquisition, data storage, data management, data integration, data mining, data visualization and computing and information processing services over the Internet. Figure 3-1 provides a useful model to optim ize future research steps in light of current methods. Figure 3-1: Integrated Cyberinfrastruct ure Services to Enable New Knowledge Environments for Research and Education. (Atkins 2003)

PAGE 131

112 Computation Services Research analyses performed herein invol ved the need for computation; however, all tools were used on a contemporary persona l computer rather th an on a centralized modeling mainframe or similar system. Comput ational tools used for this thesis were ArcGIS (ESRI, Redlands, CA) Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) EPA SWMM (EPA, NC) and Frontline Systems Solver (Fro ntline Systems Inc., Incline Village, NV). All the tools used were decentralized or used on a personal computer. While highly context-specific stormwater and optimiza tion tools were applied in this study, computational performance was not an issue using current personal computer technology. The greater issue was proper file management. Information Management The second block in Figure 3-1 is labeled Data, information, knowledge management services. In context of this research, the data for the aforementioned computational tools were located in multiple lo cations and in multiple forms. Spatial data were located both on a local department server and in multiple folders on a personal computer. Rainfall information was obtained in raw .CSV format from the NRDC on local hard drives, in a local Access database file where it had been modified and filtered for easier use with SWMM and Excel, and rainfall information was embedded within SWMM and Excel files. Photographs of local BMPs were stored on one network drive and two personal computers. Cost information and stormwater calculations for BMPs in Tumblin Creek were obtained in paper form from the local city planning department. Reference data were obtained from the Un iversity of Florida Electronic Thesis and Dissertations library catalog, peer-reviewed journals with robust knowledge management services, hardcover theses, by personal ema il, by telephone, and in loose-leaf data

PAGE 132

113 printouts. The electronic data were in multiple forms: .TXT, .CSV, Excel, Word, Powerpoint, PDF, GIF, JPEG, and propr ietary SWMM formats. Much of the time required to write this thesis was spent gather ing data. Data produced by this analysis and writeup (in the form of Word and PowerPoint documents, SWMM output files, GIS files, and JPEG files of GIS maps) are currently locat ed on an ftp site, a local hard drive, flash media, a network drive, and in an email re pository. While simply creating a database of regional stormwater data would greatly improve productivity, a number of content management systems are available that bot h organize data and provide a means of calculating or sharing the data within workgroups as discussed in the next section. Collaboration Services While blocks three and four of Figure 3-1 do not relate to this project in any large part, collaboration services o ffer a great benefit to projects such as those discussed in this thesis. Most information for this thesis, aside from re ference information, has been shared and is maintained in an inefficien t manner by cyberinfrastructure standards. The following GIS spatial data files were obtained by email: sidewalk lines, stormwater pipe networks, campus buildings, roads, and pa rking lots. Watershed topography and imagery for GIS were obtained on optical media. Wa tershed layout and subbasin information was downloaded in CAD from the University of Florida Physical Plant (2003). Soils information and GIS spatial data files we re downloaded from the Florida Geographic Data Library (2004). The Excel-based rainfa ll-runoff tool itself was received by email and partly reproduced from textual data located in Heaney and Lee (2006). The document-reviewing process for this thesis was performe d in large part by email and ftp access as well as using file transf er services such as YouSendIt (Mountain View, CA). One reference document was ema iled three times because its location was

PAGE 133

114 forgotten and there was no easy way to sear ch for the document by subject or keyword. Email is especially problematic because it is difficult to maintain organized threads of communication centered around a topi c, project, or document. Collaboration services can serv e to significantly improve th e research process at the University of Florida and elsewhere by organi zing the data into a central repository and encouraging collaboration rather than file sendi ng. This collaboration is especially useful when creating a modular watershed simulation su ch as those discusse d in later chapters. Collaboration services can be subdivided into two categories, for the purpose of this thesis. Some services, such as content mana gement systems, provide both central file management and communications opportunities. Other services better integrate data creation and manipulation with centralized storage. A comb ination of both may provide the foundation for future BMP decision system s by service as information management systems, collaborative analysis tools, and collaborative authoring tools. Centralized File Management and Communications Two common examples of centralized file management used in academic settings are WebCT and Blackboard (Washington, DC). Both products are heralded for their content release schedule (a daptive release), defined content submission windows, centralized gradebook system, automatic te st administration, and WYSIWYG text editors. The most critical and pervasive problem when sharing information is controlling access (Moore 2005). The Blackboard tool ad dresses this issue by implementing the WebDAV storage standard which greatly faci litates file searching by keyword, concept, author, etc. and maintains the data in a data base rather than a f ile repository. From a research perspective, the inst all base of Blackboard and WebC T is attractive because the software is designed to easily share conten t with other WebCT or Blackboard servers,

PAGE 134

115 maintaining file permissions and security between servers. Since most academic institutions often have one or both systems installed, it may prove a relatively simple, although proprietary, solution to shari ng data in an academic network. The enterprise standard in document ma nagement is the Microsoft Sharepoint Services and Portal packages. Sharepoint perf orms similar functions but fully integrates with Office. There are many extensions for it, from integration with the GIS services such as ArcSDE to creating a well defined data structure using an ontology. All documents are contained in redundant databases utilizing the WebDAV system rather than as raw files; hence there are no folders with pictures, docum ents, or audio files in them. Similar to Blackboard, this facilitates document searching, file versioning and sercurity since there is no way to access the information without go ing through the Sharepoint database access module. Sharepoint is designed to integrate with Office and does not play well with open source products such as OpenOffice. What greatly increases Sharepoints value is that it is designed to run on top of MS SQL Se rver and so are the ES RI server products. ESRIs ArcSDE is the most basic GI S document management product designed to serve GIS content in geodatabases on top of MS SQL Server. ArcIMS allows these files to be served through common internet browsers. Methods have been described that link searches in Sharepoint to GIS cont ent within ArcSDE (Bain 2003). Conversely, a user can automatically tag shapefiles w ith document information (served from Sharepoint) from within ArcGIS or ArcIMS. Centralized File Management and Computational Analyses An example of combining data storage and computation is the ArcGIS Server tool by ESRI. ArcGIS Server allows a group of users to store information on centralized geodatabase(s) and additionally perform data computation on a central server from any

PAGE 135

116 computer. One major advantage to having a pr oduct like ArcGIS installed on a central server is upgradeability and scalability. Upgradability refe rs to the ability to update the core processing software when new releas es are available without having to update several user computers, saving time and m oney. Scalability refers to the ability to increase system capacity in both speed and file space as the needs of the user base grow. A person with a four year old laptop would ha ve some difficulty in running the latest version of ArcGIS on their computer today but a user with a ten year old computer can edit and save ArcGIS files using ArcGIS Serv er because the computer largely functions as a terminal. With all of the benefits, th ere are some disadvantages to centralized computing such as processor load dynamics. It may be most efficient to utilize a mesh or distributed computing approach wherein each autonomous computer contributes computational time to the larger community; however, while this has approach been utilized in other applications, they are nas cent and security issues remain (Davies 2004). Ontological Development While absent from most cyberinfrastruct ure literature, ontologies may provide the data sharing opportunities that ar e highly desired without the need to subscribe to one file standard. Instead, others have created a language that allows for the sharing of mostly text based information at a basic common denominator, extensible markup language (XML). Protocols have been developed that allow a person to ta ilor the knowledge representation format they desire within, fo r example, their college, and share it with others by publishing the ontology. The knowle dge representation is the ontology, while the protocols used to describe and share ontologies are most notably RDF and OWL, among others. Beck (2002, p 1) has written a detailed introducti on to ontologies and describes their purpose as follows:

PAGE 136

117 Ontologies can be used to better organize information resources and assist users in retrieving relevant information. Ontologi es attempt to exploit domain-specific information by representing the meaning of terms within a domain, and using these meaning representations to organize the co llection and make search more accurate. The BMP Data Clearinghouse developed by Clary et al. (2002) has to be standardized within its own namespace but by using ontologies, information can be shared between this database and another simply by creating a translator that says, for example, the term Hydrodynamic Unit in the Clearinghouse is equal to Hydrodynami c Separator in another clearinghouse. One can also define which relationships to carry over if combining data (i.e. if the Clearinghouse ha s knowledge that the CDS is a type of Hydrodynamic Unit, then the other clearinghous e can leverage this and import that relationship if desired). Ontologies are for the most part academic pursuits at the moment may one day drive the web. A major problem with ontologies is that while they can be defined using simple relationships, i.e.: Class: A generic concept Object: A particular occurrence of a generic concept Subclass: A class that is more specific than a particular class Superclass: A class that is more general than a particular class PartOf: An object that is pa rt of a particular object Association: Two objects are related in general (other than one of the above relationships) (Beck et al., 2002), the taxonomies that develop can become ve ry complicated with many layers of information. The following are some examples of taxonomies from various projects. The code below is part of an ontolog y used to describe physico-chemical phenomena. A lot of information can be gath ered from the compact code. The following are two terms with unique ID s and common names. Their definitions are provided and

PAGE 137

118 one can find the definition source in th e brackets. The is_a term shows that agglomeration is an interphase transition and hence is related to term id: REX:0000181. [Term] id: REX:0000181 name: interphase transition def: "A transition that occurs at boundaries bet ween phases." [http:// gold.zvon.org/I03119.html] is_a: REX:0000171 phase transition [Term] id: REX:0000186 name: agglomeration def: "The formation and growth of aggregates ul timately leading to phase separation by the formation of precipitates of larger than co lloidal size." [http://gol d.zvon.org/A00182.html] is_a: REX:0000181 interphase transition http://obo.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/ obo/obo/ontology/physi cochemical/rex.obo Figure 3-2 is a visual repres entation of an ontology used to organize experiments involving the use of geospatial data. Figure 3-2: Ontology of an Invest igative Experiment. (Pouchard 2003)

PAGE 138

119 This image was generated using an ope n source ontology viewer and generator called Protg, developed at Stanford Universi ty (http://protege.stanf ord.edu/). This tool is used to make very extensive ontologies th at can define an entire research discipline. Figure 3-3 defines waterways and infrastructu re in the United States. Relationships can be inferred from this relationship system to be gin creating rule based decision tools. If it is known, for example, that watershed A shares characteristics with watershed B and the construction of a new thoroughfare in wate rshed A has raised the high water mark significantly during recent storm events, an infe rence can be made stating that if the same were done in watershed B, the same effect would occur. Figure 3-3 Hierarchic Division of Hydrologic Units (Beran, 2005)

PAGE 139

120 A basic ontology was made for this resear ch project using simple relationships (Figure 3-4). For example, an author must be a person and a thesis has an author (not visualized below), so it follows that a thesis may be associated to a person and a person may have written a thesis. Individuals can al so populate each circle below. For example, SWMM is listed as an individual in the programs Class. Much more complicated relationships can be made using the propert ies form and these relationships can be queried. One can quickly determine all the in dividuals in the Class Person that have written thesis by letting the program search through the ontology tree. Figure 3-4: Basic Ontol ogy of Research Project If a content management tool like Sharepoi nt or Drupal were coupled with the data processing capabilities of a centralized GIS sy stem and statistical analysis system, then the supporting entity would immediately be come a hub of information. If an ontology

PAGE 140

121 plugin was purchased or develope d, then when this information has to one day be shared with another service, such as those menti oned in the following paragraph, it would only be a matter of sharing our ontology with those seeking to integrate our data into their network. Currently Available Cyberinf rastructure Institutions Solutions are slowly coming online that provide a centralized data repository, modeling and analysis tools, and collaboration tools. The two projects most directly related to stormwater resear ch are the Collaborative Largescale Engineering Analysis Network for Environmental Research ( http://cleaner.ncsa.uiuc.edu/home/ ) which specializes in large scale environmental systems research, and the Consortium of Universities for the Advan cement of Hydrologic Scien ces Hydrologic Information System ( http://www.cuahsi.org/his/index.html ), which is currently operational but without detailed hydro logic modeling tools such as SWMM. Of the two, the CUAHSIHIS may be more promising because it prov ides an opportunity for our university to contribute to the hydrologic observation repository and a network enabled SWMM tool, receiving in return access to weather, hydraulic, hydrologic, and water quality data from other institutions as well as access to a la rger decision support system of which the SWMM tool would be a small component. At the moment however, there is no data repository for urban hydrology at the University of Florida. Content Management and Collaborative Authoring Environment Experiment Water resource projects at the University of Florida need to share information more easily within the department and between this and other departments within the University. This is at the fulcrum of NSF f unding and research as shown in the following quote from the Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure:

PAGE 141

122 Interoperability is important for facil itating multidisciplinary projects as the evolution of discovery dictates. The Panel has learned that new types of scientific organizations and supporting environments (laboratories without walls) are essential to the aspirations of growing numbers of research communities/projects and that thus they have begun creating such environments under various names including collaborato ry, co-laboratory, grid commun ity, e-science community, and virtual community. The NSF through an ACP can now enable, encourage, and accelerate this nascent grass-roots revolution in ways that maximize common benefits, minimize redundant and ineffective investments, and avoid increasing barriers to interdis ciplinary research (Atkins 2003, p 13). In the spirit of resear ch and open standards, an experi ment was undertaken to organize data from this project into an open sour ce content management system called Drupal namely by organizing information from the Tumblin Creek BMP analysis into independent but interconnected nodes, publishi ng this thesis as a book with separate Chapters, publishing the Excel optimization file as a node, pu blishing a small selection of reference reviews as nodes, and publishing each Appendix as a node. Nodes were related to each other; for example, all nodes were categorized under the project GainesvilleStormwater; each chapter will have a list of references published as a separate section with in the node and references will be clickable if hyperlinks are available; each appendix will have a click through selection that allows the user to navigate to the location(s) which reference the appendices, etc. A permission system was set up where only members of the project group were able to view unfinished documents for the purposes of reviewing. A really simp le syndication or RSS link was provided for the Stormwater group page that allows subscrib ers with modern browsers to view content from the website as it is updated as well as allowing other websites to syndicate publicly available content from this page on their we bsite. Similarly, Journal of American Water Resources Association publications are s yndicated on the experimental CMS website. Users can access the website at www.gainesvilleenvironmental.org

PAGE 142

123 Results indicate that it is possible to create a collaborative authoring and information sharing environment using open source software, but that many steps are necessary to secure private information wh en using the Drupal CMS. One example of how even this basic type of collaborative environment could foster interdepartmental growth in water resources research is the ab ility to provide a public ly accessible visually oriented database of water quality monito ring information. Different departmental or even student run groups could ta ke ownership of certain stati ons and groups could gather together real time to perform spatial statis tical analyses and begi n co-writing documents all from their respective departments. A more easily visualized example is the ability to create an organized database of BMP impl ementations throughout Gainesville much like that shown in the previous Chapter. By li nking the parcel ID number with Saint Johns River Water Management District databa se (SJRWMD) and the Alachua County Tax Assessors Database (ACTA), combined with photographs of each BMP, one can begin quantifying the net effect of the various LID implementations. Monitoring data could be entered into the database in addition to water volume calculations and detailed parcel level spatial information offered by the SJ RWMD and ACTA databases, respectively Conclusions Many environmental research scientists in water resources, soils analysis, agricultural hydrology, pub lic health, geology, etc. utilize tools such as Office, ArcGIS, SPSS or SAS products in conjunction with custom soil analytics, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, and other computational tool s. Watershed research at the University of Florida can benefit from a local conten t management / computational system using products available off the shelf.

PAGE 143

124 After weighing the costs and benefits of some common tools and creating a CMS using open source software, it may be most effi cient to utilize a Sharepoint Portal system coupled with an ontology plugi n, an ArcSDE or ArcGIS Server system, and a centralized statistical analysis package. If this system were to be implemented immediately, then it may help coordinate upcoming research oppor tunities at the Univ ersity of Florida involving water quality control, water quant ity control, and educational outreach. Most importantly, even if computational analyses are performed independently, a CMS is necessary to encourage ad-hoc on line meetings and working groups between departments without taking the time needed fo r in person meetings. A tool has been made available (www.gainesvilleenvironmental.com) where students interested in performing undergraduate or graduate re search in the subject are able to join a group called Stormwater. Information from this thesis has been made available and can act as a tutorial for analytical approaches to mode ling stormwater in the urban environment. Research projects in different departments, including projects, thes es, and dissertations, can contribute to an overall objective of managing water quality and quantity in novel ways. It also has been shown that ontologies can be used to share information between a local CMS and other institutions, incl uding the CUAHSI-HIS or CLEANER. The next three chapters show data that are needed to simulate watershed runoff. Great time was taken to gather data requi red for computation in the hydrologic and hydraulic simulation tool EPA SWMM. While me thods to compare on-site vs. off-site controls have previously b een described in Sample et al. (2001, 2003) and Lee et al. (2005), it was realized that data containe d in the GIS cyberinf rastructure could be leveraged to describe urban land use at the s ub-parcel level (Chapter 6). As a first step

PAGE 144

125 towards that goal, Chapter 4 discusses a framework used by The Low Impact Development Center to gather and organize site data to systematically evaluate if candidate practices meet pres pecified watershed goals.

PAGE 145

126 CHAPTER 4 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED Introduction This chapter begins with a summary of a detailed step-by-step BMP selection framework presented by The Low Impact Development Center (2004). The 5-step methodology focuses on defining and m eeting hydrologic, ecologic, and community/economic goals. Beginning in this and continuing in the next two chapters, the framework is applied to each of three case studies in the Lake Alice Watershed to test two hypotheses: 1. Watershed runoff can be simulated quickly a nd easily, provided that the site is well characterized and the data are organized in a minable cyberinfrastructure. 2. It is possible to select BMPs that incr ease onsite stormwater control by mining site data for critical flowpaths and using simulation tools to augment strategic functional land units within the watershed. The three case studies will progress from a larger wate rshed (1,400 acres) in this chapter, to a medium scale (300 acres) watershe d in Chapter 5, to a fine scale (7 acres) watershed analysis and simulation study in Ch apter 6. This will show the challenges in simulating the watersheds at each scale (visually summarized in Figure 4-1). The following section presents a brief outline of the planning and evaluation framework identified by the LID Center. Low Impact Development Center BMP Planning and Evaluation Process The Low Impact Development Center ( 2004) developed a prot otype BMP planning and evaluation process that involves five st eps as shown in Figure 4-1. This framework provides a good guide to sele cting the appropriate BMPs.

PAGE 146

127 Figure 4-1: 5-step Pr ototype LID Planning Process. (L ow Impact Development Center, 2004) Goals Watershed planning goals help influence th e type of BMPs chosen. The three main categories of planning goals stated in the LI D document are: (a) hydro logic, (b) ecologic, and (c) community and economic developmen t. The prototype provides examples of each, as reproduced below. For more detailed information, please refer to LID Center (2004). Hydrologic: o Runoff volume o Flood control Ecologic: o Water quality o Stream health o Antidegradation, i.e. fishable/swimmable Community and economic development: o Green infrastructure o Job creation o Historic preservation Site Characteristics Site characteristics can often enhance the attractiveness of a gi ven LID practice in meeting a watershed planning goal while decr easing the attractiveness of others. Site characteristics can be classified under the following taxonomy: (a) project type (redevelopment or retrofit), (b ) land cover, (c) soils, and (d) hotspots. The prototype provides examples of each. Some of the exampl es provided in the original document have been reproduced below.

PAGE 147

128 Project type o Redevelopment (high flexibility) o Retrofit (site design largely fixed) Land Cover o Land use (high density commercial medium density residential, etc.) o Type of activity (active r ecreation, high traffic, etc.) o Pervious/impervious area distribution o Site topography Soils o Compacted soils o Infiltration capacity (soil type and drainage) Hotspots o Accumulation of debris o Erosion, incision Evaluate Candidate Practices In step three, LID practices are checke d first for functionality and second for compatibility with the desired goals and site characteristics. For th is thesis, the method employed to determine the performance of a BMP is to simulate its performance using a stormwater management model (SWMM). While many methods are available for simulating BMPs such as frequency mode ls (Behera 2006) and design event models (Huber 2005), the new version of SWMM provide s an easy-to-use interface and is more powerful at simulating BMPs like irrigation pr actices that rely on depression storage. Determine Cost Effectiveness As stated in step four of the prototyp e BMP selection process, One of the key lessons of using decentralized controls is the flexibility and the ability of several different types of BMPs to have similar stormwater management capabilities (LID Center 2004). For this thesis, the method employed to determ ine a cost-effective solu tion is to simulate BMPs in the EPA-Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) based on first principles

PAGE 148

129 such as storage and infiltration parameters. By placing the BMPs into a virtual landscape, BMP performance can also be evaluated base d on spatial location in the runoff network. Case Study 1: Larger Scale Lake Alice Watershed Introduction The goals section will describe stormwater goals for the Lake Alice Watershed as stated in the 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan. Th e site characterization section aggregates a handful of data sources, including the 2005-2015 Campus Master Plan and previous Master Plans, and other publications. The thir d section then outlines previous stormwater models applied to the watershed and discusses why it is difficult to generate a reasonable BMP performance model at this scale. Goals The University of Florida is required to make a Master Plan in accordance with a master stormwater permit issued by the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) (University of Florida 2006b). The Ma ster Plan includes, but is not limited to, stormwater control goals in the Lake Alice Watershed. The current permit (valid until 2010) allows the University to increase im pervious surfaces by approximately 175 acres. Goals have been established in the new Mast er Plan which call for the implementation of hard and soft BMPs on campus. The legal aut hority and criteria addressing stormwater requirements in the Florida Administrative Code still apply (University of Florida 2006b). Hence, the University must make sure its goals are in line with these regulations. The only stormwater goal listed in the Util ities element of the Master Plan is: To Design, Construct and Maintain a Safe, Sustainable, Economical and Environmentally Sound Stormwater Mana gement System that Reduces the Potential of Flooding, Protects Natural Dr ainage Features, and Preserves and Enhances Desirable Water Quality Conditi ons. (University of Florida 2006b, p 9-1)

PAGE 149

130 This suggests that the university is focused on at least two of the three watershed goals in the LID Centers prototype framework, na mely hydrologic and ecologic (community goals are addressed in policy contained with in Appendix A). This goal gains a regulatory framework in Objective 1.1, as stated in the Master Plan: Objective 1.1: Meet or exceed all ap plicable federal and state regulatory requirements for stormwater manage ment and water quality protection... (University of Fl orida 2006b, p 9-1) Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 enumerate the various regulatory requirements mentioned in Objective 1.1. Policy 1.1.1: The University sha ll continue to comply with the regulations set forth in the Clean Water Act, Title 40 CFR as applicable. (University of Florida, 2006b, p 9-1) Policy 1.1.2: The University shall maintain water quality standards for stormwater quantity and quality that are consistent with the St. J ohns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Suwannee River Water Management District and Department of Environmental Protection standards fo r stormwater management systems as outlined in Section 120.373 and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and Chapters 62-3, 62-25, 62-40, 40B-1, 40B-2, 40B-4, 40C1, 40C-4, 40C-8 and 40C-40 through 40C-44, of the Florida Administrative Code (University of Florida 2006b, p 9-1). Appendix A presents information pertinent to the LAW from the statutes and codes mentioned above. In partial fulfillment of th e Clean Water Act, the University has begun Phase II NPDES requirements. Florida Statute 373 establishes that a stormwater treatment pond like Lake Alice is not a wa ter of the state and state surface water regulations do not apply (Flori da Senate 2005a). The water ma nagement district can still deem Lake Alice a hazard to public health, fish, or w ildlife, however. FAC 62-25 has general design and performance standards but al so states that Stormwater discharges to groundwaters shall be regulated under the provisions of Chapters 62-520 and 62-522, F.A.C., and other applicable rules of the Department (Florida Department of State 2005). Chapter 62-520 establishes that Lake Alice, which drains into a class GII

PAGE 150

131 groundwater, must treat to primary but not se condary drinking water standards. This involves, among other things, discharging a TDS < 10,000 mg/L and a maximum N of 10 mg/L. Chapter 62-522 established that quarterly reports must be given to show that maximum discharge criteria are not supe rseded. FAC 62-40 promotes the use of nonstructural (or soft) solutions to water resource problems. It also suggests that Lake Alice and the Lake Alice network might have to remove 95% of infl uent pollutants that would violate the state standards. It again stresses water quality monitoring. (Florida Department of State 2005) As shown above, water regulations are a major driver in the Master Plan. The University specifically addresses the we ll monitoring requirement in Policy 1.1.5: conditions include reporting water leve ls in monitoring wells quarterly and submission of groundwater and surface water monitoring tests to the water management (University of Florida 2006b). However, the University goes a step further in Policy 1.3.7: The University shall continue to monitor Lake Alice and other surface water bodies for compliance with existing standards fo r water quality in order to meet Class III water quality standards and report findings to the Lakes, Vegetation and Landscape Committee annually (University of Florida 2006b). The University, while trying to maintain a compact core of buildings, is facing the problem of deeply incisi ng creeks and downstream sedi mentation. Objective 2.1 under the aforementioned goal addre sses this issue in part. Objective 2.1: Maintain existing stormw ater management infrastructure and provide sufficient infrastructure capacity to meet the future needs of the University. (University of Fl orida 2006b, p 9-2) It does this in Policy 1.2.7 by encouraging the implemen tation of storm water facility projects to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stor mwater discharge in

PAGE 151

132 locations identified as feasib le (University of Florida 2006b ). The University is also establishing a policy that may allow one to begin accounting for who or where large contributing sources are. Policy 1.2.8: The Un iversity shall work with the City of Gainesville and Florida Departme nt of Transportation to ensu re that stormwater issues that can include: water quality, trash, erosi on, and flooding are controlled at points where off-campus stormwater is accepted into the Universitys stormwater system and water bodies or when the Universitys stormwater system adversely impacts the stormwater systems and water bodies under control of th e City of Gainesville or the Florida Department of Transportation (University of Florida 2006b). The University focuses heavily on mitigating ecological impact, as shown in Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.2 as well as Objective 1.4 and Policy 1.4.1. The University is considering installation of decentralized stormwater control measures throughout the campus as described below. Objective 1.3: Protect the natural functi ons of hydrological areas, maintain water quality and control sedimentation. Policy 1.3.2: The University shall continue to mitigate University generated stormwater and to minimize stormwater borne pollutants in new and existing facilities through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that includes, but is not limited to: Incorporating stormwater management re tention and detention features into the design of parks, trails, commons and ope n spaces, where such features do not detract from the recreational or aesthetic value of a site. Using slow release fertilizers and/or car efully managed fertilizer applications timed to ensure maximum root uptake and minimal surface water runoff or leaching to groundwater. Using pervious ma terials to minimize impervious surface area Objective 1.4: Implement sustainable stor mwater practices in all campus site development incorporating Low Impact Development techniques where physically, economically, and practically possible.

PAGE 152

133 Policy 1.4.1: The University shall strive to in corporate stormwater improvements into all new building sites and into modification of existing sites. These improvements include, but are not limited to, rain gardens, roof-top gardens, porous soil amendments, hardscape storage, pervious pavement and other innovative stormwater techniques. Policy 1.4.2 : The University shall identify opport unities for retrofitting existing open space (i.e. land use classifications of Buffer, Urban Park and Conservation) to incorporate rain gardens and other multi-use detention practices that maintain the primary use, but with the added benefit of slowing water discharges into the stormwater system (University of Florida 2006b, pp 9-3 9-4). Lastly, the University is indeed making a cas e for the implementation of a research or teaching network associated with stormwater control measures. Objective 1.5: Inform faculty, staff, st udents and visitors on stormwater issues through outreach and dem onstration projects. Policy 1.5.1: The University shall strive wh ere practicable to include interpretive information and educationa l opportunities that go along with the Universitys efforts to integrate innovative structural stormwater design and BMP concepts. Policy 1.5.2: The University shall mainta in financial and personnel support of stormwater related education and awaren ess programs for the campus community. Policy 1.5.3: The University shall pursue grants and other opp ortunities to fund implementation, outreach and study of stor mwater best management practices on campus (University of Flor ida, 2006b, p 9-4 to 9-5). There are ancillary goals not explicitly writt en into Master Plan code such as the following, taken from Master Plan Data and Analysis Reports (University of Florida 2006a). For example, the open space requirement for LEED criteria will no longer be met onsite but will be applied to the campus-wide conservation strategy. Numerous ecological protections are in place for th e Lake Alice Watershed (LAW ) within the Conservations Area Land Management (CALM) section of th e University of Florida Campus Master Plan. Policy written for the CALM states that an average of 50 foot buffer (minimum of 35 feet) shall be protected around all wetla nds/water bodies that are not within a Conservation Area before construction.

PAGE 153

134 In summary, the University of Florida a ddresses all three goals mentioned in the BMP selection framework. Ecologic o Requiring the University to meet or exceed regulations and permit requirements when draining into th e aquifer or lake, respectively o Encouraging the construction of st ructural and implementation of non-structural BMPs (slow releas e fertilizer) to reduce stream erosion and increase water quality o Creating a wetland setback Community and economic deve lopment: (see Appendix A) o Encouraging green infrastructure i. e. pervious paving & green roof o Encouraging LEED certification o Ensuring future capacity for stormwater control o Promoting education and resear ch into stormwater control Hydrologic o Meeting water volume regulations. o Meeting flood control regulations Characterize Site The next step in the BMP selection process is to characterize the site. Most projects implemented in the LAW are redevelopment or greenfield development, thus allowing high flexibility. Before discussing land cover, soils, or hotspots, a geographic description of the watershed is presented below. Geography Lake Alice is a combination of open lake and marsh systems. The western end of the lake, consisting of open water (Figure 4-2) covers about 32 acres and averages less than six feet in depth, reaching a maximum dept h of 10 ft. The eastern end of the lake is approximately 55 acres and is a marshy ar ea characterized by shallow water-hyacinth prairie with an average depth of 2 ft (Korhnak 1996). Bathymetric maps have been prepared for Lake Alice by Mitsch (1975) and LAKEWATCH (2001), shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. A comparison of the two maps underscores the loss in depth over the years due to sedi mentation (Figure 4-4).

PAGE 154

135 Figure 4-2: Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975 Figure 4-3: Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 2001

PAGE 155

136 Figure 4-4: Comparison of Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975 and 2001 (in % total area) Lake Alice is perched on a clay la yer underlain by a limestone formation characterized with multiple fractures and caverns. The lake stage is at an elevation of approximately 68.5 ft corresponding to a la ke volume of 270 acre -feet, or 88 million gallons (Causseaux 2000). Lake Alice receives infl ow from many sources. Two creeks to the north, two creeks to the south and a creek to the east convey stormwater runoff and drainage, cooling water, and groundwater to the lake. Lake A lice receives direct

PAGE 156

137 stormwater inputs from five outlet headwalls conveying runoff from Museum Road. The lake receives stormwater from Corry Village Overland runoff flows into the lake from bordering drainage sub-basins. Direct precipitation and gr oundwater inflow are also inflow sources. Water exits Lake Alice through two groundwater-recharge wells (R1 and R2); R1 only receives flow during heavy rain events (Korhnak 1996). The lake also loses water directly to evapotrans piration and groundwater outflow. Land cover The LAW consists of approximately 1,058 acres encompassing a large portion of campus and off-campus sites to the north and east (Causseaux 2000; University of Florida 2005) pictured in pink in Figure 4-5. Lake Alice is atypical in that it serves almost every type of land use. Figure 4-5: Lake Alice, Tumblin Creek, and Sweetwater Branch Watersheds

PAGE 157

138 Neighbored to the east by the Tumblin Creek Watershed, there are numerous urban land uses draining to the wet detention system (WDS): runoff from roads, parking lots, rooftops and sidewalks, typical of an urban area. Baseball an d football fields as well as agricultural fields and student gardens drain to the lake, which may release nutrients. Industrial facilities on cam pus drain towards the lake such as the steam/cooling cogeneration plant, the wastewat er treatment plant, a research hospital, vehicle depots, etc. Residential areas th roughout campus range from two story condominiums to multistory dormitories. Numerous urban fo rests on campus and a series of ponds and wetlands are connected by streams throughout the eastern campus. A visual look at the land use activity at the University verifies that numerous land uses are draining to the lake and it shows the high building density, high occupancy part of campus to the North East (Figures 4.6, 4.7). Figure 4-6: Land Use In and Around the LAW (University of Florida 2006a)

PAGE 158

139 Figure 4-7: Density in the LAW (University of Florida 2006a) The topography suggests an average grade of about 2% thro ughout the watershed (CH2MHill 1986), with the maximum elevation in the NE corner of the LAW at 171 ft MSL. Impervious areas for each drainage sub-basins are tabulated in the 2001 and 2006 Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP ) (Causseaux 2000, University of Florida 2006b) and in the Campus-wide Impervious Table (University of Florida 2006a). Imperviousness within the watershed ranges fr om 0 to 81% for each subcatchment, with an average of about 41% for the entire watershed. The LAW shows a linear rainfallrunoff response relationship shown in Figure 4-8. Korhnaks (1996) measurements of rainfall-runoff relationships for the LAW indicat e that virtually all of the runoff is from the directly connected impervious areas becau se the rainfall-runoff relationship is linear and the initial abstraction is negligible (Korhnak 1996).A total of 29 storms were measured with rainfalls from 0.2 to over 8 cm About 43.3% of the preci pitation runs off.

PAGE 159

140 Figure 4-8: Rainfall-Runoff Relationship for HC01 Presented in Korhnak (1996) The lake receded at a rate of 0.4 to 0.5 feet/d ay following Hurricane Frances, as measured three times per day or more frequently, correl ating to a drawdown flow rate of about 25 cfs, with large aquatic plan ts against the well grates. Soils Generally, soils within the Lake Alice Watershed are of two types. The upland areas are deep, well-drained sands with low su rface runoff potential. Available soils data suggests varying degrees of dr ainage in the western part of the watershed shown in Figure 4-9 (Florida Geographic Data Library 2003). Drainage values for areas in the north and west vary from moderately well to excellent whereas areas bordering the eastern and southern shores of the lake ha ve poor drainage values according to NRCS drainage indices. Areas in the extreme sout h, near the golf course, north of Shands Hospital, and the forest west of the Reitz Union exhibit poor dr ainage. Areas around the Welcome Center and near the Shands Cancer Center exhibit moderately well to well

PAGE 160

141 drained soils. Soil-type classifications geospa tially correlate well with soil drainage as shown in Figure 4-10 with respect to Figure 4-9. Figure 4-9: Soil Drainage Classification (Florida Ge ographic Data Library 2003) Figure 4-10: Soil Type Classificati on (University of Florida 2006a)

PAGE 161

142 Hotspots Deep stream incisions exist in the East Creek Branch leading towards Lake Alice, suggesting very high flow veloci ties (Figure 4-11). Similar in cisions occur in the adjacent Tumblin Creek Watershed as described by J ones Edmunds and Associates (2006, p 1-4). Physical evidence of stream bed and ba nk erosion is apparent.In some cases, piping originally installed below the stream bed is now two to three feet above the stream bed. It is expensive to remediate these incisi ons. Jones Edmunds provides a rough planning estimate for one sheet pile weir to be between $10,000 and $16,000. A number of these controls may have to be installed in a ddition to other bank reinforcement techniques through 12 reaches of Tumblin Creek. Figure 4-11: Stream Incision in Ea st Creek, University of Florida

PAGE 162

143 Evaluate Candidate Processes Geographic information system shapefile s delineating functional land use areas (including directly and indirectly connected areas) are only available for part of the Lake Alice Watershed. Thus, it was decided that a smaller section of the watershed (East Creek Watershed) would be studied in order to al low for simulation of subbasin flow between the 6 subbasins (of 40 total) shown in Figure 4-12. Figure 4-12: East Creek Wa tershed Highlighted within Lake Alice Watershed. Conclusions The Low Impact Development Centers five step framework provides a good means of selecting onsite stormwater controls that meet watershed goals. The University of Florida has clear goals towards hydr ologic control, sound ecology, and community involvement in 2005 2015 master plan. Site characterizatio n shows that there is a significant amount of relief in the watershed and Lake Alice itself may be receiving

PAGE 163

144 sedimentation from contributing creeks. Soils da ta suggest that onsite infiltration controls should function well in the eastern region of campus, given the Type A soils, however soil drainage maps do not present enough da ta. In order to properly evaluate any candidate processes, more data are necessary and a more focused scale is desirable so as to simulate more precisely the flow paths throughout the studied watershed.

PAGE 164

145 CHAPTER 5 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE EAST CREEK WATERSHED Introduction This case study begins with a brief discus sion of watershed planning goals specific to the East Creek watershed studied at a m edium scale, followed by a very brief site characterization section. The information is presented in the following manner. The section labeled Evaluate Candidate Practi ces is composed of four subsections: Capabilities, Input Attribut es, ECW Drainage Network, a nd Runoff Analysis. The Input Attributes subsection simultaneously describe s ECW site characteristics in context of SWMM modeling capabilities, pr oviding a basic tutorial on th e modeling tool while also providing information about the ECW. The Dr ainage Network subsection shows some of the generalizations made when producing th e model. The Runoff Analysis subsection presents and discusses results from runni ng the SWMM model of the ECW by comparing it to measured data. The comparison elucidat es the advantages of using high quality surface data and the need to use high quality ra infall data to generate sophisticated realtime models. Goals This study was begun after the 2004 hurrica nes reemphasized the need for proper flood control, drainage, and water quality control. While stormwater management systems (SMS) have historically been de signed for flood control and quick drainage (Prymas 2004, Shirahama 1992), the velocity wi th which stormwater travels through the

PAGE 165

146 East Creek network suggests that BMPs may need to be put in place. Goals mentioned previously for the LAW apply in the ECW as well. Characterize Site A catchment within the larger LAW, th e ECW drains the eastern portion of the University of Florida (UF) and nearby neighborhoods. The 300 acre area located in Gainesville, Fl consists of five high-dens ity academic land use subcatchments west of 13th St and a sixth subcatchment east of 13th that is characterized by medium to high density single family and mixed use conditions. The ECW is the portion of the Lake Alice watershed east of Ne well Drive as shown in Figure 5-1. The area, located on the eastern side of the UF campus, stretches south from University Avenue to Archer Road and east from Newell to 13th Avenue, with one of the six subcatchments located east of 13th. The area is largely urban, consisting of large academic buildings, roadways, numerous walkways, and isolated forests.

PAGE 166

147 Figure 5-1: East Creek Watershed Study Area (http://campusmap.ufl.edu/) The boundaries of the subcatchments used in this report are as fo llows (Figure 5-2): Lake Alice 1 (LA-1) has boundaries along SW 13th Street, SW 4th Avenue, SW 10th Street, and SW 9th Avenue. LA-2 has boundaries along SW 13th Street, University Avenue, Newell Drive, and Inner Road. LA-3 has boundaries along SW 13th Street, Museum Road, Newell Drive, and Inner Road. LA-4 borders Museum Road, SW 13th Street, Newell Drive, a nd an old road that is now blocked to automobile traffic. LA-5 and 6 border that same old road as well as Archer Road, Newell Drive, and SW 13th Street. Figure 5-2: Each Creek Wate rshed Subcatchment Names

PAGE 167

148 A topographical survey of the ECW was pe rformed. It was found that the greater ECW encompasses natural depressions on the southeastern boundary (shown in deep red) while it is largely delineate d by roads and man made infras tructure to the North, West, and South as shown in Figure 5-3. Figure 5-3: Topography of East Creek Watershed The ECW is characterized by both its physical topography, as previously described, and by its constructed flow routi ng infrastructure. Data from Causseaux & Ellington (2000), and topographic studies performe d herein corroborate that th e East Creek subcatchments act as tributaries to East Creek However Autocad files leave subcatchment LA-1 open ended with no eastern boundaries (Fi gure 5-4). This east portion of LA-1 is considered a gray area by the City of Gain esville and the UF Physical Plant. More

PAGE 168

149 detailed site information will be discussed in the following section, in the context of SWMM 5 input parameter needs. Figure 5-4: 2000 Delineation of the East Cr eek Branch.(Causseaux and Ellington 2000) Evaluate Candidate Processes As mentioned previously, th is chapter is divided into two subsections: the first section demonstrates SWMM 5 input paramete r needs, providing information from the ECW to set up a basic simulation. The sec ond section compared the results of a 1990 rainfall event to measured data by Korhnak (1996). EPA SWMM 5.0 includes an

PAGE 169

150 intuitive graphical user interface which give s the user access to many high-end modeling capabilities down to fine levels of detail. The program requires many parameters to be entered by the user in order to more accurate ly characterize each subcatchment. Each of these factors is discussed in their respective subsections. Capabilities SWMM 5.0 (EPA 2005) is a model designed to simulate runoff quantity and quality from primarily urban areas. It estimat es flow rates, flow depths, and water quality during the specified simulation period. The SWMM can be applied to various hydrologic design processes such as the design and sizi ng of drainage system components for flood control, and sizing detention facilities. It can also be used for flood plain mapping, designing control strategies, evaluating the impact of inflow and infiltration, or evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs (Rossman 2004). The programs numerous capabilities include time-varying rainfall, depre ssion storage, infiltration of rainfall into unsaturated soil layers, percolation of infilt rated water into groundwater layers, and bidirectional flow between gr oundwater and the drainage sy stem or nonlinear reservoir routing of overland flow. Other useful functions include unlimited system size constraints, compatibility with a wide variet y of equipment used in the field, modeling of special elements such as storage/treatment units and flow dividers, applying external flows and water quality inputs from surface r unoff, and modeling various flow regimes. User-defined water quality components can be included, such as dr y-weather pollutant buildup over different land uses, pollutant wa shoff, direct contribution of rainfall deposition, reduction in washoff load due to BMPs, routing of water quality constituents through drainage systems, or reduction in cons tituent concentration through treatment in storage units or by natural proces ses in pipes and channels.

PAGE 170

151 Input Attributes The 201-acre ECW has been modeled using a total of 398 attributes or parameters, 334 of which have been estimated. The requirements for SWMM to successfully complete a simulation are the: declaration of one or more rain gauges and the rain data associated with them declaration of one or more subc atchments and their attributes declaration of nodes & links selection of infiltration and flow-routing methods in order to complete flow routing calculations (Rossman 2004). Figure 5-5 is provided as a vi sual aid for the following deta iled descriptions of the rain gauge, subcatchment, node, and link objec ts. The flow diagram, created in SWMM, color codes varying node invert values, culver t (or link) slopes, and subcatchment areas as described by the legend. The ECW is divide d into six subcatchments that are linked by flow conduits and junctions according to the geometry shown in Figure 5-5. The legends provide an approximation of the values of the node, link, and subcatchment objects. The rain gauge location is also shown on the schematic. Each of the four basic objects shown in Figure 5-5 (subcat chment, node, link, and rain gauge) have between six and thirty attributes that must be specified each time the object is created in SWMM. Figure 5-6 provides a represen tation of how many numerical attributes must be specified for each object in the top row, with the total number of variables specified for the above stormw ater network symbolized by asterisks. Of the three hundred and ninety-eight parame ters entered in order to characterize the East Creek watershed stormwater system, the specific values entered for each object are shown in Table 5-1 and described in deta il in the following subsections. In addition, general options, such as the routing method, were chosen from options available in

PAGE 171

152 SWMM. The routing method selected was dynami c wave routing with routing time steps of one minute. Variables that were excluded in this simulation series were climatology (temperature, evaporation, wind speed), gr ound water inflow and outflow, and water quality attributes. Figure 5-5: SWMM Schematic of ECW

PAGE 172

Figure 5-6: Genera l Attribute Layout

PAGE 173

Table 5-1: Data Input File for SWMM Run of ECW

PAGE 174

155 Rain gauge One of the most basic objects used in SWMM is the rain gauge. Six attributes must be specified, two of which are variable rain interval and snowcatch factor, resulting in 33% estimated values. The rainfall data av ailable for the ECW are published in Korhnak (1996). Rainfall was measured at an IFAS rain gauge atop Newins-Zeigler Hall, which is directly west the ECW. Shorter time step (5-10 minute) rainfall data are valuable in developing strong runoff models. Such data are available through the Physics Department at http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~weather/text/ and IFAS at ftp://fawn.ifas.ufl.edu/ In addition, the Physics Department logs higher frequency data (1-minute, 0.01 in). These databases did not begin until after 1996. Th e rainfall measurement time step for the 11/09/1990 storm was 30 minutes. (Korhna k 1996) During the first 30 minutes, 0.55 inches of rain fell followed by an additional 0.25 inches during the next 30 minutes as shown in Table 5-2. Snow catch was not considered in this model. Table 5-2: 11/9/1990 Precipitation in ECW-Data Taken from Korhnak (1996) Date Time Rain (in) 11/9/1990 0:00 0 11/9/1990 0:30 0.55 11/9/1990 1:00 0.25 11/9/1990 1:30 0 11/9/1990 14:30 0 Subcatchments Twenty-one subcatchment descriptors mu st be provided for SWMM as shown in Table 5-1. In the case of the ECW analysis, ten land use types were specified, forming a grand total of 31 attributes for each of the six subcatchments in the ECW. 168 of the 186 subcatchment attribute values are estimated. The following subsections will address how each variable was chosen using the most accurate data available.

PAGE 175

156 Rain gauge. In Table 5-1, rain gauge simply specifies which rainfall time series data to use for each subcatchment and is not estimated. Since only one rain gauge was present near the ECW, only one option was available. Outlets. The outlet of the subcatchment can be either a node or another subcatchment as shown in Figure 5-5. The outlets of each subcatchment have been identified from the stormwater infrastructur e map created by PPD. Yulee pit (Figure 5-7), located in LA-3, is the retention basin that drains all the water flowing into and raining onto LA-3 (less initial abstractions). This has been denoted as a node in SWMM and is drained by a large 4 foot diameter conduit (inset). Figure 5-7: Yulee Pit in LA-3 Curb length. A curb length value represents the total length of curbs in the subcatchment. However, no value has been sp ecified for the subcatchments because this value is not needed for water volume simu lation. Curb length can be useful when correlating water quality parameters to urba nized area, based on total curb length.

PAGE 176

157 Area. Area is the estimated surface area of each subcatchment. The subcatchment delineation used in this model is from the 2000 CH2MHill Stormwater Management Master Plan AutoCAD files. The estimated areas of each subcatchment are summarized in Table 5-3, having been measured in ArcGIS by importing the Physical Plant AutoCAD files into GIS and estimati ng the shape of subcatchment LA-1. Table 5-3: Areas of ECW Subcatchments 2000 Autocad Shapefiles w/est LA-1 Subcatchment Area (acres) LA-1 71.72 LA-2 39.38 LA-3 35.18 LA-4 29.62 LA-5 10.32 LA-6 16.20 Total 202 Source: Causseaux & Ellington 2000 Width Width is the average width of the overl and flow path for sheet flow runoff. Each subcatchments width was measured as the maximum width perpendicular to the flow direction. The widths entered into SWMM are shown in Table 5-4. However, as shown in Figure 5-4, subcatchment LA-5 is not particularly square or rectangular. This approximation can be improved by dividing larger, odd shaped subcatchments into smaller square or rectangular ones. Table 5-4: Estimated Subcatchment Widths 2000 AutoCAD Shapefiles w/ est LA-1 Subcatchment Width (feet) LA-1 1830 LA-2 1590 LA-3 1090 LA-4 1130 LA-5 885 LA-6 864 Source: CH2MHill 1987

PAGE 177

158 Percent slope Percent slope is a measure of the subcatchment slope to be used in overland flow calculations. As determined for the ECW using ArcGIS 3D Analyst and both 1-ft LIDAR information (LA-2 through LA -6) and 5-ft topo information (LA-1), the percent slopes for each subcatchment have been measured as shown in Table 5-5: Table 5-5: Subcatchment Percent Slope Subcatchment % Slope LA6 17 % LA5 24 % LA4 24% LA3 18% LA2 7% LA1 11% The 1-foot LIDAR data that are used to provide the five values for subcatchments LA-1 through LA-5 provide the most accurate slope estimates available for these subcatchments. LA-6 has been characteri zed using lower reso lution 5-foot data. However, even when high quality topographic information is used over a large area (up to 70 acres) error is introduced into slope estimation. Figure 5-8 is a photograph, taken just North of East Creek, showing the steeply sloped Newell Drive in LA-4. Figure 5-8 Steep Slopes of LA-4 along Newell Drive

PAGE 178

159 Percent Impervious Area: Subcatchments ar e divided into pervious and impervious areas in SWMM. In the pervious area, surf ace runoff can infiltrate into the upper soil zone but not in the impervious area. The following land uses were estimated as being >90% impervious and thus were summed to approximate impervious area: Streets, Rooftops, and Drive& Walkways. The resu lting percent imperv iousness of each subcatchment and total impervious acreage of each subcatchment ar e shown in Table 5-6. Table 5-6 Impervious Area per Subcatchment LA-1: LA-2: LA-3 : LA-4: LA-5: LA-6: % Impervious 33.38%50.15%52.03%44.39%41.94% 73.41% Impervious acreage 23.94 20.39 17.12 13.63 5.04 9.55 Mannings n for impervious area Table 5-7 shows the ra nge of impervious nvalues used in the simulation. Values we re taken from DeWiest & Livingston (2000). Table 5-7 Mannings n Values fo r Impervious Area Categories Land Use Classification Mannings n Range Rooftops 0.013 0.035 Parking Area 0.011 0.016 Drive& Walkways 0.012 0.02 Streets 0.011 0.013 The rationale for choosing these values for the SWMM simulation is discussed below: Rooftops: 0.013 0.035 Most rooftops on the eastern side of campus are made of concrete material. The residential areas in LA-1 may have concrete shingled, or metal/pla stic rooftops. The range consists of ordinary concrete to rubble which could be similar to shingled rooftops. The value chosen was 0.035 for LA-1 and 0.013 fo r all others because many of the roofs have asphalt, which is of an even lower n-valu e than concrete and a majority of the other campus roofs are concrete. In contrast, LA -1 has many shingled roofs which reduces velocity slightly (ASCE 1992).

PAGE 179

160 The specific slopes of each of the roofs are unknown at this time, however Norman Hall and a number of sorority houses have pitched roofs in subcatchment LA-1. A number of buildings in subcatchment LA-2 have pitched roofs. These include the Memorial Auditorium, the Agronomy greenhouse, Anderson Matherly and Criser Halls, the Universtiy Auditorium, the Smathers Libr ary, and the Carlton Auditorium. No major buildings have pitched roofs in subcatchment s LA-3, LA-4, LA-5, or LA-6. A majority of the steeply sloped roofs on campus ar e located in LA-2 (Figure 5-9). Figure 5-9 University Auditorium in LA-2 Parking Areas: 0.011 0.016 Most parking lots consist of smooth to rougher asphalt. The value for rough asphalt is taken from the Florida Stormwater, Eros ion, and Sedimentation Control Inspectors Manual (DeWiest 2000). It lists sm ooth and rough asphalt as 0.013 and 0.016,

PAGE 180

161 respectively. However, ASCE (1992) lists a Mannings n value for smooth asphalt as 0.011. A value of 0.012 was chosen as an average of the smooth asphalt values of the two sources. Driveand Walkways: 0.012 0.020 Walkways on campus are made of smooth to rough concrete. Mannings n values for smooth concrete are between 0.012 (A SCE 1992) and 0.016 (DeWiest 2000). Rough concrete is characterized by a Mannings n of 0.020 (DeWiest 2000). A value of 0.014 was chosen because it is represents newer, smoother driveand walkways. This is typical of the University of Florida because Physi cal Plant maintains a high frequency walkway maintenance schedule. Most walkways on cam pus are not directly connected but instead are nestled in grassy areas, such as on the Reitz Union North La wn. Notable exceptions are those sidewalks that are adjacent to roads, where water drains to the roadside gutters. Figure 5-10 is the sidewalk network, adjacen t to Inner Road in LA-3, representing the vast network of wide smooth concrete sidewalks that crisscross the campus. Figure 5-10 An Example of the La yout of Walkways in LA -3

PAGE 181

162 Streets: 0.011-0.016 The same logic used to select a Mannings n for Parking can be applied here. An n value of 0.012 was chosen for streets. A weighted average of Mannings n in each subcatchment was calculated as a weighted av erage of the land use type percentages in each. Results are shown in Table 5-8. Table 5-8 Mannings n Values for Pe rvious Area per Subcatchment Subcatchment Mannings n LA-1 0.018 LA-2 0.013 LA-3 0.013 LA-4 0.013 LA-5 0.013 LA-6 0.013 Mannings n for pervious area [N-Perv]. Table 5-9 shows the range of n-values provided in the literature for pervious area categories. The values are referenced from ASCE (1992), Arcement Jr. (1984), and DeWiest & Livingston (2000). Table 5-9 Mannings n Values fo r Pervious Area Categories Land Use Classification Mannings n Range Forested Land 0.1 0.8 Open Space 0.15 0.24 Landscaped Area 0.3 0.5 The rationale for choosing these values for the SWMM simulation is discussed below: Forested Land: 0.1-0.8 This range is based on data from the USGS on how to calculate n values for forested flood plains (Arcement, Jr. 1984). Figures within the Guide for Selecting Mannings Roughness Coefficients for Natura l Channels and Floodplains show areas with n values ranging from 0.1-0.2. Howeve r, the Storm Water Management Model Users Manual cites two values for wooded areas: light underbrush = 0.4 and dense underbrush = 0.8 (Rossman 2004). The range of Mannings n values chosen for forested

PAGE 182

163 land focuses on the upper boundaries of the range, while understanding that some forested lands may likely have a lower value. A value of 0.4 was chosen, slightly below the average, due to the small size and vari able underbrush in the patchwork campus forests. Open Space: 0.15-0.24 Mannings n values for certain grasses re presenting open space are given in the SWMM help menu (shown in Table 5-10): Table 5-10 Mannings n Values for Grasses Grass Type Mannings n value Short, prairie 0.15 Dense 0.24 Bermuda grass 0.41 Source: ASCE 1992 Much of the grass in the watershed is short grass. Grass in LA-1, where many homes are located, would resemble denser la wn grass. LA-2, LA-3, LA-4, LA-5, and LA-6 enclose the eastern part of the UF cam pus where grasses are generally dense. Most grasses lie between the range of short to de nse grass, which is thought to be a fair approximation of the Mannings n value. Most types of grasses in the ECW may also fall within this range because 0.24 is a relatively high n value assuming relatively a unpacked surface. However, it certainly depends on the le ngth of the grass. Bermuda grass is used on golf courses (lower n) and in landscaping (higher n) where the grass could be longer. The Bermuda grass value seems unusually high --greater than that for forested land. The value chosen is 0.15, as most of the grass is trimmed and short. Figure 5-11 is an open area in LA-2 exemplifying the s hort grass with scattered trees typical of the open areas on campus.

PAGE 183

164 Figure 5-11 An Example of Open Space in LA-2 Landscaped Area: 0.3-0.5 Landscaped areas are characterized by so me level of development resulting in compacted soils, mulch, walkways, bushes, trees, etc. This leads to a lower n value than forested areas but higher than open spaces. In this case, it would be safe to assume a Mannings n value around that of Bermuda grass (0.41). A weighted average of Mannings n in each subcatchment was calculated as a weighted average of the pervious land use t ype percentages in each. Results are shown in Table 5-11. Table 5-11 Mannings n Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment Subcatchment Mannings n LA-1 0.134 LA-2 0.133 LA-3 0.208 LA-4 0.353 LA-5 0.336 LA-6 0.273 Depth of depression storage on impervious area Impervious areas are divided into two subareas one with depression st orage and one without. Runoff flow from one

PAGE 184

165 subarea in a subcatchment can be routed to the other subarea, or both subareas can drain to the subcatchment outlet. Depression storage values are highly variable within the range of a few hundredths. The Dstore impervious value chosen for all the subcatchments was 0.075 inches, which is within the range of impervious surface values. (ASCE 1992) Depth of depression storage on pervious area Dstore values were estimated from a table of typical Dstore values for pervious areas as provided by ASCE (1992). Selected values are shown in Table 5-12. Table 5-12: Ranges of T ypical Depression Storage Surface Depression Storage Impervious surfaces 0.05 to 0.10 inches Lawns 0.10 to 0.20 inches Forest litter 0.3 inches Source: ASCE 1992 The Dstore pervious value chosen with in each subcatchment was based upon an area-weighted average between 0.15 inches (l awn surfaces) and 0.30 inch es (forest litter); results are shown in Table 5-13. Table 5-13: Dstore Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment Subcatchment LA-1 LA-2 LA-3 LA-4 LA-5 LA-6 Dstore-Perv Value 0.29 0.27 0.23 0.28 0.27 0.28 Percent of impervious area with no depression storage. As mentioned previously, impervious areas ar e divided onto subareas that do and dont have depression storage. The percent of the impervious area that was estimated to be truly nonimpervious, in the ECW, was 0.15% in LA-1 and 0 in all other subcatchments. Our methods of land-type identification did not a llow for an accurate estimation of the water bodies due to tree cover, resul ting in no record of water for 5 of the 6 subcatchments. Inclusion of higher quality land-use data w ould increase the estima tion of water body and other zero depression storage areas for all subcatchments.

PAGE 185

166 Subarea routing Runoff from impervious and pervious areas has been routed to the subcatchment outlet for the purposes of th e current model. One may also route flow from impervious to pervious surf ace areas within the same parcel. Percent routed This value represents the percent of runoff routed from each subcatchment. One-hundred percent of the runoff is routed in the current model. Alternatively, one could specify values fo r evapotranspiration and groundwater flow, effectively lowering the volume of routed runoff. Infiltration method. The infiltration method is a system-wide parameter selected from three options (Green Ampt, Horton, Cu rve Number) and is not a subcatchment parameter. However, in the ECW, Curve Number was chosen over Green Ampt and Horton infiltration methods because CN data was readily available alongside existing storm data. Within the Curve Number tab, re quirements include curve number value, conductivity and drying time. Curve Number. CH2MHill used a standard curve number table (Table 5-14) to estimate curve runoff from seven different la nd use classifications in four hydrologic soil groups (A, B, C, & D). Based upon these CN values, CH2MHill calculated Curve Numbers characterizing entire subc atchments as shown in Table 5-15. Table 5-14: Curve Numbers for Soil Type s and Land Uses Commonly Found on Campus Hydrologic Soil Group Land Use A B C D Impervious Roads and Parking 98 98 98 98 Buildings 98 98 98 98 Limerock Roads and Parking 77 85 90 92 Wooded Area 25 55 70 77 Grassed Area 39 61 74 80 Cultivated 67 76 83 86 Water Bodies 98 98 98 98 Source: CH2MHill 1987

PAGE 186

167 Table 5-15: Curve Numbers for East Creek Watershed Subcatchments Subcatchment CN LA-1 81 LA-2 50 LA-3 51 LA-4 75 LA-5 63 LA-6 89 Source: CH2MHill 1987 Conductivity. Conductivity is the soil's satura ted hydraulic conduc tivity in in/hr or mm/hr. This value can be field verified for a small site relatively easily. However, the ECW is a large 201 acre watershed. Therefor e, a blanket conductiv ity value of 0.3 was chosen for all the subcatchments, which corres ponds to an A/B soil type. This was chosen because three soil areas surrounding the East Creek watershed are de lineated as type A while a small area to the South is B/D. Soils data are shown in Figure 5-12 to represent infiltration capabilities within the ECW. Most of the soils are listed as Type A soils, which indicates high infiltrative capacity. Surrounding the East side of the lake is a claylike low infiltration Type D soil. Figure 5-12: Soil Type Classificati on (University of Florida, 2006)

PAGE 187

168 Drying time. Drying time is the amount of time for a fully saturated soil to completely dry, in days. The estimation used in this model was 1 day. This estimate has not been field verified and should be consider ed as highly variable. Drying time is also affected by the irrigation schedule for the study area. Groundwater inflow Groundwater inflow was i gnored because no data are available. Initial buildup. Initial buildup, a measure of the amount of pollutant buildup over the subcatchment at the start of the simulation, was not selected because no data are available. Land uses Using the boundary conditions for East Creek, shown in Figure 5-13, land use was defined using a number coding system in a spreadsheeet (SS). Aerial photographs were placed in a SS and pre-spec ified ID coding numbers were assigned to the appropriate places in the photo as follows: 1. Agricultural land 3. Forested land (large trees and natural areas) 4. Open space (fields, lawn, etc) 5. Landscaped area (shrubbery and flowers) 6. Water body (wetlands, streams, or lake) 7. Rooftops 8. Parking 9. Driveways and walkways 10. Streets 11. Unpaved streets and parking lots Figure 5-13 shows a close up sample of th e technique used to characterize LA-4. Each cell represents an area of 743.8 ft2. The same technique was used over the entire East Creek Watershed. The result of using th is method for all the subcatchments is shown in Table 5-16, a percent land use breakdown fo r LA-1 through LA-6. No agricultural area or unpaved streets/parking were observed in any subcatchment.

PAGE 188

169 Figure 5-13 Land Use Characteriza tion Map in Subcatchent LA-4 Table 5-16: Land Use Type Per cent Breakdown per Subcatchment Subcatchment Catchment Land Use Type LA-1: LA-2: LA-3: LA-4: LA-5: LA-6: % Land Use Forested Land 15.7%10.0%15.5%46.1%43.8%15.8% 20.8% Open Space 5.0% 8.7% 22.4%7.1% 12.6%4.4% 9.3% Landscaped Area 45.8%31.0%10.0%2.2% 1.6% 6.3% 25.1% Waterbody 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.03% Rooftop 10.7%19.1%14.0%13.8%7.8% 24.0% 14.1% Parking 4.5% 5.3% 3.2% 10.1%0.5% 13.5% 5.69% Drive& walkways 7.7% 12.1%24.2%8.8% 14.9%17.5% 12.57% Streets 10.4%13.3%10.4%11.6%18.5%18.2% 12.20% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 189

170 Figure 5-14 is a photograph of the Plaza of the Americas in LA-2 that shows the complex land-use composition seen in a small fraction of the LA-2 subcatchment. Other areas in LA-1 through LA-5 show similar complexity. Figure 5-14: Land Use in LA Connectivity All subcatchments in the SWMM are connected or drained using links and nodes. Links are the conveyance pieces of a drainage system that al ways lie between a pair of nodes. Likewise, nodes are points along a conveya nce system that connect links together. In addition, nodes are points where external inflows can enter the drainage system and where pollutants can be removed through treatm ent. There are five different types of links in SWWM (conduits, pumps, orifices, weir s, outlets), of which conduits will be discussed herein. There are four types of nodes in SWMM (junctions, outfalls, dividers,

PAGE 190

171 and storage units), of which junctions and outfalls will be discussed further. Figure 5-15 is a photograph, taken below Jennings Hall, to show a typical curb and gutter node. Figure 5-15 Curb and Gutter Draining to East Creek in LA 4 Conduits. Conduits are links (pipes or channels ) that move water from one node to another in the conveyance system (Rossman 2004). There are 22 different conduit shapes that can be modeled in SWMM, from open ch annel concrete trapez oids to double barrel steel pipes, each shapes attributes uniquely modeled in SWMM. As shown in Table 5-1 sixteen different attributes can be selected or entered for each conduit. Approximately 83 percent of the attributes entered for th e conduits in SWMM, or 120 of the 144 total attribute values, are highly variable. Because links must connect nodes, the junction and outfall node objects will be discussed before de scribing how the conduits connect them to each other in the ECW.

PAGE 191

172 Junctions Junctions are drainage system nodes th at join links together. Physically they can represent the conf luence of natural surface ch annels, manholes in a sewer system, or pipe connection fittings. External inflows can enter the system at junctions. Excess water at a junction can become part ially pressurized while connecting conduits are surcharged and can either be lost from the system or be allowed to pond atop the junction and subsequently drain back into th e junction (Rossman 2004). Each of the six subcatchments in the East Creek use junctions as a point of connection between conduits. Table 5-17 shows the various structure na mes for junctions in their respective subcatchments along with the configuration of their drainage conduits (reinforced concrete pipe vs concrete box culvert), maximum flow capacity, design storm flows, overtopping flows, weir length (when overtopping road), and overtopping depth. Circular and box culvert capacity was estimated by CH2MHill (1987) using nomographs developed by the Federal Highway Associat ion. Closed conduit and open channel drainage facility capacity was estimat ed by CH2MHill using Mannings equation, assuming uniform flow capacity assuming full pipe flow. Fort y out of fifty-six junction attributes (71%) were estimated. Table 5-18 summarizes stage-storage-discharge values for Gator Pond and Ocala Pond in LA-2, the Ra dio Rd. and Broward Bowl culvert in LA3. All drainage facilities are gravity controlled.

PAGE 192

173Table 5-17 Drainage Structure Specif ications as Determined by CH2MHill Design Storm Flows (cfs) Overtopping Flow (cfs) Overtopping Depth (ft) Subcatch Drainage Structure Location Control Structure Configuration Capacity (cfs) 10 yr 25 Yr 100 yr 10 yr 25 yr 100 yr 10 yr 25 yr 100 yr Weir Length (ft) LA-1 SW 13th St Culvert 3' x 3' CBC 105 88 95 104 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 LA-2 Ocala Pond Outlet 24" RCP 30 25 40 71 0 10 41 0.0 0.0 0.1 100 LA-3 Broward Bowl Culvert (Yule Pit) 48" RCP 175 52 80 119 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200 LA-4 Newell Dr. Culvert 8' x 3' CBC 250 108 122 146 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 LA-5 Emory Diamond Culvert 6' x 3' CDC 140 97 106 121 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200 LA-6 Shands Hospital Storm Sewer 2-24" RCP 70 181 213 257 111 143 187 0.4 0.5 0.5 200

PAGE 193

174 Table 5-18 Stage-Storage-Discharge for Major Drainage Facilities in the East Creek Watershed Ocala Pond Gator Pond Elevation (ft msl) Storage (acre-ft) Discharge (cfs) Elevation (ft msl) Storage (acre-ft) Discharge (cfs) 147.34 0 0 154.6 0 0 148 0.91 10 156 0.53 16 149 1.09 30 158 1.27 55 150 1.26 330 159 1.51 55 160 1.74 955 Structure 3' x 4' Horizontal Grate with 24" RCP at Invert 144.54 and Slope 3.99% Structure 3.3' x 4' Horizontal Grate with 30" RCP at Invert 151.1 & Slope 2.37% Max Discharge 30 Cfs Max Discharge 55 cfs Invert 147.34 ft msl Invert 154.6 ft msl Overtops at 149 ft msl Overtops at 159 ft msl Overtop Width 100 Ft Overtop Width 300 ft Broward Bowl Culvert (Yule Pit) Elevation (ft msl) Storage (acre-ft) Discharge (cfs) 109.48 0 0 112 0.06 30 114 0.24 80 116 1.19 130 118 3.3 150 120 6.04 170 122 9.89 175 123 12.75 175 124 15.6 775 Structure 48" RCP at Slope 1.95%. Length = 130' Max Discharge 175 Cfs Invert 109.48 ft msl Overtops at 123 ft msl Overtop Width 1200 Ft Outfalls. Outfalls are terminal nodes of the drainage system. Under dynamic wave flow routing, they are used to define fi nal downstream boundaries. Under other types of flow routing they function as a junction. (R ossman 2004) The outfall for the East Creek

PAGE 194

175 Watershed is at the western end of the Newell Drive Box Culvert. Four of the six outfall attributes (66%) were estimated. The box culvert under Newell Drive has a linear stagedischarge relationship and an exponential st age-storage relationship (CH2MHill 1987) as shown in Table 5-19 and Figure 5-16. Table 5-19 Newell Drive Box Culvert Stage vs Storage vs Discharge Newell Drive Elevation (ft msl) Storage (acre-ft) Discharge (cfs) 71.97 0 0 72 0.1 0.7 74 0.2 57 76 0.3 148 78 1 214 79.6 2.6 250 80 3 319 Structure 8' x 3' Concrete Box Culvert Max Discharge 250 Cfs Invert 71.97 ft msl Overtops at 79.6 ft msl Overtop Width 100 Ft 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 71.977274767879.680 Water Elevation (ft)Discharge (cfs) Figure 5-16 Newell Drive Box Culv ert Stage vs Discharge Curve

PAGE 195

176 East Creek Watershed Drainage Network The routing method chosen to model flow of water through the stormwater system was the dynamic wave method, one of three system-wide variables provided by SWMM. The other two options are steady flow and kine matic wave. The west side of the culvert was chosen to define the final boundary of the ECW. The subcatchments were connected using an aggregated drainage network of onl y the major junctions and conduits, namely those listed in tables 4.18 & 4.19. The fo llowing paragraphs describe the methodology used to connect each subcatchment. LA-1 junction 3 is estimated to have an invert of 99.5ft from 1987 AutoCAD files. Its maximum depth is 3 ft, surcha rge depth is 0 ft., and ponded area is 0. (CH2MHill, 1987) Junction 3 connects to juncti on 17 using a rectangular closed conduit max depth of 3 ft. as stated in CH2MHill (1987). The conduit length is estimated as 200 ft from AutoCAD. Junction 17 has an invert of 98.24 as notated in AutoCAD, while its maximum depth is zero. C23 is a conduit connect ing J17 to J2 (which is the east side of the Newell Dr. box culvert). It represents th e stream as being trapezoidal, 1000 ft in length, with a maximum depth of 7 ft., bo ttom width of 5 ft., and slopes = 0.5 H/V. Unfortunately, these values are estimated from 1987 AutoCAD drawings; a walkthrough would help rectify any erroneous values estima ted for the southern fork of East Creek. LA-2 junction 1 has an invert of 147.34 ft, max depth 1.66 ft. surcharge depth 0 ft as described by CH2MHill (Table 5-18). The ponded area is 7854 ft2. However, this value must be verified because the 1987 re port cuts Gator Pond between subcatchments LA-2 and LA-3, and Gator Pond conveys almost the same amount of water from LA-2 to LA-3 as Ocala Pond does. In 2000, the Gator Po nd was shown to lie wholly within LA-2, suggesting a large error in volume retention ca lculated for LA-2 in 1987. C1 is a conduit

PAGE 196

177 connecting Ocala Pond to Eulee Pit (J13). It is 2 ft in diameter and estimated to be 1500 ft in length from AutoCAD drawings. LA-3 junction 13 has an invert of 109.48 ft with a maximum depth 13.52 ft, a surcharge depth = 0, and a ponded area 113,0973 ft^2 as described by CH2MHill (1987). C19 connects it to the beginning of the north ern fork of East Creek, C22. J15 has an invert of 107.73 ft as shown in AutoCAD a nd a maximum depth of two feet (CH2MHill 1987). C19 has a length of 130 ft as stated in the 1987 report and max depth (diameter) of 4 feet. C22 has a length of 950 ft and is trapezoidal with a max depth of 7 ft, max width of 5 ft and 0.5 slope H/Vert. These valu es are estimated from 1987 Physical Plant AutoCAD drawings. LA-4 junction 2 has an invert of 71.97 ft a max depth of 3 ft, a surcharge depth of 4.63 ft, and a ponded area of 7854 ft^2 as described by CH2MHill (1987). Junction 2 connects to C5, which represents the 8 by 3 box culvert, es timated as 100 ft long using AutoCAD drawings. C5 finally drains the wa tershed via outfall Out 1. Figure 5-17 is a photograph of the Newell Drive box culvert at the last node of the drainage series. This location, on the East side of Newell Drive, is where runoff measurements were performed in 1990 and published in Korhnak (1996). LA-5 junction4 has an invert of 77ft, a max depth of 3 ft, a surcharge depth of 0 ft, and a ponded area = 0 ft as measured by CH 2MHill (1987). It is connected to culvert C4, a box culvert, which carries flow to the box culvert. Culvert C4 has a maximum depth of 3 ft., a length of 200 ft. and a bottom width of 6 ft. as estimated using AutoCAD. LA-6 junction 14 is drained by double 24 in concrete pipes, with an invert of 81.8 ft, a maximum depth of 2 ft. as estimated using AutoCAD. It is drained by C18, the

PAGE 197

178 double pipe culvert system, each pipe being 2 ft diameter as presented by CH2MHill. The length of channel C18 is approximately 100 ft (estimated using AutoCAD). Figure 5-17: Newell Drive Box Culvert Runoff Analysis Using calibration data from Korhnak (1996) measured in 1992, the East Creek Watershed (ECW) was modeled to determine if the watershed can be modeled without including all of the stormwater hydraulic in frastructure but rath er including major drainage directions between five suchcatch ments ranging from 8 to 73 acres in size. This section compares actual data from Korhnak (1996) with results from the SWMM simulation. To begin, the section deta ils the methods of calculating the flow values from Korhnaks data. The results ar e tabulated and values of total rain, total runoff, the centroids of each, and the time lag associated with each storm are displayed. Then, a comparison of all storm events is pres ented The selected storm event used in this study is displayed graphically followed by a de tailed analysis of its characteristics.

PAGE 198

179 The SWMM results are then compared to the actual data. The comparison highlights the differences in the volume, r unoff, centroids, and time lags of both the Korhnak (1996) data and the SWMM data. In order to further calibrate the model for an actual storm event, a table of adjustable values is presented to illustrate the present degree of uncertainty in using SWMM to predict runoff over the ECW using coarse data. Observed rainfall-runoff relationship Korhnak (1996) contains data on flow a nd phosphorus concentrations for the East Creek watershed. The data set, titled SFHCO 1, was taken upstream of the culvert that conveys East Creek (what Korhnak labels as the Hawthorne Creek) underneath Newell Drive. The acronym SFHC01 represents record ed storm flow measurements at the HCO1 station watershed. The acronym LIO1 is sugge sted to represent the approximate area where the stream discharges into Lake Ali ce, hence Lake Inflow (LI). A map reflecting data set areas and measurement lo cations is shown in Figure 5-18 Figure 5-18 Map of Korhnak research area (Korhnak, 1996) The labels on Figure 518 are listed below: 1: HC01 stormflow station rece iving inflow from HC01 watershed 2: LI01 stormflow station recei ving inflow from LI01 watershed

PAGE 199

180 3: HP02 stormflow station rece iving inflow from HP02 watershed Rain: IFAS rain gauge Lake Alice: Campus drainage lake Marsh: Marsh area of Lake Alice W: Water Reclamation Facility NI: North injection well WI: West injection well UM: Unmonitored area Data recording techniques. Stage measurements were taken by a stage meter at varying time intervals (15 or 30 minutes) and converted to flow measurements in cubic feet per second (cfs) using a stage-discha rge rating equation (Eq 5.1) developed by measuring 3 velocities at 3 three depths (9 point velocities). Flow (cfs) = Stage*26.3248-4.3806 Equation 5.1 The values of baseflow for each storm we re subtracted from the flow values calculated above to find the rate of rainfall runoff generated by each storm. The baseflow values for all but one storm event were 15 cfm. The baseflow of Storm Event 1 was provided as 13 cfm. If the flow values calcu lated from Eq 5.1 were less than the base flow, then Korhnak assumed the amount of runoff was zero. For each storm event, these final runoff values were reported in units of cfs and compared with the amount of rainfall in in ches. To calculate the amount of runoff in inches for the rainfall-runoff curve, the flow rate was converted to a height in inches above the 215 acre East Creek Watershed (CH2MHill 1987). Results Table 5-20 provides general informa tion on the 28 available storm events. It lists the beginning date, tota l rainfall (in), total runoff (in), the centroids of rainfall and runoff, and the time lag interval between the two centroids. The estimated time lag between rainfall and runoff ranges from 15 minutes to over three hours. Figure 5-19 illustrates the linear relationship between tota l rainfall (in) and total runoff (in).

PAGE 200

181 Table 5-20: Catchment-wide Rainfall vs Runoff Comparison Beginning Date Total Rain (in) Total Runoff (in) Centroid (Rain) Centroid (Runoff) Time Lag* (min) 7/13/1990 0.9 0.3352 6:30 PM 6:00 PM 60 11/9/1990 0.8 0.3750 12:36 AM 1:08 AM 32 1/11/1991 1.3 0.6580 7:15 PM 9:30 PM 150 1/15/1991 0.2 0.0780 9:45 PM 11:00 PM 90 3/17/1991 3.39 1.4596 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 30 3/29/1991 0.6 0.2099 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 30 4/17/1991 0.64 0.4068 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 75 4/20/1991a 0.18 0.0510 3:15 PM 4:00 PM 60 4/20/1991b 0.68 0.3818 7:45 PM 8:45 PM 75 4/23/1991 0.22 0.1129 1:15 PM 2:00 PM 60 4/25/1991 0.91 0.4810 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 135 5/16/1991 0.13 0.0654 7:00 PM 7:45 PM 60 5/19/1991 0.65 0.2502 1:45 PM 2:45 PM 75 5/20/1991 0.07 0.0435 11:30 PM 12:15 AM 60 5/24/1991 0.29 0.1476 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 45 5/26/1991 0.48 0.2239 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 75 5/27/1991 0.58 0.2557 6:45 PM 7:45 PM 75 5/29/1991 0.35 0.0528 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 30 5/31/1991 0.71 0.3572 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 75 6/4/1991 0.56 0.2772 11:15 PM 12:15 AM 75 6/5/1991 1.2 0.5373 6:00 PM 6:45 PM 60 6/6/1991 0.6 0.2247 5:00 AM 5:45 AM 60 6/17/1991 0.15 0.0555 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 45 6/19/1991 0.14 0.0508 12:00 PM 12:45 PM 60 6/26/1991 1.04 0.3421 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 75 7/29/1991 0.26 0.1440 2:00 PM 5:45 PM 210 7/31/1991 0.9 0.2514 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 30 8/1/1991 0.29 0.0270 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 30 *Estimated Values +/15 min.. 7/13/1990 va lues +/30 min. (11/09/1990 not included) The rainfall-runoff curve suggests that approximately 43.7% of the rainfall is converted to runoff into East Creek from 1990-1991. The curve strongly matches the data as evidenced by the high R2 of 0.951. A study completed by Lee et al. (2005) states that stormwater runoff occurs when precip itation intensity exceeds on-site depression storage and infiltration capacity. Therefor e, the slope of the rainfall-runoff curve represents the percentage of directly connected impervious area located in the East Creek

PAGE 201

182 watershed. Based on campus observations, the parking lots will be assumed as directly connected to the creek by way of cu rb and gutter drainage structures. Rainfall vs. Runoffy = 0.4366x 0.0035 R2 = 0.9509 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 00.511.522.533.54 Total Rainfall (in)Total Runoff (in) Figure 5-19 Catchment-wide Ra infall vs Runoff Relationship Results from the present study show th e percent impervious area to be around 49.2% for the ECW. The impervious area calcu lations are based on data and maps circa 1996, several years after Korhnak collected hi s flow data. During this time span, numerous construction projects took pl ace on the UF campus and surrounding area increasing the amount of impervious ar ea through developmen tal practices. The results from the SWMM simulations are calibrated against the actual stormwater runoff data from Korhnak (1996) of a single storm event to produce a model of the stormwater runoff patterns of the EC W. Figure 5-20 represents the actual storm used in the calibration. The flow values in cubic feet per second (c fs) are listed on the ordinate and the rainfall rates (in/hr) corresponding to the fl ow are inverted on the right ordinate. A total of 0.80 inches of rain fell during a one hour period. This rainfall produced 0.375 inches of runoff over the 201 acre watershed.

PAGE 202

183 A unit hydrograph shows the storm flow generated by one inch of rainfall over a specified period of time. The storm event closely resembles a unit hydrograph since the amount of rainfall is 0.85 inches over an hour and the downward sloping tail is a good prediction of storm flow after a rain event. Furthermore, a typical storm generates storm flow that reaches its peak after a short period of time and then tails off as the rainfall intensity decreases. The rainfall is recorded early in the time series and the tail decreases at a relatively constant rate. 11/9/90 Storm Event0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012:00 AM2:00 AM4:00 AM6:00 AM8:00 AM10:00 AM12:00 PMTimeFlow (cfs)0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Rain (in/hr) Rain Flow Figure 5-20 Storm Event Used to Calibrate SWMM Results Calculated rainfall-runoff relationship The blue plot in Figure 5-21 represents the actual hydrograph from Korhnaks data for the 11/9/1990 storm event. The pink pl ot shows the hydrograph of the simulated storm using SWMM 5.0. The simulated storm sh ows an additional 25 cf s of flow at its peak and a shorter tail of the curve. The simulation also appears to plateau between 1 hour and 1 hour and 30 minutes which reflects the impact of the 0.25 inches that fell during the second half hour of rainfall.

PAGE 203

184 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 11/8/90 23:3611/9/90 0:3611/9/90 1:3611/9/90 2:3611/9/90 3:3611/9/90 4:3611/9/90 5:3611/9/90 6:36 Time ( 24 hr ) Flow (cfs) Observed Calculated Figure 5-21 Volumetric Runoff Comparison (calculated vs observed) Calculated vs. observed results comparison Calculations from Korhnak (1996) and SW MM produce two different sets of data for the 11/09/90 storm event. The observ ed volume of runoff (area under hydrograph) generated during the storm was measured as 289,000 ft^3. SWMM estimates the volume of runoff for the storm event to be around 236,000 ft^3. Based on these calculations, the SWMM explains roughly 81.5% of the actual storm. In other words, the volume calculated in SWMM is 81.5% of the total volume of the actual storm. For the 11/9/1990 storm, the 30 minute time step between data points caused more error than the 15 minute time step used for al most all of the other 27 storm events. The SWMM results provide data points at 1 mi nute time steps, yielding a much higher resolution depiction of the centroid for th e SWMM simulation. The locus between two given data points is assumed to have a linea r relationship with time. The distribution of rainfall makes it difficult to use linear interpolation to find the centroid. Instead, a polynomial curve is fitted to the actual data and integrated to a value of half of the total

PAGE 204

185 rainfall. This procedure shows the 11/9/1990 rainfall centroid as 12:36 a.m., thirty-six minutes after the start of the storm. The centroid of the runoff from the actual data is calculated by finding the time at which the volume of runoff is equal to ha lf of the total volume generated during the storm. The centroid for the 11/09/90 storm o ccurs approximately at 1:08 a.m., sixty-eight minutes after the start of the storm. Simila r methods were used to calculate the centroid of runoff produced by the SWMM simulation, which found it occur around 1 a.m., an hour after the start of the storm. The time lag for the storm is the time differential between the centroids of the precipitation and runoff. The actual data from Korhnak (1996) shows the time lag to be 32 minutes, assuming little error in the data collection methods. The SWMM simulation shows a time lag of 24 minutes, resulting in an error of 25% from the actual data, reflecting the coarse data used to model in SWMM. The short lag times illustrate the impact of impervious area and low so il infiltration rates in the watershed. Conclusions This model does not appear to be refined enough to confidently determine the effectiveness of a given BMP placed in the ECW. Each subcatchment may have many features which could affect the accuracy of the model. These properties include width, slope, impervious/nonimpervious area, Dsto re, and Mannings n values. One simple but data intensive method to reduce the number of subcatchment generalizations would be to divide each into smaller subcatchments in or der to make each attribute more specific to the subdivided area, making it much easier to si mulate the effect of Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) on the drainage sy stem. Likewise, BMP placement could be

PAGE 205

186 easily simulated by taking an area such as a park ing lot, changing its pr operties to reflect a partially pervious lot, a nd rerunning the simulation. The area is still too large to simulate unique functional land un its. At this point, there is also too little hydra ulic network information of verified accuracy to perform a detailed spatial model, such as the stream profile and underground piping, culverts, etc. Although data are available to de velop a functional land unit an alysis, there is a need to automate information transfer from GIS into the SWMM modeling environment. The very jagged runoff hydrograph from th e SWMM simulator indicates that more frequent rainfall data should be used wh en making decisions based upon single storm events. A major source for historical preci pitation data is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), which has two gauge locations on the UF campus. Historical data are available for the peri od from January 1903 to December 1963 for one of the stations, from October 1953 to Decembe r 1988 at a second weather station. A third station, located in west-northwest Gainesville, began recording in February 1989 until December 2000. The Gainesville Regional Airpor t station has a data record beginning in 1960. Rainfall is measured hourly at these locations at 0.01 inch depths from 1903 to 1963 as well as 1989 to 2000 and at 0.1 inch depths from 1953 to 1988 and from 1960 to present. A new weather station was added to the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) dairy research unit northw est of Gainesville. This station began operation in April 1999 and is st ill operational. The gauge re cords data every 15 minutes. The most valuable source of weather data is the weather station located at the Physics Building on campus. This location is less than one mile from Lake Alice. Continuous data are recorded at 0.01 inch depths every minute. The Physics Building weather station

PAGE 206

187 began recording in July 2000. In the next cas e study, higher frequency (1-minute) rainfall data were used when developing the SWMM mo del but 1 yr of 1-hr rainfall data were used when calibrating and running the BMP selection tool.

PAGE 207

188 CHAPTER 6 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANA GEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION METHODOLOGY IN THE LA-2B WATERSHED Introduction Taking a more fundamental approach than previous chapters this study both focused on a smaller watershed and deve loped a link between GIS and SWMM to automate the transfer of shapefile informa tion because there are many sources of urban runoff from streets, parking lots, sidewalks, roofs, lawns, and other areas. Runoff can be controlled onsite using LID practices such as grass buffers, rain gardens, etc. (Weinstein et al. 2006). Different BMPs cater to differe nt runoff conditions such as flow, volume, water quality aspects, etc. This study focu sed first on modeling a single storm event and then evaluating BMPs using a year of hourly rainfall-runoff data. The seven acre LA-2b watershed was modeled at three different le vels of aggregation ranging from one to 390 functional elements. Techniques used to simulate BMP implementation to satisfy a specified percent onsite cont rol regulation are discussed. Lee et al. (2005) shows that the more certainty one has in estimating on-site conditions, largely generated by gathering detail ed spatial information, the more accurate the simulated rainfall-runoff pattern for th e site. Best management practices have traditionally been modeled as control devices but, in reality, onsite BMPs function both as controls for rainfall/runon and as s ources of runoff for downstream elements. The new EPA SWMM 5 model allows for simulation at multiple levels of spatial and temporal detail (Rossman 2004). It allows users to generate aggregated models while

PAGE 208

189 still allowing a portion of runoff from imperv ious surfaces to flow onto pervious surfaces before flowing to the subcatchment outlet. For example, a rooftop and driveway surface can be routed to a grass surface by routing 100 % of the impervious area to the pervious area, representing the entire site as one s ubcatchment. However, SWMM also allows one to model a site as a series of interconnect ed functional elements down to any level of detail. For example, runoff from concrete st airs can cascade onto a pervious brick patio before flowing into a stormwater drain. In th is case, the patio infiltrates some of the runon while the remainder flows, overland, into the storm drain. It is simulated as serving a specific function with infiltration and surface pa rameters unique to that surface. This is referred to as a functional la nd unit in my thesis. The fo llowing methods describe the level of data needed to produce such a detaile d simulation as well as one way to transfer those data into SWMM. Goals This case study has the same goals as thos e previously mentioned for the LAW. It is also intended as a proof of concept for fu ture modeling exercises and serves to provide both a methology and data repository fo r detailed modeling in the LAW. Characterize Site This study site, called the LA-2b subcat chment, is located within the LA-2 subcatchment (Figure 6-1). This is an ideal study site because it is a headwater and is a very small area (approximately 7 acres) with moderately well defined topography. This site also provides a good mix of high and low intensity land uses and contains an historic building so any proposed changes will likely have to be retrofits. There are multiple facilities using this area which also contai ns multiple functional land use areas.

PAGE 209

190 Figure 6-1: LA-2b Study Site in Context of Larger ECW. Evaluate Candidate Processes Two methods were employed for evaluating BMP effectiveness. The first involved creating a geodatabase of relevant site info rmation in a GIS, followed by transferring the site information to SWMM using a tool built for this project. ArcGIS software was then used to aggregate the site data into a fictit ious 8and then 1-parc el ownership scenario. These two site representations were also tran sferred into SWMM, resulting in three levels of site aggregation in three different SWMM files. In the first method, a single rainfall event was used to compare percent onsite c ontrol between the three aggregation levels and to evaluate BMP performance using the 8-parcel simulation scenario. The second

PAGE 210

191 BMP candidate evaluation process built upon the disaggregated SWMM file generated previously. However one year of hourly rainfall was used to evaluate the annual performance of two LID control methods. Th e methods, results, and discussion for the single event simulation scenario are included in the first part of this section, entitled Single Event Simulation while the second BM P evaluation process is discussed in the section entitled Annual Simulation. Single Event Simulation Methodology The engineer or designer needs to determin e what information is available at the beginning of the data gathering process as well as what information needs to be gathered or can be estimated reasonably well. The fo rmat that the information is saved in is important because the program developed to transfer data from ArcGIS to SWMM is designed for an ArcGIS geodatabase. Data that are not in the correct format or table layout can be modified to the format required by a Visual Basic program called GIS2SWMM. GIS2SWMM is a program developed by the author that reads data from a particular shapefiles data table, converts that information into space delimited strings, and then arranges the strings to create a .INP or input file that is in a format native to SWMM. The source code for GIS2SWMM is available in Appendix B. The methodology used to generate each of three SWMM input files was as follows. A database was developed in ArcGIS by se tting up the table structure as shown in Table 6-1 for one feature layer. This allows the user to select the proper column title for each SWMM input parameter when running GIS2SWMM. A screenshot of the SWMM parameter selection tab within th e program is shown in Figure 6-2.

PAGE 211

192 Table 6-1: GIS Geodatabase Feature Layer Layout Geodatabase Label SWMM Parameter SWMM_NAME Name SWMM_PcntSlope % Slope SWMM_CurbLen Curb Length SWMM_SnowPac Snow Pack SWMM_CapSuc Capillary Suction SWMM_Conduc Conductivity SWMM_InitDef Initial Deficit PctImp % Impervious Area nImp Manning's n Impervious Area nPerv Manning's n Pervious Area Simp Depression Storage Impervious Area Sperv Depression Storage Pervious Area PctZro Percent Zero Pervious Area RteTo Route to PctRted % Routed SWMM_Area Area SWMM_Width Width SWMM_Raingage Raingage SWMM_Outlet Outlet Figure 6-2: GIS2SWMM Interface

PAGE 212

193 Initially, one feature layer was developed for each land use, resulting in nine different feature layers, all with the same table layout. The following land uses were evaluated: building rooftops, brick trimming, pervious brick paving, concrete sidewalks, bushes, grass, packed sand, parking, and roads. These separate feature layers were later combined into one layer for ease of use but th e subcatchments could st ill be distinguished from each other by name. Subcatchments ranged in size from 4E-5 to 0.5 acres. An example of the high level of disaggrega tion is shown inset within Figure 6-3. Figure 6-3: Visual Represen tation of UF Study Area in GI S with High Detail Inset A one-foot topographic map created by LIDAR data was used to establish initial flow boundaries within the study area. A ground truthing survey was then used to make any needed corrections to the subcatchment s. Due to the non-uniform shapes of the subcatchments, width was measured using the measuring tool in GIS. Percent slope was Model Watershed 30 1.5 Legend Stormwater city_ssGra v (City_MH Sidewalk_ U Trim_Brick pervious_b r cnps_bldng s bushes packed_sa n parking Roads grass 12.5meters ( ( ( ( Model Watershed 50 0 50 25 MetersLegend Stormwater city_ssGrav ( City_MH Sidewalk_Union2_Union Trim_Brick pervious_brick cnps_bldngs bushes packed_sand parking Roads grass

PAGE 213

194 calculated by first turning the LIDAR data from a TIN file to a slope raster file using the 3D Analyst tool within ArcGIS. Then the Spat ial Analyst tool was used to perform zonal statistics on the single GIS layer containing all of the 390 subcatchments. This produced a mean percent-slope value for each of the el ements or subcatchments within the layer. Area is calculated in square meters usi ng the HARN projection as was used for this research project. The calculator tool was used to convert these values to the native acre units used by SWMM. Mannings n values and depression storage values entered into the geodatabase were as suggested by ASCE (1992), Rossman (2004) and DeWiest (2000). Suction head, conductivity, and initial defici t values were as suggested by Rossman (2004). Only one land use (pervi ous brick) was set to use su brouting from impervious to pervious areas within a subcatchment, all others routed directly to their outlets. The outlet field was populated by hand although it is possibl e to create a route network within GIS. The rain gage field was populated with rg1 to represent the rain ga ge used to represent rainfall on the entire subcatchment. The rain gage is located approximately 0.5 miles west at the Physics Building. It is a 0.01 inch tipping bucket gage recording at 1 minute intervals. A Green-Ampt infiltration scheme wa s chosen because it is possible to measure each of the parameters in the equation a lthough the GIS2SWMM software also accepts CN and Hortons infiltration parameters. No sn owpacks were used, all curb length values were entered as 0 and all Per cent Zero pervious values were 0. The information from the GIS feature layer was then extracted and tr ansferred to a space delimited, text based SWMM input file by selecti ng the appropriate column headers when prompted by GIS2SWMM. The resultant file was opened within SWMM and pipes and nodes were added by hand from within the SWMM gra phical user interface using information

PAGE 214

195 contained in CH2MHill (1987) and Ca usseaux & Ellington (2000). A visual representation of the stages i nvolved is shown in Figure 6-4. Figure 6-4 UF GIS2SWMM Tool Connecting ArcGIS to SWMM. Next, eight polygons were created on a s econd layer within GIS to represent a fictitious multi-owner situation of eight parcels for the study area. The polygons were titled Owner1 Owner5, DOT1, SchoolRd1, and one area titled CommonArea. Information was taken from the disaggregated la yer to each of the ei ght polygons in part by calculating a weighted average for pe rcent-impervious area, Mannings n and depression storage values, and infiltration parameters (suction head, conductivity, initial deficit). All other elements such as area, slop e, width, etc. were entered or calculated for each of the eight parcels as discussed previously. The method used to create weighted average values for the percent impervious area was to first create a raster of the percent impervious area values contained within the disaggregated or functional elem ent layer using the ArcGIS Spatial Analyst tool and then

PAGE 215

196 apply the mean values to each of the eight pa rcels using the Zonal Statistics tool. Next, a new layer was exported from the pervious ar eas of the functional element layer. The same ArcGIS tools were used to create ra sters of the pervious Mannings n, pervious depression storage, suction head, conductivit y, and initial deficit values. Mean values from the resultant rasters were then applied to each of the eight parcels using the Zonal Statistics tool. Similarly, a new layer was exported from the impervious areas of the functional element layer and the same processe s were used to create weighted-average values of impervious n and depression storag e values for each of the eight parcels in the aggregated layer. The data were export ed to SWMM using the GIS2SWMM tool and node and link elements were added to the SWMM file manually. The unified (1 subcatchment) shapefile wa s created and populated with data using the same processes used to create the eight parcel shapefile. All simulations were run using the same rainfall pattern and run conditi ons. The rainfall distribution is shown in Figure 6-5 and the run conditions are show n in Table 6-2. The storm distributes 0.270 inches over 0.2 hours at 1 minute time steps. The simulation results were then compared to ensure similar runoff values. Finally, attributes were changed within SWMM to accommodate the 50 % onsite control requireme nt when necessary. These values were easily changed from within SWMM when altering the large one and eight catchment simulations but can be changed within GIS instead. Figure 6-5: Rainfall Pattern for De tailed Rainfall-Runoff Analysis

PAGE 216

197 Table 6-2: Run Conditions Variable Value Flow Units ............... CFS Infiltration Method ...... GREEN_AMPT Flow Routing Method ...... KINWAVE Starting Date ............ JAN-28-2002 17:00:00 Ending Date .............. JAN-29-2002 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 3 Report Time Step ......... 0:01:59 Wet Time Step ............ 0:00:50 Dry Time Step ............ 0:01:00 Routing Time Step ........ 5.00 sec Results The information recorded into the ArcGIS geodatabase for each of the three levels of aggregation: 390 parcels, 8 parcels, and 1 parcel is shown in Tables 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5, respectively. In addition, Tables 6-4 and 6-5 contain a final column of the percent onsite control within each parcel. Figur e 6-6 represents the site as 390 parcels. Figure 6-7 shows the eight different parcels used in the 8 parcel simulation. Figure 6-8 shows the site represented as 1 parcel. Simulation summar y results for each of the aforementioned aggregation levels are show n in Table 6-6 along with a control run simulating 100% impervious area. Table 6-3: Geodatabase Inform ation for 390 Parcel Simulation

PAGE 217

198Table 6-4: Geodatabase Inform ation for 8-Parcel Simulation Table 6-5: Geodatabase Inform ation for 1 Parcel Simulation

PAGE 218

199 Figure 6-6: GIS Repres entation of Functional Elements for 390 Parcel Simulation

PAGE 219

200 Figure 6-7: GIS Representa tion of 8 Parcels and Es timated % Runoff Control

PAGE 220

201 Figure 6-8: GIS Representa tion of 1 Parcel Simulation and % Runoff Control

PAGE 221

202 Table 6-6: Rainfall-Runoff & Percent On site Control vs Aggregation Level All levels of aggregation show the st udy area meeting the necessary 50% onsite control as set out at the beginning of the st udy. However, only two of the eight fictitious parcel owners in the 8-parcel simulation show over 50% onsite contro l of rainfall on their area, with the DOT1 parcel receiving runo ff from both Owner1 and SchoolRd1. This is represented in Table 6-7. The most right-ha nd column in Table 6-7 shows an increase in percent onsite control from 45.3% to 67.3% fo r the parcel denoted Owner2, achieved by routing 40% of the impervious area within th e subcatchment to the pervious area within the same subcatchment. Table 6-7: Percent Onsite Control Values fo r Each Subcatchment in 8 Parcel Simulation If the same site owned by Owner2 were to be represented as functional units, then more educated decisions could be made about proper BMP placement. Figure 6-9 and Table 6-8 show the spatially disaggregated characteristics of pa rcel Owner2. By running

PAGE 222

203 the detailed simulation, it is seen that many of the bush areas are functioning as headwaters while GRS18 treats a volume of st ormwater higher than the volume of direct precipitation that falls on the functional uni t. Hence, a functional unit can provide over 100 % onsite control as shown in Table 6-9. Figure 6-9: Detailed Spatial Representation of site Owner2 Table 6-8: Detailed Geodatabase Information for Site Owner2

PAGE 223

204 Table 6-9: SWMM Simulation Runoff for Functional Units for Site Owner2 Functional unit precip (in) runon (in) evap (in) infilt (in) runoff (in) peak runoff coeff runoff % control Headwater Bldng3 0.27 0 000.220.070.81718.5% yes Bldng4 0.27 0.048 000.2680.350.84318.5% no Sdwk84 0.27 0.212 000. 4380.030.9116.3% no Sdwk85 0.27 0 000.22300.82717.4% yes Sdwk92 0.27 0 000.22500.83416.7% yes Sdwk93 0.27 0 000.2240.010.82817.0% yes Sdwk99 0.27 0 000.2210.010.81818.1% no Sdwk117 0.27 0.264 000. 4850.050.90818.1% no Sdwk118 0.27 1.138 001. 3630.030.96816.7% no Sdwk119 0.27 0.322 000. 5470.020.92416.7% no Sdwk120 0.27 0 000.2220.010.82217.8% no Sdwk173 0.27 0 000.22500.83416.7% yes BSH21 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes BSH22 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes BSH23 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes BSH26 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes BSH27 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes BSH28 0.27 0.007 00.277000102.6% no BSH29 0.27 0 00.27000100.0% yes GRS18 0.27 0.084 00.354000131.1% no Discussion Because all the simulations met the 50% onsite control criteria, no changes were made to either the 390 Parcel or the 1 parc el simulations. However, changes were made within the 8 Parcel simulation. The following pa ragraph discusses the implications of the changes made as well as the advantage to modeling at a functional element scale. If the total percent onsite control for the eight parcel neighborhood is set at 50%, then it affords an opportunity to do one of two things: (1) cost share based upon the average percent onsite control for the entire study area, or (2) require each individual parcel owner to meet the onsite criteria. On e cost sharing scenario could occur whereby the DOT, Owner2, Owner3, and Owner5 could pay Owner1 and Owner4 for a portion of their percent control using some basic cost sharing rules (Heane y 1997). Another cost sharing option would be for the owners to co ntribute to renovating the common area so as

PAGE 224

205 not to disturb their own properties but yet satisfy percent onsite control requirements jointly. If however, each land owner needed to provide 50% onsite control, then Owner2, for example, could route rooftop flow to the landscaped area which was found to have extra storage capacity for this small volume st orm. This was simulated by routing 40% of the impervious area to the pervious area; how ever because, in the 8-parcel simulation, the roof is not represented as a separate func tional element from the bushes and sidewalks on the parcel denoted Owner2, it is difficult to determine how much of the landscaped areas total capacity is used by the rooftop runoff. It is also difficult to measure possible flooding from a saturated lands cape area onto the sidewalk surrounding it because water cannot be routed from the impervious to the pervious and back to the remaining impervious area. In contrast, the most detaile d site information available would represent the same area owned by Owner2 as shown in Figure 6-9 and in tabular format in Table 6-8. This representation allows fo r more discrete analyses wherein the percent contribution of runoff from the northern bushes to the diagonal sidewalk segment and subsequent runoff from the sidewalk, south, to the grass can be numerically identified separately from the percent cont ribution from the building rooftop. A graphical representation of the percent onsite control per functional unit in the Owner2 parcel of land is shown in Figure 6-10. This graphical representation allows the us er to site locations that may already function as good onsite control measures due one or more of the following (1) site drainage characteristics (2) infiltration, stor age, and runoff parame ters, and (3) spatial parameters. However, Figure 6-10 does not explicitly convey the network topology. It

PAGE 225

206 does however show that BSH21 and BSH29 are likely headwaters because they infiltrate exactly the amount of precipitation that falls upon them. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140%Bldng3 Bldng4 Sdwk84 Sdwk85 Sdwk92 Sdwk93 Sdwk99 Sdwk117 Sdwk118 Sdwk119 Sdwk120 Sdwk173 BSH21 BSH22 BSH23 BSH26 BSH27 BSH28 BSH29 GRS18 MeanFunctional Unit Name% Onsite Control Figure 6-10: Chart of Percent Onsite C ontrol per Functional Unit in Site Owner2 In the future, it may be possible, using ArcGIS software to create a network topology. This topology can be used to identif y critical flowpaths in the future which allows for a more educated BMP siting. This does, however, allow one to experiment with redirecting flow from the building r ooftops in site Owner2 through various bush (BSH) functional units to infiltrate a suffi cient volume of water to meet 50 % onsite control at a minimum cost. An annual simulati on can be used to provi de a better value of percent onsite control and BMP performan ce by including storms ranging from the micro storms like 0.25 inches to larger stor ms over 1-2 inches. The next section will show how to obtain and apply annual rain fall data to the LA-2b 390 functional unit watershed simulation as well as show how runof f can be routed to more efficiently use BMPs.

PAGE 226

207 Annual Simulation The model developed for the LA-2b watershe d in the previous section provides a sound foundation for testing BMPs quickly and easily, the simplest method of which is simply trying out different BMPs, for exampl e increasing the infiltration of a sidewalk by decreasing its percent impervious ar ea and augmenting the following parameters: depression storage, Mannings n for surf ace flow, suction head (wetting front), conductivity, and/or initial deficit. This methodology is used to evaluate the annual performance of two onsite control methods in two different locations to determine which one meets percent onsite control requirements while minimizing cost. Methodology In order to test SWMMs capability to assess average annual onsite BMP effectiveness, one year of rainfall-runoff an alyses were necessary. One year of rainfall data were downloaded from the NOAA as de scribed in Heaney et al. (2006) but an additional procedure was necessary to prepar e the data for cataloging in Access. A short visual basic for applic ations (VBA) script include d in Appendix B-CODE 2 is designed to generate an .XML file from w ithin Excel by simply pasting the appended text into a macro. This file can then be opened in a database program like Access. Hourly rainfall data recorded at 0.01 inch depths for the year 2003 was then entered into the detailed 390 functional unit SWMM simu lation along with monthly evaporation records, producing a runoff hydrograph. BMPs were selected for use in the locatio ns shown in the map below (Figure 6-11). Note that the bioretenti on BMP may service a maximum area bound in red and the permeable pavement may service the area bound in yellow. A matrix was developed to represent the two different BM Ps and their properties (Table 6-10). The column labeled

PAGE 227

208 DS represents depression storage values for the respective BMPs, in inches of depth. The column labeled Conductivity represents general infiltration properties for the BMP, in inches/hr. Values for DS and Conductivity were taken from the literature. Infiltration information was gathered from Pitt et al. (2002) and DS from Abida (2006). Porous pavement information was taken from The Low Impact Development Center (2005). Mannings n values were provided in the SWMM Users Manual documentation. A mock objective was designated as 20% onsite control, which could be met by using either one or both of the two BMPs. Figure 6-11: Contributing Watershe ds for Three Different BMPs Table 6-10: Annual Simulati on BMP Comparison Matrix BMP Contributing Area (acres) Mann n DS (in) Conductivity (in/hr) Area BMP (acres) Bioretention 2.116 0.2 .15 5 0.102 Porous pavement 0.7275 0.013 .16 6 0.081

PAGE 228

209 Results The total rainfall for the y ear 2003 in Gainesville, Fl was measured as 45.2 inches as published by the NCDC. In order to meet 20% onsite control, 9 inches of rainfall must be captured onsite, thus only 36.2 inches are allowed to run o ff. In volumetric terms, over the 6.1 acres of surface area, this is 800,691 ft3 of runoff. Using the detailed SWMM model, entering the values shown in Table 6-10, the resultant outflow for the entire watershed was 880,792 ft3 with no BMP. This shows that almost half of the required amount is met without any addi tional land use changes. Usin g the Bioretention BMP, the runoff volume was calculated to be 696,382 ft3, well over the 20% threshold, reaching 30% onsite control for the LA-2b watershe d. The runoff volume calculated when using the pervious paving is 791,224, or just over 20% onsite control. Table 6-11 shows SWMM simulation output information for the two BMPs described previously in Tabl e 6-10. Both BMPs control ove r 1000% of the precipitation that falls directly on their surface due to runon from the contributing watersheds. Table 6-11: BMP Performance Matrix Output from Annual SWMM Simulation BMP precip (in) runon (in) evap (in) infilt (in) runoff (in) peak runoff coeff runoff % control Bioretention 45.263 665.73 1.178502.219207.7093.35 0.292 1112% Pervious Paving 45.263 443.59 0.974474.28557.971 1.05 0.118 1050% An experiment was performed to determine the performance of the bioretention BMP if the lower stretch of 13th Street was unable to be rerout ed into the bioretention BMP for some reason. This is the rectangul ar parcel directly to the righ t (East) of the lower half of the bioretention BMP shown in Figure 6-11. Wh en sending this runoff directly to the outfall of the LA-2b watershed, the bioreten tion area only provides 842% onsite control

PAGE 229

210 because it has not been used to its optimal capacity for annual infilt ration and evaporation (Table 6-12). Table 6-12: Annual Evaluation of Bioretention Performance with Varying Contributing Area BMP precip (in) runon (in) evap (in) infilt (in) runoff (in) peak runoff coeff runoff % control bioretention 45.263 665.73 1.178502.219 207.709 3.35 0.292 1112% bioretention without lower DOT roadway section 45.263 432.7511.178380.11 1 96.807 2.09 0.203 842% Discussion The value of a certain BMP lay not only in its infiltration and depressional storage capacity but also in the locati on of the function unit within the watershed. This is shown by the comparison of percent onsite control when using the bioretention BMP to treat different runon contributing area s. While the BMP has the capacity to infiltrate far more than the direct precipitation on the BMP, it is used in a more cost effective manner when treating a larger surface area. Future work c ould involve using a drainage network in the GIS to identify key functional land units th at receive significan t annual volumes of runoff. These functional units could then be augmented to overtreat or treat an area larger than the functional unit itself, possibl y resulting a lower cost than if a headwater was altered. Benefits can also be compar ed between two or more BMPs within a watershed. For example, the comparison of bioretention and permeable paving functional units in Table 6-11 shows that the bioreten tion facility, while providing a comparable percent onsite control in terms of the ratio of runon treated to direct precipitation, it does not reflect percent control for the entire wa tershed. Thus, because the bioretention area receives runoff from a larger area of the wa tershed than the permeable paving area (665 vs. 443 inches runon), it provides a greater service to the LA2b watershed. Its larger area

PAGE 230

211 also allows for a larger volume of evaporat ion from the BMP. Thus, the performance of a BMP (represented as a functional unit) within the watershed is based on (1) site drainage flow paths (2) infiltration, storage, and runo ff parameters of the BMP, and (3) spatial parameters of the BMP. All of these can be represented and manipulated using ArcGIS and/or EPA SWMM to achieve a high performing BMP implementation. Conclusions Most of the data obtained fo r this study were readily available from the University of Florida and City of Gaines ville, most significantly bei ng the topographic data as well as building and sidewalk shapefiles. While li terature values were used for Mannings n, depression storage, and Green-Ampt paramete rs, it is easy to obt ain a few key point infiltration estimates within the study area a nd to determine if depression storage should be better characterized by performing a sensitivity analysis in the future. Breaking a site into functional elements is not very difficult considering the pervasiveness of CAD data us ed to generate stormwater routing information, landscape and landscape architecture maps, and othe r structural information such as building/drivewalk/sidewalk boundaries. The rule of percent onsite control is well suited for urban retrofit environments but future research can explore the scalability of simulation information to draw more general conclusions about the effect of a BMP on a larger watershed. The optimal simulation scenario involves creating a number of small manageable simulations for subwatersheds (7 acres) w ithin a larger watershed (300 acres) and grouping or scaling them to apply to th e larger watershed. Components of each simulation can be aggregated (simplified) a nd disaggregated in a centralized geographic information system (GIS) and BMPs can be chosen based on desired goals and first

PAGE 231

212 principles. If Owner2, as described in the single event simulation section of this chapter, were to redevelop the propert y Owner2, he/she could work with design professionals to develop a site design that satisfies his/her needs and meets the onsite control requirements. It is shown that the SWMM model can be used to evaluate the expected performance of this design. While cost equations were not explicitly applied to these analyses, some cost-related conclusions can be made to in-part satisfy Step 4 of the LID Center LID Planning Process when co mparing BMPs in the annual simulation. The cost of removing currently avai lable hardscape surface parking along 13th Street and replacing it with a bi oretention strip may be, for th e purposes of this example, stated as comparatively more expensive than replacing current road su rface with pervious pavement on a section of Inner Rd on campus, based on literature research from the Low Impact Development Center and the Federal Highway Administration (2002) and the cost of parking on the University of Florida cam pus. Furthermore, while both the pervious paving and bioretention BMPs met onsite c ontrol requirements in the annual event simulation, the question of which one is more cost effective in terms of site goals and characteristics suggests that the bioretention strip should be used because it provides 10% more than the required 20% onsite control stat ed in the problem statement of the annual simulation section, above. The extra control may provide future capaci ty or capacity that may be tradeable with other watersheds within the larger Lake Alice Watershed. An ancillary benefit to selecting the bioretention BMP is that it in-p art addresses University Master Plan Policy 1.2.8 mentioned in Chapter 4. However, instal ling the bioretention st rip removes parking space for the University. These costs and benef its can thus be weighed against each other

PAGE 232

213 effectively after knowing runoff values us ing highly detailed long-term watershed simulations.

PAGE 233

214 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This thesis can be thought of as a mi crocosm of environmental research today. Many dissimilar tasks need to be performe d because they are in terrelated. Chapter 2 discusses current LID charac teristics and criteria follo wed by a thorough review of different onsite control methods used in an urban watershed. Detailed descriptions of many properties in the University Heights Re development District within the Tumblin Creek Watershed form a mini-database, albe it a non-searchable one It is shown in chapter 2 that BMPs are ubiquitous but are of ten not called BMPs or are not intended as onsite stormwater control methods when instal led. This is especially true of older buildings throughout the Tumblin Creek Watershe d. It is seen that even one parcel of land can be represented by multiple functional la nd units such as those shown in Heritage Oaks. Chapter 3 describes the cyberinfrastruct ure necessary to organi ze data like those collected in chapter 2 for group discussion and authoring. It is shown that data can also be analyzed using a centraliz ed system. A demonstration is provided showing how open source tools are also availabl e to assist in collaboration but other products may provide better security tools and allow for the use of an ontology to promote future compatibility with other institutions. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 show that small scale site analyses provide the best chance of obtaining manageable a nd minable high quality site data. These chapters also implement the LID Centers LID analysis framework, a tool for guiding BMP decision making. Chapter 4 describes how University of Florida policy indicates that the University is very interested in innovative onsite control methods and encourages

PAGE 234

215 active research and implementation in this field. This may provide an excellent opportunity for a renowned stormwater resear ch network at the University, provided there is a strong cyberinfrastructure to f acilitate collaboration. Chapter 5 provides a primer of the EPA SWMM 5 urban watershed simulation tool. Chapter 6 shows how the SWMM tool can be used to simulate BMPs at the functional land unit le vel. It also shows how site data can be aggregated and disaggr egated quickly using a GIS without greatly affecting results of small single event simulations. The section entitled Annual Simulation within Chapter 6 shows the power of simulating at the functional unit level by expressing a BMPs performance in terms of (1) contributing watershed area and surface type (2) infiltration, st orage, and runoff parameters of the BMP, and (3) spatial parameters of the BMP. In the context of regulatory conduct both on campus and in the Gainesville community, percent onsite control thus provides a unique and simple way of viewing the traditional rainfall-runoff relations hip wherein the percent onsite control of rainfall can be used as a credit by focusing on the storage and infilt ration capacity rather than runoff produced. Landscaping, natural areas and other pervious areas potentially can receive credit not only fo r controlling the rainfall that fa lls on them but in many cases for runon from upstream land surfaces. The tasks of information gathering, data manipulation and calculation, collaborative engineering, etc., although distinctly different, a ll need to be mastered to some degree in order to fully understand how to build a decision support system that enables everyday users to make decisions a bout which stormwater BMPs to implement and why. In performing research for chapter 2, the author participated in a Gainesville Stormwater Workshop where it was apparent that the information gathered about LID

PAGE 235

216 implementations in even a very small part of the City of Gainesville is very useful to developers, contractors, landscap e architects, stormwater engin eers, and planners. It also served to show the varied tools each discipline can bri ng to the table. The optimal solution may not always be the lowest cost so lution because there are multiple interests at stake when buildi ng or redeveloping property and since it is nearly impossible to know enough about all as pects of development, working groups of easily connected individuals are vital to impl ementing BMPs that satisfy all needs as well as possible. In the context of the future of Lake A lice, the lake itself may also one day face water quality concerns and the LAW is al ready facing erosion and sedimentation problems. It has been shown that with the proper tools and data, BMP performance predictions can be made quickly and precisely, still using rigorous computational analyses. It is hoped that in the future, provided two major components of a good cyber infrastructure, namely a quality database of spatial information and proper software, a person can characterize their own watershed within the LAW quickly and easily without mining data that were previously mined. As de scribed in chapter 6, it is vitally important that this is done on a site by site scale such as a one acre lot in the Tumblin Creek watershed or building by building in the LAW. The process should begin at a headwater, and the input/output data, reports and models should be made available in a format that facilitates a synergy of modul ar research findings to dr aw more global conclusions. There are a number of future research possi bilities that use the SWMM detailed site modeling methodology described in Chapter 6. Parameters such as suction head and initial deficit were not measured in the fiel d. These parameters are generally gathered for

PAGE 236

217 the Green-Ampt equation by documenting the subsurface soil type and looking up related literature values. A sensitivity analysis perf ormed on these and other parameters needed by SWMM affect runoff values. Future resear ch involving multi-event runoff analyses can be used to compare percent onsite contro l of the LA-2b watershed between the three levels of aggregation described in Chapter 6 under various event volumes and intensities. Results from such research could determin e if aggregated watershed models produce rainfall-runoff relationships comparable to the highly disaggregated simulation during larger storm events. Although water quantity contro l was discussed to this poi nt, water quality control is of high importance as well. The concept of pe rcent onsite control need not apply only to water volume control. Future research can use SWMM to simulate loading released (and loading captured) by a subcatchment of any si ze. Just as with water quantity, the ability to represent a subcatchment as both a control and a source a llows one to simulate a path of pollutant or nutrient tran sfer throughout the watershed and place a BMP in the optimal location so as to control wa ter quantity, quality, or both.

PAGE 237

218 APPENDIX A REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LAKE ALICE Clean Water Act The University of Florida has written a succinct summary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its implications for the Lake Alice Watershed (LAW) and Tumblin Creek Watershed (TCW). The document states This legislation gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) the responsibility for setting national wa ter quality standards to protect public health and we lfare, while giving states th e job of determining how best to meet those standards (University of Florida 2006b) In Florida, The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (F DEP) has oversight over the five water management districts. The LAW falls within the jurisdiction of the Saint Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). It is the responsibility of the SJRWMD to ensure water quality is acceptable under th e CWA. It does this by creating water quality and quantity rules, creating design manuals and monitoring both point and non-point source discharges. Point discharges are nomina lly from sewage facilities and non-point is nominally surface runoff. As described in more detail in University of Florida (2006b), the state has created two programs that imp act the University of Florida: the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs. The TMDL program affects the University outside of the LAW such as in the neighboring TCW and it requires the state to develop TMDL s for pollutants of identified impaired waters. The NPDES progr am (found in section 402 of the CWA) does

PAGE 238

219 apply to the LAW and allows the EPA to re gulate pollution discharg e into water bodies. A permit must be obtained to discharge from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) when constructing or redevelopi ng. At the university, school programs and research by Dr. Mark Clark and others has pa rtially fulfilled the following requirements: public participation, il licit discharge detection and e limination, public education and outreach, construction site runoff control, post-construction runoff control and pollution prevention/good housekeeping (Clark 2006). Florida Statute 373 While not able to find Section 120.373 of the FS as mentioned in the 2006 Master Plan, Chapter 373 concerns water resources of Title 28. The University is affected by 373.4142 in that Lake Alice is considered a stormwater treatment pond. Florida Senate (2005a) says State surface water quality standa rds applicable to waters of the state, as defined in s. 403.031(13), shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and ma intained for stormwater treatment in accordance with a valid permit or noticed exem ption issued pursuant to chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. This only a pplies to that part of the stormwater management system located ups tream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormw ater (Florida Senate 2005a). Essentially, this means that the University has to meet water quality regulat ions at the drainage wells, the points of discharge from Lake Alice into groundwater. The University is also affected by the following statement (also located in s. 373.4142): This section sh all not affect the authority of the department and water ma nagement districts to require reasonable assurance that the water quality within su ch stormwater management systems will not

PAGE 239

220 adversely impact public health, fish and wild life, or adjacent waters (Florida Senate 2005a). Hence, water quality control should be a concern in addition to water quantity if the water management district we re to find any troubling results. Florida Statute 403 Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes cont ains policy concerning water resources restoration, pollution control of surface waters, wa ter reuse, etc. Legislation pertaining to the water budget at Lake Alice are 403.085, which states that a sanitary sewage plant that discharges effluent through disposal wells shall provide for secondary waste treatment and, in addition thereto, advanced waste trea tment as deemed necessary and ordered by the former Department of Environmental Regulation, (Florida Senate 2005b) and section 403.0885 which concerns NPDES programs, stating that it is in the public interest to promote effective and efficient regulation of the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state and eliminate duplication of permitting programs by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under s. 402 of the Clean Water Act.... (Florida Senate 2005b). These apply because the univers ity discharges unreused wastewater into a groundwater well and Lake Alice receives stormw ater runoff and drains into a one of two groundwater wells, ultimately draining into a water of the state, as defined by the FS. Florida Administrative Code 62-3 This code has been repealed Florida Administrative Code 62-25 This code contains design and Performa nce Standards. 62-25.025 states that No discharge from a stormwater discharge facility shall cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards in waters of the st ate and that Detention basins shall again provide the capacity for the specified trea tment volume of stormwater within 72 hours

PAGE 240

221 following a storm event, (Florida Departme nt of State 2005) esta blishing basic water quality and quantity criteria for Lake Ali ce. 62-25.001 also states that Stormwater discharges to groundwaters sha ll be regulated under the provi sions of Chapters 62-520 and 62-522, F.A.C., and other app licable rules of the Department (Florida Department of State 2005). Florida Administrative Code 62-520 62-520.410 defined a CLASS G-II groundwater as water for potable use and that which has a total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/l, unless otherwise classified by the Commission (Florida De partment of State 2005) Lake Alice drains into G-II groundwater. While 62-520.420 stat es that water discharging into G-II groundwater must meet primary and secondary drinking water standard s, Lake Alice is exempt according to 62-520.520 which states A n existing installations discharging to Class G-II ground water is exempt from compliance with secondary drinking water standards unless the Department determines that compliance with one or more secondary standards by such installati on is necessary to protect gr ound water used or reasonably likely to be used as a potable water s ource (Florida Departme nt of State, 2005). Therefore, discharged water must contain a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of less then 10,000 mg/L and a total coliform standa rd of 4 per 100 mL as well as meeting primary drinking water standards established pursuant to the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act. (FAC, 2003, (62-550)). In addition to inorganic toxicity levels, 62-550.310 states that The maximum contaminant level for ni trate (as N) applicable to transient noncommunity water systems is 10 milligrams per liter (Florida Department of State 2005).

PAGE 241

222 Florida Administrative Code 62-522 FAC section 62-522 provides a groundwat er monitoring methodology for sources of groundwater discharge. On a quarterly basis thereafter, or such other frequency specified in the permit, the permittee sha ll submit reports on all monitoring wells indicating the type, number and concentration of discharge constituents or parametersthat have been approved by the Department as appropr iate criteria to monitor in the monitoring program based upon their potential to exceed the minimum criteria contained in Rule 62-520.400, F.A.C ., and the appropriate standards for the particular class of water adjacent to the z one of discharge as described in Rules 62520.420 through 62-520.460, F.A.C. (Florida Department of State 2005). Florida Administrative Code 62-40 Section 62-40.310 of the FAC states that water management programs should seek to: Encourage nonstructural solutions to water resour ce problems and consider nonstructural alternatives when ever structural works are pr oposed (Florida Department of State, 2005). This lays the foundation fo r so called soft-BMPs, or BMPs that are practices rather than struct ures. Section 62-40.432 provides a presumptive criteria for the LAW SMS system by stating When a stormw ater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such systems will comply with state water quality standards (Florida Department of State 2005). However, the same section also states that The Department and the District sshall, when adopting rules pertaining to stormwater management systems, specify design and performance criteria for new stormwater management systems which: 1. Ac hieve at least 80 per cent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state

PAGE 242

223 water quality standards. 2. Achieve at least 95 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to viola tions of state water quality standards in Outstanding Florida Waters (F lorida Department of State 2005). Section 62-40.540 states that Appropriate monitoring of water quality and water withdrawal shall be required of permittees (Florida Department of St ate, 2005). This suggests that while the permit may be presumptive, wate r quality monitoring is still necessary.

PAGE 243

224 APPENDIX B PROGRAMMATIC CODE CODE 1 The following Visual Basic for Applicati ons code is the source code for the GIS2SWMM tool presented in this thesis. GIS2SWMM (C) 2005 Ruben Kertesz 'This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or 'modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License 'as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 'of the License, or (at your option) any later version. 'This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, 'but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of 'MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the 'GNU General Public License for more details. 'You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License 'along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software 'Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. 'The author may be contacted by email at rubenk@ufl.edu or rubenkertesz@hotmail.com 'You may also contact Ruben by post at P.O. Box 116450; Gainesville FL 32611 Option Explicit make these global variables Dim pMxDoc As IMxDocument Create pointer object to identify doc Dim pMap As IMap point to map Dim pFeatureLayer As IFeatureLayer point to layer Dim pFeatureClass As IFeatureClass point to type of feature in layer Dim pLayer As ILayer point to layer Dim txtOutput2 As String 'Dim txtOutput3 As String Dim strArray1() As String holds the selected layer's attributes for swmm Dim strArray2() As String hold x/y data for export to swmm Dim strReturn As String return command Dim lstcbxCol As New Collection 'publicly dimmed Dim lstcbxCov As New Collection 'publicly dimmed Dim lsttxtCol As New Collection Dim lsttxtCov As New Collection Dim lstLabels As New Collection

PAGE 244

225 Dim lstCovLabels As New Collection Dim R As Long R represents the numer of rows or feature records in the current layer Dim RPoints As Long RPoints represents the numer of rows of Point (Vertex) Records in the current layer Private Sub lblWetStep_Click() End Sub Private Sub optCovNo_Click() optCovYes = False End Sub Private Sub optCovYes_Change() If optCovYes = True Then frameCoverages.Enabled = True contains sweeping parameters frameCoverages.Visible = True contains sweeping parameters Else frameCoverages.Enabled = False frameCoverages.Visible = False cbxCovSubc.Enabled = False TextBox53.Enabled = False Dim cbxCovObj As ComboBox Dim txtCovObj As TextBox For Each cbxCovObj In lstcbxCov cbxCovObj.Enabled = False Next cbxCovObj For Each txtCovObj In lsttxtCov txtCovObj.Enabled = False Next txtCovObj End If End Sub Private Sub UserForm_Initialize() Dim Num As Long For Num = 1 To lstcbxCol.Count lstcbxCol.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lstcbxCov.Count lstcbxCov.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lsttxtCol.Count lsttxtCol.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lsttxtCov.Count lsttxtCov.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lstLabels.Count lstLabels.Remove 1

PAGE 245

226 Next For Num = 1 To lstCovLabels.Count lstCovLabels.Remove 1 Next R = 0 used to set matrix at 0 to 0 initially RPoints = 0 strReturn = Chr(13) & Chr(10) return command THIS IS FOR THE 1ST PAGE \/ \/ \/ cbxFlow.AddItem "CFS" flow units cbxFlow.AddItem "GPM" cbxFlow.AddItem "MGD" cbxFlow.AddItem "CMS" cbxFlow.AddItem "LPS" cbxFlow.AddItem "MLD" cbxFlow.ListIndex = 0 cbxInfilt.AddItem "HORTON" infiltration cbxInfilt.AddItem "GREEN_AMPT" cbxInfilt.AddItem "CURVE_NUMBER" cbxInfilt.ListIndex = 0 cbxRouting.AddItem "STEADY" routing method cbxRouting.AddItem "KINWAVE" cbxRouting.AddItem "DYNWAVE" cbxRouting.ListIndex = 0 cbxPonding.AddItem "YES" allow ponding? cbxPonding.AddItem "NO" cbxPonding.ListIndex = 0 cbxInertialDamp.AddItem "NONE" damping cbxInertialDamp.AddItem "PARTIAL" cbxInertialDamp.AddItem "FULL" cbxInertialDamp.ListIndex = 0 cbxCompat.AddItem "5" compatibility cbxCompat.AddItem "4" cbxCompat.AddItem "3" cbxCompat.ListIndex = 0 'THIS IS FOR THE FIRST PAGE ^ ^ ^ ^ '-----------------------------------------------'THIS IS FOR THE SECOND PAGE \/ \/ \/ \/ Get all the layers in the Map and populate combobox Set pMxDoc = ThisDocument 'Application.Document Set pMap = pMxDoc.FocusMap get ahold of the map Set pFeatureLayer = pMap.Layer(0) get ahold of the layer Dim intlayernumber As Integer calcs total number of layers intlayernumber = pMap.LayerCount 1

PAGE 246

227 Dim i As Long For i = 0 To intlayernumber If TypeOf pMap.Layer(i) Is FeatureLayer Then Set pFeatureL ayer = pMap.Layer(i) poi nt to selected layer cbxSelectLa yer.AddItem pFeatureLayer.N ame populates listbox End If Next i next layer cbxSelectLayer.ListIndex = 0 selects to p of list also calls cbxselectlayer when form loads 'Call cbxSelectLayer_Change End Sub Private Sub cbxInfilt_Change() NEed to put code in here that says (if there is info in the rightr bar in step 2: This will erase all Features that you have already added in step two. If this is okay, click OK. Only allows user to enter values on step 2 for the chosen parameter in step 1' If cbxInfilt.List(cbxInf ilt.ListIndex) = "HORTON" Then MultiPage2.Item(0).Enabled = True MultiPage2.Item(1).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(2).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(0).Visible = True MultiPage2.Item(1).Visible = False MultiPage2.Item(2).Visible = False MultiPage2.Value = 0 goes to the 1st tab ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbxInf ilt.ListIndex) = "G REEN_AMPT" Then MultiPage2.Item(0).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(1).Enabled = True MultiPage2.Item(2).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(0).Visible = False MultiPage2.Item(1).Visible = True MultiPage2.Item(2).Visible = False MultiPage2.Value = 1 goes to the 2nd tab ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbxInfilt. ListIndex) = "CURVE_NUMBER" Then MultiPage2.Item(0).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(1).Enabled = False MultiPage2.Item(2).Enabled = True MultiPage2.Item(0).Visible = False MultiPage2.Item(1).Visible = False MultiPage2.Item(2).Visible = True MultiPage2.Value = 2 goes to the 3rd tab End If

PAGE 247

228 End Sub Private Sub cmdCancelTitOpt_Click() Unload Me End Sub Private Sub cmdContinueTitOpt_Click() MultiPage1.Value = 1 goes to the 2nd tab End Sub Private Sub cbxRouting_Change() If cbxRouting.List(cbxRouting.ListIndex) = "DYNWAVE" Then frameIfDynamic.Visible = True co ntains parameters associated with dynamic wave If txtRouteStep.Text = "00:05:00" Then txtRouteStep.Text = "00:01:00" contains wet routing timestep End If MsgBox "With Dynamic Wave, use a short route step." Else frameIfDynamic.Visible = False End If End Sub Private Sub optSwpYes_Change() If optSwpYes = True Then frameSweeping.Visible = True contains sweeping parameters Else frameSweeping.Visible = False End If End Sub Private Sub optSwpNo_Click() optSwpYes = False End Sub --\/-Page "Step 2" ------\/----' Private Sub cbxSelectLayer_Change() Dim i As Integer i = cbxSelectLayer.ListIndex selected layer Set pMxDoc = ThisDocument 'Application.Document Set pMap = pMxDoc.FocusMap get ahold of the map Set pFeatureLayer = pMap.Layer(i) points to layer selected in cbxSelectLayer combobox Set pFeatureClass = pFeatureLayer.FeatureClass n eed to keep this for the record count routine later 'Depending on layer that is selected, show certain options in cbxLayerType Polygon If pFeatureLayer.FeatureCla ss.ShapeType = esriGeometryPolygon Then cbxLayerType.Clear cbxLayerType.AddItem "Subcatchment" 'Point

PAGE 248

229 ElseIf pFeatureLayer.Featu reClass.ShapeType = esriGeometryPoint Or pFeatureLayer.FeatureClass.ShapeTyp e = esriGeometryMultipoint Then cbxLayerType.Clear cbxLayerType.AddItem "Raingage" cbxLayerType.AddItem "Junction" cbxLayerType.AddItem "Outfall" cbxLayerType.AddItem "Weir" 'Line ElseIf pFeatureLayer.Featu reClass.ShapeType = esriGeometryLine Or pFeatureLayer.FeatureClass.ShapeTyp e = esriGeometryPolyline Then cbxLayerType.Clear cbxLayerType.AddItem "Conduit" End If cbxLayerType.ListIndex = 0 'select the first one in the list also calls the layertype program Call cbxLayerType_Change End Sub Private Sub cbxLayerType_Change() Dim Num As Long For Num = 1 To lstcbxCol.Count lstcbxCol.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lstcbxCov.Count lstcbxCov.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lsttxtCol.Count lsttxtCol.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lsttxtCov.Count lsttxtCov.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lstLabels.Count lstLabels.Remove 1 Next For Num = 1 To lstCovLabels.Count lstCovLabels.Remove 1 Next If cbxLayerType.Text = "Subcatchment" Then framePolygon.Visible = True allows user to view polygon frame Dim lstcbxCol As New Collection 'publicly dimmed lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubName lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubRain lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubOut lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubTotArea lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubPctImp lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubWidth lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubPctSlope lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubCrbLen lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubSnow

PAGE 249

230 lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubAName lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubANImp lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubANPerv lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubASImp lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubASPerv lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubAPctZero lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubARoute lstcbxCol.Add cbxSubAPctRouted lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortSubcat lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortMaxRate lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortMinRate lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortDecay lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortDryT lstcbxCol.Add cbxHortMaxInf lstcbxCol.Add cbxGASubcat lstcbxCol.Add cbxGACapSuc lstcbxCol.Add cbxGACond lstcbxCol.Add cbxGAInitDef lstcbxCol.Add cbxCNSubcat lstcbxCol.Add cbxCNCN lstcbxCol.Add cbxCNCond lstcbxCol.Add cbxCNDryT lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWName lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWAquifer lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWNPerv lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWNode lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWSurf lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWA1 lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWB1 lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWA2 lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWB2 lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWA3 lstcbxCol.Add cbxGWTW lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovSubc lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU1 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU2 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU3 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU4 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU5 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU6 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU7 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU8 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU9 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU10 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU11 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU12 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU13 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU14 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU15 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU16 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU17

PAGE 250

231 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU18 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU19 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU20 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU21 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU22 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU23 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU24 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU25 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU26 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU27 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU28 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU29 lstcbxCov.Add cbxCovLU30 '----------------------lsttxtCol.Add TextBox5 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox6 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox7 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox8 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox9 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox10 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox11 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox12 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox13 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox14 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox15 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox16 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox17 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox18 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox19 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox20 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox21 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox23 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox24 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox25 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox26 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox27 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox28 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox30 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox31 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox32 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox33 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox34 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox35 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox36 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox37 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox38 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox39 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox40 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox41 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox42

PAGE 251

232 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox43 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox44 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox45 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox46 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox47 lsttxtCol.Add TextBox48 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT1 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox54 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT2 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox55 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT3 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox56 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT4 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox57 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT5 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox58 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT6 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox59 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT7 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox60 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT8 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox61 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT9 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox62 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT10 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox63 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT11 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox64 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT12 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox65 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT13 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox66 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT14 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox67 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT15 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox68 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT16 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox69 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT17 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox70 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT18 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox71 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT19 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox72 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT20 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox73 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT21 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox74 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT22 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox75 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT23 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox76 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT24 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox77 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT25

PAGE 252

233 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox78 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT26 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox79 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT27 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox80 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT28 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox81 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT29 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox82 lsttxtCov.Add TextBoxLUT30 lsttxtCov.Add TextBox83 lstLabels.Add ";;" & Label1 lstLabels.Add Label2 lstLabels.Add Label3 lstLabels.Add Label4 lstLabels.Add Label5 lstLabels.Add Label6 lstLabels.Add Label7 lstLabels.Add Label8 lstLabels.Add Label9 lstLabels.Add ";;" & Label10 lstLabels.Add Label11 lstLabels.Add Label12 lstLabels.Add Label13 lstLabels.Add Label14 lstLabels.Add Label15 lstLabels.Add Label16 lstLabels.Add Label17 lstLabels.Add ";;" & LabelH18 lstLabels.Add LabelH19 lstLabels.Add LabelH20 lstLabels.Add LabelH21 lstLabels.Add LabelH22 lstLabels.Add LabelH23 lstLabels.Add ";;" & LabelGA18 lstLabels.Add LabelGA19 lstLabels.Add LabelGA20 lstLabels.Add LabelGA21 lstLabels.Add ";;" & LabelCN18 lstLabels.Add LabelCN19 lstLabels.Add LabelCN20 lstLabels.Add LabelCN21 lstLabels.Add ";;" & Label24 lstLabels.Add Label25 lstLabels.Add Label26 lstLabels.Add Label27 lstLabels.Add Label28 lstLabels.Add Label29 lstLabels.Add Label30 lstLabels.Add Label31

PAGE 253

234 lstLabels.Add Label32 lstLabels.Add Label33 lstLabels.Add Label34 lstCovLabels.Add ";;" & Label35 lstCovLabels.Add Label36 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label37 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label38 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label39 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label40 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label41 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label42 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label43 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label44 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label45 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label46 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label47 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label48 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label49 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label50 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label51 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label52 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label53 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label54 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label55 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label56 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label57 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label58 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label59 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label60 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label61

PAGE 254

235 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label62 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label63 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label64 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" lstCovLabels.Add Label65 lstCovLabels.Add "%_Area" Dim mycbxColobject As ComboBox for lstcbxCol collection For Each mycbxColobject In lstcbxCol mycbxColobject.Clear Next mycbxColobject cbxCovSubc.Clear Dim mycbxCovobject As ComboBox for lstcbxCov collection For Each mycbxCovobject In lstcbxCov mycbxCovobject.Clear Next mycbxCovobject Dim pFields As IFields pointer points to the fields in the current featureclass Dim i As Long Set pFields = pFeatureClass.Fields sets pointer to current FeatureClass Dim pField As IField will populate each combobox on tab2("step2) with fields of current FClass Dim numFields As Long numFields = pFields.FieldCount For i = 0 To numFields 1 Set pField = pFields.Field(i) Populate all comboboxes with Field(i) For Each mycbxColobject In lstcbxCol mycbxColobject.AddItem pField.Name Next mycbxColobject cbxCovSubc.AddItem pField.Name For Each mycbxCovobject In lstcbxCov mycbxCovobject.AddItem pField.Name Next mycbxCovobject Next i will allow user to enter default values For Each mycbxColobject In lstcbxCol mycbxColobject.AddItem "(default)" mycbxColobject.ListIndex = 0 Next mycbxColobject cbxCovSubc.AddItem "(default)" cbxCovSubc.ListIndex = 0 For Each mycbxCovobject In lstcbxCov mycbxCovobject.AddItem "(default)" mycbxCovobject.AddItem "(none)" mycbxCovobject.ListIndex = 0

PAGE 255

236 Next mycbxCovobject 'Call optGWYes_Change 'Call optCovYes_Change ElseIf cbxLayerType.Text = "Raingage" Or cbxLayerType.Text = "Junction" Or cbxLayerType.Text = "Outfall" Or cbxLayerType.Text = "Weir" Then framePolygon.Visible = False ElseIf cbxLayerType.Text = "Conduit" Then framePolygon.Visible = False need to add other frames like frameConduit End If End Sub Private Sub cbxSubCrbLen_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubName_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubOut_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubPctImp_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubPctSlope_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubRain_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubSnow_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubTotArea_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubWidth_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCNCN_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub

PAGE 256

237 Private Sub cbxCNCond_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCNDryT_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCNSubcat_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU1_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU10_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU11_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU12_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU13_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU14_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU15_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU16_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU17_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU18_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU19_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub

PAGE 257

238 Private Sub cbxCovLU2_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU20_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU21_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU22_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU23_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU24_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU25_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU26_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU27_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU28_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU29_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU3_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU30_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU4_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub

PAGE 258

239 Private Sub cbxCovLU5_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU6_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU7_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU8_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovLU9_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxCovSubc_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGAC apSuc_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGACond_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGAInitDef_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGASubcat_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWA1_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWA2_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWA3_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWAquifer_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub

PAGE 259

240 Private Sub cbxGWB1_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWB2_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWName_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWNode_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWNPerv_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWSurf_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxGWTW_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHortDecay_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHortDryT_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHortMaxInf_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHortMaxRate_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHortMinRate_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxHor tSubcat_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubAName_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub

PAGE 260

241 Private Sub cbxSubANImp_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubANPerv_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubAPctRouted_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubAPctZero_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubARoute_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubASImp_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub cbxSubASPerv_Change() Call TextEntryOnOff End Sub Private Sub TextEntryOnOff() Dim cbxColObj As ComboBox for combobox collection Dim txtColObj As TextBox for textbox collection Dim cbxCovObj As ComboBox for combobox coverage collection Dim txtCovObj As TextBox for textbox coverage collection Dim z As Integer z = 1 iterates through collection, must start at 1 b/c list has no zero value For Each cbxColObj In lstcbxCol Set txtColObj = lsttxtCol.Item(z) If cbxColObj = "(default)" Then txtColObj.Enabled = True Else txtColObj.Enabled = False End If z = z + 1 Next cbxColObj If cbxCovSubc = "(default)" Then TextBox53.Enabled = True Else TextBox53.Enabled = False End If z = 1 For Each cbxCovObj In lstcbxCov

PAGE 261

242 Set txtCovObj = lsttxtCov.Item(z) If cbxCovObj = "(default)" Then txtCovObj.Enabled = True Else txtCovObj.Enabled = False End If Set txtCovObj = lsttxtCov.Item(z + 1) the second entry field If cbxCovObj = "(default)" Then txtCovObj.Enabled = True Else txtCovObj.Enabled = False End If z = z + 2 because of the two entry fields Next cbxCovObj End Sub Private Sub optGWYes_Change() If optGWYes = True Then frameGroundwater.Enabled = True contains sweeping parameters frameGroundwater.Visible = True contains sweeping parameters Else frameGroundwater.Enabled = False frameGroundwater.Visible = False TextBox38.Enabled = False TextBox39.Enabled = False TextBox40.Enabled = False TextBox41.Enabled = False TextBox42.Enabled = False TextBox43.Enabled = False TextBox44.Enabled = False TextBox45.Enabled = False TextBox46.Enabled = False TextBox47.Enabled = False TextBox48.Enabled = False cbxGWName.Enabled = False cbxGWAquifer.Enabled = False cbxGWNPerv.Enabled = False cbxGWNode.Enabled = False cbxGWSurf.Enabled = False cbxGWA1.Enabled = False cbxGWB1.Enabled = False cbxGWA2.Enabled = False cbxGWB2.Enabled = False cbxGWA3.Enabled = False cbxGWTW.Enabled = False End If End Sub Private Sub optGWNo_Click() optGWYes = False

PAGE 262

243 End Sub Private Sub cmdAddFeature_Click() Dim i As Long Dim j As Long If cbxLayerType.Text = "Subcatchment" Then '---------------------\/ Check for empty textboxes \/ -------------------------Dim mytextobj As TextBox for combobox Dim myobject As ComboBox for texbox used to iterate through list, populating array Dim myCovtextobj As TextBox for combobox Dim myCovobject As ComboBox for texbox used to iterate through list, populating array Check for blank enabled defaults For Each mytextobj In lsttxtCol If mytextobj.Enabled = True And mytextobj.Text = "" Then MsgBox "One or more Default Value Boxes is Enabled" & strReturn & "but no content is entered!", vbExclamation, "Empty Box" End If Next mytextobj '------------\/ Check for letters where numbers should be \/ ---------------If TextBox8.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox8) Or TextBox9.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox9) Or TextBox10.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox10) Or TextBox11.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox11) Or TextBox12.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox12) Then MsgBox "One or more Default Valu es for" & strReturn & "Total Area, %Imperv Area, Width, %Slope, or Curb Length" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If may have to fix this For j = 15 To 20 If TextBox15.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox15) Or TextBox16.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox16) Or TextBox17.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox17) Or TextBox18.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox18) Or TextBox19.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox19) Or TextBox20.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox20) Then MsgBox "One or more Default Va lues for" & strReturn & "Impervious N, Perv N, S Imperv, S Perv, % Zero Perv, or % Routed" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If Next j If cbxInfilt.List(cbx Infilt.ListIndex) = "HORTON" Then If TextBox24.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox24) Or TextBox25.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox25) Or TextBox26.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox26) Or TextBox27.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox27)

PAGE 263

244 Or TextBox28.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox28) Then MsgBox "One or more Default Values for" & strReturn & "Horton's Max Rate, Min Rate, Decay, Dry Time, or Max Infiltration" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbx Infilt.ListIndex) = "GREEN_AMPT" Then If TextBox31.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox31) Or TextBox32.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox32) Or TextBox33.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox33) Then MsgBox "One or more Default Values for" & strReturn & "Green Ampt's Capillary Suction, Conductivity, or Initial Deficit" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbxIn filt.ListIndex) = "CURVE_NUMBER" Then If TextBox35.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox35) Or TextBox36.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox36) Or TextBox37.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox37) Then MsgBox "One or more Default Va lues for" & strReturn & "CN's CN, Conductivity, or Dry Time" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If End If If optGWYes = True Then If TextBox40.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox40) Or TextBox42.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox42) Or TextBox43.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox43) Or TextBox44.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox44) Or TextBox45.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox45) Or TextBox46.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox46) Or TextBox47.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox47) Or TextBox48.Enabled = True And Not IsNumeric(TextBox48) Then MsgBox "One or more Defau lt Values for" & strReturn & "Groundwater's N-Perv, Suface Elevation, A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, or depth to water" & strReturn & "are non numeric. Only enter numbers in those fields", vbExclamation, "Use Numeric Value" End If End If '-------------------^ Checks for letters where numbers should be -^-----------' ----------------\/ Populate Matrix \/ -------------------Dim lngCheckRZero As Long lngCheckRZero = R '---------\/ Used to resize the array when "add feature" is clicked \/----'Get ahold of Record Dim pTable As ITable Set pTable = pFeatureClass Find the number of selected records Dim lngCounter As Long lngCounter = 0 lngCounter = pTable.RowCount(Nothing)

PAGE 264

245 R = R + lngCounter '--------------^ used to resize str1 array when "add feature" is clicked ^---' just double checking double check Get Feature Entry Count Dim lngLabels As Long lngLabels = lstLabels.Count Dim lngCovLabels As Long lngCovLabels = lstCovLabels.Count MsgBox (lstLabels.Count + lstCovLabels.Count 30) MsgBox (lstcbxCol.Count + lstcbxCov.Count + 1) MsgBox (lsttxtCol.Count + lsttxtCov.Count + 1 30) Dim S As Long S = lngLabels + lngCovLabels 1 Redim to get proper array size, note that array is 1 row longer than number of rows in FeatureClass because it needs to hold the labels/headings ReDim Preserve strArray1(0 To R, 0 To S) As String ReDim Preserve strArray1(0 To S, 0 To R) As String If lngCheckRZero = 0 Then For i = 0 To lngLabels 1 strArray1(i, 0) = lstLabels.Item(i + 1) Next i j = i For i = 0 To lngCovLabels 1 strArray1(j + i, 0) = lstCovLabels.Item(i + 1) Next i End If '----------Populates first part of matrix (i.e everything but coverage info).----------' NOTE that the user's geodatabase must Not Contain ANY blank or null cells, this will Completely shift and dest roy the input file for SWMM Also note that NO spaces can be in any of the cells either, for the same reason. Dim pFeatureCursor As IFeatureCursor Dim pFeature As IFeature Dim lngFldIndex As Long j = 0 i = row; j = column For Each myobject In lstcbxCol If myobject.Enabled = True Then If myobject <> "(default)" Then point to all records Set pFeatureCursor = pFeatureClass.Search(Nothing, False) For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings

PAGE 265

246 create index to point to current field lngFldIndex = pFeatureClass.FindField(myobject) get 1st row Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature pop matrix with current cell strArray1(j, i) = pFeature.Value(lngFldIndex) go to next row, same field Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature don't need? Next i ElseIf myobject = "(default)" Then For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings Set mytextobj = lsttxtC ol.Item(j + 1) add one because a list starts at one, not zero strArray1(j, i) = mytextobj Next i End If '' Next i removed because I put the next i s above End If go to next column j = j + 1 Next myobject '---------^^ Populates first part of matrix ^^----------------'---------\/ Populates second part of matrix \/----------------' i = row; j = column If frameCoverages.Enabled = True Then If cbxCovSubc <> "(default)" Then point to all records Set pFeatureCursor = pFeatureClass.Search(Nothing, False) For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings create index to point to current field ln gFldIndex = pFeatureClass.FindField(cbxCovSubc) get 1st row Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature pop matrix with current cell strArray1(j, i) = pFeature.Value(lngFldIndex) go to next row, same field Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature delete not necessary? Next i ElseIf cbxCovSubc = "(default)" Then For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings strArray1(j, i) = TextBox53.Text Next i End If j = j + 1 Dim lngCovCounter As Long lngCovCounter = 1 For Each myCovobject In lstcbxCov

PAGE 266

247 If myCovobject <> "(none)" Then If myCovobject <> "(default)" Then point to all records Set pFeatureCursor = pFeatureClass.Search(Nothing, False) For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings 'strArray1(i, j) = myCovtextobj(lngCovCounter) strArray1(j, i) = myCovobject.Text create index to point to current field lngFldIndex = pFeatureClass.FindField(myCovobject) get 1st row Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature pop matrix with current cell strArray1(j + 1, i) = pFeature.Value(lngFldIndex) go to next row, same field Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature don't need Next i ElseIf myCovobject = "(default)" Then For i = lngCheckRZero + 1 To R use 1 because the zero row contains the titles headings Set myCovtextobj = ls ttxtCov.Item(lngCovCounter) do not need to add one gets default name strArray1(j, i) = myCovtextobj Set myCovtexto bj = lsttxtCov.Item(lngCovCounter + 1) gets the default value strArray1(j + 1, i) = myCovtextobj Next i End If End If go to next column j = j + 2 lngCovCounter = lngCovCounter + 2 Next myCovobject End If '----------------\/ Get total number of vertices in layer \/----------------i = 0 Dim pGeom As IGeometry Dim pPtColl As IPointCollection Set myobject = lstcbxCol.Item(1) gets the "field selected in "Name" If myobject <> "(default)" Then Set pFeatureCursor = pFeatureClass.Search(Nothing, False) lngFldIndex = pFeatureClass.FindField(myobject) Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature Do While Not pFeature Is Nothing Set pGeom = pFeature.Shape 'polygon Set pPtColl = pGeom Dim PtCollCount As Long PtCollCount = pPtColl.PointCount total number of vertices for shape i = i + PtCollCount 'number of vertices for entire layer

PAGE 267

248 Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature Loop Dim TotalPtCnt As Long TotalPtCnt = i Dim lngCheckRPointsZero As Long lngCheckRPointsZero = RPoints RPoints = RPoints + TotalPtCnt ReDim Preserve strArray2(0 To 2, 0 To RPoints) As String If lngCheckRPointsZero = 0 Then strArray2(0, 0) = "Name" strArray2(1, 0) = "X-coord" strArray2(2, 0) = "Y-Coord" End If '-------------\/ Populate vertices for each shape to an array \/-----Set pFeatureCursor = pFeatureClass.Search(Nothing, False) Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature Do While Not pFeature Is Nothing Set pGeom = pFeature.Shape Set pPtColl = pGeom PtCollCount = pPtColl.PointCount Dim strNameHolder As String will contain name for current feature strNameHolder = pFeature.Value(lngFldIndex) For i = 0 To PtCollCount 1 the zero value point exists strArray2(0, lngCheckRPointsZero + i + 1) = strNameHolder strArray2(1, lngCheckRPointsZero + i + 1) = pPtColl.Point(i).x strArray2(2, lngCheckRPointsZero + i + 1) = pPtColl.Point(i).y Next i lngCheckRPointsZero = lngCheckRPointsZero + i Set pFeature = pFeatureCursor.NextFeature next feature Loop '------------\/ If the user does not specify a name field \/----------Else MsgBox "You cannot produce a Map Object without a unique name & strReturn & for each feature." End If Else 'If cbxLayerType.Text = "_______" Then MsgBox "I'm sorry, this is temporarily unavailable" End If lstCompleted.AddItem cbxSelectLayer.Text

PAGE 268

249 End Sub Private Sub CommandButton1_Click() Unload Me End Sub Private Sub CommandButton4_Click() MultiPage1.Value = 2 goes to the 3nd tab MultiPage1.Value = 3 goes to the 4th tab currently, 3rd is under development End Sub Private Sub cmdBrowseCancel_Click() Unload Me End Sub Private Sub cmdBrowse_Click() On Error GoTo err Dim sPath As String sPath = Trim(BrowseToSave) txtBoxSave.Text = sPath createShapefile sPath Exit Sub err: MsgBox err.Description, vbExclamation, "CommandButton1_Click" Having a problem with the browser window putting a .txt on when filename already contains .txt End Sub Private Sub cmdSave_click() Dim sPath As String If txtBoxSave.Text <> "" An d txtBoxSave.Text <> ".txt" Then sPath = txtBoxSave.Text createShapefile sPath frmBrowseDialog.Hide Unload Me Else sPath = Trim(BrowseToSave) createShapefile sPath frmBrowseDialog.Hide Unload Me End If End Sub Public Function BrowseToSave() As String On Error GoTo err BrowseToSave = "" 'initial value Dim pFilter As IGxObjectFilter Dim sTitle As String

PAGE 269

250 Set pFilter = New GxFilterTextFiles 'change this filter as needed e.g. GxFilterTables sTitle = "Save SWMM Input textfile as" 'create the dialog, set proper filter: Dim pGxDialog As IGxDialog Set pGxDialog = New GxDialog With pGxDialog 'set the parameters and the filter .AllowMultiSelect = False 'only file is selected .title = sTitle Set .ObjectFilter = pFilter If .DoModalSave(0) Then Open the save dialog: Dim strPath As String strPath = pGxDialog.FinalLocation.FullName Dim strName As String strName = pGxDialog.Name Dim strText As String strText = strPath & "\" & strName BrowseToSave = strText End If End With Exit Function err: MsgBox err.Description, vbExclamation, "BrowseToSave" End Function Private Sub createShapefile(strPath As String) Dim fs As Variant Dim a As Variant Dim i As Long Dim txtOutput As String hold data before sending to SWMM input file Dim txtOutput2 As String hold data before sending to SWMM input file Creates file and will write over an old one Set fs = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject") Set a = fs.CreateTextFile(strPath, True) a.WriteLine (";;Thank you for choosing GIS2SWMM (C) 2005 Ruben Kertesz") a.WriteLine (";;This software is protected by the GNU General Public License") a.WriteLine (";;If you alter or otherwise in clude this code in another program, please reference it") a.WriteLine (";;More information is provided in the code") a.WriteLine (";;GIS2SWMM comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY") txtOutput = lblTitle & strReturn & txtTitle & strReturn & frameOptions.Caption & strReturn & lblFlow & cbxFlow & strReturn & lblInfilt & cbxInfilt & strReturn & lblRouting & cbxRouting & strReturn & lblPonding & cbxPonding & strReturn & lblStartDate & txtStartDate & strReturn & lblStartTime & txtStartTime & strReturn & lblEndDate & txtEndDate & strReturn & lb lEndTime & txtEndTime & strReturn & lblReportStartD & txtReportStartD & strReturn & lblReportStartT & txtReportStartT & strReturn & lblDryDays & txtDryDays & strReturn & lblWetStep & txtWetStep & strReturn & lblDryStep & txtDryStep & strReturn & lblRouteStep & txtRouteStep & strReturn & lblReportStep & txtReportStep & strReturn

PAGE 270

251 & lblInertialDamp & cbxInertialDamp a.WriteLine (txtOutput) This contains the Selected Options information If cbxRouting = "Dynamic" Then txtOutput = lblVarStep & txtVarStep & strReturn & lblLengthStep & txtLengthStep & strReturn & lblMinSurf & txtMinSurf & strReturn & lblCompat & cbxCompat a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Contains Dynamic Variable info End If If optSwpYes.Value = True Then txtOutput = lblSwpStart & txtSwpStart & strReturn & lblSwpEnd & txtSwpEnd a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Contains Sweeping Variables End If a.WriteLine ("") Puts a space in between lines to cl ear up input file \/ Used for iteration through writelines \/ Dim strArray1LowerR As Long Dim strArray1UpperR As Long strArray1LowerR = LBound(strArray1, 2) strArray1UpperR = UBound(strArray1, 2) '--\/ Row by row, enter data from strArray1-----\/--' First, the subcatchment a.WriteLine (frameSubcatchment.Caption) For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(0, i) & " & strArray1(1, i) & " & strArray1(2, i) & " & strArray1(3, i) & " & strArray1(4, i) & " & strArray1(5, i) & " & strArray1(6, i) & " & strArray1(7, i) & " & strArray1(8, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i Second, the subarea a.WriteLine (frameSubArea.Caption) For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(9, i) & " & strArray1(10, i) & " & strArray1(11, i) & " & strArray1(12, i) & " & strArray1(13, i) & " & strArray1(14, i) & " & strArray1(15, i) & " & strArray1(16, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i Third, infiltration a.WriteLine (frameInfiltration.Caption) If cbxInfilt.List(cbxInf ilt.ListIndex) = "HORTON" Then For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(17, i) & " & strArray1(18, i) & " & strArray1(19, i) & " & strArray1(20, i) & " & strArray1(21, i) & " & strArray1(22, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbxInf ilt.ListIndex) = "GREEN_AMPT" Then For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(23, i) & " & strArray1(24, i) & " & strArray1(25, i) & " & strArray1(26, i)

PAGE 271

252 a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i ElseIf cbxInfilt.List(cbxInf ilt.ListIndex) = "CURVE_NUMBER" Then For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(27, i) & " & strArray1(28, i) & " & strArray1(29, i) & " & strArray1(30, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i End If Fourth, the groundwater If optGWYes = True Then a.WriteLine (frameGroundwater.Caption) For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(31, i) & " & strArray1(32, i) & " & strArray1(33, i) & " & strArray1(34, i) & " & strArray1(35, i) & " & strArray1(36, i) & " & strArray1(37, i) & " & strArray1(38, i) & " & strArray1(39, i) & " & strArray1(40, i) & " & strArray1(41, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i End If Last, the Coverages If optCovYes = True Then a.WriteLine (frameCoverages.Caption) For i = strArray1LowerR To strArray1UpperR txtOutput = strArray1(42, i) & " & strArray1(43, i) & " & strArray1(44, i) & " & strArray1(45, i) & " & strArray1(46, i) & " & strArray1(47, i) & " & strArray1(48, i) & " & strArray1(49, i) & " & strArray1(50, i) & " & strArray1(51, i) & " & strArray1(52, i) & " & strArray1(53, i) & " & strArray1(54, i) & " & strArray1(55, i) & " & strArray1(56, i) & " & strArray1(57, i) & " & strArray1(58, i) & " & strArray1(59, i) & " & strArray1(60, i) & " & strArray1(61, i) & " & strArray1(62, i) & " & strArray1(63, i) & " & strArray1(73, i) & " & strArray1(74, i) & " & strArray1(75, i) & " & strArray1(76, i) & " & strArray1(77, i) & " & strArray1(78, i) & " & strArray1(79, i) & " & strArray1(80, i) & " & strArray1(81, i) & " & strArray1(82, i) & " & strArray1(83, i) & " & strArray1(84, i) & " & strArray1(85, i) & " & strArray1(86, i) & " & strArray1(87, i) & " & strArray1(88, i) & " & strArray1(89, i) & " & strArray1(90, i) & " & strArray1(91, i) & " & strArray1(92, i) & " & strArray1(93, i) & " & strArray1(94, i) & " & strArray1(95, i) & " & strArray1(96, i) & " & strArray1(97, i) & " & strArray1(98, i) & " & strArray1(99, i) & " & strArray1(100, i) & " & strArray1(101, i) & " & strArray1(102, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i End If '----------------^----End of string array 1 to input file transfer ^----------' \/ Used for iteration through writelines of x,y matrix \/ Dim strArray2LowerR As Long Dim strArray2UpperR As Long strArray2LowerR = LBound(strArray2, 2) strArray2UpperR = UBound(strArray2, 2) a.WriteLine " a.WriteLine "[Polygons]"

PAGE 272

253 '--\/ Row by row, enter data from strArray2-----\/--' For i = strArray2LowerR To strArray2UpperR txtOutput = strArray2(0, i) & " & strArray2(1, i) & " & strArray2(2, i) a.WriteLine (txtOutput) Next i a.Close Dim OpenNotepad OpenNotepad = Shell(Environ("SystemRoot") & "\system32\notepad.exe" & " & strPath, vbNormalFocus) End Sub CODE 2 The following code is used to extract NCDC rainfall data from a .CSV file into an XML file so that it can easily be imported into Access in a two column (date/time, rainfall) format. Option Explicit Sub newone() Dim i As Long Dim j As Long Dim qt As String Dim fs As Variant Dim a As Variant Dim string1 As String Dim strPath As String Dim OpenNotepad Dim C As String Dim D As String Dim E As String Dim F As String Dim G As String qt = Chr(34) strPath = "C:\Documents and Settings\heaneygs\Desktop\data.txt" Set fs = CreateObject("Scri pting.FileSystemObject") Set a = fs.CreateTextFile(strPath, True) a.writeline ("") For i = 3 To 8162 C = "" & Cells(i, 1).Value & "" D = "" & Cells(i, 2).Value & ""

PAGE 273

254 E = "" & Cells(i, 3).Value & "" F = "" & Cells(i, 4).Value & "" G = "" & Cells(i, 5).Value & "-" & Cells (i, 6).Value & "-" & Cells(i, 7).Value & "" j = 8 Do While j < 108 a.writeline ("") a.writeline (C) a.writeline (D) a.writeline (E) a.writeline (F) a.writeline (G) a.writeline ("") a.writeline ("" & Cells(i, j + 1).Value & "") a.writeline ("" & Cells(i, j + 2).Value & "") a.writeline ("" & Cells(i, j + 3).Value & "") a.writeline ("") j = j + 4 Loop Next i a.writeline ("
") 'OpenNotepad = Shell(Environ("SystemRoot") & "\system32\notepad.exe" & " & strPath, vbNormalFocus) End Sub

PAGE 274

255 LIST OF REFERENCES Arcement, G. Jr. (1984). Discharge and Sedi ment Data for Barataria Pass, Louisiana. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-701 United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C., pp 1-22. Abida, H., Sabourin, J. (2006). Grass SwalePerforated Pipe Systems for Stormwater Management Journal of Irrigation a nd Drainage Engineering., 132(1), pp 55-63. ASCE (American Society of Civil Engi neering) and WEF (Water Environment Federation) (1992). Design and Construction of Ur ban Stormwater Management Systems ASCE Manuals and Reports of E ngineering Practice No. 77, New York. Atkins, D., Droegemeler, K., Feldman, S. (2003). Revolutionizi ng Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure. Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure Arlington, VA. < http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/atkins.pdf > (June 2, 2006). Bain, A. (2003). Integrating Docume nt Management and GIS. Proc., 2003 ESRI User Conference ., ESRI, San Diego, CA. < http://gis.esri.com/libra ry/userconf/proc03/p0949.pdf > (July 2, 2004). Beck, H., Pinto, H. (2002). Overview of Approach, Methodologies, Standards, and Tools for Ontologies Draft Document. The Agricult ural Ontology Service, UN FAO, Rome, Italy. < http://www.fao.org/agris/aos/Documents/BackgroundAOS.html > (July 2, 2006). Behera, P., Adams, B., Li, J. (2006). Runoff Qu ality Analysis of Urban Catchments with Analytical Probabilistic Models. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 132(4), pp 4-14. Beran, B., Piasecki, M., Choi, Y. (2005) CUAHSI ontology. Drexel University. < http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~bb63/hydrocv.owl > (June 20, 2006). Berman, F., San Diego Comput er Center, UC San Diego (2005). Workshop Concept Proc. SBE/CISE Workshop on Cyberinfrast ructure for the Social Sciences Warrenton, VA. < http://vis.sdsc.edu/sbe/SBE-CISE_Workshop_Intro.pdf > (June 27, 2006). Brown & Cullen Inc. (2002). Stormwater Management Design Calculations of Heritage Oaks. City of Gainesville Planning Dept. Gainesville, FL

PAGE 275

256 Brown & Cullen Inc. (2004). Stormwater Management Calc ulations of Taylor Square. City of Gainesville Plan ning Dept. Gainesville, FL < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgrs/permit/958741/Application/Calcs_95874_1.tif > (October 6, 2005). Causseaux & Ellington (2000). University of Florida Stormwater Management Master Plan and Permit Application. University of Florida P hysical Plant Department, Gainesville FL. Causseaux & Ellington (2003). West University Avenue Lo fts Stormwater Drainage Plan City of Gainesville Planning Department, Gainesville, FL. Causseaux & Ellington (2004 a). Stormwater Management Report: Campus View Apartments. City of Gainesville Planning Department, Gainesville, FL. Causseaux & Ellington (2004 b). Stormwater Management Report: Oxford Terrace City of Gainesville Planning De partment, Gainesville, FL. CH2MHill Inc. (1987). Permit Application Report and St ormwater Management Master Plan University of Florida Physical Plant Department, Gainesville FL. City of Gainesville (2002). City of Gainesville Stormwater Management Summary Sheet, Alligator Crossing Apt City of Gainesville Planning Department, Gainesville, FL. Clark, M. (2006). What is Phase II NPDES? University of Florida IFAS Extension edis University of Florida,Gainesville, FL, < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SS434 > (July 2, 2006). Clary, J., Urbonas, B., Jones, J., Streck er, E. (2002). Developing, Evaluating and Maintaining a Standardized Stormwater BMP Effectiveness Database. Water Science and Technology, 45(7), pp 65-73. Community Redevelopment Association (2005). College Park/University Heights Plan Update; Projects and Opportunities Map City of Gainesville Community Redevelopment Association, Gainesville, FL. CyberInfrastructure Partnership (2006) Computational Resources and Guide. < http://www.ci-partnership.org/Resources/ciresources.html > (July 1, 2006). Davies, A. (2004). Computational Intermediati on and the Evolution of Computation as a Commodity. Applied Economics 36, pp 1131-1142. < http://www.business.duq.edu/faculty/davies/research/EconomicsOfComputation.p df > (June 2, 2006). DeWiest, D., Livingston, E. (2000). The Florida Stormwater, Er osion, and Sedimentation Control Inspectors Manual Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. (March 6, 2005).

PAGE 276

257 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1986). Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Water Planning Division, Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration (2002). Fact Sheet Infiltration Trench. Stormwater Best Management Practices in an UltraUrban Setting: Selection and Monitoring FWHA, Washington, D.C. < http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/3fs1.htm > (June, 30 2006). Fetner, A. (2003). Stormwater Management Repo rt for Wheelbarrow and Car Development City of Gainesville Pla nning Dept. Gainesville, FL. Florida Department of State (2005). Cha pter 62 Department of Environmental Protection Florida Administrative Code. Division of Elections, Tallahassee, FL. < http://fac.dos.state.fl.us/ > (June 15, 2006). Florida Geographic Data Library (2003). FGDL Version 2003 Data Download. < http://www.fgdl.org/download/download.html > (February 28, 2004). Florida Senate (2005 a). Cha pter 373 Water Resources 2005 Florida Statutes Title XXVIII Natural Resources; Conservation, Reclamation, and Use. Division of Elections, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Senate (2005 b). Chapter 403 Environmental Control 2005 Florida Statutes Title XXIX Public Health. Florida Senate, Tallahassee, FL GeoSyntec Consultants, Oregon State University University of Florida, The Low Impact Development Center (2006). Evaluation of Best Manage ment Practices and Low Impact Development for Hi ghway Runoff ControlUsers Guide for BMP/LID Selection 2006 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. < http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2006/01/wio200601WF02SW1.htm > (June 26, 2006). Heaney, J.P. (1997). Cost Allocation. Chapter 13 Civil and Environmental Engineering Systems: An Advanced Applications Text ., Wiley, New York. Heaney, J., Lee, J. (2006). Methods fo r Optimizing Urban Wet-Weather Control Systems EPA Contract No. 68-C-01-020. US. EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Jones Edmunds & Associates (2006). Draft Tumblin Creek Watershed Management Plan Jones Edmunds & Associates, Gainesville, FL. Korhnak, L.V. (1996). Water, Phosphorus, N itrogen, and Chloride Budgets for Lake Alice, Florida and Documentation of the Effects of Wastewater Removal. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Fisheries and Aquatic Scienc es, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL.

PAGE 277

258 LAKEWATCH Florida (2001). Lake Water Chemistry Summary Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Gainesville, FL, < http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/ > (March 4, 2005). Lee, J., Heaney, J., Wright, L., Lai, F. ( 2005). Optimization of Integrated Urban WetWeather Control Strategies. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 131(4), pp 307-315. The Low Impact Development Center, Inc. (2004). Final Report for the Low Impact Development Master Plan for Anacostia Combined Sewer Overflow Outfall #006 and Surrounding Areas in Washington D.C. The Low Impact Development Center, Beltsville, MD, < http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/ anacostia/pubs/nfwf006_Final%20Report. pdf > (July, 2005). Low Impact Development Center, GeoSyntec C onsultants, University of Florida, and Oregon State University (2006). Low Impact Development Design Manual For Highway Runoff Control-Design Manual. Final Report to the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transporta tion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Mitsch, W. (1975). Systems Analysis of Nutrient Di sposal in Cypress Wetlands and Lake Ecosystems in Florida. PhD dissertation, University of Florida. Gainesville, FL. Moore (2005). Security Requirements for Shared Collections Proc. National Science Foundation Cybersecurity Summit 2005, Vienna, VA. < http://www.educause.edu/Proceedings/8760 > (July 2, 2006). National Academy of Sciences (2001). Issues for Science and Engineering Researchers in the Digital Age. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. < http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309074177/html/ > (July 2, 2006). NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Se rvice) (1986). Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR-55 NRCS Conservation Engineer ing Division. Washington, D.C. Oregon State University, GeoSyntec Consultants, University of Florida, The Low Impact Development Center (2006). Evaluation of Best Manage ment Practices and Low Impact Development for Highway R unoff Control-Research Report 2006. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. < http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/A ll+Projects/NCHRP+25-20(01) > (June 26, 2006). OReilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O'Reilly Media, Inc., < http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/orei lly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.html > (July 2, 2006).

PAGE 278

259 Pitt, R., Chen, S., Clark, S. (2002). Compact ed Urban Soils Effect s on Infiltration and Bioretention Stormwater Control Designs. Proc.9th International Conference on Urban Drainage IAHR, IWA, EWRI, and ASCE. Portland, OR. Pouchard, L., Cinquini, L., Drach, B., (2003). A n Ontology for Scientific Information in a Grid Environment: the Earth System Grid. Proc. Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid CC Grid, Tokyo, Japan. < http://dataportal.ucar.edu/esg/docs/Agent_Grid_cluster_final.pdf > (July 2, 2006). Prymas, A. (2004). Evaluation of Everglad es Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs Using Regional Modeling. Proc. World Water and Environmental Resources Congress Salt Lake City, Utah. Rossman, L. (2004). Storm Water Management Model Users Manual Version 5.0. Water Supply and Water Resources Division, Na tional Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Sample, D., Heaney, J., Wright, L., Fan, C., Lai, F., Field, R. (2003). Costs of Best Management Practices and Associated Land for Urban Stormwater Control. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 129(1), pp 59-68. Sample, D., Heaney, J., Wright, L., Kous tas, R. (2001). Geographic Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, and Urban Storm-Water Management. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management 127(3), pp 155-161. SDII (SDII Global Corp oration) (2004 a). Summary report of a Geotechnical Site Exploration: Oxford Terrace Apartments City of Gainesville Planning Department, Gainesville, FL. SDII (SDII Global Corp oration) (2004, b). Summary report of a Geotechnical Site Exploration. 10th Street historic Apartments City of Gainesville Planning Department, Gainesville, FL. Seereeram, D. (2003). PONDS Users Manual Devo Engineering. Orlando, FL Shirahama, M. (2002). Study on Distribution an d Evaluation of Stormwater Control Facilities Global Solutions for Urban Drainage: 9ICUD. Proc. Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage ; Reston, VA. SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (2002 a). Standard General Environmental Resource Stormwater Permit Technical Staff Report APPLICATION #: 42-001-86815-1 Palatka, FL. < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgr s/permit/86815-1/TSR/TSR_86815_1_1.doc > (August 4, 2005).

PAGE 279

260 SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (2002 b). “Standard General Environmental Resource Stormwater Permit Technical Staff Report” APPLICATION #: 42-001-83792-1. Palatka, FL. < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgr s/permit/83792-1/TSR/TSR_83792_1_2.doc > (August 4, 2005). SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (2002 c). “Standard General Environmental Resource Stormwater Permit Technical Staff Report” APPLICATION #: 42-001-82960-1. Palatka, FL. < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgr s/permit/82960-1/TSR/TSR_82960_1_4.doc > (December 5, 2005). SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Manageme nt District) (2003) “Standard General Environmental Resource Stormwater Permit Technical Staff Report” APPLICATION #: 42-001-90533-1 Palatka, FL. < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgr s/permit/90533-1/TSR/TSR_90533_1_2.doc > (August 10, 2005). SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Manageme nt District) (2004 a). “Request for Additional Information.” APPLICATION #: 42-001-95874-1. Palatka, FL. https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgrs/permit/95874-1/RAI/RAI_95874_1_163421.tif August 2, 2005. SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (2004 b). “Standard General Environmental Resource Stormwater Permit Technical Staff Report” APPLICATION #: 42-001-82960-3. Palatka, FL. < https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/vgr s/permit/82960-3/TSR/TSR_82960_3_2.doc > (December 5, 2005). SJRWMD (St. Johns River Water Management District) (2005). “Applicant’s Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems” Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C .. Strecker, E., Huber, W., Heaney, J., Bodine D., Sansalone, J., Quigley, M., Leisenring, M., Pankini, D., Thayumanavan, A. (2005). Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selec tion Issues Report 02-SW-1. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA, < http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2006/01/wio200601WF02SW1.htm > (June 30, 2006) University of Florida (2006 a). “Conservation Data & Analysis.” Campus Master Plan, 2005 – 2015: Data & Analysis Reports University of Florida Facilities Planning, Gainesville, FL, pp 9-1 – 9-10. University of Florida (2006 b). Campus Master Plan, 2005 – 2015: Plan Elements University of Florida Facilities Pl anning, Gainesville, FL, pp 9-1 – 9-4.

PAGE 280

261 University of Florida Physical Plant (2003) “University of Flor ida Storm Drainage Infrastructure. < http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/requests/PPD%20R eference%20Data/Campus%20Maps/ Storm%20Drainage/ > (April, 2005). Weinstein, N., Glass, C., Heaney, J., Hube r, W., Jones, P., Kloss C., Quigley, M., Strecker, E., Stephens, K. (2006). Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and Combined Sewer Over flow Reduction. Report 03-SW-3. Water EnvironmentResearch F oundation, Alexandria, VA.

PAGE 281

262 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ruben Kertesz was born in 1981 in the Paci fic Northwest. Growing up, he had an affinity for four things: to know more about why he exists; to learn more about how things work; to spend time in the local fore st; and to share his passion with others. Growing up, Ruben had many opportunities to ex plore the urban landscape on his bicycle at a young age as well as mountain bike on small dirt trails. Ruben has always felt blessed by his pare nts, friends, and the location where he was raised. Encouraged to carefully and cautious ly explore with friends, he ventured into a scattering of different subj ects throughout his scholastic career. Attending a high school in Tacoma, WA, Ruben was invited to jo in an honors group innocuously named the Environmental Science Club. This afforded him an opportunity to perform hands on research on artificial reefs. R uben realized the joy of buildin g and testing, recording data by moonlight and presenting his findings. Throughout college, Ruben has participated in numerous environmental action and recreation groups while obtaining a bachel or’s degree in biology. His move to Gainesville, FL, was spurred by his interest in having a positive environmental impact that reached beyond his personal life. His wo rk in the Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences has proved educational and rewarding. Ruben s till carries a passion for integrating research, social awareness, and technology. He reminds himself everyday that his wellbeing and those of our childre n rely on sound and conscious environmental and social decisions even at the most fundamental level.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015782/00001

Material Information

Title: Developing Methodologies to Evaluate Decentralized Stormwater Best Management Practices in Gainesville, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015782:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015782/00001

Material Information

Title: Developing Methodologies to Evaluate Decentralized Stormwater Best Management Practices in Gainesville, Florida
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015782:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    List of Tables
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
    List of Figures
        Page xii
        Page xiii
        Page xiv
        Page xv
        Page xvi
        Page xvii
    Abstract
        Page xviii
        Page xix
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Best management practices in today’s urban environment
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
    Cyberinfrastructure for centralizing and mining content
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
    Site simulation and best management practice selection methodology in the Lake Alice watershed
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
    Site simulation and best management practice selection methodology in the East Creek watershed
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
    Site simulation and best management practice selection methodology in the LA-2B watershed
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
    Appendices
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
    References
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
    Biographical sketch
        Page 262
Full Text












METHODOLOGIES TO EVALUATE DECENTRALIZED
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN GAINESVILLE, FL














By

RUBEN ALEXANDER KERTESZ


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Ruben Kertesz

































This document is dedicated to all those who helped foster my interest in the beyond all
around us. I would especially like to thank my parents for encouraging me to try new
things... and to never stop trying.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members for providing a positive learning

environment and guiding my research. I would specifically like to recognize Dr. James

Heaney (principal investigator), Dr. Mark Clark, Dr. Angela Lindner, and Dr. John

Sansalone.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................. ............ .................................... xii

ABSTRACT ........................................... ............. ................. xviii

CHAPTER

1 IN T R O D U C T IO N .................................................. .. ....................................1.. .. ... 1

2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN TODAY'S URBAN ENVIRONMENT ...4

Literature Review: Low Impact Development Practices Used for Urban
Storm w ater M anagem ent ..................................................................... ...............4...
Low Impact Development Inventory of an Urban Watershed in Gainesville,
Florida ..................................................... ........................ ..................... 10
Redeveloped/Redeveloping Properties........................................... ................ 13
H e rita g e O a k s ............................................................................................... 1 3
C am pus V iew I, II, III, & N orth.............................................. ................ 21
O xford T errace ................ .............. ............................................ 25
D elta Z eta sorority house ........................................................ ................ 34
E states at sorority row ............................................................. .................. 38
V isio n s ..........................................................................................................4 0
R oyale Palm apartm ents.................. .................................................... 42
Windsor Hall .............................................44
Taylor Square apartm ents.................. .................................................. 48
Stratford C ourt apartm ents ...................................................... ................ 55
A lligator C crossing ... .. .................. .............................................. 57
W o o db u ry R ow ...................................................... .................... .... ......... 62
W est U university A venue Lofts................................................ ................ 67
O opportunity Sites ............................................................ .... ...... ... ............... 7 1
Shands A lachua G general H ospital........................................... ................ 71
South parking lot, Shands A G H .............................................. ................ 74
E ast Shands parking lot ........................................................... ................ 77
909 SW 5th A venue ...................................... .. ........ .......... .. .. ........ ..... 78
A y ers com plex ................................................................... ............... 79


v









A years parking lot ....................................... .. ....................... . .......... 82
809 SW 9th St. parking lot .......................................................... ............... 83
1122 SW 3rd A ve ........................................................... ............................ .. 83
SW 10th St. and SW 1st & SW 2nd Avenues ............................... ............... 84
SW 1st A ve house ... .... ................ ............................................... 85
923 SW 1st A ve .........................................................................................85
926 SW 2nd A venue ...................................... .. .......... .......... ................. 86
104 SW 8th St ...........................................................................................89
2nd A ve & 7th St parking lot..................................................... ................ 90
112 SW 6th St. ..................................................91
117 SW 7th St. ..................................................92
20 SW 8th St. ...................................93
810 SW 1st A ve .........................................................................................94
C one property .........................................................................................96
1206 W U university A ve................................................................................97
Sum m ary and C conclusions ......................................................................................98

3 CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR CENTRALIZING AND MINING
C O N TE N T ................................................................................. ...................... 110

Introduction ................................................................................ ....................... 110
C om putation Services .........................................................................................112
Inform ation M anagem ent ....................... ............................................. ............... 112
C collaboration Services ..................................................... .. ............ ............... 113
Centralized File Management and Communications .....................................114
Centralized File Management and Computational Analyses ............................115
Ontological D evelopm ent ..... ....................... ......................116
Currently Available Cyberinfrastructure Institutions ............................. ...............121
Content Management and Collaborative Authoring Environment Experiment.......121
C o n clu sio n s ......... ................................................................................. 12 3

4 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION
METHODOLOGY IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED ................................... 126

Introduction .................................. ..... ...... ................ ...... .. ................................ 126
Low Impact Development Center BMP Planning and Evaluation Process..............126
G o als ...................................................................................... .......... .. 12 7
Site C characteristics .............. ................ ............................................... 127
Evaluate Candidate Practices ........................... ................128
D term ine C ost Effectiveness ....................... .................................................. 128
Case Study 1: Larger Scale Lake Alice Watershed.........................................129
In tro du ctio n ........................................................................................... 12 9
G o als .................................................................................... . ........ 12 9
C h aracterize S ite ........................................................................... ............... 134
G e o g ra p h y ................................................................................................ 1 3 4
L and cover .................................................. ............... .. ........... 137
S o ils ............................................................................................ . 1 4 0









H o tsp o ts ................................................................................. ..................... 1 4 2
Evaluate Candidate Processes ...... .......... ........ ...................... 143
C conclusions ................................................................................ ....................... 143

5 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION
METHODOLOGY IN THE EAST CREEK WATERSHED ............... 145

In tro d u ctio n .............................................................................................................. 14 5
G o als ....................................................................................................... .......... 14 5
C haracterize Site ............... .. ................ .................. ............... ......... ............... 146
Evaluate C candidate Processes........................................................ ................ 149
C a p ab ilitie s ........................................................................................................ 1 5 0
Input A ttributes......................................................................................... 15 1
R ain gauge ......................................................................................... 155
Sub catchm ents................................................ ....................... . ........... 155
Connectivity ............... ................. ............... 170
East Creek Watershed Drainage Network...... .... .................................. 176
R unoff A analysis ............................................................. ........ .. .. .. ............ 178
Observed rainfall-runoff relationship...... .... .................................. 179
Calculated rainfall-runoff relationship...... ................... .................. 183
Calculated vs. observed results comparison.................... .................. 184
C o n c lu sio n s.............................................................................................................. 1 8 5

6 SITE SIMULATION AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE SELECTION
METHODOLOGY IN THE LA-2B WATERSHED......................188

In tro d u ctio n .............................................................................................................. 1 8 8
G o als ....................................................................................................... ......... 18 9
C haracterize Site .............. .. ................. .................. ............... ......... ... ........... 189
Evaluate C candidate Processes........................................................ ............... 190
Single E vent Sim ulation ................................... ...................... ............... 191
M methodology ........................................................................................ 19 1
R e su lts ........................................................................................................ 1 9 7
Discussion ................ ........ ............................. 204
A annual Sim ulation ........................................................................ .............. 207
M methodology .............. ...... ............ ................................................ 207
R e su lts ........................................................................................................ 2 0 9
D iscu ssion .......................................................................................... 2 10
C o n c lu sio n s.............................................................................................................. 2 1 1

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............... ......................214

APPENDIX

A REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LAKE ALICE.................... ...................218

C lean W ater A ct ....................................................................................................... 2 18
Florida Statute 373 ............................................. 219









Florida Statute 403 .............. .................... ......... .. .................220
Florida Administrative Code 62-3...... ..... ..........................220
Florida Administrative Code 62-25...... .... ........................220
Florida Administrative Code 62-520...... .... .......................221
Florida Administrative Code 62-522.................................222
Florida Administrative Code 62-40...... .... ........................222

B PROGRAM M ATIC CODE.................................... ....................... ................ 224

C O D E 1 ................................................................................................................. 2 2 4
C O D E 2 .................................................................................................................. .. 2 5 3

LIST O F R EFEREN CE S ... ................................................................... ................ 255

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH .................. .............................................................. 262






































viii















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Urban Runoff Management Objectives Checklist ...............................................6...

2-2 Structural Stormwater Controls and Associated Fundamental Process Categories ...7

2-3 Summary of Groups of Pollutants and Relevant BMPs Listed Based on
Fundam ental Process C ategories........................................................... ...............9...

2-4 Proprietary BMPs in Current Use by Treatment Type.......................................10

2-5 Oxford Terrace Drainage Area Characteristics................................... ................ 27

2-6 Oxford Terrace-Calculation of Post Development CN Values ..........................28

2-7 Mean Annual Storm Event (MASE) Rainfall Distribution.................................30

2-8 Oxford Terrace-Parameters Used to Create a Runoff Hydrograph ....................30

2-9 Oxford Terrace-Soil Characteristics Used for Storm Event Simulation ...............31

2-10 Oxford Terrace-Stormwater Management Facility (SMF) Dimensions Used for
Storm E vent Sim ulation .......................................... ......................... ................ 3 1

2-11 Oxford Terrace-SDII Soil Testing Infiltration Results....................................31

2-12 Oxford Terrace-Water Quality Treatment Volume Recovery.............................. 34

2-13 Taylor Square-Stormwater Site Conditions Pre/Post Development................... 51

2-14 Taylor Square Infiltration Trench Volume Calculations.....................................53

2-15 Onsite Controls Used on Redeveloped Sites in the University Heights District ...100

2-16 Onsite Controls Used on Non-Redeveloped Sites in the University Heights
D istric t ................................................................................................................ ... 1 0 1

2-17 Land Use Information Provided in Alachua County Tax Assessor's Database..... 103

2-18 Parcel Information for Redevelopment Sites in University Heights ....................105









5-1 Data Input File for SW M M Run of ECW ............................................ ............... 154

5-2 11/9/1990 Precipitation in ECW ....... ........ ........ ...................... 155

5-3 A reas of E C W Subcatchm ents ............................................................. ............... 157

5-4 Estimated Subcatchment W idths...... .......... ........ ..................... 157

5-5 Subcatchm ent Percent Slope .......................................................... 158

5-6 Impervious Area per Subcatchment....... ... ......................... 159

5-7 Manning's n Values for Impervious Area Categories................. ...................159

5-8 Manning's n Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment.............................. 162

5-9 Manning's n Values for Pervious Area Categories..................... ...................162

5-10 M anning's n Values for Grasses ....... ....... ........ ...................... 163

5-11 Manning's n Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment.............................. 164

5-12 Ranges of Typical Depression Storage ............... .......................165

5-13 Dstore Values for Pervious Area per Subcatchment................... ...................165

5-14 Curve Numbers for Soil Types and Land Uses Commonly Found on Campus ....166

5-15 Curve Numbers for East Creek Watershed Subcatchments...............................167

5-16 Land Use Type Percent Breakdown per Subcatchment.................................. 169

5-17 Drainage Structure Specifications as Determined by CH2MHill ....................... 173

5-18 Stage-Storage-Discharge for Major Drainage Facilities in the East Creek
W ate rsh e d .............................................................................................................. 17 4

5-19 Newell Drive Box Culvert Stage vs Storage vs Discharge...............................175

5-20 Catchment-wide Rainfall vs Runoff Comparison....................... .................. 181

6-1 GIS Geodatabase Feature Layer Layout ....... .......... ....................................... 192

6-2 R un C onditions............. .. .................... ................ .............. ......... ... ............ 197

6-3 Geodatabase Information for 390 Parcel Simulation .................. .................. 197

6-4 Geodatabase Information for 8-Parcel Simulation...................... ...................198

6-5 Geodatabase Information for 1 Parcel Simulation ........................ ................. 198









6-6 Rainfall-Runoff & Percent Onsite Control vs Aggregation Level.......................202

6-7 Percent Onsite Control Values for Each Subcatchment in 8 Parcel Simulation ....202

6-8 Detailed Geodatabase Information for Site Owner2................... ...................203

6-9 SWMM Simulation Runoff for Functional Units for Site Owner2........................204

6-10 Annual Simulation BMP Comparison Matrix...... .......................................208

6-11 BMP Performance Matrix Output from Annual SWMM Simulation....................209

6-12 Annual Evaluation of Bioretention Performance with Varying Contributing Area
................................................................................................................................ 2 1 0















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Three Scales Studied in Lake Alice W atershed .............................. ..................... 3

2-1 Map of Tumblin Creek Watershed and University Heights...............................11

2-2 Selected Redevelopment Projects In or Near the Tumblin Creek Watershed.......... 12

2-3 H heritage O aks V iew From E ast........................................................... ............... 14

2-4 Heritage Oaks Refurbished Building, Facing West ...........................................15

2-5 H heritage O aks B ioretention A rea ........................................................ ............... 15

2-6 H heritage O aks Pervious Parking Lot................................................... ............... 16

2-7 Heritage Oaks Roof Draining to Pervious Parking via No-Mortar Patio.............. 16

2-8 Heritage Oaks-New Building Downspout ................ .................................... 17

2-9 H heritage O aks Infiltration Pits............................................................. ............... 18

2-10 H heritage O aks C ul-de-sac......................................... ........................ ................ 20

2-11 Cam pus View I- Pre Redevelopm ent ................................................ ................ 21

2-12 Campus View I- Redeveloped Site M ap ........................................... ................ 22

2-13 Campus View I and II (Under Development) .....................................................23

2-14 Campus View II (Under Developm ent) .............................................. ................ 23

2-15 Oxford Terrace-GIS Representation of Pre-redevelopment Lot ........................26

2-16 Oxford Terrace After Redevelopment.....................................................27

2-17 Oxford Terrace Auger Map / SDII Land Use Characteristics...............................28

2-18 Delta Zeta Sorority House Landscaped Area......................................................36

2-19 D elta Zeta Sorority H house Sidew alk................................................... ................ 36









2-20 D elta Zeta Sorority H house Rain Garden ............................................. ................ 37

2-21 Delta Zeta Sorority House Parking Lot Drain.....................................................37

2-22 Estates at Sorority Row-Current Building ................ ....................................39

2-23 Estates at Sorority Row-Current Building Parking Lot....................................40

2-24 Visions-Disconnected Roof and Dirt Alleyway ...............................................41

2-25 Visions-Channelization of the Parking Lot ......................................................41

2-26 Royale Palm Apartments Onstreet Parking.........................................................42

2-27 Royale Palm Apartments-Roof Drain Entering Planter....................................43

2-28 Royale Palm Apartments-Vegetative Site Cover .............................................43

2-29 Windsor Hall-DCIA Rooftop Drain .................................................................45

2-30 W indsor H all- R ain G arden ...................................... ...................... ................ 45

2-31 Windsor Hall-Flow Distribution Pipe.....................................................46

2-32 W indsor H all Parking Lot ................. ............................................................ 48

2-33 Taylor Square Courtyard with Oak Tree............................................. ................ 49

2-34 Taylor Square Asphalt Driveway with Infiltration Pit Beneath...............................50

2-35 Taylor Square Drainage Area and Infiltration Trenches.....................................52

2-36 Taylor Square Construction Debris and Sediment Washoff ................................54

2-37 Stratford Court Apartments Sidewalk and Grass Strip .......................................56

2-38 Stratford Court Apartments Streetside Parking...................................................56

2-39 Alligator Crossing-Preexisting Site Conditions ...............................................57

2-40 A lligator Crossing- N ew A addition .................................................... ................ 58

2-41 Alligator Crossing-Grass Strip and Sidewalk...................................................59

2-42 A lligator Crossing- B ackyard............................................................ ................ 60

2-43 A lligator Crossing- Forested Strip..................................................... ................ 60

2-44 Alligator Crossing-Southern Side of Grass Swale ...........................................61









2-45 Woodbury Row-Preexisting Site Condition.....................................................62

2-46 Woodbury Row-Preexisting Garage.....................................................63

2-47 Woodbury Row-Landscaped Sidewalk Strips..................................................64

2-48 W oodbury R ow Retention Pond ...................................................... ................ 64

2-49 Woodbury Row-Bike Rack and Retention Pond..............................................65

2-50 Woodbury Row-Parking lot and Tree Island....................................................67

2-51 West University Ave. Lofts Building Fagade as photographed on 10/25/2005 .......68

2-52 W est University Ave. Lofts Building Plan.......................................... ................ 69

2-53 West University Ave. Lofts-Stormwater Drainage Network ..............................70

2-54 Shands AGH Parking Lot Catchbasin................................................. ................ 72

2-55 Shands AGH Curbed Landscape Area................................................ ................ 72

2-56 Shands AGH Sidewalk and Vegetation Strips ....................................................73

2-57 Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Looking West ..............................................74

2-58 Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Draining to Tumblin Creek...............................75

2-59 Drainage to South Shands Parking Lot and 909 SW 5th Ave. House........................75

2-60 Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Southeast......................................................76

2-61 Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Children's Play Center.................................76

2-62 Shands East Parking Lot ................. .............................................................. 77

2-63 Shands East Parking Lot BMP .........................................................78

2-64 909 SW 5th A ve- Front L ot....................................... ...................... ................ 79

2-65 Ayers Complex-Stormwater Conduit...............................................................80

2-66 A years Com plex- Landscaping ........................................................... ................ 80

2-67 A years Com plex- Parking Lot............................................................. ............... 81

2-68 A years Com plex- D expression A rea..................................................... ............... 81

2-69 A years Parking Lot- Tree Island ......................................................... ................ 82









2-70 Ayers Parking Lot-Infiltration Swale ...............................................................82

2-71 Parking L ot E ast of the E states ........................................................... ................ 83

2-72 1122 SW 3rd Ave-House and Perimeter Vegetation..... ................84

2-73 SW 10th St. & SW 1st/2nd Ave-Parking Lot ......................................................84

2-74 SW 1st A ve H ouse- D rivew ay ........................................................... ................ 85

2-75 SW 1st A ve H ouse- L aw n ........................................ ....................... ................ 85

2-76 1st Ave H ouse- Forested Landscape .................................................. ................ 86

2-77 Second A venue H ouse- Building ...................................................... ................ 87

2-78 SW 2nd Avenue House-Shallow Gulch............................................................... 88

2-79 SW 2nd Avenue House-Pervious Paving .................................... ..................... 88

2-80 SW 2nd Avenue House-Rain Garden / Retention Pond ............... ..................... 89

2-81 104 SW 8th St- H house and Shed ........................................................ ................ 89

2-82 104 SW 8th St- 1st A ve. Streetscape...................................................... ............... 90

2-83 SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lot............................. ..................... 90

2-84 SW 2nd Ave & SW 7th St. Parking Lot-depression............................................. 91

2-85 112 SW 6th St.- O office Space.................................................................................. 9 1

2-86 112 SW 6th St.- Sw ale ......................................................................................92
2-87 117 SW 7th St .......................................................... .................................... . 93

2-88 20 SW 8th St.- U npaved Parking........................................................ ................ 93

2-89 20 SW 8th St.- O n-site Ponding ............................................................ ............... 94

2-90 810 SW 1st A ve .............. .............................................. ............... .... .... ... 94

2-91 810 SW 1st A ve- D rivew ay ....................................... ...................... ................ 95

2-92 Cone Property- Parking Lot................................... ...................... ................ 96

2-93 C one Property- W est Side ....................................... ....................... ................ 96

2-94 C one Property- Tree Island....................................... ...................... ................ 97









2-95 Cone Property- U university A ve ......................................................... ................ 97

2-96 1206 W U university A ve.- G as Station.................................................. ............... 98

3-1 Integrated Cyberinfrastructure Services to Enable New Knowledge
Environm ents for Research and Education ....................................... ...................111

3-2 Ontology of an Investigative Experim ent ....... ......... ...................................... 118

3-3 Hierarchic Division of Hydrologic Units...... .... ...................................... 119

3-4 Basic Ontology of Research Project............................................120

4-1 5-step Prototype LID Planning Process ............... .......................127

4-2 Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975 ......................... ...................135

4-3 Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 2001 ............................135

4-4 Comparison of Bathymetry of Lake Alice Open Water in 1975 and 2001 ..........136

4-5 Lake Alice, Tumblin Creek, and Sweetwater Branch Watersheds ......................137

4-6 Land Use In and Around the LAW .......... ...... ..................... 138

4-7 D ensity in the LA W .................... ............................................................... 139

4-8 Rainfall-Runoff Relationship for HC01 Presented in Korhnak ...........................140

4-9 Soil D drainage Classification.................................. ...................... ............... 141

4-10 Soil Type C lassification ................. ............................................................ 141

4-11 Stream Incision in East Creek, University of Florida ................. ...................142

4-12 East Creek Watershed Highlighted within Lake Alice Watershed ......................143

5-1 East Creek W atershed Study Area ....... ... ...... ..................... 147

5-2 Each Creek Watershed Subcatchment Names...... ...................................... 147

5-3 Topography of East Creek Watershed ........................................148

5-4 2000 Delineation of the East Creek Branch...... .... ..................................... 149

5-5 SW M M Schem atic of E C W ........................................ ...................... ............... 152

5-6 G general A tribute Layout ................. .......................................................... 153

5-7 Yulee Pit in LA-3 .............. ..................... ........ ...................... 156









5-8 Steep Slopes of LA-4 along Newell Drive ....................................... ................ 158

5-9 University Auditorium in LA-2...... ............ .......... ..................... 160

5-10 An Example of the Layout of Walkways in LA -3 ..................... ...................161

5-11 An Example of Open Space in LA-2 .........................................164

5-12 Soil Type C lassification ................. ............................................................ 167

5-13 Land Use Characterization Map in Subcatchent LA-4 ............... ...................169

5-14 Land U se in LA-2 .............. ........ .... .... ............................. 170

5-15 Curb and Gutter Draining to East Creek in LA -4 ...................... ...................171

5-16 Newell Drive Box Culvert Stage vs Discharge Curve................ ...................175

5-17 N ew ell D rive B ox Culvert.................................... ....................... ................ 178

5-18 M ap of Korhnak research area ....... ........... ............ ..................... 179

5-19 Catchment-wide Rainfall vs Runoff Relationship ...................... ...................182

5-20 Storm Event Used to Calibrate SW M M Results.................................. ............... 183

5-21 Volumetric Runoff Comparison (calculated vs observed)................................184

6-1 LA-2b Study Site in Context of Larger ECW ...... ... ................................... 190

6-2 G IS2 SW M M Interface ...........................................................................................192

6-3 Visual Representation of UF Study Area in GIS with High Detail Inset............ 193

6-4 UF GIS2SWMM Tool Connecting ArcGIS to SWMM...................195

6-5 Rainfall Pattern for Detailed Rainfall-Runoff Analysis...................................196

6-6 GIS Representation of Functional Elements for 390 Parcel Simulation............. 199

6-7 GIS Representation of 8 Parcels and Estimated % Runoff Control.................... 200

6-8 GIS Representation of 1 Parcel Simulation and % Runoff Control....................201

6-9 Detailed Spatial Representation of site Owner2 ......................... ................... 203

6-10 Chart of Percent Onsite Control per Functional Unit in Site Owner2................. 206

6-11 Contributing Watersheds for Three Different BMPs .................. ...................208















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

METHODOLOGIES TO EVALUATE DECENTRALIZED
STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA.
By

Ruben Kertesz

August, 2006

Chair: James P. Heaney
Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences

A wide variety of best management practices (BMPs) are available for controlling

urban stormwater quantity and quality. Best management practices are tailored for many

applications, from particle size alteration to sorption or flow attenuation. Low impact

development (LID) methods are often classified as BMPs tailored for use in urban

environments. From a functional perspective, LID can be thought of as onsite stormwater

control, controlling runoff close to the source in a disaggregated and distributed network.

Two issues arise when trying to implement LID controls in an urban environment.

The first issue is the need to control runoff volume within tight spatial constraints. The

second issue is closely related. It is difficult to determine the net utility of decentralized

BMPs within a watershed or even one parcel. My study documents cases in which one or

more BMPs are implemented within parcels ranging from 1 to 1000 acres. My study

addresses how to assess the net effect of these onsite control methods by presenting a

methodology which steps the reader through the process of determining watershed goals,


xviii









obtaining data, building a geographic database, moving the spatial and physical

information from the geodatabase to a hydraulic/hydrologic modeling program, and

evaluating BMPs by manipulating functional unit parameters.

Results indicate that BMPs are ubiquitous and that they function as control areas as

well as sources of runoff in what can be a long chain of storage-infiltration-runoff steps.

These BMPs can be represented explicitly by simulating a parcel or watershed at the

functional unit scale. An efficient method for building a strong stormwater model is to

perform analyses at a focused scale. Scales of site redevelopment seen in urban

watersheds such as the Tumblin Creek Watershed in Gainesville, FL, are desirable.

Simulations were created for the adjacent Lake Alice Watershed, on the University

of Florida campus, at three scales: 1,000 acres, 300 acres, and 7 acres. Modeling at the

micro-scale level both captures the spatial reality of the site of interest and promotes a

modular approach to modeling the larger watershed by aggregating those spatial data and

combining the associated analysis with other micro-scale models to form a larger macro

model that is still true to the spatial reality of the watershed. Results indicate that even a

small increase in the depression storage of a functional land unit can reduce annual runoff

volume measurably if placed in a strategic location.

Results also demonstrate the need to organize data and reference publications in a

centralized, secure, and accessible manner. Future research opportunities include the

production of a rapid simulation tool to select an optimal onsite control method using

multiple criteria such as cost, social benefit, and longevity, simulating water quality

benefits by changing functional land uses, and implementing an ontology to increase the

value of current stormwater information.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Two conflicting issues arise in trying to implement and determine the performance

of low impact development (LID) controls in urban watersheds. The first conflict exists

between spatial constraints in urban environments and water quantity/quality control

needs as described by Lewis (University of Florida 2006a, p 9-8):

In general, the most effective stormwater treatment techniques come from
traditional stormwater systems that retain as much water as is being displaced by
new impervious surface. Therefore, these systems are large in area and require a
great deal of additional land to treat runoff. This factor contrasts with the
documented benefits of compact urban development (shorter distances for utilities,
mass transit, walk-ability, fire and police protection, school busing neighborhood
schools and other energy-related sustainability factors). Thus, redevelopment and
infill projects face a difficult task meeting today's stormwater requirements.

The second issue is that of managing or assessing the performance of disconnected

controls. A major management concern is that while regional solutions for a watershed

range from 1 to about 5 BMPs per 1,000 acres, as supported by the Lake Alice

(University of Florida 2006a) and Tumblin Creek (Jones Edmunds & Associates 2006)

watersheds, a network of thousands of LID controls within the same watershed can

perform similar water quantity and quality control functions. Historically, it has been

relatively easy to evaluate the net performance of centralized best management practices

(BMPs), but it is much more challenging to evaluate numerous disconnected BMPs in a

manner that allows locales to compare their effectiveness alongside centralized solutions.

My study describes a methodology to evaluate decentralized LID controls in watersheds

with largely centralized quantity controls.









Chapter 2 begins with a literature review of methods used to select BMPs in

context of urban runoff management goals, followed by a second section summarizing

how onsite control BMPs are integrated into the urban landscape today in part of the

Tumblin Creek Watershed in Gainesville, Florida, known as the University Heights

Redevelopment District. This section shows redeveloped/redeveloping properties and

opportunity properties as identified in the City of Gainesville's University Heights

Redevelopment Master Plan. Each redeveloped property is presented in four parts: pre-

redevelopment site condition, current site condition, stormwater control calculations, and

onsite BMP alternatives.

Chapter 3 discusses how to leverage data, models, and tools to make better

decisions by developing a "cyberinfrastructure" as coined by the National Science

Foundation (National Academy of Sciences 2001). The chapter is divided into three

sections: computation services, information management, and collaboration services. It

concludes with a demonstration of how an information management and collaboration

system called Drupal can be used to share lot-level site data described in Chapter 2 in a

collaborative environment.

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 focus on the Lake Alice Watershed, directly west of the

Tumblin Creek Watershed. Each chapter contains one of three case studies, progressing

from a large watershed (1000 acres) in chapter 4, to a medium scale (300 acres) in

Chapter 5 to a fine scale watershed analysis and simulation study (7 acres) in Chapter 6,

as shown in Figure 1-1. The goal of each case study is to simulate stormwater flow within

the watershed and select a cost-effective BMP solution to increase onsite stormwater

volume control.






























Figure 1-1: Three Scales Studied in Lake Alice Watershed

The hypotheses considered in these chapters are:

1. Watershed runoff can be simulated quickly and easily, provided that the site is well
characterized and the data are organized in a minable cyberinfrastructure.

2. It is possible to select BMPs that increase onsite stormwater control by mining site
data for critical flowpaths and using simulation tools to augment strategic
functional land units within the watershed

The gradual progression towards increasingly focused case studies shows what

difficulties are raised in simulating the behavior of the watersheds at each scale. The

optimal simulation scenario involves creating a number of small, manageable simulations

for subwatersheds (e.g., 7 acres) within a larger watershed (e.g., 300 acres). Componsents

of each simulations can be aggregated into a simplifiied model (ideal for creating a larger

aggregate model) and disaggregated to simulate the local influence of BMPs on a given

site. Best management practices can be chosen based on desired goals and first principles.

Chapter 7 summarizes my study and discusses research findings as well as future

research needs.














CHAPTER 2
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN TODAY'S URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Literature Review: Low Impact Development Practices Used for Urban Stormwater
Management

A wide variety of best management practices (BMPs) are available for controlling

urban stormwater quantity and quality. Low impact development (LID) options are now

considered valid BMPs along with more traditional ponds, pits, and wetlands.

Researchers from Oregon State University, the University of Florida, Geosyntec, and the

Low Impact Development Center have created a guidebook on the effectiveness of

stormwater BMPs (including LID) in the context of management objectives and

fundamental processes (Geosyntec Consultants et al. 2006; Low Impact Development

Center et al. 2006; Oregon State University et al. 2006; Strecker et al. 2005). Low impact

development is a method of managing urban stormwater management close to the source

of runoff Stormwater management systems traditionally direct stormwater away from the

site via a conveyance system to a centralized storage/treatment system or directly to a

receiving water without any treatment. Detention has been a popular storage/treatment

system since the 1970's. One example of a detention system in Gainesville is Lake Alice,

on the University of Florida campus. Detention systems accumulate pollutants from

stormwater runoff which need to be removed periodically and sometimes become

unattractive or serve as mosquito breeding areas. Dissatisfaction with detention systems

led to the idea









of LID, beginning in Prince Georges County Maryland. Detailed information can be

found at the website of The Low Impact Development Center

(www.lowimpactdevelopment.org).

Urban stormwater management has three primary and numerous ancillary purposes.

The three primary purposes are

* Flood control
* Drainage control
* Water quality control

Ancillary purposes include aesthetics, public greenspace, and other social or ecological

elements which are often considered when siting BMPs.

Stormwater control has traditionally meant moving the excess water offsite as fast

as possible so as to prevent onsite flooding and associated damages. A large scale

example of this phenomenon is the Southeast Florida canal system that links multiple

fields, farms, and storage reservoirs. It is only in the last 30 years that stormwater quality

control has become a recognized issue in the United States. Urban runoff management

needs to address the combination of objectives shown in Table 2-1.

There are some technical conflicts between the objectives of flood control and

water quality control. Detention systems are traditionally designed for flood control, and

so drain quickly in order to be available for the next storm. From a water quality

perspective, it is desirable to hold water in these detention systems for a longer period of

time to better reduce pollutant load through primary or secondary removal. It is possible

to achieve both water quantity and quality requirements by focusing on the fundamental

processes a given BMP performs and placing two or more in series if necessary. Table 2-









2 organizes BMPs according to their fundamental processes and Table 2-3 organizes

BMPs according to pollutant control objectives.

Table 2-1: Urban Runoff Management Objectives Checklist
Category Typical Objectives of Urban Runoff Management Projects

Hydraulics Manage flow characteristics upstream, within, and/or downstream
of treatment system components

Hydrology Mitigate floods; improve runoff characteristics (peak shaving)

Reduce downstream pollutant loads and concentrations of
pollutants
Water Quality Improve/minimize downstream temperature impact
Achieve desired pollutant concentration in outflow
Remove litter and debris

Reduce acute toxicity of runoff
Reduce chronic toxicity of runoff

Regulatory Comply with NPDES permit
Meet local, state, or federal water quality criteria

Implementation Function within management and oversight structure

Cost Minimize capital, operation, and maintenance costs

Aesthetic Improve appearance of site and avoid odor or nuisance

Operate within maintenance, and repair schedule and
Maintenance requirements
Design system to allow for retrofit, modification, or expansion

Longevity Achieve long-term functionality

Improve downstream aquatic environment/erosion control
Resources Improve wildlife habitat
Achieve multiple use functionality

Safety, Risk and Function without significant risk or liability
a. Function with minimal environmental risk downstream
Liability Contain spills

Clarify public understanding of runoff quality, quantity and
impacts on receiving waters

Source: Oregon State University et al. 2006









Table 2-2: Structural Stormwater Controls
Categories
FPC** UOP+


Flow Attenuation


Hydrologic
Operations


Volume Reduction


Particle Size Alteration





Size Separation and
Exclusion
(screening and filtration)


Physical
Treatment
Operations


Density Separation
(grit separation,
sedimentation, flotation
and skimming, and
clarification)


Aeration and
Volatilization

Physical Agent
Disinfection


and Associated Fundamental Process

TSCs* Chosen to Provide UOP


Extended detention basins
Retention/detention ponds
Wetlands
Tanks/Vaults

Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and
basins
Porous pavement
Bioretention cells
Dry swales
Dry well
Extended detention basins


Comminutors (not common for
stormwater)
Mixers (not common for stormwater)

Screens/bars/trash racks
Biofilters
Porous pavement
Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and
basins
Manufactured bioretention systems
Media/sand/compost filters
Hydrodynamic separators
Catch basin inserts

Extended detention basins
Retention/detention ponds
Wetlands
Settling basins
Tanks/vaults
Swales with check dams
Oil-water separators
Hydro-dynamic separators


Sprinklers
Aerators
Mixers


Shallow detention ponds
Ultra-violet systems









Table 2-2 continued.
FPC** UOP+ TSCs* Chosen to Provide UOP+

Wetlands
Microbiay Mediated Bioretention systems
Microbially Mediated
Biofilters
Transformation .
Retention ponds
Biological Media/sand/compost filters
Processes
Wetlands/Wetland Channels
Bioretention systems
Uptake and Storage Biofilters
Biofilters
Retention ponds

Subsurface wetlands
Sorption Processes Media/sand/compost filters
Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and
basins

Chemical Detention/retention Ponds
Processes Coagulation/Flocculation Coagulant/flocculant Injection
Systems

Custom devices for mixing chlorine
Chemical Disinfection or aerating with ozone
Advanced treatment systems

**FPC- Fundamental Process Category
*TSC-Treatment System Components
UOP-Unit Operation and Processes
Source: Geosyntec et al., 2006













Table 2-3: Summary of Groups of Pollutants and Relevant BMPs Listed Based on Fundamental Process Categories
BMPs
Others/
Pollutant Gravity Filtration/ Oth/. .
Pollutant Constituents .Gravit Filtration! Infiltration Biological Chemical Proprietary
Class Settling AdsorptionBMPs


Sediments
Solids
Heavy metals
Organics
Nutrients


Retention
ponds
Detention
basins
Wetlands
Tanks/vaults


Heavy metals
Organics/
BOD
Nutrients


Biofilters
Media filters
Compost filters
Wetlands


Media filters
Compost filters
Wetlands/
Wetland channels
Retention ponds


Inf. trenches
Inf. basins
Porous
pavement
Swales
Biofilters/
Bioretention

Inf. trenches
Inf. basins

Porous
pavement


Biofilters/Compost
filters

Wetlands/Wetland
channels


Biofilters/compost
filters

Wetlands/wetland
channels


Wet vaults
Vortex-
Separators
Constructedw
wetlands


Precipitation/
flocculation


Inert/media
filters


Activated
carbon


Screening
Continuous
deflective
separation


Catch basin
inserts Vault
filters
Compost filters


Biofilters/compost
filters

Wetlands


Source: Geosyntec et al. 2006


Particulates


Solubles


Trash/
Debris


Trash/
Debris


Floatables


Oil and
Grease


Retention
ponds
Wetlands
Hooded
catchbasins


Oil/water
separators









When a fundamental process category (FPC) view is taken, MPs/LID principles are

everywhere. Indeed, most existing urban developments include some form of on-site

control, whether proprietary, as shown in Table 2-4, or otherwise. A survey of the

Tumblin Creek Watershed in Gainesville, FL (described in the next section) shows that a

wide range of control methods are being utilized at various scales of urban

redevelopment.

Table 2-4: Proprietary BMPs in Current Use by Treatment Type
Proprietary BMP Trade Names

Stormceptor
BaySaver
Wet vaults StormVault
Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS) Unit
ADS Retention/Detention System

Constructed wetlands StormTreat

Vortechs
Aquafilter
Vortex separators Auater
V2B1
Downstream Defender

Inert/sorptive media filters StormFilter

High-flow bypass StormGate

Modular pavement Various

Source: Oregon State University et al. 2006

Low Impact Development Inventory of an Urban Watershed in Gainesville, Florida

University Heights is a redevelopment district within the Tumblin Creek Watershed

(TCW). The redevelopment district has its boundaries defined and is managed by the

Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), part of the City of Gainesville. The CRA

lays out a master plan for the site and provides funding for redevelopment within that

area. University Heights is pictured in the 1,400 acre TCW (Figure 2-1).













N










Legend
TC WatershedBoundary
Turnblin Creek
Redevelopment Districts
C College P ark / University Heights






1,50w 750 0 1,500 Feet

14 heated 9-5,205
UI Wer rI at FlorW EES
Figure 2-1: Map of Tumblin Creek Watershed and University Heights

The author performed an inventory of LID currently used in this redevelopment

district under contract with Jones Edmunds & Associates for the City of Gainesville. A

report that includes much of the following data is scheduled to be released within the

year. Extensive portions of the upper TCW are undergoing redevelopment that will

significantly intensify land use. From a stormwater management perspective, questions

have arisen as to the extent to which this redevelopment will change the quantity and

quality of runoff from these areas. There is interest in applying LID-type controls as part

of the management strategy.

The following sections within this chapter describe existing and planned

stormwater controls and the extent to which LID practices have been applied. This is an

important step in identifying the ease of integrating LID practices into the urban










landscape, and it provides an indication of what is already carried out onsite. Some of the

redevelopment projects are shown in Figure 2-2. Please refer to Table 2-18 for addresses

and parcel information associated with each development.


I ertgeOasApr


Delt Zea Srorty ous


Legend source: City of Gainesville GIS
M Existing Redevelopment Distrinct
Parcel Lines
Project Status
Complete
| Opportunity Site
Planning Stage
SStatus Unknown
Under Construction 825 412 5 0 825 Feet htl
-- Depot Rail Trail
Figure 2-2: Selected Redevelopment Projects In or Near the Tumblin Creek Watershed
(Community Redevelopment Association, 2005)


, d


us "vlaw North









In an effort to condense this chapter while still providing useful BMP information,

the next section entitled "Redeveloped/Redeveloping Properties" will focus on each of

the redeveloped properties separately, discussing pre-existing site conditions, current site

conditions, stormwater calculation information, and alternative stormwater control

measures. Next, "Opportunity Sites" will focus on current site conditions only, followed

by a brief summary and conclusion section.

Redeveloped/Redeveloping Properties

Heritage Oaks

Preexisting site conditions. Prior to 2002, this 0.89 acre site contained five two-

story residential structures, a storage shed, concrete sidewalks, and brick paved

driveways. Stormwater drained from the site to the City of Gainesville storm sewer

system via curb and gutter drainage at NW 12th Terrace and NW 12th Street. A large

grassy area around the houses infiltrated runoff from most roofs, sidewalks, and a patio.

Driveways were generally directly connected impervious areas (DCIA), draining to the

city streets as were a portion of some roofs.

Current site conditions. The re-development of Heritage Oaks integrates both new

construction and historic buildings into an apartment complex with many low cost

stormwater control BMPs. Existing impervious surfaces on the site (such as sidewalks

and driveways) were razed prior to constructing three 2-story multi family homes,

totaling 16 units. New concrete sidewalks and asphalt parking accompany the new

buildings. All five existing residential structures were refurbished. Water quality

treatment for the three new buildings and the parking lot is now provided by an

infiltration trench beneath the parking lot while runoff from the older buildings drains

onto the landscaped area surrounding each.









The old brick houses shown in Figure 2-3 represent houses that existed prior to

reconstruction. The buildings with colored side paneling (back of photo) are newer

construction. A majority of the stormwater draining from the roofs of older buildings

continues to drain to the landscaped area around them as pictured in Figure 2-4. The

concrete sidewalk around the perimeter of the property has been narrowed by one half of

its width. A streetside bioretention strip infiltrates runoff generated from the sidewalk

hardscape, and provides an aesthetically pleasing separation between sidewalk and

roadway. The bioretention area pictured in Figure 2-5 is designed to treat runoff from a

no mortar brick sidewalk and from the disconnected roof. The complex incorporates

pervious parking next to the older buildings (see Figure 2-6) with asphalt parking at the

new buildings. Flow from the roof travels to a pervious (no mortar) brick patio and

parking lot as pictured in Figure 2-7. Runoff from the newer buildings drains into a

centralized infiltration trench system located under the hardscape parking lot. The

downspouts from the roof drains "disappear" underground. The landscaping around the

buildings is watered by sprinkler, not roof runoff, as shown in Figure 2-8.


igure 2-3: Heritage Oaks View From East










V

A~ ~


Figure 2-4: Heritage Oaks Refurbished Building, Facing West


Figure 2-5: Heritage Oaks Bioretention Area






















:
-, ;: :.,. ., ':, .


Figure 2-6: Heritage Oaks Pervious Parking Lot


2-7: Heritage Oaks Roof Draining to Pervious Parking via No-Mortar Patio.








































figure 2-&: Heritage Uaks--New Building Downspout

The largest single BMP onsite is the dual module infiltration system shown in

Figure 2-9. The medium-gray area at the bottom of the image is the infiltration system

(divided into two trenches). The trench system, called the Atlantis Water Management

System (AWMS) and designed by the Atlantis Corporation

(http://www.atlantiscorp.com.au/) is located beneath the parking lot. This system is

described in greater detail in the Oxford Terrace site review. This underground pit

temporarily stores and treats rooftop and pavement runoff before infiltrating into the

sub surface.









I" .'-- '" r4 I ^ "


















Figure 2-9: Heritage Oaks Infiltration Pits (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2002)

Stormwater calculation information. Water quality treatment for the new

buildings and parking lot is provided by an infiltration pit beneath the parking lot. Runoff

from two of the proposed buildings and the majority of the parking area will drain to the

infiltration trench system by sheet flow and roof drains. Runoff from a building denoted

"Building B" by the design engineers cannot feasibly be routed to the treatment system

due to its location on the site; however the building area was used as part of the

infiltration trench design calculations. Therefore, water quality treatment compensation

via "over-treatment" is provided for the proposed impervious surface from "Building B"

that cannot be routed to the proposed treatment system (SJRWMD 2002a). The

remainder of the site follows pre-development drainage patterns with some notable

changes such as reduced sidewalk hardscape area.

The SCS CN method was used to estimate runoff Open area was estimated to have

a coefficient of runoff (C) value of 0.15 while impervious area had a C value of .95 and

semi-impervious area was given a C value of 0.75. Using these estimates, 1,878 cu. ft









was determined as the water quality treatment volume (WQTV), defined as the first 1.25

inches of impervious runoff plus an additional 0.5 inches of overall runoff by the

SJRWMD. Using the FDOT/SJRWMD Modified Rational Method, a peak stage of 169.9

ft MSL (of a max 170 ft MSL) was estimated.

A stormwater analysis was performed using PONDS software. The PONDS

software automates the process of developing a hydrograph and routes the runoff to a

pond, infiltration pit, or other retention facility (Seereeram, 2003). It can iteratively solve

intra-storm drawdown during each time step under both unsaturated, transitory, and

saturated conditions and will measure drawdown after the storm event. Transient vertical

unsaturated flow is modeled using an algorithm developed by Seereeram, the software

developer. The details of this algorithm are described in help documentation

accompanying the latest version of PONDS (Seereeram, 2003). Transient, lateral

saturated-flow ground water discharge is modeled using a modified version of the USGS

MODFLOW numerical technique. The following parameters are necessary for the

program.

1. Base of aquifer
2. Seasonal high water table elevation
3. Horizontal saturated hydraulic conductivity (safety factor of 2)
4. Fillable porosity [n]
5. Safety factor for vertical infiltration rate (unsaturated)
6. Maximum area for unsaturated infiltration
7. Equivalent pond length & equivalent pond width
8. Stage area relationship

Calculations show a full recovery of the WQTV within 2 hours, calculated using

PONDS. The geotechnical report estimates the SHWT at 7 feet below land surface,

leaving enough space to install an infiltration trench without extensive backfill and/or

lowering the local water table. Site soil analysis measured permeability between 17 and









18 ft/day, with one boring (B-5) at 11.6 ft/day. The infiltration system is considered

online, and as such, satisfied SJRWMD criteria to treat the first 1.25 inches of impervious

runoff plus an additional 0.5 inches of overall runoff, which produced a higher runoff

volume than the first 1 inch from the site. The cost to install the infiltration system at

Heritage Oaks was $45,066. This equates to $2,146 per dwelling unit for the 21 dwelling

units.

Alternative stormwater control measures. Heritage Oaks integrates both old and

new houses in a way that is both environmentally conscious and aesthetically pleasing.

Many on-site BMPs were put in place at this complex. However, this is a medium

intensity development and probably will not be used in the core of new development in

University Heights. Although not technically owned by Heritage Oaks, the tree island in

the cul-de-sac (Figure 2-10) can be converted to a notched and recessed design when the

road is repaved to further reduce runoff adjacent to the lot.


Figure 2-10: Heritage Oaks Cul-de-sac









Campus View I, II, III, & North

Preexisting site conditions. No photographs are currently available for preexisting

site conditions; however, the lot now known as Campus View I used to contain a one-

story stucco house with disconnected roof drainage, a DCIA driveway that drained to the

sidewalk and city stormwater system, a shed area, and a grassy treed area surrounding the

house. Figure 2-11 shows the drainage path from the 0.5 acre property NW towards the

city stormwater system. There is a significant elevation change from 122 ft to 117 ft.











10 1-











Figure 2-11: Campus View I-Pre Redevelopment (North is left) (Causseaux & Ellington
2004a)

While no explicit on-site controls have been in place, the pervious area on the

property was large enough to infiltrate impervious area runoff from the shed and house

with a greater than 2:1 pervious to impervious area relationship. Runoff to the city

stormwater system was likely close to redevelopment conditions, with the exception of

added peak flow from the driveway. At the time of writing, preexisting condition









information is unavailable for Campus View II, III, and North which neighbor Campus

View I to the East, far East, and North, respectively. However, based upon neighboring

properties, lot conditions are likely similar, with a single family home on a pervious lot.

Current site conditions. Campus View II, III, and N are currently under planning

and development. The redeveloped site layout for Campus View I is shown in Figure 2-

12. Drainage area two covers most of the property, while drainage area one covers the

northwest corner of the site. Figure 2-13 is a photograph of Campus View I to the right

and Campus View II to the left; Figure 2-14 is a photograph of Campus View II. The

facades of these buildings look very similar to the Oxford Terrace apartment complex.

These buildings are three stories tall with no parking underneath. The land was converted

from dense trees, ivy, underbrush, and grass that sloped to the northwest to a more

impervious area with higher land use intensity and flow away from the property in both

northern and southern directions

SW 91h ROA')

[7 7 -_ --U^: --_._. _
















Figure 2-12: Campus View I-Redeveloped Site Map (North is up) (Causseaux &
Ellington 2004a)




















Figure 2-13: Campus View I and 11 (Under Development)

111 "1% 11
P ro o. ,11
i i^^Sl 11s L


Figure 2-14: Campus View 11 (Under Development)
Stormwater calculation information. At Campus View I, two stormwater control
facilities are used on site, one for each of two drainage areas. Drainage area one (DA-1)


-, 10









is serviced by a dry retention basin. Drainage area two (DA-2) is serviced by an

infiltration pit beneath the parking lot called the Atlantis Water Management System

(AWMS); this system is described in greater detail in the Oxford Terrace site review.

According to Causseaux and Ellington (2004), the retention basin receives and infiltrates

100% of the DA-1 runoff volume. They also state that the AWMS system infiltrates 1005

of the runoff from DA-2. Therefore, Causseaux & Ellington considered both retention

systems as offline. However, SJRWMD said that the systems must be analyzed as an

online system because there is no bypass opportunity and a second analysis for DA-1 and

DA-2 was submitted to SJRWMD in response to an RAI.

Causseaux & Ellington used a stormwater program called PONDS to assess WQTV

recovery time and intra-storm water table mounding. Programmatic methods are as

described in the Heritage Oaks calculation summary. The general analytical process used

by Causseaux & Ellington can be summarized as follows: Predevelopment runoff

calculations were performed. A weighted pre-redevelopment curve number (CN) of 46

was used; post-redevelopment CNs of 76 and 89 were used for DA-1 and DA-2,

respectively. The post-redevelopment time of concentration was stated as less than 10

min but the engineers assumed it to be ten minutes in the PONDS simulations. Upon

contacting the PONDS developer, the developer made it clear that PONDS can perform

analyses with <10 min timesteps.

Soils information was gathered by SDII, a geotechnical consulting firm in

Gainesville. The average depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT) was determined

to be 3.5 feet below land surface at the site of the infiltration BMPs. This caused









problems in installation of the AWMS, as many feet of cut and backfill were necessary to

provide enough water volume treatment.

A discussion surrounding the placement of an infiltration system above such a high

water table can be found in SJRWMD RAI 92642-2-987426 (2004a) and the reply can be

found in SJRWMD RAI Response 92642-2-154598 (2004a), wherein SJRWMD stated

that "It [was] unclear how the seasonal high groundwater table elevation was determined"

(SJRWMD 2004a). Causseaux & Ellington was asked to demonstrate how undercutting

would lower the groundwater table to the needed 115.02 ft. A series of assumptions and

conservative estimates were made to prove that the system would function as performed.

A sediment sump was included in the design for both East and West ends of SMF-2 to

assist in removing particulates and their associated metals and pathogens.

Alternative onsite control measures. Figures 2-13 and 2-14 show construction

materials and mounds of overburden covering and possibly compacting the ground

surface. During construction, the contractors could avoid putting heavy items on pervious

surfaces that do not need soil augmentation. If this is not possible, then grading could be

used to minimize the time of concentration (Tc). This could increase soil water capacity

and decrease the need to irrigate. Currently, Campus View I, after being completely

redeveloped, produces overland flow to the northwest corner of the property and onto the

sidewalk during sprinkling.

Oxford Terrace

Preexisting site conditions. Oxford Terrace formerly consisted of a 1-story office

building and asphalt parking lot with forested land area covering rest of the property.

This is represented in the GIS image in Figure 2-15.












N

Legend

NAME
Grass
parking
patio
planter
rooftop
Sidewalk
unknown




Map created 6.- 2005
Ruben Kerte z 0 40 80 160 Feet
Uni'esity dof Florida EES I I
Figure 2-15: Oxford Terrace-GIS Representation of Pre-redevelopment Lot

Current site conditions. The 0.72 acre site is located at 847 Depot Avenue. The

redevelopment plan involved demolishing all existing structures, including a 1-story

office building with surface parking, and constructing a 3-story, 36 unit multifamily

residential complex with parking underneath, two sidewalks, and two new paved drives

(Causseaux & Ellington 2004b). This resulted in an impervious area of 0.54 acres, as

calculated by Causseaux & Ellington.

The site can be divided into three drainage areas. Two of the drainage areas drain to

infiltration pits beneath the parking lot while the southernmost drainage area drains to a

surface dry retention basin at the southern end of the property. Post redevelopment

conditions are represented in Figure 2-16.








-us'


A
N


nm
IME


Map created &9-200
Ruben Kert z 0 40 80 160 Feet
Unhnersty of Florida EES b I I I I I I I
Figure 2-16: Oxford Terrace After Redevelopment
Stormwater calculation information. Drainage area characteristics such as size,
infiltration BMP size, and curve number are summarized in Table 2-5. A CN of 32 was
chosen for pervious area in DA-3 that characterizes a wooded or grassy area type A soil
group. (CH2MHill, 1987) The post redevelopment CN calculation methodology is shown
in Table 2-6. Soil boring and auger information is shown on a map of the site in
Figure 2-17.
Table 2-5: Oxford Terrace Drainage Area Characteristics
Drainage Area DA-1 DA-2 DA-3
Location on Property North Central South
Acres .281 .216 .217
Stormwater SMF-1 Online, SMF-2 Infiltration SMF-3 Infiltration
Management Facility closed, dry pond basin basin
Cubic feet of SMF 2,908 2,343 2,435
Predevelopment CN 77 77 32
Postdevelopment CN 89 93 80


I


0 q '


Legend
NAME
BMP
SBusStop
Grass
Landscape
Parking
Rooftop
Sidewalk
Unknown










Table 2-6: Oxford Terrace-Calculation of Post Development CN Values
Drainage CN Area Soil CN Area Runoff CN
Area Soil (acres) Impervious Impervious =(Col2*Col3+Col4*Col5)/
Area (acres) (Col3+Col5)
SMF-1 77 .11 98 .17 89
SMF-2 77 .05 98 .16 93
SMF-3 32 .06 98 .16 80


SW GHTH PLACE


I]I Sil
~,fh A~ I I It. I
III I I i
DA-3







WIL~
eB-2 DA-2









DA-1












A-1 Q) APPROXIUATE LOCATION OF AUGER BORING WITH DESIG!"TION
B-1 Q) APPROXMATE LOWAION OF SPT BORING WITH DEMIGNA11ON


S II i lt
-I ... t) Med11ium






SI I <611



- S~dId w il








Siind w ClAy
4.1 [-02 m/s













N

SCALE


Figure 2-17: Oxford Terrace Auger Map / SDII Land Use Characteristics (SDII 2004a)









Causseaux & Ellington determined the stormwater management facility (SMF)

dimensions shown in Figure 2-17 by sizing them to capture the 100 year critical storm as

well as the 25-year 24-hour storm and the mean annual storm event, or the annual rainfall

divided by the number of storm events in the year (EPA 1986). Then they checked to

ensure that the SMFs also provided the proper WQTV. The method used to size the SMF

to retain the 100 year critical storm (that storm which produces the greatest runoff) as

well as the 25 year -24 hour storm and the mean annual storm event was as follows. The

engineer first generated rainfall hyetographs using Florida Department of Transportation

distributions for all the 100-year frequency storms and the 25 year -24 hour storm. The

mean annual storm event hyetograph was created by multiplying the NRCS Type II

modified dimensionless rainfall distribution by the total rainfall depth of the mean annual

storm event (MASE). The MASE rainfall distribution is shown in Table 2-7. Runoff

hydrographs were then generated following the NRCS method (NRCS 1986). The

hydrographs were routed through the modeled stormwater system.

Traditionally, redevelopment runoff is performed first, and then compared to post

development runoff, but in this case, where all the systems are closed basins, pre-

development calculations were not performed for SMF-2 or SMF-3 because they were

sized to produce no post-development overflow for the aforementioned design storms.

Parameters needed to create the runoff hydrograph for each drainage area are the

watershed area, CN, and time of concentration (Tc) values for each drainage area, as

shown in Table 2-8. The time of concentration used for all drainage areas was 10

minutes, which is a common practice for small basin sites. Tc is a function of overland

flow length, slope, and roughness.










Table 2-7: Mean Annual Storm Event (MASE) Rainfall Distribution


Duration
Hours
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
3.75
4
4.25
4.5
4.75
5
5.25
5.5
5.75


MASE
P (in)
0
0.0082
0.0082
0.0041
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0123
0.0123
0.0082
0.0123


Duration
hours
6
6.25
6.5
6.75
7
7.25
7.5
7.75
8
8.25
8.5
8.75
9
9.25
9.5
9.75
10
10.25
10.5
10.75
11
11.25
11.5


MASE
P (in)
0.0123
0.0164
0.0123
0.0123
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0205
0.0205
0.0205
0.0205
0.0328
0.0328
0.0328
0.041
0.0451
0.0492
0.0738
0.0861
0.1066
0.1353


Duration
hours
12
12.25
12.5
12.75
13
13.25
13.5
13.75
14
14.25
14.5
14.75
15
15.25
15.5
15.75
16
16.25
16.5
16.75
17
17.25
17.5


MASE
P (in)
1.107
0.2624
0.2091
0.1189
0.0943
0.082
0.0697
0.0451
0.041
0.0369
0.0369
0.0328
0.0287
0.0205
0.0205
0.0205
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0123
0.0164


Duration
hours
18
18.25
18.5
18.75
19
19.25
19.5
19.75
20
20.25
20.5
20.75
21
21.25
21.5
21.75
22
22.25
22.5
22.75
23
23.25
23.5


MASE
P (in)
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0.0123
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0123
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082
0.0082


0.0123 11.75 0.4469 17.75 0.0123 23.75 0.0082
24 0.0041


Table 2-8: Oxford Terrace-Parameters Used to Create a Runoff Hydrograph
Area Predev. CN Postdev. Tc (min)
CN
SMF 1 .281 77 89 10
SMF 2 .216 77 93 10
SMF 3 .217 32 80 10

PONDS software was used to route the runoff hydrograph through each of the three

SMFs in separate discrete analyses. As a safety factor, Causseaux & Ellington chose to

design using infiltration values reduced by one half from those measured by SDII. The

saturated flow conductivity was reduced by an additional one half, resulting in a safety

factor of 4. In SMF-1, it appears that a K of 7.5 was used instead of 22.5, resulting in an









even higher safety factor. Maximum area is the area at the widest dimension of the pond.

Equivalent pond length and width are determined by measuring the effective perimeter of

the pond and ensuring that 2 (width + length) is approximately equal to the perimeter

while the volume is equal to the maximum volume of the SMF. It is used to approximate

the pond as a rectangular prism to simplify calculations. General soil characteristics for

the entire site are shown in Table 2-9. Detailed dimensions for each SMF are shown in

Table 2-10.

Table 2-9: Oxford Terrace-Soil Characteristics Used for Storm Event Simulation
Measured Value Safety Factor of 2 Value used for SMF-1
Base of Aquifer 115 ft NGVD -- --
SHWT 115.5 ft -- --
Vertical Infiltration 37 ft/day 18.5 ft/day --
Horizontal Conductivity 45 ft/day 22.5 ft/day 7.5 ft/day
Fillable Porosity 25 % -- --

Table 2-10: Oxford Terrace-Stormwater Management Facility (SMF) Dimensions Used
for Storm Event Simulation
SMF Invert (ft) Area at Max. elev. Area at max Storage
invert (ft2) (ft) depth (ft2) Volume (ft3)
SMF-1 121 1689 122 2907 2309
SMF-2 118 2183 119.48 2183 3460
SMF-3 118 2435 119.48 2435 3615
Soil auger tests performed by SDII in drainage areas 1, 2, and 3 suggest all three

areas consist mainly of a Millhopper/Urban land mix that is moderately well drained,

with some Kanapaha sand interspersed throughout. The permeabilities of augers A-1, A-

2, and A-3 with locations shown on Figure 2-17 are tabulated in Table 2-11.

Table 2-11: Oxford Terrace-SDII Soil Testing Infiltration Results
Auger Permeability (cm/s)
A-1 (DA-3) 1.96 E-02
A-2 (DA-2) 1.31 E-02
A-3 (DA-1) 4.09 E-02

Soil boring tests were also performed by SDII, and while most of the borings

indicated clayey sand soils, one boring, located in DA-2 indicated an expansive clay soil









only 3 ft below the surface. Their recommendations were to undercut the soil in that

location and backfill it in order to reduce the possibility of swelling of the partially clay

substrate and therefore heaving of the foundation. They also indicated that removal of

tree stumps will likely cause consolidation in the clay soils underneath the foundation but

that it couldn't be avoided.

SMF-1 is optimized to rise to 121.90 ft for the 100 year -1 hr storm (using a value

of 7.5 ft/day saturated infiltration). It would overflow at >122 ft. SMF-2 and SMF-3 are

sized to attenuate the peak for the 100 year -24 hour storms (using 22.5 ft/day saturated

infiltration). SMF-2 rises to 119.45 ft and SMF-3 rises to 119.06 ft out of a possible

119.48 ft. All facilities provide post-development peak discharge rates that do not exceed

pre-development rates for both the 100 year critical storm event, the 25 year -24 hour

storm event, and for the mean annual storm event (1 day, 24 hours) (Causseaux &

Ellington 2004b).

After sizing the SMFs to hold and infiltrate the 100 year critical and 25 year 24-

hour storms, Causseaux & Ellington checked that water quality volume regulations were

satisfied. In sizing the retention pond to capture and treat the WQTV, one must calculate

the runoff from applying an instantaneous rainfall depth according to the aforementioned

SJRWMD guidelines. Calculations of the necessary water quality treatment volume for

each drainage area are shown below. Note that SJRWMD (2005) states that an online

infiltration trench (called exfiltration trench in publication) discharging into a Class III

receiving water bodies, should store the first one-half inch of runoff or 1.25 inches of

runoff from the impervious area, whichever is greater, and an additional storage of one-

half inch of runoff from the total area. Sample calculations are as follows.









SMF-1
WQTV = 0.5" Drainage Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= .5/12 .281 acres + .5/12 .281 acres
= 0.023 ac-ft = 1020 ft3
OR
WQTV = 1.25" Imp Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= 1.25/12 .17 acres + .5/12 .281 acres
= 0.029 ac-ft = 1269 ft3
This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.)

SMF-2
WQTV = 0.5" Drainage Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= .5/12 .216 acres + .5/12 .216 acres
=.018 ac-ft = 783 ft3
OR
WQTV = 1.25" Imp Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= 1.25/12 .16 acres + .5/12 .216 acres
= 0.026 ac-ft = 1124 ft3
This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.)

SMF-3
WQTV = 0.5" Drainage Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= .5/12 .217 acres + .5/12 .217 acres
=.018 ac-ft = 789 ft3
OR
WQTV = 1.25" Imp Area + 0.5" Drainage Area
= 1.25/12 .16 acres + .5/12 .217 acres
= 0.026 ac-ft = 1117 ft3
This is the higher of the two methods (vs 0.5*D.A.)

The WQTV calculation method does not use the maximum possible retention of the

soil (S), or initial abstractions. The method of determining WQTV drawdown is to apply

a slug load of the WQTV to the basin at time zero and use PONDS to iteratively solve for

drawdown over time. Because the SMFs are sized to capture and infiltrate a large volume

storm, they can hold the entire WQTV slug and thus provide the necessary WQTV

treatment. WQTV drawdown results are shown in Table 2-12. All three SMFs recover the

WQTV within 3 days.

Results from running complete basin recovery analyses (not shown) indicate that

each SMF, when filled to capacity, will recover its total volume well within 14 days.

SMF-3, which is almost identical in size and shape to SMF-2 has a total recovery time









that is 25% shorter than SMF-2 (not shown) probably because of the clay layer that is

encountered only 3 feet below the surface on the west side of DA-2. A-2 was reported by

SDII to have a permeability of 1.31E-02 cm/s while A-1 had 2.96E-02 cm/s.

Table 2-12: Oxford Terrace-Water Quality Treatment Volume Recovery
SMF* WQTV volume (ft ) Recovery time (days)
SMF-1 1269 <= .10
SMF-2 1124 <= .10
SMF-3 1117 <= .10
* SMF Stormwater Management Facility
+ WQTV Water Quality Treatment Volume

Alternative onsite control measures. Oxford Terrace is very innovative in the

placement of parking underneath the building and use of some strategic landscaping as a

retention pond. Other options available at the site are somewhat limited by site

conditions. Bioretention cells along the right of way could be used to capture relatively

clean sidewalk runoff. Green roofs are another option. Due to the buildout of the site, no

other form of retention is possible without installing cisterns or other above surface

retention devices. An alternative to controlling runoff directly onsite is for the developer

to buy into the swale directly south of the site, across Depot Ave. This swale drains road

runoff and may have extra capacity to accommodate runoff that would exceed storage

capacity onsite. The soil in the swale could be engineered to increase treatment capacity.

Another alternative is connecting to a centralized treatment system while storing and

infiltrating smaller daily storm events onsite. A regional solution would allow for storage

within the system, increasing the time of concentration.

Delta Zeta sorority house

Preexisting site conditions. The 70-acre project site located on the southeast

intersection of SW 13th Street and SW 9th Avenue used to consist of one story houses, a









carport, and dirt driveways. Cars could drive over the curb to get on the property.

Although no images are available for the property prior to redevelopment, neighboring

houses provide good examples. Most of them have severely compacted pervious area and

one to two story structures on the majority of the property

Current site conditions. The Delta Zeta sorority site drains from the northwest to

the southeast, and was mistakenly stated by the SJRWMD as being inside the Tumblin

Creek Watershed, discharging to Biven's Arm (SJRWMD 2003). It actually drains into

Campus Creek (also known as Hawthorn Creek or East Creek) which flows west, through

the University of Florida campus to Lake Alice as discussed in Korhnak (1996).

The site contains a 9,280 square foot three story apartment complex, a parking lot,

sidewalks, and a driveway. The three story building uses the area efficiently compared to

its neighbors, providing many bedrooms in a compact footprint; this allowed the

developers to provide a large landscaped area that makes it look more like an estate

(Figure 2-18). The wide landscaped area provides a large infiltration capacity that treats

the runoff from the sidewalk inside the property, but not the sidewalk along the street due

to the slope of that sidewalk towards the road (Figure 2-19).

Runoff from the roof and parking lot is conveyed via stormwater surface inlets and

roof drains to a retention area on the S.E. side of the building. The rain garden provides

enough vertical storage capacity to temporarily store very large storms, infiltrating it into

the soil gradually. Excess volume generated during the peak of large events flows over a

weir into Campus Creek. The retention/detention area appears to infiltrate fast enough to

keep from ponding as evidenced by the separation of bark chips and grass implying no









floatation (Figure 2-20). Water drains from the parking lot into this dry retention basin as

well (Figure 2-21).


Figure 2-18: Delta Zeta Sorority House Landscaped Area


Figure 2-19: Delta Zeta Sorority House Sidewalk































Ata Zeta Sorority House


Figure 2-21: Delta Zeta Sorority House Parking Lot Drain

Stormwater calculation information. The engineers developed a retention area

with a stem wall to hold water onsite, slowly infiltrating and discharging over a weir.









Drawdown was modeled without infiltration for post re-developed conditions. Using

PONDS software, they found that the WQTV recovers in 48 hours (<72 hours), using a

horizontal conductivity rate of 3.6 ft/day; this value is 10% of the value measured by the

geotechnical firm. The reason for doing this was because the stem wall is 2 ft below the

ground surface and PONDS initially was modeled using a horizontal flow lens that could

rise all the way to the ground surface. This technique seems to work well creek side, just

as it did at Windsor Hall. It may be more beneficial than an infiltration trench because

there is more material for the pollutants to flow through, adsorb to, and for some species

degrade in than for an infiltration trench.

Alternative stormwater control measures. The location of the DZ house lends

itself to using the detention/infiltration system adjacent to the creek because the water

table flows directly into the stream, allowing quick drainage of the rain garden. The

system is easy to maintain but infiltration may decrease because foot traffic is allowed in

the area, possibly causing compaction.

The sidewalk adjacent to the street could be either removed while creating a swale

or turned into a pervious pavement material. The meandering sidewalk in front of the

house could serve as the main sidewalk, with the grassy area as a buffer between the

people and the road, moving the setback away from the road and extending the DOT

ROW to cover the grassy area. The grass could provide great treatment capacity for a

portion of the road runoff if it were not curbed. Unfortunately, currently, the road runoff

travels directly into the East Creek portion of UF's Lake Alice feeder system, untreated.

Estates at sorority row

Preexisting site conditions. No information is available as to site conditions prior

to the current state. This site is scheduled for redevelopment.









Current site conditions. The site currently has no sophisticated stormwater

control. All the properties purchased for the Estates, including the building shown in

Figure 2-22, have roofs that drain directly onto the ground a few feet away from of the

foundation. The parking lot for this building is a small four car lot of gravel and a

concrete slab (Figure 2-23). The driveways for the single family homes on the properties

to the South are also a dirt/gravel mix. The only hardscape present on any of the

properties is the parking lot concrete slab and the sidewalk.

Stormwater calculation information. No information is currently available.

Alternative stormwater control measures. There currently is no DCIA on the

property. Drainage is in a mostly southerly direction, towards a large pond connected to

Campus Creek (Korhnak 1996). Future properties could take advantage of the

pond/stream and drain large volume storm events into it, while smaller ones could be

treated onsite.


figure 2-22: Estates at sorority Kow- urrent Butiling






40






















... .. : | -. .
Figure 2-23: Estates at Sorority Row-Current Building Parking Lot

Visions

Preexisting site conditions. No information of site conditions prior to the current

state is available. This site is scheduled for redevelopment.

Current site conditions. This property, called Visions, currently has single story

buildings with roofs that drain onto packed sandy soil (Figure 2-24). The soil has been

compacted by vehicles and is very firm to walk on; however there are 3-5 inch deep

channels that range from 3-10 inches wide which may indicate erosion (Figure 2-25). The

buildings have no roof drains but the land around them has little vegetation.

Stormwater calculation information. No information is currently available.

Alternative stormwater control measures. While disconnected roof drains are

often considered a cost effective onsite stormwater control method, in this case it doesn't

work well due to lack of vegetation in the pervious area. If the site were not to be

redeveloped, then the sandy soil could be stabilized using hardy grasses or other






41


groundcover. Furthermore, automobile traffic could be confined to a smaller zone to

prevent further soil compaction and erosion. Even a low cost permeable paving solution

would help in curbing erosion and promoting infiltration. This site could be improved by

redevelopment. Parking for the new development could be underneath the building or,

due to the small area of the parcel, located elsewhere in a central lot.


Figure 2-24: Visions-Disconnected Roof and Dirt Alleyway


Figu Viso ,-C-- n-.. .- t Pi"n t
Figure 2-25: Visions-Channelization of the Parking Lot









Royale Palm apartments

Preexisting site conditions. No information is currently available.

Current site conditions. The Royale Palm apartments are one of a cluster of four

completed new developments on SW 7th Ave and SW 9th Street. The project is located

in the Alachua County Sensitive Karst Area (SJRWMD 2002b). Some parking for this

three story development is on the road (Figure 2-26), with most of the parking in a

hardscape lot behind the building. There are numerous hardscape sidewalks throughout

the complex. The sidewalks along the road are not sloped into the landscaped areas.

Landscaped areas are sprinklered. The landscaped areas use native vegetation. As shown

in Figure 2-28, broad-leafed trees dot the site but are not dense enough to provide

considerable interception before rain hits the pavement. The piping from the rooftop

appears to be directly connected. In some cases it appears to drain into concrete planters

at the surface as pictured in Figure 2-27. However, this was not permitted as a BMP in

SJRWMD (2002b) possibly because runoff bypasses the planter.


figure 2-2o: Koyale Palm Apartments Unstreet Parking




















Figure 2-27: Royale Palm Apartments-Roof Drain Entering Planter


1111111"


,k


Figure 2-28: Royale Palm Apartments-


-Vegetative Site Cover









Stormwater calculation information. Stormwater control techniques used at this

property consist of an infiltration trench that was installed at the cost of $102,350. In this

case, roof runoff and parking lot runoff are mixed. Stormwater routing calculations were

not available at the time of this report, however SJRWMD (2002b) states that runoff from

preexisting impervious areas and the newly constructed parallel parking area along SW

7th Avenue is collected by roadside gutter improvements and conveyed to the City of

Gainesville storm sewer network. The infiltration trench has capacity to compensate by

overtreatment of the areas connected to the trench.

Alternative stormwater control measures. It could be cost effective to exfiltrate

roof runoff into the planters if this is not being done at present if it would not

compromise the foundation.

Windsor Hall

Preexisting site conditions. The 1.2 acre lot where Windsor Hall is now located

used to contain small one story single family homes like those below. These lots, located

close to the creek, had grass/forested areas that buffered the flow rate and time of

concentration from the site, with the exception of a one story concrete complex that was

located on the south side of the property.

Current site conditions. Windsor Hall, located just west of Lake Alice's Campus

Creek, is a 3-story complex, with connected buildings that create the atmosphere of a

small community. Stormwater from the impervious surfaces is piped to the east side of

the property, where a walled in dry retention system is being used to store the peak of

major storm events, not unlike at the Delta Zeta house. The image below (Figure 2-29)

shows the roof draining into the underground drainage network that empties into the

retention basin.









There are approximately 2 feet of freeboard at the retention area, which discharges

into Tumblin Creek during high flow and infiltrating into Tumblin Creek during low

flows. The entire treatment area drains to the basin via an 8 inch pipe, shown in

Figure 2-30. Water flows out of the basin either by infiltration or, during high flows, by

flowing over a weir and into a distributor pipe that carries flow down towards Tumblin

Creek. This pipe is shown below in Figure 2-31.


















Figure 2-29: Windsor Hall-DCIA Rooftop Drain
V.P. Z


Figure 2-30: Windsor Hall-Rain Garden



















































Figure 2-31: Windsor Hall-Flow Distribution Pipe

Stormwater calculation information. Windsor Hall currently has two large

detention basins that treat both roof and road runoff. A permit was previously issued by

SJRWMD in 1997 for two retention areas and 3 buildings with 21 units; however in









January 2000, a permit was issued to modify the previous permit by constructing only

one building of connected row houses, moving the retention areas, and adding a pool.

The modification increased the project area from 0.98 acres to 1.14 acres. The half-acre

project called Phase II added a detention area and an additional 7,800 sq ft building with

associated paving and parking. Roof runoff flows to the retention area from roof drains

and the parking lot via an underground piping network. The two 3-story buildings and

their retention areas drain directly into Tumblin Creek.

The building area and pavement area for the 0.49 acre site (7802 and 4070 sf,

respectively) are given C values of 0.9, while a smaller greenspace (755 sf) is given a C

value of 0.15. The dry storage pond drains over a weir. The stage discharge curve shows

that most of the storage is available from a stage of 128 to 130 ft. Infiltration capacity

was not assessed.

Alternative stormwater control measures. This stormwater design appears to be

a cost-effective small surface area solution. Additional improvements could have been

made when developing this site, namely in creating more parking spaces in the lot and

reducing the amount of hardscape, as with the bike racks. This walled basin solution

cannot be used to collect water from parking lots at many properties because they do not

provide enough driving head to fill the basin. However, it could be used to drain roofs.

The parking lot could be designed to have a porous paving turnaround or use a

design that requires less impervious area per space. No car can park in the driveway of

the current lot, which as represented in the photograph below (Figure 2-32) is a

significant portion of the parking lot. It may be be cost effective to provide porous









concrete or no-mortar brick bike parking (Figure 2-29) as this is a low load-bearing area

and not likely to degrade as quickly as a high traffic area would.






















Figure 2-32: Windsor Hall Parking Lot

Water quantity control is very important when contributing directly to a stream

riparian habitat. The weir design serves well to distribute the water slowly, but the pipe

does not appear to have holes drilled into it and thus only provides two drainage points

rather than an even distributor.

Taylor Square apartments

Preexisting site conditions. The 0.48-acre site developed in Phase II formerly

contained a parking lot and a single building surrounded by a grass and forested area. The

runoff from this site flowed to a retention area, and then to the S.W. 7th Avenue storm

sewer system. No further information could be obtained of preexisting site conditions at

the time of this report.









Current site conditions. The Taylor Square apartment complex is located on the

east side of SW 9th St., across the street from the Stratford Court Apartments. Taylor

Square uses two infiltration trenches to infiltrate parking lot and roof runoff into the soil

and eventually the surficial aquifer. The trenches used are the same Atlantis Water

Management Rain Tank systems discussed in other properties. The turnkey system has a

sump to capture sediment entering the system, which will help increase the lifespan of the

system and prevent the introduction of pollutants associated with the sediment. The

complex is designed such that the courtyard surrounds a large oak tree in the center.

While the tree has a large potential to transpire water, the infiltration area is not very

large, nor are the sidewalks designed to drain towards it. The tree can be seen in the

center of Figure 2-33.


Figure 2-33: Taylor Square Courtyard with Oak 'ree









The infiltration system used at this site was placed underneath a broad driveway shown in

Figure 2-34, presumably to increase accessibility to the pit in addition to allowing two

way traffic.

























Figure 2-34: Taylor Square Asphalt Driveway with Infiltration Pit Beneath

Stormwater calculation information. The Atlantis Water Management System

Rain Tank is marketed as part of a treatment solution for PAHs and various metals, but

literature regarding its treatment mechanism could not be found at the time of this report.

Product information for the AWMS can be found in SJRWMD (2004a).

The results of 4 soil borings that penetrated to a depth of 15 feet below ground

surface show mainly clean sands with a layer of higher fines content at depths of 7.5, 9.5,

15 and 12.5 feet. (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004) These have been reported as possible

confining layers by Universal Engineering Services (UES). The following design












parameters are recommended by the geotechnical report provided by UES:

1. Average depth to confining layer 11 ft
2. Average Vertical Infiltration Rate 14 ft per day
3. Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 21 ft per day
4. Drainable Porosity 30%
5. Average Depth to SHWT (perched) 6.0 ft

The SHWT is perched at 133.3 ft.-MSL. The Green & Ampt equation was used to

model infiltration. The drainage area for the proposed basin is composed of 8,572 ft2 of

roof and carport area, 6,275 ft2 of parking lot, 1,600 ft2 of sidewalks and 457 ft2 of open

area as shown in Table 2-6. The hatched areas in Figure 2-35 are the infiltration trenches.

A "C" value of 0.93 was calculated for the drainage area as shown in Table 2-13 and the

Modified Rational Method was used to generate and route a hydrograph to the infiltration

basins.

Table 2-13: Taylor Square-Stormwater Site Conditions Pre/Post Development
Pre-Development Areas and Rational Coefficients
Area Type Area (SF) Area (Acres) C
Impervious Area 7,580 0.17 0.95
Open Area (Grass) 9,324 0.21 0.30
Total Drainage Area 16,904 0.39 0.59


Post-Development Areas and Rational Coefficients
Area Type Area (SF) Area (Acres) CN
Impervious Area 16,447 0.38 0.95
Open Area 457 0.01 0.30
Total Drainage Area 16,904 0.39 0.93

Watet Quality Criteria
First 1.0 inch of runoff from site (16,904 Ft 1" (1' / 12")) 1,409 Ft3

First 1.25" of Impervious runoff (16,904 Ft2 0.5" (1' / 12") 2,418 Ft3
plus 0.5" of site runoff + 16,447 Ft2* 1.25" (1/12"))
Originally produced in SJRWMD 2004b, pg 31










Sw 10th ST



. .. ..



C O: .. .


1 IT
'It r*, ...*. Ij' ,-,.jr ... .. 'T'.++" i
I I i 9*' i -.I' / -e






Inc. -2004)




With anf' impervious area greater than 50%, the criteria for water quality treatment for the
site is 1.25" across the impervious- area plus 0.5" across the entire drainage area,





assuming 30% porosity. Recovery time is estimated to be 4 hours.
;''L.,_i __., ,---_-_---.-^- ..-_--"---- --.-- --.-;------- -.--"-----.,..


ThFigure bo35 Taylor Squar of the infiltration reaches are at 133.5 ft and these (Brown & Cullenft










show the sysFDOT rainfall distribution was retainingused to analyze the 100 year critical storm event as modeled using a 14.0
With an impenfiltratious rate. (Brown & Cullethan 50, the criteria for water quality treatment for the2004)

site is 1.25" across the impervious area plus 0.5" across the entire drainage area,





assuming a 300 porosity. Recovery time is estimated to be 4 hours.

The bottoms of the infiltration trenches are at 133.5 ft and the tops are 136.4 ft



show the system as retaining the 100 year critical storm event as modeled using a 14.0

ft/day infiltration rate. (Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004)









Table 2-14: Taylor Square Infiltration Trench Volume Calculations
Top of Trench = 136.40
Bottom of Trench = 133.50


No. of Atlantic Boxes = 720 Ea (45 Rows of 16 Columns)
Type of Atlantis Box = Double = 8.25 Ft3 / Box
Total Volume of Trench = 5,940 Ft3

Percolation Rate = 7.5 ft/day


Stage/Storage:
Stage Storage (cf) Storage (ac-ft)
133.50 0 0
134.00 1,024 0.024
135.00 3,072 0.071
136.00 5,121 0.118
136.40 5,940 0.136
Originally produced in Brown & Cullen Inc. 2004, pg 12

Alternative stormwater control measures. One way to decrease the volume of

runoff and volume of infiltration is to create a larger area around the large oak tree. A

common method is to leave an undeveloped area as broad as the crown of the tree. While

this is not possible with the design of the building, some more room can be created by

thinning walkways and/or providing partially pervious or tiled walkways. Such a decision

would also help prevent cracking and buckling in the pavement. Another option would be

to create a curbside biofiltration planter system that would nourish the roots during small

storm flow events and blowoff into the infiltration basin or another treatment system

during more significant flows.

Washoff from building construction (Figure 2-36) indicates that the ground is being

disturbed and topsoil is likely being washed away. This can lead to reduced performance

for surface water retention than that suggested by the engineers. An important BMP to









incorporate is to provide better construction sediment capture and to keep from disturbing

topsoil wherever possible. If it has not already been done, it may be beneficial to develop

a maintenance schedule to remove leaves from the property and sidewalks, to reduce the

entrance of organic material into the street's stormwater system.


Figure 2-36: Taylor Square Construction Debris and









Stratford Court apartments

Preexisting site conditions. No information is currently available on preexisting

site conditions for the Stratford Court Apartments; however the houses that surround the

development are largely one story with disconnected roof drains, concrete/grass strip

driveways and large pervious grassy areas.

Current site conditions. The Stratford Court apartments have just recently been

completed. The three story apartment building was developed among restored historic

buildings.

Stormwater calculation information. The Stratford Court apartments use an

infiltration trench underneath the parking lot on the west side of the new building. Unlike

at the Heritage Oaks apartments, the older historic buildings do not drain directly onto the

ground and parking is not pervious. The infiltration trench was installed at the cost of

$74,000. Soils information can be found in SDII (2004b).

Alternative stormwater control measures. The wide landscaped area on both

sides of a narrow concrete sidewalk can be used to infiltrate runoff from the sidewalk

(Figure 2-37). However, the curb prevents this area from infiltrating runoff from the road.

In order to keep the landscape green, sprinklers have been installed. If runoff from the

road is infiltrated by the landscaped sidewalk area, it may reduce the demand for

irrigation water but it will not eliminate the need for sprinkling systems.

The use of brick paving may help infiltrate some water from the sidewalk. The few

parking spaces alongside the road could be made of brick or a porous concrete material,

possibly a sorptive concrete media (Figure 2-38). A number of other onsite infiltration

techniques could also be applied at the property such as xeriscaping, using a rainwater

cistern combined with an evaporative cooling system or irrigation system, etc.
































Figure 2-37: Stratford Court Apartments Sidewalk and


Figure 2-38: Stratford Court Apartments Streetside Parking


Grass Strip









Alligator Crossing

Preexisting site conditions. The Alligator Crossing apartments formerly consisted

of two 2-story buildings with a total of five dwelling units on the corner of SW 10th

Street and SW 2nd Avenue as shown in Figure 2-39.
























Figure 2-39: Alligator Crossing-Preexisting Site Conditions

Current site conditions. A permit was recently granted to expand Alligator

Crossing. The petitioners kept the old two story apartment buildings and expanded by

adding a 3-story apartment building with six 1-bedroom apartments, resulting in a grand

total of 11 dwelling units on the entire property. A very wide strip of landscaping

surrounds the building. While the site is parking exempt, there are 7-8 gravel parking

spaces on site. The total impervious area is 1,695 ft2. The stormwater management

summary sheet shows two retention basins on the property, one North, and one South,

each with 70 c.f of retention volume (City of Gainesville 2002).








Figure 2-40 is an image of the new addition to the east side of Alligator Crossing.

Drainage from the roof flows off the edges, onto the landscape surrounding the building,

just as all the other buildings do. There is no directly connected impervious area, and a

strip of forested area approximately 20 feet wide is used to infiltrate water between this

property and a property to the South during and subsequent to storm events. The

vegetative buffer between the road and sidewalk shown in Figure 2-41 is functioning as a

passive infiltration system for both. It is likely, however, that a curb will be placed on the

road edge. The central picnic area in Figure 2-42 receives a majority of the runoff from

the back of the older buildings. Figure 2-43 shows the bioretention area just south of the

new 3-story building. It is narrow but very dense and that it is quite close to the building.

The thick biostrip is also shown in Figure 2-44 at the right of the photograph, while a

house sits on a property directly downhill from Alligator Crossing.


MEEL" ML_ T Aa


gator Crossing-New Ad







59





"' .L















L-























Figure.w 2-1 a



















Figure 2-41: Alligator Crossing-Grass Strip and Sidewalk









































figure 2-42: Alligator urossing-backyarc


Figure 2-43: Alligator Crossing-Forested Strip


". ;. N I-.
AL




































Figure 2-44: Alligator Crossing-Southern Side of Grass Swale

Stormwater calculation information. While it was not possible to locate the

stormwater calculations submitted to the City of Gainesville or SJRWMD, a stormwater

summary indicates that the post development impervious area is 1,695 sq ft and the

northern and southern "basins" are 70 ft3 each. The total area of the parcel is not stated,

and thus stormwater runoff calculations cannot be reproduced. Residents living in this

complex and in the complex directly south (downstream) did not identify ponding issues,

with the exception of some minor ponding during the 2005 hurricane season. The owner

of the Woodbury Row apartments stated that a large quantity of runoff from Alligator

Crossing is captured by the retention pit on the Woodbury Row property, specifically

making note of the parking spaces.









Alternative stormwater control measures. With only 7 parking spaces on the

property, and 11 dwelling units, some individuals must park on the road. The reduced

provision of parking per dwelling unit greatly reduces stormwater impacts per dwelling

unit. However, off-site availability of parking will be important.

Woodbury Row

Preexisting site conditions. Until February of 2003, Woodbury Row was a paved

and limerock parking site on SW 5th Avenue with one two-story house and a covered

garage. The large two-story, eight bedroom house with a large grassy area shown in

Figure 2-45 was part of the 0.27 acre site before redevelopment. Figure 2-46 shows the

garage (right) and a grass parking lot adjacent to the house.

V.I
it L ,


Figure 2-45: Woodbury Row Preexisting Site Condition
Figure 2-45: Woodbury Row-Preexisting Site Condition



































Figure 2-46: Woodbury Row-Preexisting Garage

Current site conditions. The Woodbury Row apartment complex retains the old 2-

story house with 8 bedrooms and adds seven 3-story single family attached units (4

bedrooms each) for a grand total of 36 bedrooms. Strategic landscaping and one small

pond are used to drain the site. The roof drains onto a sidewalk and runs off into the

landscaped area (one foot wide) on both sides of the sidewalk as shown in Figure 2-47.

The landscaped areas then drain to a pond located behind the covered bike parking

(Figure 2-48). This may introduce fines, sediments, and eventually clog the conduit (blue

pipe) leading to the pit; however the pond is resourcefully constructed to treat runoff

from the alleyway. The covered bike area shown in Figure 2-49 drains directly into the

infiltration basin. The parking lot slopes towards the basin.



































Figure 2-47: Woodbury Row-Landscaped Sidewalk Strips


OOODUry K,,ow-i,,eienton -rofl










4.,-
~ ~


~:


'.. f,


Figure 2-49: Woodbury Row-Bike Rack and Retention Pond









Stormwater calculation information. The geotechnical report states that soil

borings shown predominantly silty sands. (Fetner 2003) Thus, one would assume that the

pond has a high infiltration capacity and a relatively short retention time. The seasonal

high water table is eight feet below grade. However, the pond is three feet deep, so the

SHWT is about five feet below the bottom of the pond. The geotechnical engineers

estimated a conservative infiltration rate of 3.1 feet per day. Using that infiltration rate, a

square pond would be estimated to drain entirely within 24 hours; however calculations

made by Fetner found the recovery time to be about 55 hours. The entire volume of the

pond is calculated to be 1,016 cf with an area of 573 ft2 at an elevation of 97.7 feet.

Recovery calculations were performed using infiltration only through the bottom of

the pond, not taking into account saturated flow or flow through the side slopes of the

basin. The required treatment volume is 1 inch over the total area or 1.25 inches over the

impervious area, according to SJRWMD. One inch over the entire site (11,993 sq ft) is

the larger volume of the two methods: 980.3 ft3. Therefore, the volume provided by the

pond (1,016 cu ft) is sufficient.

Alternative stormwater control measures. The pond used is narrow but deep. It

may easily fill with organic matter as shown in Figure 2-48. A good maintenance

schedule is needed to prevent it from filling in. Some steps could also be taken to make it

more aesthetically pleasing. However, from a functional standpoint, it is well designed to

treat alleyway runoff as well as runoff from the Woodbury Row property.

The tree island shown in the bottom left of Figure 2-50 is not notched and therefore

must be irrigated using a sprinkler system. It could be designed to function as a small

depression, providing some treatment volume and reducing the need for irrigation.









Similarly, the ditch at the Southern-most location of the site (not pictured) is cut off from

the property by a curb. This may be available for infiltration during and after storm

events but it is not known whether alleyway runoff already exhausts all the capacity.






















Figure 2-50: Woodbury Row-Parking lot and Tree Island

West University Avenue Lofts

Preexisting site conditions. The West University Avenue Lofts used to contain a

single story storefront building with asphalt parking on the South side and an old building

that was destroyed by fire.

Current site conditions. The West University Avenue Lofts are located on the

Southwest corner of SW 6th St and University Avenue. Construction is underway at the

0.67 acre site to produce a 3-story apartment building with 31 units and a total of 37

bedrooms on the top two floors. The bottom floor will contain four commercial units with

over 3,114 sf of commercial space. From the street, the building appears to cover nearly

the entire site, but there is a large parking lot behind it covering over 50% of the property









as shown in Figure 2-51 and Figure 2-52. Stormwater from the roof and the parking lot

drains away from the property to a centralized detention pond (SW 5th Ave. Pond). A

schematic of the drainage network is shown in Figure 2-53. This site is a prime example

of a -100% DCIA buildout with no treatment onsite.

Stormwater calculation information. The Lofts drain into the three acre SW 5th

Avenue Stormwater Pond. The pond was developed by the city and it drains various

properties such as a downtown parking garage, Alachua County Criminal Courthouse,

Alachua County Courthouse South lots, and West University Avenue Lofts. It has the

capacity to receive stormwater runoff from an entire 50.6-acre urban drainage area in

southwest downtown Gainesville. More information on the stormwater basin can be

found at SJRWMD (2002c, 2004b). This large wet pond has the capacity to treat runoff

from this site, which is not much more impervious than pre-redevelopment conditions.

Each user of this pond contributes a prorated share of its cost.


Figure 2-51: West University Ave. Lofts Building Fagade as photographed on 10/25/2005











__i \. _-_'_ -_j I ",,| -- --*- s-"_-._'. -"_ -_-. .--- ..- ,,

-"*--- ---"- -.=l-='= =-=- ---- = =,. C- -- --7 .........>.. =7,= -- -* --
-'^~'' .""aV'i --I "~ ^; ""J_ 3r EB| 1liH S E i *'-g"- i ., ,-- .
r w :_ = _-* ,-\ ,--- _r --- -L1I.'.- 3- 1M 1S"

*, '-""'C---- -', ^ ,
ztitf~r, u. m

na L
5a 2 rn-6


Figure 2-52: West University Ave. Lofts Building Plan (Causseaux & Ellington 2003)


M l'ITH3:
rurr






70



. ..... IrIllliAllAV ALIS I L 'I d

. M -a ,yrH =... -i--AV jj5 a.,
J I



rI

1 N I o I I* i I









i--
I / II ',

















/ / ,. I, I iT I










Figure 2-53: West University Ave. Lofts-Stormwater Drainage Network (Causseaux &
Ellington 2003)









Alternative stormwater control measures. Many onsite control possibilities

could be performed. These possibilities include the use of partially pervious brick paving

or permeable paving, the use of a small bioretention strip surrounding the buildings, the

use of an exfiltration pipe draining and connecting surface planters, or planning changes

such as siting parking centrally and using the onsite space for other purposes.

As of the time of writing, while buying into the pond provides some or all runoff

peak and/or quality control, a redeveloped property that does not provide stormwater

retention onsite before leaving the lot lines will continue to be charged a stormwater

utility fee per volume of runoff, even after having "bought into" the regional detention

pond. This provides added incentive to control stormwater runoff onsite within the

Tumblin Creek Watershed.

Opportunity Sites

Each of the opportunity sites could incur many onsite stormwater control strategies

if redeveloped, limited by site conditions such as soil type, Karst conditions, seasonal

high water table, topography, vegetation, and land use. For the following opportunity

sites, current site conditions will be discussed. For some sites, notable alternative BMPs

are mentioned.

Shands Alachua General Hospital

Current site conditions. Shands AGH is a large, sprawling, multi-story complex

with a very large parking lot. Fully grown trees have cracked hardscape surfaces

surrounding the lot (Figure 2-54). Parking lot runoff drains directly into the stormwater

system without being treated. Nicely trimmed grassy areas (Figure 2-55) are sprinklered

with fresh water and are curbed off from parking lot runoff but still provide infiltration

capacity for sidewalks.






72














r.-" -.
eq.
Pt '-S
~ -


Figure 2-54: Shands AGH Parking Lot Catchbasin


Figure 2-55: Shands AGH Curbed Landscape Area









Alternative stormwater control measures. Many alternative stormwater control

measures could be retrofitted on the current development. One of the easiest solutions is

to channel runoff into grassy areas to infiltrate. A curbside planter system could be

installed along the street corridor (Figure 2-56); one that is designed to treat runoff before

it enters the stormwater system. In fact, if the curb was notched and the road was sloped

toward the grass and less pitched towards the inlet, then a significant amount of the

MASE could be treated. The mature trees that dot street sides and the AGH campus such

as those shown in Figure 2-56 could be integrated into the redevelopment plan. If a

treatment pond or stormwater park is built across the street, then the parking lot water

could be piped there to be treated. One of the most advanced solutions, but one that

would require mandatory periodic maintenance would be to indeed pipe parking lot

runoff to the green spaces on site but also to amend their soils to capture metals, organic,

and nutrients.


4To


Figure 2-56: Shands AGH Sidewalk and Vegetation Strips









South parking lot, Shands AGH

Current site conditions. This parking lot, just South of Shands AGH (Figure 2-57)

drains into a large gully which provides treatment and storage of the runoff. There are

over 200 parking spaces on this lot. The drainage channel for the parking lot is shown in

Figure 2-58. There is no treatment of parking lot runoff before it reaches the headwaters

of Tumblin Creek. There are signs of sediment deposition at the end of the lot and some

signs of erosion cutting into the vegetated slope. Figure 2-59 shows how a major portion

of the city's stormsewer network confluences here and east of 909 SW 5th Avenue.

There are two buildings on the property, shown in Figure 2-60 and Figure 2-61.

One is an office building (Figure 2-60) and the other a child daycare center (Figure 2-61).

The grassy play area at the child care center is not affected by the water quality from the

parking lot to the North or South because it is raised and curbed.

S%Mrwx I--OUd


igure 2-57: Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Loc












































Figure 2-58: Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Draining to Tumblin Creek


Legend
-Tumblin Creek N
ssManhole
--- -,,., Nodes
O JunctionChamber

Lines
S-----Collector
-Culvert
e -Ditch
Current parcel info
.complete
r opportunity
EI I planning
% U under construction
** | L unknown
Redevelopment districts
r L_ -I- ,.1 ,: Park/University Heights
EDowntown

r L FifthAvenue/Pleasant Street
nServ ice Area
Proposed SWPark
S* AternateSW Park

0 155 310 620 930 1240
IFeet
I Created on 12-15-05
University of Florida EES
Figure 2-59 Drainage to South Shands Parking Lot and 909 SW 5th Ave. House































South Parking Lot-Southeast


Figure 2-61: Shands AGH South Parking Lot-Children's Play Center

Alternative stormwater control measures. If this site is redeveloped, city

planners or others involved in regional stormwater control may want to note its location

as a confluence of a 160 acre drainage system (see Figure 2-59).


Figure 2-60: Shands M









East Shands parking lot

Current site conditions. This parking lot located just east of Shands is large, with

over 200 spaces (Figure 2-62). One feasible onsite BMP is shown in Figure 2-63. The

parking area is asphalt with tree islands between each facing row of cars. The tree islands

have small notches cut into them, presumably to allow the transfer of stormwater between

the islands and the asphalt. However, because the islands are elevated, runoff travels to

the hardscape surface rather than towards the greenspace.




















Figure 2-62: Shands East Parking Lot

Alternative stormwater control measures. The parking lot has wide roads and

straight spaces. One way to reduce the impervious area per space is to reduce the width of

the lanes. The notched parking spaces at the tree island potentially allow flow into and

out of the grassy islands. However, this could be improved if the islands were depressed.

Currently, the notches serve little beneficial function. The BMP area currently in service

is silted in from all the parking lot runoff This is an example of the need for continuous

BMP maintenance.














































Figure 2-63: Shands East Parking Lot BMP

909 SW 5th Avenue

Current site conditions. The 909 house (Figure 2-64) is located directly next to a

steeply sloped hillside of native vegetation that drains down to the headwaters of

Tumblin Creek. There is no treatment of runoff from the East side of the house before it

enters the drainage area. The parking lot on the West side is dirt and there currently is no

DCIA on the property.































Figure 2-64: 909 SW 5th Ave-Front Lot

Ayers complex

Current site conditions. The building, as it currently exists, is three stories. Figure

2-65 is a photograph taken on the west side of the property which shows a large grate and

wall to channel storm events away from the property. However, the gradually sloped

landscape is shallow enough to allow most rain events to infiltrate before going into the

city stormwater system. The well manicured grassy areas (Figure 2-66) do not appear to

receive stormwater runoff from adjacent areas. The storm drain pictured in Figure 2-67

accepts stormwater runoff from a heavily treed parking lot on the Ayers property. The

planters shown in the photograph currently serve aesthetic and safety purposes; they are

curbed off from the asphalt lot. This is in sharp contrast to a large depression shown in

Figure 2-68. The depression leaves a large area for infiltration and root nourishment but

still provides a conduit to convey large flows away from the property.








i










A-





Figure 2-65: Ayers Complex-Stormwater Conduit










.. r ,- '_

t ,1 ..-. ., .
f.. ,.. "




Figure 2-66: Ayers Complex-Landscaping
































Figure 2-67: Ayers Complex-Parking Lot


Figure 2-68: Ayers Complex-Depression Area