Summer 2018 Currents

EWRI CURRENTS VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3 SUMMER 2018

ASCE Federal Government Relations Disadvantageous Ecological Repercussions Concomitant with Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration Deborah Lee Joins EWRI Governing Board Dr. Jerry Rogers is Recipient of 2018 Service to the Academy Award Decompartmentalization Physical Model (DPM): Implementing Adaptive Management in the Florida Everglades - Second Largest Adaptive Management Project in the USA Curve Number Hydrology Task Group: Revised NEH 630 Chapters Zebra and Quagga Mussels: Invasive Species Impacting Water/Water Resources Infrastructure

conference friends.

What keeps bringing me back to EWRI events every year since I joined early in my career? ‘Conference friends.’ I do come to the events for the technical information to take back to my job. But the way I get that technical information is often through

In my first Congress, someone I had just met invited me to join a committee. That person has now been a conference friend for 18 years. We stay in touch via email throughout the year, see each other at almost every Congress, catch up on careers and family, and talk about projects and situations at work. I can attribute much of the small and large successes in my career to the conversations I’ve had with this friend. She is the person with whom I deliberated job options, debated how to handle a difficult person at work, and considered which technical areas I should improve upon. We keep each other abreast of technical sessions we should attend, based on what would be useful for our jobs.

Other conference friends became partners in profitable projects. Networking takes time and patience, so those projects did not come overnight. In fact, the first directly profitable one for me came a full 10 years after I joined EWRI. These projects were results of a few years of meeting people with similar interests outside of the daily work environment, which led to outside-the-box ideas for projects. Getting inspiration for my daily job, acquiring skills in the environmental and water resources field, and making sincere friendships are the uplifting part of conferences; projects and products are the tangible results.

It’s conference season at EWRI, an essential time to advance our knowledge and make conference friends. Our annual Congress met in Minneapolis June 3-7. If you are one of the 1100 attendees and haven’t downloaded the proceedings or your professional development hours (PDHs), don’t forget to do it soon. And

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE check our Flickr site for photos from the Congress; you might be in one of them. Technical sessions ranged from topics such as Economic Aspects in Water, Desalination and Water Reuse, and Improv (yes, improv comedy!) Skills for Engineers. The most well attended sessions, with 70 or more attendees, were Stormwater Control Measures Performance and Modeling, Food-Energy-Water Nexus, and Advances in Watershed Modeling and Applications. 300 people in 74 committees met to work on issues ranging from Environmental Permitting to Groundwater Hydrology to History and Heritage.

And, yes, attendees were meeting new and old conference friends. I made a few new ones myself.

There is still time to register for the Low Impact Development Conference in Nashville, August 12 to 15. This is the 7th annual LID conference and is a result of conference friends and active EWRI members seeing a need for such a conference and making it happen. Attendance is expected to be around 500, with attendees coming from government, consulting firms, and academia, in the professions of engineering, landscape architecture, and environmental science.

Other career opportunities through EWRI conferences are on the horizon: the International Perspectives on Water and the Environment Conference in Cartagena, Colombia, December 4-7, and the 2019 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress in Pittsburgh, May 19-23. I hope you are able to participate, make conference friends, and gain inspiration and tangible results for your career.

Cris Surbeck President, ASCE-EWRI

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

EWRI Governing Board: Recent Actions and Decisions • Approved Kemal Niksic, P.E., of Mott MacDonald, to be the General Chair of the 2019 EWRI Congress Organizing Committee.

• Is planning the October 20, 2018 Leadership & Council Weekend in Reston, VA. • Approved the venue for the October 2019 Leadership & Council Weekend in Seattle, WA. • Is discussing a Memorandum of Understanding with the National for Infrastructure Modeling and Management (http://ncimm.org/).

• Underwent a peer evaluation by ASCE’s Technical Region Board of Governors.

• Is planning a dashboard tool to verify improvements according to the Strategic Plan.

• Accepted the election of the 2018-2019 EWRI vice-president per the recommendation of the Tellers Committee Report.

• Approved the formation of an EWRI Public Policy Task Committee to serve under the Governing Board.

Governing Board Members, 2017-2018 President: Cris Surbeck, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS President-Elect: Kevin Nielsen, CH2M/Jacobs, Corvallis, OR Vice President: Scott Struck, Geosyntec Consultants, Lafayette, CO Past President: Steve Starrett, LeTourneau University, Longview, TX Treasurer: Marge Bedessem, Trihydro Corporation, Laramie, WY Technical Activities Coordination (TAC) ExCom Representative: Eric Loucks, City of Austin, Austin, TX Member Services ExCom Representative: Michael Buechter, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, St. Louis, MO ASCE Presidential Appointee: Jennifer Sloan Ziegler, Waggoner Engineering, Jackson, MS Secretary: Brian Parsons, EWRI Director, Reston, VA

3

ASCE Federal Government Relations Natalie Mamerow ASCE members and leadership were out in force during the sixth annual Infrastructure Week, held May 14 – 21, 2018. Sections, branches, and members convened events, organized state legislative drive-ins, and participated in panels around the country. The national week of events, media coverage, education and issue advocacy, is designed to elevate infrastructure as a critical issue impacting America’s economy, society, security, and future. ASCE is a member of the Infrastructure Week steering committee. You can read more about ASCE’s participation in Infrastructure Week here.

On May 9, ASCE President Kristina Swallow testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works (EPW) about the importance of long-term, strategic investment in America’s water resources systems. She also voiced concerns about America’s economy and safety, citing ASCE’s 2017 Infrastructure Report Card and Failure to Act study. President Swallow emphasized ASCE’s support for many of the provisions in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2018, including the National Dam Safety Program, the National Levee Safety Program, the Securing Required Funds for Water Infrastructure Now (SRF WIN) Act, and alternative financing mechanisms such as the Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act (WIFIA) and Section 5014 of the Water Resources Reform & Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014. This message was reinforced by more than 50 staff visits by ASCE staff, Key Contacts, Legislative Fly-In Attendees, and Advocacy Captains who reached out to their members of Congress to add their voices of support.

In large part because of the advocacy efforts of ASCE members, the Senate included the SRF WIN Act in the final version of the WRDA bill, S. 2800. We expect the Senate to vote on the bill in the coming weeks. The House passed H.R. 8, its WRDA bill, on June 6 by a vote of 408 – 2, including reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program and the National Levee Safety Program, which were two of ASCE members’ “asks” during the March 2018 Legislative Fly-In. ASCE has endorsed both the Senate and the House WRDA bills. If this legislation is successfully passed and signed into law this year, it will be the third consecutive successful biennial passage of a WRDA bill.

Spring was a busy season for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure system investment news.

Not only did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deliver its 2015 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment Report to Congress and President Trump, but the agency also issued its first ever WIFIA loan, which went to King County, Washington to help finance a wastewater facility. ASCE and seven drinking water and wastewater organizations sent a letter to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Interior & the Environment urging them to make robust federal investments in water infrastructure in Fiscal Year 2019. The letter specifically asked the Committees to double the funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) programs and to fully fund WIFIA at its authorized FY19 level, among other requests. The FY18 omnibus included an additional $600 million for the CWSRF and DWSRF programs, bringing the combined funding for both programs to $2.85 billion. The omnibus also included an additional $63 million for the WIFIA program, more than doubling its appropriation compared to the FY17 enacted level.

Earlier this spring, ASCE sent letters to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with FY18 and FY19 requests for Congress to spend the $20 billion pot of federal funds for infrastructure investments that was allocated as part of this year’s budget deal. The letters urge Congress to www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

appropriate those additional funds to existing federal infrastructure programs that have already proven to be successful. ASCE reiterated that strategic, robust, and sustained investments, through long-term, reliable federal funding, as well as through the utilization of alternative financing mechanisms, must be made quickly if we hope to close the nation’s growing funding gap and restore America’s infrastructure. These advocacy efforts resulted in increased funding for many critical infrastructure programs across the board, including increased FY18 appropriations for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the CWSRF and DWSRF, and TIGER and Amtrak funding, among many others.

Congress is now working through the FY19 appropriations process, and the upcoming funding levels appear to largely be on track with the increased FY18 funding levels.

This June, both chambers of Congress passed an FY19 “minibus” spending package comprised of three appropriations bills: Energy & Water Development, Military Construction & Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch. Both chambers’ bills include increased FY19 funding levels for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers compared to the FY18 enacted level. The Senate worked in a bipartisan manner by not attaching controversial amendments known as “policy riders.” The House passed their version of the minibus, which did include policy riders, earlier this month; the two bills will now move to a conference committee to work out the differences. Congress has until September 30 to pass all twelve appropriations bills to fund the government.

In June, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved its FY19 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which includes $15 million for the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Program in its. ASCE has been a strong advocate for this program on Capitol Hill, first in securing authorization for the program in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, and now in working to ensure funding for it. This past April, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) led a group of seventeen Senators in calling for the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the program. These combined efforts have paid off, because the FY19 Homeland Security appropriations bill marks the first time since the program’s enactment that the program has received a funding request.

ASCE-EWRI members are urged to ask their Senators to support the FY19 Homeland Security appropriations bill, which includes funding for the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Program, when it makes its way to the Senate floor later this year.

In June, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public input for updates to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ASCE joined over 350 organizations calling for CEQ to extend their public comment period to ensure that the public has enough time to draft and submit comments that are as comprehensive as possible.

Earlier this summer, the Trump Administration released a proposal entitled, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century,” which aims to shrink the operating authority of federal agencies, sell assets, and re-organize specific agency programs. The proposal includes, among many other changes, moving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers out of the U.S. Department of Defense and into the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

5

Disadvantageous Ecological Repercussions Concomitant with Unconventional Oil and Gas Exploration Alexander Krokus | Portland State University, Oregon In the US, numerous entities that engage in unconventional methods of oil and gas exploration have vastly contaminated aquifers, lakes, streams, diminished air quality (Soeder and Kappel 2009; Kargbo et al. 2010; Gregory et al.

2011; Chalmers et al. 2012; Vidic et al. 2013; Brittingham et al. 2014; Mauter et al. 2014; Schneising et al. 2014; Gallegos et al. 2015) and augmented the frequency and intensity of injection induced seismicity (Weingarten et al. 2015).

In 2016 the USGS credibility validated that hydraulic fracturing (HF) wastewater injection significantly influences earthquake nucleation, and confirmed that the volume of injected produced water manipulates the quantity of induced seismicity incidences (USGS 2016; 2016b). The

Energy Policy Act (EPA) of 2005, 42 U.S.C. § 15801 established a decentralized approach regarding HF guidance, inaugurating a monumental loophole in federal regulation, making it extraordinarily difficult to hold any corporation or government actor liable for environmental infractions. The EPA of 2005 exempted HF from the CWA, 33 U.S.C § 1251, § 502, which allows the oil and gas industry to not be required to submit a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges associated with all gas processing activities, and from the SDWA, 42 U.S.C § 300f, § 1421(d) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The US Congress has also disregarded the use of a multitude of hazardous fracturing

Figure 1: US EPA 2016

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

fluid contaminants, protecting the HF industry under the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6921-6939g, Subtitle C, § § 3001-3023.

The US EPA estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 new HF wells were drilled annually in the US from 2011 to 2014 (EPA 2015). Also additional preexisting injection wells that are older than one year, were also hydraulically fractured.

50% of all US HF wells are situated in the state of TX. Because TX does not possess the available surface water to successfully conduct HVHF [High volume hemofiltration], vital groundwater is used to support the entire process (US EPA 2015).

From 2011-2014, 95% of the total water utilized for HVHF in the Barnett Shale region reoccurred as

produced water, which necessitated injection into class II wells US EPA 2016 with permission (17 U.S.C. § 105) Faulty well construction has released abundant amounts of methane and various toxic substances into precious groundwater supplies (Cadmus Group 2009; NY DEC 2011; Ridlington et al. 2015). An average of 6.5% of all HF wells acquire leaks shortly after being drilled.

This has the potential to contaminate local wells and aquifers, jeopardizing the biological safety of all nearby living organisms. From 2000 to 2013, approximately 9.4 million people in the US resided only within one mile of a HF well (US EPA 2015).

These relaxed zoning policies have the capability to negatively alter the contents of 6,800 sources of drinking water nationally (US EPA 2015).

A NY DEC analysis performed in 2011 focusing on produced HF wastewater, discovered innumerable hazardous materials such as As, Sb, 56Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, 28Ni, Ag, Sr, Tl, Ti, and a plethora of other biological inhibitors (NY DEC 2011).

According to the US EPA, chemicals used in the fracturing process usually only comprise a small percentage of the solution, approximately 2% (US EPA 2015).

If you consider that each individual HVHF well requires an average of over 5 million gallons of water for injection in the US (Gallegos et al.

2015), 30 times higher than in the year 2000, 2% is equivalent to over 100,000 gallons of chemicals at the low end of the spectrum, with the ability to generate an astounding 316,000 gallons of toxic chemicals per well, for each fracturing session. In southern CA, substantial

overlap has been recently observed regarding chemicals applied for well stimulation that abide by CA state mandated requirements, and chemicals utilized for routine activities that are not regulated. This data was produced despite not accounting for 276/525 (52%) of chemicals used in standard activities that did not possess a valid CASRN, and 373/525 (70%) that did not have available toxicity data (Stringfellow et al. 2017). This incumbrance infinitely underestimates any realistic projection for the overall ecological impact of the entire unconventional oil and gas extraction process.

Exercising extensive qualitative explanatory research, after reviewing thousands of documents published by 153 US Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s) focused on HF related human rights violations, revealed that a majority of communities adversely impacted are exceptionally concerned with the potential threat of unknown contamination in their water supply.

US federal legislators possess the authority to enact safe regulations under powers enabled by U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (Krokus 2017).

The SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §300h-1, section 1422 authorizes individual states as the primary enforcement entity for underground HF wastewater injection controls.

If a state agency does not adequately abide by rules instituted by the SDWA, the US EPA can employ appropriate enforcement actions and obtain jurisdiction over state regulatory agencies. SDWA, 42 U.S.C. § 300i, section 1431 grants the US EPA Administrator the legal consent to implement any standard to safeguard the health of individuals when an imminent

threat has been ascertained that will likely contaminate a public water system or underground source of potable water.

Since multiple state legislatures have repeatedly failed to adequately protect potable water supplies from HF contamination, affected individuals could possibly elect to exercise powers vested by section 1449, subsection (a), of the SDWA 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8, which permits any citizen to submit a civil suit against any state or nonpublic actor perceived to be violating any portion of the SDWA requirement, and also enables citizens the capability to engage in civil litigation against the US EPA Administrator for not performing essential duties to protect the health of the general public.

In State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp., 143 Ohio St.3d 271 2015, the OH court of appeals rejected the city of Munroe Falls argument pertaining to the OH Constitution Article XVIII § 3, which provides municipalities authority for land zoning requirements associated with the oil and gas industry. Since 35% of Ohioans do not have the right to state referendum or petition, perhaps these affected communities will attempt to litigate in federal court against the state of OH, for manifesting a state-initiated peril that endangers public welfare (OCRN 2017). This suit could be facilitated under protections granted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also SDWA 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8, as Flint, MI residents recently utilized in Boler et al. v. Early et al., Nos. 5:16-cv-10323; 5:15-cv-14002 (6th Cir. 2017).

Non-partisan hydrologists and environmental engineers must collaborate cohesively with state governments and local

7

municipalities, to implement safe HF standards and practical measures that will preserve optimum biodiversity in previously degraded habitats, and to also circumvent and restrict possible anthropogenically induced trophic cascades. Until the preservation of potable water supplies is sufficiently secured by environmentally friendly federal HF regulations, environmental scientists must strive to prudently educate elected officials, members of academic, along with their local communities, to guarantee human security for the populations presently encountering this immense ecological and legal dilemma.

This article is one of a regular series of reports produced by EWRI’s Interdisciplinary Council.

The Interdisciplinary Council is comprised of the Emerging and Innovative Technologies Committee, Hydraulic Fracturing Committee and Sustainability Committee. If you are interested in becoming a member of the Interdisciplinary Council or contributing an article, please contact Suresh Sharma.

References: Brittingham M, Maloney K, Farag A, Harper D, Bowen Z. 2014. Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48(19)11034–11047.

Cadmus Group. 2009. Hydraulic fracturing: preliminary analysis of recently reported contamination. Cadmus Group, Watertown, MA. Gallegos T, Varela B, Haines S, Engle M. 2015. Hydraulic fracturing water use variability in the United States and potential environmental implications. Water Resources Research.

51(7)5839-5845.

Gregory K, Vidic R, Dzombak D. 2011.

Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements. 7(3)181–186.

Kargbo D, Wilhelm R, Campbell D. 2010.

Natural gas plays in the marcellus shale: challenges and potential opportunities.

Environ. Sci. Technol.

44(15)5679–5684.

Krokus A. 2017. Vast rise of unconventional hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and the extensive adverse ecological and legal consequences resulting from failed federal and state regulatory policies.

2017 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting. PA008: Session-27047, Abstract PA21C-0354. Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. 12 December 2017. Presentation.

Mauter M. 2014. Regional variation in water-related impacts of shale gas development and implications for emerging international plays. Environ. Sci. Technol.

48(15)8298–8306.

NY DEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011. Supplemental generic environmental impact statement on the oil, gas, and solution mining regulatory program. Chapter 5. Natural gas development activities & high-volume hydraulic fracturing. Albany, N.Y. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_ minerals_pdf/rdsgeisch50911.pdf> OCRN (Ohio Community Rights Network).

2017. Statewide constitutional change: initiate and referendum amendment. <http://ohcommunityrights.org/projects/ statewide-constitutional-change/> Ridlington E, Dutzik T, Van Heeke T. 2015. Dangerous and close: fracking near Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable residents.

PennEnvironment. Frontier Group. 20-29. <https://pennenvironment.org/sites/environment/files/reports/PA_Close_Fracking_scrn.pdf> Schneising O, Burrows J, Dickerson R, Buchwitz M, Reuter M, Bovensmann H. 2014. Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in north American tight geological formations.

Earth’s Future, 2, 548-558. American Geophysical Union. DOI: 10.1002/2014EF000265.

Soeder D, Kappel W. 2009. Water resources and natural gas production from the marcellus shale: fact sheet. US Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD. 2009-3032, pp 6.

Stingfellow W, Camarillo M, Domen J, Shonkoff C. 2017. Comparison of chemical-use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and routine oil and gas development.

PLoS ONE 12(4): e0175344. <https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175344>

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. Assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R-15/047a. <https://www. epa.gov/sites/production/files/201507/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf> US EPA. 2016. Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/R 16/236ES. <https://www.epa.gov/ sites/production/files/201612/documents/hfdwa_executive_summary. pdf> USGS (United States Geological Survey).

2016. A rare moderate-sized (Mw 4.9) earthquake in Kansas: rupture process of the Milan, Kansas, earthquake of 12 November 2014 and its relationship to fluid injection. Seismol. Res. Letters, Vol. 87. pp. 1-9.

USGS. 2016b. Induced earthquake magnitudes are as large as (statistically) expected. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 121 (6), pp.4575–4590. <http:// www.its.caltech.edu/~pagem/InducedMmax.pdf> Vidic R, Brantley S, Vandenbossche J, Yoxtheimer D, Abad J. 2013. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science.

340(6134).

Weingarten M, Ge S, Godt W, Bekins B, Rubinstein J. 2015. High-rate injection is associated with the increase in U.S. mid-continent seismicity. Science.

348(6241)1336-1339.

Deborah Lee Joins EWRI Governing Board EWRI is pleased to announce the election of Deborah Hollister Lee P.E., PH, D.WRE, SES, M.ASCE as Vice President-Elect of the Institute's Governing Board.

Having been voted to the position by her peers in EWRI, Lee will participate in a leadership role for the next four years, rotating through the positions of Vice President, President-Elect, President, and Past-President. During her tenure on the Governing Board, Lee will maintain a variety of roles and responsibilities that vary with each title she assumes.

Ms. Lee is an award-winning, nationally recognized Leader in Water Resources Management and Research, Professional Engineer (PE), Professional Hydrologist, and Certified Facilities Engineer with 30+ years' experience in strategic water management, attendant civil works infrastructure and integrated ecosystem science in a high-pressure and public environment for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). Ms. Lee holds bachelor's and master's degrees in civil engineering from The Ohio State University and completed post-graduate civil and environmental engineering studies at the University of Michigan. She is a graduate of the USACE Leadership Program and several Federal Executive Institute programs including Leadership for Democratic Society. Ms. Lee is a member of the federal Senior Executive Service.

Dr. Jerry Rogers is Recipient of the 2018 Service to the Academy Award Dr. Jerry Rogers, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, Dist.M.ASCE has been announced as the recipient of the 2018 Service to the Academy Award by the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers (AAWRE), a subsidiary of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Dr. Rogers is recognized by the AAWRE for his significant contributions and work in furthering the mission and goals of the Academy, since the launch of the AAWRE. The AAWRE Service to the Academy Award was instituted by AAWRE in October 2014 to recognize a Diplomate, Water Resources Engineer that exemplifies leadership and service to the American Academy of Water Resources Engineers. This award is given annually to a Diplomate of AAWRE who has demonstrated outstanding and extensive service or contributions to the Academy.

Dr. Rogers is the 4th recipient of the AAWRE “Service to the Academy Award”.

Deadline for Environmental Award Nominations

Nominations for Society Awards with an environmental specialty are due October 1. Awards for achievement and awards for published papers will be presented at the 2019 World Environmental & Water Resources Congress in Pittsburgh, PA. Don’t miss this opportunity to recognize one of your peers, supervisors or mentors for their research or achievements.

Learn more about Society Awards!

9

Decompartmentalization Physical Model (DPM): Implementing Adaptive Management in the Florida Everglades - Second Largest Adaptive Management Project in the USA1 Project undertaken by South Florida Water Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, Everglades National Park Seyed M. Hajimirzaie, Colin J. Saunders, Susan Newman, Fred H. Sklar | South Florida Water Management district (SFWMD) The Everglades National Park (ENP) is the keystone of the South Florida natural system. The loss and degradation of this unique ecosystem has been driven by the interruption of sheetflow following hydrologic modifications (canals and levees) aimed to benefit societal needs such as flood control and water supply (Fig. 1). Restoration of the Everglades and South Florida natural system is a massive and complex undertaking with numerous ecological challenges. The ultimate goal is hydrologic restoration, which will be achieved by increasing water storage capacity and redistributing water to reestablish ecologically desirable patterns of depth, distribution, and flow in the freshwater wetlands and salinity regimes in estuaries. This hydrologic restoration will be achieved while also maintaining drainage, flood control, water supply, irrigation, and transportation for the more than 8 million people that inhabit South Florida.

Figure 1. The historical Everglades stretched from Orlando to the Florida Keys. Water from the Kissimmee River flowed south into shallow Lake Okeechobee. During the wet season, Lake Okeechobee overflowed, forming the slowmoving river of grass that extends to Florida Bay2 .

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

To achieve restoration, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized by Congress in 2000. CERP contains more than 60 major components that entail the development of reservoirs and wetland-based treatment areas. These components will vastly increase storage and water supply for the natural system, as well as for urban and agricultural needs, while maintaining current Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project purposes. The C&SF Project, first authorized by Congress in 1948, is a multi-purpose project that provides flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for ENP, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 3,404 km (2,115 mi) of levees, 3,483 km (2,164 mi) of canals, 75 pump stations, and over 800 water control structures. The C&SF was constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as local sponsor.

One of the last remnants of northern Everglades habitat is known as Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) as visible in Fig. 2. Spanning 3,425 km2 (846,387 acres) — 58 times larger than the island of Manhattan — the WCAs serve multiple water resource and environmental purposes, including flood control, water supply and habitat for South Florida’s plant and animal communities. Renowned for their clean water, unique landscape and birds and wildlife, the WCAs are popular for recreational activities such as fishing, hunting and bird watching.

WCA-3A, located in Miami-Dade County and adjacent to ENP, is a 2,036-square-kilometer (786-square-mile) labyrinth of small tree islands set in a matrix of wet prairies, sawgrass ridges and aquatic slough communities.

The WCA-3A Decompartmentalization (Decomp) and Sheetflow Enhancement Project is one of the projects identified to be implemented as part of CERP and is the heart of Everglades restoration. The purpose of this project is to hydrologically reconnect a significant component of the Everglades and restore sheetflow and water movement in the Everglades landscape. The Decomp project includes the modification or removal of levees, canals, and water control structures in WCA-3A. This effort will require a significant amount of engineering which will result in dramatic alteration to the ecosystem. In addition, there are numerous socio-ecological elements that need to be considered and addressed. Upon project completion, water would once again flow through this area unimpeded by structures and aligned with the original landscape directionality.

To address hydro-ecological uncertainty of the Decomp project, the Decomp Physical Model (DPM) was designed as a multi-agency initiative. The DPM is a landscape-scale, adaptive management field test and designed to answer uncertainties with depth, hydroperiod, sheetflow, and canal backfilling associated with the full-scale Decomp project. In addition, the DPM evaluates ecosystem response to sheetflow in an area that is overgrown with sawgrass. The DPM, situated between WCA-3A and WCA-3B in a region referred to as the “pocket”, consists of ten gated control culverts (S-152; max capacity 21 m3/s or 750 cfs) on the L-67A levee, a 914-meter (3,000-foot) gap in the L-67C levee with three 305-meter (1,000-foot) backfill treatments. Treatment options include no backfill, partial backfill, and complete backfill using adjacent levee material (Fig. 2). These features will provide a controllable hydrologic connection between WCA-3A and WCA-3B that is predicted to deliver velocities in excess of 3 cm/sec in pulsed events lasting 14 to 40 days (Fig. 3). The orthogonal distance between the L-67’s (pocket) is 1.9 km (1.2 mi).

1 2

https://www.nap.edu/read/10972/chapter/6 https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/everglades

11

DPM research questions are summarized as follows: 1. Sheetflow Questions: To what extent do entrainment, transport, and settling of sediments differ in ridge and slough habitats under high and low flow conditions? Does high flow cause changes in water chemistry and consequently changes in sediment and periphyton metabolism and organic matter decomposition?

2. Canal Backfill Questions: Will canal backfill treatments act as sediment traps, reducing overland transport of sediment? Will high flows entrain nutrient-rich canal sediments and carry them into the water column downstream? To what extent are these functions altered by the various canal backfill options, including partial and full backfills?

Key DPM preliminary results are: 1. Surface water flows are not following the historic ridge and slough flow-paths.

2. Sustained flows and high velocities are needed to rebuild the ridge and slough topography.

3. Sustained flows increase slough velocities and sediment transport.

4. Canals with limestone fill can prevent canals from acting as sediment traps.

5. Backfilling canals can improve habitat quality for large fish.

6. Canals with limestone fill can cap the legacy phosphorus and reduce sediment phosphorus transport downstream.

The project will be undertaken by a multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers from the SFWMD, USACE, US Geological Survey (USGS), and ENP, who all have significant experience conducting scientific research focused on the hydrology and ecology of the Everglades.

Figure 3. Location of water quality and flow monitoring for the field test. Green-colored water at Z5-1 is a Fluorescein dye used to track flow (SFER 2017).

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

Figure 2. The DPM, situated between WCA-3A and WCA-3B, consists of a 750 cfs culvert (S-152) on the L-67A levee, a 3000-foot gap in the L-67C levee with three 1,000-foot backfill treatments: no backfill, partial backfill, and complete backfill using adjacent levee material. The orthogonal distance between the L-67’s is 1.2 mi (1.9 km) (adopted from SFWMD and USACE facts & Information sheet, Sep. 2014).

References Sklar, F.H., and T. Dreschel (eds.). 2013. Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation. South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Sklar, F.H., and T. Dreschel (eds.). 2014. Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation. South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Sklar, F.H., and T. Dreschel (eds.). 2015. Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation. South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Sklar, F.H., and T. Dreschel (eds.). 2016. Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation. South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Sklar, F.H., and T. Dreschel (eds.). 2017. Chapter 6: Everglades Research and Evaluation. South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

13

Curve Number Hydrology Task Group: Revised NEH 630 Chapters The Curve Number Hydrology Task Group* has submitted (September 2017) revised chapters of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) NEH 630 to the NRCS. The Task Group, chaired by Richard (Pete) Hawkins, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASCE, F. EWRI, was working, as volunteers, under a cooperative agreement between the ASCE and the NRCS to review, update, and revise Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 12 of NEH 630. The Task Group was formed under the auspices of the Watershed Management Technical Committee (WMTC) of the EWRI. The Task Group was a logical extension of the WMTC’s CN Hydrology Task Committee work that resulted in publication of Curve Number Hydrology: State of the Practice (2009; ASCE; ISBN 978-0-78441004-2). Concepts and results presented in that publication, along with intervening research and guidance from academics and practitioners, helped inform and guide the suggested changes to the Curve Number (CN) method as detailed in the revised chapters submitted to the NRCS. The CN method is used to convert event rainfall (P) on a watershed into surface runoff (Q) from the watershed, where P and Q are expressed in length units, traditionally inches. The conversion takes place via a simple set of equations as: Q = (P-0.2S)2/(P+0.8S) for P>0.2S, Q = 0 otherwise S = (1000/CN) -10 where S, in compatible length units with P and Q, is the water storage index for the watershed. The value of CN varies from 0 (no runoff) to 100 (all rainfall runs off) and is related to soil type, vegetation cover, management practice, and numerous other watershed factors and storm characteristics. The first equation was developed based on the observation of limited data that the initial abstraction (loss), Ia, of rainfall before runoff began was equal to a fraction of S, i.e., Ia = 0.20S. From these humble beginnings in the 1950’s, the method has gained international acceptance, even for applications never intended for its use (i.e., rainfall runoff from small agricultural and rangeland watershed).

With the revised chapters, the Task Group has suggested a number of changes and/or enhancements to the method which are now being discussed within USDA agencies and on ASCE’s Collaborate. A recent journal article by Moglen, et al. (2018; ASCE; https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001681) has highlighted some effects that the suggested changes may cause in application of the method. The suggested changes include: •

•

•

•

Recognition that not all watersheds are suitable for application of the CN method. Rainfall runoff data from watersheds have shown that, in general, watershed behavior (or response) patterns fall into three groups of Standard, Complacent, and Violent. These patterns can be seen if CN values (derived from P and Q data) are plotted versus P. Additionally, it is recommended that the CN values are derived from rankordered (P,Q) pairs (Ordered data) and not the “naturally” occurring (Natural) pairs as observed in the data.

The Ordered pairings hew more closely to the intent of the original application of the method, design for large events and results are consistent with the original definitions of CN values. If the Ordered (P,Q) pairs are used to derive CN values and those values are plotted against P, the that graph will usually exhibit one of the three pattern types.

The Standard pattern shows CN decreasing with P until it reaches a constant value at some threshold P and remains constant as P increases. This pattern is sometimes called the Asymptotic pattern and is seen in watersheds that can be modelled by the CN method. This constant value, which can be found by inspection of the graph or by non-linear curve fitting, is the representative CN for the watershed at high (design) P values.

The Complacent pattern, very often observed in forested watersheds, shows CN decreasing monotonically with P and never reaching a constant value. Watersheds showing this type of behavior cannot be modelled using the CN method, i.e., the CN method is not applicable to humid heavily forested watersheds. Instead, a simple model of Q = cP (where c is a runoff coefficient) better depicts the relationship between P and Q. The Violent pattern is an offshoot of the Complacent pattern. In this response, CN decrease with

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

increasing P until a threshold P is reached and the CN (violently) jumps to a higher CN level and remains at that level as P continues to increase. Violent response is somewhat rare, but may be important in causing significant floods or geomorphic channel-disrupting events.

The Complacent and the Violent responses are not suitable for application of the CN method. Additionally, different watersheds respond differently, thus blind application of the CN method to all watersheds is not warranted.

•

The assumption of Ia = 0.20S may not be the most optimal choice. Instead, it is suggested that Ia = 0.05S leading to a revised equation for Q of: Q = (P-0.05S0.05)2/(P+0.95S0.05)

for P>0.05S0.05, Q = 0 otherwise

with the caveat that the S in this revised equation is based on a different CN derived from (P,Q) data pairs using the revised equation. One effect this change has is that runoff will be predicted at lower values of P than with the original equation. Moglen et al. (2018) discuss this effect and its implications. Because CN and S are related, it is possible to convert CN values based on Ia = 0.20S into CN values based on Ia = 0.05S. The conversion, using the suggested relationship of S0.05 = 1.42S0.20, is CN0.05 = CN0.20/(1.42-0.0042CN0.20)

•

•

where the subscripts designate the different assumptions about the Ia-S relationship. Thus, when applying the method, the correct CN (or S) needs to be paired with the correct form of the P-Q equation.

When computing the runoff depth from a watershed that contains two or more areas with different CN values, the runoff from each area should be estimated and then adjusted for the fraction of area it represent. This approach is different than calculating a composite CN for the watershed and then using the composite (i.e., area-weighted average) CN to estimate the runoff depth.

Endorsement of using CN tables based on local conditions. CN values should be developed under local professional and jurisdictional auspices, and as open documents. Local judgement, experience, data analysis, documentation, and negotiated conventions are suggested. However, the tables may need to be adjusted to apply to the recommended Ia = 0.05S.

No recommendations were offered on the common secondary applications of the CN technology such as hydrograph lag equations or unit hydrographs.

The Curve Number Task Group and sponsoring organizations appreciate feedback from the user community on the proposed changes. * The major authors and contributors have been, in alphabetical order: Hunter Birckhead, P.E., M.ASCE; James V. Bonta, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE; Donald Frevert, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE (Ret), F.ASCE; Claudia Hoeft, P.E., F.ASCE (USDA NRCS liaison); Richard H. Hawkins, Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI, F.ASCE (Task Group chair); Rosanna La Plante, P.E., M.ASCE; Michael E. Meadows, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE; Julianne Miller, A.M.ASCE; Steven C. McCutcheon, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE (Ret), F.EWRI, F.ASCE; Glenn Moglen, Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI, F.ASCE; David Powers, P.E., D.WRE, F.ASCE; John Ramirez-Avila, Ph.D., ING., M.ASCE; E. William Tollner, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, F.ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers [ASABE] representative); Joseph A. Van Mullem, P.E., M.ASCE; Tim J. Ward, Ph.D., P.E., F.EWRI, F.ASCE (Task Group co-chair); and Donald E. Woodward, P.E., F.ASCE (Task Group co-chair). External reviewers of the chapters were, alphabetically, William J. Elliot, Ph.D., P.E., F. ASABE; Karen C. Kabbes, P.E., D.WRE, ENV SP, F.ASCE; and Will Thomas, Jr., PH. Submitted by Tim J. Ward on behalf of the leadership of the Curve Number Task Group

15

Zebra and Quagga Mussels: Invasive Species Impacting Water/Water Resources Infrastructure Christopher H. Chiu, Monica Palomo, Anastasia Chirnside, Tara S. Kulkarni Introduction - The most often identified concerns about water infrastructure are associated with public safety. To protect public health, the Safe Drinking Water Act allows states to establish their own drinking water standards based on EPA’s national requirements, however, source protection has also been considered to minimize health risks that can greatly mitigate water quality potential concerns. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified more than one-third of all States have water bodies that are listed for invasive species, found under section 303d of the 1977 Clean Water Act (source: McCormick et al., 2010).

The most common aquatic invasive species in United States are zebra (Dreissena polymorpha) mussels and quagga (D. bugensis) mussels. They are freshwater mussels that have been spreading around the western and European waterways for almost 200 years. (source: University of Minnesota – Minnesota Sea Grant). They have a high tolerance to a broad range of environmental conditions such as food concentration, temperature, and calcium concentration; possess a rapid growth rate; and have a high adaptability.

What do they look like?

People often mistake them for one another due to their similar habitat preferences and appearances.

Both have light (white, yellow, or

Figure 1. Quagga Mussels removed from Lake Skinner, CA.

cream) and dark (black, brown, or green) alternating banding on the shells. Zebra and Quagga mussels are relatively small (less than 1.5 inches) and often appeared as D-shaped. Quagga mussels typically have a rounded shell while Zebra mussels are more triangular shaped in appearance. (source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) How? Quagga and Zebra mussels have spread to the Great Lakes from Europe in ballast water discharge from transatlantic ships.

They attach to hulls and trailers of boats and spread to North America. (source: University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2013). Invasive aquatic organisms like these can affect the native environment by altering functions of lakes, watersheds and coastal ecosystems. They can

www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

travel easily over considerable distances adhering to the bottom of ships. They can also cause the clogging of water conveyance systems and pipelines. The appearance of Quagga mussel can be traced back to 1988 in the Great Lakes.

Overseas ships have dumped ballast water along with Quagga and Zebra mussels that were native to Europe and western Asia. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Quagga and Zebra mussels were first discovered in Lake Mead, Nevada in 2007. Subsequent reports have shown that invasive species entered the Colorado River Aqueduct System, which is the water source for a large portion of the LA metropolitan area in Southern California. They have spread across the Southern California water treatment and distribution system and have affected the water quality ever since.

Why? Quagga/Zebra mussels accumulate organic pollutants at concentrations 300,000 times greater than the typical levels found in the environment (source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife). In addition, the mussels decrease the oxygen level in the water during their life cycle, reducing pH to an acidic level, and producing toxic byproducts.

Accumulation of quagga mussels attached to pipelines, screens and treatment plant facilities can cause steel and concrete to

Figure 2. Closer view of Quagga Mussels obtained from Lake Skinner, CA. Photo taken

by Dr. Monica Palomo.

corrode, affecting treatment efficiency and infrastructure stability. These species also clog screens and intake pipes of water reservoirs and water treatment plants, power plants and irrigation systems. In many instances, signs of infestation on boats are difficult to detect because their larvae are not visible to human eyes.

Female quagga mussels produce more than 1 million eggs per year (source: Water Education Foundation, 2018) Cost – The cost of maintaining water systems in working condition once they have been invaded by one of these species is high. The United States spend more than $120 billion in damages and management every year (source: Pimental et al., 2005). They are expensive to control and virtually impossible to eradicate. Management costs are high especially for water supply agencies and industrial water users such as power plants. The department of the Interior has budgeted and spent over $100 million on prevention, control and management, early detection and responses, research, and restoration of habitats in the year 2011 (source: US Fish & Wildlife Service).

Preventative measures Management of Quagga mussel

and Zebra mussel infestations become important as most water bodies are at risk. Preventive actions including development of response plans, risk assessments, vulnerability assessments, and monitoring programs are needed.

When possible colonization of quagga/zebra mussels should be prevented, and once colonization has been determined, various control plans need to be implemented. The most common treatment methods used to control Quagga and Zebra mussels in water include filtration, ultraviolet (UV) and chemical oxidation (source: State of Michigan, 2017). Applied management strategies should include physical, biological, and

chemical processes. Physical control methods include mechanical removal and filtration, high pressure water jet cleaning, and freezing or desiccation.

Biological control measurements include utilization of selectively toxic microbes. Certain types of water microbes and soil could be selectively lethal to zebra mussels when applied at high water densities. Chemical control methods that utilize oxygen deprivation and chemical molluscicides can also be used (source: State of Michigan, 2017).

Conclusion- The operational costs of infrastructure are affected by the length of time it is in service with none or minimum maintenance, as well as by the costs of chemicals added to ensure safe water quality for public consumption.

Operational costs are also influenced by the changes in water quality that happen right at the source due to diverse environmental factors and /or due to the invasion of foreign species that can create a detrimental effect in the natural ecosystems and in the integrity of the waterworks. The operation and efficiency of drinking water infrastructure should be evaluated at all steps of the process from the intake water source to the maintenance of equipment in order to ensure that an adequate and consistent supply of clean drinking water is available to the public.

Acknowledgements: • Student Council • Environmental Health and Water Quality Committee

Figure 3. Quagga Mussels found from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s Reservoir, Lake Skinner, CA. Photo taken by Dr. Monica Palomo.

17

Upcoming Conferences

INTERNATIONAL LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Nashville, TN | August 12-15, 2018 Getting in Tune with Green Infrastructure

REGISTRATION IS OPEN

www.lidconference.org www.asce.org/ewri • EWRI Currents • Volume 20, Number 3 • Summer 2018

Featured Publications

Thank you to the EWRI Communications Council: EDITOR Chad Drummond (407) 417- 1220 NEWS CORRESPONDENTS Irrigation and Drainage Council Robert Evans Watershed Council Jeff Rieker Hydraulics & Waterways Council Kit Ng Sustainability Task Committee Rick Johnson WR Planning & Management Tim Feather

New Seminars Stormwater Ponds: Inflows, Routing, and Outlet Structure Design August 23â&#x20AC;&#x201C;24, 2018 | Boston, MA Stormwater ponds can be designed to provide numerous functions, including reducing peak discharges and improving water quality.

Improperly designed, they can be ineffective and even be a hazard to the public. This seminar will provide you with the information needed to design an appropriately sized stormwater pond that will provide numerous benefits and limit liabilities.

Environmental Council Wendy Cohen Standards Development Council Conrad Keyes Urban Water Resources Research Council Shirley Clark Urban Stormwater Committee Christine Pomeroy Emerging & Innovative Technology Council Sean McKenna 19