Microsoft Conference_Session_3 X Conference Session 3
User Manual: Pdf Conference Session 3-
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 62
| Download | |
| Open PDF In Browser | View PDF |
4/3/2017 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference Welcome to the Welcome to the Conference • Continuing Education Credits – We are offering PDHs for our national watershed and stormwater conference. A registered attendee must watch the entire webcast to be eligible to earn a pdf Certificate of Completion that will be sent out after webcast to the person who registered for the webcast. The certificate will indicate the Number of PDH hours earned. The varying nature of certification requirements for each state means we cannot guarantee that CEU’s will be awarded and it is up to the individual to determine if CEU’s or PDH’s will be awarded based on the policies of their local certifying board. Email webcast@cwp.org with questions. 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference Thanks to Our Sponsors To Adjust How the Slides Appear on Your Screen – To make the slide area larger, go to Full Screen under the Meeting Tab. To Answer a Poll Question – Polling questions appear during the webcast. To answer a poll question, click on the radio button to the left of your answer and click submit. Do not type your answer in the chat box. Patron Level Gold Level To Ask a Question – The right corner of the screen contains a Q&A chat box. Type your question in the box and click on the send question icon to submit it. We will try to answer as many questions as possible during and after the webcast. 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference Thanks to Our Sponsors Silver Level 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference Thanks to Our Hub Location Funders Omaha Philadelphia Boston Bronze Level 1 4/3/2017 2017 National Watershed & Stormwater Conference Webcast Team National Webcast 3: Emerging Tools in Watershed Protection, Restoration & Implementation Jeff Duke GIS Services Manager Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Collaborative GIS‐centric Field Data Collection Used by NEORSD for Regional Stormwater Management Program Marcus Quigley D.WRE, P.E. CEO, Opti Jeffrey Duke, P.E., GISP GIS Services Manager dukej@neorsd.org or gis@neorsd.org 216‐881‐6600 x. 6456 April 4, 2017 Bill Hodgins Senior Water Resources Engineer Center for Watershed Protection Dr. Srini Dharmapuri LIDAR Scientist Michael Baker International Discussion Topics Overview – Regional Stormwater Management Program 1. Overview Goal – Addressing flooding, erosion, and water quality problems 2. …ations 3. GIS Tools Target – Regional Stormwater System (420 Miles) 4. Lessons Learned Service Area – 350+ Sq. Mi. 9 Overview – Program Components Stormwater Master Plans Inspect & Maintain Construct Projects Encourage Good Practices NEORSD Enterprise GIS Platform Overview Intranet Application Geocortex Essentials Internet/Web GIS ArcGIS Online Storymaps Program Administration – Funding/Billing Data Collection & Management – SMP GIS Desktop ArcGIS & Operations Dashboard Enterprise GIS ARCGIS Server Oracle DBMS Mobile GIS Explorer for ArcGIS Collector for ArcGIS Survey 123 2 4/3/2017 Discussion Topics NEORSD Enterprise GIS Platform Overview GIS Data & Tools are available: Anytime (~24/7/365) Internet/Web GIS ArcGIS Online Storymaps Anywhere (with Internet Access) Any device (desktop, tablet, phone) Intranet Application Geocortex Essentials 1. Overview 2. …ations 3. GIS Tools 4. Lessons Learned Business decisions don’t wait till you are Mobile GIS Desktop ArcGIS & at your desk… Explorer for ArcGIS Operations Dashboard Enterprise GIS ARCGIS Server Oracle DBMS Collector for ArcGIS Survey 123 14 …ations Discussion Topics – Innovations – Changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, products or processes 1. Overview – Foundation – Adaptable foundation to support current and future watershed management & SMP initiatives 2. …ations – Collaborations – Work together to enhance project results – Implementations – GIS Tools able to be developed and implemented very efficiently, consistently and cost‐effectively 3. GIS Tools – Information – GIS Tools enhance Access, Analysis, Reporting and Management (AARM) functions to support decision making 4. Lessons Learned – Administration – Project and Program administration tasks made more effective, efficient and transparent 16 GIS Tools – Innovation NEORSD – WebGIS Platform GIS Tools – Foundation Stormwater Master Plan Projects Cuyahoga River South – Q3 2016 Cuyahoga River North – Q1 2017 Rocky River – Q3 2017 H&H Modeling Problem ID Solution Development Data Collection Field Inspection & Condition Assessment 3 4/3/2017 GIS Tools – Collaboration Project GIS Sites SWMP Project GIS Sites have been established to provide access to GIS Tools and GIS datasets – available to all internal and external project stakeholders GIS Tools – Collaboration Project GIS Sites Access to: - Maps & Apps - Layers - Tools - Files Secure & controlled GIS Tools – Implementations Data Collection – Collector for ArcGIS GIS Tools – Implementations Data Collection – Survey 123 for ArcGIS GIS Tools – Administration Operations Dashboards – “Right Here – Right Now” GIS Tools – Administration Operations Dashboards – “Right Here – Right Now” Where are we working? How many problems identified? How much is done? How much work is remaining? Categorization of Problems 4 4/3/2017 GIS Tools – Information Access – Multiple Datasets – Multiple Sources GIS Tools – Administration Operations Dashboards – “Right Here – Right Now” Internal (Enterprise) Sources • • • • • • • • • • RSS Assets (Multiple classes) Storm/Sanitary Sewers Model Info (Inputs & Outputs) Monitoring Locations HSTS Locations IDDE Information (WQ Issues) SWIM Inspections BTU Assets & Assessments Problem Locations And So On… GIS Tools – Information Access – StoryMaps – Watershed Information External Sources • Basemap/Boundary Layers • Parcel Information • Facility Information – As‐Builts – Inspections • • • • • Topography/Lidar Community Information State & Federal Information Project Datasets And So On… GIS Tools – Information Access – StoryMaps – Grant Projects GIS Tools – Information/Administration Funding – Fee Administration Discussion Topics 1. Overview 2. …ations 3. GIS Tools 4. Lessons Learned Public Application http://www.neorsd.org/stormwaterfeemap.php 30 5 4/3/2017 Today (2017) & Tomorrow (2018) Lessons Learned ‐ Summary Be Aware Benefits Administration/Planning Awareness/Buy‐In Education/Training Evolution/Enhancements Formal/Informal Communication • Permissions/Rights • New World • • • • • • • • • – Devices – Functions/Tools – Resources • • • • • Awareness/Availability Collaboration Communication Confidence (Accuracy/Currency) Efficiency (Delivery/Decisions) Effectiveness/Productivity Return on Investment Scalability/Sustainability Understanding Continue providing: Smarter Apps To support: Smarter Decisions Customers: Better Services & Awareness Application Development Communication & Outreach Operational Awareness Administration Continue optimization, integration, tool use User Awareness & Education Project Management Dashboards Best Practices Documentation Survey 1‐2‐3 Open Data Workforce Public Apps Executive Management Dashboards ArcGIS Online Featured Maps Gallery NEORSD – WebGIS Platform – Top 5 Uses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Asset Management – Inventory, Inspection & Condition Assessment Stormwater Program – Fee Development, Customer Service Projects – Data Collection & Management – 3 SMPs, 2 SSESs ‐ $30M – Data Collection Internal – Departmental Workflows – Custom Maps/Apps – e.g. Property Interests Internal Data Collection/Map Changes Jeffrey Duke, P.E., GISP GIS Services Manager dukej@neorsd.org or gis@neorsd.org 216‐881‐6600 x. 6456 April 4, 2017 Agenda Introduction Technical Issues Project Results Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Mapping and Inspection Applications FAQ Srini Dharmapuri PhD, CP 6 4/3/2017 What’s in a Name? Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Introduction Autopilot RC Controller Aircraft Payload (Camera…) Ground Station Preferred terminology of the FAA What’s in a Name? Technical Issues Types of UAS General Types Multi Rotors Fixed Wing Multi Rotors Fixed Wing 4/3/2017 42 7 4/3/2017 Suitability Fixed‐Wing sUAS Precision Hawk Lancaster III Multiple Sensor Capability (RGB, IR, LIDAR, etc.) Flight Duration: 45‐Minute Acquisition Footprint: @ 100‐Acre (each battery) Line of Sight Operational Range Operational Ceiling: 12,000’ Fully‐Autonomous Flight Capability (w/override failsafe) Semi‐Automated Flight Planning 4/3/2017 43 4/3/2017 sUAS 44 UAS Data Processing TOPCON Falcon 8 • High-resolution Camera • Automated Collision Avoidance • Inspections/Monitoring/Volumetrics Rebirth of Photogrammetry – Point clouds from imagery . . It’s all About the point cloud. 4/3/2017 45 4/3/2017 Point Cloud 46 Point Cloud Point Cloud: LiDAR Point Cloud A set of data points usually defined by X, Y, and Z values in a 3D coordinate system Active sensor generates signal/return Aerial Photo/Imagery Intended to represent the external geographic surfaces Point clouds are most commonly created by LiDAR systems, but can be generating from photographic images, too Passive sensor measures and records naturally reflected daylight Semi Global Matching (SGM) –uses two overlapping images to create a point clouds as Accuracy of the point cloud depends on the accuracy of the images (scale, flying height, etc.) More points penetrating the canopy = more detailed DEM. 4/3/2017 47 4/3/2017 48 8 4/3/2017 DSM/DEM DSM DEM Project Results 4/3/2017 49 4/3/2017 50 4/3/2017 52 4/3/2017 54 Mapping Project Results Using PH Mapping Project Results using PH Location: Harford Landfill, MD Area: 30 acres Flying Height: 70m Total Exposures : 692 Native resolution : 3 cm Number of missions : 1 Time for collection : 30 minutes. Prep time 1 – 1.5 hours. Number of Controls established: 24 Number of Controls used in the processing: 12 Number of controls used in Accuracy Analysis: 12 4/3/2017 51 Mapping Project Results Using PH Mapping Project Results Using PH 4/3/2017 53 9 4/3/2017 Inspection Applications Mapping Project Results Using PH https://www.youtube.com/MichaelBakerUAS 4/3/2017 55 4/3/2017 56 FAQ Ease of use in a particular application? Easy to deploy and collect the data and process. You need to have an aircraft, a FAA certified pilot and the site is suitable for flying. What are the benefits to its use; Easy to deploy, maintain and very quickly results can be produced. There is a cost efficiency in using UAS. Does it require specialized a consultant to implement or to use? You need to have FAA certified pilot and people who have the mapping background. Some state laws will require the product to be sign and seal off. Is it likely to be obsolete due to software/hardware upgrades? Partly yes. How long did it take to put into use? Time to implement is very less, Few days and not weeks. Is there a large maintenance price tag.? No. There is no big price tag. Is it costly? No. VTOL equipment around 6k and software 6 – 10k. Based on the data, the UAS cost should be around 60% ‐ 70% of the conventional mapping cost (Photogrammetry) 4/3/2017 57 Questions 4/3/2017 58 Emerging Tools in Watershed Protection, Restoration, and Implementation Questions New Approaches to Flood Control, Water Quality, and Combined Sewer Overflow with Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Control Center for Watershed Protection 2017 National Stormwater Conference April 4, 2017 4/3/2017 59 10 Emerging Tools in Watershed Protection, Restoration, and Implementation New Approaches to Flood Control, Water Quality, and Combined Sewer Overflow with Continuous Monitoring and Adaptive Control Center for Watershed Protection 2017 National Stormwater Conference April 4, 2017 About Opti ● Initial research by NOAA, EPA, WERF in 2007 ● Full commercialization of technology in 2014 – Opti Formed as an Independent Company ● Deployed over 130 commercial and public projects across 21 states ● >40M gallons storage under active management Regulatory Approvals CMAC for the Enhancement and Conversion of Existing Best Management Practices Maryland Department of the Environment 01/27/2016 Chesapeake Bay Program 11/15/2016 The Problems We Address in New Ways Polluted runoff flowing into Lake Michigan Toxic Algal Bloom caused by runoff Flooding Discharge of raw sewage and runoff How does CMAC Function? NWS forecast Secure continuous monitoring and adaptive control ● ● ● 1 ● Built on modern cloud architecture Web-based dashboards Provides data transparency and infrastructure intelligence Applies where timing, duration, volume, and peak flow reduction are important. 2 3 Field View of Hardware Components OPTI CONTROL PANEL LEVEL SENSOR ACTUATED VALVE How CMAC works 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Read forecast Prepare for incoming runoff Manage discharge during wet weather Meet retention goals Manage discharge to return to dry weather level 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 15-Aug 4 5 1 3 2 16-Aug 17-Aug Pond Volume 18-Aug Inflow Discharge 19-Aug 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 20-Aug 6 flow rate (cfs) volume (cubic feet) 0.97” rainfall Types of Stormwater Infrastructure/Assets Opti Controls North Bethany, OR (Clean Water Services) Conowingo Elementary School, Conowingo, MD Rainwater Harvesting Cistern University Blvd Pond, Silver Spring, MD (NFWF) Frost Pond (Dry), Prince George’s County, MD (NFWF) Case Study 1: Philadelphia CSO mitigation on private property 8-acre drainage area Adaptively Controlled Retention CMAC in Philadelphia Performance Analysis (Data from Philadelphia) Modeled pond volume and flows with passive outlet control Observed pond volume and flows with Opti system control • CMAC system exceeded PWD’s criteria for wet weather site discharge by completely avoiding wet weather outflow for nearly all rain events. • In total, during a period with approximately 1.01 million gallons of runoff generated from 14 storm events, the system prevented 0.97 million gallons of water from entering the combined sewer during wet weather. Performance Analysis (a closer look at flow) Modeled flows with passive outlet control Observed flows with Opti system control CMAC resulted in a 96% reduction in wet weather flow volume (1.01M gallons of runoff to 40K gallons) Case Study 2: Johnson County Stormwater and Lenexa, KS water quality + flood control retrofit Adaptively Controlled Retention CMAC in Lenexa, KS City Center Coon Creek East Coon Creek North Coon Creek South Goal: Water quality improvement while increasing flood control capacity Construction: Retrofit existing outlet structures (City of Lenexa performed retrofit) CMAC in Lenexa, KS CMAC in Lenexa, KS CMAC in Lenexa, KS CMAC in Lenexa, KS CMAC Simplified Logic • Coon Creek Ponds – Release Before Forecasted Storm • Coon Creek North and South – Adjust release timing and watershed area to maximize benefit of facilities in the same watershed • City Center – Allow storm to fill pond above permanent pool, release after retention period CMAC Preliminary Storms Coon Creek East – December 17 City Center – January 15 CMAC Preliminary Storms Coon Creek North – January 15 Coon Creek South – January 15 Case Study 3: Curtiss Pond Capitol Region Watershed District, MN flood control retrofit Adaptively Controlled Retention Adaptive Control of Existing Storage for Flood Reduction How CMAC Operates for Curtiss Pond (Flood Control Retrofit of Existing Wet Storage) Case Study 4: Clean Water Services, OR flow-duration control + peak control + water quality 2M Gallons Adaptively Controlled Detention/Retention Portland, OR - Flow Control & Hydrograph Matching Washington County, Oregon 6 ac-ft pond for flood and channel erosion protection Control Panel Actuated Valve in Flow Control Vault Based on continually updated precipitation forecasts, automated valve controls discharge to achieve flow-duration goals Flow Control & Hydrograph Matching Flow-Duration Control Highlights • 60% reduction in wet weather volume • 70% reduction in volume within erosive flow range • Increase in residence time from 1 to 19 hours • 30% lower peak flow in large events • Ability to adjust control parameters to target alternative goals Case Study 5: Anacostia Watershed Prince George’s County, MD peak flow reduction + water quality 2 ac-ft Adaptively Controlled Detention/Retention Performance Study – Anacostia River Watershed • 3 CMAC retrofits (2 ponds) • Prince George’s County ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Frost Pond 2 ac-ft dry pond 60 acre drainage; 32% imp. Built 1988 • Montgomery County ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ University Blvd Pond 15 ac-ft wet pond 440 acre drainage; 36% imp. In line on Sligo Creek • Ponds retrofit November 2015 Performance Study – Frost Dry Pond 30 Frost Dry Pond– Hydraulic Monitoring Mar 23 – May 12 Monitoring + Control 5.49 inches Jan 12 – Feb 28 Monitoring, No Control 5.95 inches Frost Dry Pond – Enhanced Performance No Control Forecast-Based CMAC Control Total Rainfall (in) 5.95 5.49 Total Runoff (CF) 336,481 279,310 C = 0.23 C = 0.26 Total Discharge (CF) 305,840 197,243 Total Infiltration and ET (CF) Average Retention Time (hrs) 30,803 9% 81,524 29% 4.0 18.2 The CMAC retrofit increases infiltration and ET by extending the retention time, also providing a mechanism for increased settling and nutrient uptake. Frost Dry Pond – 1 inch Rainfall Event No Outflow Control Detain peak of storm CMAC Retrofit Retain runoff for 48 hours Frost Dry Pond – September 19, 2016 Rainfall Event 9/19/2016 9:35AM 9/21/2016 10:04AM Case Study 6: Montgomery County, MD peak flow reduction + water quality 15 ac-ft Adaptively Controlled Detention/Retention Performance Study – University Blvd Wet Pond 36 University Blvd Wet Pond – Monitoring 2015 to 2017 Continuous ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Water level Rainfall Temperature Conductivity pH Turbidity Nitrate TSS Grab Sampling ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ Flow TSS Nitrogen Phosphorus 37 University Blvd Wet Pond – Hydraulic Monitoring PASSIVE BASELINE ACTIVE CONTROL 38 University Blvd Wet Pond – TSS Removal Comparison Passive Baseline Active Control University Blvd Wet Pond – TSS Removal University Blvd Wet Pond – Pollutant Removal TSS During 0.30" Storm 150,000 50 50,000 3/20/2016 3/21/2016 3/22/2016 TSS During 0.32" Storm 300 50,000 3/20/2016 3/21/2016 3/22/2016 3/23/2016 Nitrate During 0.32" Storm 1.5 200 350,000 150 250,000 100 150,000 50 450,000 Nitrate (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) 150,000 450,000 250 0 3/27/2016 250,000 0.5 0.0 3/19/2016 3/23/2016 350,000 50,000 3/28/2016 3/29/2016 3/29/2016 1.0 350,000 250,000 0.5 150,000 0.0 3/27/2016 3/30/2016 TSS During 0.52" Storm 500 50,000 3/28/2016 3/29/2016 3/29/2016 3/30/2016 Nitrate During 0.52" Storm 1.5 450,000 250,000 200 150,000 100 0 7/18/2016 50,000 7/19/2016 7/20/2016 7/20/2016 7/21/2016 Volume (CF) TSS (mg/L) 350,000 Nitrate (mg/L) 450,000 400 300 Volume (CF) 250,000 100 1.0 Volume (CF) 150 Nitrate (mg/L) 350,000 Volume (CF) TSS (mg/L) 200 450,000 Volume (CF) 450,000 250 0 3/19/2016 Nitrate During 0.30" Storm 1.5 1.0 350,000 250,000 0.5 150,000 0.0 7/18/2016 50,000 41 7/19/2016 7/20/2016 7/20/2016 7/21/2016 Volume (CF) 300 University Blvd Wet Pond– DRAFT Pollutant Removal Nitrogen Percent Removal Storm Size TSS Percent Removal CMAC MDE Wet Pond* Storm Size 0.30 28% 20% 0.32 42% 0.52 CMAC MDE Wet Pond* 0.30 53% 40% 21% 0.32 71% 41% 48% 26% 0.52 88% 53% 0.79 68% 30% 1.0 77% 61% 1.32 47% 36% 2.5 86% 72% *Credits given for water quality volumes in Accounting for Stormwater Wasteload Allocations and Impervious Acres Treated, MDE,2014 Case Study 7: EPA Headquarters rainwater harvesting + cso mitigation 6K Gallons Adaptively Controlled Cisterns Intelligent Stormwater Detention to Mitigate CSOs EPA Headquarters, D.C. ● 6,000 gallons of storage for roof drainage ● Prevents discharge to combined sewer during rain events Intelligent Stormwater Detention to Mitigate CSOs ● 2 years in operation ● No significant irrigation demand ● 175K+ gallons wet weather flow prevented to combined sewer by CMAC EPA HQ Cisterns Example Event Storage at 11:07 am ET 6/28/16 – 5080.7 gallons Continuous Simulation Results for Entire US Results from Continuous Simulation Modeling Performance of Opti in Chicago Simulation CSO Passive Storage Opti Active Storage Average wet weather discharge 0.045 cfs 0.018 cfs Average wet weather discharge during inflow > 0.25 cfs 0.262 cfs 0.164 cfs Wet weather capture 2% 63% Percent time runoff retained 2% 92% Metric Note: averages shown for 1 inch storage size 1: No withdrawals were simulated. In the passive system, no water was available for use because the outflow valve was always open. In the Opti system, water captured and not released during wet weather was considered available for use. The value shown is the annual average capture volume. Volume Discharged During Wet vs. Dry Weather Passive Discharge Volume Discharged During Wet vs. Dry Weather Opti Discharge Questions & Contact Marcus Quigley, P.E. Chief Executive Officer – OptiRTC, Inc. mquigley@optirtc.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Philadelphia Water Department Johnson County Stormwater City of Lenexa, KS Clean Water Services National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Metro Washington Council of Governments Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County, MD Montgomery County, MD US EPA Capitol Region Watershed District
Source Exif Data:
File Type : PDF File Type Extension : pdf MIME Type : application/pdf PDF Version : 1.7 Linearized : No Author : Chris Create Date : 2017:04:03 17:39:26-04:00 Modify Date : 2017:04:12 15:22:51-04:00 XMP Toolkit : Adobe XMP Core 4.2.1-c043 52.372728, 2009/01/18-15:08:04 Creator Tool : PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 Metadata Date : 2017:04:12 15:22:51-04:00 Format : application/pdf Title : Microsoft PowerPoint - Conference_Session_3 final.pptx Creator : Chris Producer : Acrobat Distiller 9.5.5 (Windows) Document ID : uuid:f7cb2ed3-8576-449e-8574-067e064ba575 Instance ID : uuid:cf057d98-b863-4098-8770-fb9967f5d802 Page Count : 62EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools