Utilize Green Infrastructure in Great Lakes Areas of Concern

Part of the reason why remediation of a legacy of industrial pollution identified as Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the St. Clair River-Detroit River corridor is taking decades to achieve is the over-reliance on concrete and steel projects where green infrastructure would be more effective.

For example, as a means of stormwater control, public and private interests in New York City (including one auto company, Toyota) determined to plant a million trees in 10 years. They achieved that goal in eight years.

In the metro Detroit area (home of three auto companies), large-scale tree planting has been forsaken out of preference for huge concrete and steel projects like the so-called retention-treatment basins (RTBs). Nevertheless, downstream pollution, including sedimentation and turbidity, continues to be problematic.

Kuhn RTB - Oakland County, Michigan

One such, the massive Kuhn RTB (formerly known as Twelve Towns) in Oakland County, recently expanded, continues to divert partially screened and treated, sediment-laden surges down the Red Run Drain to the Clinton River and on to Lake St. Clair when overwhelmed by heavy rainstorms, instead of pumping the effluent to the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant as usual.

Better water quality in Great Lakes AOCs can be hastened by greater reliance on green infrastructure.

Terraced Stormwater Retention Ponds

Liupanshui City, Guizhou Province, China: Photo shows terraced stormwater retention ponds in regenerative urban wetland park designed by Turenscape.

http://inhabitat.com/turenscapes-regenerative-wetland-park-cleans-up-a-post-industrial-landscape-in-china/liupanshui-minghu-wetland-park-by-turenscape-7/?extend=1

Using Fungi to Destroy E. coli in Stormwater

For years, Paul Stamets, Dr. Marc Beutel and Katherine Brownson, separately and together, have been studying the ability of certain species of fungi to clean up polluted water.

Stamets’ base of operations is Fungi Perfecti, LLC, a mushroom farm, research and distribution center in Oregon which Stamets founded with Dusty Yao.

Dr. Beutel is an engineer and associate professor who teaches and conducts research in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Washington State University.

Katherine (Katie) Brownson is a Ph.D. candidate in ecology and integrative conservation at the University of Georgia.

One facet of their research is the capacity of Stropharia rugosoannulata (aka wine cap or garden giant mushroom) to destroy E. coli bacteria in water.  The research commenced after Stamets observed that one of his mushroom beds eliminated E. coli  in water draining from an animal pasture.

In 2012, Stamets secured a Small Business Innovative Research award from the Environmental Protection Agency to develop technology for the removal of bacteria from stormwater runoff.

“Termed mycofiltration, this approach uses the web-like tissue of mushroom-forming fungi to capture and degrade environmental pollutants before they can reach sensitive water bodies.”

The research sought “...to identify which fungal species and cultivation methods can filter pathogens from storm water while meeting the physical and temporal demands required for use in the field.”  The project was expected “...to confirm that fungal mycelium can remove E. coli from flowing water, and that mycofilters can be developed to meet design requirements to treat municipal storm water runoff.”

“As mycofiltration is low-cost, low-impact, and requires relatively little installation space, it may soon provide municipal storm water managers with the perfect tool to help them meet their legal obligations under the Clean Water Act.”

“...[T]he current status quo BMPs [Best Management Practices] and other proprietary filtrations systems often require large capital investments and have significant additional maintenance costs that may not be appropriate for dense urban areas or for small and/or remote water treatment systems.”

http://www.fungi.com/blog/items/mycofiltration-for-urban-storm-water-treatment-receives-epa-research-and-development-funding/about-us/blog-archive/tag/photo-galleries/photo-galleries/shop.html

Conclusions from Phase I of the research were published in 2013.

“...[T]here are fungal species that are appropriate candidates for the concept of mycofiltration. Of eight fungal strains that were tested over the course of the research, one clearly demonstrated resilience to harsh environmental conditions and a second showed promising characteristics. These species may therefore be considered as technically feasible for stormwater treatment applications. The second notable conclusion is that the permeability of mycofiltration media was generally in the range of 0.07 to 0.10 cm/sec—roughly equivalent to medium grain sand, which confirms applicability for field-relevant hydraulic loading. Additionally, mycofilters demonstrated a significant ability to remove suspended E. coli from flowing water. The final conclusion is that, as with other stormwater BMPs, mycofiltration may be more effective against sediment-bound bacteria—in some cases approaching 100% E. coli removal."

"The conclusion from the Phase I research on this innovative product is that specific fungal strains are resilient enough and biologically active enough to be considered for stormwater treatment applications against a variety of targets including pathogens, but that more research is needed to clearly define treatment design and operating parameters."

http://fungi.com/pdf/articles/Fungi_Perfecti_Phase_I_Report.pdf

MDEQ Response to Blogger's Inquiry about Construction Site Runoff

Second in a Series

Below is the November 5, 2014 response of a Soil Erosion and Construction Storm Water Specialist of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to my inquiry (see yesterday’s blog post) about silt runoff at construction sites:

Mr. Lang,

Thank you for your question regarding the legislative intent of Part 91, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control, as it relates to overflowing sewers and triggering Part 91, soil erosion permits.

I understand that you shared you’re [sic] the photos you shared with me with our Water Resources Division in Southeast Michigan earlier this summer.  [An MDEQ rep in southeast Michigan] indicated in her response to you that she referred the sites you identified to the appropriate soil erosion agencies for follow up.  [The rep] also indicated that the sites were not under permit because they were more than 500 feet away from a lake or stream and were less than 1 acre in total earth disturbance.  [The rep’s] note further indicated that the local enforcing agency was following up with those sites to ensure compliance with Part 91, but had indicated that the area was a combined sewer area; therefore the sediment reaching the road was being treated prior to reaching a lake or stream.

The Part 91 permit triggers identified Part 91 and the Rules promulgated thereunder are very specific and are identified in the Part 17 rules under Rule 1704(1) which states:

“a landowner or designated agent who contracts for, allows, or engages in, and earth change in this state shall obtain a permit from the appropriate enforcing agency before commencing an earth change which disturbs 1 or more acres of land, or which is within 500 feet of the water’s edge of a lake or stream, unless exempted in R 323.1705”

Rule 1701(d) and (k) go on to provide a definition for lake and stream as follows:

“Lake means the Great Lakes and all natural and artificial inland lakes or impoundments that have definite banks, a bed, visible evidence of a continued occurrence of water, and a surface area of water that is equal to, or greater than, 1 acre.  Lake does not include sediment basins and basins constructed for the sole purpose of storm water retention, cooling water, or treating polluted water.”

“Stream means a river, creek, or other surface watercourse which may or may not be serving as a drain as defined in Act No. 40 of the Public Acts of 1956, as amended, being 280.1 et seq of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and which have definite banks, a bed, and visible evidence of the continued flow or continued occurrence of water, including connecting waters of the Great Lakes.”

Given the precision of the language provided in the law and the rules in this regard, Part 91 does not generally require that a Soil Erosion Permit be obtained when working in proximity to storm drains or sanitary sewer drains.  Counties and municipalities may voluntarily elect to require permits in such cases by being more restrictive than Part 91, but must do so through an approved Soil Erosion Ordinance.  Some municipalities choose to do this by requiring permits within a certain proximity to a storm or sanitary drain.

That being said, regardless of where an earth change is conducted in Michigan and whether or not a permit is triggered, individuals conducting an earth change must comply with the provisions of Part 91 which generally require that erosion and sediment is minimized and prevented from depositing off-site or to waters of the state.  The Part 91 agency is required to enforce Part 91, as appropriate, when they become aware of unpermitted sites that are failing to comply with Part 91.  Citizen tips, like yours, identifying noncompliance on unpermitted sites are often how Part 91 agencies become aware of this non-compliance if they have not personally driven by the site.  As [the rep] indicated, the Part 91 agencies for the sites you identified are following up on the information you provided to obtain compliance with Part 91.

I hope this helps answer your question.  For questions related to the cost of treatment and/or maintenance of combined sewer systems receiving uncontrolled sediment, I would direct you to [a 2nd rep] with the Southeast Michigan Office, as combined sewer systems are outside of my area of expertise.  

[Signature omitted]

www.michigan.gov/soilerosion

*****   Tomorrow: Is there a duty on the part of enforcement agencies to inspect sites?   *****

Fines and Fees Alone Won't Improve Water Quality

Are some local governments more interested in the revenue from fines and fees for environmental transgressions than achieving the underlying environmental goals?

Consider, for example, the fees charged to businesses for maintaining impervious surfaces like roofs and parking lots from which stormwater or snowmelt rushes to city sewers, burdening wastewater treatment plants.  Why aren’t those businesses motivated to install rain gardens and porous paving?

Or consider the apparent preference in many cities to fine construction contractors for silt running off bare ground or piles of excavated dirt into storm sewers during rainstorms, clogging the sewers and complicating wastewater treatment processes. 

From Macomb County Public Works website: "This is a portion of the 200 tons of sediment and debris that was removed from the Sharkey Drain..."

If contractors were compelled to install silt fencing between the exposed soil and city drains, then, region wide, thousands of tons of silt would be kept out of the sewers.  The willingness of contractors to pay the fines rather than remedy the problem indicates to me that the fines are too low.

UPDATE: SILT FENCE BEST PRACTICES

In many municipalities, mayors, city managers and council people give loud and frequent lip service to environmental concerns and pass a multitude of resolutions and ordinances, but in the municipal departments where the rubber hits the road, those concerns and resolutions and ordinances often get short shrift.

Too frequently, those who do the legislating seem to think that’s the end of the problem, that their intent will be self-executing.  Either that or the city poobahs are throwing around terms like “environment” and “green” and “water quality” merely as cheap public relations gimmicks.

To meet and overcome these challenges, constant public vigilance and action are necessary.