Skip to main content

Adaptive decision support system for stormwater pollution control


Why "CityNet"? - Water is the most important food item - Water services (drinking water supply, sanitation and public hygiene, flood protection) are essential for any civilisation - 80 % of European population live in urban areas, and urbanisation continues everywhere - Urban water systems represent 40 % of replacement value of all municipal infrastructure assets - Available funds are not sufficient: urban water systems deteriorate faster than they are rehabilitated - 20 % of EU-funded infrastructure investments are for urban water systems Why is there a need for research in this field? In the past, urban water systems were designed and operated as separate parts: groundwater resources management, drinking water treatment and distribution, wastewater collection and treatment, and water quality management in rivers and lakes. The result was decently operating sub-systems, which often have severe negative impacts on other subsystems. Examples include leaking water supply systems that strain freshwater resources, leaking sewers that pollute groundwater, large impervious urban areas that overload sewer systems, etc. Without an integrated management of the urban water system, i.e. all its sub-systems, urban water management can neither be cost-efficient in socio-economic terms nor sustainable in the long run. Integrated urban water management can only work if the interactions between its subsystems are understood. CityNet aims to provide this understanding by pooling many of Europe¡¦s most prominent urban water researchers and large number of end-users (cities, water utilities) in a major research effort: The CityNet project cluster. This network of excellence and expertise combines the necessary critical mass of research excellence capable of contributing to the discussions and orientations at European Union level, including governmental and administrative bodies.
Future efforts will aim at more comprehensive testing the proposed tool. More verification is needed to reach an objective of broad operational use. Operational experiments carried out by first-users are currently in progress. Already collected comments are mentioned below: - The idea of building a wide indicator set is appreciated by the tester. The users can easily work on the pre-crisis and post-crisis management. The decision-makers and the stakeholders are encouraged and supported in the decision-making process. - The comparison of the indicators within the tools was appreciated in particular for his flexibility. There was positive feedback of listing a large number of indicators, where the users can select the indicators for their case study. - Some tester suggested increasing the number of indicators in order to increase the range of users, for the tool to be used for the diagnosis of vulnerability at the scale of each "element at risk". These methods already exist and will be mentioned in the tool (GC and MEDD 2004, LANGUMIER A. 2001), but the authors' intention is to work on urban scales instead element scales . - It was proposed to add a post treatment towards decision-making support tools, but this next stage first requires a better validation of the set of indicators by end-users and needs to be fed by more case studies. - Acquisition, management and updating of geographical information remain difficult but are essential for the evaluation of indicators. In the future development public participation and GIS should be coupled like "Public Participation Geographic Information Systems" (PPGIS) (JANKOWSKI P. and NYERGES T. 2001). These devices use geographic information or geographic technologies, developed partly by and for the public, with an aim of supporting the participation of the public in the local processes of territorial management (data, cartography, space analysis, territorial decision... etc) (EDWARDS G and LIGOZA G. 2004). Public participation GIS could be seen as the most popular and current solution. Knowledge of the process of vulnerability identification represents a very important contribution to decrease and control the land damage caused by natural hazard. The purpose of the vulnerability study is to limit weakness and integrate flood risk into urban development. The vulnerability analysis tool creates an integrated vision of the risk for its users. The project aims at gathering various visions of vulnerability and show as well that the analysis of risk must not be disconnected from possible interactions with territorial identity. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. The context: Growing Interest in evaluation of vulnerability 2.1. Vulnerability: An unclear definition 2.2. A brief literature review of vulnerability evaluation 3. A new support tool for vulnerability analysis 3.1. Methodological aspects for indicator identification 3.2. Organisation and use of the indicators 3.3. Organisation of the tree and representation of interactions 4. Short description on indicator groups 4.1. Group of indicators: housing 4.2. Group of indicators: industry 4.3. Group of indicators: commercial activity 4.4. Group of indicators: territorial context 4.5. Groups of indicators: prevention 4.6. Group of indicators: crisis management 4.7. Group of indicators: post-crisis 5. Conclusion 6. References
The report is a "whitepaper" on risk perception, risk assessment and risk management as they are seen in the context of the DayWater project. The purpose of the white paper is to define how the DayWater project group will work with the concept of risk in relation to stormwater source control. In chapter 2 the definition of risk, which is the basis for the whole report is introduced. To provide a common understanding for the readers the most important terminology is defined. It is discussed that the formal scientific definition of risk can be difficult to use operationally, and as a consequence the use of risk indicators is introduced in many types of risk assessment, to ease both the risk assessment and the risk communication. The risk space is the space that is expanded by the actual risk, the perceived risk and the uncertainty of both. In chapter 3 this space is explored. A number of influencing factors and concepts are presented. It is illustrated that uncertainty, perceived risk and actual risk are strongly linked. It is emphasized that the public�s perception of risk is important when communicating about risk to a broader audience. Individuals perception of the same risk varies a lot from members of the bungee-jump society who consequently underestimate risks to members of the reflexive society who overestimate risks. It also illustrated that uncertainty can be divided into three dimensions, location, level and nature of uncertainty. Location deals with where in the urban water system the uncertainty is located, we distinguish between three subsystems; the technical system, the environmental system and the social system. At the level of uncertainty we operate with a scale from statistical uncertainty in one end over scenario uncertainty to ignorance in the other end. The nature of uncertainty is divided into reducible uncertainty and irreducible uncertainty. Risk management in the DayWater context is explored in chapter 4. We present a frame for risk analysis that also explains how we interpret the relationship and gradual transition between hazard and vulnerability identification and/or assessment to risk characterisation. The screening tools that will be developed in Daywater will provide assistance with two different types of problems; screening of large databases of chemicals and presentation of information in GIS interfaces with the purpose of creating overview. A draft outline of the tool for screening of potential stormwater pollutants is presented. These tools will have potential applications both within hazard and vulnerability identification and assessment. Coping with uncertainty in risk management is of the uttermost importance. The three dimensions of uncertainty are used to construct a matrix for analysing the uncertainty of decision situations present in urban stormwater management. This matrix is beneficial when discussing and creating overview of a problem. Finally in this chapter we show that decisions can be divided into 4 different regimes based on agreement/disagreement about the goal and knowledge about the technology needed to achieve the goals. Each regime is characterised by being dominated by a certain level of uncertainty (statistical uncertainty, scenario uncertainty and ignorance), as well as by special groups of professionals and typical working methods. That different tools are suited for different regimes, or decision situations, is important to keep in mind in the work in DayWater, which is aimed at developing an adaptive decision support system that can guide the decision maker to the right tools depending of the situation. Chapter 5 presents the results of an inventory made on the background of 14 end user questionnaires and reports from partners. The results are presented in a matrix dividing the urban stormwater system into seven different risk objects and seven different types of risk. The inventory shows a reasonable correspondence in what combinations of object/type the endusers and the experts find the most problems. The most frequent object among the experts was the natural environment, the most mentioned type of risk was hydraulic and technical risk. The end users pointed out the natural environment and BMP�s as the objects with most risks involved. The most often mentioned types of risk were chemical and hydraulic risks.
A 41 page report titled Determination of numerical values for the assessment of BMPs has been prepared describing the development of a methodology to theoretically assess the effectiveness of structural BMPs with regard to their treatment of 25 selected stormwater priority pollutants (SSPPs). The result is a prioritisation, in terms of pollutant removal efficiency, of 15 different BMPs, which can inform end-users and other stakeholders of the best available options for the treatment of urban runoff pollutants of particular environmental concern. The limitations of this approach in terms of the variabilities in BMP designs and applications are also fully described. The biological, chemical and physical processes which can contribute to the removal of pollutants within structural BMPs have been identified and are divided into direct and indirect mechanisms. The former are defined as those which clearly participate in the direct removal of pollutants whereas the second category incorporates those processes which occur as precursors to direct removal and includes adsorption to suspended solids and precipitation. The direct removal processes include adsorption (to substrate), biodegradation, filtration, volatilisation, photolysis and plant uptake. Volatilisation and photolysis are considered to have lower importance regarding the removal of pollutants compared to the other direct removal processes operating within BMPs and they have therefore been allocated a 0.5 relative weighting in the applied calculation procedure. All processes have been categorised as high, medium, low and not applicable based on an understanding of their relevance to each BMP. It is acknowledged that there is an element of subjectivity to this and therefore a wide consultation has been carried out and all received comments taken into consideration. The behaviours of each of the 25 SSPPs with respect to both the direct and indirect removal processes have also been categorised using a combination of reference to the appropriate scientific data and scientific knowledge where specific data are not available. A single value representing the potential of each BMP to remove each identified SSPP has been generated by combining the two sets of data relating the removal processes to the BMPs and to the SSPPs, respectively. The resulting orders of preference for the use of BMPs for pollutant removal are discussed in terms of the full range of 25 SSPPs as well as for representative particulate associated pollutants (suspended solids) and soluble pollutants (nitrates). There are clear differences with respect to how the BMPs respond to these different pollutant types but in both cases, infiltration basins and sub-surface flow constructed wetlands are predicted to have the highest removal effectiveness. At the other end of the scale, settlement tanks consistently perform least well.
We have reached the second year of the DayWater project and tend to inform you about the numerous ongoing activities, where some might be of interest for you. The bio-test procedure applied to runoff and re-suspended sediments has been defined and the test-sites chosen. The first tests were conducted in the Wupper River region (Germany), in Luleå and in Stockholm (Sweden) and as well in Nantes (France). The CityNet Cluster organised an end-user workshop in Ghent (Belgium) entitled "Integrated Urban Water Management". 14 end-users of the 6 projects came to present their needs. Representatives of the European Commission and the IWA presented "EU policy - one coherent management frame" and "From concept to practice: IWA's vision for sustainable cities". Adjacent a workshop for junior scientists on "Process data and integrated modelling" took place near Lyon (France). The 5th International conference on sustainable techniques and strategies in urban water management (Novatech) was held in Lyon in June 2004. DayWater and CityNet project partners were highly represented with contributions of their specific domain. We prepare the second DayWater annual meeting to be held in Copenhagen vicinity, at the Danish Technical University (DTU) between the 30 September and the 1st October 2004. One conference day will be dedicated to research progress presentation and discussion. The second day is dedicated to end-user testing and comments to DayWater decision support system, i.e. its IT shell and its components or tools, in their present state of development.
CityNet will use the 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage (10th ICUD) for a general conference presentation of results from the cluster. The CityNet presentation will include: - Platform sessions for each of the five projects (AISUWRS, APUSS, CARE-S, CD4WC, DayWater) - CityNet workshop with posters representing each project Until now, 700 attendees have registered, and 375 papers have been accepted. Among them are 34 papers from CityNet projects. The results will be presented as Conference CD-ROM, 55 papers in Water Science and Technology (double issue), 5-8 papers in Urban Water Journal, 100 papers in Water Intelligence Online. A public archive with all material is planned. A CityNet book will be published and negotiation with IWAP has started on this. The book is proposed to consist of three parts: - A: introduction to the cluster and cluster activities - B: Sections based on papers from ICUD conference, chapters of 30-50 pages from each project - C: Overview and conclusions, critical review of cluster activities. CityNet has a budget reserve to sponsor five key participants from Eastern Europe and developing countries, to ensure that these regions are exposed to the results and technology produced. It was previously agreed that each project should propose one participant (at 1500 Euro each), but after some discussion it was agreed that it would be more feasible (and cost-effective) to co-sponsor participants who already indicated an interest in participating in the conference. Candidates should then be propose/selected based on i) their ability to contribute to the promotion of CityNet throughout the world, ii)their representation of an important international organisation, and iii) a wish to maintain a geographical balance among the CityNet sponsored participants. Thus, it was agreed that DTU provides a proposal to be confirmed bey e-mail by the CityNet PSC.
1 -DayWater progress meeting: Thursday 16 October 2003 1.1Presentation of Zissimos Vergos (European Commission) 1.2WP1 - coordination (M. Förster) 1.3WP3 - Urban Dynamics (G. Geldof) 1.4WP4 - Risk and Impact Assessment (P.-S. Mikkelsen) 1.5WP5 - Multi-criteria analysis of structural and non structural BMPs (M. Revitt 1.6WP6 - Sources and flux Models (G. Svensson) 1.7WP2 - ADSS Production (T. Metelka) 1.8WP7 - Field testing (J.-C. Deutsch) 2DayWater end-user meeting: Friday 17 October 2003 2.1End-user workshops 2.1.1Call for suggestions of sampling sites (J.-M. Mouchel, ENPC) 2.1.2Workshop 1: CEUG questionnaires - operation & exploitation (G. Geldof, TAUW) 2.1.3Workshop 2: Regional Conferences - operation & exploitation (J.-C. Deutsch, ENPC) 2.1.4Workshop 3: ADSS architecture & functions (S. Vanecek, DHI) 2.1.5Workshop 4: ADSS component testing methodology (J.-F. Deroubaix, ENPC) 2.2ASB Meeting 2.2.1Deliverable quality control 2.2.2Management / Periodic report procedure 2.2.3Cost Statement 2.2.4Budget modification request 2.2.5Project publication strategies 2.2.6CityNet cross project groups: 2.2.7CityNet road map towards FP6 proposal 2.2.8Summary of major decisions / actions Appendix 1: Partner participants to 1st annual DayWater meeting in Athens Appendix 2. End-user participants to 1st annual DayWater meeting in Athens
The result of this work is seen in the delivery of DEMO ADSS on CD together with additional information and user guide. The ADSS can be installed from the CD and the actual version finished to the date of the end of project used. However, it is recommended not to stick on this DEMO CD and rather to visit life web pages on
One of the negative effects of urbanization is the overloading of the city sewer system. To solve this problem, on-site storm water infiltration proves very promising due to its near natural characteristics and multiple effects on the drainage of stormwater runoff in urban areas. However, the judgment of whether a local area is appropriate to be drained in this way and which infiltration measures are optimal is rather complex and involves analyzing a set of influential factors. This judgment depends on not only relevant theoretical considerations, but also a large amount of practical experience and the availability of relevant data, as well. Such a judgment is an unstructured problem and relates to changeable knowledge. To fulfil this task, a so-called expert system, or knowledge-based system, is a possible tool. One of the advantages of an expert system is that it provides automation of expert-level judgment. This is extremely helpful when an expert-level judgment is needed repeatedly for a large amount of cases, like in the planning of on-site stormwater infiltration systems for an entire city or a river catchment. Within DAYWATER an expert system tool called FLEXT was developed and applied within the Wupper case study, Germany. Compared with other expert systems the combination with a Geographical Information System (GIS) is new. FLEXT can be used as a vulnerability screening tool as well as a tool for developing scenarios. Both possible applications are major tasks of river basin management, which is becoming more and more important due to the European Water Framework Directive.
According to the DayWater contract eight regional conferences should be organised by the different project partners. These conferences aimed at involving a large number of end-users and to build the extended end-user group (EEUG). The meeting were expected during the second half of the first year of the project and were finally held in month 11 and 12. The meetings were locally organised, which explains the different styles of meeting organisation. All meetings were held in local language. At least one member of the ENPC-Team (WP7 Field testing) attended the regional conferences. Translations from local language to English would have caused disproportionate high costs. The local partners were so kind to translate the essential questions during the discussions to their ENPC colleagues. WP7 could contact end-users directly and herewith identify case studies for the first ADSS testing of components. Some meetings were held over two days (afternoon and morning session), others just one day. The participation varied between 15 and 55, the participants came mainly from municipalities, water boards, Universities, consultant engineers, environmental agencies etc. Some conferences were followed by site visits and a social event.
This report is developed in a form of user guide and reference guide for practical use of ADSS prototype. The basic approach and general concept for ADSS building is described in the introductory chapter. Then system architecture is detailed as well as client-server access rights to the ADSS. Main ADSS functionalities are listed in next chapter being followed by description of distinct components connected to ADSS. Special interest is devoted to the "guided mode" functionality where basic technological implementation is presented. Main ADSS goals were then summarised as follows: - To focus on problems concerning hydrology and pollution as well as on decision making process under the socio-economical and political context, - To offer and improve the knowledge with systematic representation of USWM, - To provide the functionality for adapting its structure, content and environment. All these goal are met by ADSS.
In the decision making process the implementation of water measures gets its form. By offering the three viewing angles legal framework, stakeholders and phasing, end-users can characterise their decision making process. This characterisation helps them to analyse problems. The legal framework determines who is responsible, who has to pay and offers tools for water management. Constraints and resources offered to stakeholders by the legal framework are obviously different from one country to another. Dutch stakeholders are involved in a water management process very prescriptive; every activity impacting the receiving water bodies has to be declared and controlled. The way experimented solutions are monitored is standardised. On the contrary, in the French case, urban runoff is not a matter of public policy at the national level: The Central State is source of recommendations but there is no compulsory prescription imposed to local governments. As a matter of consequence, there are sensible differences in the planning processes implemented in Netherlands and in France. The degree of integration between the various plans (at the various scales) seems to be higher in the Dutch case than in the French one. France, well known for its centralisation, is experimenting a high degree of subsidiarity concerning its urban storm waters. The analysis of stakeholders helps to position them in the process, to build a shared problem perception and to take chances. A chance occurs when a stakeholders sees an opportunity to realise his goal by means of water. This is an important issue, especially in France where stakeholders roles are often unclear, as a decentralisation process is ongoing. As shown in the detailed example of Audace, source control appears as a solution for the County Council to keep their key-role in the water management, promoting a new expertise. The phasing of the decision making process tells what kind of actions when to undertake in the decision making process. It is very important not to follow a linear sequence, but to interact between the phases. Only then experience of implementation and maintenance can be made fruitful for the planning phase. The case studies give end-users inspiration to apply these ideas to their local situation. The analysis of these case studies also helps to understand why some types of BMPs are preferred to others. The planning procedure implemented by the County Council of Seine Saint-Denis obviously favoured BMPs that are sufficiently visible and have a significant impact on the global water retention at the County level.
1. INTRODUCTION 2. SWALES 2.1. Description 2.2. Typology 2.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 2.3.1. Suitable applications 2.3.2. Advantages 2.3.3. Disadvantages 2.4. Performance 2.4.1. Pollutant removal 2.4.2. Flood control 2.5 Design criteria 2.5.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 2.5.2. Hydraulic design 2.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 2.5.4. Planting 2.6. Operation and maintenance 2.7. Dimensioning Design tables 2.7.1. Swales 2.7.2. Enhanced dry swales (or trough-trenches) 2.7.3. Wet swales 2.8. Costing 2.8.1. Swales 2.8.2. Enhanced dry swales (or trough-trenches) 2.8.3. Wet swales 2.9. References 3. SOAKAWAYS 3.1. Description 3.2. Typology 3.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 3.3.1. Suitable applications 3.3.2. Advantages 3.3.3. Disadvantages 3.4. Performance 3.4.1. Pollutant removal 3.4.2. Hydraulic performance 3.5. Design criteria 3.5.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 3.5.2. Hydraulic design 3.5.3 Erosion Extreme events 3.6. Operation and maintenance 3.7. Dimensioning 3.8. Costing 3.9. References 4. INFILTRATION TRENCHES 4.1. Description 4.2. Typology 4.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 4.3.1. Suitable applications 4.3.2. Advantages 4.3.3. Disadvantages 4.4. Performance 4.4.1. Pollutant removal 4.4.2 Hydraulic performance: 4.5. Design criteria 4.5.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 4.5.2. Hydraulic design 4.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 4.6. Operation and maintenance 4.7. Dimensioning 4.8. Costing 4.9. References 5. DETENTION TANKS 5.1. Description 5.2. Typology 5.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 5.3.1. Suitable applications 5.3.2. Advantages 5.3.3. Disadvantages 5.4. Performance 5.4.1. Pollutant removal 5.4.2. Hydraulic performance 5.5. Design criteria 5.5.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 5.5.2. Hydraulic design 5.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 5.6. Operation and maintenance 5.7. Dimensioning Design tables 5.8. Costing 5.9. References 6. DETENTION BASINS 6.1. Description 6.2. Typology 6.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 6.3.1. Suitable applications 6.3.2. Advantages 6.3.3. Disadvantages 6.4. Performance 6.4.1. Pollutant removal 6.4.2. Hydraulic performance 6.5. Design criteria 6.5.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 6.5.2. Hydraulic design 6.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 6.5.4. Planting 6.6. Operation and maintenance 6.7. Dimensioning 6.8. Costing 6.9. References 7. WET PONDS 7.1. Description 7.2. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 7.2.1. Suitable applications 7.2.2. Advantages 7.2.3. Disadvantages 7.3. Performance 7.3.1. Pollutant removal 7.3.2. Hydraulic performance 7.4. Design criteria 7.4.1. Soil and groundwater requirements 7.4.2. Hydraulic design 7.4.3. Erosion Extreme events 7.4.4. Planting 7.5. Operation and maintenance 7.6. Dimensioning 7.7. Costing 7.8. References 8. CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER WETLANDS 8.1. Description 8.2. Typology 8.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 8.3.1. Suitable applications 8.3.2. Advantages 8.3.3. Disadvantages 8.4. Performance 8.4.1. Pollutant removal 8.4.2. Flood control 8.5. Design criteria 8.5.1. Soil requirements 8.5.2. Hydraulic design 8.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 8.5.4. Planting 8.6. Operation and maintenance 8.7. Dimensioning 8.8. Costing 8.9. References 9. PAVEMENTS WITH A STORING STRUCTURE 9.1. Description 9.2. Typology 9.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 9.3.1. Suitable applications 9.3.2. Advantages 9.3.3. Disadvantages 9.4. Performance 9.4.1. Pollutant removal 9.4.2. Hydraulic performance 9.5. Design criteria 9.5.1. Soil requirements 9.5.2. Hydraulic design 9.5.3. Erosion Extreme events 9.5.4. Structural design 9.6. Operation and maintenance 9.7. Dimensioning 9.8. Costing 9.9. References 10. GREEN ROOFS 10.1. Description 10.2. Typology 10.3. Suitable applications advantages and disadvantages 10.3.1. Suitable applications 10.3.2. Advantages 10.3.3. Disadvantages 10.4. Performance 10.4.1. Pollutant removal 10.4.2. Hydraulic performance 10.5. Design criteria 10.5.1. Hydraulic design 10.5.2. Erosion Extreme events 10.5.3. Structural design 10.5.4. Planting 10.6. Operation and maintenance 10.7. Dimensioning Design tables 10.8. Costing 10.9. References Keywords: Stormwater management, BMPs, dimensioning, costing
The success of an urban stormwater project depends not only on the technical, legal and economic feasibility. As least as important is the water manager is able to make a connection between stormwater and urban dynamics. Especially when he or she aims at source control. Ambition Reflection is about the manager�s ability to successfully implement stormwater measures in the urban context. The fingerprint is a web based tool in Hydropolis that gives the user the opportunity to find out his attitude (goals, philosophy, perception and position) towards USWM related to urban dynamics. Therefore, we distinguish three types of attitudes: basic water management, functional water management and contextual water management. For basic water management the water management is directed inward. An attempt is made to optimize the water system to minimize any inconvenience at the boundaries of the system being managed. In this attitude the interaction between system and context is minimized. Functional water management makes connections with the context by freezing the context in functions (such as ecology, nature and recreation). The aim of functional water management is to integrate the system as well as possible within the defined functions. There is a question of unilateral influencing of the system by the context. Contextual water management, on the other hand, really confronts the context. The context is not frozen in functions, but the continuous interaction between system and context plays a central role. And it is in this interaction that source control can be implemented successfully.
Citynet: The network of European research projects on integrated urban water management Third press release: July 2004 Outline: - 19th European Junior Scientist Workshop - CityNet Management seminar for end-users in Ghent, Belgium -16-17/03/2004 - CARE-W Project ended 31/01/2004 - CityNet takes initiative for FP6 proposal - CityNet invited to participate in discussion towards FP7.
The tools to cope with Urban Dynamics developed in the Daywater project and now part of Hydropolis, are the Aspects of Water and Ambition Reflection. The tool aspects of water supports water managers to involve the values other stakeholders attach to water in the planning and implementation of source control. The tool distinguishes twelve different types of values: chemical, physical, ecological, sensitive, logical, historic, linguistic, social, economic, legal, esthetical and moral values. All these values are introduced to the users of the tool and illustrated by a large number of examples. This tool enables users to perform an aspect analysis themselves. The tool Ambtion Reflection is described by result 24833.
STORM is a fully-fledged polluting load simulation model (long-term continuum and single events) and suitable for dimensioning facilities for the treatment of combined sewage. It is designed based on TRINTSIM and additionally offers the full range of elements for combined sewers and stormwater treatment and the calculation of large catchments. - Planning from single measures to entire drainage systems with on-site and central elements - Cisterns, surface infiltration, troughs, trough-trench systems, green roofs, Innodrain©, etc. - Rainwater retention tanks, central infiltration facilities, rainwater sedimentation tanks - Cisterns for rainwater utilisation - Combined sewage elements like rainwater overflows, rainwater overflow tanks in bypass and series, soil filters - Storage cascade to provide for the runoff concentration in larger sub-catchments - Translation components for modelling longer flowtime - Suitable for studies, concepts and all planning phases of the fee structure for architects and engineers - Dimensioning by means of long-term simulation - Connect any elements - Great flexibilty through object-oriented programming STORM also offers - Intuitive graphical user interface based on MapObjects (ESRI) - Coordinate-accurate portrayal of CAD graphics in dwg and dxf format, shape files (GIS systems) und aerial photos (bmp,tiff, jpg) - Connection to sewer system calculation with Hystem-Extran (itwh) - Variable customisation of the system behavior via characteristic curves for volume, runoff, etc. - Several rain recorders - Compilation of precipitation and runoff statistics - Output of relief concentrations and loads for single elements The following interfaces to other programmes are at your command: - Directly open TRINTSIM 3.x-, 4.x projects - Data transfer from KOSIM 5.1/6.1 - Import existing TRINTSIM 2.x projects - Export and import data from and to ArcView (ESRI) - Data exchange via the CSV format and the clipboard with MS-Excel and other programmes - Copy the system graphics via the clipboard into other programmes - Create result reports in the universal rtf format - Create a wave file for Hystem-Extran (itwh) A demo version is available for download at:
Guidelines for using the Sources and Flux Model are included in the manual, which can be downloaded from The download also included simple examples and sample data, which helps the user to understand the use of a Source and Flux Model
The quality control procedure describes the following actions: 1. Creation of a database of project information (deliverables) 1.1. Main purpose of the data base 1.2. Data fields 1.3. Documents to be registered 1.4. Validation 1.5. Intermediate solution 1.6. Intranet DayWater 2. Procedures 2.1. Connection between the different parties / Meetings 2.2. Information flux / Circulation of deliverables 3. Templates 3.1. Distribution of templates 3.2. Template forms provided (reports, letters, Minutes etc) 3.2.1. Annual financial reporting (Cost Statements) (see Annex C) 3.2.2. Technical reporting (Progress Report) 4. Archive / Storage 4.1. Documents as soft copy 4.2. Documents as hard copy 5. Schedule - Control of deliverables and Milestones 6. Guidelines for reporting
Minutes of the DayWater kick-off meeting: 1List of future tasks (first year: 2003) 2Participants to DayWater Kick-off meeting 2.1Partners 2.2End-users 3Introduction 4DayWater administrative organisation 4.1General Organisation 4.2Quality Control Procedure 5Presentation of DayWater End-Users 6Presentation of the EC Scientific Officer - Z. Vergos 7DayWater scientific WP's organisation 7.1General 7.2WP2 "ADSS Production" 7.3WP3 "Urban Dynamics" 7.4WP4 "Risk and Impact Assessment" 7.5WP5 "Multi-criteria analysis of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)" 7.6WP6 "Sources and Flux Models" 7.7WP7 "Field Testing" 8Further Planning 8.1Date and site of annual and regional meetings, newsletter 8.2Information exchange (Intranet/Internet) 8.3DayWater logo 8.4General 91st Advisory Steering Board (ASB) Meeting 9.1ASB decision procedure 9.2Replacement of German CEUG end-users 9.3Commercialisation Consortium agreement 9.4Consortium agreement (CA)
Minutes of 3rd annual DayWater meeting (Prague, 2005) 1. Participants 2. Meeting agenda 2.1. Short work package progress update 2.2. Future Relevance of the RTD project results (Z . Vergos) 2.3. Proposals of future ADSS development according to analysis of test results 2.4. Future Development of ADSS after project end 2.5. ASB meeting 2.6. Thursday 26 May 2005: DayWater Demonstrations 2.7. Stockholm Vatten Demo & experience 2.8. WP5 Presentation 2.9. Demonstration Seine-Saint-Denis 2.10. Wupperverband demonstration 2.11. Demonstration of other ADSS components 2.12. Friday 27 May 2005: DayWater Discussions 2.13. New Planning / Kladno-Roadmap 2.14. End-user representative presentation 2.15. Demonstration of Countryside Properties 2.16. Testing Procedure in Stockholm Vatten 2.17. Testing Procedure in Wuppertal 2.18. Testing Procedure in Seine Saint Denis 2.19. End-user expectations 2.20. Front-page discussions 2.21. Future activity
First Announcement International Conference on DECISION SUPPORT FOR INTEGRATED URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT and Final DAYWATER conference and work-shop Paris, France 3rd - 4th November 2005 Conference objectives: Decision procedures in urban management are complex since they involve many stakeholders, complex regulations as well as difficult ecological, social and economical impact assessment. Taking into account the urban dynamics, i.e. the rapid evolution of urban areas, decision procedures should be adaptive both in space and time. Stormwater source control is perceived today as an efficient solution to resolve flooding and pollution problems connected to urban stormwater. It is a key issue for sustainable development in the urban con-text. However, implementing the best solution re-mains difficult because the range of possible measures is vast and individual needs have to be defined. A DayWater research and development European project aims at understanding and integrating these issues in a coherent manner and proposes an adaptive decision support system (ADSS) for the decision makers. This project is organised within the "Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development" Programme in the 5th Framework Programme for "Science Research and Technological Development" of the European Commission and is part of the CityNet Cluster, the network of European research projects on integrated urban water management. This conference and the enclosed workshops, open to a large public, aims at developing interactions be-tween searchers and private or public urban stake-holders as well as consultants. Both developers and users of urban decision support systems for stormwa-ter source control will be invited to present their re-spective work and experience in testing such sys-tems. The main topics of the DayWater programme are: - Decision support systems (DSS) in urban storm-water management, - Integration of urban stormwater management into urban dynamics, - Risk analysis and impact assessment, - Best Management Practice multicriteria analysis, - Models for sources and flux assessment, - Integrated DSS testing and validation.
The "Database of SSPP" (D4.4) has been made available at a publicly available website, physically located at a server at DTU ( with direct links from the ADSS. The database interface is a list of all 23 parameters (25 actual entries because BOD and COD have been split and because pH has been added) along with their CAS-number and their type (basic parameter, metal, PAH, herbicide, misc. XOC). Table of contents: 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective 1.2 This deliverable 2 Methodology 2.1 Source characterisation 2.2 Recipient, receptor and criteria identification 2.3 Hazard and problem identification 2.4 The hazard assessment 2.5 Expert judgement 3 Selected Stormwater Priority Pollutants 3.1 The SSPP list 3.2 Database 4 References 5 Appendix 1 Inherent data for the organic SSPP 6 Appendix 2 Results from the screening of the organic SSPP. Keywords: Stormwater, problem-oriented hazard identification, database, potential stormwater pollutant (PSP), potential stormwater priority pollutant (PSPP), stormwater priority pollutant (SPP); selected stormwater priority pollutants (SSPP).
Development of a sources and flux model (SFM) for analysing substance flows in stormwater systems increases the need of knowledge on material uses in urban areas. Some of the information needed for modelling can be found in databases at municipalities, but in general there are lack of important data on surface materials. Available methods for obtaining the needed data is to compile information in existing databases and complement with field inventories. Field investigations in larger catchments is time consuming and it can be problems to reach roofs and private properties to determine the material uses. Another approach is to use some kind of remote sensing for mapping of the catchment. This report will review the possibilities of using remote sensing for identifying the material composition of surfaces, land uses and impervious surfaces in urban catchments. The report starts with a brief introduction to the basic concepts of remote sensing in section 2 and continues with an review of the state of the art in remote sensing of impervious areas (section 3.1) and identification of material use (section 3.2). In section 4 a discussion of the possibilities and methods relevant for DayWater are presented. The report includes general methods that are possible to use independent of local databases or archives. Possibilities to determine similar information from local resources is not reviewed since the varying status of such resources make any general conclusions impossible.
The Best Management Practice (BMP) catalogue, contained within the DayWater ADSS, is a comprehensive on-line information resource and database which provides detailed information on 15 structural BMPs (including infiltration systems, ponds, basins and permeable surfaces) and 5 non-structural BMPs (including snow management and street cleaning practices). It has been designed as an urban stormwater decision support tool to assist end-users according to their existing level of expertise in the use of BMPs for stormwater management. Thus, for those practitioners with a limited experience of using stormwater BMPs, it provides a comprehensive overview of the wide variety of system types, designs and modes of operation of structural BMPs, as well as providing background and information on non-structural stormwater BMP approaches. As an on-line facility, it also acts as an accessible reference point for urban drainage practitioners who require specialist information on the use of BMPs. For example, in the case of BMP designers (such as landscape architects) or those responsible for approving the inclusion of BMPs within new or existing developments (local authorities and regulators), the catalogue provides clear information on both BMP performance and operation and maintenance requirements. Comparisons of the costings associated with the different BMPs are provided within the catalogue through both a review of available data (accessed through each BMP type) and an interactive format (accessible through the BMP costings tool link). A general description is provided for each BMP, supplemented by a more detailed description in the form of a pdf Characteristics file as well as photographs and example types (overviews providing information on actual examples of a particular BMP system in use within Europe). The catalogue also contains information on the sources and loads of a range of stormwater pollutants, as well as a BMP dimensioning tool. Where it is considered relevant, the BMP catalogue also provides links to a range of external BMP design manuals and websites. The format of the Characteristics file varies from BMP to BMP and particular differences exist between structural and non-structural systems. The characteristics of non-structural BMPs may have a strong practical basis as is the case with Street cleaning and Snow management practices or may be more theoretically based as is the case for Control of impervious area development, Educational aspects and Reduction in pollutant usage. The Performance section contains current information on the pollutant removal efficiencies of specific BMPs but due to its derivation from a range of different international sources, the data is subject to different levels of reliability. The operation and maintenance needs of a specific BMP indicate that this is currently one of the major concerns about the applicability of BMPs as source control facilities in urban areas. Therefore, it is important that potential end-users are fully conversant with the O&M requirements associated with a particular BMP. The photographs section includes images from across Europe chosen to represent the typical applications/installations of a particular BMP. The use of pictorial representations indicates to prospective end-users of BMPs the situations in which different BMPs can be and have been used. The stored images are categorised by their country of origin and are supported by descriptive captions. The Example types section of the BMP catalogue effectively complements the photograph section by enabling information regarding the actual use of a specific BMP in the field to be described. The information is contained in pdf files, which are accessed by clicking on the hyperlink Example types in the appropriate BMP specific page. Where available, examples of both successful and unsuccessful BMP systems/approaches have been included, as information on both positive and negative experiences are obviously equally valuable as an information resource. The external appearance and functioning of the BMP catalogue has been continuously modified during its development in response to feedback received from both internal and external project partners with the objective of producing an urban stormwater management support tool which is both useful and user-friendly. Recent examples of implemented modifications include the provision of brief outlines of each BMP system or approach to complement the existing detailed descriptions, and the increased access to photographs of BMPs from a range of different European countries. The on-line structure of the BMP database has been designed in such a way that it can continue to be updated and developed as further information becomes available, thus enabling the database to evolve in response to both new BMP developments and the perceived requirements of urban drainage practitioners.
Freely accessible DayWater web site: 1. News 2. Links towards EC and CityNet 3. About DayWater 4. Cotact partners and end-users 5. Meetings 6. Reports and publication 7. CityNet project 8. BSCW file server: link 9. Intranet (pasword protected)
1 Introduction 2 Regional Conference objectives (by Jose Frederic Deroubaix) 2.1 Programme 2.3 Summary of the output of the regional conferences (by Eleni Chouli) 3 French regional conference, Paris - 10 October 2003 (by ENPC) 3.1 Agenda 3.2 ADSS-Presentation by Jean-Claude Deutsch, researcher at CEREVE-ENPC 3.3 Stormwater source control: Presentation by Core End-Users 3.4 Integration of BMPs in Département de la Seine-Saint-Denis : Presentation by Thierry Maytraud, urbanism department in DEA 3.5 Exchange with all participants on stormwater management problems 3.6 Result on questionnaires sent before the conference 3.7 Result on questionnaires given during the conference 3.8 Foreseen function of the ADSS 3.9 Demand for the future ADSS 3.10 Project proposals for the testing of the ADSS 4 Czech regional conference, Prague - 13-14 October 2003 (by DHI) 4.1 Meeting agenda 4.2 Objectives of meeting 4.3 Decisions taken (tasks) 5 Greek regional conference, Athens - 14 October 2003 (by NTUA) 5.1 Meeting agenda 5.2 Presentations 5.3 The analysis of questionnaires by S. Papatzani 5.4 Questions 5.5 Decisions taken 6 Dutch regional conference, Deventer - 21 October 2003 (by TAUW) 6.1 Meeting agenda 6.2 Objectives of meeting 6.3 Results of discussion 6.4 Questionnaires 7 German regional conference, Berlin - 30-31 October 2003 (by IPS) 7.1 Objectives of meeting 7.2 Presentations 7.3 Discussion 7.4 Results 8 Swedish regional conference, Stockholm - 12 November 2003 (by Chalmers) 8.1 Meeting agenda 8.2 Objectives of the meeting 8.3 Presentations 8.4 Invitation to be an extended end-user (EEU) .. 8.5 Risk assessments for stormwater, Anna Ledin, DTU 8.6 Model city Hammarby Sjöstad, Daniel Hellström, Stockholm Water Co 8.7 Outcome from the discussion 9 British regional conference, Braintree - 18 November 2003 (by MU) 9.1 Meeting agenda 9.2 Objectives of the meeting 9.3 Presentations 9.4 Site visit to the Great Notley Country Park stormwater wetland (led by Brian Shutes) 10 Danish regional conference, Jütland - 25 November 2003 (by DTU) 10.1 Meeting agendameeting 10.3 Presentations 10.4 Questionnaires 10.5 Outcome from the discussion Annex A: List of Participants Annex B: Greek Extended End-User Questionnaire Annex C: Danish Extended End-User Questionnaire Annex D: Results from the evaluation of the Danish questionnaires Annex E: Results from the evaluation of the Swedish questionnaires Spørgeskema om risiko i forbindelse med lokal håndtering af regnvand(Udfyldes ved formiddags kaffepausen)Del 1 Generel information 10.6 Del 2 Håndtering af regnvand i byer Uddybende spørgsmål (Udfyldes ved eftermiddags kaffe pausen) Compilation of answers to the EEU-Questionnaire Keywords: Core-end user group, extended end-user group, proceedings, regional conference
FIELD TESTING Participating end-users in each country: Each scientific partner is working with 1 to 7 end-users in his country for the field testing: - Czech Republic: City of Karlin - Danemark: City of Karlebo on several types of project - France: Water and sewerage services of the two departments of Haut de Seine and Seine Saint Denis, Agglomerations of Lyon and Limoges, Association Marne Vive, Regulatory body on river Orge (SIVOA), Seine Normandie Water basin Agency (AESN) - Greece: Consultancy office Dimitris Soter-oupoulis & Partners , Municipality of Anno lossia, Municipality of Patras - Germany: City of Dresden, Wupperverband river basin association, Water body Emschergenossenschaft - The Netherlands: Municipalities of Bergen and Nijmegen, Consultant TAUW, Water body Hoogheemraad schap van Schieland - Sweden: Municipality of Hamarby - United Kingdom: Epping Forest District Council, Sevenoaks District Council, Countryside Property END-USER INTERVIEW: Wupperverband SOURCE AND FLUX MODELS One part of the DayWater project deals with the development of a new modelling tool for simulating sources and fluxes in wastewater systems. By combining the modelling approaches in two previously developed models, STORM and SEWSYS, it is possible to use the new sources and flux modelling (SFM) tool to simulate different scenarios of stormwater source control practices. Results from long-term simulations with the SFM tool enable statistical analysis and the calculation of hydrological data such as hydrographs and runoff volumes. The user of the model has the option to employ either standard concentrations or the integrated pollutant generator from SEWSYS to calculate pollution loads. An example of the output from the pollutant generator is shown below. The pollution load is displayed per area category: wet deposition, roads, roofs and other impervious areas. It is also possible to study the sources of stormwater pollution in a specific catchment to a higher degree. The figure also shows how the total pollution for copper is distributed between the sources incorporated in the model. In this example corrosion of copper roofs and brake wear from vehicles are the dominating sources of copper pollution. CITYNET ACTIVITIES The six CityNet project coordinators met in September 2004 in Copenhagen in order to discuss the different dissemination strategies in the CityNet Cluster projects. OUTLINE OF NEXT ISSUE PUBLICATIONS "Multi-criteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff"; Science of total environment 334-335 (2004), 251-260; B. Ellis, J.C. Deutsch, J.M. Mouchel, L. Scholes, M. Revitt Chemical hazard identification and assessment tool for evaluation of stormwater priority pollutants; Water Science & Technology (2005); E. Eriksson, A. Baun, P.S. Mikkelsen, A. Ledin Coping with uncertainty and risk in urban stormwater management; Proceedings of UPEM (Denmark); P.S. Mikkelsen, G. Geldof, C. de Roo, M.B. Hauger Risks and problems in urban stormwater management from an end-user perspective across Europe; CityNet workshop (Ghent); M.B. Hauger, A. Ledin, P.S. Mikkelsen CO-ORDINATOR'S WORD AGENDA CONTACTS
Traditionally the focus of urban stormwater management (USWM) is limited to technical aspects and as a result of this the scope water management is reduced to solving a technical optimisation problem for urban stormwater. In this project we will take into account all the relevant processes in urban areas: the technical aspects as well as the societal, economical, cultural and historical aspects of USWM. Urban dynamics are defined as all relevant, emerging processes in the urban context of USWM that some how affect USWM. The Daywater project considers USWM as a part of the whole environment and therefore the ADSS also have to include the context of USWM. The interactions between USWM and the context are complex by nature, because many actors are involved in the process, a large variety of structures exist at different scale levels, and many policy fields are covered, such as traffic, spatial planning and housing. Coping with this complexity has lead to the idea of a DSS with an adaptive nature (ability to adapt its structure when the context changes in order to survive ). In the Daywater project the dynamic urban context (in this project Urban Dynamics) is taken into consideration. The ADSS must support all kind of urban stormwater managers on all kind of levels in deciding on implementing measures. It supports how to reduce the pollution of water, the desertification of soils and the floods in a more durable way. The ADSS helps the manager to find out the real problems the decision makers are coping with. The project Daywater starts with an inventory of the way USWM is given form by the CEU. This report describes the inventory and gives a first analysis of the urban dynamics. This report gives containts a review of existing knowledge on decision support systems. Furthermore it comprises an first basic flowchart for the ADSS including all knowledge components delivered by the other partners.
To cope with urban dynamics, the storm water manager has to adapt from a one-aim approach to a multi-aim approach. Therefore his perception of USMW has to alter: from a focus on techniques towards a focus on the contribution of USWM to the spatial development. The aspects of water support a water manager to widen his scope to be able to involve perceptions of other stakeholders. Interactive Implemention hands over a strategy to design an effective strategy to connect USWM with spatial planning and the people living in project areas. This strategy supports at least to overcome four typical problems in coping with urban dynamics: funding source control, involving inhabitants, gaining political attention and stakeholder cooperation.
1 Introduction 2 Methodology 2.1 Source characterisation 2.2 Recipient, receptor and criteria identification 2.3 Hazard and problem identification 2.4 Hazard assessment 2.5 Expert judgement 3 Discussion and conclusions 4 List of references 5 Appendices 5.1 Eriksson et al., 2005 (Water Science and Technology) 5.2 CHIAT executable PowerPoint The methodology developed within this study was found to be very promising. It can be used generally for identifying selected priority pollutants (SSPP lists) for evaluation of different strategies for handling of storm- and wastewater and for selection of priority pollutants to be included in monitoring programmes. This procedure for selecting pollutants is transparent and adaptive to the specific scenario in focus. The study also showed that the number of XOCs that could be expected to be present in stormwater is large (656 XOCs). However, it also illustrated that the XOCs that have been identified and quantified in stormwater is probably only a fraction of those compounds that are present; 366 have been observed by measurements and 411 have been identified as potentially present, with an overlap of only 121 XOCs. The hazard and problem identification carried out as a filtering further reduced the number of relevant XOCs to 121, i.e. this is the potential priority pollutants. This part of the study was hampered by the lack of inherent data for some of the potential pollutants. The hazard assessment further reduced the number of relevant XOCs to 40. However, this step is very preliminary, due to lack of data and procedures for exposure and effect assessment. Finally, 16 XOCs were selected during the expert judgement. These have all inherent properties that makes them potentially hazardous. Furthermore, some of them have been observed in the environment in concentrations that could be critical for aquatic and soil living organisms. Keywords: Chemical risk assessment methodology, hazard identification, hazard assessment, xenobiotic organic compounds.
The multi-criteria comparator (MCC), contained within the DayWater ADSS, is an electronic version of the multi-criteria analysis technique which has been specifically designed to support stakeholders in identifying the most appropriate type of structural Best Management Practice (BMP) for a particular site. Currently, the multi-criteria approach is only applicable to individual stand-alone BMP devices i.e it does not consider hybrid or treatment train applications and it assumes a mixed land use catchment. In the MCC performance matrix, the possible solutions are a range of BMPs (the potential use of 15 different structural BMP systems may be evaluated), and the seven criteria against which each of the BMPs are evaluated are categorised as Technical, Environmental, Operation and Maintenance, Social and Urban Community Benefits, Economic Costs and Legal and Urban Planning. Each criterion is supported by a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) comprising diagnostic states or conditions which describe relevant and appropriate properties of the given criteria. Indicators essentially account for the changes in a driver-pressure, impact-response system and provide a comparative basis to decide when and whether the criteria have been satisfactorily addressed. The KPIs provide more detailed discriminators (e.g. flood storage, pollution control and system flexibility for the Technical criteria), and are benchmarked by threshold values (qualitative or quantitative) which can comprise a point of reference for decision-making. The criteria and KPIs were selected following extended DayWater enduser consultation. The MCC can be operated in 3 modes which involve either the use of default scores (Mode 1), the development of scores by the end-user Mode 2), or the refinement of an initial order of preference by introducing new scores for the initially generated BMP options (Mode 3). The different modes of operation support stakeholders who are new to urban stormwater management through the provision of default scores derived from the utility plot procedure (i.e. Mode 1), as well as offering a useful tool to those with more experience by enabling them to generate their own values using site-specific characteristics (i.e. Mode 2). The use of Mode 3 is a combination of Modes 1 and 2, enabling a robust shortlist of BMP options to be generated for which further site-specific information can be gathered as required, effectively enabling data collection which needs to be identified and completed in a targeted manner. The initial stage of the MCC program involves a site screening procedure where the entry of site specific data relating to depth to groundwater and information on either the soil hydraulic conductivity, soil type or infiltration rate, together with more general information on the size of the contributing catchment area is requested. This process automatically warns the user regarding those BMPs which are not appropriate for use due to site-specific conditions e.g. the appearance of a red colour indicates that a BMP should not be used and an orange colouration advises the user that a particular BMP should not be used in isolation because of the size of the contributing catchment area. Using the MCC performance matrix, the user is required to allocate weightings at the criterion and/or indicator level to reflect their particular concerns or to address site-specific issues. The actual MCC process involves combining the allocated scores and weightings by calculating the sum of each score x weighting value for each indicator for each BMP. This enables an Order of Preference to be produced in which the BMP-specific summed values are ranked from highest to lowest, effectively generating an order of preference for the use of BMPs at a particular site. The MCC can support urban stormwater stakeholders, both directly and indirectly, in a variety of different ways. The performance matrix provides a decision-making framework within which the application of benchmarked scores enables a large amount of complex information to be handled in a consistent way. In addition, the inclusion of descriptions relating to the development of the default scores (both as short simplified summaries and more detailed pdf documents), provides stakeholders with a comprehensive source of information and explanation about each indicator and facilitates discussions in areas in which not all stakeholders may be familiar. The MCC methodology provides a simple, robust and readily-understandable procedure that can be appropriately applied to the evaluation of selection criteria of alternative stormwater source control technologies as a means of identifying preferred solutions. The procedure is flexible and amenable to a variety of stakeholder and institutional interests with the methodology primarily intended to provide guidance for stakeholders within the context of a participatory negotiation and learning process.
What is CityNet? CityNet is a cluster of six ongoing projects funded by the European Commission under the 5th Community Research Programme, dealing with urban water issues, which includes 47 R&D institutions and 56 end-users across Europe. Mutually beneficial input and output transfers between the six projects are for example: infiltration of groundwater into sewers (APUSS) reduces water resources and influences wastewater streams, while exfiltration might be the cause of aquifer pollution (AISUWRS); all these may cause a reduction in the operational efficiency of wastewater treatment performance and pollution of receiving waters (CD4WC); similar impacts to the deterioration of wastewater treatment and receiving waters could be caused by inadequate stormwater management (DayWater). In conjunction with work on addressing these issues, improved approaches in strategic rehabilitation of urban water supply (CARE-W) as well as sewer systems (CARE-S) come to provide additional tools for maintaining crucial and desirable operational, environmental and social efficiency. The cluster aims to: - Understand, describe, analyse and provide decision support for a problem-oriented, cost-efficient, and sustainable urban water management in European cities, including their water resources, technical infrastructure and management challenges. - Form a network of excellence and expertise bringing together the necessary critical mass of research excellence capable of contributing to the discussions and orientations on research needs in urban water management at European Union level, including governmental and administrative bodies. - Link individual projects and integrated cluster activities to other ongoing European, international and national research projects. - Position the partners & outcomes of the individual projects and the cluster for application and commercialisation in Europe and world wide. contact CityNet Contact Press Release daywater@cereve.enpc.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study represents the largest collection of data on the ecotoxicity of stormwater samples. It was found that the potential ecotoxicological impact varies between storms at each site, between sites and in relation to its impact of different test organisms. In relation to the performance of tests in a biotest battery, it was found that the Microtox test was the most sensitive of the three tests applied. Although issues with toxicity of blanks were encountered in the Microtox tests, the analysis of these procedural blanks enabled a baseline level of Microtox ecotoxicity to be identified against which the toxicity of stormwater samples could be meaningfully compared. This is particularly important to keep in mind for interpreting Microtox data and decided when toxicity levels are of concern. The quantitative detection of toxicity was better in Microtox than in algal and rotifer tests. Thus, in 76% of the samples toxicity could be quantified in terms of EC-values when tested in the Microtox test whereas this was only possible for 39% of samples tested in algal tests. Some correlation between results of algal and rotifer tests and weak correlation between some rotifer and bacteria data. The study support the use of a battery of biotests approach as the concomitant use of biotests resulted in a higher detection than would have been achieved using only a single test. The classification of stormwater toxicity suggested in the present study gives only an indication of the potential toxic impact of stormwater on organisms in the receiving waters. It is however noteworthy that most of the stormwater samples were classified as moderately to low toxic and that in only 10 of 38 tested samples could toxicity not be detected using the biotest battery. The biotest approach allows for detection of toxicity of whole samples and also for ranking between samples based on the toxicity. The use of even simple toxicity identification procedures enabled conclusions to be drawn on the main compounds contributing to the toxicity of the whole sample. Thus, it was found that addition of EDTA tends to reduce sample toxicity in comparison to the whole sample by a variable amount suggesting that metals make an important contribution to the total sample toxicity and concentrations of metals varies between storms. It was however also clear from the study that comprehensive chemical analyses will still be needed to verify results of TIE and to implement source tracking and elimination measures. The metals found at the Stockholm site and organic compounds (most often polyaromatic hydrocarbons) found in other studies of stormwater will primarily be bound to suspended solids. Suspended solids may settle as sediments in retention ponds or be transported to receiving waters during rain events. The resuspension tests included in the present study showed the potential toxic impact of sediment bound contamination and future activities should include toxicity tests of sediments and/or aqueous extracts hereof along with chemical analysis to identify priority pollutants. As a general rule for both water and sediment samples, chemical analysis and biotests should be used as complementary methods not as alternatives in vulnerability assessments of stormwater. It is currently, however, primarily the results of chemical analyses, which form the basis for hazard and vulnerability assessments of stormwater discharges. Chemical analyses will only give information on the identity and quantity of single compound and will not reveal anything about the toxicity of the whole sample. The work carried out in T4.4 demonstrates the applicability of biotests for addressing issues of ecosystem vulnerability with the main benefit of including biotests being detection and ranking of toxicity of whole stormwater samples. It is strongly recommended that a biotest approach is included in regulatory frameworks especially in relation to setting up a monitoring strategy in relation to fulfilling the needs for addressing the issues of Ecological status of receiving waters as outlined in the Water Framework Directive. Keywords: Biotests, Vulnerability, Toxicity, Algae, Rotifers, Microtox
This report represents a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge on the use and performance of BMPs for stormwater treatment and control within Europe. It has been prepared through contributions provided by several partners in the DayWater project based on both their extensive knowledge and specific expertise of stormwater BMPs. An emphasis has been placed on the design, operation, maintenance and costing of stormwater BMPs, with particular regard to country specific factors. The accepted use of these systems varies with a wide range of structural and non- structural BMPs being employed in northern and temperate European countries for stormwater control, whereas their applicability is less well developed in southern European countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. An exception to this is street cleaning, which appears to be a common practice throughout Europe. There also appear to be patterns or trends in the types of BMPs preferred within various countries, with for example, rainwater harvesting being a popular stormwater BMP in France and Germany, but practised to a lesser extent in other European countries. A variety of methods are available to assist the design of structural BMPs based on parameters or criteria which are relevant to the treatment process. Examples which have commonly been employed include particle settling characteristics, capture of the first 10-15mm of effective runoff, residence time, return period, infiltration capability and pollutant removal capability. These overall approaches are available through the publication of a range of design manuals, guidelines and recommendations, with a wide selection of computer models routinely being used to enable system performance to be evaluated under a variety of conditions. Operation and maintenance (O&M) is a major concern when the use of stormwater BMPs is being considered. Although it is often stated that O&M requirements must be included in the initial design and costing process, this is not always the case in practice and the issue of O&M guidelines for the adoption of stormwater BMPs by an appropriate body is often problematic. The use of stormwater BMPs is generally accepted to result in reductions in treatment costs compared to conventional systems with savings ranging from 18-50% having been reported for a range of BMPs. However, the initial capital costs can be elevated such as in the case of road infrastructure BMPs where more expensive surfacing materials may be used. Costs can also vary considerably between sites depending upon local conditions, including engineering constraints (which will normally increase costs) and land constraints (which may lead to decreased costs but also a reduction in performance). Different types of structural BMPs are evaluated against a range of factors which have been identified in terms of their influence on the selection and use of these systems. The data presented on BMP performances demonstrates that they can effectively manage both the quantity and quality of stormwater in northern and temperate European countries. Where poor or variable removal performances have been reported, a range of reasons have been cited such as the re-entrainment of solids during high flows, short circuiting and low detention times. Key problems are identified in the way performance data are determined and calculated and represent an important area for consideration in future discussions of BMP performances. This report provides a comprehensive review of the design, operation and performance of BMPs across Europe. It provides stakeholders and end-users with detailed information on the ability of BMPs to treat and control stormwater, whilst also discussing issues that have been a cause of concern (e.g. the adoption of O&M requirements) and highlighting areas for further research (e.g. development of quantifiable sustainability criteria). It can therefore be used as a balanced source of information on the current use of stormwater.
Urban drainage systems for impermeable surface stormwater runoff represent a particular issue for developers, regulatory agencies and water service companies given the increasing pressure to achieve sustainable drainage solutions. Best management practices (BMPs) applied to such drainage systems can offer secondary benefits of water quality and amenity/ecology improvements in addition to flow control and pollution removal. The application of BMPs involves a variety of stakeholders in both the public and private arenas and therefore their drainage and design can be subject to differing degrees of uncertainty with regard to the relevance of influencing political, organisational, technical and environmental factors. In addition to being effective in terms of long term performance, they also need to be cost-effective when compared with conventional systems. Sustainability criteria therefore are required to be referenced against the critical design parameters which relate primarily to water attenuation, water quality improvements and enhancement of amenity/ecological provision. Thus design and construction, environmental/ecological impact, operation and maintenance, health and safety, social/urban community as well as economic and legal issues become prime potential sustainability criteria to facilitate comparisons and accreditation of drainage options with regard to capital cost, resource use, acceptability, performance etc. Given such dependences and variabilities, it is relevant to consider how multi-objective and multi-operational criteria can be utilised to assess the relative importance of the factors which specifically influence the use of BMPs within surface drainage systems. A detailed report has beeen produced titled 'Criteria relevant to the assessment of BMP performance'. Within Section 2 of this report, the selected terms for describing the factors which influence BMP selection are defined. Subsequently (in Section 3) the key criteria are identified for assisting stakeholders in the determination of the most appropriate stormwater BMP(s) for a specific catchment area. The seven identified criteria categories are subdivided into primary and secondary indicators and then benchmarked using appropriate threshold values or units. The primary indicators are those which can be considered to be generic to each of the criteria and the secondary indicators provide a more detailed description of the BMP characteristics/properties which are being assessed. The benchmarks take this process a step further by identifying the important factors or conditions appropriate to each secondary indicator and for each benchmark, relevant threshold values are assigned. At this stage in the work, actual values have not been allocated but these will be introduced in the form of quantitative or qualitative inputs, according to which is more appropriate. This deliverable represents the start of the process which will enable end-users to identify the most appropriate stormwater BMP(s) with regard to a range of often contrasting and conflicting demands such as system performance, adoption, community benefits and life cycle costs. The extensive nature of the criteria descriptors is partly due to the need to cover all aspects which are relevant to European conditions. The comprehensive range of criteria, indicators and benchmarks may prove to be too detailed for many end-users and therefore these have been ranked to prioritise those which are considered to be of the most relevance. These are identified in Section 4 and it is envisaged that when incorporated into the ADSS, users would have the opportunity to initially access the highly ranked indicators and benchmarks and move to the second, more extensive tier, when a more sophisticated analysis is required. The Water Pollution Unit at Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, the Department of Water Resources Hydraulic and Maritime Works at the National Technical University of Athens and the Environment and Resources Unit at the Technical University of Denmark are acknowledged for their contributions to the preparation of this document.
GENERAL PRESENTATION PRESENTATION OF THE END-USERS END-USER INTERVIEW OUTLINE OF NEXT ISSUE PUBLICATIONS CO-ORDINATOR'S WORD AGENDA CONTACTS DayWater, literally "stormwater runoff" in Swedish, is also the name of a network of researchers and managers associated with an European research and development project. This first issue of the DayWater News presents the main features of the research project (objectives, partners and associated end-users). It also gives the opportunity to one of the 14 associated end-users (Stockholm Water) to describe their contribution to the project and their expectations. Together with local language versions (the French version is already available), the English version is disseminated to public and private stakeholders involved in the source control of urban stormwater. The next issue of the bi-annual newsletter will present the first major results of the DayWater project. We would greatly appreciate receiving your comments and questions, preferably via e-mail ( They will allow us to improve the layout, content and dissemination procedure of this newsletter. Miriam Förster, Bruno Tassin & Daniel Thévenot
REGIONAL CONFERENCES END-USER INTERVIEW OUTLINE OF NEXT ISSUE PUBLICATIONS PROGRAMME OFFICER'S WORD AGENDA CONTACTS The DayWater project has now been running for more than a year and we would like to update you on the on-going scientific progress. Each of the scientific partners organised a regional conference inviting in total 280 end-users (in Oct/Nov 2003) in order to increase interaction between the end-users and ADSS developers. At this time the ADSS structure and functionality are in the process of definition through deep and detailed discussions. A first ADSS prototype is internally available for implementation and testing. During the first 12 months, the DayWater teams have prepared numerous reports, which are available on our web-site as far as they are designated within the public domain. For example the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in Europe has been thoroughly documented and a report on risk perception, risk assessment and risk management related to the DayWater context has been finalised. A number of end-users are supporting biotests applied to runoff and re-suspended sediment: the tests will be executed during the next 6 months. During the first annual meeting in Athens, the scientific officer of the European Commission informed project partners about the upcoming 3rd call for the 6th Framework Programme. The CityNet Cluster steering committee meanwhile agreed on a procedure for the elaboration of a proposal, which will be discussed at the next end-user seminar in Ghent (16-18 March 2004). During the first year of the CityNet Cluster two CityNet press releases have been disseminated to 78 news services in 10 countries.