Click for next page ( 49


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 48
48 CHAPTER 2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PREFERENCES All 50 state departments of transportation (DOTs) ranked ity in relatively low-density states as well as high-density 45 research priority areas identified by lead DOTs and the ones. Conversely, opportunities for roadside dispersal were research team and added information regarding any further of interest in the most densely populated states as well as the preferences with regard to research needs; see Table 2-1. more rural ones. Nevertheless, state DOTs may still be inter- All items on the ranked list had been identified as a high- ested in identifying fellow agencies with strong interests in priority research area by at least one DOT, and in many seeing research performed in given areas. State DOTs that cases the phrasing for a particular problem statement origi- placed a high or medium priority on research topics in the nated with a DOT. survey are identified in Table A-2 in Appendix A. For read- Each area was weighted in order to identify those with the ers' convenience, a summary table of rankings by combined highest positive and the lowest negative preferences. To preference for all research priorities is included as Table A-1. develop an overall ranking of research preferences, including the priorities of all 50 state DOTs, and to produce sufficient separation of results (minimization of duplicate rankings or 2.1. TOP-RANKED AREAS OF NEEDED ties), researchers assigned the following weightings to reported RESEARCH: STORMWATER CONTROL rankings: FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS A weight of 4 for high-priority research, The survey yielded some interesting and perhaps sur- A weight of 2 for medium-priority research, and prising results given the panel and GKY's previous empha- A negative weight (-1) for low-priority research. sis on research pertaining to receiving water impacts. DOTs expressed the strongest needs and interests in the area of When multiple practitioners from a state DOT participated stormwater control facility cost and performance. in suggesting rankings, researchers used the highest ranking Out of a total of 45 research areas, all 6 of the top-ranked assigned to each category, ensuring each research area the priority areas addressed evaluation of stormwater control facil- best opportunity at being ranked highly and to fully represent ities and programs; see Table 2-2. the states most avid research interests and priorities. In other words, if one of the state's leading stormwater practitioners DOTs ranked research on the operations and maintenance thought it was a high-priority research area for that state, it costs of BMPs as their highest interest area--only four was listed as high priority. The number of high-priority states ranked it a low-priority research area. Research on research areas a state could include was not limited. operations and maintenance costs was ranked as a high It should be noted that even low-ranked research priority priority by 75% of the DOTs. Evaluation of construc- areas were still high-priority research areas for a small number tion costs of BMPs was ranked 5th and the need for of DOTs. In addition, the DOTs indicating interest in research development of a methodology to quantify BMP bene- topics had a wide geographic dispersal in all cases, without fits and costs was ranked 4th. obvious geographic trends. While northern and mountainous Some of the other strongest interest areas of the DOTs states had interests in deicing agent selection criteria (as relate to BMP effectiveness, including evaluation of might be expected), even states with temperate climates such BMP efficiencies, technical feasibility, and new erosion- as Arizona and Hawaii expressed moderate interest. Interest control technology, which ranked 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. in traction sand removal was the most limited to a particular Among new technology evaluation, development of region of the United States, in this case the northern states, small footprint BMPs was a particular interest area and though interest extended as far south as Virginia. States in was ranked 9th. both arid and moist climates placed a priority on mosquito control. Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington were interested in Each of the research areas discussed above was ranked as arid region erosion control as were states with much larger a high or medium priority by at least 80% (40 out of 50) of arid areas. Interest in small footprint BMPs was a high prior- the state DOTs.

OCR for page 48
49 TABLE 2-1 Research areas pertaining to evaluation of stormwater control facilities and programs ranked in priority by state DOTs Number of State DOTs Ranking Each Research Area Research Areas Pertaining to Evaluation of Stormwater Control Facilities and Programs SCORE RANK High Mid-level Low Priority Priority Priority (3) (2) (1) WEIGHT 4 2 -1 1 Operations and maintenance costs of BMPs 36 10 4 160 2 Construction BMPs efficiencies 37 8 5 159 3 Technical feasibility of BMPs 30 14 6 142 4 Methodology to quantify BMPs benefits and costs 27 17 6 136 5 Construction costs of BMPs 29 12 9 131 6 New erosion control technology evaluation 28 13 9 129 9 Development of small footprint BMPs 22 18 10 114 Performance of nonvegetative permanent soil stabilizers for 10 reducing erosion and potential impacts of products on 23 15 11 111 stormwater quality Applicability and effectiveness of particular low impact 11 19 19 9 105 design (LID) methods in linear corridors/for transportation 12 Temporary nonvegetative soil stabilization evaluation 23 13 14 104 Performance of BMPs retrofits/effectiveness (removing 15 constituents of concerns, hydraulic performance, export of 21 14 15 97 elements to receiving waters) 17 Vegetation establishment 20 15 15 95 18 BMPs benefits and constraints in highly urbanized corridors 17 19 12 94 19 Selection of treatment BMPs and documentation of process 18 18 14 94 20 Detention basin design optimization 16 20 14 90 Effectiveness of combination of sedimentation, filtration, and 21 chemical addition for stormwater BMPs construction and 17 18 15 89 retrofit projects Guidance for seed mixes and effective establishment and 22 maintenance of erosion control vegetation for short-term first 20 13 17 89 growth and long-term establishment 29 Soil evaluation process for slope vegetation 13 20 17 75 30 Bypass detention basin design and effectiveness 13 19 17 73 LID modeling and design, so that end-of-pipe control systems 31 13 18 16 72 can be sized accurately Design and maintenance of BMPs to reduce mosquito and 34 15 12 23 61 other vermin populations 36 Gross solid removal device design and performance 12 15 23 55 Practical and effective ways to improve dissolved metal 38 9 19 22 52 removal in current systems 39 Traction and removal BMPs for snow areas 12 12 26 46 40 Toxicity controls 7 20 22 46 43 Physics and chemistry of BMPs design 5 15 29 21 44 Arid region erosion control 10 5 34 16 45 Viral pathogen indicators and treatment 4 10 34 2 A separately identified category, performance of BMP Other research areas ranked in the top one-half of identi- retrofits/effectiveness (removing constituents of concerns, fied research areas, in order of preference, included hydraulic performance, and export of elements to receiving waters), was ranked 15th by state DOT water quality profes- Performance of nonvegetative permanent soil stabiliz- sionals and was still in the top one-third of research priority ers for reducing erosion and potential impacts of prod- areas overall. Considerably more research has occurred in ucts on stormwater quality; this field, though gaps remain. NCHRP 25-20(01), to be Applicability and effectiveness of particular low impact completed in January 2005, will involve collecting and eval- development (LID) design methods in linear corridors uating information on BMP effectiveness and unit treatment and for transportation; process. Temporary nonvegetative soil stabilization evaluation;