TREATMENT WETLAND RESEARCH & IMPLEMENTATION IN CENTRAL NEW YORK as part of Wetlands, Watersheds and Resources Technical Assistance partnership Forum Thursday March 22, 2012 Center of Excellence

By Richard Smardon PhD Professor of Environmental Studies, SUNY/ESF

Green Infrastructure & wetlands ! Drivers

! Urban runoff water quality & CWA ! Flooding & erosion control prevention ! Air quality & microclimate improvement ! Improving urban health & amenities ! Growth control vs. urban regeneration

Green Infrastructure Questions ! Issues affecting GI implementation

! Obstacles to implementation (NSF/USFS Ultra) ! Cost effectiveness (Jaffe et al 2010) ! Emergy analysis (Rodriguez 2011) ! Life cycle analysis (Rodriguez 2011) ! Effectiveness in providing ecological services (see

CNT 2010)

Ongoing Research projects ! CNY Watershed Project > Harbor Brook CSO

Treatment Wetlands ! Agricultural Waste Treatment Wetlands ! Green Infrastructure NSF/ US Forest Service

ULTRA project in Syracuse, NY

HARBOR BROOK TREATMENT WETLAND CASE STUDY #1

! PROJECT PARTNERSHIP: ! ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION ! SUNY COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

& FORESTRY ! ONONDAGA COUNTY + CITY OF SYRACUSE

! PILOT STUDY: IDENTIFY SITES FOR CSO TREATMENT > BUILD w/CH2Mhill

PLANNING STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION ! Review of sites proposed for creating treatment

wetlands ! Eleven sites reviewed for : access, land

availability, engineering feasibility, hydrology, soils, drainage area, and upstream CSO loading

PLANNING PROJECT RESULTS ! Harbor Brook = selected site ! Site design for wetland treatment ! Land/existing facility availability ! Topography ! Compatible environmental resources

Map of Frontenac s Expedition Route against the Onondagas, 1696. Source: Naval Department, Government of France.

Harbor Brook Watershed Delineation and Land Use Characterization

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.

Present Day Land Use in Areas of Former Wetlands

(Onondaga Lake Drainage)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Low

Inte

ns.

Resi

d.

Hig

h Inte

ns.

Resi

d.

Com

m/Ind/T

ransp

Quarr

ies/

Str

ip

Min

es

Deci

d. F

ore

st

Eve

rgre

en F

ore

st

Mix

ed F

ore

st

Past

ure

/Hay

Row

Cro

ps

Urb

an G

rass

es

Woody

Wetla

nds

Em

erg

. H

erb

.

Wetla

nds

Land Use Types

Are

a i

n A

cre

s

Low Intens. Resid.High Intens. Resid.Comm/Ind/TranspQuarries/Strip MinesDecid. ForestEvergreen ForestMixed ForestPasture/HayRow CropsUrban GrassesWoody WetlandsEmerg. Herb. Wetlands

Successful Constructed Wetlands Case Studies in US

Results ! The planted gravel beds achieve better than 90%

removal of chemicals than the planted soil beds which remove around 80%

! Ammonia-35% was removed in all beds ! Oxidized nitrogen was always low in each bed ! Phosphorus removal showed to be insignificant in the

gravel beds but not in the soil beds

Aerial View of Current site

Grand Ave

Velasko Rd.

Stream.

Typical streambed character!

CSO Inlets

View of Harbor Brook wetland site

Water issues:

Fecal Coliform Bacteria Phosphorus Overload

Nitrogen Overload

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100105 11

0

11

5

120125130135140145150155160165170175180185

T ime

Ser ies1

Stage Derived from Manning's Equation for Harbor Brook At Velasco Road, 1 yr. Storm

Slow Particulate Sediment Flow

Nutrient flow & absorption in sediment & vegetation

Subsurface wetland treatment design for CSO!Features of the design include:!

• Distributional inflow system!• Series of subsurface treatment beds allows!• Year round aerobic & anaerobic processes!• Outflow collection system !• Potential for created wetlands on surface using!!treated discharge!

WETLAND DESIGN CHANGE #1!

Aquatic plants in future wetland

Treatment wetland design change #2

! Lower Levels of Phosphorus, Nitrates and Fecal Coliform Bacteria from CSO ! Through design of 3 linked wetlands: floating islands, vertical and horizontal ! SUNY/ESF will operate & monitor 3 treatment wetlands for removal effectiveness for organics and coliform bacteria

Second Case Study: Agricultural WQ Treatment with Restored Wetlands ! By Lauren Johnson, PhD NRCS ! under Prof. R.C. Smardon’s direction as a PhD

graduate student at SUNY/ESF

Map of Delivered Yield of Nitrogen-Agriculture: The map identifies the Upper Chenango River Watershed (located north of Norwich, NY) as being in the: 75th – 100th Percentile of Delivered Nitrogen (kg/ag hec/yr).

Problem

Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay Watershed Strategic Plan (USC 2004)

(typical) Palmetier Farm-Sherburne, NY

Source

Constructed Wetlands—adapted from USDA NRCS 2005

Nitrogen Transformation In Wetlands—adapted from Mitsch and Gosselink (1993)

USDA NRCS Constructed Wetland (CW-656)

Biotransformation Function

!"#$%&'()*+,-).%/"-0+"1+'2%+3%4%)-$25+62%+7"/+89):-).+9**(4'-)'%4+'2%+8%8($;<%+-%)4"#9#:+*%)89#:+'"+'2%+&-"&"4%8+3%4'"-%8+=%'*)#8+>+6-%)'.%#'+?@AB+)#8+'2%+9#'%-&*)C+"1+/%'*)#8+4$9%#$%B+)&&*9$);"#B+)#8+&"*9$C+/9'2+'2%+'2-%%+-%*)'%8+-%4%)-$2+D(%4;"#4E+

Wetland Research

Maps of Study Areas: The maps show the locations of Chenango County, its major watersheds, and the Long Acres Wetland.

Wetland Research Study Areas

Hydraulic Restoration Variables: The flow diagram illustrates nitrogen polluted runoff interacting with wetland biotransformation variables and their as measurable covariates.

Wetland Science

FGHI+#"+%J%$'+"#+K6L3++FGMI+/9**+8%$-%)4%+K6L3E+

Map of 44 Selected hydric polygons/farms

0 10,0005,000Meters!

(typical) Tanis Farm – Pitcher, NY

Wetland Application

muskrat house

Finding 1 – The restored Long Acres Wetland significantly reduced N in runoff

2D horizontal conductivity 2005 / 2006

&-%N+)#8++&"4'N-%4'"-);"#+O6LP+)#8+K6L3

related research- enhanced habitat function

future research - advective flow

Findings FGHI+#"+%J%$'+"#+K6L3++FGMI+/9**+8%$-%)4%+K6L3E+

Finding 2 – restorable degraded wetlands are readily available

!"-#%**+@"8%*5+&-%89$'4+<)**%C+)-%)4+/9**+4(&&"-'+8)9-C+1)-.4

future research - trends of agriculture

related research - applicable to other places

Q94'-9R(;"#+"1+'2%+,9#)*+SS+GC8-9$+T"9*+A"*C:"#4

Findings

Targeted Susquehanna Basin Watersheds

(H0) no drained wetlands are suitable (H1) all drained wetlands are suitable

Finding 3 – RW-T BMP is generally supported by wetland stakeholders

=)'%-+U()*9'CN=%'*)#8+3%4'"-);"#+A"*9$C+T$294.

wetland stakeholder- dairy farmer

wetland stakeholder- rural resident

future research - wetland policy change is required

related research - groups are divergent in ideology

4(-<%C+&)-;$9&)#'4V+.%)#+W90%-'+T$)*%+<)*(%4

Findings FGHI+'2%+.)X"-9'C+"1+4(-<%C%8+4')0%2"*8%-4+Y/9**+"&&"4%Z++FGMI+'2%+.)X"-9'C+"1+4(-<%C%8+4')0%2"*8%-4+Y/9**+4(&&"-'Z

Flow Diagram of Water Quality-Wetland Stakeholders’ Interactions: The flow diagram illustrates the linkage and capacity building between the Chesapeake Bay Stakeholders and the Chenango County Water Quality Coordinating Committee, providing an opportunity to implement restored wetland-treatment projects through a demonstration project.

local dairy farmers

Synthesis

Ingert Farm-Smyrna, NY

Harmon Farm-Sherburne, NY

Proskine Farm-Norwich, NY

@)&+"1+T(9')R*%+[&&%-+!2%#)#:"+39<%-+T(RN=)'%-42%8+,)-.45+62%+.)&+42"/4+'2%+*"$);"#4+"1+MS+8)9-C+1)-.4+/9'2+4(9')R*%+8-)9#%8+/%'*)#84+/9'2+$"--%4&"#89#:+1)-.%-+.";<);"#)*+-)#09#:+#(.R%-+FYMZN+29:2%4'+-)#0%8IE+

Synthesis

Questions?