Upload
vunguyet
View
220
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Welcome to the
UVM Bioretention
Laboratory
Paliza Shrestha
May 1, 2014
Challenges and Solutions
Using Low Impact Development
Lake Champlain Basin Program. (2012). State of the Lake and Ecosystems Indicators Report.
Stormwater Pollution
1) Pathogens: fecal coliform, E. coli
2) Organics & Heavy Metals: PCB's, Herbicides, Insecticides, Mercury, Cadmium, Lead, Cupper
3) Fertilizers (N & P)
– Total N, NO3-N: Limiting nutrient for ocean ecosystems
– Total P, PO4-P (Soluble Reactive Phosphorus): Limiting nutrient for freshwater ecosystems
Low Impact Development
What are Bioretention Systems?
• Bioretention – A water quality practice that utilizes physical, chemical and biological pollutant removal mechanisms to treat polluted runoff.
Green Roofs
Porous Pavement
Vegetated Swales Constructed Wetlands
Rain Gardens
Amanda Cording, PhD Student [email protected] UVM Department of Plant and Soil Science 230 Jeffords Hall Burlington, VT 05405 774.262.6256 Dr. Stephanie Hurley, Advisor and PI UVM Department of Plant and Soil Science Dr. Carol Adair, Committee Member and Co-PI UVM Rubenstein School of the Environment and Natural Resources Project Website: http://www.uvm.edu/~pss/?Page=bioretentionproject.html
University of Vermont
Bioretention Laboratory:
Partners
Experimental Design: 3 Treatments
1. Precipitation: Ambient vs. Increased
2. Soil Media: Traditional vs. Sorbtive Media™
3. Vegetation: Low Diversity vs. High Diversity
• Would increased precipitation, due to climate change, affect bioretention?
• Do soils differ in their capacity to remove pollutants?
• How do different plant pallets affect pollutant uptake?
7 8
2 6
3
1
4
5
LOW DIV
HIGH DIV
Cell with Rain Pan
AMB RAIN PAN RAIN PAN AMB
SORBTIVE
5
2
7 6
1
434 357 674
576 320 658
3
Legend
AMB Ambient Rainfall
Precipitation Treatment
Vegetative Treatment
Study Design Layout
Cell Area (ft2)
Sorbtive Media ™ Treatment
* Cell Area is listed in watershed as ft2
Experimental Design: 3 Treatments • Is there an effect on greenhouse gases emissions? • Is denitrification occurring during/after saturation?
Methods: Water Quality
Equipment Parameter
ISCO 6712 Automatic Samplers
Total Nitrogen (TN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Nitrite+Nitrate-N (NO3
-) Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Flow Rate *units: μg/L, mg/L, L/s or ft3/s (cfs)
Measuring Flow Rate (Q)
Q=CHn
Inflow 90o weir box Outflow Thel-Mar™ weir
Where:
Q = flow rate over the weir (L/s)
H= depth of water (head) behind the weir
n = an empirical exponent (dimensionless)
C= coefficient of discharge, or weir coefficient
Methods: Soil Conditions Equipment Parameter
Decagon Probes (depths of 2” and 2’) Rain Gauge
Soil temperature Moisture Conductivity Rainfall
Methods: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. Measured bi-weekly May-October
2. CO2 , CH4, N2O three locations per plot, (T0, T15,T30)
3. Inorganic soil N, moisture, temperature, bulk density, as covariate for N2O fluxes
Plan View: Water into Curb Cut
Plan View: Filter Strip
Inflow Monitoring Using 90o V-notch Weir Box
Plan View: Distribution Channel
Bioretention Cell Construction
12” 60:40 sand/compost layer
Bioretention Cell Construction
3” Imbrium Sorbtive Media™
Bioretention Cell Construction
3” pea stone layer
Bioretention Cell Construction
9” gravel layer
Plan View: 6” Perforated Pipe
Outflow Monitoring Using 6” In-Pipe Thel-Mar ™ Weir
Installing Outflow Monitoring Equipment
Construction Complete: November 2012
Big thanks to Dave Whitney, EcoSolutions, Andres Torizzo, Watershed Consulting , Imbrium Staff, Arcana, Gardner’s Supply, and Tri-Angle Metal Supply
Vegetation Planted: May 2013
Low Diversity (2 species) vs. High Diversity (7 species)
Established Vegetation: August 2013
Low Diversity (2 species) vs. High Diversity (7 species)
Preliminary Results: Flow Rate (cfs)
Peak Flow Rate Retention: 86.5%
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
1:55 PM 2:24 PM 2:52 PM 3:21 PM 3:50 PM 4:19 PM
(cfs)
Flow Rate Cell 7 Inflow 7/4/13
Flow Rate Cell 7 Outflow 7/4/13
Flow Rate Inflow and Outflow 7/4/13
Peak Flow Rate Retention: 90.6%
Inflow and Outflow TSS (g)
Average TSS Retention: 91.8%
Preliminary Data (6/22/13 – 11/1/13) SRP Inflow & Outflow Pairs (n=7)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EMC (μg/L)
Bioretention Cell
Inflow SRP EMC
Outflow SRP EMC
Updated 4/5/14
Baseline Conditions: 60:40 Sand Compost Mix
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
60:40 Compost Mix (Top 12")
mg/kg
K
Mg
Available Phosphorus
Na
S
Mn
Al
Fe
Zn
B
Cu
190 mg/kg
Future Work: Bioretention Cell Design
Figure 4. Excerpt from Vermont Stormwater Management Manual with Typical Section of a Bioretention Cell. “Filter” refers to a layer of filter fabric; the circle at the base of the section represents the underdrain pipe, which
connects to the existing storm sewer system.
FILTER FABRIC
What are our goals?
Image Sources: Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (2002), © 2012 Nature Education 1995 Conservation Research Institute, Heidi Natura.
Soil Media: • Growing plants or removing P?
Target chemical composition? Mulch: • Type? Contribute N or P? • Metal retention? Filter Fabric/Geotextile: • Contributes to clogging? Anaerobic Zone: • Length of saturation time for
denitrification to occur? Plants: • Root depth? % Cover?
Upcoming Work 1. Compost Study: N & P leaching after saturation events?
2. Greenhouse gas (N2O, CH4, CO2) measurements
3. Season II: Precipitation, Vegetation, Soil Treatments
Thank You!
Amanda Cording, PhD Student
Office: 230 Jeffords [email protected]
Website: www.uvm.edu/~pss/?Page=bioretentionproject.html
Plant Pallet 1: High Species Diversity (7)
Latin Name Common Name
Aesclepius incarnata Butterflyweed, Milkweed 'Tuberosa'
Anemone canadensis Windflower
Aquilegia canadensis Columbine
Aster novae-angliae New England Aster 'Purple Dome'
Baptisia australis Blue False Indigo 'Caspian' and 'Midnight Prairiebliss'
Helenium autumnale Sneezeweed 'Red + Gold'
Lobeliea cardinalis Cardinal Flower
Hemerocallis spp. Daylilies 'Stella d'Oro'
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass 'Shenandoah'
Plant Pallet 2: Low Species Diversity (2)
References 1. Blecken, G.-T., Zinger, Y., Deletić, A., Fletcher, T. D., Hedström, A., and Viklander, M. (2010). “Laboratory study on stormwater biofiltration: Nutrient and
sediment removal in cold temperatures.” Journal of Hydrology, 394(3-4), 507–514.
2. Claytor, R. A., & Schueler, T. R. (1996). Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems (pp. 1–220).
3. Collins, K. a., Lawrence, T. J., Stander, E. K., Jontos, R. J., Kaushal, S. S., Newcomer, T. a., Grimm, N. B., and Cole Ekberg, M. L. (2010). “Opportunities and challenges for managing nitrogen in urban stormwater: A review and synthesis.” Ecological Engineering, Elsevier B.V., 36(11), 1507–1519.
4. Davis, A. P., Shokouhian, M., Sharma, H., and Minami, C. (2006). “Water quality improvement through bioretention media: nitrogen and phosphorus removal.” Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation, 78(3), 284–93.
5. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2005). A Field Evaluation of Rain Garden Flow and Pollutant Treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 167, 123–138.
6. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2006). Saturation to improve pollutant retention in a rain garden. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4), 1335–40. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16572794
7. Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan. (2008). Low Impact Development Manual for Michigan: A Design Guide for Implementers and Reviewers.
8. Harper, C. W., Blair, J. M., Fay, P. A., Knapp, A. K. and Carlisle, J. D. 2005. “Increased rainfall variability and reduced rainfall amount decreases soil CO2 flux in a grassland ecosystem.” Global Change Biol. 11, 322-334.
9. Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., and Deletic, A. (2008). “Hydraulic and pollutant removal performance of fine media stormwater filtration systems.” Environmental Science & Technology, 42(7), 2535–41.
10. Hsieh, C. & Davis, A. P. Evaluation and Optimization of Bioretention Media for Treatment of Urban Storm Water Runoff. 131, 1521–1531 (2006).
11. Hunt, W. F., Jarrett, A. R., Smith, J. T., and Sharkey, L. J. (2007). “Evaluating Bioretention Hydrology and Nutrient Removal at Three Field Sites in North Carolina.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 132(6), 600–608.
12. Kim, H., Seagren, E. A., Davis, A. P., and Davis, P. (2003). “Engineered Bioretention for Removal of Nitrate from Stormwater Runoff.” Water Environment Federation, 75(4), 355–367.
13. Stenstrom, M., and Kayhanian, M. (2005). First Flush Phenomenon Characterization.Prepared for California Department of Transportation.
14. Thompson, A. M., Paul, A. C., & Balster, N. J. (2008). Physical and hydraulic properties of engineered soil media for bioretention basins. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 51(2), 499–514.
15. Ventera, R. & Parkin, T. USDA-ARS GRACEnet Project Protocols Chapter 3. Chamber-Based Trace Gas Flux Measurements 4. 2010, 1–39 (2010).
16. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. (2002). The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual Volume I - Stormwater Treatment Standards (Vol. I).
17. Washington State University Pierce County Extension. (2005). Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
18. Washington State University Pierce County Extension. (2012). Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.