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 amanda.cording@uvm.edu 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 acording@uvm.edu

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.