Progress Report

CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/15/04 Through 3/15/05

Project Title: Effectiveness of Reactive Barriers for Reducing N-Loading to the Coastal Zone
Principal Investigator(s): Joseph Vallino and Kenneth Foreman
Additional Investigator(s): Pio Lombardo
Project Start Date: 1 Sept 04

Figures


Figure 1

Figure 1


Tables


Table 1

Table 1


Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
Objectives
The principal objectives for the first six months of this project were 1) identify possible locations for installation of the permeable reactive barriers (PRBs), 2) identify and obtain permission from land holders where necessary, 3) sample groundwater at identified PRB sites for nitrate and ammonium concentration and groundwater flow, 4) begin permitting process for installation of PRB at two sites identified based on nitrate concentration in groundwater, hydrology, and accessibility, 5) hire and train research assistant for water quality analysis.

Tasks to meet objectives

  • Organize meetings between PI’s, Pio Lombardo of Lombardo Associates, Will Robertson of Waterloo University, and Chris Weidman from WBNERR (Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve) to identify possible locations for PRBs as well as appropriate property holders.
  • Advertise for half time research assistant (and half time teaching assistant for undergraduate Semester in Environmental Science Program).
  • Place temporary wells in sites of likely PRB installations and measure groundwater nutrient concentrations and groundwater discharge.
  • Design PRBs, well locations and obtain necessary permits to install PRBs from conservation commission.

Progress on Tasks

  • The research team met on two occasions to survey a total of 8 possible locations to install two PRBs (Figure 1). The objective was to identify one location that could be studied over a long time period and would be located on WBNERR property, and to identify another location that had very high nitrate loading to investigate how effective the PRB is in removing N from heavily contaminated groundwater. Three sites were examined at the head of Waquoit Bay (Sites 1, 2 and 3; Figure 1), two sites on the Childs River (Sites 4 and 5), one site located at Eel Pond (Site 6), and two sites were investigated on the extremely eutrophic Perch Pond (Sites 7 and 8). After considering access to sites in terms of equipment logistics and property ownership and expected N loading based on degree of observable eutrophication, Sites 1, 4, 7 and 8 where chosen for further investigation (see preliminary data below).
  • A research assistant for the project, Allison Burce, was hired in August 2004. Allison will work halftime on the CICEET project and half time (Aug-Dec) as a teaching assistant for the SES undergraduate program. Note, it is our intent to use Site 1 located at WBNERR as a potential field site for undergraduate research projects.
  • Temporary wells were placed at Sites 1, 4, 7 and 8 and groundwater samples were withdrawn for nitrate and ammonium analysis. All sites were found to have elevated NO3- but low NH4+ concentrations (see data below). Site 4 is located on private property; however, the property owner is president of the Seacoast Shores Association and is quite excited by the project and is very supportive.
  • Because of access problems and Sites 7 and 8, Sites 1 and 4 were chosen to install the PRBs.
  • Lombardo Associates, Inc is currently designing the PRBs. Pio Lombardo has also recently met with a Conservation Commission agent (Mark Kasprzyk) on March 3 to begin the permitting process.

Accomplishments
See above

Difficulties
No significant difficulties were encountered; however, severity of winter has kept us from doing any additional groundwater sampling at Sites 1 and 4.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
The primary objective is to install the PRBs at Sites 1 and 4 and begin monitoring wells for NO3-, NH4+, dissolved oxygen (DO), dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen (DOC, DON). These measurements will allow us to determine when the transient response has ended and the PRBs are operating near steady state conditions. Once steady state conditions prevail (expected near the end of summer), we will begin measurements and mass balances that will allow us to determine the extent that incoming NO3- is either immobilize, denitrified, or converted to DON, as well as the effectiveness of the PBRs at removing groundwater NO3-.

Tasks to Meet Objectives

  • Formalize design of PRBs at Sites 1 and 4.
  • Obtain permit for installation of the PRBs at sites 1 and 4.
  • Install sample wells upstream of the PRBs prior to PRB installation to obtain further background data on N loading and hydrology.
  • Hire contractor and install PRBs at Site 1 first, then at Site 4. Install wells in PRB and downstream of PRB as described in proposal.
  • Following installation, wells will be monitored for dissolved nutrients so as to determine when steady state operation of the PRB commences.

Work Plan for Next Reporting Period

  • In the next few weeks Joe Vallino, Ken Foreman, Pio Lombardo, Will Robertson, and Chris Weidman will meet to formalize PRB design.
  • Lombardo Associates will continue working with the Conservation Commission to obtain permits.
  • Lombardo Associates will hire contractor to install PRBs.
  • Lombardo Associates will install wells with assistance from MBL.
  • Once PRBs and associated wells are installed, groundwater samples will be withdrawn and assayed for NO3-, NH4+, DO, DOC and DON. Well samples will be collected approximately one or two times per month as dictated by dynamics of system.

Anticipated Success in Meeting Project Objectives
We expect to be able to meet all project objectives for this period; however, this assumes we are able to obtain necessary permits within the next two months.

Preliminary Data
Information on site selection is included in supplementary document from Lombardo Associates, Inc.

Groundwater samples at Sites 1, 4, 7 and 8 in mid September 04 all show elevated nitrate concentrations with very low ammonium concentration; the highest nitrate concentrations occurred at sites 3 and 7 (Table 1). Sites 2, 3, 5 and 6 were not sampled because of logistical concerns, and so were ruled out as possible PRB locations.

Dissemination
Ken Foreman reported on the nitrogen contamination problem and our plans to install a PRB at the annual meeting of the Falmouth Associations Concerned with Estuaries and Saltponds (FACES). In addition to the members of the FACES, the chairperson of the Falmouth Board of Selectmen, Ahmed Mustafa, the Town of Falmouth wastewater superintendent, Amy Lowell, the Town Manager, Robert Whritenour, and Falmouth’s representative to the Cape Cod Commission, Jay Zavala, were present at this meeting and shared in the panel discussion. Another presentation will be given on 15 March 05 at a WBNERR workshop on “New Denitrification System Technologies”

  • The project has been receiving considerable local attention and was described in a front page article entitle “Innovative Trenches Keep Nitrogen from Ponds” on Dec 17, 2004 in The Falmouth Enterprise. Following publication of the news article, Ken Foremen was contacted by a local radio station and interviewed on the air.
  • Lombardo Associates also made a press release in January 05.

Expenditures
Current expenditures have been at the expected level at this point in the project.

End User Advisor Feedback
Name: Amy Lowell
Organization: Wastewater Superintendent
Location: Town of Falmouth, MA
Phone number: (508) 495-2511
E-mail: alowell@cape.com

1) At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
The Town is interested in means of reducing nitrogen load to coastal water bodies. This research will provide information regarding the ability of permeable reactive barriers to remove nitrogen from groundwater before it enters a coastal water body.

2) What, if anything, has changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
Potential applicability has not changed.

3) Do you see any key challenges that the researchers may want to address or keep in mind?
Not at this time.

4) Does this report offer you enough information to adequately address the above questions?
NA.

5) Other feedback?
No additional feedback at this time.