CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/02/07 Through 3/01/08

Project Title: Watershed Impact of Stormwater Bioretention and Bioinfiltration BMPs
Principal Investigator(s): R. Traver, A. Davis, W. Hunt
Project Start Date: 1 Oct 2007

Figures

Figure 1

Tasks to meet objectives
Task 1. Site Review and Selection
Task 2. Field Testing
Task 3. Field Data Evaluations.
Task 4. Hydrologic Modeling
Task 5. Evaluation and Recommendations
See Figure 1.

Progress on Tasks
Task 0 ­ Award of subcontracts.
All contract documents were processed during the first three months after receiving CICEET contract.

Task 1. Site Review and Selection & Task 2. Field Testing
Sites in North Carolina were selected and instrumented. One location is in Rocky Mount, NC, and the second is in Wilmington, NC.

The three PI’s met through conference calls and in person to review site selection and monitoring protocols.

Villanova ­ Continuation of monitoring of existing Bio-Infiltration site. New site is being equipped for hydrologic monitoring. Construction of multiple bioinfiltration/retention sites planned for late summer 2008.

NC State ­ The Rocky Mount and Wilmington bioretention sites have both been instrumented and data collection has begun. Water quality data have been collected from 5 and 3 storms as of February 1, respectively. Due to the nature of the sandy in situ soils and the drainage configuration tested in Rocky Mount, very few storms (those in excess of 32 mm) are producing outflow.

University of Maryland Hydrologic monitoring of bioretention site at Silver Spring, MD is continuing as part of this project. This site has AC power, allowing 24/7 monitoring of all input and output flows and rainfall.

Task 3. Field Data Evaluations.
Villanova is developing an access data base in support of site date for future studies ­ This task is scheduled to initiate in Dec 2008

Task 4. Hydrologic Modeling
Scheduled to start March 2009

Task 5. Evaluation and Recommendations
Scheduled to start June 2009

Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
No change

Dissemination activities during this reporting period (please include the number of participants where applicable).
Workshops/ conferences/ trainings coordinated/conducted by your project team
None to date. An “LID Research Summit” extensively highlighting the research of Drs. Hunt, Davis, and Traver has been scheduled for Asheville, NC, on June 23-24, 2008. Bioretention and bioinfiltration research findings will be a focus area of this event.

Project related presentations/poster sessions at workshops/conference
Oct 2008 ­ Work concept was presented to attendees at the Pennsylvania Stormwater Symposium - 250 ­ 300 in attendance, plus internet audience.

Jan 2009 - Presentation of work to EPA Green Technologies forum ­ Washington DC. Approximately 40 attendees.

Manuscripts published or submitted for publication
NA

Manuals, Protocols (submitted and in progress)
NA

Outreach Activities
Note: All three sites have research websites detailing research ongoing. Note that the overall LID-MARC site has links to all three.

Villanova ­ Tours of research sites by Representatives of Bejing Forestry University. Presentation to local Professional Engineering section.

NC State ­ Two 1.5-day bioretention design workshops have been scheduled for Raleigh (April 08) and Winston-Salem (May 08). Website: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/training/bioretention.html

Contact with End Users
Jan 2009 - Presentation of work to EPA Green Technologies forum ­ Washington DC. Approximately 40 attendees. (All 3 PI’s)

Working with EPA Region III on No Net Impact concept paper.

Villanova ­ Meet with PaDEP on BMP manual ­ passed on suggestions for update based on continuing work.

NC State ­ Delivered NC DENR stormwater training on February 25-26, 2008 for a 2-day update course on stormwater BMP research and design. Approximately 2 hours were dedicated to research and design of bioretention.

Patent, Copyright, Invention Disclosure Activity
None

Student activity (e.g. theses, dissertations, etc.) on the project (please identify students as graduate or undergraduate)
Multiple graduate and undergraduate students working on project. It is to early to detail individual thesis topics.

Difficulties
Construction of Villanova Law School slowed construction of multiple rain gardens. Shifted emphasis and added a new site on campus and have instrumented it for hydrologic monitoring (note this was not paid for by this grant). This is not expected to impact the project, and may even be a benefit.

Data Generated to date
VU Bioinfiltration Traffic Island has experienced 4-6 rain events. Date processing is underway.
VU ­ New site has experienced first monitored storm.

NC - Rocky Mount bioretention cells have had 5 events with at least inflow water quality samples collected. Most events have not produced outflow. In Wilmington 3 storms with both inflow and outflow have been chemically analyzed.

MD - Several rain events have been monitored for hydrologic performance at the Silver Spring, MD site. Freezing weather has interrupted some monitoring during the reporting period.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Continue Monitoring of sites
Start to assemble past and current data into database to support Task 3,4,5

Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
Continuing Website Outreach
VU ­ Host of summer seminar
NC ­ Conduct “LID Research Summit” in Asheville to prominently feature Drs. Hunt, Traver, and Davis.
MD Abstract to Professional Conference

Overall Project Timeline Update
No change ­ delay of contracts lost a month or so, but is not expected to delay project.

Expenditures
Please state whether or not expenditures are in the range anticipated for the work accomplished to date.
Yes

End User Advisor Feedback
End User Advisor: Domenic Rocco
Organization: PA DEP
Location: Norristown, PA
Phone number: 484-250-5174
E-mail: drocco@state.pa.us

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
This research would greatly benefit state and local regulators responsible for SWM. I can see these bio-BMPs really taking off since they are easily adaptable to virtually any site. The more we know about these BMPs (particularly with performance) the better off we will be when making permit decisions.

What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
I don’t really foresee any key challenges as long as we have the science to back it up. Again, these bio-BMPs have great potential due to their versatility. These type of BMPs are proving to have better performance and sustainability than subsurface systems that are out-of-sight and out-of-mind; and are at a much higher risk of becoming abused.

Regarding socio-economics, this technology should be cheaper and, in many instances take up less space, than subsurface systems ­ which are very popular in BMP designs at the moment.

PA is hungry for additional research that may shed light on the new wave of stormwater management. Utilizing this technology for sites with constraints such as shallow limiting zones or very poorly drained soils (which is typical in a significant portion of PA) could be very promising ­ particularly since “extended detention” appears to be the default in many of these areas. I don’t foresee any roadblocks when it comes to politics and/or regulation.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
With respect to Objective 1 (page 3):
I would particularly like to see a maximum depth requirement that is based on science, rather than past practice. 6” is too shallow..

Also, Specific to Bioretention ( where infiltration isn’t feasible), I would like to see how volume “credits” could be established for the Evapotranspiration component that is often ignored in stormwater calculations because it is difficult concept to grasp and it is not yet widely accepted. I suppose we know that a significant amount of the water that goes into the ground never makes it as GW recharge, so it can be assumed that it either went towards ET or traveled away as interflow. I have yet to see any of the guidance documents touch on ET of vegetated systems such as bio-retention and bio-swales. I’m just now starting to dig my nose into it. Could this be included in some way into the standard monitoring protocol???

With respect to Objective 2 (page 3):
A multi-disciplinary approach may be necessary at times. A helpful tool for bioinfiltration could be the pending input by the soil scientists and geologists on “loading ratios” and when additional testing is required. (i.e. beyond being a low risk BMP). Some of these bio-BMPs can become quite large (directly related to the DA). In the draft paper that I distributed, it was suggested that additional studies may be needed if the BMP footprint exceeds 100’ x 100’ (i.e. 10,000 sf). Food for thought.

If greater credits for ET could be established (which are more representative of the actual condition), then I believe that this technology will take off even faster and become much more popular and accepted. (this is not to say that they are not currently accepted, but there is definitely room for improvement)

PI Response to End User Advisor Feedback
We appreciate the feedback and will look at these issues specifically as we move forward. Many of these would require continued research past this individual project which is our goal.