CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/01/08 Through 2/15/09

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

Figure 2

Figure 3

Tasks to meet objectives
Task 1. Site Review and Selection - Completed
Task 2. Field Testing - Ongoing
Task 3. Field Data Evaluations. - Ongoing
Task 4. Hydrologic Modeling - Future
Task 5. Evaluation and Recommendations - Future

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

Task 1. Site Review and Selection
Completed
The three PI's met through conference calls and in person to review site selection and monitoring protocols

Sites in North Carolina were selected and instrumented. One location is in Rocky Mount, NC, and the second is in Wilmington, NC.

Villanova ­ Continuation of monitoring of existing Bio-Infiltration site. New site was equipped for hydrologic monitoring.

University of Maryland - Hydrologic monitoring of bioretention site at Silver Spring, MD is continuing as part of this project.

North Carolina State ­ The Rocky Mount and Wilmington bioretention sites have both been instrumented and data collection initiated.

Task 2. Field Testing
Ongoing ­ Note that the researchers have requested and received an extension to add additional data events to the research.

Villanova University - The Bioinfiltration (BTI) site has recorded 48 Hydrologic Storm events for 2007 including 17 for water quality. Note that the vast majority of storms not sampled were those in freezing weather pr those not meeting the rainfall requirements. Data for the first half of 2008 (through 31 May) includes 9 water quality events. Note that the metals samples have a hold time of six months and will be updated to the database. We have to date uploaded past data from 2003 totaling 259 hydrologic events.

University of Maryland ­ A total of 76 rainfall events have been monitored for hydrology through January, 2009 in Silver Spring MD

North Carolina State - As of February 21, 2009, a total of 72 storms have been monitored for hydrology, with 24 of those also being analyzed for water quality, in Rocky Mount. In Wilmington, ten storms have been monitored for pathogen concentrations, approximately 30 events hydrologically and 8 events for other water quality parameters.

Task 3. Field Data Evaluations.
Villanova has developed a data base in support of for future studies ­ This task was initiated in Dec 2008, and several meetings have been held reviewing the results. Two example plots of the results are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

This task has been extended to support importing of older data to expand the scope of the project.

Task 4. Hydrologic Modeling
Revised Schedule - start Sept 2009

Task 5. Evaluation and Recommendations
Revised Scheduled - start Dec 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
Villanova Participated in the EPA 319 National Monitoring Program Conference as a host of a training workshop on monitoring.

Villanova continued to conduct tours of their Research BMPs over this period

Villanova presented ongoing work of this project to PaDEP watershed coordinators, to the Pittsburg ASCE section meeting, and the Pennsylvania Lake Management Society.

A 1-day long "Ask the Stormwater BMP Researcher Training" was held in Raleigh, NC, on December 12, 2008 with 90 people attending. Research conducted by the CICEET investigators was presented.

Project related presentations/poster sessions at workshops/conference
All three Universities presented a paper entitled "Stormwater Concepts ­ No Adverse Impact" at the National LID symposium in Seattle speaking to the importance of the research and where it enables watershed protection.

Manuscripts published or submitted for publication
Davis, A.P., Hunt, W.F., Traver, R.G., and Clar, M. "Bioretention Technology: An Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs," J.Environ. Eng, ASCE., 135(3) 109-117 (2009).

Hunt, W., Traver, R. and Davis, A. "The Effects of Urbanization on Groundwater: An Engineering Case-based Approach for Sustainable Development." In: The Effects of Urbanization on Groundwater: An Engineering Case-based Approach for Sustainable Development. Ed: Chang, Ni-Bin. (In production).

Emerson, C., Traver, R., Multiyear and Seasonal Variation of Infiltration from Storm-Water Best Management Practices, ASCE Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, ASCE Sep\Oct 2008

Dr Traver was a committee member and portions of the work appear in the NRC 2008 report entitled Urban Stormwater Management in the United State.

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.

See Dissemination Activities above.

Contact with End Users
Villanova has met with the VUSP Partners twice during this period. It has also met with the senior water managment staff at PaDEP headquarters, and the region multiple times. Dr Traver was selected to a seat on the PaDEP Water Resources Advisory Committee.

Met again with chief state (NC DENR) stormwater regulators on November 14, 2008, to discuss offering more removal credit for bioretention systems that are (1) located in the coastal plain (sandy soils) and (2) employ an IWS zone as part of the design. A decision from the state is expected in the first half of 2009.

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 at all 3 universities.

Difficulties
The only difficulty is the large data stream, which is reflective of the outstanding success of the first two tasks. The PI's have requested and received a no pay extension to expand the number of data points incorporated in work.

Data Generated to date
VU - As stated above, the VU Bioinfiltration Traffic Island is projected to have monitored 30 + quality events and close to 100 quantity events over 2007 and 2008. Note the resulting analysis is similar to the discussion by Dr. Davis of UMD below.

NC State - Rocky Mount bioretention cells have had 24 events with at least inflow water quality samples collected. Over 70 events have been hydrologically monitored at this site. All but 4 of those have produced no outflow from both cells. In Wilmington 8 storms with both inflow and outflow have been chemically analyzed. Ten events have had pathogenic bacteria indicator species grab sampled.

MD ­ Inflow and outflow data have been recorded from 76 events. All storms have shown a reduction in both volume and flow rate from inflow to outflow, and 41 of the events had no outflow. Figure 1 shows the relationship between inflow volume and outflow volume, which has a reduction of volume of 36%. Events with higher inflow produced more outflow. The volumetric capacity of the cell, which is the minimum inflow volume that produces outflow, is estimated to be approximately 16.7 m³ or the equivalent of 0.38-cm of rain over the drainage area. This value of 16.7 m³ also accounts for about 18% of the total media volume of 91.8 m³ in the cell. Therefore, once 18% of the cell's volume is filled, it is at saturation and begins to produce outflow.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
a. To develop science-based design criteria for Bioinfiltration and Bioretention BMP design.
b. To establish expected performance measures.
c. To compare the performance of the bioretention BMP to preconstruction conditions.
d. To understand the watershed scale issues specifically bioretention performance as a peak flow control measure
e. To understand the effect of climate change on bioretention usage.
f. To remove barriers, thereby enabling LID implementation.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Continue Monitoring of sites as possible (exceeds project expectations)
Continue to assemble past and current data into database to support Task 3,4,5

Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
Continuing Website Outreach

Abstract for 2009 EWRI Conference

Bioretention/Bioinfiltration Performance in the Mid-Atlantic R. A. Brown, W. F. Hunt, A. P. Davis, R. G. Traver, and J. M. Olszewski. To be presented at ASCE World Environmental & Water Resources Congress, Kansas City, May 2009

Improving Urban Stormwater Quality: Applying Fundamental Principles Davis, Traver, Hunt, to be presented at UCOWR meeting in Chicago, Summer 2009.

Note: Each PIU has multiple additional presentations planned at the EWRI and other conference.

VU ­ Host Spring Partners Meeting
Hosting multiple tours and a spring stormwater outreach event.

NC ­ Conduct two "Bioretention Design" workshops in Hickory (3/19-20/09) and Raleigh (4/22-23/09), North Carolina.
Each workshop is 1.5 days long and will focus solely on bioretention design. A total of 40 designers are expected to attend. Results from all three PI's research will be featured during the research and design discussions.

Overall Project Timeline Update
The extended one year period is reflected in all dates. Six months was added to Task 3, and three each to tasks four and five.

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

End User Advisor Feedback
As the tasks over this period are still ongoing, and the database results are just emerging, only oral feedback was solicited. In general the feedback is the same as reported in the past project report. Sizing issues, performance, expectations are key. Examples include outlow volumes and peaks, pollutant removal, and seasonal performance. Design issues include capture volume, void spaces, etc.

PI Response to End User Advisor Feedback
All previous and ongoing feedback is incorporated in the work. As we conclude task 3 and 4 and the graphs of performance are developed we will again solicit formal feedback as was presented in the past reports.