Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Rain Garden Research and       Current Issues                     Michael Dietz, Ph.D.               CT NEMO | Cooperative...
Monitoring-Began November 2002
Installation: 9‐19‐02
Rain Garden Materials Detail                    (Based on PGC RG Manual, 2001)• Three native shrub species:   – Chokeberry...
Monitoring Equipment
Methods•Lab analysis of water samples for:   •Nitrate‐N, ammonia‐N, total Kjeldahl‐N, total    phosphorus, copper, lead, z...
Flow balance                          cm % of InflowInflow Roof Runoff             1202     79.7 Precipitation            ...
Percent retention                  NO3-N    NH3-N    TKN         TP       TN    ON                                        ...
Total Phosphorus                          0.25                                                                            ...
Comparison with other research• Consistent with North Carolina   – Hunt et al., 2006. Evaluating bioretention hydrology an...
Second year• Modification to encourage denitrification and   increase treatment of NO3‐N• Saturated zone created in bottom...
ModificationPonding depth
Saturated zone                             Monitoring                                tank1m              Underdrain
Impact on NO3‐N• No statistically significant reduction in NO3‐N   concentrations  – Lots of samples below detection limit...
What happens in the winter?
Frost TubeAfter Ricard, et al. (1976)
Frost Tube Detail
Winter performance• Measured frost depth• Did not impact annual performance• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq6WB6VKeac• S...
Some Current Issues• Filter fabric use   – DON’T USE IN BIORETENTION!   – Prone to clogging• Sizing   – Water quality volu...
Thank You!!      Questions??michael.dietz@uconn.edu
Two year ANOVA/mean separation                                 Bulk                             Underdrain               O...
NJ: Rain Garden Research
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

NJ: Rain Garden Research

473

Published on

Rain Garden Research

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
473
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "NJ: Rain Garden Research"

  1. 1. Rain Garden Research and  Current Issues Michael Dietz, Ph.D. CT NEMO | Cooperative Extension  Univ. of ConnecticutManaging Stormwater from Impervious Surfaces: Green Infrastructure  Solutions for New Jersey The Heldrich | New Brunswick, NJ January 27, 2011
  2. 2. Monitoring-Began November 2002
  3. 3. Installation: 9‐19‐02
  4. 4. Rain Garden Materials Detail (Based on PGC RG Manual, 2001)• Three native shrub species: – Chokeberry (Aronia prunifolia) – Winterberry (Ilex verticillata) – Compact inkberry (Ilex glabra compacta)• Native soil mix – Loamy sand• Roughly 5 cm of bark mulch
  5. 5. Monitoring Equipment
  6. 6. Methods•Lab analysis of water samples for: •Nitrate‐N, ammonia‐N, total Kjeldahl‐N, total  phosphorus, copper, lead, zinc•Water level in each garden measured•Temperature measured at inlet and outlet (underdrains)•Weekly measurements of soil moisture, redox potential (Eh), and frost depth
  7. 7. Flow balance cm % of InflowInflow Roof Runoff 1202 79.7 Precipitation 306 20.3 Total 1507Outflow Underdrain 1438 95.4 Overflow 13 0.8 Total 1451Residual 56 3.7 99% of inflow  retained!
  8. 8. Percent retention NO3-N NH3-N TKN TP TN ON gTotal In 388 30 250 9 647 211Total Out 128 5 186 20 316 181% Retention 67 82 26 -108 51 14 -Two years of results (year 1 much less) -Remember: 99% of inflow was retained
  9. 9. Total Phosphorus 0.25 Roof runoff Underdrain average Exponential (Underdrain average) 0.2 Linear (Roof runoff)Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.15 0.1 0.05 R2 = 0.47 R2 = 0.06 0 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04 Nov-04 Feb-05 Date
  10. 10. Comparison with other research• Consistent with North Carolina – Hunt et al., 2006. Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field  sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 132(6), pp.  600‐608.• Consistent (N) & inconsistent (P) with  Maryland – Davis et al., 2006. Water quality improvement through bioretention media: nitrogen and  phosphorus removal. Water Environment Research, Vol. 78(3), pp. 284‐293.• Consistent with New Hampshire – Roseen, et al., 2009. Seasonal performance variations for storm‐water management  systems in cold climate conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 135 (3),  pp. 128‐137.• Lots of variability in results!
  11. 11. Second year• Modification to encourage denitrification and  increase treatment of NO3‐N• Saturated zone created in bottom of rain  garden (after Kim, et al., 2004)
  12. 12. ModificationPonding depth
  13. 13. Saturated zone Monitoring  tank1m Underdrain
  14. 14. Impact on NO3‐N• No statistically significant reduction in NO3‐N  concentrations – Lots of samples below detection limit• Percent of outflow samples below detection  before/after change: – Before = 19% – After   = 56% – Significant using chi‐square statistic
  15. 15. What happens in the winter?
  16. 16. Frost TubeAfter Ricard, et al. (1976)
  17. 17. Frost Tube Detail
  18. 18. Winter performance• Measured frost depth• Did not impact annual performance• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq6WB6VKeac• Similar findings at UNH Stormwater Center – Roseen, et al., 2009. Seasonal performance variations for storm‐water management  systems in cold climate conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 135 (3),  pp. 128‐137.
  19. 19. Some Current Issues• Filter fabric use – DON’T USE IN BIORETENTION! – Prone to clogging• Sizing – Water quality volume vs. curve number vs. ?
  20. 20. Thank You!! Questions??michael.dietz@uconn.edu
  21. 21. Two year ANOVA/mean separation Bulk Underdrain Overflow1Variable n Unit Deposition Roof Runoff Treatment Control Treatment Control *** -1NO3-N 73 mg L 0.7 bcd 0.9 abc 0.2 d 0.4 cd 2.0 ab 2.1 a -1NH3-N*** 78 mg L 0.04 a 0.04 a 0.01 b 0.01 b 0.08 a 0.04 aTKNns 79 mg L -1 0.5 a 0.6 a 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.6 a 0.3 aTN*** 72 mg L -1 1.3 abc 1.6 ab 0.7 c 0.9 bc 2.7 a 2.4 aONns 77 mg L -1 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.4 a 0.5 a 0.5 a 0.2 aTP*** 80 mg L -1 0.009 b 0.015 b 0.039 a 0.043 a 0.009 b 0.016 b -1Cutotal ns 26 µg L 3a 5a 3a 4a 3a - -1Pbtotal ns 26 µg L 3a 3a 3a 3a 3a - -1Zntotal ns 26 µg L 11 a 9a 10 a 5a 8a -*** p=0.001ns=ANOVA comparison non significant1 n=4 for overflow samples Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p=0.05
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×