Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessment of Low Impact Design (LID)

217 views

Published on

For more information please feel free to visit us at http://www.earthfx.com

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

Assessment of Low Impact Design (LID)

  1. 1. Assessment of Low Impact Design (LID) Strategies using Integrated and Distributed Surface Water/Groundwater Models Presented to: IAH Conference October 2, 2013 Dirk Kassenaar, M.Sc. P.Eng. M.A. Marchildon, M.Sc. P.Eng.
  2. 2. 2 Land Development Impacts ► “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot…” Assessing the impacts of land development is certainly important! ► SW assessments have focused on peak flows and, more recently, on how Low Impact Development (LID) can mitigate storm sewer “end of pipe” flows. ► Recent work indicates that a more holistic approach is needed, including assessment of the whole flow regime (not just peak flows) and impact to GW levels and baseflow discharge to wetlands
  3. 3. 3 Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies Local LID Features: - A local LID feature captures and attenuates storm water - e.g. bioswales, permeable paving, rain barrels, green roofs, soak-away pits, etc. A bioswale can attenuate pavement runoff by enhancing ET and GW infiltration
  4. 4. 4 Assessment of Low Impact Development ► Low Impact Development strategies offer significant benefits ► Not all LID strategies will work in all locations. Need to consider:  Soil and surficial geologic conditions (infiltration capacity)  Depth to water table (possible rejected infiltration)  Other factors such as terrain, slope accumulation, and pervious/impervious configuration ► SW-only models are focussed on end of pipe sewer flows and stormwater ponds:  Cannot predict if hydrogeologic conditions are suitable for a specific LID design  Cannot predict if ecologic and hydrogeologic benefits will actually be achieved. ► GW-only models cannot predict the complex change in 3D recharge ► Only an integrated GW/SW model approach can assess all aspects of a LID implementation  Which LID is optimal and where? Will the ecological benefits be achieved?
  5. 5. 5 Integrated Water Systems Modelling ► Integrated GW/SW modelling involves:  Groundwater: Flow through the subsurface  Hydrology: Vegetation, land use and soil zone  Hydraulics: Flow in streams, wetlands and lakes ► “Fully-distributed” modelling approach  Study area is subdivided into millions of cells  Soil zone hydrology and groundwater processes simulated in each unique cell  Streamflow simulated in a linear channel network that accepts cascading overland runoff and pickup (or loss) from the aquifer systems
  6. 6. 6 USGS-GSFLOW 6 Integrated Ground-Water and Surface-Water Flow Model Based on the Integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW)
  7. 7. 7 GSFLOW Hydrology: Sub-Cell Processes ► Each upper layer model cell has both pervious and impervious areas and processes. Impervious areas & Depression storage Pervious area Tree canopy (interception) Micro-topographic depressions Parking Lot Rooftop
  8. 8. 8 Conceptualization of LIDs in GSFLOW ► A Manabe (1969) Reservoir was added to each cell to represent the local LID feature ► The LID Reservoir can receive water from the impervious area and, depending on the E, Q and D parameters, attenuate and infiltrate that water Impervious areas & Depression storage Pervious area Tree canopy (interception) Micro-topographic depressions Parking Lot Rooftop LID Reservoir Parameters: E =Evaporative loss Q=Overflow D =Drainage
  9. 9. 9 ► Bioswales  E>0, Q>0, D=K ► Green Roofs  E>0, Q>0, D=0 ► Retention Ponds  E>0, Q=0, D>0  (Smax=∞) E =Evaporative loss Q=Overflow D =Drainage ► Detention Ponds  E>0, Q>0, D>0 ► Infiltration Galleries  E=0, Q>0, D=K ► Rain Harvesters  E=0, Q>0, D=D(t) GSFLOW Manabe Reservoir - One reservoir available per model cell - Parameters adjusted to represent a variety of LID features (Figures from CVC & TRCA, 2010)
  10. 10. 10 Additional LID Conceptualization: Permeable Pavement Simulated by decreasing the (effective) percent imperviousness Roof Downspout Disconnection Simulated by routing impervious runoff to (same-cell) pervious area (CVC & TRCA, 2010) (CVC & TRCA, 2010)
  11. 11. 11 Centralized LID Features 11 Centralized LID Features are larger scale features that receive water from upslope impervious sources or 3rd-pipe roof runoff
  12. 12. 12 Modification of Cascade Network for Centralized LIDS ► A cascade network is used to route overland flow and interflow ► Segments of the network can be changed (red arrow) to direct a portion of locally captured water to a Centralized LID 12 (Markstrom et.al., 2008)
  13. 13. 13 Seaton MESP LID Assessment Objectives ► Proposed new development for 70,000 residents north of Pickering, Ontario ► Simulation Objectives:  Evaluate overall cumulative effects of various LID configurations ► Which LID strategy (or combination) should be used, and where?  Will the ecological function of the wetlands and ponds be preserved? ► Will buffers around the NHS lands be sufficient?  Can the impacts on the underlying aquifers be mitigated through LIDS? ► Issues:  Commercial-industrial land use planned for high recharge Iroquois Beach sands  Need for quantitative comparison of alternatives
  14. 14. 14 Seaton Lands - Hydrogeologic Conditions ► Complex hydrogeology: 3 Aquifers day-lighting along Duffins Creek ► Extensive wetland connectivity and riparian zones A A’ A A’
  15. 15. 15 Seaton Existing Landuse Agricultural Natural Heritage Urban 15
  16. 16. 16 Seaton Proposed Landuse 16 Agricultural Natural Heritage Residential Parks Commercial Institutional
  17. 17. 17 Implemented LIDs ► Employment areas: Rooftop capture and 90% of the overflow being redirected to bioswales ► Residential, recreational and school areas  Roof-to-lawn routing of impervious runoff (amount dependent on roof coverage as a proportion of modelled cell); ► Unlined (leaky) storm water management ponds ► Infiltration gallery for commercial developments on the Iroqouois Beach ► Road side ditches along rural cross sections as opposed to serviced roadways.
  18. 18. 18 Existing Conditions: Generated Runoff
  19. 19. 19 Post Development: Generated Runoff
  20. 20. 20 Post Development with LID: Generated Runoff
  21. 21. 21 Existing Conditions: Cascading Runoff Click for Animation
  22. 22. 22 Post Development: Cascading Runoff Click for Animation
  23. 23. 23 Existing Conditions: Actual ET
  24. 24. 24 Post Development: Actual ET
  25. 25. 25 Post Development with LID: Actual ET Bioswales
  26. 26. 26 Existing Conditions: GW Recharge Iroquois Beach Sands
  27. 27. 27 Post Development: GW Recharge Iroquois Beach Sands
  28. 28. 28 Post Development with LID: GW Recharge Iroquois Beach Sands
  29. 29. 29 Predicted GW Impacts – No LIDS ► Simulations indicate unmitigated development would cause up to 4 m of aquifer drawdown and a corresponding decrease in baseflow discharge to streams
  30. 30. 30 Predicted GW Impacts – With LIDS ► Simulations indicate LIDS would sustain groundwater recharge and mitigate effects on aquifer levels and stream baseflow
  31. 31. 31 Seaton LIDS Analysis: Conclusions ► Integrated modelling identified the unique and site specific recharge functions in the Seaton Lands MESP area ► Detailed cell-based simulations were able to represent site specific LID implement issues and benefits ► Modelling provided a framework for comparison of LID scenarios, and facilitated discussions with the Municipality and TRCA

×