Future Directions in LID Research and Outreach at the Washington Stormwater Center
Ani Jayakaran, PhD PE John Stark, PhD
Washington State University Washington Stormwater Center ACWA Stormwater Summit, Eugene OR. May 11, 2016
WSU Puyallup
The urban stream
LID Askarizadeh et al. / Environmental Science & Technology 49 (2015)
“Stormwater Management”
Impediments to Integrated Urban Stormwater Management: The Need for Institutional Reform – Brown 2005
Extreme events drive engineering design
Image: http://www.class.noaa.gov/
Classic Engineering Natural systems
Landscape Scale
Comparing Sediment Yield urban
forested
Only developed areas
Jayakaran, Anand D., Susan M. Libes, Daniel R. Hitchcock, Natasha L. Bell, and David Fuss, 2013. Flow, Organic, and Inorganic Sediment Jayakaran, D., Susan M. Libes, R. Hitchcock, Natasha L. Bell, and Journal David Fuss, 2013. Flow, Organic, and Inorganic Sediment Yields from a Anand Channelized Watershed in Daniel the South Carolina Lower Coastal Plain. of the American Water Resources Association Yields from a Channelized Watershed in the South Carolina Lower Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-20. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12148 (JAWRA) 1-20. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12148
Two forested watersheds – one hurricane
Flow differences between watersheds
Stream Scale
Lane’s Stream Balance Sediment Load & Size
vs
Stream Flow & Slope
Self-organization as a natural process
Benches
Jayakaran, A. D., and A. D. Ward. 2007. Geometry of Inset Channels and the Sediment Composition of Fluvial Benches in Agricultural Drainage Systems in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 62(4), 296-307.
Plot Scale Monitoring
Graphic: Andrew Mack – WSU, Puyallup
Water table change in four rain gardens - SC
Well-drained uplands
Tidal zone proximal
Poorly drained uplands
Riparian floodplain w underdrain
Precipitation (mm)
Water table elevation below ground level (cm)
in 4 different landscape positions
1:1 Plots - Inflow vs Outflow concentrations -SC Nitrate
20000
Deep
Shallow
Deeper
2000
200
20
Effluent (ppb)
20
200
2000
20000
20
200
2000
20000
20
200
2000
20000
1000
10000
10
100
1000
10000
Ortho-P
10000
BAR1 MPL HCM
1000
BAR2 CCU 1:1
100
10 10
100
1000
10000
Influent (ppb)
10
100
Next steps 1. Performance of bioretention system appears to be dependent on antecedent, and prevailing hydrologic conditions. (landscape position?) 2. No two systems are alike – need improved design criteria that speak to this variability. 3. Need a better handle on transpirational processes in bioretention systems. 4. How to ‘stack’ LID practices on a landscape scale to achieve most impact - cost vs culture vs biogeochemistry
Sap flux at tree stand level
Sap Flow and Vapor Pressure Deficit – time series
Diurnal variation in ground water and sap flow
• Super impose groundwater and sap flow for a few days
Recap • Landscape scale – need to lower surface runoff and increase infiltration. • Reach scale – need to create environments that can dissipate stream energy, enhance flood plain connectivity, promote vegetative controls and self organization. • Plot scale – need to account for local variability and use vegetation more extensively.
Next steps – plot scale
Askarizadeh,et al. (2015)
Next steps – plot scale
Next steps – landscape scale
Martin-Mikle, C.J., de Beurs, K.M., Julian, J.P. and Mayer, P.M., 2015. Identifying priority sites for low impact development (LID) in a mixed-use watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 140, pp.29-41.
Next steps – landscape scale
Top-down and bottom-up approach proposed to optimize location and placement of GSI.
Prototype GSI location suitability map. A) topographic wetness
Preliminary spatial analysis of socioeconomic vulnerability in the index, B) population C) land use suitability, soil Puyallup River watershed.density, A) fraction of people of color, B) D) fraction suitability. below poverty, C) fraction unable to speak English.
WSU Puyallup – LID test facilities
Thank you!
[email protected]
