Monday, June 24, 2013

Site data collection required for structure design

In addition to the estimates of dissolved P concentrations in runoff at the site location, further information was required:

  1.   Peak runoff flow rate
  2. Average annual flow volumes and dissolved P load
  3. Hydraulic head


The average annual flow volume and peak flow rate was calculated by using site information required for estimating the NRCS curve number (ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/wntsc/H&H/training/runoff-curve-numbers1.pdf).  This required watershed information regarding soil type (used to determine hydrologic soil group), ground cover, greatest length of flow, and slope.  Each of these parameters, except for soil type and flow length (determined by soil survey and contour maps) were determined via site visit.  The wonderful NRCS folks at the local Stilwell office (Chad Kacir, Andy Inman, and others) were responsible for conducting the site survey for the curve number method and also calculations for peak flow rate and average annual flow volumes.  


Peak runoff flow rate estimate

The curve number is used in conjunction with the precipitation depth for the design storm.  In our case, we wanted to design our structure for a 2yr-24hr storm, which produces about 4 inches of rainfall as estimated by standard USDA rainfall tables (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/PF_documents/TechnicalPaper_No40.pdf).
For our site, the curve number (CN) was 78; the cover was mostly pasture.The curve number method resulted in a runoff depth of 1.97 inches for our 9 acre watershed, predicted for a 2yr-24hr storm.  Next, the runoff depth is used to calculate the peak flow rate through use of the Soil-Cover-Complex method and “time of concentration”.  The time of concentration is calculated using the curve number and the previously determined greatest length of flow via curve number method.  For our site, the greatest flow length to our proposed structure location was 1050 ft, which resulted in an estimated time of concentration of 24 minutes.  Based on this time of concentration, the estimated peak discharge was 0.9 cfs/acre-inch runoff.

For our scenario:
0.9 cfs/acre-inch runoff  * 9 acres * 1.97 inches runoff = about 16 cfs peak runoff rate.
Therefore, our goal was to design a structure that could handle a flow rate of at least 16 cfs so that it would be able to treat all of the runoff produced from a 2 yr-24hr storm.


Average annual runoff volume and P load estimate


Next, the annual flow volume is necessary in order to determine what the annual load of dissolved P is.  To achieve this, the runoff coefficient method was used.  An example is shown here: http://watershedmg.org/sites/default/files/docs/wmg_calculating_runoff_worksheet.pdf ) This calculation is simply based on cover for estimating the runoff coefficient, watershed area, and average annual rainfall depth.  For our site, the annual rainfall depth was 44 inches.  Based on our site, the average annual runoff volume is 12 inches/yr, or 9 acre-ft. 
Our grab samples indicated dissolved P concentrations between 1 and 2 mg/L.  Using the higher value of 2 mg P/L for over-design, this resulted in an estimated load of 22 kg of P/yr transported in runoff from the watershed. 

Therefore, our estimates for the required mass of PSM for this site will be partly based on the predicted value of 22 kg dissolved P lost in runoff per year. 


Hydraulic head


Hydraulic head is critical for achieving the desired flow rate through the P removal structure.  As discussed in the previous post, the runoff water must flow through the structure in order for P removal to occur.  Simply put, the hydraulic head is the force that “pushes” the water through the structure. The hydraulic head can be estimated by conducting an elevation survey of the proposed structure location. 

Based on the elevation survey, we will have an appreciable amount of hydraulic head to achieve the desired flow rates (i.e. 16 cfs for a 2yr-24hr storm).

Thursday, June 20, 2013

New Site Location and Assessment

There are three requirements for site location of a P removal structure:

  1. Elevated dissolved P concentrations in runoff.  I have found that it is generally not worthwhile unless the dissolved P concentrations are > 0.25 ppm.
  2.  Hydraulic connectivity.  In other words, the runoff produced at the site must have the potential to reach a surface water body; otherwise there is not really a problem.
  3.  Potential to channel the runoff water into a single point for treatment.  Sometimes this is already completed for you if there is a drainage ditch, culvert, subsurface drainage outlet, etc.  Otherwise, you have to physically alter the flow so that it will converge into a single point.
The P removal structure will be constructed on a poultry farm located in Eastern OK.  The producer volunteered the site; he is an excellent cooperator and a progressive steward.  At the location, there are several poultry houses in a small 9-acre sub-watershed.  Poultry litter spillage often occurs near the entrance to the house and as a result of the connective hydrology at the site, P can potentially be transported to a nearby creek, which is located within the Illinois River Watershed.  Based on a site survey and visual observations during rainfall-runoff events, the following potential location within the site was chosen for the P removal structure:





The proposed site is located on the side of hill.  Starting in September, 2012, “grab” samples of runoff were taken during runoff events for analysis of dissolved P.  This is especially critical for the obvious reason that construction of a P removal structure is not justified if there is not sufficient runoff dissolved P!  This is why we initially refer to this site as a “potential” location because we did not know if it was a good candidate until we started taking some samples. It turned out that the dissolved P tested in the runoff samples ranged from 1 to 2 ppm.  Due to the elevated P concentrations, the site hydraulic connectivity, and the potential to channel water to a single point for treatment, this site becomes a perfect location for constructing a P removal structure!

Other P removal structures:

Located on the Stillwater Country Club Golf Course in Stillwater, OK


  
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This structure is located on a poultry farm in Maryland.  A retention pond captures runoff from around poultry houses.  The pond drains through the P removal structure before flowing out into drainage ditches.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
 Below is a picture of a structure while under construction in Maryland.  The structure will remove P from a drainage ditch.


Contributors

The construction of the P removal structure featured in this blog is brought to you through funding by the 

This project would not be possible without them or the support from the Illinois River Watershed 
Partnership: http://www.irwp.org/

Previous funding that has resulted in development of this technology includes:

United States Golf Association: http://www.usga.org/default.aspx
Maryland Department of Agriculture: http://www.mda.state.md.us/
Chesapeake Bay Trust: http://www.cbtrust.org
Delaware Department of Natural Resources: http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Pages/Portal.aspx

The principal investigators on this project include:

Dr. Chad Penn, Oklahoma State University
Dr. Josh McGrath, University of Maryland
Dr. Josh Payne, Oklahoma State University
Dr. Jeff Vitale, Oklahoma State University
Dr. Garey Fox, Oklahoma State University

  

Introduction

The purpose of this blog is to provide a case-study example of designing and constructing a phosphorus (P) removal structure, step by step.  A P removal structure is intended to filter dissolved P (DP) from runoff using industrial by-products, before the runoff reaches a surface water body.  Through this best management practice (BMP), the trapped P is retained in the structure, thus allowing P to be removed from the watershed at clean-out.  The justification for construction of a P removal structure is 3-fold:



General information about P removal structures can be found at the following websites: 

Slide show and video: 

Extension publication: http://usgatero.msu.edu/v11/n02.pdf


More detailed information can be found in the following publications:
Penn, C.J., J.M. McGrath, E. Rounds, G. Fox, and D. Heeren.  2012.  Trapping phosphorus in runoff with a phosphorus removal structure.  J. Environ. Qual. 41:672-679. 

Penn, C.J., R.B. Bryant, M.A. Callahan, and J.M. McGrath.  2011. Use of industrial byproducts to sorb and retain phosphorus.  Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal.  42:633-644.

Penn, C.J., R.B. Bryant, P.A. Kleinman, and A. Allen.  2007.  Removing dissolved phosphorus from drainage ditch water with phosphorus sorbing materials.  J. Soil Water Cons.  62:269-276.

Penn, C.J., J.M. McGrath, and R.B. Bryant.  2010.  Ditch drainage management for water quality improvement. In “Agricultural drainage ditches: mitigation wetlands for the 21rst century”.  Ed. M.T. Moore.  151-173. 


Similar work by other researchers:

Active wetlands - the use of chemical amendments to intercept phosphate runoffs in agricultural catchments. http://wwf.fi/mediabank/4368.pdf


Klimeski, A., Chardon, W.J., Turtola, E. and Uusitalo, R. 2012. Potential and limitations of phosphate 

retention media in water protection: A process-based review of laboratory and field-scale tests. 

Agricultural and Food Science 21: 206–223.



Vohla, C.; Koiv, M.; Bavor, H. J.; Chazarenc, F.; Mander, Ü. Filter materials for phosphorus removal from wastewater in treatment wetlands-A review Ecol. Eng. 2010, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.08.003



Mining waste byproduct capable of helping clean waterhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3482&from=rss

Wastewater treatment with by-products: http://publications.polymtl.ca/860/

Removal of nutrients from tile drainage in The Netherlands: Dr. Stefan Jansen