Draft Guidance Manual

Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection: BMP Performance Algorithms

Stormwater

Water Environment Research Foundation 635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110 n Alexandria, VA 22314-1177 Phone: 571-384-2100 n Fax: 703-299-0742 n Email: [email protected] www.werf.org WERF Stock No. SWC1R06bmp Co-published by

Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection

IWA Publishing Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street London SW1H 0QS United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)20 7654 5500 Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555 Email: [email protected] Web: www.iwapublishing.co IWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-543-8/1-78040-543-x

BMP PERFORMANCE ALGORITHMS Co-published by May 2013

SWC1R06bmp

LINKING BMP SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE TO RECEIVING WATER PROTECTION BMP PERFORMANCE ALGORITHMS

by:

Marc Leisenring, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants

Michael Barrett, P.E., Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin

Christine Pomeroy, P.E., Ph.D. University of Utah

Aaron Poresky, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants

Larry Roesner, P.E., Ph.D. Colorado State University

A. Charles Rowney, P.E., Ph.D. ACR, LLC

Eric Strecker, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants

2013

The Water Environment Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, funds and manages water quality research for its subscribers through a diverse public-private partnership between municipal utilities, corporations, academia, industry, and the federal government. WERF subscribers include municipal and regional water and water resource recovery facilities, industrial corporations, environmental engineering firms, and others that share a commitment to cost-effective water quality solutions. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands, and quality of life. For more information, contact: Water Environment Research Foundation 635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110 Alexandria, VA 22314-1177 Tel: (571) 384-2100 Fax: (703) 299-0742 www.werf.org [email protected] This report was co-published by the following organization. IWA Publishing Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street London SW1H 0QS, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 20 7654 5500 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7654 5555 www.iwapublishing.com [email protected] © Copyright 2013 by the Water Environment Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from the Water Environment Research Foundation. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2013931501 Printed in the United States of America IWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-543-8/1-78040-543-x This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Neither WERF, members of WERF, the organization(s) named below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Colorado State University, University of Utah The research on which this report is based was developed, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Cooperative Agreement EM-83483201-0 with the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). However, the views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the EPA and EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. This report is a publication of WERF, not EPA. Funds awarded under the Cooperative Agreement cited above were not used for editorial services, reproduction, printing, or distribution. This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by WERF. Mention of trade names or commercial products or services does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning WERF's or EPA's positions regarding product effectiveness or applicability.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Report Preparation Principal Investigators: Christine Pomeroy, P.E., Ph.D. University of Utah Larry Roesner, P.E., Ph.D. Colorado State University Project Team: Michael Barrett, P.E., Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin Marc Leisenring, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants Aaron Poresky, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants A. Charles Rowney, P.E., Ph.D. ACR, LLC Eric Strecker, P.E. Geosyntec Consultants

WERF Issue Area Team Roger Bannerman Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Gail Boyd Consultant Ted Cleveland Texas Tech University Robert Goo United States Environmental Protection Agency James Lenhart Stormwater Northwest LLC John Murray Metro Water Reclamation District Greater Chicago


iii

Daniel Rourke Fresno Metro Flood Control District Lee Sherman City of Austin Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto Lial Tischler Tischler-Kocurek

Subscriber Partner: Ken McKenzie Urban Drainage and Flood Control District

WERF Research Council Liaisons: Susan Sullivan New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) Robert Humpries, Ph.D. Water Corporation of Western Australia

Other Contributors Chris Olson Colorado State University JorJa Mattson University of Utah Klaus Rathfelder Daniel Pankani Chris Wessell Kelly Havens Ken Lawler Geosyntec Consultants

Water Environment Research Foundation Staff Director of Research: Senior Program Director:

iv

Daniel M. Woltering, Ph.D. Jeff C. Moeller, P.E.

ABSTRACT AND BENEFITS Abstract: While substantial information exists regarding many of the technical activities associated with developing stormwater management plans and demonstrating regulatory compliance, there is no unified modeling and analysis framework for linking receiving water quality to watershed management activities. This missing link has led many stormwater practitioners to select and design BMPs utilizing a variety of watershed and BMP analysis tools without specifically evaluating whether the proposed solutions will achieve receiving water goals. Consequently, a pressing need exists for a decision-support tool that links watershed models, BMP analysis tools, and receiving water quality models in an over-arching framework to assist stormwater managers, designers, regulators, and others in locating, selecting, and conceptually designing BMPs to specifically address receiving water issues. This project includes the development of a modeling tool called the BMP Selection/Receiving Water Protection Toolbox (Toolbox). After selecting an initial representative list of water quality parameters and stormwater BMPs, the team compared and evaluated algorithms for the BMP Module of the Toolbox. Three general types of algorithms were considered for BMP performance modeling:  Hydraulic algorithms – These determine the volumes captured, stored, and bypassed by the BMP.  Hydrologic algorithms – These determine the volume losses within the BMP due to infiltration and evapotranspiration and/or use (in the case of cisterns).  Treatment algorithms – These determine the concentration reductions provided by the BMP. Based on applicable unit treatment processes, available performance data, and desired level of user input requirements, BMP modeling approaches have been recommended. Benefits:    

Summarizes BMP performance research. Recommends algorithms for modeling BMP performance. Provides default parameters for several algorithms. Establishes a framework for linking BMPs to receiving water protection.

Keywords: Watershed modeling, stormwater quality, BMP performance algorithms, unit treatment processes, decision support tool.


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Abstract and Benefits .......................................................................................................................v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................... xii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................ES-1 1.0

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose of this Document......................................................... 1-2 1.2 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-4

2.0

Selection of Constituents and BMPs ............................................................................ 2-1 Water Quality Constituents .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 2.2 Representative BMPs ........................................................................................... 2-4

3.0

Review of BMP Modeling Approaches ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Introduction to Simulating BMP Effectiveness ................................................... 3-2 3.2 Hydraulic/Hydrologic Simulation ........................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1 General Considerations ............................................................................ 3-3 3.2.2 Common Modeling Methods ................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Water Quality Prediction ..................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1 Empirical and Semi-Empirical Modeling Methods ................................. 3-6 3.3.2 Lumped Unit Process-Based Modeling Methods .................................. 3-11 3.4 Simulating Distributed BMPs ............................................................................ 3-23 3.4.1 Individual BMP Approach ..................................................................... 3-25 3.4.2 Watershed Integrated Approach ............................................................ 3-26 3.4.3 Regionally Segmented, Unit BMP Approach ........................................ 3-27 3.4.4 Categorically Segmented, Unit BMP Approach .................................... 3-30 3.4.5 Watershed Model Parameter Adjustment Approach ............................. 3-32 3.4.6 Hydrograph Post-Processing Approach ................................................. 3-34

4.0

Recommended General BMP Algorithms ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Treatment Algorithms .......................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.1 Pollutant Partitioning ............................................................................... 4-3 4.1.2 Particle Size Distribution ......................................................................... 4-5 4.1.3 Particle Settling ........................................................................................ 4-6 4.1.4 Mass Fractions ......................................................................................... 4-7 4.1.5 Clogging ................................................................................................... 4-8 4.1.6 First-Order Decay with Irreducible Constant (k-C*) ............................... 4-9 4.1.7 Influent-Effluent Regression .................................................................. 4-13 4.2 Recommended Distributed BMP Simulation Approach .................................... 4-15 4.2.1 User Input Requirements ....................................................................... 4-17 4.2.2 Benefits and Limitations of Approach ................................................... 4-17

vi

5.0

Recommended BMP Specific Algorithms .................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Permeable Pavement ............................................................................................ 5-4 5.1.1 Storage Definitions .................................................................................. 5-5 5.1.2 Maximum Pavement Inflow .................................................................... 5-6 5.1.3 Volume Reduction ................................................................................... 5-6 5.1.4 Underdrain Discharge .............................................................................. 5-7 5.1.5 Algorithm Summary ................................................................................ 5-7 5.2 Cisterns ................................................................................................................ 5-8 5.2.1 Storage Definitions .................................................................................. 5-8 5.2.2 Volume Reduction ................................................................................... 5-9 5.2.3 Algorithm Summary ................................................................................ 5-9 5.3 Vegetated Swales ............................................................................................... 5-10 5.3.1 Storage Definitions ................................................................................ 5-10 5.3.2 Treatment Capacity ................................................................................ 5-12 5.3.3 Volume Reduction ................................................................................. 5-12 5.3.4 Treated Discharge .................................................................................. 5-13 5.3.5 Algorithm Summary .............................................................................. 5-13 Bioretention........................................................................................................ 5-14 5.4 5.4.1 Storage Definitions ................................................................................ 5-14 5.4.2 Maximum Media Bed Flow Rate ........................................................... 5-16 5.4.3 Volume Reductions ................................................................................ 5-17 5.4.4 Underdrain Discharges........................................................................... 5-17 5.4.5 Algorithm Summary .............................................................................. 5-18 5.5 Sand Filter .......................................................................................................... 5-20 5.5.1 Storage Definitions ................................................................................ 5-21 5.5.2 Maximum Sand Filter Flow Rate ........................................................... 5-22 5.5.3 Volume Reductions ................................................................................ 5-23 5.5.4 Underdrain Discharges........................................................................... 5-23 5.5.5 Algorithm Summary .............................................................................. 5-23 5.6 Dry Extended Detention Basins ......................................................................... 5-25 5.6.1 Storage Definitions ................................................................................ 5-26 5.6.2 Volume Reduction ................................................................................. 5-27 5.6.3 Treatment Outlet Discharges ................................................................. 5-28 5.6.4 Algorithm Summary .............................................................................. 5-29 5.7 Wet Ponds .......................................................................................................... 5-30 5.7.1 Storage Definitions ................................................................................ 5-31 5.7.2 Volume Reduction ................................................................................. 5-32 5.7.3 Treated Discharges................................................................................. 5-32 5.7.4 Algorithm Summary .............................................................................. 5-33

6.0

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Recommended BMP Performance Algorithms ................................................... 6-1 6.2 Expected Level of User Expertise and Input Requirements ................................ 6-4 6.3 Data Gaps and Needs ........................................................................................... 6-4


vii

Appendix A: Pollutant Factsheets ............................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Stormwater BMP Factsheets ................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C: Scatterplot Smoothing of BMP Influent/Effluent Data ......................................... C-1 Appendix D: Media Filter Algorithms ........................................................................................ D-1 Appendix E: Linear Regression of BMP Influent/Effluent Concentrations ................................E-1 Appendix F: Evaluation of Hydrograph Post-Processing Approach ........................................... F-1 References ....................................................................................................................................R-1

viii

LIST OF TABLES ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5

Water Quality Constituents Selected as Representative for Algorithm Development .....ES-2 BMPs Selected as Representative for Algorithm Development ....................................ES-2 Recommended Hydraulic/Hydrologic Algorithms for Modeling BMPs .......................ES-3 Selected Treatment Algorithms for Each BMP Type ....................................................ES-5 Selected Constituent for Sediment Category ................................................................... 2-3 Selected Constituents for Metals Category ...................................................................... 2-3 Selected Constituent for Nutrients Category ................................................................... 2-4 Selected Constituent for Pathogens Category .................................................................. 2-4 Selected BMP for Distributed Infiltration........................................................................ 2-5 Selected BMP for Capture and Reuse. ............................................................................. 2-5 Selected BMP for Vegetative Flow-Through Treatment ................................................. 2-5 Selected BMPs for Media Filtration ................................................................................ 2-6 Selected BMP for Regional Detention and Infiltration.................................................... 2-6 Selected BMP for Regional Retention ............................................................................. 2-6 List of Major Hydraulic/Hydrologic Processes and Potential Simulation Algorithms ...... 3-5 Major Concentration-Reducing Treatment Processes by BMP and Pollutant Type ...... 3-11 Composite Treatment Processes. ................................................................................... 3-12 Distributed BMP Simulation – Individual BMP Approach ........................................... 3-26 Distributed BMP Simulation – Watershed Integrated Approach .................................. 3-27 Distributed BMP Simulation – Regionally Segmented, Unit BMP Approach .............. 3-29 Distributed BMP Simulation – Categorically Segmented, Unit BMP Approach .......... 3-31 Distributed BMP Simulation – Watershed Model Parameter Adjustment Approach ... 3-33 Distributed BMP Simulation – Hydrograph Post-Processing Approach ....................... 3-35 Summary of Treatment Algorithms for Each BMP Type ................................................ 4-3 Pollutant Partitioning Algorithm...................................................................................... 4-4 Particle Size Distribution Algorithm ............................................................................... 4-6 Particle Settling Algorithm .............................................................................................. 4-7 Mass Fractions Associated with Particle Sizes ................................................................ 4-8 Media Filter Clogging Algorithm .................................................................................... 4-9 Summary of Rate Constants Reported in the Literature ................................................ 4-10 k-C* Model Algorithm .................................................................................................. 4-12 Linear Regression Algorithm ......................................................................................... 4-14 Summary of Hydrologic/Hydraulic Algorithms for Distributed BMPs .......................... 5-2 Summary of Hydrologic/Hydraulic Algorithms for Centralized BMPs .......................... 5-3 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Permeable Pavement ................................................. 5-5 Storage Variables Used in Permeable Pavement Modeling ............................................ 5-6 Recommended Default Effluent Concentrations for Permeable Pavement ..................... 5-7


ix

5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-16 5-17 5-18 6-1 6-2

x

User Inputs Needed for Modeling Cisterns ..................................................................... 5-8 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Swales ..................................................................... 5-10 Storage Variables Used in Vegetated Swale Modeling ................................................. 5-11 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Bioretention............................................................. 5-15 Storage Variables Used in Bioretention Modeling ........................................................ 5-16 Recommended Default Effluent TSS Concentration for Bioretention .......................... 5-18 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Sand Filters ............................................................. 5-21 Storage Variables Used in Sand Filter Modeling .......................................................... 5-22 Recommended Default Effluent TSS Concentration for Sand Filters ........................... 5-23 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Dry Extended Detention Basins .............................. 5-26 Storage Variables Used in Extended Detention Basin Modeling .................................. 5-27 User Inputs Needed for Modeling Wet Ponds ............................................................... 5-31 Storage Variables Used in Wet Pond Modeling ............................................................ 5-32 Recommended Hydraulic/Hydrologic Algorithms for BMPs ......................................... 6-2 Recommended Treatment Algorithms for BMPs and Constituents ................................ 6-4

LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 1-2 3-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9

Major Components of the Framework ............................................................................. 1-2 BMP Source and Treatment Controls Applications in Modeling .................................... 1-3 General BMP Performance Modeling Schematic ............................................................ 3-1 General Mass Balance Representation for Modeling BMPs ........................................... 4-1 Characteristic Particle Size Distribution for Urban Runoff ............................................. 4-5 Hydrograph Post-Processing Approach for Distributed BMP Representation .............. 4-16 General Storage Volume Definitions for BMPs .............................................................. 5-1 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Representation of Permeable Pavement ...................................... 5-4 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Representation of Cisterns ........................................................... 5-8 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Representation of Vegetated Swales ......................................... 5-10 Cross-Sectional Geometry of a Vegetated Swale .......................................................... 5-11 Conceptual Model Representation of Bioretention........................................................ 5-14 Conceptual Model Representation of Sand Filter .......................................................... 5-20 Conceptual Model Representation of Dry Extended Detention Basin .......................... 5-25 Conceptual Model Representation of Wet Pond ............................................................ 5-30


xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS ASCE AWWA BMP CEC CFD CSU CSTR EMC EPA ET FC GIS H/H HRT HSPF IAT Ksat k-C* LID MCTT MPN MUSIC NACWA NR NRCS NRDC ORP PET P8-UCM PSD REMM RFP SBPAT SE

xii

American Society of Civil Engineers American Water Works Association Best Management Practice Characteristic Effluent Concentration Computation Fluid Dynamics Colorado State University Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor Event Mean Concentration Environmental Protection Agency Evapotranspiration Field Capacity Geographic Information System Hydraulic/Hydrologic Hydraulic Retention Time Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN Issue Area Team Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity First-Order Decay w/ Irreducible Concentration Low Impact Development Multi-Chambered Treatment Train Most Probable Number Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualization National Association of Clean Water Agencies No Removal Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Defense Council Oxidation-Reduction Potential Potential Evapotranspiration Program for Predicting Polluting Particle Passage thru Pits, Puddles, & Ponds – Urban Catchment Model Particle Size Distribution Riparian Ecosystem Management Model Request for Proposals Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool Standard Error

SH SOR SSC SUSTAIN SWAT SWMM TKN TMDL TN TP TSS USACE USBR USDA U.S. EPA USGS UV VFSMOD VFSWM WEF WERF WETLAND WinSLAMM WP WQ WQS WWE

Sub-Hydrograph Surface Overflow Rate Suspended Sediment Concentration System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration Soil and Water Assessment Tool Storm Water Management Model Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of Agriculture United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Geologic Survey Ultraviolet Vegetative Filter Strips Hydrology and Sediment Transport Modelling System Virginia Field Scale Wetland Model Water Environment Federation Water Environment Research Foundation Wetland Water Balance and Nutrient Dynamics Windows Source Loading and Management Model Wilting Point Water Quality Water Quality Standards Wright Water Engineers


xiii

xiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction

Stormwater managers throughout the United States are developing plans to address receiving water issues and comply with current and future Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Watershed and BMP models are used to determine stormwater runoff quality and quantity, but currently there is no unified framework for linking the output of these models to receiving water quality. Without a receiving water linkage, the efficacy of stormwater BMPs at restoring and protecting the designated beneficial uses of those waters is uncertain. The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) has undertaken this project entitled, “Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection to Improve BMP Selection and Design.” This project seeks to develop a decision-support tool linking watershed models, BMP analysis tools, and receiving water quality models. The tool will then be available to assist stormwater managers and designers in developing stormwater management plans in which the location, selection, and conceptual design of stormwater BMPs results in meeting water quality standards. In 2007, the selected project team prepared a draft Conceptual Framework (Framework) for the BMP Selection and Design (electronic) Toolbox. The team’s next step (the focus of this report) was to develop, adopt, or adapt treatment BMP algorithms for estimating and assessing the performance of distributed and regional BMPs. The algorithms will serve as the basis for the development of BMP performance modules within the Toolbox to be used along with other models/algorithms that would complete transport routing and delivery to the receiving water (via a receiving water model) of interest.

ES.2 Summary of Work

The team initially selected a set of representative water quality parameters and stormwater BMPs. These parameters and BMPs were then used to compare and evaluate algorithms for the BMP Module of the Toolbox. Three general types of algorithms were considered for BMP performance modeling: 1) hydraulic algorithms – which determine the volumes captured, stored, and bypassed by the BMP; 2) hydrologic algorithms – which determine the volume losses within the BMP due to infiltration and evapotranspiration and/or use (in the case of cisterns); and 3) treatment algorithms – which determine the concentration reductions provided by the BMP. Based on applicable unit treatment processes, available performance data, and desired level of user input requirements, BMP modeling approaches have been recommended for each of these categories.

ES.3 Selection of Representative Constituents and BMPs

Urban runoff includes a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological constituents originating from a variety of sources. However, most commonly detected urban runoff pollutants can be generally classified as 1) either dissolved or particulate-bound and 2) belonging to one of the following pollutant families: sediment, metals, nutrients, or pathogens. While there are differences in the fate and transport of various constituents within these pollutant families, many similarities exist such that some treatment algorithms may be used to model several stormwater


ES-1

constituents if data are available for parameterization. Consequently, as a starting point for BMP algorithm development, one to two pollutants from each category was selected and researched based on knowledge of BMP data availability, commonly observed levels of detection in stormwater, and understanding of the physical and chemical properties associated with pollutant fate and transport. The list of constituents selected is shown in Table ES-1. Table ES-1. Water Quality Constituents Selected as Representative for Algorithm Development. Constituent Category Sediment Metals Nutrients Pathogens

Constituent(s) Total suspended solids (TSS) Copper Zinc Phosphorus Fecal coliform

In addition to the initial set of water quality constituents, the team also recommended a representative set of BMPs for inclusion in the BMP algorithms. BMPs were classified by their dominant treatment mechanisms and whether they are implemented as distributed BMPs (drainage areas < 10 acres) or regional BMPs (> 10 acres). General BMP categories and the reprentative BMPs for each are shown in Table ES-2. Non-structural source control BMPs, such as street sweeping and public education, are not included at this time. Table ES-2. BMPs Selected as Representative for Algorithm Development. BMP Classification Distributed infiltration Capture and reuse Vegetative flow-through treatment Media filtration Regional detention and infiltration Regional retention

Selected BMP(s) Permeable pavement Cistern Vegetated swales Sand filters Bioretention Dry extended detention basin Wet ponds/wetland basins

These tables show an initial set of representative water quality constituents and BMPs for algorithm development and parameterization. Eventually, the Toolbox will support a more comprehensive list of stormwater constituents and BMPs, but the selection of this initial set facilitates the development of the BMP Module and lays a solid foundation for future additions.

ES.4 Hydrologic/Hydraulic Algorithms

Hydraulic/hydrologic (H/H) processes include the unit operations that influence the stormwater capture efficiency, volume losses, hydraulic regime (completely mixed versus plugflow), and hydraulic retention time (HRT) and/or contact time. Specifically, hydraulic algorithms refer to those that determine the volumes captured, stored, and bypassed by the BMP, while hydrologic algorithms determine the volume losses within the BMP due to infiltration, evapotranspiration, and use (in case of cistern use). Hydraulic/hydrologic processes and algorithms are much better understood than treatment processes and therefore lend themselves to physically based mathematical representations in modeling tools. A list of the major hydraulic

ES-2

and hydrologic processes and the recommended simulation algorithms for each is shown in Table ES-3. Table ES-3. Recommended Hydraulic/Hydrologic Algorithms for Modeling BMPs. Lumped Process

Recommend Algorithm

Diversion routing (online vs. offline)

Single cut-off flow (minimum) Diversion curve (optimum)

BMP volume definition

Stage-area curve for detention-retention Trapezoidal geometry for swales Multilayer subsurface storage (above and below underdrain/outlet) for media filters and permeable pavement

BMP bypass control

Storage exceedance method Flow rate and/or depth of flow above which no treatment is assumed

BMP discharge control

Stage-discharge curve Manning’s equation for swales

Hydraulic regime

Multiple CSTR for detention/retention Plug flow for swales

Infiltration/ media filtration

Modified Green-Ampt equation to account for surface ponding for unsaturated flows Darcy’s Law for saturated flows Loss of permeability over time due to clogging

Evapotranspiration

Monthly ET values with crop coefficient adjustment (minimum) Hargreaves temperature-dependent method with available water related directly to the soil moisture storage (optimum)

Soil moisture accounting

Single layer that tracks available water and gravitational water (minimum) Multiple layers that tracks available water and gravitational water (optimum)

ES.5 Treatment Algorithms

Treatment algorithms are those used to estimate the treated effluent concentrations discharged from a modeled BMP. Potential algorithms range from empirical (e.g., linear regression) to semi-empirical reaction kinetics models (e.g., first-order decay) to physically based models (e.g., settling theory). After an evaluation of the various methods with respect to available data and the goals of the Toolbox, performance algorithms for the selected BMPs were recommended. Initial default parameters were developed from literature values and the International Stormwater BMP Database. Seven treatment algorithms were selected for initial inclusion in the Toolbox. These are listed below with a short description for each.


ES-3

Table ES-4 summarizes the team’s treatment algorithm recommendations for each combination of BMP and constituent. 1. Pollutant Partitioning – Divides total pollutant concentration into particulate and dissolved ( 5 bypass

Representation for Many Cisterns No. of BMPs 25 25 acre 100% 125000 0.19342 500000 66845 5 13369

gal/day (constant) cfs gal cf

Stage (ft) Area (ft2) 0 13369 5 13369 > 5 bypass

Porous Pavement Representation for a Porous Pavement Installation PP Area 0.25 Trib Area to PP 0.75 Trib Area Imperv 100% Asphalt thickness 0.25 Subbase thickness 2 Sump thickness 3 Roadbed porosity (%) 30 Subbase porosity (%) 30 Sump porosity (%) 35 Cistern Area 1 Ksat of asphalt 10 Infiltration rate used to size underdrain 1 Max underdrain flow 6 Native soil infiltration rate 0.1 Stage-Area Function in Storage Unit Stage (ft) Area (ft2) 0 3812 3 3812 3.001 3267 5.0 3267 5.001 3267 5.25 3267

acre

Representation for Many Installations No. of BMPs 25 6.25 acre 18.75 100%

ft ft ft % % % sf in/hr in/hr cfs in/hr

Volume (cf) 0 285863 285944 449213 449294 469631

Stage-Area Function in Storage Unit Stage (ft) Area (ft2) Volume (cf) 0 95288 0 3 95288 285863 3.001 81675 285944 5.0 81675 449213 5.001 81675 449294 5.25 81675 469631

Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection: BMP Performance Algorithms Evaluation of Hydrograph Post-Processing Approach

F-15

ATTACHMENT B – ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS OF MODELED BMPS (CONT). Swales Drainage Area Imperviousness Design Intensity Runoff Coeff. Design Flow Design Length Bottom Width Side Slope Infiltration rate

1 100% 0.2 0.95 0.188 100 4 4 0.2

acre in/hr cfs ft ft SS:1 in/hr

Representation in Storage Unit for a Single Swale Stage Determined from Manning's Equation Stage (in) Stage (ft) Area (ft2) Discharge (cfs) 0.527 0 400.00 0 0.807 0.04392 435.13 0.02 1.031 0.06725 453.80 0.04 1.224 0.08592 468.73 0.06 1.396 0.10200 481.60 0.08 1.554 0.11633 493.07 0.1 1.701 0.12950 503.60 0.12 1.839 0.14175 513.40 0.14 1.969 0.15325 522.60 0.16 2.02 0.16408 531.27 0.18 2.093 0.16833 534.67 0.188 Bypass 2.093 0.17442 539.53 0.2 2.38 0.19833 558.67 0.25

F-16

Representation in Storage Unit for Many Swales No. of Swales/Acre 25 Stage (ft) Area (ft2) Discharge (cfs) 0 10000 0.00 0.04392 10878 0.50 0.06725 11345 1.00 0.08592 11718 1.50 0.10200 12040 2.00 0.11633 12327 2.50 0.12950 12590 3.00 0.14175 12835 3.50 0.15325 13065 4.00 0.16408 13282 4.50 0.16833 13367 4.70 Bypass 0.17442 13488 5 0.19833 13967 6.25

ATTACHMENT C – SCATTERGRAMS FOR BASE CASE. Sub-area 1

Sub-area 2

8

14

Weighting Factor - Method 1

Weighting Factor - Method 1 12 Estimated Discharge (cfs)

Estimated Discharge (cfs)

7 6 5 4 3 2

10 8 6 4 2

1 th

th

90 percentile by cumulative volume

0

0

1

2 3 4 5 6 True Discharge (cfs)

7


0

8

0

2

Sub-area 1 Weighting Factor - Method 2

Weighting Factor - Method 2 Estimated Discharge (cfs)


12

6 5 4 3 2

10 8 6 4 2

1 th

th


0

1


7


0

8

0

2

Sub-area 1

4 6 8 10 True Discharge (cfs)

12

14

Sub-area 2

8

14



7

12



14

14

7

6 5 4 3 2

10 8 6 4 2

1 th

th


0

12

Sub-area 2

8

0


0

1


7


8

0

0

2


12


14

F-17

ATTACHMENT D – SCATTERGRAMS FOR BASE CASE W/ 10% IMPERVIOUS COVER IN SUB-AREA 1. Sub-area 1

Sub-area 2

5

14



4



12

3

2

1

10 8 6 4 2 th


th


0

0

1

2 3 True Discharge (cfs)

4

0

5

0

2

Sub-area 1


12

14

Sub-area 2

5

14



4



12

3

2

1

10 8 6 4 2 th


th


0

0

1


4

0

5

0

2

Sub-area 1


12

14

Sub-area 2

5

14



4



12

3

2

1

10 8 6 4 2 th


th


0

F-18

0

1


4

5

0

0

2


12

14

ATTACHMENT E – SCATTERGRAMS FOR BASE CASE CONDITIONS USING ALTERNATIVE RAIN STATIONS. Sub-area 1

Sub-area 2

50

60

40



St. Louis Weighting Factor - Method 1

30

20

10

St. Louis Weighting Factor 50 Method 1 40 30 20 10

th

th


0

0

10


40


0

50

0

10

Washington DC Weighting Factor - Method 1


40

30

20

10

40

30

20

10 th

th


0

10


40

0 50


0

10

40

50

70 New Orleans Weighting Factor - Method 1

40

30

20

10

10


40

50 40 30 20 th


10

th


0

New Orleans Weighting Factor Method 1

60 Estimated Discharge (cfs)



Sub-area 2

Sub-area 1 50

0

60

50 Washington DC Weighting Factor - Method 1

0

50

Sub-area 2

Sub-area 1 50


20 30 40 True Discharge (cfs)

50

0

0

10


60


70

F-19

F-20

REFERENCES Auer, M.T. and Niehaus, S.L. (1993). “Modeling fecal coliform bacteria--I. Field and laboratory determination of loss kinetics.” Water Research. 27(4): 693-701. ISSN 0043-1354, DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(93)90179-L. American Water Works Association (AWWA) (1999). Residential End Uses of Water. 310 pp. Bannerman, R.T., Owners, D.W., Dodds, R.B., and Hornewer, N.J. (1993). “Sources of Pollutants in Wisconsin Stormwater.” Water Science and Technology. 28(3-5): 241-259. Barrett, M.E. (2003). “Performance, cost, and maintenance requirements of Austin sand filters.” J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 129(3), 234-242. Barrett, M.E. (2005). “Performance comparison of structural stormwater best management practices.” Water Environ. Res., 77(1): 78-86. Barrett, M.E. (2008). “Comparison of BMP performance using the International BMP Database” J. of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 134(5): 556-561. Barrett, M.E. (2010). Evaluation of Sand Filter Performance, report to the City of Austin by the Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin. Barrett, M. (2010a). Personal Communication. Comments provided on interim deliverable. Task 3-B: Recommended Algorithms and Approaches for the BMP Module of the Framework Toolbox. Submitted to WERF project committee February 2010. Barrett, M. (2010b). Personal Communication. Additional PFC monitoring data from Texas DOT highway site for 2009 and 2010. Barrett, M. and Charbeneau, R. (2009). “Effects of Permeable Friction Course (PFC) on Quality of Highway Runoff.” 33rd IAHR Congress: Water Engineering for a Sustainable Environment. ISBN: 978-94-90365-01-1. Barrett, M.E., Walsh, P.M., Malina, J.F., and Charbeneau, R.J. (1998). “Performance of vegetative controls for treating highway runoff”. J. Environ. Eng. 124 (11), 1121-1128. Chapra, S.C. (1997). Surface Water-Quality Modeling. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Boston, MA. Chen, C.N. (1975). “Design of sediment retention basins.” Proc. National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control, University of Kentucky, Lexington, July 1975, pp. 285-298. Cheng, N.S. (1997). “Simplified settling velocity formula for sediment particle.” J. of Hydraul. Eng. 123(2): 149-152. Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W. (1988). Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Series in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering. New York, NY. City of Austin. (1990). Removal Efficiencies of Stormwater Control Structures. Final Report. Environmental Resource Management Division. 36 p.


R-1

Clark, S.E. and Pitt, R. (2009). "Solids Removal in Storm-Water Filters Modeled Using a Power Equation." J. of Environmental Engineering 135(9): 896-899. Clark, S.E., Johnson, P., Pitt, R., Gill, S., and Pratap, M. (2005). “Filtration for metals removal from stormwater.” Proc. of 10th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Copenhagen/Denmark, Aug. 21-26. Collins, R. and Rutherford, K. (2004). “Modelling bacterial water quality in streams draining pastoral land.” Water Research, 38(3): 700-712. ISSN 0043-1354, DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.10.045. Crittenden, J.C., Trussell, R.R., and Hand, D.W. (2005). Water treatment: principles and design. 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., USA. Deletic, A. (2001). “Modelling of water and sediment transport over grassed areas.” J. of Hydrology, 248: 168-182. Deletic, A. (2004). “Sediment transport in urban runoff over grassed areas.” J. of Hydrology, 301: 108-122. Deletic, A. and Fletcher, T.D. (2004) “Modelling performance of stormwater grass swales – application of simple and complex models.” Department of Civil Engineering (Institute for Sustainable Water Resources) & CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Monash University, 3800 Deletic, A. and Fletcher, T.D. (2006) “Performance of grass filters used for stormwater treatment – a field and modelling study.” J. of Hydrology, 317: 261-275. Dietrich, W. (1982). “Settling velocity of natural particles.” Wat. Res. Research, 18(6): 1615-1626. Elliott, A.H. and Trowsdale, S.A. (2007). “A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage” Environmental Modelling & Software. 22: 394-405. Fair, M.F. and Geyer, J.C. (1954). Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal. John Wiley and Sons, NY. Fassman, E.A. (2006). “Improving effectiveness and evaluation techniques of stormwater best management practices.” J. of Environmental Science and Health Part A, 41:1247-1256. Fletcher, T.D., Peljo, L., Fielding, J., and Wong, T.H.F. (2002). “The Performance of Vegetated Swales.” In: Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Portland, Oregon, September 9-12th. Fox, J. (2000). Nonparametric Simple Regression: Smoothing Scatterplots. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Fraser, R.H., Barten, P.K., and Pinney, D.A. (1998). “Predicting stream pathogen loading from livestock using a geographical information system-based delivery model.” J. Environ. Qual. 27: 935-945. Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers (2009). Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring. Prepared under support from the U.S. EPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal High Administration, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. [Online] http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/2009%20Stormwater%20BMP%20Monitoring%20Manual.pdf

R-2

Glick, R., Chang, G.C., and Barrett, M.E. (1998). “Monitoring and evaluation of stormwater quality control basins.” Watershed Management: Moving from Theory to Implementation, Denver, CO, May 3-6, pp. 369-376. Helmers, M.J., Eisenhauer, D.E., Franti, T.G., and Dosskey, M.G. (2005). “Modeling sediment trapping in a vegetative filter accounting for converging overland flow.” Trans. of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 48(2): 541-555. Horner, R.R. and Horner, C.R. (1995). Design, Construction, and Evaluation of a Sand Filter Stormwater Treatment System. Part II. Performance monitoring. Report ot Alaska Marine Lines, Seattle, WA. Huber, W.C., Cannon, L., and Stouder, M. (2006). “BMP Modeling Concepts and Simulation”. EPA Contract No. 68-C-01-020 EPA/600/R-06/033 July 2006 Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. and Yousef, Y.A. (1991). “Highway Runoff Quality, Environmental Impacts and Control”. Hamilton, R.S., and Harrison, R.M, eds., Highway pollution. Studies in Environmental Sciences 44. Amsterdam, Elsevier, chap. 5, p. 165-208. Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Johansen, N.B., and Yousef, Y.A. (1994). “Treatment Systems for Urban and Highway Run-off in Denmark.” Science of the Total Environment. 146/147: 499-506. May 23. International Stormwater BMP Database (2010). Database Accessed August 2010. www.bmpdatabase.org. James, W., Huber, W.C., Pitt, R.E., Dickinson, R.E., Roesner, L.A., Aldrich, J.A., and James, R.C. (2002). Hydraulics: A Guide to the Extran, Transport, and Storage Treatment modules of the U.S. EPA SWMM4. Computational Hydraulics International (CHI) Publications, Ontario, Canada. Jeng, H.C., England, A.J., and Bradford, H.B. (2005). “Indicator Organisms Associated with Stormwater Suspended Particles and Estuarine Sediment.” J. of Environ. Sci. and Health, 40:779-791. Jenkins, A., Kirkby, M.J., McDonald, A., Naden P., and Kay, D. (1984). ”A process based model of faecal bacterial levels in upland catchments.” Water Sci. Technol. 16(5-7): 453-462. Johnson, A. and Singhal, N. (2007). “Modelling the role of plants for metal removal in stormwater bioretention systems.” Proc. of NOVATECH 2007 - 6th international conference on sustainable techniques and strategies in urban water management. June 25-26, Lyon, France. Johnson, P.D., Pitt, R., Durrans, S.R., Urrutla, M., and Clark, S. (1997). Metals Removal Technologies for Urban Stormwater. 97-IRM-2. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA; IWA Publishing, London. Kadlec, R.H. (2000). “The Inadequacy of First-Order Treatment Wetland Models.” Ecological Engineering 15 (2000) 150-119. Kadlec, R.H. and Knight, R.L. (1996). Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Karamalegos, A., Barrett, M.E., Lawler, D.F., and Malina, J.F. Jr. (2005). Particle Size Distribution of Highway Runoff and Modification Through Stormwater Treatment, CRWR Online Report 2005-10, University of Texas at Austin. Available at: http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/reports/pdf/2005/rtp05-10.pdf


R-3

Kayhanian, M., Rasa, E., Vichare, A., and Leatherbarrow, J.E. (2008). “Utility of Suspended Solid Measurements for Storm-Water Runoff Treatment.” J. of Environ. Engr., 134(9): 712-721. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2008)134:9(712). Kim, J.Y. and Sansalone, J.J. (2008). “Event-based size distributions of particulate matter transported during urban rainfall-runoff events.” Water Research, 42: 2756-2768. Li, H. and Davis, A.P. (2008) “Urban Particle Capture in Bioretention Media. II: Theory and Model Development” J. Envir. Engrg. 134(6): 419-432. Lofts, S. and Tipping, E. (1998). “An assemblage model for cation binding by natural particulate matter.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 62(15): 2609-2625. Lu, Y. and Allen, H.E. (2006). “A predictive model for copper partitioning to suspended particulate matter in river waters” Environmental Pollution. 143(1): 60-72. Mays, D.C. and Hunt, R.H. (2005). “Hydrodynamic aspects of particle clogging in porous media.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 577-584. McCorquodale, J.A., Goergiou, I., Carnelos, S., and Englande, A.J. (2004). “Modeling coliforms in storm water plumes.” J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 3: 419-431. doi: 10.1139/S03-055. Menon, P., Billen, G., and Sevais, P. (2003). “Mortality rates of autochthonous and fecal bacteria in natural aquatic ecosystems.” Wat. Res. 37: 4151-4158. Minton, G.R. (2005), Stormwater Treatment: Biological, Chemical, and Engineering Principles, Resource Planning Associates, Seattle, WA. (http://www.stormwaterbook.com/) Mishra, S.K., Sansalone, J.J., Glenn III, D.W., and Singh, V.P. (October 2004) “PCN Based Metal Partitioning in Urban Snowmelt, Rainfall/Runoff, and River Flow Systems” Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 40(5): 1315-1337. Morquecho, R., Pitt, R., and Clark. S.E. (2005). “Pollutant Associations with Particulates in Stormwater.” World Water & Environmental Resources Congress, ASCE/EWRI. Anchorage, Alaska, Mary 15-19, 2005. Muñoz-Carpena, R., Parsons, J.E., and Gilliam, J.W. (1999) “Modeling hydrology and sediment transport in vegetative filter strips.” J. of Hydrology. 214: 111-129. NASA (2009). Webpage: GIS Interface to Penn State Integrated Hydrologic Model. http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/PIHMgis.html. Accessed 11/25/2009. Oliveiri, A.W., Boehm, A., Sommers, C.A., Soller, J.A., Eisenberg, J.N., and Danielson, R. (2007). Development of a Protocol for Risk Assessment of Microorganisms in Separate Stormwater Systems. Prepared for the Water Environment Research Foundation. WERF 03-SW2. Copublishers: WERF, Alexandria, VA, and IWA Publishing, Colchester, UK. O’Melia, C.R. and Ali, W. (1978), “The role of retained particles in deep bed filtration.” Prog. Water Res., Vol. 10, No. 5, 167-182. Ouyang, Y. (2002). “Phytoremediation: modeling plant uptake and contaminant transport in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum.” J. of Hydrology. 266(1-2): 66-82. Park, D. and Roesner, L.A. (2009). “Modeling Performances of Detention Basins with Uncertainty Analysis.” Proc. of the World Environ. and Wat. Res. Congress 2009. May 17–21, 2009, Kansas City, Missouri.

R-4

Persson, J., Somes, N.L.G., and Wong, T.H.F. (1999). “Hydraulic efficiency of constructed wetlands and ponds.” Water Sci. Technol. 40 (3): 291–300. Pitt, R., Clark, S., and Voorhees, J. (2007). “Water removal in bioretention devices by evapotranspiration processes and related issues affecting performance.” Urban Runoff Modeling Conference: Intelligent Modeling to Improve Stormwater Management, Engineering Conferences, International. Arcata, CA, July 2007. Rhodes, M.W. and Kator, H.I. (1988). “Survival of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. In estuarine environments.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 5412: 2902-2907. Sansalone, J.J., Buchberger, S.G., and Al-Abed, S. R. (1996). “Fractionation of Heavy Metals in Pavement Runoff.” The Science of the Total Environment. 189/190 (1996) 371-378. Sansalone, J.J. and Tribouillard, T. (1999). “Variation in Characteristics of Abraded Roadway Particles as a Function of Particle Size. Implications for Water Quality and Drainage.” Transportation Research Record. Sansalone, J. and Ying, G. (2008). “Partitioning and granulometric distribution of metal leachate from urban traffic dry deposition particulate matter subject to acidic rainfall and runoff retention.” Water Research, 42: 4146-4162. doi:10.1016. Schueler, T. (1996). “Irreducible Pollutant Concentrations Discharged from Urban BMPs.” Watershed Protection Techniques. 2(2): 361-363. Siriwardene N.R., Deletic A., and Fletcher T.D. (2007). “Modeling of sediment transport through stormwater gravel filters over their lifespan.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(23): 8099-103. Stokes, G.G. (1851). “On the effects of the internal friction of fluids on the motion of pendulums.” Trans. of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. 9(2): 8-106. Strecker, E., Huber, W., Heaney, J., Bodine, D., Sansalone, J., Quigley, M., Leisenring, M., Pankani, D., and Thayumanavan, A. (2005). Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues. Final report to the Water Environment Research Foundation. WERF 02-SW-1. Strecker, E.W., Quigley, M.M., Urbonas, B.R., Jones, J.E., and Clary, J.K. (2001). “Determining Urban Storm Water BMP Effectiveness,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 127(3):144149. Takamatsu, M.. Barrett, M., and Charbeneau, R.J. (2006). “Physical and conceptual modeling of sedimentation characteristics in stormwater detention basins.” Center for Research in Water Resources, University of Texas at Austin. CRWR Online Report 06-05. [Online] www.crwr.utexas.edu/reports/pdf/2006/rtp06-05.pdf. Thoma, G.J., Lam, T.B., and Wolf, D.C. (2003). “A mathematical model of phytoremediation for petroleum-contaminated soil: model development.” Int. J. Phytoremediation. 5(1): 41-55. Thomann, R. V. and Mueller, J.A. (1987). Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper & Row, Inc., New York. 644 pp. Tiefenthaler, L.L., Stein, E.D., and Lyon, G.S. (2008). Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) Levels During Dry Weather from Southern California Reference Streams. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, California.


R-5

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria – 1986. EPA440/5-84-002. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/files/1986crit.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information, [Online] http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T#tmdl_by_pollutant, Accessed 2/21/2012. U.S. Interagency Committee (1957). “Some fundamentals on particle size analysis: A study of methods used in measurement and analysis of sediment loads in streams.” Rep. No. 12 Urbonas, B. (1999). “Design of a sand filter for stormwater quality enhancement.” Water Environ. Res., 71(1): 102-113. Vaze, J. and Chiew, F.H.S. (2004). “Nutrient Loads Associated with Difference Sediment Sizes in Urban Stormwater and Surface Pollutants.” Journal of Environmental Engineering. April. Waschbusch, R.J., Selbig, W.R., and Bannerman, R.T. (1995). Sources of Phosphorus in Stormwater and Street Dirt from Two Urban Residential Basins in Madison, Wisconsin, 199495. WEF/ASCE (1998). Urban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice #23. ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice #87. Weiss, P.T., Gulliver, J.S., and Erickson, A.J. (2005). “The cost and effectiveness of stormwater management practices.” Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, St. Paul, Minn., http://www.rrb.org/pdf/200523.pdf Wilkinson, J., Jenkins, A., Wyer, M., and Kay, D. (1995). “Modelling faecal coliform dynamics in streams and rivers.” Water Res. 29(3): 847–55. Wong, T.H.F. and Breen, P.F. (2002). “Recent Advances in Australian Practice on the Use of Constructed Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment,” In Global Solutions for Urban Drainage, Proc. Ninth International Conference on Urban Drainage, E.W. Strecker and W.C. Huber, eds., Portland, OR, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, CD-ROM, September. Wong, T.H.F., Rodder, A., and Geiger, W.F. (1999). “Predicting the Performance of a Constructed Combined Sewer Overflow Wetland.” In: Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage. Sydney, Australia, 30 August–3 September, pp. 1947–1954. Wong, T.H.F., Fletcher, T.D., and Duncan, H.P. (2006). “Modelling urban stormwater treatment – A unified approach.” Ecological Engineering, 27: 58-70. Wright Water Engineers and Geosyntec Consultants (2012). Categorical Summary of BMP Performance Data for Sediment, Metals, Nutrients, and Bacteria Contained in the International Stormwater BMP Database – 2012 Update. Internal Review Draft. Wu, W. and Wang, S.Y. (2006). “Formulas for sediment porosity and settling velocity.” J. of Hydraulic Engineering, 132(8): 858-862. Yao, K-M., Habibian, M.T. and O’Melia, C.R. (1971). “Water and Waste Water Filtration: Concepts and Applications.” Environmental Science and Technology, 5(11): 1105-1112.

R-6

Ying, G. and Sansalone, J. (2008). “Event-based size distributions of particulate matter transported during urban rainfall-runoff events.” Water Research, 42: 2756-2768. doi:10.1016.


R-7

R-8

WERF Subscribers WASTEWATER UTILITY Alabama Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Board Alaska Anchorage Water & Wastewater Utility Arizona Avondale, City of Glendale, City of Peoria, City of Phoenix Water Services Department Pima County Wastewater Reclamation Department Tempe, City of Arkansas Little Rock Wastewater California Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Corona, City of Crestline Sanitation District Delta Diablo Sanitation District Dublin San Ramon Services District East Bay Dischargers Authority East Bay Municipal Utility District Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Fresno Department of Public Utilities Inland Empire Utilities Agency Irvine Ranch Water District Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Livermore, City of Los Angeles, City of Montecito Sanitation District Napa Sanitation District Novato Sanitary District Orange County Sanitation District Palo Alto, City of Riverside, City of Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District San Diego, City of San Francisco Public Utilities, City and County of San Jose, City of Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Santa Barbara, City of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Rosa, City of South Bayside System Authority

South Coast Water District South Orange County Wastewater Authority Stege Sanitary District Sunnyvale, City of Union Sanitary District West Valley Sanitation District Colorado Aurora, City of Boulder, City of Greeley, City of Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Connecticut Greater New Haven WPCA District of Columbia DC Water Florida Fort Lauderdale, City of JEA Miami-Dade County Orange County Utilities Department Palm Beach County Pinellas County Utilities Reedy Creek Improvement District St. Petersburg, City of Tallahassee, City of Toho Water Authority Georgia Atlanta Department of Watershed Management Augusta, City of Clayton County Water Authority Cobb County Water System Columbus Water Works Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities Macon Water Authority Savannah, City of Hawaii Honolulu, City & County of Idaho Boise, City of Illinois Greater Peoria Sanitary District Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Sanitary District of Decatur Wheaton Sanitary District Indiana Jeffersonville, City of

Iowa Ames, City of Cedar Rapids Water Pollution Control Facilities Des Moines, City of Iowa City Kansas Johnson County Wastewater Olathe, City of Unified Government of Wyandotte, County & City of Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 Louisiana Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans Maine Bangor, City of Portland Water District Maryland Anne Arundel County Howard County Bureau of Utilities Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Massachusetts Boston Water & Sewer Commission Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District Michigan Ann Arbor, City of Detroit, City of Holland Board of Public Works Saginaw, City of Wayne County Department of Environment Wyoming, City of Minnesota Rochester, City of Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Missouri Independence, City of Kansas City Missouri Water Services Department Little Blue Valley Sewer District Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Nebraska Lincoln Wastewater & Solid Waste System Nevada Henderson, City of New Jersey Bergen County Utilities Authority Ocean County Utilities Authority

New York New York City Department of Environmental Protection North Carolina Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Durham, City of Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County Orange Water & Sewer Authority Raleigh, City of Ohio Akron, City of Avon Lake Municipal Utilities Columbus, City of Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati Montgomery County Water Services Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Summit County Oklahoma Oklahoma City Water & Wastewater Utility Department Tulsa, City of Oregon Albany, City of Bend, City of Clean Water Services Gresham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Oak Lodge Sanitary District Portland, City of Water Environment Services Pennsylvania Philadelphia, City of, Water Department University Area Joint Authority South Carolina Beaufort - Jasper Water & Sewer Authority Charleston Water System Greenwood Metropolitan District Mount Pleasant Waterworks Spartanburg Water Sullivan’s Island, Town of Tennessee Cleveland Utilities Murfreesboro Water & Sewer Department Nashville Metro Water Services Texas Austin, City of Dallas Water Utilities Denton, City of El Paso Water Utilities Fort Worth, City of

WERF Subscribers Houston, City of San Antonio Water System Trinity River Authority Utah Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Virginia Alexandria Renew Enterprises Arlington County Fairfax County Fauquier County Hampton Roads Sanitation District Hanover County Henrico County Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Loudoun Water Lynchburg Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Prince William County Service Authority Richmond, City of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Washington Everett, City of King County Department of Natural Resources & Parks Puyallup, City of Seattle Public Utilities Sunnyside, Port of Yakima, City of Wisconsin Green Bay Metro Sewerage District Kenosha Water Utility Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Racine Water & Wastewater Utility Sheboygan, City of Wausau Water Works Australia/New Zealand Water Services Association of Australia Canada Calgary, City of EPCOR Lethbridge, City of Regina, City of Toronto, City of Winnipeg, City of

STORMWATER UTILITY California Monterey, City of San Diego County Department of Public Works San Francisco Public Utilities, City & County of Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of Colorado Aurora, City of Boulder, City of Florida Orlando, City of Iowa Cedar Rapids Water Pollution Control Facilities Des Moines, City of Kansas Overland Park, City of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, City of, Water Department Tennessee Chattanooga Stormwater Management Washington Bellevue Utilities Department Seattle Public Utilities STATE AGENCY Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Harris County Flood Control District Kansas Department of Health & Environment New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission Urban Drainage & Flood Control District, CO CORPORATE AECOM Alan Plummer Associates Inc. American Cleaning Institute Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc. Atkins Benton & Associates Black & Veatch Corporation Brown and Caldwell Burns & McDonnell Carollo Engineers, P.C. CDM Smith

CH2M HILL CRA Infrastructure & Engineering D&B/Guarino Engineers LLC Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence Effluential Synergies LC EMA Inc. Environ International Corporation Environmental Operating Solutions Inc. Freese & Nichols Inc. ftn Associates Ltd Gannett Fleming Inc. GeoSyntec Consultants GHD Inc. Global Water Advisors Inc. Greeley & Hansen LLC Hazen & Sawyer P.C. HDR Inc. HNTB Corporation Holmes & McGrath Inc. Infilco Degremont Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. KCI Technologies Inc. Kelly & Weaver P.C. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Larry Walker Associates LimnoTech Malcolm Pirnie, the Water Division of ARCADIS MaxWest Environmental Systems McKim & Creed Michael Baker, Jr. Inc. MWH NTL Alaska Inc. Parametrix Inc. Praxair Inc. Pure Technologies Ltd. Ross Strategic Siemens Water Technologies Southeast Environmental Engineering LLC Stone Environmental Inc. Stratus Consulting Inc. Synagro Technologies Inc. Tata & Howard Inc. Tetra Tech Inc. The Cadmus Group Inc. The Low Impact Development Center Inc. Trussell Technologies Inc. URS Corporation Westin Engineering Inc. Wright Water Engineers Inc. Zoeller Pump Company Australia CSIRO Austria Sanipor Ltd.

Canada Associated Engineering O2 Environmental Inc. Trojan Technologies Inc. Norway Aquateam-Norwegian Water Technology Centre A/S INDUSTRY American Water Anglian Water Services Ltd. Chevron Energy Technology Company Dow Chemical Company DuPont Company Eastman Chemical Company Eli Lilly & Company InSinkErator Johnson & Johnson Merck & Company Inc. Procter & Gamble Company Suez Environnement United Utilities North West United Water Services LLC Veolia Water North America

List as of 5/10/13

WERF Board of Directors Chair Catherine R. Gerali Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Vice-Chair Joseph E. Zuback Global Water Advisors, Inc. Secretary Jeff Eger Water Environment Federation Treasurer Jeff Taylor Freese and Nichols, Inc.

Patricia J. Anderson, P.E. Florida Department of Health Paul L. Bishop, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE University of Rhode Island William P. Dee, P.E., BCEE ARCADIS/Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Philippe Gislette Degrémont, Suez-Environnement

Terry L. Johnson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Black & Veatch Corporation Ed McCormick, P.E. East Bay Municipal Utility District Roger D. Meyerhoff, Ph.D. Eli Lilly and Company James Anthony (Tony) Parrott Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati

Cordell Samuels Regional Municipality of Durham, ON Kevin L. Shafer Metro Milwaukee Sewerage District Brian L. Wheeler Toho Water Authority Executive Director Glenn Reinhardt

WERF Research Council Chair Terry L. Johnson, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Black & Veatch Corporation Vice-Chair Rajendra P. Bhattarai, P.E., BCEE Austin Water Utility John B. Barber, Ph.D. Eastman Chemical Company

Ann E. Farrell, P.E. Diemer Engineering, Inc. Thomas C. Granato, Ph.D. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Robert Humphries, Ph.D. Water Corporation of Western Australia David Jenkins, Ph.D. University of California at Berkeley

Ted McKim, P.E. BCEE Reedy Creek Energy Services Kenneth H. Reckhow, Ph.D. Duke University Elizabeth Southerland, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Beverley M. Stinson, Ph.D. AECOM

Susan J. Sullivan New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC) A. Paul Togna, Ph.D. Environmental Operating Solutions, Inc.

WERF

Product Order Form

As a benefit of joining the Water Environment Research Foundation, subscribers are entitled to receive one complimentary copy of all final reports and other products. Additional copies are available at cost (usually $10). To order your complimentary copy of a report, please write “free” in the unit price column. WERF keeps track of all orders. If the charge differs from what is shown here, we will call to confirm the total before processing.

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Name

Title

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Organization

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address

________________________________________________________________________________________________ City

State

Zip Code

Country

________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone

Fax

Stock #

Email

Product

Method of Payment:

Quantity

To t a l

Postage & Handling

(All orders must be prepaid.)

VA Residents Add 5% Sales Tax

q C heck or Money Order Enclosed q Visa q Mastercard q A m e rican Express

Canadian Residents Add 7% GST

______________________________________________________ Account No.

Unit Price

Exp. Date

TOTAL

______________________________________________________ Signature

S h ip p in g & Ha n dli n g:

To Order (Subscribers Only):

Amount of Order

United States

Up to but not more than:

Add:

Canada & Mexico

All Others

Add:

Add:

$20.00

$7.50*

$9.50

50% of amount

30.00

8.00

9.50

40% of amount

40.00

8.50

9.50

50.00

9.00

18.00

60.00

10.00

18.00

80.00

11.00

18.00

100.00

13.00

24.00

150.00

15.00

35.00

200.00

18.00

40.00

More than $200.00

Add 20% of order

Add 20% of order

* m i n i mum amount for all orders Make checks payable to the Water Environment Research Foundation.

on to www. werf.org and click 7 Log on “Publications.” Phone: 571-384-2100 ( Fa x : 703-299-0742 WERF Attn: Subscriber Services 635 Slaters Lane Alexandria, VA 22314-1177

To Order (Non-Subscribers): Non-subscribers may order WERF publications either through WERF or IWAP (www.iwapublishing.com). Visit WERF’s website at www.werf.org for details.


Stormwater

Water Environment Research Foundation 635 Slaters Lane, Suite G-110 n Alexandria, VA 22314-1177 Phone: 571-384-2100 n Fax: 703-299-0742 n Email: [email protected] www.werf.org WERF Stock No. SWC1R06bmp Co-published by

Linking BMP Systems Performance to Receiving Water Protection

IWA Publishing Alliance House, 12 Caxton Street London SW1H 0QS United Kingdom Phone: +44 (0)20 7654 5500 Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555 Email: [email protected] Web: www.iwapublishing.co IWAP ISBN: 978-1-78040-543-8/1-78040-543-x

BMP PERFORMANCE ALGORITHMS Co-published by May 2013