m
m
 
(166 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{alert|This site is under review. Anticipated completion date is June, 2015.|alert-under-review}}
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px; width:100px;"
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="8" style="text-align: center;" | '''Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies, in percent, for biofiltration BMPs. [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs#References Sources]. NOTE: removal efficiencies are 100 percent for water that is infiltrated.<br>
 +
<font size =1>TSS=total suspended solids; TP=total phosphorus; PP=particulate phosphorus; DP=dissolved phosphorus; TN=total nitrogen'''</font size>
 +
|-
 +
| '''TSS'''
 +
| '''TP'''
 +
| '''PP'''
 +
| '''DP'''
 +
| '''TN'''
 +
| '''Metals'''
 +
| '''Bacteria'''
 +
|'''Hydrocarbons'''
 +
|-
 +
| 80
 +
| [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain link to table]
 +
| [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain link to table]
 +
| [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain link to table]
 +
| 50
 +
| 35
 +
| 95
 +
| 80
 +
|}
  
[http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Overview_of_stormwater_credits Credit] refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual BMP or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in  
+
[[File:Pdf image.png|100px|thumb|left|alt=pdf image|<font size=3>[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Calculating_credits_for_bioretention_-_Minnesota_Stormwater_Manual.pdf_May_2022.pdf Download pdf]</font size>]]
 +
[[File:Summary image.jpg|100px|left|thumb|alt=image|<font size=3>[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:Credit_page_descriptions.mp4 Page video summary]</font size>]]
 +
[[File:Technical information page image.png|100px|left|alt=image]]
 +
 
 +
{{alert|Models are often selected to calculate credits. The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.|alert-danger}}
 +
{{alert|Bioretention practices can be an important tool for retention and detention of stormwater runoff. Because they utilize vegetation, bioretention practices provide additional benefits, including cleaner air, carbon sequestration, improved biological habitat, and aesthetic value.|alert-success}}
 +
 
 +
[http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Overview_of_stormwater_credits Credit] refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual <span title="One of many different structural or non–structural methods used to treat runoff"> '''best management practice'''</span> (BMP) or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in  
 
*providing incentives to site developers to encourage the [[Credits for Better Site design|preservation of natural areas and the reduction of the volume of stormwater]] runoff being conveyed to a best management practice (BMP);  
 
*providing incentives to site developers to encourage the [[Credits for Better Site design|preservation of natural areas and the reduction of the volume of stormwater]] runoff being conveyed to a best management practice (BMP);  
*complying with permit requirements, including antidegradation (see [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit]; [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_General_Permit]);
+
*complying with permit requirements, including antidegradation (see [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program Construction permit]; [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_Program_for_Municipal_Separate_Storm_Sewer_Systems_(MS4) Municipal (MS4) permit]);
 
*meeting the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_goals_for_new_development,_re-development_and_linear_projects MIDS performance goal]; or  
 
*meeting the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_goals_for_new_development,_re-development_and_linear_projects MIDS performance goal]; or  
*meeting or complying with water quality objectives, including [[Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)|Total Maximum Daily Load]] (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs).
+
*meeting or complying with water quality objectives, including <span title="The amount of a pollutant from both point and nonpoint sources that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards"> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Total_Maximum_Daily_Loads_(TMDLs) '''total maximum daily load''']</span> (TMDL) <span title="The portion of a receiving water's assimilative capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution"> '''wasteload allocations'''</span> (WLAs).
This page provides a discussion of how biofiltration practices can achieve stormwater credits.
+
This page provides a discussion of how bioretention practices can achieve stormwater credits. Bioretention systems with and without <span title="An underground drain or trench with openings through which the water may percolate from the soil or ground above"> '''underdrains'''</span> are both discussed, with separate sections for each type of system as appropriate. In this discussion, bioretention systems with an underdrain are called biofiltration systems, while bioretention systems with no underdrain are called bioinfiltration systems.
  
 
==Overview==
 
==Overview==
[[File:Biofiltration 1 for credit page.jpg|thumb|300px|alt=schematic showing bioinfiltration system|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the components and processes for a biofiltration system.</font size>]]
+
[[file:Bioretention schematic no underdrain.png|thumb|300px|alt=schematic showing bioinfiltration system|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the components and processes for a bioinfiltration system.</font size>]]
  
Biofiltration, commonly termed [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Bioretention bioretention] with underdrains, is primarily a stormwater quality control practice. Some water quantity reduction can be achieved through infiltration below the underdrain, particularly if the underdrain is raised above the bottom of the Best Management Practice (BMP), and through [[Glossary#E|evapotranspiration]].
+
[[File:Bioretention schematic underdrain.png|thumb|300px|alt=schematic showing biofiltration system|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the components and processes for a biofiltration system.</font size>]]
  
Typically biofiltration consists of an [[Design criteria for bioretention#Materials specifications - filter media|engineered soil layer]] designed to treat stormwater runoff via filtration through plant and soil media, and evapotranspiration from plants. [[Design criteria for bioretention#Pretreatment|Pretreatment]] is REQUIRED for all biofiltration facilities to settle particulates before entering the BMP. Biofiltration includes an [[Design criteria for bioretention#Underdrains|underdrain layer]] to collect the filtered runoff for downstream discharge. Other common components may include a stone aggregate layer to allow for increased retention storage and an impermeable liner on the bottom or sides of the facility if located near buildings, subgrade utilities, or in karst formations. [[Overview for bioretention|Biofiltration is a versatile stormwater treatment method]] applicable to all types of settings such as landscaping islands, cul-de-sacs, parking lot margins, commercial setbacks, open space, rooftop drainage, and streetscapes.
+
Bioretention is a terrestrial-based (up-land as opposed to wetland) water quality and water quantity control process. Bioretention consists of an <span title="Engineered media is a mixture of sand, fines (silt, clay), and organic matter utilized in stormwater practices, most frequently in bioretention practices. The media is typically designed to have a rapid infiltration rate, attenuate pollutants, and allow for plant growth."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_criteria_for_bioretention#Materials_specifications_-_filter_media '''engineered soil media''']</span> layer designed to treat stormwater runoff via <span title="Filtration Best Management Practices (BMPs) treat urban stormwater runoff as it flows through a filtering medium, such as sand or an organic material. They are generally used on small drainage areas (5 acres or less) and are primarily designed for pollutant removal. They are effective at removing total suspended solids (TSS), particulate phosphorus, metals, and most organics. They are less effective for soluble pollutants such as dissolved phosphorus, chloride, and nitrate."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Filtration '''filtration''']</span> through plant and soil media, <span title="Loss of water to the atmosphere as a result of the joint processes of evaporation and transpiration through vegetation"> '''evapotranspiration'''</span> from plants, or through <span title="Infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs) treat urban stormwater runoff as it flows through a filtering medium and into underlying soil, where it may eventually percolate into groundwater. The filtering media is typically coarse-textured and may contain organic material, as in the case of bioinfiltration BMPs."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Stormwater_infiltration_Best_Management_Practices '''infiltration''']</span> into underlying soil. <span title="Pretreatment reduces maintenance and prolongs the lifespan of structural stormwater BMPs by removing trash, debris, organic materials, coarse sediments, and associated pollutants prior to entering structural stormwater BMPs. Implementing pretreatment devices also improves aesthetics by capturing debris in focused or hidden areas. Pretreatment practices include settling devices, screens, and pretreatment vegetated filter strips."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Pretreatment '''Pretreatment''']</span> is REQUIRED for all bioretention facilities to settle particulates before entering the BMP. Bioretention practices may be built with or without an underdrain. Other common components of bioretention systems may include a stone aggregate layer to allow for increased retention storage and an impermeable liner on the bottom or sides of the facility if located near buildings, subgrade utilities, or in <span title="Karst is a landscape formed by the dissolution of a layer or layers of soluble bedrock. The bedrock is usually carbonate rock such as limestone or dolomite but the dissolution has also been documented in weathering resistant rock, such as quartz. The dissolution of the rocks occurs due to the reaction of the rock with acidic water. Rainfall is already slightly acidic due to the absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2), and becomes more so as it passes through the subsurface and picks up even more CO2. Cracks and fissures form as the runoff passes through the subsurface and reacts with the rocks. These cracks and fissures grow, creating larger passages, caves, and may even form sinkholes as more and more acidic water infiltrates into the subsurface."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Karst '''Karst''']</span> formations. [[Overview for bioretention|Bioretention is a versatile stormwater treatment method]] applicable to all types of settings such as landscaping islands, cul-de-sacs, parking lot margins, commercial setbacks, open space, rooftop drainage, and streetscapes.
  
{{alert|The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/III._STORMWATER_DISCHARGE_DESIGN_REQUIREMENTS#III.D._PERMANENT_STORMWATER_MANAGEMENT_SYSTEM Construction Stormwater permit] REQUIRES pretreatment for bioretention practices|alert-danger}}
+
Systems with no <span title="An underground drain or trench with openings through which the water may percolate from the soil or ground above"> '''underdrain'''</span> are called <span title="A bioretention practice in which no underdrain is used. All water entering the bioinfiltration practice infiltrates or evapotranspires."> '''bioinfiltration'''</span>, while those with an underdrain are called <span title="A bioretention practice having an underdrain. All water entering the practice is filtered through engineered media and filtered water is returned to the storm sewer system."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Bioretention '''biofiltration''']</span>. Biofiltration, commonly termed [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Bioretention bioretention] with underdrains, is primarily a stormwater quality control practice. Some water quantity reduction can be achieved through infiltration below the underdrain, particularly if the underdrain is raised above the bottom of the BMP, and through evapotranspiration. Biofiltration includes an [[Design criteria for bioretention#Underdrains|underdrain layer]] to collect the filtered runoff for downstream discharge.
 +
 
 +
See [[Bioretention terminology]] for a discussion of different types of bioretention systems. Although tree trenches and tree boxes are a form of bioretention, [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Calculating_credits_for_tree_trenches_and_tree_boxes they are discussed separately in this manual].
 +
 
 +
{{alert|The [[Construction stormwater program|Construction Stormwater permit]] REQUIRES pretreatment for bioretention practices|alert-danger}}
  
 
===Pollutant removal mechanisms===
 
===Pollutant removal mechanisms===
Biofiltration has one of the highest nutrient and pollutant removal efficiencies of any BMP ([http://www.marc.org/Environment/Water-Resources/Local-Government-Resources/Stormwater-Best-Management-Practices Mid-America Regional Council] and American Public Works Association [https://www.leawood.org/public%20works/PDF/APWA%20BMP%20Manual.pdf Manual of Best Management Practice BMPs for Stormwater Quality], 2012). Biofiltration pollutant removal primarily occurs through filtering by the engineered soil media and vegetation. Biofiltration also provides pollutant removal and volume reduction through evaporation, infiltration, transpiration, biological and microbiological uptake, and soil adsorption; the extent of these benefits is highly dependent on site specific conditions and design. In addition to phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS), which are discussed in greater detail below, biofiltration treats a wide variety of [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Other pollutants|other pollutants]].
+
Bioretention practices have one of the highest nutrient and pollutant removal efficiencies of any BMP. Bioretention provides pollutant removal and volume reduction through filtration, evaporation, infiltration, <span title="The loss of water as vapor from plants at their surfaces, primarily through stomata."> '''transpiration'''</span>, biological and microbiological uptake, and soil adsorption; the extent of these benefits is highly dependent on site specific conditions and design. In addition to phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS), which are discussed in greater detail below, bioretention treats a wide variety of [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Other pollutants|other pollutants]].
  
 
Removal of phosphorus is dependent on the engineered media. Media mixes with high organic matter content typically leach phosphorus and can therefore contribute to water quality degradation. The Manual provides a detailed discussion of  [[Design criteria for bioretention#Materials specifications - filter media|media mixes]], including information on phosphorus retention.
 
Removal of phosphorus is dependent on the engineered media. Media mixes with high organic matter content typically leach phosphorus and can therefore contribute to water quality degradation. The Manual provides a detailed discussion of  [[Design criteria for bioretention#Materials specifications - filter media|media mixes]], including information on phosphorus retention.
  
 
===Location in the treatment train===
 
===Location in the treatment train===
[[Using the treatment train approach to BMP selection|Stormwater treatment trains]] are multiple Best Management Practice (BMPs) that work together to minimize the volume of stormwater runoff, remove pollutants, and reduce the rate of stormwater runoff being discharged to Minnesota wetlands, lakes and streams. Under the Treatment Train approach, stormwater management begins with simple methods that prevent pollution from accumulating on the land surface,  followed by methods that minimize the volume of runoff generated, and is completed by BMPs that reduce the pollutant concentration and/or volume  of stormwater runoff.  Biofiltration facilities are typically located in upland areas of the stormwater treatment train, controlling stormwater runoff close to the source.
+
[[Using the treatment train approach to BMP selection|Stormwater treatment trains]] are multiple BMPs that work together to minimize the volume of stormwater runoff, remove pollutants, and reduce the rate of stormwater runoff being discharged to Minnesota wetlands, lakes and streams. Bioretention facilities are typically located in upland areas of the stormwater treatment train, controlling stormwater runoff close to the source.
  
 
==Methodology for calculating credits==
 
==Methodology for calculating credits==
 
This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Methods for calculating credits|Specific methods for calculating credits]] are discussed later in this article.
 
This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Methods for calculating credits|Specific methods for calculating credits]] are discussed later in this article.
  
Biofiltration generates credits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Biofiltration does not substantially reduce the volume of runoff but may qualify for a partial volume credit as a result of evapotranspiration, infiltration occurring through the sidewalls above the underdrain, and infiltration below the underdrain piping. Biofiltration is also effective at reducing concentrations of other pollutants including nitrogen, metals, bacteria, and hydrocarbons. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS and TP, but references are provided that may be useful for [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Other pollutants|calculating credits]] for other pollutants.
+
Bioinfiltration practices generate credits for volume, TSS, and TP. Biofiltration practices do not substantially reduce the volume of runoff but may qualify for a partial volume credit as a result of evapotranspiration, infiltration occurring through the sidewalls above the underdrain, and infiltration below the underdrain piping. Bioretention practices are effective at reducing concentrations of other pollutants including nitrogen, metals, bacteria, and hydrocarbons. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS and TP, but references are provided that may be useful for [[Calculating credits for bioretention#Other pollutants|calculating credits]] for other pollutants.
 +
 
 +
[[File:Biofiltration water quality volume.png|300px|thumb|alt=schematic of biofiltration water quality volume|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the water quality volume (V<sub>WQ</sub>) for a bioretention BMP. The V<sub>WQ</sub> equals the volume of water ponded above the media and below the overflow point in the BMP. The schematic illustrates other processes occurring within the bioretention system. In this example, an underdrain is located at the bottom of the practice.</font size>]]
  
 
===Assumptions and approach===
 
===Assumptions and approach===
[[File:Biofiltration water quality volume.png|300px|thumb|alt=schematic of biofiltration water quality volume|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the water quality volume (WQV) for a biofiltration BMP. The WQV equals the water ponded above the media and below the overflow point in the BMP.</font size>]]
+
In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the bioretention practice is properly [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_criteria_for_bioretention designed], [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_specifications_for_bioretention constructed], and [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Operation_and_maintenance_of_bioretention_and_other_stormwater_infiltration_practices maintained] in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, see the appropriate article within the [[Bioretention|bioretention]] section of the Manual.
 +
 
 +
{{alert|Pre-treatment is required for all bioretention practices|alert-danger}}
  
In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the bioretention practice is properly designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, see the appropriate article within the [[Bioretention|bioretention]] section of the Manual.
+
In the following discussion, the <span title="The volume of water that is treated by a BMP."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Water_quality_criteria '''Water Quality Volume''']</span> (V<sub>WQ</sub>) is delivered instantaneously to the BMP. The V<sub>WQ</sub> is stored as water ponded above the filter media and below the overflow point in the BMP. The V<sub>WQ</sub> can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1 inch off new impervious surface. For MIDS, V<sub>WQ</sub> is 1.1 inches.
  
In the following discussion, the [http://www.stormh2o.com/SW/Articles/Kerplunk_15253.aspx kerplunk method] is assumed in calculating volume and pollutant reductions. This method assumes the water quality volume (WQV) is delivered instantaneously to the BMP. The WQV is stored as water ponded above the filter media and below the overflow point in the BMP. The WQV can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, the water quality volume is 1 inch off new impervious surface. For MIDS, the WQV is 1.1 inches.
+
In reality, some water will infiltrate through the bottom and sidewalls of the BMP as a rain event proceeds. The instantaneous volume method therefore may underestimate actual volume and pollutant losses.
  
In reality, some water will infiltrate through the bottom and sidewalls of the BMP as a rain event proceeds. The kerplunk method therefore may underestimate actual volume and pollutant losses.
+
===Volume credit calculations - no underdrain===
 +
[[File:BMP terminology 1.png|300px|thumb|alt=image showing BMP terms|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations. For a practice with no underdrain all water stored above the media will infiltrate through the bottom and sides of the practice.</font size>]]
  
===Volume credit calculations===
+
Volume credits are calculated based on the capacity of the BMP and its ability to permanently remove stormwater runoff via infiltration into the underlying soil from the existing stormwater collection system. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values entirely based on the capacity of the BMP to capture, store, and transmit water in any storm event. Because the volume is calculated as an instantaneous volume, the water quality volume (V<sub>WQ</sub>) is assumed to pond below the overflow elevation and above the bioretention media. This entire volume is assumed to infiltrate through the bottom of the BMP. The volume credit (V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub>) for infiltration through the bottom of the BMP into the underlying soil, in cubic feet, is given by
 +
 
 +
<math> V_{inf_b} =  D_o\  (A_O + A_M)\ / 2  </math>
 +
 
 +
where
 +
:A<sub>O</sub> is the overflow surface area of the bioretention system, in square feet;
 +
:A<sub>M</sub> is the area at the surface of the media, in square feet; and
 +
:D<sub>O</sub> is the ponded depth with the BMP, in feet.
 +
 
 +
Some of the V<sub>WQ</sub> will be lost to evapotranspiration rather than all being lost to infiltration. In terms of a water quantity credit, this differentiation is unimportant, but it may be important if attempting to calculate actual infiltration into the underlying soil.
 +
 
 +
The annual volume captured and infiltrated by the BMP can be determined with appropriate modeling tools, including the [[MIDS calculator]]. Example values are shown below for a scenario using the MIDS calculator.  For example, a permeable pavement system designed to capture 1 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces will capture 89 percent of annual runoff from a site with B (SM) soils.
 +
 
 +
{{:Annual volume treated as a function of soil and water quality volume}}
 +
 
 +
===Volume credit calculations - underdrain===
 
[[file:Bioretention water loss bottom underdrain.png|300px|thumb|alt=water loss mechanisms bioretention with underdrain at bottom|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with an underdrain at the bottom.</font size>]]
 
[[file:Bioretention water loss bottom underdrain.png|300px|thumb|alt=water loss mechanisms bioretention with underdrain at bottom|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with an underdrain at the bottom.</font size>]]
  
 
[[file:Bioretention water loss raised underdrain.png|300px|thumb|alt=water loss mechanisms bioretention with raised underdrain|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with a raised underdrain.</font size>]]
 
[[file:Bioretention water loss raised underdrain.png|300px|thumb|alt=water loss mechanisms bioretention with raised underdrain|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with a raised underdrain.</font size>]]
  
Volume credits for biofiltration are available only if the BMP permanently removes a portion of the stormwater runoff via infiltration through sidewalls or beneath the underdrain piping, or through evapotranspiration. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values based on the design capacity of the BMP for a specific storm event. Instantaneous volume reduction, also termed event based volume reduction, can be converted to annual volume reduction percentages using the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Performance_curves_for_MIDS_calculator MIDS calculator] or other appropriate modeling tools.
+
[[File:BMP terminology 1.png|300px|thumb|alt=image showing BMP terms|<font size=3>Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations.</font size>]]
 +
 
 +
Volume credits for biofiltration are available only if the BMP permanently removes a portion of the stormwater runoff via infiltration through sidewalls or beneath the underdrain piping, or through evapotranspiration. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values based on the design capacity of the BMP for a specific storm event. Instantaneous volume reduction, also termed event based volume reduction, can be converted to annual volume reduction percentages using the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=MIDS_calculator MIDS calculator] or other appropriate modeling tools.
  
 
Volume credits for biofiltration basins with underdrains are calculated by a combination of infiltration through the unlined sides and bottom of the basin, the volume loss through evapotranspiration (ET), and the retention volume below the underdrain, if applicable (this is based on the assumption that this stored water will infiltrate into the underlying soil). The main design variables impacting the volume credits include whether the underdrain is elevated above the native soils and if an impermeable liner on the sides or bottom of the basin is used. Other design variables include surface area at overflow, media top surface area, underdrain location, and basin bottom locations, total depth of media, soil water holding capacity and media porosity, and infiltration rate of underlying soils.
 
Volume credits for biofiltration basins with underdrains are calculated by a combination of infiltration through the unlined sides and bottom of the basin, the volume loss through evapotranspiration (ET), and the retention volume below the underdrain, if applicable (this is based on the assumption that this stored water will infiltrate into the underlying soil). The main design variables impacting the volume credits include whether the underdrain is elevated above the native soils and if an impermeable liner on the sides or bottom of the basin is used. Other design variables include surface area at overflow, media top surface area, underdrain location, and basin bottom locations, total depth of media, soil water holding capacity and media porosity, and infiltration rate of underlying soils.
Line 52: Line 107:
 
The volume credit (V) for biofiltration basins with underdrains, in cubic feet, is given by
 
The volume credit (V) for biofiltration basins with underdrains, in cubic feet, is given by
  
<math> V = V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_{ET} + V_U </math>
+
<math> V = V_{inf_B} + V_{inf_s} + V_{ET} + V_U </math>
  
 
where:
 
where:
*V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the bottom of the basin (cubic feet);
+
:V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the bottom of the basin (cubic feet);
*V<sub>inf<sub>s</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the sides of the basin (cubic feet);
+
:V<sub>inf<sub>s</sub></sub> = volume of infiltration through the sides of the basin (cubic feet);
*V<sub>ET</sub> = volume reduction due to evapotranspiration (cubic feet); and
+
:V<sub>ET</sub> = volume reduction due to evapotranspiration (cubic feet); and
*V<sub>U</sub> = volume of water stored beneath the underdrain that will infiltrate into the underlying soil (cubic feet).
+
:V<sub>U</sub> = volume of water stored beneath the underdrain that will infiltrate into the underlying soil (cubic feet).
  
 
Volume credits for infiltration through the bottom of the basin (V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub>) are accounted for only if the bottom of the basin is not lined. As long as water continues to draw down, some infiltration will occur through the bottom of the BMP.  However, it is assumed that when an underdrain is included in the installation, the majority of water will be filtered through the media and exit through the underdrain. Because of this, the drawdown time is likely to be short. Volume credit for infiltration through the bottom of the basin is given by
 
Volume credits for infiltration through the bottom of the basin (V<sub>inf<sub>b</sub></sub>) are accounted for only if the bottom of the basin is not lined. As long as water continues to draw down, some infiltration will occur through the bottom of the BMP.  However, it is assumed that when an underdrain is included in the installation, the majority of water will be filtered through the media and exit through the underdrain. Because of this, the drawdown time is likely to be short. Volume credit for infiltration through the bottom of the basin is given by
Line 65: Line 120:
  
 
where
 
where
*I<sub>R</sub> = [[Design infiltration rates|design infiltration rate]] of underlying soil (inches per hour);
+
:I<sub>R</sub> = <span title="The assumed infiltration rate into soil or engineered media when determining the dimensions (depth, surface area) of a stormwater practice."> '''[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Design_infiltration_rate_as_a_function_of_soil_texture_for_bioretention_in_Minnesota design infiltration rate]''' </span> of underlying soil (inches per hour);
*A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the basin (square feet); and
+
:A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the basin (square feet); and
*DDT = drawdown time for ponded water (hours).
+
:DDT = drawdown time for ponded water (hours).
  
If the kerplunk method is being applied and runoff water is delivered instantaneously to the BMP, the design infiltration rate (I<sub>R</sub>) will equal the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The drawdown time is typically a maximum of 48 hours, which is designed to be protective of plants grown in the media. The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Construction_stormwater_permit Construction Stormwater permit] requires drawdown within 48 hours and recommends 24 hours when discharges are to a trout stream. With a properly functioning underdrain, the drawdown time is likely to be considerably less than 48 hours.
+
{{alert|The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to I<sub>R</sub>. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.|alert-info}}
 +
 
 +
The drawdown time is typically a maximum of 48 hours, which is designed to be protective of plants grown in the media. The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program Construction Stormwater permit] requires drawdown within 48 hours and recommends 24 hours when discharges are to a trout stream. With a properly functioning underdrain, the drawdown time is likely to be considerably less than 48 hours.
  
 
Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is accounted for only if the sides of the basin are not lined with an impermeable liner. Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is given by
 
Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is accounted for only if the sides of the basin are not lined with an impermeable liner. Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is given by
Line 76: Line 133:
  
 
where
 
where
*A<sub>O</sub> = the surface area at the overflow (square feet); and
+
:A<sub>O</sub> = the surface area at the overflow (square feet); and
*A<sub>U</sub> = the surface area at the underdrain (square feet).
+
:A<sub>U</sub> = the surface area at the underdrain (square feet).
  
This equation assumes water will infiltrate through the entire sideslope area during the period when water is being drawn down. This is not the case, however, since the water level will decline in the BMP. The MIDS calculator assumes a linear drop in water level and thus divides the right hand term in the above equation by 2.
+
{{alert|The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to I<sub>R</sub>. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.|alert-info}}
 +
 
 +
This equation assumes water will infiltrate through the entire sideslope area during the period when water is being drawn down. This is not the case, however, since the water level will decline in the BMP. The MIDS calculator assumes a linear drop in water level and thus divides V<sub>U</sub> by 2.
  
 
Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain (V<sub>U</sub>) is accounted for only if the underdrain is elevated above the native soils. Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain is given by
 
Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain (V<sub>U</sub>) is accounted for only if the underdrain is elevated above the native soils. Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain is given by
  
<math> V_U =  n\ D_U\ (A_U + A_B)/2 </math>
+
<math> V_U =  (n-FC)\ D_U\ (A_U + A_B)/2 </math>
  
 
where
 
where
*A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the media (square feet);
+
:A<sub>B</sub> = surface area at the bottom of the media (square feet);
*n = media porosity (cubic feet per cubic foot); and
+
:n = media porosity (cubic feet per cubic foot);
*D<sub>U</sub> = the depth of media below the underdrain (feet).
+
:FC is the field capacity of the soil, in cubic feet per cubic foot; and
 +
:D<sub>U</sub> = the depth of media below the underdrain (feet).
  
Per the kerplunk method, this is an instantaneous volume. This will somewhat overestimate actual storage when the majority of water is being captured by the underdrains. This equation also assumes this stored water will infiltrate into the underlying soil. Thus, using the entire porosity will overestimate the actual drainage. The MIDS calculator assumes water between the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties soil porosity and field capacity] will infiltrate into the underlying soil.
+
This is an instantaneous volume. This will somewhat overestimate actual storage when the majority of water is being captured by the underdrains. This equation assumes water between the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties soil <span title="Porosity or void fraction is a measure of the void (i.e. empty) spaces in a material, and is a fraction of the volume of voids over the total volume, between 0 and 1, or as a percentage between 0% and 100%."> '''porosity (f)'''</span> and <span title="Field capacity is the amount of soil moisture or water content held in soil after excess water has drained away and the rate of downward movement has materially decreased, which usually takes place within 2–3 days after a rain or irrigation in pervious soils of uniform structure and texture."> '''field capacity'''</span>] will infiltrate into the underlying soil.
  
The volume of water lost through ET is assumed to be the smaller of two calculated values: potential ET and measured ET. Potential ET (ET<sub>pot</sub>) is equal to the amount of water stored in the basin between [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties field capacity and the wilting point]. Measured ET (ET<sub>mea</sub>) is the amount of water lost to ET as measured using available data and is assumed to be 0.2 inches/day. ET<sub>mea</sub> is converted to ET by multiplying by a factor of 0.5.  ET is considered to occur over a period equal to the drawdown time of the basin. Volume credit for evapotranspiration is given by the lesser of
+
The volume of water lost through ET is assumed to be the smaller of two calculated values: potential ET and measured ET. Potential ET (ET<sub>pot</sub>) is equal to the amount of water stored in the basin between [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_water_storage_properties field capacity and the <span title="The wilting point, also called the permanent wilting point, may be defined as the amount of water per unit weight or per unit soil bulk volume in the soil, expressed in percent, that is held so tightly by the soil matrix that roots cannot absorb this water and a plant will wilt."> '''wilting point''']. Measured ET (ET<sub>mea</sub>) is the amount of water lost to ET as measured using available data and is assumed to be 0.2 inches/day. ET<sub>mea</sub> is converted to ET by multiplying by a factor of 0.5.  ET is considered to occur over a period equal to the drawdown time of the basin. Volume credit for evapotranspiration is given by the lesser of
  
 
<math> ET_{mea} = (0.2/12)\ A\ 0.5\ t </math>
 
<math> ET_{mea} = (0.2/12)\ A\ 0.5\ t </math>
Line 98: Line 158:
  
 
where
 
where
*t = time over which ET is occurring (days);
+
:t = time over which ET is occurring (days);
*D = depth being considered (feet);
+
:D = depth being considered (feet);
*A = area being considered (square feet); and
+
:A = area being considered (square feet); and
*C<sub>S</sub> = soil water available for ET, generally assumed to be the water between field capacity and wilting point.
+
:C<sub>S</sub> = soil water available for ET, generally assumed to be the water between field capacity and wilting point.
 +
 
 +
ET is likely to be greater if one or more trees is planted in the biofiltration basin.  Planting a tree in a biofiltration system is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. The MIDS calculator increases the above ET credit by a factor of 3 when a tree is planted in the bioretention basin.
  
Provided soil water content is greater than the wilting point, ET will continually occur during the non-frozen period. However, because the above volume calculations are event based, t will be equal to the time between rain events. In the MIDS calculator, a value of 3 days is used because this is the average number of days between precipitation events.  ET will occur over the entire media depth. D may therefore be set equal to the media depth (D<sub>M</sub>). In this case, the value for A would be the average area through the entire depth of the media. The MIDS calculator limits ET to the area above the underdrain. If infiltration is being computed through the bottom and sidewalls of the basin, then C<sub>S</sub> would be field capacity minus the wilting point of soils (cubic feet per cubic foot) since water above the field capacity would infiltrate (or go to an underdrain).
+
Provided <span title="The moisture content of soil is described as the ratio of the mass of water held in the soil to the dry soil. The mass of water is determined by the difference before and after drying the soil. Water content may also be expressed on a volume basis if the bulk density is known.> '''soil water (moisture) content'''</span> is greater than the wilting point, ET will continually occur during the non-frozen period. However, because the above volume calculations are event based, ''t'' will be equal to the time between rain events. In the MIDS calculator, a value of 3 days is used because this is the average number of days between precipitation events.  ET will occur over the entire media depth. ''D'' may therefore be set equal to the media depth (D<sub>M</sub>). In this case, the value for ''A'' would be the average area through the entire depth of the media. The MIDS calculator limits ET to the area above the underdrain. If infiltration is being computed through the bottom and sidewalls of the basin, then C<sub>S</sub> would be field capacity minus the wilting point of soils (cubic feet per cubic foot) since water above the field capacity would infiltrate (or go to an underdrain).
  
 
The volume of water passing through underdrains can be determined by subtracting the volume loss (V) from the volume of water instantaneously captured by the BMP. No volume reduction credit is given for filtered stormwater that exits through the underdrain, but the volume of filtered water can be used in the calculation of pollutant removal credits through filtration.
 
The volume of water passing through underdrains can be determined by subtracting the volume loss (V) from the volume of water instantaneously captured by the BMP. No volume reduction credit is given for filtered stormwater that exits through the underdrain, but the volume of filtered water can be used in the calculation of pollutant removal credits through filtration.
Line 115: Line 177:
  
 
where
 
where
*M<sub>TSS</sub> = TSS removal (pounds);
+
:M<sub>TSS</sub> = TSS removal (pounds);
*M<sub>TSS_i</sub> = TSS removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
+
:M<sub>TSS_i</sub> = TSS removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
*M<sub>TSS_f</sub> = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).
+
:M<sub>TSS_f</sub> = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).
  
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
+
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
  
<math> M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TSS} </math>
+
*biofiltration <math> M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TSS} </math>
 +
*bioinfiltration <math> M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ}\ EMC_{TSS} </math>
  
 
where
 
where
*EMC<sub>TSS</sub> is the event mean TSS concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
+
:EMC<sub>TSS</sub> is the <span title="The average pollutant concentration for a given stormwater event, expressed in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L)"> '''event mean TSS concentration'''</span> in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
  
The EMC<sub>TSS</sub> entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs.
+
The EMC<sub>TSS</sub> entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs. For more information on EMC values for TSS, [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Total_Suspended_Solids_%28TSS%29_in_stormwater link here] or [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Event_mean_concentrations_by_land_use here]. If there is no underdrain, the water quality volume (V<sub>WQ</sub>) is used in this calculation.
  
Removal for the filtered portion is less than 100 percent. The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Pollutant_removal_percentages_for_bioretention_BMPs Stormwater Manual] provides a recommended value of 85 percent removal for filtered water, while the MIDS calculator provides a value of 65 percent. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.
+
Removal for the filtered portion is less than 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
 
 
The mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
 
  
 
<math> M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} </math>
 
<math> M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} </math>
  
 
where
 
where
*V<sub>total</sub> is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet); and
+
:V<sub>total</sub> is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet); and
*R<sub>TSS</sub> is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal, including direct monitoring data, can be used if proven to be applicable to BMP credit calculation.
+
:R<sub>TSS</sub> is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff.
  
The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis using the appropriate units.
+
The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Pollutant_removal_percentages_for_bioretention_BMPs Stormwater Manual] and MIDS calculator provide a recommended value for R<sub>TSS</sub> of 0.80 (80 percent) removal for filtered water. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.
  
===Total phosphorus credit calculations===
+
The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis and are given by
[[File:Bioretention example calculation 1.png|550px|thumb|alt=example calculation|<font size=3>Example calculations of phosphorus removal using equations shown at left.</font size>]]
 
  
 +
<math> M_{TSS_f} = 2.72\ F\ V_{F_{annual}}\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} </math>
 +
 +
where
 +
:F is the fraction of annual volume filtered through the BMP; and
 +
:V<sub>annual</sub> is the annual volume treated by the BMP, in acre-feet.
 +
 +
===Phosphorus credit calculations===
 
Total phosphorus (TP) reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the biofiltration basin and are given by
 
Total phosphorus (TP) reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the biofiltration basin and are given by
  
Line 154: Line 221:
 
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
 
Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by
  
<math> M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TP} </math>
+
*biofiltration <math> M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TP} </math>
 +
*bioinfiltration <math> M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ} \ EMC_{TP} </math>
  
 
where
 
where
 
*EMC<sub>TP</sub> is the event mean TP concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
 
*EMC<sub>TP</sub> is the event mean TP concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).
  
The EMC<sub>TP</sub> entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs.
+
The [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Event_mean_concentrations_by_land_use EMC<sub>TP</sub>] entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs.
  
The filtration credit for TP in biofiltration with underdrains assumes removal rates based on the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_bioretention#Materials_specifications_-_filter_media soil media mix] used and the presence or absence of [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_amendments_to_enhance_phosphorus_sorption amendments]. Soil mixes with more than [[Design criteria for bioretention#Notes about soil phosphorus testing: applicability and interpretation|30 mg/kg phosphorus]] (P) content are likely to leach phosphorus and do not qualify for a water quality credit.  If the soil phosphorus concentration is less than 30 mg/kg, the mass of phosphorus removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
+
The [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain filtration credit for TP] in bioretention with underdrains assumes removal rates based on the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_bioretention#Materials_specifications_-_filter_media soil media mix] used and the presence or absence of [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Soil_amendments_to_enhance_phosphorus_sorption amendments]. Soil mixes with more than [[Design criteria for bioretention#Notes about soil phosphorus testing: applicability and interpretation|30 mg/kg phosphorus]] (P) content are likely to leach phosphorus and do not qualify for a water quality credit.  If the soil phosphorus concentration is less than 30 mg/kg, the mass of phosphorus removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by
  
 
<math> M_{TP_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TP}\ R_{TP} </math>
 
<math> M_{TP_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TP}\ R_{TP} </math>
Line 167: Line 235:
 
{{alert|Soil mixes [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix C: North Carolina State University water quality blend|C]] and [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix D|D]] are assumed to contain less than 30 mg/kg of phosphorus and therefore do not require testing|alert-info}}
 
{{alert|Soil mixes [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix C: North Carolina State University water quality blend|C]] and [[Design criteria for bioretention#Mix D|D]] are assumed to contain less than 30 mg/kg of phosphorus and therefore do not require testing|alert-info}}
  
Again, assuming the phosphorus content in the media is less than 30 milligrams per kilogram, the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain removal efficiency (R<sub>TP</sub>) provided in the Stormwater Manual] is a function of the fraction of phosphorus that is in particulate or dissolved form, the depth of the media, and the presence or absence of soil amendments.  For the purpose of calculating credits it can be assumed that TP in storm water runoff consists of 55 percent particulate phosphorus (PP) and 45 percent dissolved phosphorus (DP). The removal efficiency for particulate phosphorus is 80 percent. The removal efficiency for dissolved phosphorus is 20 percent if the media depth is 2 feet or greater. The efficiency decreases by 1 percent for each 0.1 foot decrease in media thickness below 2 feet. If a soil amendment is added to the BMP design, an additional 40 percent credit is applied to dissolved phosphorus. Thus, the overall removal efficiency, (R<sub>TP</sub>), expressed as a percent removal of total phosphorus, is given by
+
Again, assuming the phosphorus content in the media is less than 30 milligrams per kilogram, the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Phosphorus_credits_for_bioretention_systems_with_an_underdrain removal efficiency (R<sub>TP</sub>) provided in the Stormwater Manual] is a function of the fraction of phosphorus that is in particulate or dissolved form, the depth of the media, and the presence or absence of soil amendments.  For the purpose of calculating credits it can be assumed that TP in storm water runoff consists of 55 percent particulate phosphorus (PP) and 45 percent <span title="Dissolved phosphorus is the phosphorus that remains in water after that water has been filtered to remove particulate matter."> '''dissolved phosphorus'''</span> (DP). The removal efficiency for <span title="Phosphorus attached to solids (mineral and organic)"> '''particulate phosphorus'''</span> is 80 percent. The removal efficiency for dissolved phosphorus is 20 percent if the media depth is 2 feet or greater. The efficiency decreases by 1 percent for each 0.1 foot decrease in media thickness below 2 feet. If a soil amendment is added to the BMP design, an additional 40 percent credit is applied to dissolved phosphorus. Thus, the overall removal efficiency, (R<sub>TP</sub>), expressed as a percent removal of total phosphorus, is given by
  
<math> R_{TP} = [0.8 * 0.55] + [0.45 * ((0.2 * (D_{MU_{max=2}})/2) + 0.40_{if amendment is used})] * 100 </math>
+
<math> R_{TP} = (0.8 * 0.55) + (0.45 * ((0.2 * (D_{MU_{max=2}})/2) + 0.40_{if amendment is used})) * 100 </math>
  
 
where
 
where
Line 175: Line 243:
 
*the second term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of dissolved phosphorus; and
 
*the second term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of dissolved phosphorus; and
 
*D<sub>MU<sub>max=2</sub></sub> = the media depth above the underdrain, up to a maximum of 2 feet.
 
*D<sub>MU<sub>max=2</sub></sub> = the media depth above the underdrain, up to a maximum of 2 feet.
 +
 +
The assumption of 55 percent particulate phosphorus and 45 percent dissolved phosphorus is likely inaccurate for certain land uses, such as industrial, transportation, and some commercial areas. Studies indicate particulate phosphorus comprises a greater percent of total phosphorus in these land uses. It may therefore be appropriate to modify the above equation with locally derived ratios for particulate and dissolved phosphorus. For more information on fractionation of phosphorus in stormwater runoff, [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Event_mean_concentrations_of_total_and_dissolved_phosphorus_in_stormwater_runoff#Ratios_of_particulate_to_dissolved_phosphorus link here].
 +
 +
===Example calculations for TSS and P===
 +
Three examples are included based on the extent of infiltration occurring in the BMP. For each of these examples, assume 2.75 acre-feet of water is delivered to a bioretention BMP from 1 acre of impervious surface, the TSS concentration in runoff is 54.5 milligrams per liter, and the total phosphorus concentration is 0.30 milligrams per liter.
 +
 +
'''Example 1''': Bioinfiltration (no underdrain)<br>
 +
Assume the bioinfiltration practice is designed to capture 90 percent of annual runoff, or 2.475 acre-feet. Multiply this by the concentration (0.3 or 54.5), a conversion factor of 0.0000624 to convert into pounds, and 43560 square feet to convert to cubic feet.
 +
:'''TSS''' - (0.9*2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624)(43560) = 366.6 pounds
 +
:'''P''' - (0.9*2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624)(43560) = 2.02 pounds
 +
 +
'''Example 2''': Biofiltration with lined sides and bottom (i.e. no infiltration)<br>
 +
Assume the bioinfiltration practice is designed to capture 90 percent of annual runoff, or 2.475 acre-feet. Assume 1 foot of media, Mix C, above the underdrain and an iron amendment is added. For TSS, the removal efficiency is 85 percent for the water that is captured by the BMP. Since media mix C is used, phosphorus will be removed by the BMP. Calculations must be made for particulate (PP) and dissolved phosphorus (DP). PP accounts for 55 percent of the total phosphorus (TP) and DP for 45 percent of the TP. The removal efficiency for PP is 0.80 (80%) for the water captured by the BMP. For DP, the removal efficiency is 0.20 (20 percent) times the media depth divided by 2 (1/2 or 0.5), plus 0.40 (40 percent, which accounts for the amendment).
 +
:'''TSS''' - (0.8*0.9*2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624)(43560) = 293.3 pounds
 +
:'''P'''
 +
::PP: (0.55*0.8*0.9*2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624)(43560) = 0.888 pounds
 +
::DP: ((0.2*0.5*+0.4)(0.45)(2.75)(43560)(0.3)(0.0000624)) = 0.454 pounds
 +
::TP: (0.888+0.454) = 1.342 pounds
 +
 +
'''Example 3''': Biofiltration with unlined sides and bottom (i.e. some infiltration occurs)<br>
 +
To make this calculation, we need to know the percent of water that infiltrates and the percent that is captured by the underdrain. Note the volume infiltrated will need to be calculated using the methodology described above. To simplify the calculations in this example, assume 10 percent of the captured water infiltrates, while the remaining water goes to the underdrain.
 +
:'''TSS'''
 +
::Infiltrated: (0.9)(0.1)(43560)(2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624) = 36.7 pounds. Note this is 10 percent of the volume calculated in Example 1.
 +
::Filtered (underdrain): (0.85)(0.9)(0.9)(43560)(2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624) = 280.5 pounds. Note this is 90 percent of the TSS calculated in Example 2.
 +
::Total: 317.2 pounds
 +
:'''P'''
 +
::Infiltrated: (0.9)(0.1)(43560)(2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624) = 0.202 pounds. Note this is 10 percent of the volume calculated in Example 1.
 +
::Filtered (underdrain): This calculation is the same as for Example 2, corrected for only 90 percent of the volume being treated by filtration. (1.342)(0.9) = 1.208 pounds
 +
::Total: 1.410 pounds
  
 
==Methods for calculating credits==
 
==Methods for calculating credits==
This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from biofiltration for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP).  Stormwater runoff volume and pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:  
+
This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from bioretention BMPS for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP).  Stormwater runoff volume and pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:  
 
#Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on accepted hydrologic models
 
#Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on accepted hydrologic models
 
#The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator
 
#The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator
Line 185: Line 282:
  
 
===Credits based on models===
 
===Credits based on models===
Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute volume, TSS and/or TP pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for biofiltration. The available models described below are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Furthermore, many of the models listed below cannot be used to determine compliance with the Construction Stormwater General permit since the permit requires the water quality volume to be calculated as an [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/III._STORMWATER_DISCHARGE_DESIGN_REQUIREMENTS#III.D._PERMANENT_STORMWATER_MANAGEMENT_SYSTEM instantaneous volume].
+
{{alert|The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.|alert-danger}}
 +
 
 +
Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute volume, TSS and/or TP pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for bioretention. The available models described below are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Furthermore, many of the models listed below cannot be used to determine compliance with the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Construction_stormwater_program Construction Stormwater General permit] since the permit requires the water quality volume to be calculated as an <span title="The maximum volume of water that can be retained by a stormwater practice (bmp) if the water was instantaneously added to the practice. It equals the depth of the practice times the average area of the practice. For some bmps (e.g. bioretention, infiltration trenches and basins, swales with check dams), the volume is the water stored or retained above the media, while for other practices (e.g. permeable pavement, tree trenches) the volume is the water stored or retained within the media."> '''instantaneous volume'''</span>.
  
 
Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:
 
Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:
Line 195: Line 294:
 
*Detailed summary of output data
 
*Detailed summary of output data
  
The following table lists water quantity and water quality models that are commonly used by water resource professionals to predict the hydrologic, hydraulic, and/or pollutant removal capabilities of a single or multiple stormwater BMPs. The table can be used to guide a user in selecting the most appropriate model for computing volume, TSS, and/or TP removal for biofiltration BMPs.
+
The following table lists water quantity and water quality models that are commonly used by water resource professionals to predict the hydrologic, hydraulic, and/or pollutant removal capabilities of a single or multiple stormwater BMPs. The table can be used to guide a user in selecting the most appropriate model for computing volume, TSS, and/or TP removal for bioretention BMPs. In using this table to identify models appropriate for bioretention, use the sort arrow on the table to select Infiltrator BMPs or Filter BMPs, depending on the type of bioretention BMP and the terminology used in the model.
  
 
{{:Stormwater model and calculator comparisons}}
 
{{:Stormwater model and calculator comparisons}}
  
 
===The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator===
 
===The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator===
The Simple Method is a technique used for estimating storm pollutant export delivered from urban development sites. Pollutant loads are estimated as the product of mean pollutant concentrations and runoff depths over specified periods of time (usually annual or seasonal). The method was developed to provide an easy yet reasonably accurate means of predicting the change in pollutant loadings in response to development. [http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Library/Practice/13.pdf Ohrel] (2000) states: "In general, the Simple Method is most appropriate for small watersheds (<640 acres) and when quick and reasonable stormwater pollutant load estimates are required". Rainfall data, land use (runoff coefficients), land area, and pollutant concentration are needed to use the Simple Method.  For more information on the Simple Method, see [http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm The Simple method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads] or [[The Simple Method for estimating phosphorus export]].
+
The Simple Method is a technique used for estimating storm pollutant export delivered from urban development sites. Pollutant loads are estimated as the product of <span title="The average pollutant concentration for a given stormwater event, expressed in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L)"> '''event mean concentration'''</span> and runoff depths over specified periods of time (usually annual or seasonal). The method was developed to provide an easy yet reasonably accurate means of predicting the change in pollutant loadings in response to development. [http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Library/Practice/13.pdf Ohrel] (2000) states: "In general, the Simple Method is most appropriate for small watersheds (<640 acres) and when quick and reasonable stormwater pollutant load estimates are required". Rainfall data, land use (runoff coefficients), land area, and pollutant concentration are needed to use the Simple Method.  For more information on the Simple Method, see [http://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/simple%20meth/simple.htm The Simple method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads] or [[The Simple Method for estimating phosphorus export]].
  
Some simple stormwater calculators utilize the Simple Method ([http://it.tetratech-ffx.com/steplweb/models$docs.htm STEPL], [http://www.cwp.org/online-watershed-library/cat_view/65-tools/91-watershed-treatment-model Watershed Treatment Model]). The MPCA developed a simple calculator for estimating load reductions for TSS, total phosphorus, and bacteria. Called the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Guidance_and_examples_for_using_the_MPCA_Estimator '''MPCA Estimator'''], this tool was developed specifically for complying with the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/MS4_PART_III.STORMWATER_POLLUTION_PREVENTION_PROGRAM_%28SWPPP%29#E._Discharges_to_Impaired_Waters_with_a_USEPA-Approved_TMDL_that_Includes_an_Applicable_WLA MS4 General Permit TMDL annual reporting requirement].  The MPCA Estimator provides default values for pollutant concentration, runoff coefficients for different land uses, and precipitation, although the user can modify these and is encouraged to do so when local data exist. The user is required to enter area for different land uses and area treated by BMPs within each of the land uses.  BMPs include infiltrators (e.g. bioinfiltration, infiltration basin, tree trench, permeable pavement, etc.), filters (biofiltration, sand filter, green roof), constructed ponds and wetlands, and swales/filters. The MPCA Estimator includes standard removal efficiencies for these BMPs, but the user can modify those values if better data are available.  Output from the calculator is given as a load reduction (percent, mass, or number of bacteria) from the original estimated load.
+
Some simple stormwater calculators utilize the Simple Method ([https://www.epa.gov/nps/spreadsheet-tool-estimating-pollutant-loads-stepl EPA STEPL], [https://www.stormwatercenter.net/monitoring%20and%20assessment/watershed_treatment_model.htm Watershed Treatment Model]). The MPCA developed a simple calculator for estimating load reductions for TSS, total phosphorus, and bacteria. Called the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Guidance_and_examples_for_using_the_MPCA_Estimator '''MPCA Estimator'''], this tool was developed specifically for complying with the [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Forms,_guidance,_and_resources_for_completing_the_TMDL_annual_report_form MS4 General Permit TMDL annual reporting requirement].  The MPCA Estimator provides default values for pollutant concentration, <span title="The runoff coefficient (C) is a dimensionless coefficient relating the amount of runoff to the amount of precipitation received. It is a larger value for areas with low infiltration and high runoff (pavement, steep gradient), and lower for permeable, well vegetated areas (forest, flat land)."> [https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Runoff_coefficients_for_5_to_10_year_storms '''runoff coefficients''']</span> for different land uses, and precipitation, although the user can modify these and is encouraged to do so when local data exist. The user is required to enter area for different land uses and area treated by BMPs within each of the land uses.  BMPs include infiltrators (e.g. bioinfiltration, infiltration basin, tree trench, permeable pavement, etc.), filters (biofiltration, sand filter, green roof), constructed ponds and wetlands, and swales/filters. The MPCA Estimator includes standard removal efficiencies for these BMPs, but the user can modify those values if better data are available.  Output from the calculator is given as a load reduction (percent, mass, or number of bacteria) from the original estimated load.
  
{{alert|The MPCA Estimator should not be used for modeling a stormwater system or selecting BMPs.|alert-danger}}
+
{{alert|The MPCA Estimator should not be used for modeling a stormwater system or selecting BMPs.|alert-warning}}
  
 
Because the MPCA Estimator does not consider BMPs in series, makes simplifying assumptions about runoff and pollutant removal processes, and uses generalized default information, it should only be used for estimating pollutant reductions from an estimated load. It is not intended as a decision-making tool.
 
Because the MPCA Estimator does not consider BMPs in series, makes simplifying assumptions about runoff and pollutant removal processes, and uses generalized default information, it should only be used for estimating pollutant reductions from an estimated load. It is not intended as a decision-making tool.
  
'''Download MPCA Estimator here: [[file:MPCA_Estimator.xlsx]]'''
+
'''[https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=File:MPCA_simple_estimator_version_3.0_March_5_2021.xlsx Download MPCA Estimator here]'''
 
 
A quick guide for the estimator is available [[Quick Guide: MPCA Estimator tab]].
 
  
 
===MIDS Calculator===
 
===MIDS Calculator===
Line 219: Line 316:
 
The MIDS calculator is designed in Microsoft Excel with a graphical user interface (GUI), packaged as a windows application, used to organize input parameters.  The Excel spreadsheet conducts the calculations and stores parameters, while the GUI provides a platform that allows the user to enter data and presents results in a user-friendly manner.   
 
The MIDS calculator is designed in Microsoft Excel with a graphical user interface (GUI), packaged as a windows application, used to organize input parameters.  The Excel spreadsheet conducts the calculations and stores parameters, while the GUI provides a platform that allows the user to enter data and presents results in a user-friendly manner.   
  
Detailed [[Links to Manual pages that address the MIDS calculator|guidance]] has been developed for all BMPs in the calculator, including [[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with an underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator|biofiltration]]. An overview of individual input parameters and workflows is presented in the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/User%E2%80%99s_Guide MIDS Calculator User Documentation].
+
Detailed [[Links to Manual pages that address the MIDS calculator|guidance]] has been developed for all BMPs in the calculator, including [[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with an underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator|biofiltration]] and [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Requirements,_recommendations_and_information_for_using_bioretention_with_no_underdrain_BMPs_in_the_MIDS_calculator bioinfiltration]. An overview of individual input parameters and workflows is presented in the [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/User%E2%80%99s_Guide MIDS Calculator User Documentation].
  
 
===Credits based on reported literature values===
 
===Credits based on reported literature values===
A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or concentration (EMC) of the biofiltration device. Concentration reductions resulting from treatment can be converted to mass reductions if the volume of stormwater treated is known.
+
A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or concentration (EMC) of the bioretention device. Concentration reductions resulting from treatment can be converted to mass reductions if the volume of stormwater treated is known.
  
 
Designers may use the pollutant reduction values [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs reported in this manual] or may research values from other databases and published literature.  Designers who opt for this approach should
 
Designers may use the pollutant reduction values [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Information_on_pollutant_removal_by_BMPs reported in this manual] or may research values from other databases and published literature.  Designers who opt for this approach should
*select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the International BMP Database;
+
*select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the [https://bmpdatabase.org/ International BMP Database];
*select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a biofiltration device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits;
+
*select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a bioretention device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits;
*review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied biofiltration are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described in [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_bioretention this manual] and/or by a local permitting agency; and
+
*review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied bioretention are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described in [http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Design_criteria_for_bioretention this manual] and/or by a local permitting agency; and
 
*give preference to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.
 
*give preference to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.
  
The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed biofiltration device, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, biofiltration sizing, soil infiltration rates, and climate factors.  
+
The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed bioretention device, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, bioretention sizing, soil infiltration rates, and climate factors.  
*[http://bmpdatabase.org/Docs/2012%20Water%20Quality%20Analysis%20Addendum/BMP%20Database%20Categorical_SummaryAddendumReport_Final.pdf International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database] Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals
+
*[https://bmpdatabase.org/ International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database]
**Compilation of BMP performance studies published through 2011
+
**Compilation of BMP performance studies
 
**Provides values for TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals
 
**Provides values for TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals
 
**Applicable to grass strips, bioretention, bioswales, detention basins, green roofs, manufactured devices, media filters, porous pavements, wetland basins, and wetland channels
 
**Applicable to grass strips, bioretention, bioswales, detention basins, green roofs, manufactured devices, media filters, porous pavements, wetland basins, and wetland channels
*[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/133994 Effectiveness Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management in Portland, Oregon]
+
*[http://lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-notes/updated%20bmp%20removal%20efficiencies%20from%20the%20national%20pollutant%20re-2854375963/updated%20bmp%20removal%20efficiencies%20from%20the%20national%20pollutant%20removal%20database.pdf Updated BMP Removal Efficiencies from the National Pollutant Removal Database (2007) & Acceptable BMP Table for Virginia]
**Appendix M contains Excel spreadsheet of structural and non-structural BMP performance evaluations
+
**Provides data for several structural and non-structural BMP performance evaluations
**Provides values for sediment, nutrients, pathogens, metals, quantity, air purification, carbon sequestration, flood storage, avian habitat, aquatics habitat and aesthetics
 
**Applicable to filters, wet ponds, porous pavements, soakage trenches, flow-through stormwater planters, infiltration stormwater planters, vegetated infiltration basins, swales, and treatment wetlands
 
 
*[http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/draft-final-report.pdf The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study]  
 
*[http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/draft-final-report.pdf The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study]  
 
**Figure ES-1 summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Figure ES-1 summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Provides values for TN, TSS, peak flows / runoff volumes
 
**Provides values for TN, TSS, peak flows / runoff volumes
 
**Applicable to permeable pavements, constructed wetlands, infiltration, detention, filtration, and green roofs
 
**Applicable to permeable pavements, constructed wetlands, infiltration, detention, filtration, and green roofs
*[http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/stormwater/manual.htm New Hampshire Stormwater Manual]
+
*[https://www.des.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt341/files/documents/2020-01/wd-08-20b.pdf New Hampshire Stormwater Manual]
 
**Volume 2, Appendix B summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Volume 2, Appendix B summarizes BMP effectiveness
 
**Provides values for TSS, TN, and TP removal
 
**Provides values for TSS, TN, and TP removal
 
**Applicable to basins and wetlands, stormwater wetlands, infiltration practices, filtering practices, treatment swales, vegetated buffers, and pre-treatment practices
 
**Applicable to basins and wetlands, stormwater wetlands, infiltration practices, filtering practices, treatment swales, vegetated buffers, and pre-treatment practices
*[http://aqua.wisc.edu/publications/PDFs/stormwaterbioretention.pdf Design Guidelines for Stormwater Bioretention Facilities].  University of Wisconsin, Madison
+
*[https://www.wri.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/FinalWR03R001.pdf Design Guidelines for Stormwater Bioretention Facilities].  University of Wisconsin, Madison
 
**Table 2-1 summarizes typical removal rates
 
**Table 2-1 summarizes typical removal rates
 
**Provides values for TSS, metals, TP, TKN, ammonium, organics, and bacteria
 
**Provides values for TSS, metals, TP, TKN, ammonium, organics, and bacteria
 
**Applicable for bioretention
 
**Applicable for bioretention
*[http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf BMP Performance Analysis].  Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston MA.  
+
*[https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/tools/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf BMP Performance Analysis].  Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston MA.  
 
**Appendix B provides pollutant removal performance curves
 
**Appendix B provides pollutant removal performance curves
 
**Provides values for TP, TSS, and zinc
 
**Provides values for TP, TSS, and zinc
Line 261: Line 356:
  
 
===Credits based on field monitoring===
 
===Credits based on field monitoring===
Field monitoring may be used to calculate stormwater credits in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described.  Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP.  The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.
+
Field monitoring may be made in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described.  Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP.  The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.
*Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring.
+
 
**Which pollutants will be measured?
+
#Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring. When monitoring BMP performance, typical objectives may include the following.
**Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
+
##Which pollutants will be measured?
**Are there any variables that will affect the BMP performance?  Variables could include design approaches, maintenance activities, rainfall events, rainfall intensity, etc.
+
##Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
**Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
+
##Are there any variables that will affect the BMP performance?  Variables could include design approaches, maintenance activities, rainfall events, rainfall intensity, etc.
**What should be the duration of the monitoring period?  Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event?  Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
+
##Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
*Plan the field activities.  Field considerations include:
+
##What should be the duration of the monitoring period?  Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event?  Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
**Equipment selection and placement
+
#Plan the field activities.  Field considerations include
**Sampling protocols including selection, storage, delivery to the laboratory
+
##equipment selection and placement;
**Laboratory services
+
##sampling protocols including selection, storage, and delivery to the laboratory;
**Health and Safety plans for field personnel
+
##laboratory services;
**Record keeping protocols and forms
+
##health and Safety plans for field personnel;
**Quality control and quality assurance protocols
+
##record keeping protocols and forms; and
*Execute the field monitoring
+
##quality control and quality assurance protocols
*Analyze the results
+
#Execute the field monitoring
 +
#Analyze the results
 +
 
 +
This manual contains the following guidance for monitoring.
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing lake monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing stream monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing major stormwater outfall monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
 +
*[[Recommendations and guidance for utilizing stormwater best management practice monitoring to meet TMDL permit requirements]]
  
 
The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.
 
The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.
:[http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/monitor.cfm '''Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring''']
+
 
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring.
+
:[https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/montcomplete.pdf '''Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring''']
Highlighted chapters in this manual include:
+
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring. Highlighted chapters in this manual include:
*Chapter 2: Designing the Program
+
*Chapter 2: Developing a monitoring plan. Describes a seven-step approach for developing a monitoring plan for collection of data to evaluate BMP effectiveness.
*Chapters 3 & 4: Methods and Equipment
+
*Chapter 3: Methods and Equipment for hydrologic and hydraulic monitoring
*Chapters 5 & 6: Implementation, Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting
+
*Chapter 4: Methods and equipment for water quality monitoring
 +
*Chapters 5 (Implementation) and 6 (Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting)
 
*Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
 
*Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
*Chapters 8, 9, & 10: LID Monitoring
+
*Chapters 8 (LID Monitoring), 9 (LID data interpretation]), and 10 (Case studies).
  
 
:[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf '''Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)''']
 
:[http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_565.pdf '''Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)''']
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center.  The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff.  The document includes the following chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP:
+
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center.  The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff.  The document includes chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP.
 
*Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
 
*Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
 
**4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
 
**4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
Line 298: Line 402:
 
**8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
 
**8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
 
*Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
 
*Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
**10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization  
+
**10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization
  
:[http://www.wef.org/uploadedFiles/Access_Water_Knowledge/Stormwater_and_Wet_Weather/Stormwater_PDFs/WEF-STEPP-White%20Paper_Final_02-06-14%282%29.pdf '''Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices'''].
+
:[https://www.wef.org/globalassets/assets-wef/3---resources/topics/o-z/stormwater/stormwater-institute/wef-stepp-white-paper_final_02-06-14.pdf '''Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices''']
In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The information contained in this White Paper would be of use to those considering the monitoring of a manufactured BMP.  The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
+
*In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
  
:[http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW_OT_13_999.pdf '''Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01''')]
+
:'''Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01)'''
The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013.  As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program.  However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities.  Relevant chapters include:
+
 
 +
The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013.  As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program.  However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities.  Relevant chapters include.
 
*Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
 
*Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
 
*Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
 
*Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
Line 315: Line 420:
 
*Chapter 15: Gross Solids Monitoring
 
*Chapter 15: Gross Solids Monitoring
  
:[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/monitoring-data-analysis '''Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance''']
+
:[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/ '''Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance''']
This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice, involving:
+
 
*Level 1: Visual Inspection
+
This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.  The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice.
*Level 2: Capacity Testing
+
*Level 1: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/visual-inspection Visual Inspection]
*Level 3: Synthetic Runoff Testing
+
*Level 2: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/capacity-testing Capacity Testing]
*Level 4: Monitoring
+
*Level 3: [http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/synthetic-runoff-testing Synthetic Runoff Testing]
*Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit.  BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations.  Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.
+
*Level 4: [https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/assessment-programs/monitoring Monitoring]
 +
 
 +
Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit.  BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations.  Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.
  
 
Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:
 
Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/water-budget-measurement Water Budget Measurement]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/water-budget-measurement Water Budget Measurement]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/sampling-methods Sampling Methods]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/sampling-methods Sampling Methods]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/analysis-water-and-soils Analysis of Water and Soils]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/analysis-water-and-soils Analysis of Water and Soils]
*[http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/monitoring-data-analysis Data Analysis for Monitoring]
+
*[https://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/data-analysis Data Analysis for Monitoring]
  
 
==Other pollutants==
 
==Other pollutants==
In addition to TSS and phosphorus, constructed basins can reduce loading of other pollutants.  According to the [http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/Simple%20Summary%20BMP%20Database%20July%202012%20Final.pdf International Stormwater Database], studies have shown that biofiltration BMPs are effective at reducing concentrations of pollutants, including metals, and bacteria.  A compilation of the pollutant removal capabilities from a review of literature are summarized below.
+
In addition to TSS and phosphorus, bioretention BMPs can reduce loading of other pollutants.  According to the [https://bmpdatabase.org/ International Stormwater Database], studies have shown that bioretention BMPs are effective at reducing concentrations of pollutants, including metals, and bacteria.  A compilation of the pollutant removal capabilities from a review of literature are summarized below.
  
 
{{:Relative pollutant reduction for biofiltration}}
 
{{:Relative pollutant reduction for biofiltration}}
  
==References==
+
==References and suggested reading==
 
*Brown, Robert A., and William F. Hunt III. 2010. ''Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydrologic performance of undersized bioretention cells.'' Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 137, no. 3: 132-143.
 
*Brown, Robert A., and William F. Hunt III. 2010. ''Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydrologic performance of undersized bioretention cells.'' Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 137, no. 3: 132-143.
 
*Brown, R. A., and W. F. Hunt. 2011. ''Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads''. Journal of Environmental Engineering 137, no. 11: 1082-1091.
 
*Brown, R. A., and W. F. Hunt. 2011. ''Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads''. Journal of Environmental Engineering 137, no. 11: 1082-1091.
Line 341: Line 448:
 
*Chris, Denich, Bradford Andrea, and Drake Jennifer. 2013. ''Bioretention: assessing effects of winter salt and aggregate application on plant health, media clogging and effluent quality''. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 48(4):387.
 
*Chris, Denich, Bradford Andrea, and Drake Jennifer. 2013. ''Bioretention: assessing effects of winter salt and aggregate application on plant health, media clogging and effluent quality''. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 48(4):387.
 
*Caltrans. 2004. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/Studies/BMP-Retro-fit-Report.pdf BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report]. Report No. CTSW-RT-01-050. Division of Environmental Analysis. California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
 
*Caltrans. 2004. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/stormwtr/Studies/BMP-Retro-fit-Report.pdf BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report]. Report No. CTSW-RT-01-050. Division of Environmental Analysis. California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
 +
*Caltrans. 2013. [http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/stormwater/pdf/CTSW_OT_13_999.pdf Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual]. Document No. CTSW-OY-13-999.43.01.
 
*CDM Smith. 2012. [http://dotcwsprodweb01.dotcomm.org/appdocs/erosion/downloads/Manual.pdf Omaha Regional Stormwater Design Manual]. Chapter 8 Stormwater Best Management Practices. Kansas City, MO.
 
*CDM Smith. 2012. [http://dotcwsprodweb01.dotcomm.org/appdocs/erosion/downloads/Manual.pdf Omaha Regional Stormwater Design Manual]. Chapter 8 Stormwater Best Management Practices. Kansas City, MO.
 
*Davis, Allen P., Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma, and Christie Minami. 2001. ''Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management''. Water Environment Research, 73, no. 1:5-14.
 
*Davis, Allen P., Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma, and Christie Minami. 2001. ''Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management''. Water Environment Research, 73, no. 1:5-14.
Line 347: Line 455:
 
*DiBlasi, Catherine J., Houng Li, Allen P. Davis, and Upal Ghosh. 2008. ''Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility''. Environmental science & technology 43, no. 2: 494-502.
 
*DiBlasi, Catherine J., Houng Li, Allen P. Davis, and Upal Ghosh. 2008. ''Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility''. Environmental science & technology 43, no. 2: 494-502.
 
*Dorman, M. E., H. Hartigan, F. Johnson, and B. Maestri. 1988. [ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/Geo-Environmental/Environmental/Procedural%20Manuals/Water%20Quality/Sormwater%20Reference%20Materials/Dorman_etal_Vol1_1996.pdf Retention, detention, and overland flow for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff: interim guidelines for management measures]. Final report, September 1985-June 1987. No. PB-89-133292/XAB. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA (USA).
 
*Dorman, M. E., H. Hartigan, F. Johnson, and B. Maestri. 1988. [ftp://ftp.odot.state.or.us/techserv/Geo-Environmental/Environmental/Procedural%20Manuals/Water%20Quality/Sormwater%20Reference%20Materials/Dorman_etal_Vol1_1996.pdf Retention, detention, and overland flow for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff: interim guidelines for management measures]. Final report, September 1985-June 1987. No. PB-89-133292/XAB. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA (USA).
*Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers.  2009.  [http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/Simple%20Summary%20BMP%20Database%20July%202012%20Final.pdf Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring].  Prepared under Support from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
+
*Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers.  2012.  [http://www.bmpdatabase.org/Docs/Simple%20Summary%20BMP%20Database%20July%202012%20Final.pdf Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring].  Prepared under Support from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
 
*Gulliver, J. S., A. J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss. 2010. [http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu Stormwater treatment: Assessment and maintenance.] University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN.
 
*Gulliver, J. S., A. J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss. 2010. [http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu Stormwater treatment: Assessment and maintenance.] University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN.
 
*Hathaway, J. M., W. F. Hunt, and S. Jadlocki. 2009. ''Indicator bacteria removal in storm-water best management practices in Charlotte, North Carolina''. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, no. 12: 1275-1285.
 
*Hathaway, J. M., W. F. Hunt, and S. Jadlocki. 2009. ''Indicator bacteria removal in storm-water best management practices in Charlotte, North Carolina''. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, no. 12: 1275-1285.
Line 369: Line 477:
 
*Torres, Camilo. 2010. [http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=civilengdiss Characterization and Pollutant Loading Estimation for Highway Runoff in Omaha, Nebraska.] M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
 
*Torres, Camilo. 2010. [http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=civilengdiss Characterization and Pollutant Loading Estimation for Highway Runoff in Omaha, Nebraska.] M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
 
*United States EPA. 1999. [http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_biortn.pdf Stormwater technology fact sheet-bioretention.] Office of Water, EPA 832-F-99 12.
 
*United States EPA. 1999. [http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_biortn.pdf Stormwater technology fact sheet-bioretention.] Office of Water, EPA 832-F-99 12.
 +
*University of Wisconsin. 2006. [http://aqua.wisc.edu/publications/PDFs/stormwaterbioretention.pdf Design Guidelines for Stormwater Bioretention Facilities].
 
*Water Environment Federation.  2014.  [http://www.wef.org/uploadedFiles/Access_Water_Knowledge/Stormwater_and_Wet_Weather/Stormwater_PDFs/WEF-STEPP-White%20Paper_Final_02-06-14%282%29.pdf Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices].  A White Paper by the National Stormwater Testing and Evaluation of Products and Practices (STEPP) Workgroup Steering Committee.
 
*Water Environment Federation.  2014.  [http://www.wef.org/uploadedFiles/Access_Water_Knowledge/Stormwater_and_Wet_Weather/Stormwater_PDFs/WEF-STEPP-White%20Paper_Final_02-06-14%282%29.pdf Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices].  A White Paper by the National Stormwater Testing and Evaluation of Products and Practices (STEPP) Workgroup Steering Committee.
 
*WEF, ASCE/EWRI. 2012.  ''Design of Urban Stormwater Controls''. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE/EWRI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87.  Prepared by the Design of Urban Stormwater Controls Task Forces of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
 
*WEF, ASCE/EWRI. 2012.  ''Design of Urban Stormwater Controls''. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE/EWRI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87.  Prepared by the Design of Urban Stormwater Controls Task Forces of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
*Weiss, Peter T., John S. Gulliver, and Andrew J. Erickson. 2005. [http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200523.pdf The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices Final Report.]. Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation .
+
*Weiss, Peter T., John S. Gulliver, and Andrew J. Erickson. 2005. [http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/200523.pdf The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices Final Report.]. Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
 
*Wossink, G. A. A., and Bill Hunt. 2003. [http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/EconStructuralBMPs2003.pdf The economics of structural stormwater BMPs in North Carolina]. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.
 
*Wossink, G. A. A., and Bill Hunt. 2003. [http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/stormwater/PublicationFiles/EconStructuralBMPs2003.pdf The economics of structural stormwater BMPs in North Carolina]. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.
 +
 +
==Related articles==
 +
*Bioretention
 +
**[[Bioretention terminology]] (including types of bioretention)
 +
**[[Overview for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Design criteria for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Construction specifications for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Operation and maintenance of bioretention]]
 +
**[[Cost-benefit considerations for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Soil amendments to enhance phosphorus sorption]]
 +
**[[Summary of permit requirements for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Supporting material for bioretention]]
 +
**[[External resources for bioretention]]
 +
**[[References for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with no underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator]]
 +
**[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using bioretention with an underdrain BMPs in the MIDS calculator]]
 +
*Calculating credits
 +
**[[Calculating credits for bioretention]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for infiltration basin]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for infiltration trench]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for permeable pavement]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for green roofs]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for sand filter]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater ponds]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater wetlands]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for iron enhanced sand filter]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for swale]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for tree trenches and tree boxes]]
 +
**[[Calculating credits for stormwater and rainwater harvest and use/reuse]]
 +
 +
<noinclude>
 +
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Structural practices/Bioretention‏‎]]
 +
[[Category:Level 3 - Best management practices/Guidance and information/Pollutant removal and credits]]
 +
[[Category:Level 2 - Pollutants/Pollutant removal]]
 +
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 20:36, 17 November 2022

Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies, in percent, for biofiltration BMPs. Sources. NOTE: removal efficiencies are 100 percent for water that is infiltrated.

TSS=total suspended solids; TP=total phosphorus; PP=particulate phosphorus; DP=dissolved phosphorus; TN=total nitrogen

TSS TP PP DP TN Metals Bacteria Hydrocarbons
80 link to table link to table link to table 50 35 95 80
image
Warning: Models are often selected to calculate credits. The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.
Green Infrastructure: Bioretention practices can be an important tool for retention and detention of stormwater runoff. Because they utilize vegetation, bioretention practices provide additional benefits, including cleaner air, carbon sequestration, improved biological habitat, and aesthetic value.

Credit refers to the quantity of stormwater or pollutant reduction achieved either by an individual best management practice (BMP) or cumulatively with multiple BMPs. Stormwater credits are a tool for local stormwater authorities who are interested in

This page provides a discussion of how bioretention practices can achieve stormwater credits. Bioretention systems with and without underdrains are both discussed, with separate sections for each type of system as appropriate. In this discussion, bioretention systems with an underdrain are called biofiltration systems, while bioretention systems with no underdrain are called bioinfiltration systems.

Overview

schematic showing bioinfiltration system
Schematic illustrating the components and processes for a bioinfiltration system.
schematic showing biofiltration system
Schematic illustrating the components and processes for a biofiltration system.

Bioretention is a terrestrial-based (up-land as opposed to wetland) water quality and water quantity control process. Bioretention consists of an engineered soil media layer designed to treat stormwater runoff via filtration through plant and soil media, evapotranspiration from plants, or through infiltration into underlying soil. Pretreatment is REQUIRED for all bioretention facilities to settle particulates before entering the BMP. Bioretention practices may be built with or without an underdrain. Other common components of bioretention systems may include a stone aggregate layer to allow for increased retention storage and an impermeable liner on the bottom or sides of the facility if located near buildings, subgrade utilities, or in Karst formations. Bioretention is a versatile stormwater treatment method applicable to all types of settings such as landscaping islands, cul-de-sacs, parking lot margins, commercial setbacks, open space, rooftop drainage, and streetscapes.

Systems with no underdrain are called bioinfiltration, while those with an underdrain are called biofiltration. Biofiltration, commonly termed bioretention with underdrains, is primarily a stormwater quality control practice. Some water quantity reduction can be achieved through infiltration below the underdrain, particularly if the underdrain is raised above the bottom of the BMP, and through evapotranspiration. Biofiltration includes an underdrain layer to collect the filtered runoff for downstream discharge.

See Bioretention terminology for a discussion of different types of bioretention systems. Although tree trenches and tree boxes are a form of bioretention, they are discussed separately in this manual.

Warning: The Construction Stormwater permit REQUIRES pretreatment for bioretention practices

Pollutant removal mechanisms

Bioretention practices have one of the highest nutrient and pollutant removal efficiencies of any BMP. Bioretention provides pollutant removal and volume reduction through filtration, evaporation, infiltration, transpiration, biological and microbiological uptake, and soil adsorption; the extent of these benefits is highly dependent on site specific conditions and design. In addition to phosphorus and total suspended solids (TSS), which are discussed in greater detail below, bioretention treats a wide variety of other pollutants.

Removal of phosphorus is dependent on the engineered media. Media mixes with high organic matter content typically leach phosphorus and can therefore contribute to water quality degradation. The Manual provides a detailed discussion of media mixes, including information on phosphorus retention.

Location in the treatment train

Stormwater treatment trains are multiple BMPs that work together to minimize the volume of stormwater runoff, remove pollutants, and reduce the rate of stormwater runoff being discharged to Minnesota wetlands, lakes and streams. Bioretention facilities are typically located in upland areas of the stormwater treatment train, controlling stormwater runoff close to the source.

Methodology for calculating credits

This section describes the basic concepts and equations used to calculate credits for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Specific methods for calculating credits are discussed later in this article.

Bioinfiltration practices generate credits for volume, TSS, and TP. Biofiltration practices do not substantially reduce the volume of runoff but may qualify for a partial volume credit as a result of evapotranspiration, infiltration occurring through the sidewalls above the underdrain, and infiltration below the underdrain piping. Bioretention practices are effective at reducing concentrations of other pollutants including nitrogen, metals, bacteria, and hydrocarbons. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS and TP, but references are provided that may be useful for calculating credits for other pollutants.

schematic of biofiltration water quality volume
Schematic illustrating the water quality volume (VWQ) for a bioretention BMP. The VWQ equals the volume of water ponded above the media and below the overflow point in the BMP. The schematic illustrates other processes occurring within the bioretention system. In this example, an underdrain is located at the bottom of the practice.

Assumptions and approach

In developing the credit calculations, it is assumed the bioretention practice is properly designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. If any of these assumptions is not valid, the BMP may not qualify for credits or credits should be reduced based on reduced ability of the BMP to achieve volume or pollutant reductions. For guidance on design, construction, and maintenance, see the appropriate article within the bioretention section of the Manual.

Warning: Pre-treatment is required for all bioretention practices

In the following discussion, the Water Quality Volume (VWQ) is delivered instantaneously to the BMP. The VWQ is stored as water ponded above the filter media and below the overflow point in the BMP. The VWQ can vary depending on the stormwater management objective(s). For construction stormwater, VWQ is 1 inch off new impervious surface. For MIDS, VWQ is 1.1 inches.

In reality, some water will infiltrate through the bottom and sidewalls of the BMP as a rain event proceeds. The instantaneous volume method therefore may underestimate actual volume and pollutant losses.

Volume credit calculations - no underdrain

image showing BMP terms
Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations. For a practice with no underdrain all water stored above the media will infiltrate through the bottom and sides of the practice.

Volume credits are calculated based on the capacity of the BMP and its ability to permanently remove stormwater runoff via infiltration into the underlying soil from the existing stormwater collection system. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values entirely based on the capacity of the BMP to capture, store, and transmit water in any storm event. Because the volume is calculated as an instantaneous volume, the water quality volume (VWQ) is assumed to pond below the overflow elevation and above the bioretention media. This entire volume is assumed to infiltrate through the bottom of the BMP. The volume credit (Vinfb) for infiltration through the bottom of the BMP into the underlying soil, in cubic feet, is given by

\( V_{inf_b} = D_o\ (A_O + A_M)\ / 2 \)

where

AO is the overflow surface area of the bioretention system, in square feet;
AM is the area at the surface of the media, in square feet; and
DO is the ponded depth with the BMP, in feet.

Some of the VWQ will be lost to evapotranspiration rather than all being lost to infiltration. In terms of a water quantity credit, this differentiation is unimportant, but it may be important if attempting to calculate actual infiltration into the underlying soil.

The annual volume captured and infiltrated by the BMP can be determined with appropriate modeling tools, including the MIDS calculator. Example values are shown below for a scenario using the MIDS calculator. For example, a permeable pavement system designed to capture 1 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces will capture 89 percent of annual runoff from a site with B (SM) soils.

Annual volume, expressed as a percent of annual runoff, treated by a BMP as a function of soil and Water Quality Volume. See footnote1 for how these were determined.
Link to this table

Soil Water quality volume (VWQ) (inches)
0.5 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
A (GW) 84 92 96 98 99
A (SP) 75 86 92 95 97
B (SM) 68 81 89 93 95
B (MH) 65 78 86 91 94
C 63 76 85 90 93

1Values were determined using the MIDS calculator. BMPs were sized to exactly meet the water quality volume for a 2 acre site with 1 acre of impervious, 1 acre of forested land, and annual rainfall of 31.9 inches.


Volume credit calculations - underdrain

water loss mechanisms bioretention with underdrain at bottom
Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with an underdrain at the bottom.
water loss mechanisms bioretention with raised underdrain
Schematic illustrating the different water loss terms for a biofiltration BMP with a raised underdrain.
image showing BMP terms
Schematic illustrating terms and dimensions used for volume and pollutant calculations.

Volume credits for biofiltration are available only if the BMP permanently removes a portion of the stormwater runoff via infiltration through sidewalls or beneath the underdrain piping, or through evapotranspiration. These credits are assumed to be instantaneous values based on the design capacity of the BMP for a specific storm event. Instantaneous volume reduction, also termed event based volume reduction, can be converted to annual volume reduction percentages using the MIDS calculator or other appropriate modeling tools.

Volume credits for biofiltration basins with underdrains are calculated by a combination of infiltration through the unlined sides and bottom of the basin, the volume loss through evapotranspiration (ET), and the retention volume below the underdrain, if applicable (this is based on the assumption that this stored water will infiltrate into the underlying soil). The main design variables impacting the volume credits include whether the underdrain is elevated above the native soils and if an impermeable liner on the sides or bottom of the basin is used. Other design variables include surface area at overflow, media top surface area, underdrain location, and basin bottom locations, total depth of media, soil water holding capacity and media porosity, and infiltration rate of underlying soils.

Information: For the following equations, units most commonly used in practice are given and unit correction factors are based on those units

The volume credit (V) for biofiltration basins with underdrains, in cubic feet, is given by

\( V = V_{inf_B} + V_{inf_s} + V_{ET} + V_U \)

where:

Vinfb = volume of infiltration through the bottom of the basin (cubic feet);
Vinfs = volume of infiltration through the sides of the basin (cubic feet);
VET = volume reduction due to evapotranspiration (cubic feet); and
VU = volume of water stored beneath the underdrain that will infiltrate into the underlying soil (cubic feet).

Volume credits for infiltration through the bottom of the basin (Vinfb) are accounted for only if the bottom of the basin is not lined. As long as water continues to draw down, some infiltration will occur through the bottom of the BMP. However, it is assumed that when an underdrain is included in the installation, the majority of water will be filtered through the media and exit through the underdrain. Because of this, the drawdown time is likely to be short. Volume credit for infiltration through the bottom of the basin is given by

\( V_{inf_B} = A_B\ DDT\ I_R/12 \)

where

IR = design infiltration rate of underlying soil (inches per hour);
AB = surface area at the bottom of the basin (square feet); and
DDT = drawdown time for ponded water (hours).
Information: The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to IR. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.

The drawdown time is typically a maximum of 48 hours, which is designed to be protective of plants grown in the media. The Construction Stormwater permit requires drawdown within 48 hours and recommends 24 hours when discharges are to a trout stream. With a properly functioning underdrain, the drawdown time is likely to be considerably less than 48 hours.

Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is accounted for only if the sides of the basin are not lined with an impermeable liner. Volume credit for infiltration through the sides of the basin is given by

\( V_{inf_s} = (A_O - A_U)\ DDT\ I_R/12 \)

where

AO = the surface area at the overflow (square feet); and
AU = the surface area at the underdrain (square feet).
Information: The MIDS calculator assigns a default value of 0.06 inches per hour, equivalent to a D soil, to IR. This is based on the assumption that most water will drain to the underdrain, but that some loss to underlying soil will occur. A conservative approach assuming a D soil was thus chosen.

This equation assumes water will infiltrate through the entire sideslope area during the period when water is being drawn down. This is not the case, however, since the water level will decline in the BMP. The MIDS calculator assumes a linear drop in water level and thus divides VU by 2.

Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain (VU) is accounted for only if the underdrain is elevated above the native soils. Volume credit for media storage capacity below the underdrain is given by

\( V_U = (n-FC)\ D_U\ (A_U + A_B)/2 \)

where

AB = surface area at the bottom of the media (square feet);
n = media porosity (cubic feet per cubic foot);
FC is the field capacity of the soil, in cubic feet per cubic foot; and
DU = the depth of media below the underdrain (feet).

This is an instantaneous volume. This will somewhat overestimate actual storage when the majority of water is being captured by the underdrains. This equation assumes water between the soil porosity (f) and field capacity will infiltrate into the underlying soil.

The volume of water lost through ET is assumed to be the smaller of two calculated values: potential ET and measured ET. Potential ET (ETpot) is equal to the amount of water stored in the basin between field capacity and the wilting point. Measured ET (ETmea) is the amount of water lost to ET as measured using available data and is assumed to be 0.2 inches/day. ETmea is converted to ET by multiplying by a factor of 0.5. ET is considered to occur over a period equal to the drawdown time of the basin. Volume credit for evapotranspiration is given by the lesser of

\( ET_{mea} = (0.2/12)\ A\ 0.5\ t \) \( ET_{pot} = D\ A\ C_S \)

where

t = time over which ET is occurring (days);
D = depth being considered (feet);
A = area being considered (square feet); and
CS = soil water available for ET, generally assumed to be the water between field capacity and wilting point.

ET is likely to be greater if one or more trees is planted in the biofiltration basin. Planting a tree in a biofiltration system is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. The MIDS calculator increases the above ET credit by a factor of 3 when a tree is planted in the bioretention basin.

Provided soil water (moisture) content is greater than the wilting point, ET will continually occur during the non-frozen period. However, because the above volume calculations are event based, t will be equal to the time between rain events. In the MIDS calculator, a value of 3 days is used because this is the average number of days between precipitation events. ET will occur over the entire media depth. D may therefore be set equal to the media depth (DM). In this case, the value for A would be the average area through the entire depth of the media. The MIDS calculator limits ET to the area above the underdrain. If infiltration is being computed through the bottom and sidewalls of the basin, then CS would be field capacity minus the wilting point of soils (cubic feet per cubic foot) since water above the field capacity would infiltrate (or go to an underdrain).

The volume of water passing through underdrains can be determined by subtracting the volume loss (V) from the volume of water instantaneously captured by the BMP. No volume reduction credit is given for filtered stormwater that exits through the underdrain, but the volume of filtered water can be used in the calculation of pollutant removal credits through filtration.

The volume reduction credit (V) can be converted to an annual volume if desired. This conversion can be generated using the MIDS calculator or other appropriate modeling techniques. The MIDS calculator obtains the percentage annual volume reduction through performance curves developed from multiple modeling scenarios using the volume reduction capacity for biofiltration, the infiltration rate of the underlying soils, and the contributing watershed size and imperviousness.

Total suspended solids credit calculations

TSS reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the biofiltration basin and are given by

\( M_{TSS} = M_{TSS_i} + M_{TSS_f} \)

where

MTSS = TSS removal (pounds);
MTSS_i = TSS removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
MTSS_f = TSS removal from filtered water (pounds).

Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by

  • biofiltration \( M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TSS} \)
  • bioinfiltration \( M_{TSS_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ}\ EMC_{TSS} \)

where

EMCTSS is the event mean TSS concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).

The EMCTSS entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs. For more information on EMC values for TSS, link here or here. If there is no underdrain, the water quality volume (VWQ) is used in this calculation.

Removal for the filtered portion is less than 100 percent. The event-based mass of pollutant removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by

\( M_{TSS_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} \)

where

Vtotal is the total volume of water captured by the BMP (cubic feet); and
RTSS is the TSS pollutant removal percentage for filtered runoff.

The Stormwater Manual and MIDS calculator provide a recommended value for RTSS of 0.80 (80 percent) removal for filtered water. Alternate justified percentages for TSS removal can be used if proven to be applicable to the BMP design.

The above calculations may be applied on an event or annual basis and are given by

\( M_{TSS_f} = 2.72\ F\ V_{F_{annual}}\ EMC_{TSS}\ R_{TSS} \)

where

F is the fraction of annual volume filtered through the BMP; and
Vannual is the annual volume treated by the BMP, in acre-feet.

Phosphorus credit calculations

Total phosphorus (TP) reduction credits correspond with volume reduction through infiltration and filtration of water captured by the biofiltration basin and are given by

\( M_{TP} = M_{TP_i} + M_{TP_f} \)

where

  • MTP = TP removal (pounds);
  • MTP_i = TP removal from infiltrated water (pounds); and
  • MTP_f = TP removal from filtered water (pounds).

Pollutant removal for infiltrated water is assumed to be 100 percent. The mass of pollutant removed through infiltration, in pounds, is given by

  • biofiltration \( M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U)\ EMC_{TP} \)
  • bioinfiltration \( M_{TP_i} = 0.0000624\ V_{WQ} \ EMC_{TP} \)

where

  • EMCTP is the event mean TP concentration in runoff water entering the BMP (milligrams per liter).

The EMCTP entering the BMP is a function of the contributing land use and treatment by upstream tributary BMPs.

The filtration credit for TP in bioretention with underdrains assumes removal rates based on the soil media mix used and the presence or absence of amendments. Soil mixes with more than 30 mg/kg phosphorus (P) content are likely to leach phosphorus and do not qualify for a water quality credit. If the soil phosphorus concentration is less than 30 mg/kg, the mass of phosphorus removed through filtration, in pounds, is given by

\( M_{TP_f} = 0.0000624\ (V_{total} - (V_{inf_b} + V_{inf_s} + V_U))\ EMC_{TP}\ R_{TP} \)

Information: Soil mixes C and D are assumed to contain less than 30 mg/kg of phosphorus and therefore do not require testing

Again, assuming the phosphorus content in the media is less than 30 milligrams per kilogram, the removal efficiency (RTP) provided in the Stormwater Manual is a function of the fraction of phosphorus that is in particulate or dissolved form, the depth of the media, and the presence or absence of soil amendments. For the purpose of calculating credits it can be assumed that TP in storm water runoff consists of 55 percent particulate phosphorus (PP) and 45 percent dissolved phosphorus (DP). The removal efficiency for particulate phosphorus is 80 percent. The removal efficiency for dissolved phosphorus is 20 percent if the media depth is 2 feet or greater. The efficiency decreases by 1 percent for each 0.1 foot decrease in media thickness below 2 feet. If a soil amendment is added to the BMP design, an additional 40 percent credit is applied to dissolved phosphorus. Thus, the overall removal efficiency, (RTP), expressed as a percent removal of total phosphorus, is given by

\( R_{TP} = (0.8 * 0.55) + (0.45 * ((0.2 * (D_{MU_{max=2}})/2) + 0.40_{if amendment is used})) * 100 \)

where

  • the first term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of particulate phosphorus;
  • the second term on the right side of the equation represents the removal of dissolved phosphorus; and
  • DMUmax=2 = the media depth above the underdrain, up to a maximum of 2 feet.

The assumption of 55 percent particulate phosphorus and 45 percent dissolved phosphorus is likely inaccurate for certain land uses, such as industrial, transportation, and some commercial areas. Studies indicate particulate phosphorus comprises a greater percent of total phosphorus in these land uses. It may therefore be appropriate to modify the above equation with locally derived ratios for particulate and dissolved phosphorus. For more information on fractionation of phosphorus in stormwater runoff, link here.

Example calculations for TSS and P

Three examples are included based on the extent of infiltration occurring in the BMP. For each of these examples, assume 2.75 acre-feet of water is delivered to a bioretention BMP from 1 acre of impervious surface, the TSS concentration in runoff is 54.5 milligrams per liter, and the total phosphorus concentration is 0.30 milligrams per liter.

Example 1: Bioinfiltration (no underdrain)
Assume the bioinfiltration practice is designed to capture 90 percent of annual runoff, or 2.475 acre-feet. Multiply this by the concentration (0.3 or 54.5), a conversion factor of 0.0000624 to convert into pounds, and 43560 square feet to convert to cubic feet.

TSS - (0.9*2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624)(43560) = 366.6 pounds
P - (0.9*2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624)(43560) = 2.02 pounds

Example 2: Biofiltration with lined sides and bottom (i.e. no infiltration)
Assume the bioinfiltration practice is designed to capture 90 percent of annual runoff, or 2.475 acre-feet. Assume 1 foot of media, Mix C, above the underdrain and an iron amendment is added. For TSS, the removal efficiency is 85 percent for the water that is captured by the BMP. Since media mix C is used, phosphorus will be removed by the BMP. Calculations must be made for particulate (PP) and dissolved phosphorus (DP). PP accounts for 55 percent of the total phosphorus (TP) and DP for 45 percent of the TP. The removal efficiency for PP is 0.80 (80%) for the water captured by the BMP. For DP, the removal efficiency is 0.20 (20 percent) times the media depth divided by 2 (1/2 or 0.5), plus 0.40 (40 percent, which accounts for the amendment).

TSS - (0.8*0.9*2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624)(43560) = 293.3 pounds
P
PP: (0.55*0.8*0.9*2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624)(43560) = 0.888 pounds
DP: ((0.2*0.5*+0.4)(0.45)(2.75)(43560)(0.3)(0.0000624)) = 0.454 pounds
TP: (0.888+0.454) = 1.342 pounds

Example 3: Biofiltration with unlined sides and bottom (i.e. some infiltration occurs)
To make this calculation, we need to know the percent of water that infiltrates and the percent that is captured by the underdrain. Note the volume infiltrated will need to be calculated using the methodology described above. To simplify the calculations in this example, assume 10 percent of the captured water infiltrates, while the remaining water goes to the underdrain.

TSS
Infiltrated: (0.9)(0.1)(43560)(2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624) = 36.7 pounds. Note this is 10 percent of the volume calculated in Example 1.
Filtered (underdrain): (0.85)(0.9)(0.9)(43560)(2.75)(54.5)(0.0000624) = 280.5 pounds. Note this is 90 percent of the TSS calculated in Example 2.
Total: 317.2 pounds
P
Infiltrated: (0.9)(0.1)(43560)(2.75)(0.3)(0.0000624) = 0.202 pounds. Note this is 10 percent of the volume calculated in Example 1.
Filtered (underdrain): This calculation is the same as for Example 2, corrected for only 90 percent of the volume being treated by filtration. (1.342)(0.9) = 1.208 pounds
Total: 1.410 pounds

Methods for calculating credits

This section provides specific information on generating and calculating credits from bioretention BMPS for volume, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP). Stormwater runoff volume and pollution reductions (“credits”) may be calculated using one of the following methods:

  1. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on accepted hydrologic models
  2. The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator
  3. MIDS Calculator
  4. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on values reported in literature
  5. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on field monitoring

Credits based on models

Warning: The model selected depends on your objectives. For compliance with the Construction Stormwater permit, the model must be based on the assumption that an instantaneous volume is captured by the BMP.

Users may opt to use a water quality model or calculator to compute volume, TSS and/or TP pollutant removal for the purpose of determining credits for bioretention. The available models described below are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Furthermore, many of the models listed below cannot be used to determine compliance with the Construction Stormwater General permit since the permit requires the water quality volume to be calculated as an instantaneous volume.

Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:

  • Model name and version
  • Date of analysis
  • Person or organization conducting analysis
  • Detailed summary of input data
  • Calibration and verification information
  • Detailed summary of output data

The following table lists water quantity and water quality models that are commonly used by water resource professionals to predict the hydrologic, hydraulic, and/or pollutant removal capabilities of a single or multiple stormwater BMPs. The table can be used to guide a user in selecting the most appropriate model for computing volume, TSS, and/or TP removal for bioretention BMPs. In using this table to identify models appropriate for bioretention, use the sort arrow on the table to select Infiltrator BMPs or Filter BMPs, depending on the type of bioretention BMP and the terminology used in the model.

Comparison of stormwater models and calculators. Additional information and descriptions for some of the models listed in this table can be found at this link. Note that the Construction Stormwater General Permit requires the water quality volume to be calculated as an instantaneous volume, meaning several of these models cannot be used to determine compliance with the permit.
Link to this table
Access this table as a Microsoft Word document: File:Stormwater Model and Calculator Comparisons table.docx.

Model name BMP Category Assess TP removal? Assess TSS removal? Assess volume reduction? Comments
Constructed basin BMPs Filter BMPs Infiltrator BMPs Swale or strip BMPs Reuse Manu-
factured devices
Center for Neighborhood Technology Green Values National Stormwater Management Calculator X X X X No No Yes Does not compute volume reduction for some BMPs, including cisterns and tree trenches.
CivilStorm Yes Yes Yes CivilStorm has an engineering library with many different types of BMPs to choose from. This list changes as new information becomes available.
EPA National Stormwater Calculator X X X No No Yes Primary purpose is to assess reductions in stormwater volume.
EPA SWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
HydroCAD X X X No No Yes Will assess hydraulics, volumes, and pollutant loading, but not pollutant reduction.
infoSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
infoWorks ICM X X X X Yes Yes Yes
i-Tree-Hydro X No No Yes Includes simple calculator for rain gardens.
i-Tree-Streets No No Yes Computes volume reduction for trees, only.
LSPC X X X Yes Yes Yes Though developed for HSPF, the USEPA BMP Web Toolkit can be used with LSPC to model structural BMPs such as detention basins, or infiltration BMPs that represent source control facilities, which capture runoff from small impervious areas (e.g., parking lots or rooftops).
MapShed X X X X Yes Yes Yes Region-specific input data not available for Minnesota but user can create this data for any region.
MCWD/MWMO Stormwater Reuse Calculator X Yes No Yes Computes storage volume for stormwater reuse systems
Metropolitan Council Stormwater Reuse Guide Excel Spreadsheet X No No Yes Computes storage volume for stormwater reuse systems. Uses 30-year precipitation data specific to Twin Cites region of Minnesota.
MIDS Calculator X X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Includes user-defined feature that can be used for manufactured devices and other BMPs.
MIKE URBAN (SWMM or MOUSE) X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
P8 X X X X Yes Yes Yes
PCSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.
PLOAD X X X X X Yes Yes No User-defined practices with user-specified removal percentages.
PondNet X Yes No Yes Flow and phosphorus routing in pond networks.
PondPack X [ No No Yes PondPack can calculate first-flush volume, but does not model pollutants. It can be used to calculate pond infiltration.
RECARGA X No No Yes
SHSAM X No Yes No Several flow-through structures including standard sumps, and proprietary systems such as CDS, Stormceptors, and Vortechs systems
SUSTAIN X X X X X Yes Yes Yes Categorizes BMPs into Point BMPs, Linear BMPs, and Area BMPs
SWAT X X X Yes Yes Yes Model offers many agricultural BMPs and practices, but limited urban BMPs at this time.
Virginia Runoff Reduction Method X X X X X X Yes No Yes Users input Event Mean Concentration (EMC) pollutant removal percentages for manufactured devices.
WARMF X X Yes Yes Yes Includes agriculture BMP assessment tools. Compatible with USEPA Basins
WinHSPF X X X Yes Yes Yes USEPA BMP Web Toolkit available to assist with implementing structural BMPs such as detention basins, or infiltration BMPs that represent source control facilities, which capture runoff from small impervious areas (e.g., parking lots or rooftops).
WinSLAMM X X X X Yes Yes Yes
XPSWMM X X X Yes Yes Yes User defines parameter that can be used to simulate generalized constituents.


The Simple Method and MPCA Estimator

The Simple Method is a technique used for estimating storm pollutant export delivered from urban development sites. Pollutant loads are estimated as the product of event mean concentration and runoff depths over specified periods of time (usually annual or seasonal). The method was developed to provide an easy yet reasonably accurate means of predicting the change in pollutant loadings in response to development. Ohrel (2000) states: "In general, the Simple Method is most appropriate for small watersheds (<640 acres) and when quick and reasonable stormwater pollutant load estimates are required". Rainfall data, land use (runoff coefficients), land area, and pollutant concentration are needed to use the Simple Method. For more information on the Simple Method, see The Simple method to Calculate Urban Stormwater Loads or The Simple Method for estimating phosphorus export.

Some simple stormwater calculators utilize the Simple Method (EPA STEPL, Watershed Treatment Model). The MPCA developed a simple calculator for estimating load reductions for TSS, total phosphorus, and bacteria. Called the MPCA Estimator, this tool was developed specifically for complying with the MS4 General Permit TMDL annual reporting requirement. The MPCA Estimator provides default values for pollutant concentration, runoff coefficients for different land uses, and precipitation, although the user can modify these and is encouraged to do so when local data exist. The user is required to enter area for different land uses and area treated by BMPs within each of the land uses. BMPs include infiltrators (e.g. bioinfiltration, infiltration basin, tree trench, permeable pavement, etc.), filters (biofiltration, sand filter, green roof), constructed ponds and wetlands, and swales/filters. The MPCA Estimator includes standard removal efficiencies for these BMPs, but the user can modify those values if better data are available. Output from the calculator is given as a load reduction (percent, mass, or number of bacteria) from the original estimated load.

Caution: The MPCA Estimator should not be used for modeling a stormwater system or selecting BMPs.

Because the MPCA Estimator does not consider BMPs in series, makes simplifying assumptions about runoff and pollutant removal processes, and uses generalized default information, it should only be used for estimating pollutant reductions from an estimated load. It is not intended as a decision-making tool.

Download MPCA Estimator here

MIDS Calculator

mids logo
Download the MIDS Calculator

The Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS) best management practice (BMP) calculator is a tool used to determine stormwater runoff volume and pollutant reduction capabilities of various low impact development (LID) BMPs. The MIDS calculator estimates the stormwater runoff volume reductions for various BMPs and annual pollutant load reductions for total phosphorus (including a breakdown between particulate and dissolved phosphorus) and total suspended solids (TSS). The calculator was intended for use on individual development sites, though capable modelers could modify its use for larger applications.

The MIDS calculator is designed in Microsoft Excel with a graphical user interface (GUI), packaged as a windows application, used to organize input parameters. The Excel spreadsheet conducts the calculations and stores parameters, while the GUI provides a platform that allows the user to enter data and presents results in a user-friendly manner.

Detailed guidance has been developed for all BMPs in the calculator, including biofiltration and bioinfiltration. An overview of individual input parameters and workflows is presented in the MIDS Calculator User Documentation.

Credits based on reported literature values

A simplified approach to computing a credit would be to apply a reduction value found in literature to the pollutant mass load or concentration (EMC) of the bioretention device. Concentration reductions resulting from treatment can be converted to mass reductions if the volume of stormwater treated is known.

Designers may use the pollutant reduction values reported in this manual or may research values from other databases and published literature. Designers who opt for this approach should

  • select the median value from pollutant reduction databases that report a range of reductions, such as from the International BMP Database;
  • select a pollutant removal reduction from literature that studied a bioretention device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits;
  • review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied bioretention are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota, as described in this manual and/or by a local permitting agency; and
  • give preference to literature that has been published in a peer-reviewed publication.

The following references summarize pollutant reduction values from multiple studies or sources that could be used to determine credits. Users should note that there is a wide range of monitored pollutant removal effectiveness in the literature. Before selecting a literature value, users should compare the characteristics of the monitored site in the literature against the characteristics of the proposed bioretention device, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, bioretention sizing, soil infiltration rates, and climate factors.

Credits based on field monitoring

Field monitoring may be made in lieu of desktop calculations or models/calculators as described. Careful planning is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED before commencing a program to monitor the performance of a BMP. The general steps involved in planning and implementing BMP monitoring include the following.

  1. Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring. When monitoring BMP performance, typical objectives may include the following.
    1. Which pollutants will be measured?
    2. Will the monitoring study the performance of a single BMP or multiple BMPs?
    3. Are there any variables that will affect the BMP performance? Variables could include design approaches, maintenance activities, rainfall events, rainfall intensity, etc.
    4. Will the results be compared to other BMP performance studies?
    5. What should be the duration of the monitoring period? Is there a need to look at the annual performance vs the performance during a single rain event? Is there a need to assess the seasonal variation of BMP performance?
  2. Plan the field activities. Field considerations include
    1. equipment selection and placement;
    2. sampling protocols including selection, storage, and delivery to the laboratory;
    3. laboratory services;
    4. health and Safety plans for field personnel;
    5. record keeping protocols and forms; and
    6. quality control and quality assurance protocols
  3. Execute the field monitoring
  4. Analyze the results

This manual contains the following guidance for monitoring.

The following guidance manuals have been developed to assist BMP owners and operators on how to plan and implement BMP performance monitoring.

Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring

Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers prepared this guide in 2009 with support from the USEPA, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Environment and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This guide was developed to improve and standardize the protocols for all BMP monitoring and to provide additional guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) BMP monitoring. Highlighted chapters in this manual include:

  • Chapter 2: Developing a monitoring plan. Describes a seven-step approach for developing a monitoring plan for collection of data to evaluate BMP effectiveness.
  • Chapter 3: Methods and Equipment for hydrologic and hydraulic monitoring
  • Chapter 4: Methods and equipment for water quality monitoring
  • Chapters 5 (Implementation) and 6 (Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting)
  • Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
  • Chapters 8 (LID Monitoring), 9 (LID data interpretation]), and 10 (Case studies).
Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565)

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) sponsored this 2006 research report, which was authored by Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, the University of Florida, and the Low Impact Development Center. The primary purpose of this report is to advise on the selection and design of BMPs that are best suited for highway runoff. The document includes chapters on performance monitoring that may be a useful reference for BMP performance monitoring, especially for the performance assessment of a highway BMP.

  • Chapter 4: Stormwater Characterization
    • 4.2: General Characteristics and Pollutant Sources
    • 4.3: Sources of Stormwater Quality data
  • Chapter 8: Performance Evaluation
    • 8.1: Methodology Options
    • 8.5: Evaluation of Quality Performance for Individual BMPs
    • 8.6: Overall Hydrologic and Water Quality Performance Evaluation
  • Chapter 10: Hydrologic Evaluation
    • 10.5: Performance Verification and Design Optimization
Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices
  • In 2014 the Water Environment Federation released this White Paper that investigates the feasibility of a national program for the testing of stormwater products and practices. The report does not include any specific guidance on the monitoring of a BMP, but it does include a summary of the existing technical evaluation programs that could be consulted for testing results for specific products (see Table 1 on page 8).
Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual (Document No. CTSW-OT-13-999.43.01)

The most current version of this manual was released by the State of California, Department of Transportation in November 2013. As with the other monitoring manuals described, this manual does include guidance on planning a stormwater monitoring program. However, this manual is among the most thorough for field activities. Relevant chapters include.

  • Chapter 4: Monitoring Methods and Equipment
  • Chapter 5: Analytical Methods and Laboratory Selection
  • Chapter 6: Monitoring Site Selection
  • Chapter 8: Equipment Installation and Maintenance
  • Chapter 10: Pre-Storm Preparation
  • Chapter 11: Sample Collection and Handling
  • Chapter 12: Quality Assurance / Quality Control
  • Chapter 13: Laboratory Reports and Data Review
  • Chapter 15: Gross Solids Monitoring
Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance

This online manual was developed in 2010 by Andrew Erickson, Peter Weiss, and John Gulliver from the University of Minnesota and St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory with funding provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The manual advises on a four-level process to assess the performance of a Best Management Practice.

Level 1 activities do not produce numerical performance data that could be used to obtain a stormwater management credit. BMP owners and operators who are interested in using data obtained from Levels 2 and 3 should consult with the MPCA or other regulatory agency to determine if the results are appropriate for credit calculations. Level 4, Monitoring, is the method most frequently used for assessment of the performance of a BMP.

Use these links to obtain detailed information on the following topics related to BMP performance monitoring:

Other pollutants

In addition to TSS and phosphorus, bioretention BMPs can reduce loading of other pollutants. According to the International Stormwater Database, studies have shown that bioretention BMPs are effective at reducing concentrations of pollutants, including metals, and bacteria. A compilation of the pollutant removal capabilities from a review of literature are summarized below.

Relative pollutant reduction from bioretention systems for metals, nitrogen, bacteria, and organics.
Link to this table

Pollutant Constituent Treatment capabilities1
Metals2 Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Zinc, Lead High
Nitrogen2 Total nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Low/medium
Bacteria2 Fecal coliform, e. coli High
Organics Petroleum hydrocarbons3, Oil/grease4 High

1 Low: < 30%; Medium: 30 to 65%; High: >65%
2 International Stormwater Database, (2012)
3 LeFevre et al., (2012)
4 Hsieh and Davis (2005).
See Reference list


References and suggested reading

  • Brown, Robert A., and William F. Hunt III. 2010. Impacts of media depth on effluent water quality and hydrologic performance of undersized bioretention cells. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 137, no. 3: 132-143.
  • Brown, R. A., and W. F. Hunt. 2011. Underdrain configuration to enhance bioretention exfiltration to reduce pollutant loads. Journal of Environmental Engineering 137, no. 11: 1082-1091.
  • Bureau of Environmental Services. 2006. Effectiveness Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management in Portland. Oregon. Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, Oregon.
  • California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook-New Development and Redevelopment. California Stormwater Quality Association, Menlo Park, CA.
  • Chris, Denich, Bradford Andrea, and Drake Jennifer. 2013. Bioretention: assessing effects of winter salt and aggregate application on plant health, media clogging and effluent quality. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada. 48(4):387.
  • Caltrans. 2004. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report. Report No. CTSW-RT-01-050. Division of Environmental Analysis. California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
  • Caltrans. 2013. Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual. Document No. CTSW-OY-13-999.43.01.
  • CDM Smith. 2012. Omaha Regional Stormwater Design Manual. Chapter 8 Stormwater Best Management Practices. Kansas City, MO.
  • Davis, Allen P., Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma, and Christie Minami. 2001. Laboratory study of biological retention for urban stormwater management. Water Environment Research, 73, no. 1:5-14.
  • Davis, Allen P., Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma, and Christie Minami. 2006. Water quality improvement through bioretention media: Nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Water Environment Research 78, no. 3: 284-293.
  • Davis, Allen P., Mohammad Shokouhian, Himanshu Sharma, Christie Minami, and Derek Winogradoff. 2003. Water quality improvement through bioretention: Lead, copper, and zinc removal. Water Environment Research 75, no. 1: 73-82.
  • DiBlasi, Catherine J., Houng Li, Allen P. Davis, and Upal Ghosh. 2008. Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility. Environmental science & technology 43, no. 2: 494-502.
  • Dorman, M. E., H. Hartigan, F. Johnson, and B. Maestri. 1988. Retention, detention, and overland flow for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff: interim guidelines for management measures. Final report, September 1985-June 1987. No. PB-89-133292/XAB. Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA (USA).
  • Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers. 2012. Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring. Prepared under Support from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental and Water Resource Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
  • Gulliver, J. S., A. J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss. 2010. Stormwater treatment: Assessment and maintenance. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN.
  • Hathaway, J. M., W. F. Hunt, and S. Jadlocki. 2009. Indicator bacteria removal in storm-water best management practices in Charlotte, North Carolina. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, no. 12: 1275-1285.
  • Hong, Eunyoung, Eric A. Seagren, and Allen P. Davis. 2006. Sustainable oil and grease removal from synthetic stormwater runoff using bench-scale bioretention studies. Water Environment Research 78, no. 2: 141-155.
  • Hsieh, Chi-hsu, and Allen P. Davis. 2005. Evaluation and optimization of bioretention media for treatment of urban storm water runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering 131, no. 11: 1521-1531.
  • Hunt, W. F., A. R. Jarrett, J. T. Smith, and L. J. Sharkey. 2006. Evaluating bioretention hydrology and nutrient removal at three field sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 132, no. 6: 600-608.
  • Jaffe, et. al. 2010. The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study. Prepared by the University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Center for Neighborhood Technology, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program.
  • Jurries, Dennis. 2003. Biofilters (Bioswales, Vegetative Buffers, & Constructed Wetlands) for Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal. Quality, State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (Ed.).
  • Lefevre G.H., Hozalski R.M., Novak P. 2012. The role of biodegradation in limiting the accumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons in raingarden soil. Water Res. 46(20):6753-62.
  • Leisenring, M., J. Clary, and P. Hobson. 2012. International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals. July: 1-31.
  • Li, Houng, and Allen P. Davis. 2009. Water quality improvement through reductions of pollutant loads using bioretention. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, no. 8: 567-576.
  • Komlos, John, and Robert G. Traver. 2012. Long-term orthophosphate removal in a field-scale storm-water bioinfiltration rain garden. Journal of Environmental Engineering 138, no. 10: 991-998.
  • Mid-America Regional Council, and American Public Works Association. 2012. Manual of best management practices for stormwater quality.
  • New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2008. New Hampshire Stormwater Manual. Volume 2 Appendix B. Concord, NH.
  • North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2007. Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
  • Passeport, Elodie, William F. Hunt, Daniel E. Line, Ryan A. Smith, and Robert A. Brown. 2009. Field study of the ability of two grassed bioretention cells to reduce storm-water runoff pollution. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 135, no. 4: 505-510.
  • Ohrel, R. 2000. Simple and Complex Stormwater Pollutant Load Models Compared: The Practice of Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Pages 60-63
  • Oregon State University Transportation Officials. Dept. of Civil, Environmental Engineering, University of Florida. Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, GeoSyntec Consultants, and Low Impact Development Center, Inc. 2006. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Highway Runoff Control. No. 565. Transportation Research Board.
  • Schueler, T.R., Kumble, P.A., and Heraty, M.A. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.
  • TetraTech. 2008. BMP Performance Analysis. Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
  • Torres, Camilo. 2010. Characterization and Pollutant Loading Estimation for Highway Runoff in Omaha, Nebraska. M.S. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
  • United States EPA. 1999. Stormwater technology fact sheet-bioretention. Office of Water, EPA 832-F-99 12.
  • University of Wisconsin. 2006. Design Guidelines for Stormwater Bioretention Facilities.
  • Water Environment Federation. 2014. Investigation into the Feasibility of a National Testing and Evaluation Program for Stormwater Products and Practices. A White Paper by the National Stormwater Testing and Evaluation of Products and Practices (STEPP) Workgroup Steering Committee.
  • WEF, ASCE/EWRI. 2012. Design of Urban Stormwater Controls. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23, ASCE/EWRI Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 87. Prepared by the Design of Urban Stormwater Controls Task Forces of the Water Environment Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers/Environmental & Water Resources Institute.
  • Weiss, Peter T., John S. Gulliver, and Andrew J. Erickson. 2005. The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices Final Report.. Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
  • Wossink, G. A. A., and Bill Hunt. 2003. The economics of structural stormwater BMPs in North Carolina. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.

Related articles

This page was last edited on 17 November 2022, at 20:36.