Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Logo

Minnesota Stormwater Manual

Calculating credits for stormwater ponds
Revision as of 20:37, 10 March 2015 by PLeegar (talk | contribs) (→‎Other Pollutants)

This site is currently undergoing revision. For more information, open this link.
 This site is under construction. Anticipated completion date is March, 2015.

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

This page provides a discussion of how constructed basins can achieve stormwater credits.

Overview

schematic of constructed pond/wetland
Schematic showing characteristics of a constructed pond or constructed wetland.

Stormwater ponds and Stormwater wetlands are the most common types of constructed basins with a permanent pool of water that are built for the purpose of capturing and storing stormwater runoff. These basins are constructed, either temporarily or in a permanent installation, to prevent or mitigate downstream water quantity and/or quality impacts. Several types of constructed basins and wetlands (stormwater basins, constructed stormwater ponds, wet ponds, forebays, wet sedimentation basins, wet detention ponds, constructed wetlands, stormwater wetlands, etc) are included in this general category. Generally Stormwater Ponds do not have a significant area of vegetation. Stormwater Wetlands do have significant vegetation that enhances the nutrient removal of the basin. Not included in this BMP category are dry basins without a permanent pool. Also not included are oil/water separators, swirl concentrators, and other manufactured devices with a permanent pool of water in the device.

Pollutant Removal Mechanisms

Constructed basins rely on physical, biological, and chemical processes to remove pollutants from incoming stormwater runoff. The primary treatment mechanism is gravitational settling of particulates and their associated pollutants as stormwater runoff resides in the permanent pool. Stormwater wetlands provide an additional mechanism for the removal of nutrient and other pollutants through the uptake by algae and aquatic vegetation. Volatilization and chemical activity can also occur in both ponds and wetlands, breaking down and assimilating a number of other stormwater contaminants such as hydrocarbons (WEF, ASCE/EWRI).

The longer stormwater runoff remains in the permanent pool, the more settling (and associated pollutant removal) and other treatment will occur. After the particulates settle to the bottom of a pond, a permanent pool provides protection from re-suspension when additional runoff enters the pond during and after a rain event (WEF, ASCE/EWRI).

Location in the Treatment Train

Stormwater Treatment Trains are comprised of multiple Best Management Practices 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 Best Management Practices that reduce the pollutant concentration and/or volume of stormwater runoff. Constructed basins are typically located at the end of the stormwater treatment train, capturing all the runoff from the site.

Related Articles within the Minnesota Stormwater Manual

Credit Calculation Methods

Stormwater pollution reductions (“credits”) for stormwater ponds and wetlands may be calculated using one of the following methods:

  1. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on volume reduction and BMP parameters presented in this credit article
  2. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on accepted hydrologic/hydraulic models
  3. MIDS Calculator approach
  4. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on values reported in literature
  5. Quantifying volume and pollution reductions based on field monitoring

The techniques described in this article assume that volume credit cannot be obtained for stormwater ponds and wetlands. This is based on an overall assumption that ponds and wetlands have insignificant losses related to seepage, evaporation, and transpiration. Stormwater pond and wetland designers that suspect significant volume losses from a specific BMP are encouraged to quantify these volume losses through field measurements. Ponds and wetlands are also effective at reducing concentrations of other pollutants including nitrogen and metals. This article does not provide information on calculating credits for pollutants other than TSS and phosphorus, but references are provided that may be useful for calculating credits for other pollutants; see Other Pollutants section, and References section, for more information.

Alternative techniques for calculating credits associated with volume and pollutant reductions may be proposed to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or other permitting agency for their consideration and approval.

Assumptions and Approach

The following general assumptions apply in calculating credits for constructed basins:

  • Proper design, and construction, shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual.
  • Maintenance: Stormwater ponds should be maintained regularly to allow for pollutant removal, channel protection, and flood control capabilities.

The approach in the following sections is based on the following general design considerations:

  • It is REQUIRED in the CGP that the Vwq is discharged at no more than 5.66 cubic feet per second per acre surface area of the pond.
  • The REQUIRED total storage volume (Vts) equals the sum of the volume in the permanent pool (Vpp below the outlet elevation) plus live storage allocation for water quality volume (Vwq). Vwq equals 1.0 inch of runoff per impervious acre.
  • If the pond is being designed as a wet detention pond for new construction under the MPCA CGP Permit, then a permanent pool volume (Vpp) equal to 1,800 cubic feet for each acre draining to the pond is REQUIRED.
  • It is REQUIRED in the CGP that permanent pool depths be a minimum of 3 feet and maximum of 10 feet at the deepest points.
  • It is REQUIRED in the CGP that the riser be located so that short-circuiting between inflow points and the riser does not occur.
  • If the pond will be used for temporary sediment control during construction, the associated permanent pool volume REQUIRED is either the 2 year, 24 hour storm runoff volume draining to the pond (with minimum 1800 cubic feet for each acre draining to the basin), or in the absence of such a calculation, 3600 cubic feet for each acre draining to the basin.

If any of these assumptions are not valid, the credit will be reduced.

Volume Reduction and Water Quality Credits

Constructed basins provide pollutant removal associated with settling of particulates normally present in stormwater runoff, and serve the purpose of reducing peak stormwater flows for channel protection and overbank flood control. Pollutant removal is accomplished by the maintenance of a permanent pool of water that serves to both settle and store the particulates. The necessity of the permanent pool negates the ability to infiltrate runoff; therefore no volume credit can be obtained for basins and wetlands. Consequently there are also no credits for TSS or TP removals associated with volume reduction.

Please refer to tables within the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or to Credits Computed by the MIDS Calculator for TSS and TP removals associated with settling and biological activity within the permanent pool of the stormwater pond.

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 stormwater ponds and wetlands. The available models described in this section are commonly used by water resource professionals, but are not explicitly endorsed or required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Use of models or calculators for the purpose of computing pollutant removal credits should be supported by detailed documentation, including:

  1. Model name and version
  2. Date of analysis
  3. Person or organization conducting analysis
  4. Detailed summary of input data
  5. Calibration and verification information
  6. Detailed summary of output data

Model Selection

The Comparison of stormwater models and calculators Table below contains a list of 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 by the BMP or a series of BMPs.

The information contained in the Stormwater model and calculator comparison table is current as of January, 2015. Because model developers are frequently issuing updates to their models, users are encouraged to follow the web links to obtain the most current information and capabilities for a specific 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.


Credits Computed by the MIDS Calculator

Users should refer to the MIDS Calculator section of the WIKI for additional information and guidance on credit calculation using this approach.

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 pond or wetland device. A more detailed explanation of the differences between mass load reductions and concentration (EMC) reductions can be found on the pollutant removal page.

Designers may use the pollutant reduction values in the Minnesota Stormwater 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 stormwater pond or wetland device with site characteristics and climate similar to the device being considered for credits.
  • When using data from an individual study, review the article to determine that the design principles of the studied stormwater pond or wetland are close to the design recommendations for Minnesota and/or by a local permitting agency.
  • Preference should be given 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 stormwater pond, considering such conditions as watershed characteristics, pond sizing, and climate factors.

  • International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals.
    • Compilation of BMP performance studies published through 2011.
    • 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.
  • Effectiveness Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management in Portland, Oregon.
    • Appendix M contains Excel spreadsheet of 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.
  • The Illinois Green Infrastructure Study.
    • Figure ES-1 summarizes BMP effectiveness
    • Provides values for TN, TSS, peak flows / runoff volumes
    • Applicable to Permeable Pavements, Constructed Wetlands, Infiltration, Detention, Filtration, and Green Roofs
  • New Hampshire Stormwater Manual.
    • Volume 2, Appendix B summarizes BMP effectiveness
    • 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
  • BMP Performance Analysis. Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston MA.
    • Appendix B provides pollutant removal performance curves
    • Provides values for TP, TSS, and Zn.
    • Pollutant removal broken down according to land use.
    • Applicable to Infiltration Trench, Infiltration Basin, Bioretention, Grass Swale, Wet Pond, and Porous Pavement.
  • Watershed Protection Techniques, Technical Note #114. Pollutant Removal Dynamics of Three Wet Ponds in Canada. 2000.
    • Provides values for TSS, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Metals, Bacteria, Pentachlorophenol and Oil/Grease.
    • Applicable to Wet Ponds.
  • Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver and A.J. Erickson. 2005. The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices: Final Report.
    • Table 8 and Appendix B provides pollutant removal efficiencies for TSS and P
    • Applicable to Wet Basins, Stormwater Wetlands, Bioretention Filter, Sand Filter, Infiltration Trench, and Filter Strips/Grass Swales.
  • Semadeni‐Davies, Annette. "Winter performance of an urban stormwater pond in southern Sweden." Hydrological processes 20.1 (2006): 165-182.
    • Provides removal efficiencies in cold-weather climates for TSS and metals, and reports influent/effluent vales of pH
    • Applicable to stormwater ponds.

Credits Based on Field Monitoring

In the event that a credit is being calculated for an existing stormwater pond or wetland installation, 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:

  1. Establish the objectives and goals of the monitoring. When monitoring BMP performance, typical objectives may include:
    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, delivery to the laboratory
    3. Laboratory services
    4. Health and Safety plans for field personnel
    5. Record keeping protocols and forms
    6. Quality control and quality assurance protocols
  3. Execute the field monitoring
  4. Analyze the results

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: Designing the Program
  • Chapters 3 & 4: Methods and Equipment
  • Chapters 5 & 6: Implementation, Data Management, Evaluation and Reporting
  • Chapter 7: BMP Performance Analysis
  • Chapters 8, 9, & 10: LID Monitoring

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 does include 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 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).

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, involving:

  • Level 1: Visual Inspection
  • Level 2: Capacity Testing
  • Level 3: Synthetic Runoff Testing
  • Level 4: 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:

Other Pollutants

In addition to TSS and phosphorus, constructed basins can reduce loading of other pollutants. According to the International Stormwater Database, studies have shown that constructed basins are effective at reducing concentration of pollutants, including nutrients, metals, bacteria, cyanide, oils and grease, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). A compilation of the pollutant removal capabilities from a review of literature are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.

Other Pollutants Reduced by Constructed Basins: Stormwater Ponds
Link to this table

Pollutant Category Constituent Treatment Capabilities (Low = < 30%;

Medium = 30-65%; High = 65 -100%)

Metals1, 2 Cd, Cr, Cu, Zn Medium/High
As, Fe, Ni, Pb
Nutrients Total Nitrogen, Medium
TKN Low
Organics High

1 Results are for total metals only
2 Information on As was found only in the International Stormwater Database where removal was found to be low


  1. Results are for total metals only
  2. Information on As was found only in the International Stormwater Database where removal was found to be low

References

  • 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. "California Stormwater BMP Handbook-New Development and Redevelopment." California Stormwater Quality Association, Menlo Park, CA (2003).
  • Caltrans. 2004. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report, Report No. CTSW-RT-01-050. Division of Environmental Analysis. California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
  • CDM Smith. 2012. Omaha Regional Stormwater Design Manual. Chapter 8 Stormwater Best Management Practices. Kansas City, MO.
  • Caraco, Deborah, and Richard A. Claytor. Stormwater BMP Design: Supplement for Cold Climates. US Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
  • Dorman, M. E., H. Hartigan, F. Johnson, and B. Maestri. 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), 1988.
  • Consultants, Geosyntec, and Wright Water Engineers. "Urban stormwater BMP performance monitoring." (2002).
  • Gulliver, J. S., A. J. Erickson, and PTe Weiss. "Stormwater treatment: Assessment and maintenance." University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN. http://stormwaterbook. safl. umn. edu (2010).
  • Hathaway, J. M., W. F. Hunt, and S. Jadlocki. "Indicator bacteria removal in storm-water best management practices in Charlotte, North Carolina." Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, no. 12 (2009): 1275-1285.
  • 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. "Biofilters (Bioswales, Vegetative Buffers, & Constructed Wetlands) for Storm Water Discharge Pollution Removal." Quality, S. o. OD o. E.(Ed.).
  • Kurz, R.C. 1998. Removal of Microbial Indicators from Stormwater using Sand Filtration, Wet Detention, and Alum Treatment Best Management Practices. South West Florida Water Management District, Tampa, FL.
  • 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.
  • Muthukrishnan, Swarna. "Treatment Of Heavy Metals In Stormwater Runoff Using Wet Pond And Wetland Mesocosms." In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 9. 2010.
  • 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.
  • Oregon State University, Geosyntec Consultants, University of Florida, the Low Impact Development Center, Inc. 2006. Evaluation of Best Management Practice for Highway Runoff Control (NCHRP Report 565). Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration.
  • Scholes, L., R. B. E. Shutes, D. M. Revitt, M. Forshaw, and D. Purchase. "The treatment of metals in urban runoff by constructed wetlands." Science of the Total Environment 214, no. 1 (1998): 211-219.
  • 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.
  • Semadeni‐Davies, Annette. "Winter performance of an urban stormwater pond in southern Sweden." Hydrological processes 20, no. 1 (2006): 165-182.
  • State of California, Department of Transportation. 2013. Caltrans Stormwater Monitoring Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA.
  • TetraTech. 2008. BMP Performance Analysis. Prepared for US EPA Region 1, Boston, MA.
  • 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.
  • Liang, Weng, and S. Meek. "Pollutant Removal Dynamics of Three Wet Ponds in Canada." Watershed Protection Techniques 3, no. 3 (2000): 721-728.
  • 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. "The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices Final Report." (2005).
  • Wossink, G. A. A., and Bill Hunt. The economics of structural stormwater BMPs in North Carolina. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, 2003.
Retrieved from "https://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?title=Calculating_credits_for_stormwater_ponds&oldid=18220"

Privacy policy