Line 41: Line 41:
*[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using trees with an underdrain as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]]
*[[Requirements, recommendations and information for using trees with an underdrain as a BMP in the MIDS calculator]]
<!--Eventually, the following information will be incorporated into this section on Trees.
*Water quality benefits of trees
*Tree species list
*Design specifications for trees and soils
*Construction specifications
*Protection of existing trees on construction sites
*O & M guidelines
*Monitoring guidelines
*Street sweeping
*Fact sheet
*Case studies
*Credits for pollutant removal, ET and canopy interception
'''Information on credits'''
Currently the Minimal Impact design Standards (MIDS) calculator is being designed to incorporate volume reductions based solely on storage and infiltration within tree boxes or tree trenches. Readers may refer to [[Bioretention|bioretention]] or [[Green roofs|green roof]] sections of the manual for more information on volume reductions based on storage and infiltration.
The manual will be expanded to include detailed information on canopy interception and evapotranspiration loss from trees. For now, readers may find information on these topics at the following sources.
*Canopy interception by trees
**Xiao et al (1998) provide estimates of precipitation retention by tree canopies.
**Xiao et al (2000a) describe a model to predict tree canopy interception of precipitation and provide estimates of annual precipitation interception by trees.
**Xiao et al (2000b) describes direct measurements of throughfall for open-grown trees.
**Gomez et al. (2001) provided measured values of leaf interception as a function of leaf area.
**Shanstrom (2011) provided estimates of gallons of stormwater interception by hackberries as a function of plant age.
*Evapotranspiration (ET) losses by vegetation
**Pitt et al discuss ET rates from bioretention devices and provides methods for calculating ET (see http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/StormWaterManagement/Fall%202009/Pitt_Evapo_final__copy_changes_accepted.pdf).
**DiGiovanni et al (2011) discuss the measurement and estimation of ET from urban green spaces in New York City.
**Hickman (2011) quantified the different components of the water budget, including ET, for bioretention systems.
**Nagler et al. (2003) quantified transpiration rates from different tree species.
*DeGiovanni, K., F. Montalto, and S. Gaffin. 2011. Measurement and Estimation of Evapotranspiration from Urban Green Spaces in New York City. Presentation at the Philadelphia Low Impact Development Symposium. Session 34, September 27, 2011.
*Gomez, J.A., J.V. Giraldez, and E. Fereres. 2001. Rainfall interception by olive trees in relation to leaf area. Agricultural Water Management. 49:1:65-76.
*Hickman, J.M. Jr. 2011. Evauation the Role of Evapotranspiration in the Hydrology of Bioinfiltration and bioretention Basins using Weighing Lysimeters. M.S. thesis, Villanova University.
*Nagler, P., E.P. Glenn, and T.L. Thompson. 2003. Comparison of transpiration rates among saltcedar, cottonwood and willow trees by sap flow and canopy temperature methods. Agricultural and forest Meteorology. 16:73-89.
*Pitt, R., S. Clark, P. Johnson, and J. Voorhees. Evapotranspiration and Related Calculations for Bioretention Devices. see http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Class/StormWaterManagement/Fall%202009/Pitt_Evapo_final__copy_changes_accepted.pdf
*Shanstrom, N. 2011. Stormwater Quantity and rate control benefits of Trees in Uncompacted Soil. See http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/stormwater-quantity-and-rate-control-benefits-of-trees-in-uncompacted-soil
*Xiao, Q., E.G. McPherson, J.R. Simpson, and S.L. Ustin. 1998. Rainfall Interception by Sacremento’s Urban Forest. Journal of Arboriculture. 24:4:235-244.
*Xiao, Q. E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin, and M.E. Grismer. 2000a. A new approach to modeling tree rainfall interception. Journal of Geophysical research. 105:D23:173-188.
*Xiao, Q. E.G. McPherson, S.L. Ustin, M.E. Grismer, and J.R. Simpson. 2000b. Winter rainfall interception by two mature open-grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrological Processes. 14:763-784.-->
<!--*[[Plant lists for trees]]
*[[Case studies for trees]]
*[[Cost-benefit considerations for trees]]
*[[Additional considerations for trees]]
*[[Links for trees]]
*[[References for trees]]
*[[Supporting material for trees]]-->

Revision as of 19:06, 16 September 2014

This site is currently undergoing final review. For more information, open this link.
The anticipated review period for this page is through September, 2014
Green Infrastructure: Trees can be an important tool for retention and detention of stormwater runoff. Trees provide additional benefits, including cleaner air, reduction of heat island effects, carbon sequestration, reduced noise pollution, reduced pavement maintenance needs, and cooler cars in shaded parking lots.
Information: Tree trenches and tree boxes are bioretention practices. However, because of differences in design, construction and maintenance, we have created a separate section for trees.
image of Minimal Impact Design Standards logo
photo of trees on marquette Avenue
Tree BMPs on Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis Minnesota. Photo courtesy of the Kestrel Design Group, Inc.

Use of trees to manage stormwater runoff encompasses several practices. Tree trenches and tree boxes (collectively called tree BMP(s)), the most commonly implemented tree BMPs, can be incorporated anywhere in the stormwater treatment train but are most often located in upland areas of the treatment train.

Tree BMPs are one component of urban forestry. Urban forestry is a broad term that applies to all publicly and privately owned trees within an urban area, including individual trees along streets and in backyards, as well as stands of remnant forest (Nowak et al. 2001).

The focus of this set of articles is on tree Best Management Practices rather than urban forestry.

Acknowledgements for trees

Tree trenches and tree boxes

The following pages address incorporation of trees into stormwater management under paved surfaces