5
Stormwater Management Approaches

A fundamental component of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Stormwater Program, for municipalities as well as industries and construction, is the creation of stormwater pollution prevention plans. These plans invariably document the stormwater control measures that will be used to prevent the permittee’s stormwater discharges from degrading local waterbodies. Thus, a consideration of these measures—their effectiveness in meeting different goals, their cost, and how they are coordinated with one another—is central to any evaluation of the Stormwater Program. This report uses the term stormwater control measure (SCM) instead of the term best management practice (BMP) because the latter is poorly defined and not specific to the field of stormwater.

The committee’s statement of task asks for an evaluation of the relationship between different levels of stormwater pollution prevention plan implementation and in-stream water quality. As discussed in the last two chapters, the state of the science has yet to reveal the mechanistic links that would allow for a full assessment of that relationship. However, enough is known to design systems of SCMs, on a site scale or local watershed scale, to lessen many of the effects of urbanization. Also, for many regulated entities the current approach to stormwater management consists of choosing one or more SCMs from a preapproved list. Both of these facts argue for the more comprehensive discussion of SCMs found in this chapter, including information on their characteristics, applicability, goals, effectiveness, and cost. In addition, a multitude of case studies illustrate the use of SCMs in specific settings and demonstrate that a particular SCM can have a measurable positive effect on water quality or a biological metric. The discussion of SCMs is organized along the gradient from the rooftop to the stream. Thus, pollutant and runoff prevention are discussed first, followed by runoff reduction and finally pollutant reduction.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES

Over the centuries, SCMs have met different needs for cities around the world. Cities in the Mesopotamian Empire during the second millennium BC had practices for flood control, to convey waste, and to store rain water for household and irrigation uses (Manor, 1966) (see Figure 5-1). Today, SCMs are considered a vital part of managing flooding and drainage problems in a city. What is relatively new is an emphasis on using the practices to remove pollutants from stormwater and selecting practices capable of providing groundwater recharge. These recent expectations for SCMs are not readily accepted and re-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 339
5 Stormwater Management Approaches A fundamental component of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Stormwater Program, for municipalities as well as industries and con- struction, is the creation of stormwater pollution prevention plans. These plans invariably document the stormwater control measures that will be used to pre- vent the permittee’s stormwater discharges from degrading local waterbodies. Thus, a consideration of these measures—their effectiveness in meeting differ- ent goals, their cost, and how they are coordinated with one another—is central to any evaluation of the Stormwater Program. This report uses the term storm- water control measure (SCM) instead of the term best management practice (BMP) because the latter is poorly defined and not specific to the field of stormwater. The committee’s statement of task asks for an evaluation of the relationship between different levels of stormwater pollution prevention plan implementation and in-stream water quality. As discussed in the last two chapters, the state of the science has yet to reveal the mechanistic links that would allow for a full assessment of that relationship. However, enough is known to design systems of SCMs, on a site scale or local watershed scale, to lessen many of the effects of urbanization. Also, for many regulated entities the current approach to storm- water management consists of choosing one or more SCMs from a preapproved list. Both of these facts argue for the more comprehensive discussion of SCMs found in this chapter, including information on their characteristics, applicabil- ity, goals, effectiveness, and cost. In addition, a multitude of case studies illus- trate the use of SCMs in specific settings and demonstrate that a particular SCM can have a measurable positive effect on water quality or a biological metric. The discussion of SCMs is organized along the gradient from the rooftop to the stream. Thus, pollutant and runoff prevention are discussed first, followed by runoff reduction and finally pollutant reduction. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES Over the centuries, SCMs have met different needs for cities around the world. Cities in the Mesopotamian Empire during the second millennium BC had practices for flood control, to convey waste, and to store rain water for household and irrigation uses (Manor, 1966) (see Figure 5-1). Today, SCMs are considered a vital part of managing flooding and drainage problems in a city. What is relatively new is an emphasis on using the practices to remove pollut- ants from stormwater and selecting practices capable of providing groundwater recharge. These recent expectations for SCMs are not readily accepted and re- 339

OCR for page 339
340 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES quire an increased commitment to the proper design and maintenance of the practices. With the help of a method for estimating peak flows (the Rational Method, see Chapter 4), the modern urban drainage system came into being soon after World War II. This generally consisted of a system of catch basins and pipes to prevent flooding and drainage problems by efficiently delivering runoff water to the nearest waterbody. However, it was soon realized that delivering the water too quickly caused severe downstream flooding and bank erosion in the receiv- ing water. To prevent bank erosion and provide more space for flood waters, some stream channels were enlarged and lined with concrete (see Figure 5-2). But while hardening and enlarging natural channels is a cost-effective solution to erosion and flooding, the modified channel increases downstream peak flows and it does not provide habitat to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. FIGURE 5-1 Cistern tank, Kamiros, Rhodes (ancient Greece, 7th century BC). SOURCE: Robert Pitt, Uni- versity of Alabama.

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 341 FIGURE 5-2 Concrete channel in Lincoln Creek, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. SOURCE: Roger Bannerman, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Some way was needed to control the quantity of water reaching the end of pipes during a runoff event, and on-site detention (Figure 5-3) became the stan- dard for accomplishing this. Ordinances started appearing in the early 1970s, requiring developers to reduce the peaks of different size storms, such as the 10- year, 24-hour storm. The ordinances were usually intended to prevent future problems with peak flows by requiring the installation of flow control structures, such as detention basins, in new developments. Detention basins can control peak flows directly below the point of discharge and at the property boundary. However, when designed on a site-by-site basis without taking other basins into account, they can lead to downstream flooding problems because volume is not reduced (McCuen, 1979; Ferguson, 1991; Traver and Chadderton, 1992; EPA, 2005d). In addition, out of concerns for clogging, openings in the outlet struc- ture of most basins are generally too large to hold back flows from smaller, more frequent storms. Furthermore, low-flow channels have been constructed or the basins have been graded to move the runoff through the structure without delay to prevent wet areas and to make it easier to mow and maintain the deten- tion basin. Because of the limitations of on-site detention, infiltration of urban runoff to control its volume has become a recent goal of stormwater management. Without stormwater infiltration, municipalities in wetter regions of the country can expect drops in local groundwater levels, declining stream base flows (Wang et al., 2003a), and flows diminished or stopped altogether from springs feeding wetlands and lakes (Leopold, 1968; Ferguson, 1994).

OCR for page 339
342 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES FIGURE 5-3 On-site detention. SOURCE: Tom Schueler, Chesapeake Stormwater Net- work, Inc. The need to provide volume control marked the beginning of low-impact development (LID) and conservation design (Arendt, 1996; Prince George’s County, 2000), which were founded on the seminal work of landscape architect Ian McHarg and associates decades earlier (McHarg and Sutton, 1975; McHarg and Steiner, 1998). The goal of LID is to allow for development of a site while maintaining as much of its natural hydrology as possible, such as infiltration, frequency and volume of discharges, and groundwater recharge. This is accom- plished with infiltration practices, functional grading, open channels, disconnec- tion of impervious areas, and the use of fewer impervious surfaces. Much of the LID focus is to manage the stormwater as close as possible to its source—that is, on each individual lot rather than conveying the runoff to a larger regional SCM. Individual practices include rain gardens (see Figure 5-4), disconnected roof drains, porous pavement, narrower streets, and grass swales. In some cases, LID site plans still have to include a method for passing the larger storms safely, such as a regional infiltration or detention basin or by increasing the capacity of grass swales. Infiltration has been practiced in a few scattered locations for a long time. For example, on Long Island, New York, infiltration basins were built starting in 1930 to reduce the need for a storm sewer system and to recharge the aquifer, which was the only source of drinking water (Ferguson, 1998). The Cities of Fresno, California, and El Paso, Texas, which faced rapidly dropping groundwa- ter tables, began comprehensive infiltration efforts in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1980s Maryland took the lead on the east coast by creating an ambitious

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 343 FIGURE 5-4 Rain Garden in Madison, Wisconsin. SOURCE: Roger Bannerman, Wiscon- sin Department of Natural Resources. statewide infiltration program. The number of states embracing elements of LID, especially infiltration, has increased during the 1990s and into the new century and includes California, Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Evidence gathered in the 1970s and 1980s suggested that pollutants be added to the list of things needing control in stormwater (EPA, 1983). Damages caused by elevated flows, such as stream habitat destruction and floods, were relatively easy to document with something as simple as photographs. Docu- mentation of elevated concentrations of conventional pollutants and potentially toxic pollutants, however, required intensive collection of water quality samples during runoff events. Samples collected from storm sewer pipes and urban streams in the Menomonee River watershed in the late 1970s clearly showed the concentrations of many pollutants, such as heavy metals and sediment, were elevated in urban runoff (Bannerman et al., 1979). Levels of heavy metals were especially high in industrial-site runoff, and construction-site erosion was calcu- lated to be a large source of sediment in the watershed. This study was followed by the National Urban Runoff Program, which added more evidence about the high levels of some pollutants found in urban runoff (Athayde et al., 1983; Ban- nerman et al., 1983). ***

OCR for page 339
344 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES With new development rapidly adding to the environmental impacts of ex- isting urban areas, the need to develop good stormwater management programs is more urgent than ever. For a variety of reasons, the greatest potential for stormwater management to reduce the footprint of urbanization is in the suburbs. These areas are experiencing the fastest rates of growth, they are more amenable to stormwater management because buildings and infrastructure are not yet in place, and costs for stormwater management can be borne by the developer rather than by taxpayers. Indeed, most structural SCMs are applied to new de- velopment rather than existing urban areas. Many of the most innovative stormwater programs around the country are found in the suburbs of large cities such as Seattle, Austin, and Washington, D.C. When stormwater management in ultra-urban areas is required, it entails the retrofitting of detention basins and other flow control structures or the introduction of innovative below-ground structures characterized by greater technical constraints and higher costs, most of which are charged to local taxpayers. Current-day SCMs represent a radical departure from past practices, which focused on dealing with extreme flood events via large detention basins de- signed to reduce peak flows at the downstream property line. As defined in this chapter, SCMs now include practices intended to meet broad watershed goals of protecting the biology and geomorphology of receiving waters in addition to flood peak protection. The term encompasses such diverse actions as using more conventional practices like basins and wetland to installing stream buffers, reducing impervious surfaces, and educating the public. REVIEW OF STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES Stormwater control measures refer to what is defined by EPA (1999) as “a technique, measure, or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff in the most cost-effective manner.” SCMs are designed to mitigate the changes to both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff that are caused by urbanization. Some SCMs are engineered or constructed facilities, such as a stormwater wetland or infiltration basin, that reduce pollutant loading and modify volumes and flow. Other SCMs are preventative, including such activities as education and better site design to limit the generation of stormwater runoff or pollutants. Stormwater Management Goals It is impossible to discuss SCMs without first considering the goals that they are expected to meet. A broadly stated goal for stormwater management is to reduce pollutant loads to waterbodies and maintain, as much as possible, the natural hydrology of a watershed. On a practical level, these goals must be made specific to the region of concern and embedded in the strategy for that

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 345 region. Depending on the designated uses of the receiving waters, climate, geomorphology, and historical development, a given area may be more or less sensitive to both pollutants and hydrologic modifications. For example, goals for groundwater recharge might be higher in an area with sandy soils as com- pared to one with mostly clayey soils; watersheds in the coastal zone may not require hydrologic controls. Ideally, the goals of stormwater management should be linked to the water quality standards for a given state’s receiving wa- ters. However, because of the substantial knowledge gap about the effect of a particular stormwater discharge on a particular receiving water (see Chapter 3 conclusions), surrogate goals are often used by state stormwater programs in lieu of water quality standards. Examples include credit systems, mandating the use of specific SCMs, or achieving stormwater volume reduction. Credit systems might be used for practices that are known to be productive but are difficult to quantify, such as planting trees. Specific SCMs might be assumed to remove a percent of pollutants, for example 85 percent removal of total suspended solids (TSS) within a stormwater wetland. Reducing the volume of runoff from im- pervious surfaces (e.g., using an infiltration device) might be assumed to capture the first flush of pollutants during a storm event. Before discussing specific state goals, it is worth understanding the broader context in which goals are set. Trade-offs Between Stormwater Control Goals and Costs The potentially substantial costs of implementing SCMs raise a number of fundamental social choices concerning land-use decisions, designated uses, and priority setting for urban waters. To illustrate some of these choices, consider a hypothetical urban watershed with three possible land-cover scenarios: 25, 50, and 75 percent impervious surface. A number of different beneficial uses could be selected for the streams in this watershed. At a minimum, the goal may be to establish low-level standards to protect public health and safety. To achieve this, sufficient and appropriate SCMs might be applied to protect residents from flooding and achieve water quality conditions consistent with secondary human contact. Alternatively, the designated use could be to achieve the physical, chemical, and/or biological conditions sufficient to provide exceptional aquatic habitat (e.g., a high-quality recreational fishery). The physical, biological, and chemical conditions supportive of this use might be similar to a reference stream located in a much less disturbed watershed. Achieving this particular designated use would require substantially greater resources and effort than achieving a secondary human contact use. Intermediate designated uses could also be imag- ined, including improving ambient water quality conditions that would make the water safe for full-body emersion (primary human contact) or habitat conditions for more tolerant aquatic species. Figure 5-5 sketches what the marginal (incremental) SCM costs (opportu- nity costs) might be to achieve different designated uses given different amounts of impervious surface in the watershed. The horizontal axis orders potential

OCR for page 339
346 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES MCC ($) 75% impervious cover 50% impervious cover 25% imper- vious cover Secondary Adequate Primary Exceptional Recreational Aquatic Recreational Aquatic Uses Contact Uses Contact Designated Use FIGURE 5-5 Cost of achieving designated uses in a hypothetical urban watershed. MCC is the marginal control cost, which represents the incremental costs to achieve successive expansion of designated uses through SCMs. The curves are constructed on the assump- tion that the lowest cost combination of SCMs would be implemented at each point on the curve. designated uses in terms of least difficult to most difficult to achieve. The three conceptual curves represent the SCM costs under three different impervious surface scenarios. The relative positions of the cost curves indicate that achiev- ing any specific designated use will be more costly in situations with a higher percentage of the watershed in impervious cover. All cost curves are upward sloping, reflecting the fact that incremental improvements in designated uses will be increasingly costly to achieve. The cost curves are purely conceptual, but nonetheless might reasonably reflect the relative costs and direction of change associated with achieving specific designated uses in different watershed conditions. The locations of the cost curves suggest that in certain circumstances not all designated uses can be achieved or can be achieved only at an extremely high cost. For example, the attainment of exceptional aquatic uses may be unachiev- able in areas with 50 percent impervious surface even with maximum applica- tion of SCMs. In this illustration, the cost of achieving even secondary human contact use is high for areas with 75 percent impervious surfaces. In such highly urbanized settings, achievement of only adequate levels of aquatic uses could be exceedingly high and strain the limits of what is technically achievable. Finally, the existing and likely expected future land-use conditions have significant im-

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 347 plications for what is achievable and at what cost. Clearly land-use decisions have an impact on the cost and whether a use can be achieved, and thus they need to be included in the decision process. The trade-off between costs and achieving specific designated uses can change substantially given different de- velopment patterns. The purpose of Figure 5-5 is not to identify the precise location of the cost curves or to identify thresholds for achieving specific designated uses. Rather, these concepts are used to illustrate some fundamental trade-offs that confront public and private investment and regulatory decisions concerning stormwater management. The general relationships shown in Figure 5-5 suggest the need for establishing priorities for investments in stormwater management and con- trols, and connecting land usage and watershed goals. Setting overly ambitious or costly goals for urban streams may result in the perverse consequence of causing more waters to fail to meet designated uses. For example, consider ef- forts to secure ambitious designated uses in highly developed areas or in an area slated for future high-density development. Regulatory requirements and in- vestments to limit stormwater quantity and quality through open-space require- ments, areas set aside for infiltration and water detention, and strict application of maximum extent practicable controls have the effect of both increasing de- velopment costs and diminishing land available for residential and commercial properties. Policies designed to achieve exceedingly costly or infeasible desig- nated uses in urban or urbanizing areas could have the net consequence of shift- ing development (and associated impervious surface) out into neighboring areas and watersheds. The end result might be minimal improvements in “within- watershed” ambient conditions but a decrease in designated uses (more impair- ments) elsewhere. In such a case, it might be sound water quality policy to ac- cept higher levels of impervious surface in targeted locations, more stormwater- related impacts, and less ambitious designated uses in urban watersheds in order to preserve and protect designated uses in other watersheds. Setting unrealistic or unachievable water quality objectives in urban areas can also pose political risks for stormwater management. The cost and difficulty of achieving ambitious water quality standards for urban stream goals may be understood by program managers but pursued nonetheless in efforts to demon- strate public commitment to achieving high-quality urban waters. Yet, promis- ing what cannot be realistically achieved may act to undermine public support for urban stormwater programs. Increasing costs without significant observable improvements in ambient water conditions or achievement of water quality standards could ultimately reduce public commitment to the program. Thus, there are risks of “setting the bar” too high, or not coordinating land use and designated stream uses. The cost of setting the bar too low can also be significant. Stormwater re- quirements that result in ineffective stormwater management will not achieve or maintain the desired water uses and can result in impairments. Loss of property, degraded waters, and failed infrastructure are tangible costs to the public (Johns- ton et al., 2006). Streambank rehabilitation costs can be severe, and loss of con-

OCR for page 339
348 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES fidence in the ability to meet stormwater goals can result. The above should not be construed as an argument for or against devoting resources to SCMs; rather, such decisions should be made with an open and transparent acknowledgment and understanding of the costs and consequences involved in those decisions. Common State Stormwater Goals Most states do not and have never had an overriding water quality objective in their stormwater program, but rather have used engineering criteria for SCM performance to guide stormwater management. These criteria can be loosely categorized as: • Erosion and sedimentation control, • Recharge/base flow, • Water quality, • Channel protection, and • Flooding events. The SCMs used to address these goals work by minimizing or eliminating in- creases in stormwater runoff volume, peak flows, and/or the pollutant load car- ried by stormwater. The criteria chosen by any given state usually integrate state, federal, and regional laws and regulations. Areas of differing climates may emphasize one goal over another, and the levels of control may vary drastically. Contrast a desert region where rainwater harvesting is extremely important versus a coastal region subject to hurricanes. Some areas like Seattle have frequent smaller vol- ume rainfalls—the direct opposite of Austin, Texas—such that small volume controls would be much more effective in Seattle than Austin. Regional geol- ogy (karst) or the presence of Brownfields may affect the chosen criteria as well. The committee’s survey of State Stormwater Programs (Appendix C) re- flects a wide variation in program goals as reflected in the criteria found in their SCM manuals. Some states have no specific criteria because they do not pro- duce SCM manuals, while others have manuals that address every category of criteria from flooding events to groundwater recharge. Some states rely upon EPA or other states’ or transportation agencies’ manuals. In general, soil and erosion control criteria are the most common and often exist in the absence of any other state criteria. This wide variation reflects the difficulties that states face in keeping up with rapidly changing information about SCM design and performance. The criteria are ordered below (after the section on erosion and sediment control) according to the size of the storm they address, from smallest to most extreme. The criteria can be expressed in a variety of ways, from a simple re- quirement to control a certain volume of rainfall or runoff (expressed as a depth)

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 349 to the size of a design storm to more esoteric requirements, such as limiting the time that flow can be above a certain threshold. The volumes of rainfall or run- off are based on statistics of a region’s daily rainfall, and they approximate one another as the percentage of impervious cover increases. Design storms for lar- ger events that address channel protection and flooding are usually based on extreme event statistics and tend to represent a temporal pattern of rainfall over a set period, usually a day. Finally, it should be noted that the categories are not mutually exclusive; for example, recharge of groundwater may enhance water quality via pollutant removal during the infiltration process. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. This criterion refers to the preven- tion of erosion and sedimentation of sites during construction and is focused at the site level. Criteria usually include a barrier plan to prevent sedimentation from leaving the site (e.g., silt fences), practices to minimize the potential ero- sion (phased construction), and facilities to capture and remove sediment from the runoff (detention). Because these measures are considered temporary, smaller extreme events are designated as the design storm than what typically would be used if flood control were the goal. Recharge/Base Flow. This criterion is focused on sustaining the precon- struction hydrology of a site as it relates to base flow and recharge of groundwa- ter supplies. It may also include consideration of water usage of the property owners and return through septic tanks and tile fields. The criterion, expressed as a volume requirement, is usually to capture around 0.5 to 1.0 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces depending on the climate and soil type of the region. (For this range of rainfall, very little runoff occurs from grass or forested areas, which is why runoff from impervious surfaces is used as the criterion.) Water Quality. Criteria for water quality are the most widespread, and are usually crafted as specific percent removal for pollutants in stormwater dis- charge. Generally, a water quality criterion is based on a set volume of storm- water being treated by the SCM. The size of the storm can run from the first inch of rainfall off impervious surfaces to the runoff from the one-year, 24-hour extreme storm event. It should be noted that the term “water quality” covers a wide range of groundwater and surface water pollutants, including water tem- perature and emerging contaminants. Many of the water quality criteria are surrogates for more meaningful pa- rameters that are difficult to quantify or cannot be quantified, or they reflect situations where the science is not developed enough to set more explicit goals. For example, the Wisconsin state requirement of an 80 percent reduction in TSS in stormwater discharge does not apply to receiving waters themselves. How- ever, it presumes that there will be some water quality benefits in receiving wa- ters; that is, phosphorus and fecal coliform might be captured by the TSS re- quirement. Similarly water quality criteria may be expressed as credits for good practices, such as using LID, street sweeping, or stream buffers.

OCR for page 339
464 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES handbook. North Carolina State University Extension, Raleigh. Duaney Plater-Zyberk & Company. 2006. Light Imprint New Urbanism: A Case Study Comparison. Chicago: Congress for the New Urbanism. Available at http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/Light%20 Imprint%20NU%20Report-web.pdf. Last accessed August 26, 2008. Dubin, R. A. 1998. Predicting house prices using multiple listings data. Jour- nal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 17:35-59. Duke, L. D. 2007. Industrial stormwater runoff pollution prevention regula- tions and implementation. Presentation to NRC Stormwater Committee, August 22, Seattle, WA. Duke, L. D., and P. G. Beswick. 1997. Industry compliance with storm water pollution prevention regulations: the case of transportation industry facili- ties in California and the Los Angles Region. Journal of the American Wa- ter Resources Association 33(4):825-838. Duke, L., and C. Augustenberg. 2006. Effectiveness of self regulation and self- reported environmental regulations for industry: the case of stormwater runoff in the U.S. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(3):385-411 Duncan, R. 2004. Selecting the "right" stormwater utility rate model — an ad- venture in political and contextual sensitivity. In: World Water Congress 2001 Bridging the Gap: Meeting the World's Water and Environmental Re- sources Challenges. ASCE Conference Proceedings, May 20–24, 2001, Or- lando, FL. Emerson, C. H., C. Welty, and R. Traver. 2005. Watershed-scale evaluation of a system of storm water detention basins. Journal of Hydrologic Engineer- ing 10(3):237-242. Emerson, C., and R. Traver. 2008. Multiyear and Seasonal Variation of Infil- tration from Storm-Water Best Management Practices. J. Irrig. Drain. Engrg. 134(5):598-605. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Results of the Nation- wide Urban Runoff Program. PB 84-185552. Washington, DC: Water Planning Division. EPA. 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Manage- ment Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Wa- ter. EPA. 2000. Social Costs in Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis. Publ. 240 R-00-003. Washington DC: EPA. EPA. 2005a. Environmental Technology Verification Report, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device—BaySaver Technologies, Inc., BaySaver Separation System, Model 10K. September 2005. EPA/600/R-05/113. Washington DC: EPA. EPA. 2005b. Environmental Technology Verification Report; Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device--The Stormwater Management StormFil- ter® using Perlite Filter Media. August 2005. EPA/600/R-05/137. Wash- ington DC: EPA.

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 465 EPA. 2005c. Environmental Technology Verification Report: Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device: Vortechnics, Inc. Vortechs System, Model 1000 September 2005 EPA/600/R-05/140. Washington DC: EPA. EPA. 2005d. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pol- lution from Urban Areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Of- fice. EPA. 2007. Reducing Stormwater Costs Through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. EPA 841-F-07-006. Washington DC: EPA. Ermilio, J., and R. Traver. 2006. Hydrologic and pollutant removal perform- ance of a bio-infiltration BMP. EWRI 2006, National Symposium. Ferguson, B. K. 1991. The Failure of Detention and the Future of Stormwater Design. Landscape Architecture 81(12):76-79. Ferguson, B. K. 2002. Stormwater Management and Stormwater Restoration. Chapter I.1 of Handbook of Water Sensitive Planning and Design. R. L. France (ed.). Lewis Publishers. Ferguson, B. K. 1994. Stormwater Infiltration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Ferguson, B. K. 1998. Introduction to Stormwater. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fina, M., and L. Shabman. 1999. Some unconventional thoughts on sprawl. William and Mary Environmental Law Review 23(3):739-775. FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group). 2000. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices. Washing- ton, DC: USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. Florida Stormwater Association. 2003. Stormwater Utilities Survey. Available online at http://www.florida-stormwater.org/surveys/2003/menu.asp. Last accessed July 2006. GAO. 2007. Further Implementation and Better Cost Data Needed to Deter- mine Impact of EPA’s Storm Water Program on Communities. GAO-07- 479. Washington, DC: GAO. Goetz, S., R. Wright, A. Smith, E. Zinecker, and E. Schaub. 2003. IKONOS imagery for resource management: tree cover, impervious surfaces, and ri- parian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region. Remote Sensing in the Environment 88:195-208. Gomi, T., R. Sidle, and J. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. BioScience 53(10):905-915. Greenway, M., P. Dale, and H. Chapman. 2003. An assessment of mosquito breeding and control in 4 surface flow wetlands in tropical–subtropical Aus- tralia. Water Science and Technology 48(5):249–256. Gregory, J., M. Duke, D. Jones, and G. Miller. 2006. Effect of urban soil com- paction on infiltration rates. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 61(3):117-133. Groffman, P., A. Dorset, and P. Mayer. 2005. N processing within geomorphic structures in urban streams. Journal North American Benthological Society 24(3):613-625. Gulliver, J. S., and J. L. Anderson. 2007. Assessment of Stormwater Best Man-

OCR for page 339
466 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES agement Practices. Regents of the University of Minnesota. Available at http://wrc.umn.edu/outreach/stormwater/ Last accessed December 4, 2007. Hager, M. C. 2003. Low impact development: lot-level approaches to stormwa- ter management are gaining ground. Stormwater. Available at http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/lid%20articles /stormwater_feb2003.pdf. Last accessed August 26, 2008. Hardy, M, P. Coombes, and G. Kuczera. 2004. An investigation of estate level impacts of spatially distributed rainwater tanks. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design—Cities as Catchments, November 21–25, 2004, Adelaide. Hathaway, J., and W. Hunt. 2006. Level spreaders: Overview, design and maintenance. Urban Waterways. North Carolina State University and Co- operative Extension. Raleigh. Heaney, J. P., D. Sample, and L. Wright. 2002. Costs of Urban Stormwater Control. EPA-600-02/021. Washington, DC: EPA. Heasom, W., R. G. Traver, and A. Welker. 2006. Hydrologic modeling of a bioinfiltration best management practice. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(5):1329-1347. Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hirschman, D., and J. Kosco. 2008. Managing stormwater in your community: a guide for building an effective post-construction problem. EPA 833-R- 08-001. Tetra-tech, Inc. and Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Holman-Dodds, J., A. Bradley, and K. Potter. 2003. Evaluation of hydrologic benefits of infiltration based urban stormwater management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(l):205-215. Horner, R. R., and C. Chapman. 2007. NW 110th Street Natural Drainage Sys- tem Performance Monitoring, with Summary of Viewlands and 2nd Avenue NW SEA Streets Monitoring. Report to Seattle Public Utilities by Depart- ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle. Horner, R., H. Lim, and S. Burges. 2003. Hydrologic Monitoring of the Seattle Ultra-Urban Stormwater Management Project. Water Resources Series. Technical Report 170. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Hoyt, S., and T. Brown. 2005. Stormwater pond and wetland maintenance con- cerns and solutions. Paper presented at the EWRI 2005: Impacts of Global Climate Change Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Anchor- age, Alaska, May 15-19. Huber, W. L. Cannon and M. Stouder. 2006. BMP Modeling Concepts and Simulation. EPA/600/R-06/033. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency. Hunt, W., and W. Lord. 2006a. Bioretention Performance, Design, Construc- tion, and Maintenance. AG-588-05. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Urban Waterways.

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 467 Hunt, W. F., and W. G. Lord. 2006b. Determining Inspection and Maintenance Costs for Structural BMPs in North Carolina. Submitted to University of North Carolina, Water Resources Research Institute. (November). Hunt, W. F., and B. Lord. 2006c. Stormwater wetlands and wet pond mainte- nance. AGW-588-07. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Hunt, W. F., J. T. Smith, S. J. Jadlocki, J. M. Hathaway, and P. R. Eubanks. 2008. Pollutant removal and peak flow mitigation by a bioretention cell in urban Charlotte, NC. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering 134(5):403-408. Jefferies, C. 2004. Sustainable Drainage Systems in Scotland: The Monitoring Programme. Scottish Universities SUDS Monitoring Project. Dundee, Scotland. Johnson, C., T. Driscoll, T. Siccama and G. Likens. 2000. Elemental fluxes and landscape position in a northern hardwood forest ecosystem. Ecosystems 3:159-184. Johnston, D. M., J. B. Braden, and T. H. Price. 2006. Downstream economic benefits of conservation development. Journal of Water Resources Plan- ning and Management 132(1):35-43. Kaspersen, J. 2000. The stormwater utility: will it work in your community? Stormwater 1(1). Available at http://www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html. Last accessed August 26, 2008. Kaushal, S., P. Groffman, P. Meyer, E. Striz, and A. Gold. 2008. Effects of stream restoration on denitrification in an urbanizing watershed. Ecological Applications 18(3):789-804. Keller, B. 2003. Buddy can you spare a dime? What is stormwater funding? Stormwater 4:7. Kitchell, A. 2002. Managing for a pure water supply. Watershed Protection Techniques 3(4):800-812. Konrad, C. 2003. Opportunities and constraints for urban stream rehabilitation. In: Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, D. Booth, and L. Wall (eds.). Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Kwan, J., M. Metzger, M. Shindelbower, and C. Fritz. 2005. Mosquito produc- tion in stormwater treatment devices in South Lake Tahoe, California. Pro- ceedings and Papers of the Seventy-Third Annual Conference of the Mos- quito and Vector Control Association of California 73:113-119. Kwiatkowski, M., A. L. Welker, R. G. Traver, M. Vanacore, and T. Ladd. 2007. Evaluation of an infiltration best management practice (BMP) utilizing per- vious concrete. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(5):1208-1222. Lager, J. A., W. G. Smith, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1977. Catchbasin Technol- ogy Overview and Assessment. EPA-600/2-77-051. Cincinatti, OH: EPA. Lambe, L., M. Barrett, B. Woods-Ballard, R. Kellagher, P. Martin, C. Jefferies, and M. Hollon. 2005. Performance and Whole Life Costs of Best Man- agement Practices and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Publ. 01-

OCR for page 339
468 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES CTS-21T. Alexandria VA: Water Environment Research Foundation. Larson, M. L., D. B. Booth, and S. M. Morley. 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecological Engineering 18(2):211-226. Law, N. 2006. Research in support of an interim pollutant removal rate for street sweeping and storm drain cleanout. Technical Memo No. 2. Pre- pared for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program and Urban Stormwater Work- ing Group. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Law, N., K. Diblasi, and U. Ghosh. 2008. Deriving Reliable Pollutant Removal Rates for Municipal Street Sweeping and Storm Drain Cleanout Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Pro- tection. Legg, A., R. Bannerman, and J. Panuska. 1996. Variation in the relation of runoff from residential lawns in Madison, Wisconsin. USGS Water Re- sources Investigations Report 96-4194. U.S. Geological Survey. Lehner, P., G. P. Aponte Clark, D. M. Cameron, and A. G. Frank. 1999. Stormwater Strategies: Community Strategies to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollu- tion/storm/stoinx.asp. Last accessed October 19, 2008. Leopold, L. B. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Planning—A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use. USGS Circular 554. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Lichter, J., and P. Lindsey. 1994. Soil compaction and site construction: as- sessment and case studies. The Landscape Below Ground. G. W. Watson, and D. Neely (eds.). Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture. Line, D., and N. White. 2007. Effect of development on runoff and pollutant export. Water Environment Research 75(2):184-194. Lloyd, S., T. Wong and C. Chesterfield. 2002. Water sensitive urban design: a stormwater management perspective. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment. Monash University, Victoria 3800 Australia. Industry Report 02/10 Loucks, D. P., E. van Beek, J. R. Stedinger, J. P. M. Dijkman, and M. T. Villars. 2005. Water Resources Systems Planning and Management: An Introduc- tion to Methods, Models, and Applications. Paris: UNESCO. Low Impact Development Center. 2007. Introduction to low impact develop- ment. Available at http://www.lid-stormwater.net/intro/background.htm. Last accessed December 4, 2007. Lowrance, R., and J. Sheridan. 2005. Surface runoff quality in a managed three zone riparian buffer. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:1851-1859. MacMullan, E., and S. Reich. 2007. The Economics of Low-Impact Develop- ment: A Literature Review. Eugene, OR: ECONorthwest. Available at http://www.econw.com/reports/ECONorthwest_Low-Impact-Development- Economics-Literature-Review.pdf. Last accessed August 26, 2007. MacCrae, C. R. 1997. Experience from morphological research on Canadian streams: Is control of the two-year frequency runoff event the best basis for

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 469 stream channel protection? Proceedings of the Effects of Watershed Devel- opments and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems Conference, Snowbird, UT, August 4–9, 1996. L. A. Roesner (ed.). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Manor, A. W. 1966. Public works in ancient Mesopotamia. Civil Engineering 36(7):50-51. MD DNR. 2005. A Users Guide to Watershed Planning in Maryland. Annapo- lis, MD: DNR Watershed Services. McBride, M., and D. Booth. 2005. Urban impacts on physical stream condi- tion: effects on spatial scale, connectivity, and longitudinal trends. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 6:565-580. McCuen, R. H. 1979. Downstream effects of stormwater management basins. Journal of the Hydraulics Division 105(11):1343-1356. McHarg, I. L., and F. R. Steiner. 1998. To Heal the Earth, Selected Writings of Ian McHarg. Washington, DC: Island Press. McHarg, I. L., and J. Sutton. 1975. Ecological Plumbing for the Texas Coastal Plain. Landscape Architecture 65:78-89. MD DNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2003. Critical Area 10% Rule Guidance Manual: Maryland Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays. Annapolis, MD: Critical Area Commission. Meyers, J. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The Scientific Imperative for De- fending Small Streams and Wetlands. Washington, D.C.: American Rivers. Mineart, P., and S. Singh. 1994. Storm Inlet Pilot Study. Performed by Woodward Clyde Consultants for Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Montalto, F., C. Behr, K. Alfredo, M. Wolf, M. Arye, and M. Walsh. 2007. Rapid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of low impact development for CSO control. Landscape and Urban Planning 82(3):117-131. Moore, A. and M. Palmer. 2005. Invertebrate diversity in agricultural and ur- ban headwater streams: Implications for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 15(4):1169-1177. Morgan, R. A., F. G. Edwards, K. R. Brye, and S. J. Burian. 2005. An evalua- tion of the urban stormwater pollutant removal efficiency of catch basin in- serts. Water Environment Research 77(5):500-510. MSSC (Minnesota Stormwater Steering Committee). 2005. Minnesota Storm- water Manual. St. Paul MN: Emmons & Oliver Resources, Inc., and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. NAFSMA (National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agen- cies). 2006. Guidance for Municipal Stormwater Funding. Washington, DC: NAFSMA. Available at http://www.nafsma.org/Guidance%20 Man- ual%20Version%202X.pdf. Last accessed October 19, 2008. Narayanan, A., and R. Pitt. 2006. Costs of urban stormwater control practices. Tuscaloosa, AL: Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental En- gineering, University of Alabama. Nichols, D., Akers, M.A., Ferguson, B., Weinberg, S., Cathey, S., Spooner, D.,

OCR for page 339
470 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES and Mikalsen, T. 1997. Land development provisions to protect Georgia water quality. The School of Environmental Design, University of Georgia. Athens, GA. 35pp. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Watershed Management for a Potable Water Supply. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. PaDEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2006. Penn- sylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Stormwater Management, Division of Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control. Palmquist, R. 1980. Alternative techniques for developing real estate price in- dexes. Review of Economics and Statistics 62(3):442-448. Parikh, P., M. A. Taylor, T. Hoagland, H. Thurston, and W. Shuster. 2005. Application of market mechanism and incentives to reduce stormwater run- off: an integrated hydrologic, economic, and legal approach. Environ- mental Science and Policy 8:133-144. Perez-Pedini, C., J. Limbruneer, and R. Vogel. 2004. Optimal location of infil- tration-based Best management practices for stormwater management. ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 131(6):441- 448. Philips, R., C. Clausen, J. Alexpoulus, B. Morton, S. Zaremba, and M. Cote. 2003. BMP research in a low-impact development environment: The Jor- dan Cove Project. Stormwater 6(1):1-11. Pickup, G., and R. F. Warner. 1976. Effects of hydrologic regime on magnitude and frequency of dominant discharge. Journal of Hydrology 29:51-75. Pitt, R. 1979. Demonstration of Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Through Im- proved Street Cleaning Practices. EPA-600/2-79-161. Cincinnati, OH: EPA. Pitt, R., with contributions from S. Clark, R. Field, and K. Parmer. 1996. Groundwater Contamination from Stormwater. ISBN 1-57504-015-8. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Pitt, R., T. Brown, and R. Morchque. 2004a. National Stormwater Quality Da- tabase. Version 2.0. University of Alabama and Center for Watershed Pro- tection Final Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pitt, R., Maestre, A., and Morquecho, R. 2004b. National Stormwater Quality Database. Version 1.1. Available at http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Research/ ms4/Paper/Mainms4paper.html. Pitt, R., S. Chen, S. Clark, and J. Lantrip. 2005. Soil structure effects associ- ated with urbanization and the benefits of soil amendments. In: World Wa- ter and Environmental Resources Congress. Conference Proceedings. American Society of Civil Engineers. Anchorage, AK. Pouyat, R., I. Yesilonis, J. Russell-Anelli, and N. Neerchal. 2007. Soil chemi- cal and physical properties that differentiate urban land use and cover types. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71(3):1010-1019. Pouyat, R., M. McDonnel, and S. Pickett. 1995. Soil characteristics of oak

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 471 stands along an urban-rural land use gradient. Journal of Environmental Quality 24:516-526. Prince George’s County, Maryland. 2000. Low-Impact Development Design Strategies. EPA 841-B-00-003. Washington, DC: EPA. Qiu, Z., T. Prato, and G. Boehm. 2006. Economic valuation of riparian buffer and open space in a suburban watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(6):1583-1596. Randolph, J., A. C. Nelson, J. M. Schilling, and M. Nowak. 2006. Impact of environmental regulations on the cost of housing. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate School of Planning, Fort Worth, TX. November 9. Rea, M., and R. Traver. 2005. Performance monitoring of a stormwater wet- land best management practice. National Conference, World Water & En- vironmental Resources Congress 2005 (EWRI/ASCE). Reed, S. C., R. W. Crites, and E. J. Middlebrooks. 1998. Natural systems for waste management and treatment. McGraw-Hill Professional. ISBN 0071346627, 9780071346627. Reese, A. J., and H. H. Presler. 2005. Municipal stormwater system mainte- nance. Stormwater. Available at http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0509_municipal.html. Last accessed De- cember 4, 2007. Richman, T. 1997. Start at the Source: Design Guidance for Storm Water Qual- ity Protection. Oakland, CA: Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association. Roy, A., C. Faust, M. Freeman, and J. Meyer. 2005. Reach-scale effects of riparian forest cover on urban stream ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 62:2312-2329. Roy, A., M. Freeman, B. Freeman, S. Wenger, J. Meyer, and W. Ensign. 2006. Importance of riparian forests in urban subwatersheds contingent on sedi- ment and hydrologic regimes. Environmental Management 37(4):523-539. Rushton, B. 2002. Low impact parking lot design infiltrates stormwater. In: Sixth Biennial Stormwater Research & Watershed Management Confer- ence, September 14-17, 1999, Tampa FL. Brooksville, FL: Southwest Flor- ida Water Management District. Sample, D. J., J. P. Heaney, L. T. Wright, C.-Y. Fan, F.-H. Lai, and R. Field. 2003. Costs of best management practices and associated land for urban stormwater controls. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage- ment 129(1):59-68. Schollen, M., T. Schmidt, and D. Maunder. 2006. Markham Small Streams Study—Policy Update and Implementing Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Small Drainage Courses. Town of Markham, Ontario. Schueler, T. 1998. Irreducible pollutant concentration discharged from storm- water practices. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(2):369-372. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Schueler, T. 2001a. The compaction of urban soils. Watershed Protection

OCR for page 339
472 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Techniques 3(2):661-665. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protec- tion. Schueler, T. 2001b. Can urban soil compaction be reversed? Watershed Pro- tection Techniques 3(2):666-669. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Schueler, T. 2001c. On watershed education. Watershed Protection Tech- niques 3(3):680-689. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Schueler, T. 2002. On watershed behavior and resident education. Watershed Protection Techniques 3(3):671-686. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Water- shed Protection. Schueler, T., and K. Brown. 2004. Urban Stream Repair Practices: Manual 4. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual Series. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Schueler, T., D. Hirschman, M. Novotney, and J. Zielinski. 2007. Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices: Urban Stormwater Restoration Manual 3. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Seattle Public Utilities. 2007. Street Edge Alternatives: Community Cost and Benefits. Available at http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natura l_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/COMMUNITY_200406180 902084.asp. Last accessed August 2007. Selbig, W., and R. Bannerman. 2008. A Comparison of Runoff Quality and Quantity from Two Small Basins Undergoing Implementation of Conven- tional and Low Impact Development Strategies : Cross Plains, WI, Water Years 1999-2005. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5008. U.S. Geological Survey. Sharkey, L. J. 2006. The Performance of Bioretention Areas in North Carolina: A Study of Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Soil Media. Thesis: North Carolina State University, Raleigh. Shaver, E., R. Horner, J. Skupien, C. May, and G. Ridley. 2007. Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management—Technical and Institutional Issues. Madison, WI: North American Lake Management Society. Sidle, R. C. 1988. Bed load transport regime of a small forest stream. Water Resources Research 24: 207-218. Singer, M., and R. Rust. 1975. Phosphorus in surface runoff from a deciduous forest. Journal of Environmental Quality 4:302-311. Smith, R. A., and W. F. Hunt. 2007. Pollutant removal in bioretention cells with grass cover. Pp. 1-11 In: Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007. Song, Y., and G. Knaap. 2003. New urbanism and housing values: a disaggre- gate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics 54(2):218-238 Stagge, J. 2006. Field Evaluation of Hydrologic and Water Quality Benefits of Grass Swales for Managing Highway Runoff. Master's Thesis, University of Maryland. Stavins, R. N. 2000. Market-based environmental policies. Public Policies for

OCR for page 339
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 473 Environmental Protection. P. R. Portney and R. N. Stavins (eds.). Wash- ington, DC: Resources for the Future. Stephens, K., P. Graham, and D. Reid. 2002. Stormwater Planning: A Guide- book for British Columbia. Vancouver, BC: Environment Canada. Strecker, E. W., W. C Huber, J. P. Heaney, D. Bodine, J. J. Sansalone, M. M. Quigley, D. Pankani, M. Leisenring, and P. Thayumanavan. 2005. Critical assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues. Water Environment Research Federation, Report No. 02-SW-1. ISBN 1-84339- 741-2. 290pp. and NCHRP Report 565. Strecker, E., M. Quigley, and M. Leisenring. 2007. Critical Assessment of Stormwater Treatment and Control Selection Issues- Implications and Rec- ommendations for Design Standards. 6th International Conference on Sus- tainable Techniques and Strategies in Urban Watershed Management. June 24-28, 2007, Lyon, France. Novatech 2007. Strecker, E., M. Quigley, B. Urbonas, and J. Jones. 2004. Stormwater man- agement: state-of-the-art in comprehensive approaches to stormwater. The Water Report 6:1-10. Sudduth, E., J. Meyer, and E. Bernhardt. 2007. Stream restoration practices in the southeastern U.S. Restoration Ecology 15:516-523. Swamikannu, X. 1994. Auto Recycler and Dismantler Facilities: Environ- mental Analysis of the Industry with a Focus on Stormwater Pollution. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. SWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Tech- nical Report No. 31. Waukesha, WI: Southeastern Regional Planning Commission. Traver, R. G., and R. A. Chadderton. 1992. Accumulation Effects of Stormwa- ter Management Detention Basins. Hydraulic Engineering: Saving a Threat- ened Resource—In Search of Solutions. Baltimore, MD: American Society of Civil Engineers. Turner, M. 2005. Leachate, Soil and Turf Concentrations from Fertilizer- Results from the Stillhouse Neighborhood Fertilzer Leachate Study. Aus- tin: City of Austin Watershed Protection and Development Review Depart- ment. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2005. Evaluation of Street Sweeping as a Water-Quality Management Tool in Residential Basins in Madison. Scientific Investigations Report. September. Reston, VA: USGS. Van Metre, P. C., B. J. Mahler, M. Scoggins, and P. A. Hamilton. 2006. Park- ing Lot Sealcoat: A Major Source of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban and Suburban Environmental. USGS Fact Sheet 2005- 3147. Van Seters, T., D. Smith and G. MacMillan. 2006. Performance evaluation of permeable pavement and a bioretentions swale. Proceedings 8th Interna- tional Conference on Concrete Block Paving. November 6-8, 2006, San Francisco, CA.

OCR for page 339
474 URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Walsh, C, K. Waller, J. Gehling, and R. MacNally. 2007. Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than riparian de- forestation. Freshwater Biology 52(3):574-587. Wang, L., J. Lyons, P, Rasmussen, P. Simons, T. Wiley, and P. Stewart. 2003a. Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:491-505. Wang, L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2003b. Impacts of urban land cover on trout streams in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisher- ies Society 132:825-839. WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2006. Performance and Whole-Life Costs of BMPs and SUDs. Alexandria, VA: IWA. WERF. 2008. Analysis of Treatment System Performance: International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database [1999-2008]. Al- exandria, VA: WERF. Whisnant, R. 2007. Universal Stormwater Model Ordinance for North Caro- lina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center. Wiegand, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of Urban Stormwater Runoff Controls. Pp. 366-380 In: Proceedings of an Engineer- ing Foundation Conference. Urban Water Resource. Henniker, NH: American Society of Civil Engineers. Winter, T. 2007. The role of groundwater in generating streamflow in headwa- ter areas in maintaining baseflow. Journal of American Water Resources Association 43(1):15-25. Wisconsin DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Wisconsin Admin- istrative Code: Environmental Protection General: chaps. TRANS 401.03. Madison, WI: Wisconsin DNR. Wossink, A., and B. Hunt. 2003. The Economics of Structural Stormwater BMPs in North Carolina. Research Report Number 344. Raleigh, NC: Wa- ter Resources Research Institute. Zarriello, P., R. Breault, and P. Weiskel. 2002. Potential effects of structural controls and street sweeping on stormwater loads to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02- 4220. U.S. Geological Survey.