Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and

Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and
Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
For the Lake Maumelle Drainage Basin
Pulaski County, Arkansas
Pulaski County Planning & Development
Revised June 2010
Pulaski County
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Acknowledgements
This documentation was developed by Tetra Tech, Inc., under contract to Pulaski County Public Works.
Jonathan Smith and Scott Job led development of the Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool, with
assistance from Sabu Paul, Jonathan Butcher, and Bobby Tucker (Tetra Tech) and Greg Hoffmann
(Center for Watershed Protection).
The direction and guidance of Van McClendon (Pulaski County Planning & Development), Sherman
Smith (Pulaski County Public Works), and Martin Maner and Jonathan Long (Central Arkansas Water),
are greatly appreciated.
In addition, the County would like to thank the individuals who took the time to comment during the
development of the Site Evaluation Tool, including Jonathan Jones, Tim Daters, Andrew Earles, Shannon
Tillack, Jane Clary, and Ian Paton.
June 2010
ii
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ ii
Forward ................................................................................................................................................. v
Part 1: SET User Guidance ................................................................................................................... 1
Before Beginning .............................................................................................................................. 1
SET Model Inputs ....................................................................................................................... 1
Division of Pervious Land into Low Slope and High Slope Subcategories ................................... 3
Offsite Drainage Entering Site .................................................................................................... 7
General Notes ................................................................................................................................... 7
Macro Security ........................................................................................................................... 7
Using the SET............................................................................................................................. 8
Navigation in the SET ................................................................................................................. 9
SET Data Entry Worksheets ............................................................................................................ 10
The Site Data Worksheet .......................................................................................................... 10
The DAs Worksheet .................................................................................................................. 11
The BMPs Worksheet ............................................................................................................... 14
The User BMPs Worksheet ....................................................................................................... 14
SET Output and Interpretation Worksheets ...................................................................................... 15
The Model Output Worksheet ................................................................................................... 15
The TP Diag, TSS Diag, and TOC Diag Worksheets ................................................................. 17
Detailed Site Design Example ......................................................................................................... 20
Part 2: SET Documentation ................................................................................................................ 33
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 33
Annual Load Calculations ............................................................................................................... 33
BMP Load Reduction Calculations .................................................................................................. 36
Appendix A – BMP Performance Analysis ....................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B – VBA Code in Public Version of Pulaski County SET ............................................... B-1
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
June 2010
Annual runoff coefficients and pollutant EMCs ................................................................ 36
BMP performance measures ............................................................................................. 37
iii
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
(This page left intentionally blank.)
June 2010
iv
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Forward
Subdivision regulations adopted and made effective by Pulaski County on April 30, 2009, establish
Surface Runoff Loading Rates for new development (Chapter 8, Section 8.3) within a watershed of a
designated public water supply reservoir, which includes Lake Maumelle and its watershed. The
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual for the Lake Maumelle Drainage Basin, Pulaski County,
Arkansas (hereafter cited as the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual) contains specifications
for various stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) designs, including expected pollutant removal
levels. However, checking a proposed development’s design for its ability to meet the mandated Surface
Runoff Loading Rates will require an appropriate engineering analysis. Such an analysis must reflect the
characteristics of the site’s physical, hydrological, and pollutant-loading processes, as well as the
interaction of BMPs with the site and with other BMPs, to provide an accurate check. The Pulaski County
Site Evaluation Tool, or SET, is used to check the overall effectiveness of combined site development
design features and stormwater BMPs at meeting the allowable loading rates.
Part 1 of this document provides training and guidance for effectively using the tool. It should be
reviewed in its entirety before attempting to use the SET. Part 1 provides the context for understanding
the inputs and what they represent, and provides many pointers for using the SET.
Part 2 of this document discusses the underlying models and methodologies used by the SET, and
provides details about how BMP performance is assessed.
June 2010
v
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
(This page left intentionally blank.)
June 2010
vi
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Part 1: SET User Guidance
The SET User Guidance covers the following:
•
Information needed before beginning work
•
Helpful notes on navigation and data entry
•
Detailed instructions on data input
•
Discussion of resulting output
•
Detailed site examples
As noted in the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, site designers may elect to use the
Conservation Design Approach only, or the Performance Standards Approach. This document notes
where procedures and guidance are relevant to one or both approaches. Note that site designers using the
Performance Standards Approach are also likely to use elements of the Conservation Design Approach, In
this User Guide however, the designation has mostly to do with the mechanics of using the SET – a site
using only the Conservation Design Approach has significantly less data entry needs than a site using
structural BMPs under the Performance Standards Approach.
Before Beginning
SET Model Inputs
Prior to using the model, you will need the following information, most or all of which can be obtained
from the preliminary development site plan:
Conservation Design Approach and Performance Standards Approach
1. The total area of the project, including undeveloped land. The area should be estimated to square
feet as accurately as is reasonably possible, then converted to acres with up to five decimal points.
2. Site land use following implementation of the proposed site plan. Available land covers are
broken down as follows (input in square feet):
a. Forest, defined as an area that (at maturity) is dominated by vegetation 15 feet or higher,
with a typical minimum canopy of 70%. Forested areas are not subject to other uses, such
as lawns, landscaped or mulched areas, maintained meadow/grassland, agriculture,
pasture (with or without livestock) or other non-forest uses. Fruit orchards (which are an
agricultural activity) are not considered forest. Two classifications of forest are further
defined:
i. Protected Forest: A forested area that is part of an Undisturbed Area Vegetation
Management Plan as described in Section 8.9 of the Subdivision and
Development Code.
ii. Unprotected Forest: A forested area not subject to an Undisturbed Area
Vegetation Management Plan. This category allows that some disturbance of the
forested land (such as brush clearing, tree thinning, unmaintained dirt trails, etc.)
may take place in the future. Unprotected forest may include recently disturbed
June 2010
1
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
areas that are returning or will return to a forested state. If the disturbance is
significant, replanting is strongly recommended.
b. Grassland: Areas with grass/weeds/brush receiving minimal management (no fertilizer,
mowed two times or less per year, bushhogged every few years). Areas with widely
spaced trees surrounded by grassland, including orchards, should be included in the
Grassland category.
c. Lawn/Managed Pervious: All of the pervious developed areas of the site subject to
routine maintenance, including mowing, application of fertilizer, pasture with livestock,
etc. This category includes landscaped islands and trees with lawn underneath. The
pervious surface area of stormwater BMPs is also included in this category.
d. Rooftops: Includes the roof area of all buildings and canopies.
e. Bare Earth (Residential): Typically driving or parking surfaces without pavement or
gravel. Gardens and other cultivated land are also included in this category.
f.
Gravel (Residential): Driving, parking, and other surfaces with gravel/stone.
g. Pavement (Residential): Driving, parking, and other surfaces with concrete, asphalt, or
other hard paving surface. Includes patios, sidewalks, tennis courts, and other paved
areas. This land cover class is used for pavement in residential applications only.
h. Pavement (Commercial): Driving, parking, and other surfaces with concrete, asphalt, or
other hard paving surface. Includes patios, sidewalks, etc. This land cover class is used
for pavement in non-residential applications, typically commercial establishments.
i.
Pavement (Roads): Driving surfaces with concrete, asphalt, or other hard paving surface.
This land cover class is used for roads and streets. Driveways and parking lots should not
use this category, but rather one of the Residential categories or the Commercial
category.
j.
Open Water: Water surface of ponds/lakes. Includes farm ponds, amenity ponds, and the
water surface of stormwater BMPs with a permanent pool.
Final determination of land cover categorization rests with Pulaski County. The County should be
contacted in advance of plan submission if there are any questions about how land cover should
be classified.
3. Pervious land covers further divided into Low Slope (0% - 15% grade) and High Slope (≥ 15%
grade) subcategories. Very High Slope lands (≥ 25% grade, as defined in the Pulaski County
Subdivision and Development Code) are included in the High Slope subcategory for the purposes
of the SET and the evaluation of Surface Runoff Loading Rates. However, proper designation of
Very High Slope areas is required for other purposes in the Pulaski County Subdivision and
Development Code. The procedure for classifying pervious land into Low Slope and High Slope
subcategories is provided below.
June 2010
2
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Performance Standard Approach only
4. If structural BMPs are used for stormwater treatment, the site land covers must be further divided
into distinct drainage areas (DAs) that are served by specific structural BMPs. The SET allows
for up to 15 distinct drainage areas. All of the above land use/land cover areas must be distributed
within those drainage areas for the development plan. A drainage area associated with a specific
BMP generally includes that BMP and all area within the project draining to it. Usually a
stormwater control or BMP associated with a given drainage area serves the entire drainage area.
Where multiple BMPs are specified in series, care must be taken in delineation. If a portion of the
site is not treated by structural BMPs, those areas can be lumped into a single drainage area.
5. The list of individual structural BMPs to be used for treatment of each DA.
6. If you want to utilize a BMP that is not included in the SET, you may specify its performance
with the following parameters supported by research. You will need to provide:
a. Average annual pollutant removal rates for total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and
total organic carbon.
b. Average annual volume reduction of intercepted storm runoff.
c. Lower limit effluent concentrations for total phosphorus, total suspended solids, and total
organic carbon. See Part 2 of this document for more information about the derivation of
lower limit effluent concentrations.
d. The use of a User-Defined BMP must be approved by the Pulaski County Planning and
Development Department. The county may request the developer to conduct
demonstration monitoring through a monitoring plan implemented as part of the first
phase of the development. More information is provided in the Stormwater Management
and Drainage Manual.
Division of Pervious Land into Low Slope and High Slope Subcategories
The SET uses two slope classes for pervious land covers – Low Slope (0% - 15% grade) and High Slope
(≥ 15% grade). The slope classes have differing runoff and pollutant loading characteristics by land cover.
The two classes are consistent with the Pulaski County Subdivision and Development Code definitions.
More information about variations in annual runoff and pollutant loading factors is available in Part 2 of
this document.
Slope in the SET is defined as the pre-development slope, prior to grading. Any changes in slope
resulting from site grading are not included in the SET and Surface Runoff Loading Rate Plan assessment
of slope. It is possible for a site to be mass-graded to shrink or eliminate areas of high slope, thus
reducing the calculated Surface Runoff Loading Rates and lowering stormwater treatment costs.
However, the process of mass grading destroys the existing soil profile and compacts the soils, resulting
in reduced infiltration and higher runoff and pollutant transport. SET loading rate parameters for pervious
land covers are based on soils with reasonably intact soil structure. To eliminate the incentive for mass
grading, the SET uses pre-development slope. Some grading is anticipated, of course, but for the most
part the developed site topography should resemble the pre-developed topography. However, the County
recognizes there may be occasions where an alternative assessment of developed area slope is
appropriate. The applicant may submit an alternative method for determining the appropriate slope class
which will be reviewed by Pulaski County on a case-by-case basis. Any grading for purposes of providing
lawn/managed pervious area that does not exceed 20 percent of the total lot size will be approved.
June 2010
3
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Slope is not calculated as a single average value for the entire site, but rather is calculated for a series of
50 ft x 50 ft blocks (or “grid cells”). A site will have as many grid cells as are needed to cover the entire
area. The average slope is calculated for each individual grid cell, and assigned to the Low Slope or High
Slope subcategory. This method equitably distributes the site into low and high sloped areas, avoiding the
problem of assigning a single slope to a site, which may not be truly representative of site slope
conditions. It is unlikely that an entire site would fall just below or above the Low Slope or High Slope
threshold; most sites will have a mixture of low and high sloped land.
Pulaski County Planning & Development will provide the slope grid cell information needed during the
site development process (called the Slope Grid). To obtain and use the Slope Grid, the following
procedure should be followed:
1. Provide the project site boundary (including areas designated for an Undisturbed Area Vegetation
Management Plan) to Pulaski County Planning & Development, preferably in an electronic CAD
format. Contact Pulaski County in advance for any specific data requirements, including
georeferenced projection.
2. If you have updated contour line information for the pre-developed site from a site survey (4 foot
minimum contour interval), you may provide that as well. The contour lines must extend 100 feet
beyond the entire site boundary.
3. Pulaski County Planning & Development provides you with a Slope Grid, as well as grids
showing the average slope value and the raw elevation for reference. The Slope Grid includes
designations for Low Slope, High Slope, and Very High Slope. While the Very High Slope
subcategory is treated the same as High Slope in the SET, designation of Very High Slope land is
important due to restrictions placed on development in these areas. See the Pulaski County
Subdivision and Development Code for more information.
4. Place the 50 ft x 50 ft Slope Grid on top of developed site land cover (typically using CAD or
GIS analysis). Tally the Low Slope and High Slope/Very High Slope areas against the developed
site pervious land cover (Lawn, Unprotected Forest, etc.) to make a table of the area of each land
cover in the Low and High Slope subcategories. For instance, a 20-acre site might tally to:
•
2.1 acres across various impervious land covers (which do not need a slope class)
•
7.3 acres Lawn Low Slope
•
1.5 acres Lawn High Slope
•
2.7 acres Unprotected Forest Low Slope
•
6.4 acres Unprotected Forest High Slope
5. When the site design is complete and ready for submittal, the design plan sheets must show all
site land covers, including Low and High Slope/Very High Slope subcategories of each pervious
land cover category. Part 3 of the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual provides more
information about site design information required at plan submittal.
June 2010
4
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
340
40
0
40
8
38
8
380
4
36
34
4
38
4
39
2
412
400
38
8
2
37
38
0
42
0
2
41
408
41
6
40
4
39
6
42
8
The following simplified example is provided to illustrate the process. The site is 7.5 acres in size
(326,700 sq ft). The developer obtains the Slope Grid. Low Slopes are shown in green, and High Slopes
are shown in purple. Contour lines are shown for reference.
36
0
37
6
36
8
40
4
38
8
39
2
38
4
37
6
348
4
36
400
35
2
6
35
39 6
360
0
38
39
2
36
0
2
37
388
4
38
40
0
412
440
8
36
2
43
448
456
428
452
39
6
40
4
42
0
464 46
0
6
43
46
8
7.5 acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
424
444
476
June 2010
37
6
408
416
48
0
47
2
Block size 50 ft x 50 ft
5
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Site land cover is overlaid on the slope grid. Forested areas are shown in darker green, while impervious
surface is represented (in a simplified fashion) with the street and houses. All remaining areas are lawn.
The site has 0.93 acres in impervious area, divided among the Rooftop, Pavement (Residential), and
Pavement (Roads) categories. The developer uses CAD to tally land cover in each of the four pervious
subcategories – Unprotected Forest and Lawn, with Low and High Slopes for each. The land area totals
to:
•
40,511 sq ft Impervious
•
135,907 sq ft Lawn, Low Slope
•
16,117 sq ft Lawn, High Slope
•
32,670 sq ft Unprotected Forest, Low Slope
•
101,495 sq ft Unprotected Forest, High Slope
340
40
0
40
8
38
8
380
4
36
34
4
38
4
39
2
412
400
38
8
2
37
38
0
42
0
2
41
408
41
6
40
4
39
6
42
8
Note that a single 50 ft x 50 ft Slope Grid block may have several land cover categories within it.
36
0
37
6
36
8
40
4
38
8
39
2
38
4
37
6
348
4
36
400
35
2
6
35
396
360
0
38
39
2
36
0
2
37
38
8
37
6
408
416
4
38
40
0
412
428
440
424
39
6
40
4
444
8
36
2
43
448
456
452
42
0
464 46
0
6
43
7.5 acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
June 2010
46
8
476
48
0
47
2
6
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Offsite Drainage Entering Site
In the event that offsite drainage is conveyed through the proposed development, it is strongly
recommended that any structural BMPs be sited and designed so that offsite drainage bypasses the BMP.
When this is not possible, the designer shall coordinate with Pulaski County to ensure that the proposed
BMPs are sized to accommodate onsite runoff in order to address future development of offsite areas and
meet Surface Runoff Loading Rates. The SET is not intended nor designed to address offsite drainage
given the uncertainties of future development conditions. The SET must be configured to assess only the
land area within the proposed site and not any offsite area. No pollutant load reduction credit will be
given for treating offsite areas.
General Notes
Note: The Site Evaluation Tool is not compatible with Excel 97 or earlier versions.
Macro Security
The SET makes extensive use of Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) script, both for
navigation and for more complicated internal processing. The use of these “macros” is essential to the
SET. However, macros are also a potential vehicle for malicious code; there are a number of settings
built into Excel that allow the user to tailor the level of security.
One of these settings (frequently enabled by default in Excel) prevents all macros from running, and also
may not warn the user that macros are disabled. In the case of the SET, the user cannot use any of the
programming controls such as the drainage area or BMP selection boxes.
The following instructions apply to Excel
2000, Excel XP, and Excel 2003. Excel
2007 users can find similar settings under
the Developer tab, in the Code group, by
clicking on the Macro Security button. You
may need to enable the Developer tab first.
To enable the SET to use its VBA Script,
please make the following changes to your
Excel security settings. On the menu,
select Tools, choose Macro, and then
choose Security… In the window that
opens, select the Security Level tab.
June 2010
7
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Select the button next to Medium, and
click the OK button. Now when you
open the SET, you should be given a
choice to enable macros. You must
enable macros for the SET to operate
properly.
The Security Level will remain set to
Medium even after you close the SET
– this setting applies to Excel as a
whole, not just the SET. You may
change the Security Level to a higher
setting after you have finished using
the SET, but you would need to reset
it to Medium whenever you use the
SET.
Using the SET
Open the SET Microsoft Excel workbook file.
If you are prompted to make a choice about macros, select “Enable Macros” or “Yes,” depending on the
dialog box you see to allow macros to run (Excel 2000, Excel 2003).
If you are running Excel 2007, you should see a bar below the ribbons that says “Security Warning: Some
active content has been disabled.” Click the Options button, select Enable This Content, and click OK.
If macros are enabled properly, you should see the following welcome screen when the SET opens. If you
do not see the welcome screen, follow the previous directions for updating macro security.
June 2010
8
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Navigation in the SET
denote where user input is required throughout the spreadsheet.
Yellow colored cells
The SET contains several navigation and data entry aids to guide you through the process. For instance,
some cells allow only for percent values between 0 and 100 and will display an error message if an
invalid number is entered. Other cells show error messages in large red text until data entered in that
section sums to a previous value. For example:
Total area does not match, unassigned area = 2376.
Data entry correct: Total area matches.
Error message:
There are eight worksheets you will be using in the SET:
Site
Data
DAs
Model
Output
BMPs
User
BMPs
TP
Diag
TSS
Diag
TOC
Diag
The Site Data, DAs, BMPs, and User BMPs worksheets are used for data entry. As you navigate through
the SET, the data entry worksheets will have yellow tab colors. The Model Output worksheet is for
display of summary results, while the TP Diag, TSS Diag, and TOC Diag worksheets provide detailed
diagnostic information about pollutant generation and reduction within the site. In the SET, these tabs are
colored light blue
There are also hidden parameter and calculation worksheets in the SET, which may be fully viewed if
desired (see instructions in next section). However, internal Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code is
password protected to prevent modification. Excel VBA does not allow viewing of code when password
protection is used. Appendix B provides a full printing of the VBA code within the SET.
Note that intentional modification of the internal SET programming is a violation of Pulaski County
ordinance. Non-user entry cells and other parts of the SET are password-protected to reduce the risk of
accidental modification. You may add calculation worksheets to versions of the SET internal to your
organization to assist with any needed diagnostic calculations. However, the electronic copy of the SET
submitted with the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Plan must remain an unaltered copy of the current
version of the SET made available by the Pulaski County Planning and Development Department.
June 2010
9
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
SET Data Entry Worksheets
The Site Data Worksheet
The Site Data worksheet allows you to input general information about the site. It contains input fields
for the following:
•
Project Name – Name used to refer to site
•
Company – Name of company or individual submitting SET
•
Location – Location of site (e.g., address, cross-street)
•
Scenario – Helpful if you develop multiple site layouts for testing in the SET
•
Area (acres) – Area estimated to square feet as accurately as reasonably possible, then converted
to acres with up to five decimal points
The Site Data worksheet also has a checkbox allowing for hiding or display of parameter and calculation
worksheets. These worksheets are not necessary for everyday use of the SET. However, some users may
wish to explore or review the information they contain.
Project Name
Pulaski Pointe
Company
Homes R Us
Location
Crossing of X and Y roads
Scenario
2 Bioretention - 1 Wet Pond
Area (acres)
10.14851
Show Calculation Sheets
June 2010
10
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The DAs Worksheet
The DAs worksheet is used to apportion all of the proposed site land cover into distinct physical drainage
areas, or DAs, and provides the means to establish how the drainage areas are linked to each other. A DA
is defined as the land surface area draining to a single structural BMP, and also includes the surface area
occupied by the BMP. All site land area must be accounted for, including an accurate apportioning of
pervious land covers in both Low and High Slope categories. Land areas are entered in square feet.
It is possible to have a BMP installed underground without direct land area draining to it, if the
underground BMP receives discharge from another BMP. This exception is described in more detail
below.
Conservation Design Approach
The example below shows data entered into the SET for a site of approximately 10 acres. Data are entered
into DA1, though under the Conservation Design Approach the data could be entered under multiple DAs
if desired. The worksheet crosschecks that all areas match up properly with the total entered on the Site
Data worksheet. Land use totals have been entered and the message at the bottom reads, “Total area
matches.”
Land Cover
Group
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Drainage Areas associated with BMPs
Land Cover Class
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
Total Assigned Area
Area (ft2)
DA1
DA2
DA3
DA4
0
194,569
194,569
0
69,782
69,782
0
116,988
116,988
0
12,760
12,760
12,890
12,890
0
0
13,490
13,490
0
21,590
21,590
0
442,069
442,069
0
0
0
Total area matches
As shown below, all of the “Select downstream Drainage Area or Outlet” drop-down boxes are assigned
to Outlet, which indicates that runoff exits the site from the DA or BMP without further treatment. The
“BMP with no Drainage Area” checkboxes are also left blank. Four DAs are shown, but all 15 DAs must
be assigned to Outlet with all checkboxes left blank.
June 2010
11
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Performance Standards Approach
The example below shows data entered into the SET for a site of approximately 10 acres. The figure
below shows the site layout and locations of DAs. The site has four DAs – two drain to Bioretention (one
for each DA), one drains to an Extended Detention Wet Pond, and one drains offsite with no treatment.
The developed area of the site drains to the Bioretention units. The Bioretention units, in turn, discharge
runoff into the Extended Detention Wet Pond. However, the Extended Detention Wet Pond has its own
land area draining to it, so it has a separate DA. The DA draining offsite is entirely forested.
DA1
DA2
BMP: Bioretention
DA4
BMP: Bioretention
DA3
BMP: Extended
Detention Wet Pond
Outlet
June 2010
12
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The worksheet crosschecks that all areas match up properly with the total entered on the Site Data
worksheet. Land use totals have been entered and the message at the bottom reads, “Total area matches.”
There are also cells showing the total area assigned to each DA, and the total area for each land cover
(across DAs).
Drainage Areas associated with BMPs
Land Cover Group
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Land Cover Class
Area (ft2)
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
Total Assigned Area
DA1
DA2
DA3
DA4
0
0
0
214,324
83,459
89,635
41,230
0
48,700
48,700
0
78,465
37,650
40,815
35,960
18,340
17,620
12,980
10,240
10,980
30,420
163,409
188,730
0
0
23,220
0
41,400
0
442,069
41,230
48,700
Total area matches
Next, you assign the drainage area linkage, or network, underneath the land cover entry cells. Whenever a
BMP discharges stormwater effluent to another BMP for further treatment, you must assign the linkage
properly to receive the treatment credit. Likewise, assigning a linkage when none exists would
overestimate treatment, and if submitted, would be returned for correction during design review.
As shown below, DA1 and DA2 are assigned linkage to DA3 in the “Select downstream Drainage Area
or Outlet” drop-down boxes. Any DA (with or without a structural BMP) that is not linked to another
BMP must be assigned to Outlet. Outlet indicates that runoff exits the site from the DA or BMP without
further treatment.
All structural BMPs in the SET are installed on the land surface and occupy space, and the surface area of
these structural BMPs must be included in the DA land area. However, some BMPs not currently in the
SET, such as proprietary product treatment vaults, are installed underground. Such a BMP could be
submitted as a User-Defined BMP with proper documentation regarding its performance. However, an
underground BMP may not have any direct land area draining to it if it receives discharge directly from
other BMPs. In order for the SET to recognize this type of BMP, you would leave the DA land area
blank, then check the appropriate “BMP with no Drainage Area” box. In this example, there are no
underground User-defined BMPs, so no checkboxes are checked.
June 2010
13
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The BMPs Worksheet
The BMPs worksheet is used to assign structural BMPs to DAs, or designate that a DA has no BMP
assigned to it. The VBA code dynamically hides or shows the available drainage areas based on data
entered on the DAs worksheet. You only need to perform BMP assignment for the DA rows that are
shown.
Conservation Design Approach
Continuing with the Conservation Design Approach example, one DA row is shown in the BMPs
worksheet. Select No BMP to designate that the DA does not use a structural BMP for treatment. If you
entered land cover values into more than one drainage area on the DAs worksheet, then repeat the
assignment of No BMP for each DA row.
Drainage
Areas
DA1
Select BMP for each Drainage Area
NoBMP
BMP
No
Performance Standards Approach
Continuing with the Performance Standards Approach example, four DA rows are shown in the BMPs
worksheet. In this case, you would select Bioretention for the DA1 and DA2 rows, and Extended
Detention Wet Pond for the DA3 row. Select No BMP for the DA4 row to designate that it does not use
a structural BMP for treatment.
Drainage
Areas
Select BMP for each Drainage Area
DA1
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA2
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA3
ExtendedDetention
DetentionWet
Wet Pond
Pond
Extended
DA4
NoBMP
BMP
No
The User BMPs Worksheet
The User BMPs worksheet is used to set up, configure, and enable a structural BMP not included in the
SET. Note that the use of a User-Defined BMP must always be approved by the Pulaski County Planning
and Development Department. You must provide independent research justifying the performance
parameters. Appendix A provides information about the research used to assign performance values to the
BMPs in the SET, so you may wish to use it as a starting point for definitions, resources, and methods.
June 2010
14
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The following example shows all of the values assigned to the user-defined BMP. Note that these are for
example only, not real performance measures for this type of BMP. Once you enter all of the values, click
the Update BMP Lists button to enable the BMP throughout the SET. Note you cannot use the same
name as a BMP included in the SET, and you also cannot use the same name twice. Your BMP will have
the text “User: ” placed in front of the name, so the BMP will be named “User: Catch Basin Insert.” This
makes it easier to distinguish a user-defined BMP from those included in the SET.
User-Defined BMP Performance Measures
Structural BMP
Catch Basin Insert
Update BMP Lists
Lower Limit Effluent
Concentration (mg/L)
TP
TSS
TOC
0.22
35.9
16.2
Annual Load Reduction
TP
15%
TSS
48%
TOC
26%
Annual
Runoff
Reduction
0%
SET Output and Interpretation Worksheets
The Model Output Worksheet
The Model Output worksheet provides a summary of the site performance relative to the loading rate
standards, as well as other useful information. The top shows site information entered in the Site Data
worksheet. The remainder is divided into three sections.
The Land Use Summary section provides details about site land cover, including percent distribution into
classes (with all impervious surfaces lumped together) and a slope breakdown for pervious areas.
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool - Summary Results
Pulaski Pointe
Homes R Us
Crossing of X and Y roads
2 Bioretention - 1 Wet Pond
Land Use Summary
Total Site Area (acres)
10.14851
Percent Land Cover
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Impervious Surface
June 2010
Slope (Pervious Areas Only)
0.0%
11.0%
0.0%
66.2%
22.8%
Low Slope
High Slope
62.8%
37.2%
15
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site) section shows a comparison of total site loading rates to
the Surface Runoff Loading Rate standards. Loading rates for the site configuration without and with
BMPs are shown, and the loading rate for the site with BMPs (or without if none are assigned) is
compared to the standards. Indicators show whether the site meets the standards. Loading rates are also
shown graphically. The example below shows a site designed under the Performance Standards
Approach, since BMPs are used to reduce loading rates. Under the Conservation Design Approach, the
Design with BMPs loading rates would be equal to the Design without BMPs loading rates since structural
BMPs would not be used.
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
Standard
Meets Standard
0.627
0.173
49.6
0.197
0.015
24.3
0.300
0.110
44.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Phosphorus (lb/ac/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (ton/ac/yr)
Total Organic Carbon (lb/ac/yr)
Site Meets All Loading Rate Targets:
TP Loading Rate
TSS Loading Rate
0.700
0.200
0.180
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
YES
TOC Loading Rate
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
The BMP Performance Summary section provides the overall percent reduction in pollutant loads when
BMPs are assigned. While this information is not germane to meeting the standards, it provides useful
information and may be helpful when testing site configurations.
BMP Performance Summary
Pollutant
TP (lb/yr)
TSS (ton/yr)
TOC (lb/yr)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
6.36
1.75
504
2.00
0.15
247
Percent Removal
% Removal
69%
91%
51%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
91%
69%
51%
TP
June 2010
TSS
TOC
16
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The TP Diag, TSS Diag, and TOC Diag Worksheets
This set of worksheets provides diagnostic information about the interaction of loads, runoff,
concentrations, and BMP reductions of runoff and pollutant loading. As is the case with the BMPs
worksheet, VBA code dynamically hides or shows the available drainage areas based on data entered on
the DAs worksheet.
Conservation Design Approach
These worksheets have greater utility for evaluating structural BMP performance under the Performance
Standards Approach, so much of their content is not applicable when using the Conservation Design
Approach. However, the summary at the bottom of each worksheet provides useful information for
tracking how close the site performance is to achieving the Surface Runoff Loading Rate standards. The
summary from the TP Diag worksheet is shown for reference. In this example, the site load (loading rate
x site area, in lbs) is higher than the load needed to meet the standard, so site land cover would need
further adjustment.
Overall Site Load
Overall Exported Load
Target Load
Load Deficit to Meet Target
Cumulative % Reduction
3.21
3.21
3.04
0.17
0%
Performance Standards Approach
These worksheets provide diagnostic information that is critical for understanding how structural BMPs
are performing – and if BMPs are used in series – how those BMPs are interacting with each other.
Understanding the elements of these diagnostics worksheets will provide you with a powerful tool for
testing various site configurations to achieve Surface Runoff Loading Rate standards.
Upstream DAs
This subsection shows how upstream connectivity is related to the current DA. First, the upstream DA
numbers are listed. In the example below, the BMP at the outlet of DA3 receives effluent from the BMPs
treating DA1 and DA2 (shown as “1” and “2”). DA1, DA2, and DA4 do not receive runoff or load from
any upstream drainage areas, so the DA Numbers are shown as “None.” Volume and Load from the
upstream DAs are shown as well, including any treatment that may have occurred. Note that only DA3
has upstream volume and load in the example.
Contributing DA
The Volume and Load from the land cover draining to each DA’s BMP/outlet are shown. Every DA
should have an associated load and volume, unless there is a BMP with no surface land area drainage (as
discussed previously in the DAs worksheet section).
June 2010
17
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Combined Totals
Volume and Load are summed from the upstream DAs and the contributing DA. These values represent
the total annual runoff volume and pollutant load entering the BMP, or leaving the DA if there is no
BMP. Concentration represents the average annual concentration (load divided by volume with units
conversion). This is the influent concentration entering the structural BMP, if specified.
BMP Data
These values are used to define the effectiveness of BMP treatment for pollutant load reduction. First, the
BMP itself is listed vertically beside the values at the bottom of the table. % Volume Reduction represents
the portion annual runoff volume that the BMP intercepts and prevents from leaving the facility (via
infiltration or evapotranspiration). Potential % Load Reduction is the maximum possible value of the
incoming load that the BMP may remove from runoff. As discussed in Part 2 of this report, pollutant
removal is calculated dynamically and may be less than this maximum value. LLEC stands for Lower
Limit Effluent Concentration, and represents the threshold at which pollutant load removal is capped. If
the predicted effluent concentration leaving the BMP (accounting for both volume and potential load
reduction) is lower than the LLEC, then the pollutant removal percentage is reduced so that the BMP
effluent concentration equals the LLEC. In the example below, DA1 and DA2 have performance values
for Bioretention, DA3 has values for Extended Detention Wet Pond, and DA4 has zeros since there is no
BMP.
Load Reduction
Actual % Load Reduction shows the value used, after performing the effluent characteristic comparison,
for pollutant load removal. It may range anywhere from the full potential value down to zero. LLEC
Limited? indicates whether the full potential removal value was used (“No”) or whether the LLEC
comparison resulted in a lower value (“Yes”). In the example shown below, both DA1 and DA2 with
Bioretention are not LLEC limited so the full 55 percent reduction is used. DA3 with an Extended
Detention Wet Pond is LLEC limited, so the reduction value of 39 percent is less than the maximum
potential of 50 percent.
Effluent Characteristics
The Volume and Load leaving the BMP/DA are shown, including any BMP treatment if applicable. The
Concentration is the load divided by volume with units conversion. In the example below, the
concentration leaving the BMP from DA3 is equal to the LLEC for the BMP (Extended Detention Wet
Pond). Since the reduction was LLEC limited, the effluent concentration equals the LLEC. The
Downstream DA/Outlet shows whether the BMP/DA is connected to another DA/BMP, or exits the site
without further treatment. The Effluent Characteristics cells are shown in dark blue with white lettering
for all outlet DAs.
June 2010
18
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Notes: Volume is ac-ft, Load is lb/yr, Concentration is mg/L; LLEC = Low er Limit Effluent Concentration
Total Phosphorus
Upstream DAs
DA Numbers
Volume
Load
DA1
DA2
None
0.00
0.00
None
0.00
0.00
5.45
2.62
DA3
DA4
1,2
7.36
2.60
None
0.00
0.00
6.81
3.15
0.75
0.44
0.83
0.15
5.45
2.62
0.177
6.81
3.15
0.170
8.11
3.03
0.138
0.83
0.15
0.067
40%
55%
0.09
40%
55%
0.09
0%
50%
0.084
0%
0%
0
Effluent Characteristics
Volume
Load
Concentration
Downstream DA/Outlet
55%
No
3.27
1.18
0.132
3
55%
No
4.09
1.42
0.128
3
No BMP
Load Reduction
Actual % Load Reduction
LLEC Limited?
Extended Detention Wet Pond
BMP Data
% Volume Reduction
Potential % Load Reduction
LLEC
Bioretention
Combined Totals
Volume
Load
Concentration
Bioretention
Contributing DA
Volume
Load
39%
Yes
0%
No
8.11
1.85
0.084
0.83
0.15
0.067
Outlet
Outlet
The summaries at the bottom of the Diag worksheets provide useful information for tracking how close
the site performance is to achieving the Surface Runoff Loading Rate standards. The summary from the
TP Diag worksheet is shown for reference. In this example, the Overall Site Load is the total load
generated by the land surface of the site prior to treatment if specified. The Overall Exported Load is
lower than the load needed to meet the standard (Target Load), so the site meets the TP loading rate
standard. The Overall Site Load is always summed from the DAs discharging to “Outlet” only. The Load
Deficit to Meet Target is zero, and the Cumulative % Reduction shows how much of the Overall Site
Load was reduced by all the BMPs. Note that these values are loads, and not loading rates. The final site
loading rate is calculated as the Overall Exported Load divided by the site area, in acres.
Overall Site Load
Overall Exported Load
Target Load
Load Deficit to Meet Target
Cumulative % Reduction
June 2010
6.36
2.00
3.04
0.00
69%
19
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Detailed Site Design Example
The following example illustrates how modifications of a site design can help a project reduce loading
rates to achieve the Surface Runoff Loading Rate standards. A few iterative changes to the site design are
shown, demonstrating the effect of both the Conservation Design Approach, and of structural BMPs
under the Performance Standards Approach. The steps show how the SET can assist with the conceptual
design phase and help guide the user toward a successful plan.
6
39
37
2
7.5
acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
04
424
4
41 2
42 0
404
0
40
38
0
38
4
388
37
6
The site is 7.5 acres in size (326,700 sq ft). The designer obtains the Slope Grid information from Pulaski
County Planning & Development. Low Slopes are shown in green, and High Slopes are shown in purple.
Contour lines are shown for reference. The site is entirely forested (shown as darker green), and has
offsite drainage entering it from the south. As previously noted, offsite land area with drainage entering a
site is not evaluated in the SET or the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Plan. Only the site is considered, and
only the land area within the site tabulated and entered in the SET. You are not required to treat land area
beyond the site, but by the same token you cannot count offsite land area as a means to reduce evaluated
loading rates. Note that if an onsite BMP intercepts and treats runoff from offsite drainage, you may need
to coordinate with Pulaski County to ensure that the proposed BMPs are sized to accommodate potential
future development. Regardless, you would not receive credit for treating drainage that is conveyed
through the proposed development that originated from land that is not a part of the development (this
section has no application to the mitigation measures provided for in Section 8.4 A. and E. of the
Subdivision and Development Code).
416
436
416
43
6
8
38
412
452
440
42 0
43
6
428
400
40
0
6
39
428
448
42
0
44
8
4
44
2
8
40
52
4
48 4
8 80
50
8
51
2
6
54 0 53
6
460 45 6
49
55 2
4
48
4
8
40
392
6
47
53
2
54
49
2
50
4
42
4
43
432
2
47
52 8 520 51
6
46
8
44 0
444
4
46
500
Offsite drainage
June 2010
20
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The designer lays out the site as follows:
•
Impervious surface
•
o
36,000 sq ft Rooftops (12 houses x 3,000 sq ft)
o
45,600 sq ft Residential Pavement (12 driveways x 3,800 sq ft)
o
26,200 sq ft Road Pavement
o
57,500 sq ft High Slope
37
6
161,400 sq ft Low Slope
6
39
37
2
7.5
acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
04
4
41 2
42 0
404
0
40
38
0
38
4
388
o
424
Lawn/managed pervious
416
436
416
43
6
8
38
412
452
440
42 0
43
6
428
400
40
0
6
39
428
448
52
4
44
8
48 4
8 80
50
8
51
2
6
54 0 53
6
42
0
49
55 2
4
2
4
44
54
48
4
460 45 6
8
40
51 6
53
2
42
4
43
8
40
392
6
47
52 8
46
8
432
2
47
52 0
49
2
50
4
44 0
444
4
46
500
Offsite drainage
June 2010
21
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The data for the proposed site are entered in the DAs worksheet as follows:
Land Cover
Group
Land Cover Class
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
Total Assigned Area
Area (ft2)
DA1
0
0
0
161,400
161,400
0
0
0
57,500
57,500
36,000
36,000
0
0
45,600
45,600
0
26,200
26,200
0
326,700
326,700
Total area matches
BMP with no Drainage Area?
Select downstream Drainage Area or Outlet
FALSE
Outlet
Outlet
No structural BMPs are currently included in the design, so none are entered in the BMPs worksheet.
Drainage
Areas
DA1
June 2010
Select BMP for each Drainage Area
NoBMP
BMP
No
22
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
As designed, the site meets none of the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Standards.
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
Standard
Meets Standard
0.759
0.189
68.0
0.759
0.189
68.0
0.300
0.110
44.0
No
No
No
Total Phosphorus (lb/ac/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (ton/ac/yr)
Total Organic Carbon (lb/ac/yr)
Site Meets All Loading Rate Targets:
TP Loading Rate
0.800
TSS Loading Rate
0.200
0.180
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
NO
TOC Loading Rate
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
The designer first explores Conservation Design Approach techniques. It is unlikely that a site of this
density can achieve the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Standards with Conservation Design alone, but
using the techniques will reduce loading rates. First, the designer reduces driveway surface area by
making driveways narrower, and by moving some of the houses closer to the road to shorten the
driveways. The result is a 50 percent reduction in driveway area. Impervious surfaces are along the
highest contributors to total pollutant load, so reducing impervious surface area is a key component of the
Conservation Design Approach. Next, the designer allows some land area to remain forested. Natural
areas typically have lower loading rates than lawns and other developed pervious areas. The new land
area totals are:
•
•
•
Impervious surface
o
36,000 sq ft Rooftops (12 houses x 3,000 sq ft)
o
22,800 sq ft Residential Pavement (12 driveways x 3,800 sq ft)
o
26,200 sq ft Road Pavement
Unprotected forest
o
49,000 sq ft Low Slope
o
34,300 sq ft High Slope
Lawn/managed pervious
June 2010
o
135,200 sq ft Low Slope
o
23,200 sq ft High Slope
23
6
39
37
2
7.5
acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
04
424
4
41 2
42 0
404
0
40
38
0
38
4
388
37
6
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
416
436
416
43
6
8
38
39
41 2
45 2
44 0
42 0
43
6
428
400
40
0
6
428
44 8
42
0
44
8
4
44
54 0 53
6
2
8
40
52
4
43
48 4
8 80
50
8
51
2
6
49
55 2
4
48
4
42
4
460 45 6
8
40
39 2
6
47
53
2
54
46
8
432
2
47
52 8 520 51
6
49
2
50
4
44 0
444
4
46
500
Offsite drainage
June 2010
24
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The data are adjusted in the DAs worksheet as follows:
Land Cover
Group
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Land Cover Class
Area (ft2)
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
DA1
0
49,000
49,000
0
135,200
135,200
0
34,300
34,300
0
23,200
23,200
36,000
36,000
0
0
22,800
22,800
0
26,200
26,200
0
Total Assigned Area
326,700
326,700
Total area matches
No other changes to the SET are needed to represent the use of the Conservation Design components. The
loading rates do drop significantly, but not enough to meet any of the standards.
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
Standard
Meets Standard
0.566
0.156
49.7
0.566
0.156
49.7
0.300
0.110
44.0
No
No
No
Total Phosphorus (lb/ac/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (ton/ac/yr)
Total Organic Carbon (lb/ac/yr)
Site Meets All Loading Rate Targets:
TP Loading Rate
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
No BMPs
June 2010
TSS Loading Rate
0.180
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.600
BMPs
Standard
NO
TOC Loading Rate
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
47.0
46.0
45.0
44.0
43.0
42.0
41.0
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
25
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
37
6
37
2
7.5
acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
04
4
41 2
DA4
416
42 0
404
0
40
38
0
38
4
388
Bioretention
6
39
424
To meet the loading rate standards, the designer could either revisit the Conservation Design Approach,
or elect to use structural BMPs under the Performance Standards Approach. In this example, the designer
adds structural BMPs to the design. After some initial testing and research, the designer determines
Bioretention is best suited for the site, and it performs well for pollutant removal. However, the
conveyance of offsite drainage through the site presents a challenge; much of the developed portion of the
site drains toward the channel in the middle. The designer first attempts a design where runoff along the
outside of the road loop is conveyed to two Bioretention units (DA1 and DA2). The middle of the site
(DA3) is left untreated. The northwestern corner of the site (DA4) is also left untreated due to the
topography. The forest area is reduced slightly to provide space for the Bioretention units.
DA2
416
436
DA1
43
6
8
38
412
452
440
42 0
43
6
428
400
40
0
6
39
428
448
DA3
42
0
44
8
4
44
2
8
40
52
4
48 4
8 80
50
8
51
2
6
54 0 53
6
460 45 6
49
55 2
4
48
4
42
4
43
8
40
392
6
47
54
46
8
432
2
47
52 8 520 51
6
53
2
49
2
50
4
44 0
444
4
46
500
Offsite drainage
June 2010
26
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Land area is divided up by drainage area as follows. All drainage areas are assigned Outlet since no
BMPs are connected in series.
Land Cover
Group
Land Cover Class
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
Total Assigned Area
Area (ft2)
DA1
DA2
DA3
DA4
0
47,000
5,640
41,360
0
137,200
27,940
56,520
52,240
500
0
34,300
34,300
0
23,200
23,200
36,000
12,000
9,000
15,000
7,600
5,700
9,500
15,200
7,300
3,700
125,880
78,520
121,800
0
0
22,800
0
26,200
0
326,700
500
Total area matches
BMP with no Drainage Area?
Select downstream Drainage Area or Outlet
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Bioretention is selected for DA1 and DA2 on the BMPs worksheet. DA3 and DA4 are assigned No BMP.
Drainage
Areas
Select BMP for each Drainage Area
DA1
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA2
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA3
NoBMP
BMP
No
DA4
NoBMP
BMP
No
June 2010
27
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Site performance is greatly improved, and the site now meets the TSS and TOC Surface Runoff Loading
Rate Standards. However, more treatment or reconfiguration is needed to meet the TP standard.
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
Standard
Meets Standard
0.568
0.156
49.7
0.356
0.061
33.6
0.300
0.110
44.0
No
Yes
Yes
Total Phosphorus (lb/ac/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (ton/ac/yr)
Total Organic Carbon (lb/ac/yr)
Site Meets All Loading Rate Targets:
TP Loading Rate
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
No BMPs
June 2010
TSS Loading Rate
0.180
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
0.600
BMPs
Standard
NO
TOC Loading Rate
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
28
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
37
6
37
2
7.5
acres, approx 650 ft x 500 ft
04
4
41 2
DA6
416
42 0
404
0
40
38
0
38
4
388
Bioretention
6
39
424
To address the deficit, the designer adds two Grass Swales in the center of the site, allowing the interior
developed area to be treated by BMPs (now DA3 and DA4). The Grass Swales are then each routed to the
Bioretention units, allowing for further treatment. The offsite drainage conveyance in the center of the site
remains untreated, but it is now a small portion of the site (DA5). The untreated northwestern corner of
the site is renumbered to DA6.
DA2
43
6
416
436
DA1
8
38
DA5
39
DA4
41 2
45 2
44 0
42 0
Grass Swales
43
6
428
400
40
0
6
428
44 8
DA3
52
4
54 0 53
6
42
0
44
8
48 4
8 80
50
8
51
2
6
49
55 2
4
2
4
44
54
43
8
40
51 6
53
2
48
4
42
4
460 45 6
8
40
39 2
6
47
52 8
46
8
432
2
47
52 0
49
2
50
4
44 0
444
4
46
500
Offsite drainage
June 2010
29
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Land area is divided up by drainage area as follows. DA3 is connected to DA1 since the Grass Swale
treating DA3 connects to the Bioretention unit treating DA1. Likewise, DA4 is connected to DA2. All
other DAs are assigned to Outlet.
Land Cover
Group
Pervious
Low Slope
High Slope
Impervious
Res./Comm.
Residential
Commercial
Roads
Land Cover Class
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Protected Forest
Unprotected Forest
Grassland
Lawn/managed pervious
Rooftops
Bare Earth
Gravel
Pavement
Pavement
Pavement
Open Water
Total Assigned Area
Area (ft2)
DA1
DA2
DA3
DA4
DA5
DA6
0
28,740
5,640
23,100
0
155,460
27,940
56,520
26,520
42,380
1,600
500
0
34,300
34,300
0
23,200
23,200
36,000
12,000
9,000
6,000
9,000
7,600
5,700
3,800
5,700
15,200
7,300
300
3,100
300
125,880
78,520
36,620
60,180
25,000
0
0
22,800
0
26,200
0
326,700
500
Total area matches
BMP with no Drainage Area?
Select downstream Drainage Area or Outlet
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
DA1
FALSE
1
DA2
2
FALSE
FALSE
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Bioretention remains selected for DA1 and DA2 on the BMPs worksheet. DA3 and DA4 are assigned
Grass Swale. Recall that the connectivity of the Grass Swales to Bioretention is specified on the DAs
worksheet, not the BMPs worksheet. DA5 and DA6 are assigned to No BMP.
Drainage
Areas
Select BMP for each Drainage Area
DA1
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA2
Bioretention
Bioretention
DA3
GrassSwale
Swale
Grass
DA4
GrassSwale
Swale
Grass
DA5
NoBMP
BMP
No
DA6
NoBMP
BMP
No
June 2010
30
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The site now meets all of the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Standards. Using a combination of
nonstructural (Conservation Design) and structural (Performance Standards) practices, the site has been
successfully designed.
Annual Pollutant Loading Rates (Entire Site)
Design
without BMPs
Design
with BMPs
Standard
Meets Standard
0.590
0.157
50.1
0.271
0.034
25.9
0.300
0.110
44.0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Phosphorus (lb/ac/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (ton/ac/yr)
Total Organic Carbon (lb/ac/yr)
Site Meets All Loading Rate Targets:
TP Loading Rate
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
No BMPs
June 2010
TSS Loading Rate
0.180
0.160
0.140
0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000
BMPs
Standard
YES
TOC Loading Rate
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
No BMPs
BMPs
Standard
31
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
(This page left intentionally blank.)
June 2010
32
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Part 2: SET Documentation
Introduction
Evaluation of a site designed using either a Performance Standards or Conservation Design approach
requires comparison of the pollutant loads generated by development of a given type (use, lot size, area in
natural state, and any engineered management practices) relative to the loading rates specified in the
Pulaski County Subdivision and Development Code. The Pulaski County SET provides the framework for
evaluating and testing site designs, allowing elements of both the Performance Standards or Conservation
Design approaches to be assessed simultaneously. Load calculations, which predict site average annual
runoff and pollutant loads for total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and total organic
carbon (TOC), are discussed first, followed by BMP calculations of pollutant load reductions via
structural BMPs.
If Pulaski County deems it appropriate or necessary to review or amend the Site Evaluation Tool (SET),
the county will take action to revise said Site Evaluation Tool by an ordinance amendment.
Annual Load Calculations
The annual load calculations are performed in a simple fashion using annual runoff and pollutant event
mean concentrations (EMCs). An EMC is the theoretical average pollutant concentration across large and
small storm events over a long period of time. Stated differently, it is also equal to the annual load divided
by annual runoff.
Runoff coefficients and EMCs are often reported for types and densities of development
(e.g., commercial, one unit/acre residential). Calculating loading rates from pre-defined development
types can be problematic if all of the variation in land cover is not accounted for. To avoid this issue, the
SET defines runoff and EMC coefficients separately for each land cover, and includes multiple categories
of pervious and impervious surface. By separating the pervious and impervious components of runoff and
loading, it is possible to estimate total site loads for any combination of percent impervious cover,
managed pervious areas (typically grass), and natural land covers such as forest.
In the SET, annual load from each land cover type is calculated as follows:
Equation 1.
L = R × C × A× c f
where
L = load (lbs/yr)
R = annual runoff coefficient (in/yr)
C = event mean concentration (mg/L)
A = land area (sq ft)
cf = conversion factor (ac-in-mg/L-yr to lbs/yr)
Since the runoff is expressed in inches per year, the product of runoff and land area produces annual
runoff volume. The product of annual runoff volume and concentration results in annual load.
June 2010
33
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The SET annual runoff coefficients and EMCs were derived from a calibrated watershed model for the
Lake Maumelle watershed (Tetra Tech, 2006). The model was developed using the USEPA-supported
Hydrologic Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) model (Bicknell et al., 2001), which provided a
representation of hydrology and pollutant load and transport throughout the watershed. The HSPF model
was used to support development of the Lake Maumelle Watershed Management Plan, upon which the
Surface Runoff Loading Rate requirements in the Pulaski County Subdivision and Development Code are
based.
In HSPF, a subwatershed is typically conceptualized as a group of various land uses all routed to a
representative stream segment. Several small subwatersheds and representative streams may be
networked together to represent a larger watershed drainage area. Land processes for pervious and
impervious areas are simulated through water budget, sediment generation and transport, and water
quality constituents’ generation and transport. Hydrology is modeled as a water balance in multiple
surface and soil layer storage compartments. HSPF also simulates the in-stream fate and transport of a
wide variety of pollutants. The Lake Maumelle HSPF model included the natural land uses and existing
low density development currently present in the watershed, with flow and pollutant loads routed to a
representation of the streams draining to Lake Maumelle.
The load parameters in the SET were calculated from an analysis of the upland land surface component of
the HSPF model. EMCs were calculated by dividing load by runoff 1. Specifically, the SET’s annual
runoff coefficients reflect the runoff volume resulting from storm events entering the stream network at
the site or lot scale. By the same token, EMCs reflect the flow-weighted average annual concentrations of
pollutants entering the stream network at the site or lot scale. As a result, the SET predicts loading rates
that are consistent with achieving the observed loads downstream after channel processing. The at-site
loading rates in the simulation model, which are the same (averaged) rates represented by the SET, are
therefore consistent with the observed loads delivered to Lake Maumelle once instream retention and
attenuation processes are taken into account. Loads of most land-derived pollutants inevitably decline
with transport distance – although they may also be supplemented by new loads from other drainage areas
or from biochemical and kinetic processes. USGS work shows that the rate of retention and attenuation of
sediment and nutrients is usually greatest in shallow, low-order streams. Thus, source-area EMCs should
generally be significantly greater than those observed in streams.
The annual runoff coefficients and EMCs for more intense development were set consistent with
predictions of the watershed model for future development scenarios. Adjustments were made to SET
EMCs to allow for more impervious land cover classes needed to represent variations in road and
driveway surfaces, and also to account for a portion of runoff from impervious surfaces that flows onto
adjacent pervious areas, infiltrating into the soil. For pervious surfaces, the annual runoff coefficients and
EMCs were further disaggregated in separate values for low (0% – 15%) and high slopes (≥15%), which
is consistent with the slope classification in the Pulaski County Subdivision and Development Code.
The “Open Water” category is available in the SET to address the surface area occupied by ponded water,
whether from amenity ponds or BMPs with a permanent pool. An open water surface does not generate
pollutant loads in the same manner as land surface, where pollutant transport is driven by the movement
of water down a gradient. There may be aerial deposition of materials (such as soil and leaves), but the
mass is difficult to quantify and likely very low compared to loading rates from land surfaces. On the
1
EMCs are calculated from model predictions of the pollutant load and flow derived from the land surface. This
includes both direct surface runoff and rapid flow that enters soil macropores and reemerges into ephemeral
channels at the hillslope scale. For forested land, much of the particulate-associated pollutant load is transported
in these ephemeral channels. The EMCs do not include flow and load associated with laminar interflow through
the soil matrix or groundwater discharge.
June 2010
34
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
other hand, practically all of the precipitation falling on open water will become runoff. As a result, the
pollutant EMCs for TP, TSS, and TOC were set equal to zero, but the annual runoff coefficient was set
equal to 46.79 in/yr, equal to the average annual rainfall used for the Pulaski County portion of the
preliminary SET.
The SET has two forest categories – called “Protected Forest” and “Unprotected Forest.” Unprotected
Forest represents the general forest category in the SET consistent with the assumptions of the HSPF
model. The HSPF model accounts for soil disturbance and hydrologic impacts due to timber harvest
(assuming a 35-year timber harvest), including the recovery period that follows. The SET Unprotected
Forest category assumes disturbance of forested land will continue to take place in the context of forest
adjacent to or within property under private ownership. Forests in a residential setting are likely to have
sustained levels of disturbance as residents create foot or bike trails, resulting in bare erodible soil.
Property owners may clear brush, rake out the duff layer, or perform other activities that reduce the
forest’s capacity to intercept and delay or prevent runoff. It is also possible that landowners might convert
forested areas to other uses, such as lawn or pasture. The SET uses the HSPF representation of forest as a
conservative assumption to represent the risk of forest disturbance in a developed setting.
The second forest category, Protected Forest, is available to represent the Pulaski County Subdivision and
Development Code and the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual provision for assuring that
forests will remain free from disturbance via the Undisturbed Area Vegetation Management Plan. Within
a harvested forest, the majority of sediment erosion is generated by disturbed areas – either areas that
have been cut within the last several years or from trails and unimproved roads within the forest. Clearly,
forest that is not harvested and is protected – with reasonable legal assurances – from other types of
disturbance will have lower loading rates. Tetra Tech therefore created a version of the HSPF model to
simulate runoff and pollutant loading from undisturbed forest. For undisturbed forest, the HSPF model
predicts a reduction of about 21 percent in surface runoff and a reduction of about 47 percent in annual
sediment yield relative to forest that is subject to disturbance and possible removal.
June 2010
35
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The load calculation annual runoff coefficients and EMCs are shown in Table 1.
Type
Table 1 Annual runoff coefficients and pollutant EMCs
Annual
Runoff
TP
TSS
Subcategory
Land Cover
(in/yr)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Low Slope
Pervious
High Slope
Residential
Protected Forest
5.43
0.0322
16.9
6.13
Unprotected Forest
7.15
0.046
23.7
8.76
Grassland
9.51
0.0504
27.5
9.56
Lawn/managed pervious
9.51
0.214
27.5
9.56
Protected Forest
7.09
0.0443
23.6
8.45
Unprotected Forest
8.93
0.0668
34.8
12.7
Grassland
11.43
0.109
59.7
20.7
Lawn/managed pervious
11.43
0.270
59.7
20.7
Bare earth
0.285
337
26.0
Gravel
0.254
266
26.0
0.178
96.1
26.0
Pavement
Impervious
TOC
(mg/L)
38.45
Commercial
Pavement
0.260
164
25.3
Res./Comm.
Rooftops
0.100
5
10.0
Roads
Pavement
0.137
287
10.2
0
0
0
Open Water
46.79
BMP Load Reduction Calculations
The traditional approach for assessing BMP performance has been the application of average or median
percent removals of pollutant mass based on an analysis of BMP monitoring studies. However,
researchers have recognized for some time that removal is strongly related to pollutant influent
concentration, and that using percent reduction alone can result in significant errors in estimates of BMP
performance (Strecker et al., 2001). In watersheds exhibiting relatively low pollutant concentrations or
where treatment of pollutants by BMPs in series is anticipated, the application of the traditional
performance approach is likely to overestimate gross pollutant removal. For this reason, the SET uses
median percent removal to assess BMP performance, but with removal capped by lower-limit effluent
concentration (analogous to “irreducible concentration,” as it is usually called in BMP literature). When
loading rates are high, median percent removal is used, but removal is dynamically reduced to prevent the
effluent concentration from dropping below specific values, as explained below.
To perform the BMP load reduction calculations, three sets of parameters are needed for each BMP type –
median annual percent removal of pollutant mass (one each for TP, TSS, and TOC), lower limit effluent
concentration values (one each for TP, TSS, and TOC), and annual runoff reduction. Because BMP
effluent concentration is calculated in the SET as effluent mass divided by effluent volume, the ability of
a BMP to reduce runoff volume is a critical part of the effluent concentration calculation. BMP
performance measures are shown in Table 2. Appendix A provides details about the derivation of the
measures.
June 2010
36
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table 2 BMP performance measures
Lower Limit Effluent
Concentration (mg/L)
TP
TSS
TOC
TP
TSS
TOC
Annual
Runoff
Reduction
Extended Detention Wet Pond
0.084
10.4
9.9
50%
80%
25%
0%
Extended Detention Dry Basin
0.121
12.5
10.9
15%
49%
4%
0%
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
0.099
7.9
9.9
50%
72%
25%
0%
Bioretention
0.090
6.8
9.8
55%
78%
49%
40%
Sand Filter
0.071
4.6
9.8
60%
86%
15%
0%
Grass Swale
0.233
20.3
13.4
23%
38%
3%
10%
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
0.151
12.8
13.4
38%
63%
46%
50%
Infiltration Trench/Basin
0
0
0
90%
90%
90%
90%
Permeable Pavement
0
0
0
75%
75%
75%
75%
Stormwater Reuse
0
0
0
Structural BMP
Annual Load Reduction
Variable, see Appendix A
BMP calculations in the SET are performed on the basis of the load and runoff the BMPs receive. The
user selects BMPs and specifies land area draining to each, and also indicates whether BMPs are
connected in series. Using the methods outlined for the annual load calculations, the SET sums loads (L,
lbs) and volume (V, ac-ft) entering each BMP. First, the annual runoff reduction is applied:
Equation 2.
VBMP = V × VRBMP
June 2010
where
VBMP = effluent volume (ac/ft)
VRBMP = percent runoff reduction for BMP type
37
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Next, the net annual load reduction is calculated. Load reduction is variable depending on the interplay of
several factors; removal may be capped if the lower limit effluent concentration applies. In a test
calculation, the full annual percent removal rate is applied to the incoming load. The ratio of the outgoing
load over the outgoing volume is then used to calculate the average annual effluent concentration. There
are three potential outcomes to the calculation of load reduction.
Outcome A
Outcome B
Outcome C
If the predicted effluent
concentration is greater than the
lower limit concentration, then
the percent removal calculation
method applies.
If the predicted effluent
concentration is less than the
lower limit concentration, then
the lower limit concentration and
VBMP will be used to calculate
exported load.
If the influent concentration to the
BMP is less than the lower limit
concentration to begin with, no
load removal will be calculated
(nor will the load be increased).
Equation 3a.
Equation 3b.
Equation 3c.
LBMP = L × LRBMP
LBMP = VBMP × LLEC BMP
LBMP = L
where
LBMP = effluent load (lbs)
LRBMP = percent load reduction
for BMP type
LLECBMP = lower limit effluent
concentration for
BMP type
If the user has specified BMPs providing treatment in series, the SET dynamically performs the
calculations in top down order. A BMP receiving inflow from another BMP will have an inflow V equal
to the runoff from its drainage area plus the VBMP values from the upstream BMP(s), and likewise inflow
L equal to the load from its drainage area plus the LBMP values from the upstream BMP(s).
Finally, LBMP values are summed from all BMPs that discharge effluent from the site (no downstream
BMPs). L from any drainage area without a BMP is added to the total site annual load. The site annual
loads are then divided by site area to generate the annual loading rates for TP, TSS, and TOC.
June 2010
38
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
References
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, Jr., T.H. Jobes, and A. S. Donigian, Jr. 2001. Hydrological
Simulation Program - FORTRAN, Version 12, User’s Manual for Version 12. AquaTera
Consultants, Mountain Vista, CA.
Strecker, E.W., M.M. Quigley, B.R. Urbonas, J.E. Jones, and J.K. Clary. 2001. Determining urban storm
water BMP effectiveness. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 127(3):144149.
Tetra Tech. 2006. Lake Maumelle Watershed and Lake Modeling – Model Calibration Report. Prepared
for Central Arkansas Water, Little Rock, AR by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.
June 2010
39
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
(This page left intentionally blank.)
June 2010
40
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Appendix A – BMP Performance Analysis
Introduction
The purpose of this appendix to summarize information on the performance of various structural BMPs in
consideration for inclusion in the Pulaski County SET and Stormwater Management and Drainage
Manual. Specifically, performance information on each BMP type’s ability to remove total phosphorus
(TP), total suspended solids (TSS) and total organic carbon (TOC) is documented. The remainder of the
introduction lists practices included in the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual and SET.
Three sets of performance measures are discussed in subsequent sections:
•
Lower limit effluent concentration – the lowest concentration a practice will typically discharge
for a given pollutant (note that a central tendency lower limit is appropriate to use – some
practices may discharge lower concentrations while others higher concentrations, and some
practices may exhibit variability between storms, but the lower limit effluent concentration
reflects a reasonable threshold beyond which treatment by the BMP is not expected)
•
Annual percent load reduction – the decrease in pollutant mass, assuming the effluent
concentration is greater than or equal to the lower limit effluent concentration
•
Annual percent runoff reductions – the proportion of annual runoff a practice intercepts and
prevents from leaving as surface runoff, via infiltration or evapotranspiration
Performance measure values were developed primarily from publications and databases provided by
leaders in BMP assessment – the Center for Watershed Protection and the International Stormwater BMP
Database. Other peer-reviewed articles and reports were also utilized to fill gaps.
BMPs Included in Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual /SET
Table A-1 lists the structural BMPs included in the full performance analysis.
Table A-1 BMPs Included in Performance Analysis
Structural BMP
Extended Detention Wet Pond
Extended Detention Dry Basin
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
Bioretention
Sand Filter
Grass Swale
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
June 2010
A-1
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
The following structural BMPs are evaluated differently. These are BMPs whose removal mechanisms
are heavily dependent on infiltration or water reuse, and the calculation methods for their evaluation will
focus on runoff and load reduction via achievable infiltration.
•
Infiltration Trench/Basin
•
Permeable Pavement
•
Stormwater Reuse
For brevity and clarity, some practice names are abbreviated during discussion in this report. “Extended
Detention” is omitted from the first three listed (wet pond, dry basin, stormwater wetland), and “with
level spreader” is omitted from vegetated filter strip.
Lower Limit Effluent Concentrations
The traditional approach for assessing BMP performance has been the application of average or median
percent removals of pollutant mass based on an analysis of BMP monitoring studies. However,
researchers have recognized for some time that removal is strongly related to pollutant influent
concentration, and that using percent reduction alone can result in significant errors in estimates of BMP
performance (Strecker et al, 2001). In watersheds exhibiting relatively low pollutant concentrations or
where treatment of pollutants by BMPs in series is anticipated, the application of the traditional
performance approach is likely to overestimate gross pollutant removal. For this reason, the SET uses
median percent removal to assess BMP performance, but with removal capped by lower-limit effluent
concentration (analogous to “irreducible concentration,” as it is usually called in BMP literature). When
loading rates are high, median percent removal is used, but removal is dynamically reduced to prevent the
effluent concentration from dropping below specific values.
No studies or performance summaries were found during a literature review to fully characterize lower
limit effluent concentrations for the practices in the SET and Stormwater Management and Drainage
Manual. Some performance summary studies report median effluent concentrations. Winer (2000) lists
median effluent concentrations, while Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (2008)
provide a statistical analysis including median effluent concentrations. However, median effluent
concentration is by definition a central tendency of performance, not a lower limit. A better statistical
measure would be one that is correlated to low values across a given distribution of effluent
concentrations.
To develop lower limit effluent concentrations, Tetra Tech performed an in-depth analysis of the
International Stormwater BMP Database (Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants,
2010), which represents the most comprehensive resource for characterizing BMP influence on hydrology
and pollutant quality. The master database (Version 6, January 2010; filename 12-15-09 Master BMP
Database_v2.accdb, downloaded March 3, 2010) provided the data for all the analyses performed. The
master database is referred to as the Database during further discussion in this report. Data for one of the
monitoring studies in the Database (The Hal Marshall Bioretention cell in Charlotte, NC) was
subsequently updated to correct a reporting error for TSS.
There is no generally accepted way to measure the lower limit effluent concentration. When influent and
effluent concentrations are plotted, there are some BMPs where a lower threshold is clearly visible; others
are more scattered and show less of a relationship. The minimum value from a selection of sites would
not be appropriate; one site might achieve a low concentration, but it does not necessarily represent a
typical lower limit performance for a range of sites. Other factors complicate the issue; values at the upper
June 2010
A-2
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
end of an effluent concentration frequency distribution may reflect sites with poor design, or sites with
high influent concentrations. In order to be consistent yet conservative in the analysis and to choose a
reasonable statistically-founded criterion, Tetra Tech selected the first (lower) quartile value of the
effluent concentration distribution to represent the lower limit effluent concentration for each combination
of BMP and pollutant.
In many instances, a particular BMP monitoring study will have the same physical practice entered in the
Database more than once. This occurs primarily in two cases: where there is a configuration change in the
practice and the monitoring data are divided up into time periods for each configuration, and where a
filter strip is monitored at multiple treatment distances. In this analysis of the Database, multiple entries of
the same practice were not included in the statistical determination of the first quartile. Instead, one
instance of the practice was selected as being most representative of design criteria in the Stormwater
Management and Drainage Manual. The reason for excluding multiple entries of the same practice is to
avoid weighting the results to one BMP in one geographic/meteorological setting. The first quartile lower
limit concentration is meant to be representative of the range of performance for a given practice
category.
The analysis was performed as follows:
1. The Database was queried to obtain detailed information about each BMP. Practices were
excluded from the analysis according to the following criteria.
a. Practices were excluded from Database practice categories which were dissimilar from
those listed in Table A-1 (e.g., green roofs, manufactured devices).
b. Practices were excluded if they had fewer than five monitored events for all three water
quality parameters (TP, TSS, TOC), because none of the parameters met the minimum
data requirements (discussed subsequently).
c. Some practices were excluded that had design characteristics unlike those for Pulaski
County (e.g., retention ponds with alum treatment, natural wetland studies, filters treating
landfill runoff).
d. Some practices were actually two different practice types in series (e.g., permeable
pavement discharging to a grass swale, with monitoring at the swale outlet). These were
excluded since the effect of each individual practice could not be discerned.
e. Several studies of grass filter strips had multiple entries in the Database – the same
practice but effluent quality measured at different treatment distances. The proposed filter
strip design is for width of 35 to 50 feet (for typical slopes), so the treatment distance
closest to 30 feet was chosen; the other entries were removed.
f.
Some BMPs were also monitored during different time periods and entered into the
Database as separate practices. This usually occurred when there was a change in the
practice’s design. The practice with the design most similar to the design specifications in
the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual was selected for this analysis.
Sometimes designs were modified to correct a problem with performance; in those cases
the corrected design was used.
The remaining BMPs were categorized according to Table A-1, which is consistent with the
categories provided in the new version of the Database. A full listing of all the BMPs in the
database is shown in Table A-7. The table includes the assigned BMP categories from Table A-1
for practices that were analyzed, and comments detailing the reasons for the exclusion of
practices not included in the analysis.
June 2010
A-3
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
2. The Database was queried for effluent concentrations of TP, TSS, and TOC for each monitored
storm event for each practice that passed the screening process.
a. When effluent concentration was reported as being below the detection limit, the
Database set the concentration equal to one-half the detection limit. That assumption was
retained in this analysis.
b. The Database included a flag indicating the researcher recommended against using
results from a particular monitoring event. Those data were excluded from the query.
3. The resulting water quality measurements were screened, and the values from several monitoring
events were removed for the following reasons:
a. Quality code indicated value was estimated (J and UJ)
b. Quality code indicated sample was lost (O)
c. Value was equal to zero or was missing entirely (assumed data entry errors, or detection
limit was not provided)
d. The Comment field contained text that appeared to indicate the sample was not for a
storm event (e.g., “Baseflow,” “Dry weather sampling”)
e. The Comment field contained text advising against using the value because the TSS
value appeared to include dissolved solids
4. Some of the storm events in the Database had two or more samples of a parameter. This was
often the case when grab samples were taken during the course of a storm. When this occurred,
the reported concentrations were averaged across the storm event into a single value.
5. The resulting data file contained a single concentration for each combination of practice, water
quality parameter, and individual storm event. For each combination of practice and water quality
parameter, the concentrations from each storm event were used to calculate the median across the
range of values. The median is an appropriate measure of central tendency when the type of
frequency distribution is unknown and/or when there are relatively few data in a statistical
sample. As noted in the Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring Manual (Geosyntec
Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, 2009), BMP effluent average storm event
concentrations commonly show a lognormal distribution. A previous version of this BMP
analysis used the expected arithmetic mean of the log transformed distribution, a measure of
central tendency that accounts for non-normally distributed data. However, an analysis of the
results suggested the estimated means were heavily influenced by very high values in the effluent
concentration distributions, so the median was selected as a better measure of central tendency.
The results of this analysis are shown for each practice in Table A-8. The table also lists the
minimum, maximum, arithmetic mean, expended mean of the log transformed distribution, and
geometric mean values for the population of storm events sampled from the practice.
6. The median values were then queried by BMP category and pollutant to develop the first quartile,
which was used to represent the lower limit effluent concentration. Two screening criteria for
sample size were used, based on recommendation by Dr. William Hunt (personal communication,
Dr. William Hunt, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
University, to Scott Job, November 5, 2009). The minimum number of events sampled for each
site practice and pollutant was set at eight; according to Dr. Hunt, it is more likely that at least
three seasons were sampled for a particular study, which would result in a more representative
cross-section of events and seasonal effects. Second, the minimum number of sites needed to
develop the first quartile was set to four. The first criterion was allowed to vary if necessary; the
second criterion was never modified.
June 2010
A-4
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
It is important to note that the spectrum of designs represented in the Database is much larger than those
in the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. Most of the filter strips lack level spreaders, and
detention facilities (wet pond, dry basin, and stormwater wetland) have varying extended detention
volume (if any). However, it was necessary to include as many studies as possible to provide enough
samples for a robust statistical analysis. Furthermore, lower limit effluent concentrations are more likely
to be associated with pollutant removal unit processes accompanying a BMP type than with variations in
BMP design criteria. Tetra Tech did perform a screening analysis for wet ponds and dry detention basins,
selecting those studies which provided extended detention and drawdown for a portion of storm event
runoff and running the same statistical analysis on the screened data set. In theory, designs providing
extended detention should perform better than those that do not. However, the sample set was
considerably smaller, and there was no pattern when comparing the unscreened-to-screened results; some
first quartile concentrations decreased, while others increased. Tetra Tech concluded the larger dataset
had greater statistical power with a larger pool of available data points.
The results are shown in Table A-2. There was considerably less monitoring data for TOC than TSS and
TP in the statistical summaries table and master database. In all cases, the minimum number of events
sampled was reduced to five to allow for the analysis. Only four of the seven practices had sufficient
qualifying studies to measure a first quartile – wet ponds, dry basins, sand filters, and vegetated filter
strips. Bioretention/ TOC was set equal to sand filter/TOC. The removal processes for TOC in stormwater
wetlands are likely most similar to those in wet ponds, so stormwater wetland/TOC was set equal to wet
pond/TOC. The removal processes for TOC in grass swales are likely most similar to those in vegetated
filter strips, so grass swale/TOC was set equal to vegetated filter strip with level spreader/TOC.
Table A-2 Lower Limit Effluent Concentrations
Structural BMP
Extended Detention Wet Pond
Extended Detention Dry Basin
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
Bioretention
Sand Filter
Grass Swale
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
Concentration (mg/L)
TP
TSS
TOC
0.084
10.4
9.9
n = 18
mne = 8
n = 19
mne = 8
n=8
mne = 5
0.121
12.5
10.9
n = 13
mne = 8
n = 14
mne = 8
n=6
mne = 5
0.099
7.9
n = 17
mne = 8
n = 15
mne = 8
0.090
6.8
n=9
mne = 8
n=6
mne = 8
9.9
b
9.8
a
0.071
4.6
9.8
n = 14
mne = 8
n = 14
mne = 8
n = 11
mne = 5
0.233
20.3
n=6
mne = 8
n=6
mne = 8
13.4 c
0.151
12.8
13.4
n = 12
mne = 8
n = 12
mne = 8
n = 12
mne = 5
a
Bioretention TOC set equal to Sand Filter
Stormwater Wetland TOC set equal to Wet Pond
c
Grass Swale TOC set equal to Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
b
Notes
n refers to number of unique site BMPs used to calculate first quartile values
mne refers to the minimum number of events sampled for a site to be used in the analysis
June 2010
A-5
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Annual Percent Load Reductions
Annual percent load reduction factors (Table A-3) were developed primarily from three sources – for TP
the Runoff Reduction Method (“RR Method”) developed by CWP and the Chesapeake Stormwater
Network (Hirschman, Collins, and Schueler, 2008), for TSS the CWP’s National Pollutant Removal
Performance Database, Version 3 (2007), and for TOC an analysis of the International Stormwater BMP
Database (Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants, 2010), paired with methods from the
RR Method. Some values were not available from the resources, and were developed from alternate peerreviewed documents. After careful review of the TSS percent load reduction values from the NPRPD
Version 3, some of the values were refined based on our experience with BMP assessments, using peer
reviewed documents, as cited in the footnotes to the table.
Table A-3 Annual Percent Load Reductions
Structural BMP
Annual Percent Removal
TP
TSS
TOC
50%
a
15%
a
80%
b
49%
b
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
50%
a
4%
72%
b
25%
c
Bioretention
55%
a
78%
e
49%
c
Sand Filter
60%
a
86%
b
15%
c
Grass Swale
23%
a
38%
f
3%
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
38%
d
63%
d
46%
Extended Detention Wet Pond
Extended Detention Dry Basin
25%
c
c
c
c
a
Hirschman, Collins, and Schueler, 2008
Center for Watershed Protection, 2007
c
Analysis of International Stormwater BMP Database, 2010 and Hirschman, Collins, and Schueler, 2008
d
Winston, 2009
e
Davis et al., 2009
f
USEPA, 2004
b
TP
The RR Method represents one of the most recent comprehensive BMP performance assessments.
Developed for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the RR Method estimates TP and total nitrogen (TN) load
reductions for proposed development sites utilizing a large list of structural and nonstructural stormwater
BMPs. It focuses on practices that reduce annual runoff volume, thus reducing the load of nutrients
leaving the site. What is especially innovative is a departure from the traditional approach of using
median percent removal values from a series of studies. Rather, the RR Method combines percent
reduction in annual runoff with percent reduction in influent to effluent Event Mean Concentration
(EMC). Using reduction in concentration rather than mass isolates reduction due to physiochemical
processes from reduction due to infiltration. Studies reporting mass-based pollutant removal (which
includes both volume and concentration reductions) are excluded from the analysis. Concentration-based
pollutant removal is combined with volume reduction to determine total mass reduction. Annual Runoff
Reduction values are detailed in a subsequent section of this report.
The RR Method provides credit for two variations in BMP design, called Level 1 and Level 2. After
reviewing the design criteria for each of the levels, Tetra Tech determined the designs in the Stormwater
Management and Drainage Manual are more comparable to Level 1 than Level 2 designs. Level 2
designs generally treat significantly more runoff volume than is proposed for the Pulaski County BMPs,
June 2010
A-6
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
and have more complex design features. As a result, the lower performance values for the Level 1 designs
were assumed to be consistent with the proposed BMP designs, which are based on standard design
criteria used across the country.
The TP annual percent load reduction values were taken from the RR Method without modification.
However, one practice was not characterized – vegetated filter strip – so Tetra Tech utilized another
resource. Winston (2009) studied vegetated filter strip with level spreader performance in a Master’s
Thesis, and provided an in-depth literature review of filter strip studies in urban applications. It is
important to note that many filter strip studies performed in the past were done for agricultural
applications, with different runoff and pollutant characteristics than for urban locations. Using a median
performance value based on the reviewed studies and Winston’s work, Tetra Tech estimated the TP
annual percent load reduction value for the vegetated filter strip BMP to be 38 percent.
TSS
CWP has published compiled assessments of stormwater BMP performance for over a decade that focus
on median pollutant removal by practice type. The most recent is Version 3 of the National Pollutant
Removal Performance Database (NPRPD) published in 2007. While the document lacks the level of
detail present in the previous versions, it includes many more studies and provides more statistical detail
about performance ranges, including box-and-whiskers plots and accompanying numeric tables with
minima, maxima, median, and quartiles. While the NPRPD has some drawbacks (e.g., some studies are
not recent, sampling and reporting methods vary between studies, varying percent removal calculation
methods are used), it is the most complete and current assessment of median percent removal
performance available.
Median TSS removal was selected from the NPRPD Version 3 as being the most representative value.
However, one practice was not characterized in the document (vegetated filter strip, as was the case with
TP), and in our judgment two of the median TSS performance values were well outside the range of our
experience – bioretention, and grass swales (reported as “open channels”).
As was done for TP, the TSS annual percent load reduction value for the vegetated filter strip was
estimated to be 63 percent, using the median of research summarized and performed by Winston (2009).
For bioretention, the NPRPD reports the median TSS removal performance as 59 percent. Research with
which Tetra Tech is familiar typically demonstrates a higher effectiveness for TSS removal, although
there are studies that show TSS export, which is usually attributed to a high percentage of fines in the
filtration media. Many aspects of bioretention design have been tested and refined over the last decade as
lessons emerge from study sites. To characterize TSS removal by bioretention, Tetra Tech elected to draw
on peer reviewed studies of recent bioretention installations. Davis et al. (2009) reviewed the state of the
practice and provided mass-based removal rates for four studies published during 2006 – 2007, with a
median value of 78 percent. Line and Hunt (2009) provide another study with a mass-based TSS
reduction of 76 percent. Hunt et al. (2008) report a 60 percent reduction in effluent TSS concentration
alone; if volume reduction was taken into account, the mass-based removal would be even higher. Tetra
Tech selected the median performance of 78 percent from Davis et al. to be representative of modern
bioretention design.
The “Open Channel” category in NPRPD Version 3 reports a median TSS removal of 81 percent. The
category includes several distinct types of practices, including conveyance grass swales, conventional
ditches, wetland swales, and swales with engineered media and ponding storage similar to bioretention.
Each of these practices has unique pollutant removal unit processes, and studies suggest they perform
differently. The previous version of the NPRPD (Winer, 2000) reports “Grass Channel” as a separate
June 2010
A-7
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
category with a median TSS removal of 68 percent, but notes the value is based on fewer than five data
points. EPA (2004) reports 38 percent TSS removal based on a synthesis of 20 studies. Greg Hoffman of
CWP concurred that 81 percent TSS removal was unreasonably high, and that 38 percent was a more
representative value (personal communication, Greg Hoffman, Center for Watershed Protection, to Scott
Job, October 10, 2009). Based on our own experience and supported by CWP staff, Tetra Tech selected
38 percent for TSS removal in grass swales.
TOC
No summaries of TOC removal were located during a literature review. Winer (2000) provided median
removal values for “organic carbon,” which includes various measurements of BOD, COD, and TOC
removal; however, BOD and COD are not necessarily equivalent to TOC, and it is not clear whether 5day BOD/COD or ultimate BOD/COD were measured in the studies. As a result, Tetra Tech adapted the
RR Method to estimate TOC removal performance. As noted previously, the RR Method combines
reduction in influent to effluent concentration with reduction in runoff volume to provide a total percent
pollutant mass removal. Tetra Tech performed an analysis on the International Stormwater BMP Database
to estimate reduction in TOC concentration. These were combined with annual percent volume reductions
(discussed subsequently) to arrive at the annual percent load reductions for TOC (Table A-4). Note that
the concentration reduction for vegetated filter strips is negative – an increase in concentration, in other
words. This is likely due to a few factors – organic carbon may stay in suspension while runoff infiltrates
into the filter strip, increasing the concentration; organic carbon may be resuspended in runoff exiting the
filter strip during larger storm events, and filter strips themselves can be a source of organic carbon.
However, the net removal is still positive once runoff reduction is taken into account.
Using the studies selected for analysis for developing lower limit effluent concentrations (using five for
the minimum number of events sampled), Tetra Tech selected studies where both influent and effluent
concentration could be calculated. The central tendency influent and effluent concentrations were
calculated using the expected arithmetic mean of the log transformed distribution, using the method
(Equation 7-2) from the Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring Manual (Geosyntec
Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, 2009). This method differs from the geometric mean in that it
has a term that raises the estimated value based on the degree of (log-transformed) variance in the sample,
accounting for the right-skewed shape of the lognormal distribution. As noted in the Urban Stormwater
BMP Performance Monitoring Manual, BMP storm event concentrations commonly show a lognormal
distribution, so a measure of central tendency that accounts for non-normally distributed data is
appropriate. The median was not appropriate in this case since the full distribution of influent and effluent
concentrations were needed to reflect the pre- and post-treatment central tendencies for concentrationbased percent reduction.
Percent reduction in influent to effluent concentration was calculated independently for each monitored
BMP. The median reduction in influent to effluent concentrations was calculated for each practice across
the range of percent removal values. Only four practices had a sufficient number of BMPs to calculate a
median (using a minimum number of four BMPs) – wet ponds, dry basins, sand filters, and vegetated
filter strips. Expected mean influent and effluent concentrations and percent concentration reductions for
each study are shown in Table A-9. For the remaining BMPs, the concentration reduction was set equal to
the most similar practice (bioretention using sand filter, stormwater wetland using wet pond, grass swale
using vegetated filter strip). Annual percent runoff reduction values were taken from Table A-5, discussed
subsequently.
June 2010
A-8
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-4 Summary of TOC Analysis for Annual Percent Load Reduction
Structural BMP
Median Concentration
Reduction
25%
Annual Runoff
Reduction
Annual Percent
Load Reduction
0%
25%
0%
4%
(n/a)
0%
25%
a
(n/a)
40%
49%
b
Extended Detention Wet Pond
n=8
Extended Detention Dry Basin
n=6
4%
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
Bioretention
15%
Sand Filter
Grass Swale
n = 11
(n/a)
–8%
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
n = 12
0%
15%
10%
3%
50%
46%
c
a
Stormwater Wetland concentration reduction set equal to Wet Pond
Bioretention concentration reduction set equal to Sand Filter
c
Grass Swale concentration reduction set equal to Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
Notes
n refers to number of unique site BMPs used to calculate first quartile values
b
Annual Percent Runoff Reductions
Annual percent runoff reduction factors for structural BMPs listed in Table A-5 were taken from the RR
Method without modification. The main focus of the RR Method is assessing runoff volume reduction
and it represents the most comprehensive and recent research work to date for that purpose. While
vegetated filter strips were not included in the RR Method BMP list, studies of their performance related
to runoff reduction were used to develop the runoff factor for the “Sheetflow to Open Space” practice, so
the Level 1 design runoff reduction factor was used for vegetated filter strips.
In practices with open water, some loss of volume to evaporation and evapotranspiration will occur, but
there is also a volume gain from direct precipitation onto the water surface. Studies cited by the RR
Method indicate very low net annual runoff reduction rates, so the RR Method uses a conservative
estimate of 0 percent annual volume reduction for wet ponds and wetlands.
Some early monitoring data of unlined detention basins suggested moderate runoff reduction. However,
the RR Method cites more recent data suggesting poorer runoff reduction performance. Hathaway et al.
(2007a, 2007b) report significant difficulties accurately measuring inflow and outflow volumes in two
different extended detention dry basins. Therefore, the RR Method uses a conservative estimate of zero
percent net annual volume reduction for extended detention dry basins using the Level 1 design.
June 2010
A-9
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-5 Net Annual Percent Runoff Reductions
Structural BMP
Runoff
Reduction
Extended Detention Wet Pond
0%
Extended Detention Dry Basin
0%
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
0%
Bioretention
40%
Sand Filter
0%
Grass Swale
10%
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
50%
Infiltration/Reuse BMPs
The following structural BMPs are evaluated differently in the SET and Stormwater Management and
Drainage Manual. These BMPs, as specified in the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual, rely
on removal mechanisms heavily dependent on infiltration or water reuse.
•
Infiltration Trench/Basin
•
Permeable Pavement
•
Stormwater Reuse
Infiltration trenches/basins are not well characterized in BMP performance literature. CWP (2007) lists
three studies, while the Database includes only two. As discussed in the Stormwater Management and
Drainage Manual, this practice is designed to fully infiltrate the water quality volume, which corresponds
to 90 percent of annual runoff. The remaining 10 percent is assumed to bypass the unit without treatment.
In theory, the pollutant mass associated with the 90 percent volume will infiltrate as well. This may not be
the case in practice. Sediment and organic carbon sources (such as leaves) may be deposited on top of the
infiltration media and become resuspended during large storm events. It is also possible that some
pollutants will settle out of runoff that bypasses the unit. In the absence of supporting monitoring data, the
assumed runoff reduction and pollutant removal rates are set equal to 90 percent. No lower limit effluent
concentration will be used (concentration set equal to zero for SET calculations). The 90 percent value is
the same as the RR Method value for infiltration practices without underdrains.
There are some permeable pavement studies available in BMP performance literature. However, design
specifications vary considerably, and many of the units have underdrains and reduced infiltration
capacity. As is the case for infiltration trenches/basins, permeable pavement in the Stormwater
Management and Drainage Manual is designed to infiltrate the water quality volume. However,
permeable pavement installations have a high risk of clogging. The RR Method assigns a 75 percent
volume reduction as a conservative estimate for permeable pavement installations without an underdrain
located in soils with sufficient infiltration capacity to infiltrate the design treatment volume. Therefore,
the assumed runoff reduction and pollutant removal rates are set equal to 75 percent. No lower limit
effluent concentration will be used (concentration set equal to zero for SET calculations).
June 2010
A-10
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
As stated, both the infiltration trench/basin and permeable pavement assume no underdrain is used, and
that the entire water quality volume is captured. If the site designer wishes to deviate from the design
specifications (e.g., utilizing underdrains on poorly infiltrating soils), the modified design would be a
User-Defined BMP in the SET, and the designer would be required to justify modified performance
values.
Stormwater reuse is highly variable and depends on capture volume, intended water uses, and how well
the operator makes use of the water resource. However, it is a practice with great potential for reducing
runoff volume and pollutants; intended water uses are unlikely to contribute directly to stormwater runoff,
so pollutant removal is likely equal to runoff volume reduction. The Stormwater Management and
Drainage Manual does not attempt to dictate the capture volume and water uses, but allows flexibility in
design and application. When utilized as part of the Surface Runoff Loading Rate Plan, the volume
reduction must be calculated and submitted as part of a Stormwater Reuse Plan. If approved, the
stormwater reuse practice is entered in the SET as a User-Defined BMP. The annual volume reduction
and annual pollutant removal rates are set equal to the value calculated in the approved Stormwater Reuse
Plan. All of the lower limit effluent concentrations are set equal to zero.
Summary
BMP performance measures for the SET and Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual are
summarized in Table A-6. The synthesis and results are based on the best information available at the
time of writing.
Table A-6 SET and Stormwater Manual BMP Performance Measures
Structural BMP
Lower Limit Effluent
Concentration (mg/L)
TP
TSS
TOC
Annual Load Reduction
TP
TSS
TOC
Annual
Runoff
Reduction
Extended Detention Wet Pond
0.084
10.4
9.9
50%
80%
25%
0%
Extended Detention Dry Basin
0.121
12.5
10.9
15%
49%
4%
0%
Extended Detention Stormwater Wetland
0. 099
7.9
9.9
50%
72%
25%
0%
Bioretention
0.090
6.8
9.8
55%
78%
49%
40%
Sand Filter
0.071
4.6
9.8
60%
86%
15%
0%
Grass Swale
0.233
20.3
13.4
23%
38%
3%
10%
Vegetated Filter Strip with Level Spreader
0.151
12.8
13.4
38%
63%
46%
50%
Infiltration Trench/Basin
0
0
0
90%
90%
90%
90%
Permeable Pavement
0
0
0
75%
75%
75%
75%
Stormwater Reuse
0
0
0
June 2010
Variable, User-Defined BMP in SET
A-11
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
-2024405061
Bioretention Area
BR
Yes
Bioretention
824104735
Bioretention Cell
BR
Yes
Bioretention
-837876291
Bioretention System (D1)
BR
Yes
Bioretention
1821743850
Hal Marshall Bioretention Cell
BR
Yes
Bioretention
2021385642
L1
BR
Yes
Bioretention
379460323
L2
BR
Yes
Bioretention
-822748883
North cell
BR
Yes
Bioretention
1741182777
South cell
BR
Yes
Bioretention
955001040
BR
Yes
Bioretention
167145060
Tree Filter
WA Ecology Embankment at
SR 167 MP 16.4
BR
Yes
Bioretention
1531148492
May-56
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
675395640
15/78
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1225581126
605/91 edb
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
670725923
BMP 12
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1411032820
BMP 13
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-1847201712
BMP37
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-371286772
Boeing Detention Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
980387584
Brooke Detention Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1584221650
Detention Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1138536589
Dryer Detention Basin
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-1537544463
Greenville Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
865220534
Hillsdale Detention Basin
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1307106336
I-Catch
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
327123853
Lex Hills Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-983058634
Manchester
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-151133217
Massie Detention Pond C
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
June 2010
Tetra Tech Comment
A-12
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
265418233
Michie Detention Basin
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
943045248
Mountain Park Detention Basin
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-2134275503
Oakhampton Dry Basin
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1261438086
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
-1762711317
Twin Towers Dry Pond
Whispering Heights Residential
Pond
DB
Yes
Dry Basin
1007496756
29 N Swale Sect 4
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
1437392350
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-62121929
5/605 swale
Alta Vista Planned
Development Detention w/
swales
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
2028284065
Bioswale Native East
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
619806237
Bioswale Non-Native West
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
990121581
Cerritos
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
919087102
Dayton Biofilter - Grass Swale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
1009520229
Del Amo
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-1904740019
East Swale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-1690353282
Melrose
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
1191232291
Palomar Swale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-1890519241
Russell Pond Bioswale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
72570292
Swale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-222815183
West Swale
BS
Yes
Grass Swale
-231119694
May-78
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
1707465841
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
-2040408677
Airpark Sand Filter
Appleyard Drive Delaware
Sand Filter
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
644864779
BMP57
FL
Yes
Sand Filter
-999183756
Delaware Sand Filter
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
June 2010
Tetra Tech Comment
A-13
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
-1910232658
Eastern SF
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
980626918
Escondido
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
-1969856066
Foothill SF
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
-1956394040
La Costa PR
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
937597998
Lakewood Sand Filter (95)
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
1583890824
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
-99469631
Megginis Ck. Sand Filter
Mountain Gate Partial
Sedimentation Austin Sand
Filter
Mt. Shasta Maintenance
Station Sand Filter
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
1778755264
Parkrose SF
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
1665733815
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
58597072
Sand Filter
Seton Pond Filtration Facility
(2)
FL
Yes
Sand Filter
288094857
Termination
FS
Yes
Sand Filter
618384960
Armstrong Slough Wetland
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
195712281
Ash Slough Marsh
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
906487501
Carver Ravine Wetland
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-357056449
DUST Marsh System A
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
1841653012
DUST Marsh System B
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-2055029627
DUST Marsh System C
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-1380686069
Franklin Wetland
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-1985497549
Gravel Wetland
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-473080709
488336797
Greenwood Urban Wetland
Hidden River Wetland
WB
WB
Yes
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
681502880
Lake McCarrons Wetland
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-39516690
June 2010
Tetra Tech Comment
Natural wetland converted to stormwater wetland with outlet
structure. 3 ac wetland 15 acre dev land, also with pretreatment
sedimentation basins
A-14
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
-1800346028
Marsh
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-161745520
Mays Chapel Wetland Basin
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-1217647869
Megginis Ck. Marsh
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
767376559
Prince George's Pond
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-2135647706
Queen Anne's Pond
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-337816830
Rt 288 Mitigated Wetland
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
156559051
Shop Creek Wetland (95-97)
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-681709383
Silver Star Rd Wetland
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-1147704469
Tanners Lake Wetland
WC
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
-996894548
Water Garden
WB
Yes
Stormwater Wetland
1891688711
29 S Buffer Strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
1215237043
605/91 strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
403648495
Altadena Strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
-218434352
Carlsbad strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
785768151
Cottonwood RVTS 2
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
-439983533
Moreno Valley 5
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
1699324699
NC DOT Grass Strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
-1758967266
Redding RVTS 6.2 m
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
Best available at this site
-1466349558
Sacramento RVTS 5
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
Best available at this site (8.4 m)
-1301697111
San Onofre RVTS 4
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
Best available at this site (9.9 m)
735665334
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
8.3 m
-1641934844
San Rafael RVTS 2
US 183 at MoPac Grass Filter
Strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
-2003038404
Walnut Creek Veg. Buffer Strip
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
-1443007454
Yorba Linda RVTS 5
BI
Yes
Vegetated Filter Strip
453873277
Central Park Wet pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1710726550
Detention Area 3
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
June 2010
9.9 m closest to Pulaski design guidance (35 - 50 ft)
Best available at this site (13 m)
A-15
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
1999439671
Duvall County Pond 1
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1536915295
FL Blvd Detention Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-487452381
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1038061310
Heritage Retention Pond
Jan Phyl Village Retrofitted
WWTP
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1339168159
Jungle Lake (1995+)
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-1123519813
La Costa WB
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-233900111
579679611
Lake Ellyn
Lake McCarrons Sedimentation
Basin
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-451144366
Lake Ridge Detention Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
2136567813
Lakeside (LS) Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-1378579706
Largo Regional STF
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
627107381
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1741710120
McKnight Basin Detention Pond
Original 102nd Street Pond
(1993)
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1770156931
Pinellas Park Detention Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-751735465
Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-1812179309
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-586054417
Pond A
Reconfigured 102nd Street
Pond (1996+)
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-147517908
Retention Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-482326085
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
645374081
Runaway Bay (RB) Pond
Seattle METRO Retention
Pond
Shawnee Ridge Retention
Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-111085006
Shop Creek Pond (95-97)
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1791762072
Silver Star Rd Detention Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-1271688643
Tampa Office Pond (2) 1993-94
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-43160592
June 2010
Tetra Tech Comment
A-16
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
1704799970
Waterford (WF) Pond
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
1453962954
Waverly Retention Basin
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-240960970
Wet detention pond, Monroe St.
RP
Yes
Wet Pond
-988372416
Irvine A RVTS
BI
No
N/A
1254098241
Irvine B RVTS
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1941525102
Irvine C RVTS
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
613242316
Moreno Valley 2
BI
No
N/A
2.6 m, using 9.9 m at same site (Moreno Valley 5)
-554869539
Moreno Valley 3
BI
No
N/A
4.9 m, using 9.9 m at same site (Moreno Valley 5)
392683738
Moreno Valley 4
BI
No
N/A
8 m, using 9.9 m at same site (Moreno Valley 5)
-705308008
Moreno Valley 4 meters 1
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
748420281
Moreno Valley 4 meters 2
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1304011398
Moreno Valley 8 meters 1
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-182061681
Moreno Valley 8 meters 2
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
185246756
Murrieta 4 meters 1
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-715705771
Murrieta 4 meters 2
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-2083768590
Murrieta 8 meters 1
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
650318987
Murrieta 8 meters 2
BI
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-1065386384
Redding RVTS 2.2 m
BI
No
N/A
2.2 m, using 6.2 m at same site (Redding RVTS)
-838739535
Redding RVTS 4.2 m
BI
No
N/A
908852039
Sacramento RVTS 2
BI
No
N/A
-1203964548
Sacramento RVTS 3
BI
No
N/A
440700621
Sacramento RVTS 4
BI
No
N/A
-1440045629
San Onofre RVTS 2
BI
No
N/A
472667464
San Onofre RVTS 3
BI
No
N/A
4.2 m, using 6.2 m at same site (Redding RVTS)
Using 8.4 meters at same site (longest available, Sacramento
RVTS)
Using 8.4 meters at same site (longest available, Sacramento
RVTS)
Using 8.4 meters at same site (longest available, Sacramento
RVTS)
Using 9.9 meters at same site (longest available, San Onofre
RVTS)
Using 9.9 meters at same site (longest available, San Onofre
RVTS)
June 2010
3 m in length only available, not representative of Pulaski
design, other lengths at this site do not have sufficient data
A-17
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
-933233049
Westfield Level Spreader
BI
No
N/A
503369727
Yorba Linda RVTS 2
BI
No
N/A
1170450900
Yorba Linda RVTS 3
BI
No
N/A
1593397829
Yorba Linda RVTS 4
BI
No
N/A
906743866
Bioretention System (D2)
BR
No
N/A
1311785500
G1
BR
No
N/A
Tetra Tech Comment
All params of interest less than 5 observations
Using 13 meters at same site (longest available, Yorba Linda
RVTS)
Using 13 meters at same site (longest available, Yorba Linda
RVTS)
Using 13 meters at same site (longest available, Yorba Linda
RVTS)
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Soil media with exceptionally high P index led to bioretention
exporting P load, not representative of Pulaski design
Soil media with exceptionally high P index led to bioretention
exporting P load, not representative of Pulaski design
350275309
G2
BR
No
N/A
-1037641640
TI
BR
No
N/A
1915504165
29 N Swale B
BS
No
N/A
-133269538
29 N Swale Sect 1
BS
No
N/A
1395841446
29 N Swale Sect 2
BS
No
N/A
1926923448
29 N Swale Sect 3
BS
No
N/A
847106458
29 S Swale
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Same practice studied at various distances and with one
modification. Using "29 N Swale Sec 4", which is the full 100m
Same practive studied at various distances and with one
modification. Using "29 N Swale Sec 4", which is the full 100m
Same practive studied at various distances and with one
modification. Using "29 N Swale Sec 4", which is the full 100m
Same practive studied at various distances and with one
modification. Using "29 N Swale Sec 4", which is the full 100m
Authors state influent concentrations are greatly reduced by
adjacent upstream filter strip (also in db)
1708016921
605/91 swale
BS
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
2071801964
EPCOT Swale
BS
No
N/A
1782781956
F3 - Concrete w/ Swale
BS
No
N/A
1789682252
F4 - Concrete w/ Swale
F5 - Permeable Pavement w/
Swale
F6 - Permeable Pavement w/
Swale
BS
No
N/A
BS
No
N/A
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
204825328
-1497115633
June 2010
A-18
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
Cannot discern influence of swale separately from permeable
pavement in test site
-497102667
F7 - Asphalt w/ Swale
BS
No
N/A
-1059537853
F8 - Asphalt w/ Swale
BS
No
N/A
1254423621
Goose Swale Composite
BS
No
N/A
-2104257355
Goose Swale Sect 1
BS
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
Check dams not representative of Pulaski design, unit processes
differ
-1137558036
Goose Swale Sect 2
BS
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-455899654
Goose Swale Sect 3
BS
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-718313481
Maitland Swale
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
675677233
Periphyton Filter
BS
No
N/A
-1448406987
Univ. Central FL Swale Block A
BS
No
N/A
Uses periphyton algae for filtering, not grass
Check dams not representative of Pulaski design, unit processes
differ
1254427975
Univ. Central FL Swale Block B
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
1565597564
Univ. Central FL Swale Block C
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
-1131679539
Univ. Central FL Swale Block D
BS
No
N/A
-1013910631
Vegetated Swale
BS
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Converted from stone to vegetated swale in 2005; not enough
data post 2005 to support analysis
-786559346
BW
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-880789087
8-Mile Wetland
Mobile Bay Constructed
Wetland
BW
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1173406017
F1 - Asphalt w/o Swale
CX
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-2081438816
F2 - Asphalt w/o Swale
CX
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1853592130
Reference
CX
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1448134059
Reference
CX
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1376986888
Stone Swale
CX
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1659314977
DB
No
N/A
294281488
BMP 74
Carver County dry detention
pond
DB
No
N/A
1394251750
Massie Detention Pond A
DB
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Design not representative - basin drains via buried underdrain,
so practice uses filtration which is atypical for detention basins
Peak control only, pre-retrofit. Sampling refined for Massie C,
which is included in analysis
June 2010
A-19
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
-793459677
Massie Detention Pond B
DB
No
N/A
Tetra Tech Comment
Minimal WQ treatment. Not using due to stated reservations by
researchers. Sampling refined for Massie C, which is included in
analysis
-803319422
NW - Detention Basin
DB
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1072980301
Pond D
DB
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
-2139559395
SW - Detention Basin
DB
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-410289526
5/605 EDB
DC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-840103820
Control N on SH 45 Detention
DC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-451728028
Flow Balancing Method, FBM
Seton Pond Sedimentation
Facility (1)
DC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
DC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
Whitaker PRF
Barton Creek Square Shopping
Center Pond
DU
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
FL
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
21148773
compost 1
Control N on SH 45 Gravel
Filter
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1343337341
Kearny Mesa
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
702665323
642280666
-2086154984
954290212
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
-862108324
Lake Olive VVRS
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1681931942
Packed Bed Filter
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
967950500
Street Pond (3&4)
FO
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-989721863
Lakewood
FP
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1932495759
Via Verde
FP
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
559903029
SE Landfill Sand Filter
FS
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1038362331
Lakewood Media Filter (96)
FV
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1195912838
East Roof Media Filter 2001
GR
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-65867943
East Roof Media Filter 2002
GR
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1343453118
West Roof Media Filter 2001
GR
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1111663736
West Roof Media Filter 2002
GR
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
June 2010
A-20
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
-1637685356
Austin Gravel Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1659814982
Lot 35 Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-466576461
Lot 40 Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1633326234
Lot 52 Exiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1596627658
Lot 56 Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
71587495
Micco Exfiltration Test
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1085071855
Outfall Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1681022574
Outfall Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1280405275
Phase 2 Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1847187001
Phase 3 Exfiltration Trench
IT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1070977622
USGS12119725
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-740912704
USGS12119725
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
14879585
USGS12119725
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1605563918
USGS12119725
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1274934608
USGS12120005
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-492483338
USGS12120005
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-288030730
USGS12120005
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-787280
MC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
987408329
USGS12120005
AbTech Ultra-Urban Filter with
Smart Sponge
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-689213417
Addison-Wesley Incterceptor
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1337160097
ADS Detention System
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1038196558
ADS Infiltration System
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
323027642
Alameda
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
243484527
Aqua Filter
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1150699494
Aqua Swirl
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1542298570
ARC Oil Seperator
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
June 2010
A-21
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
-277818674
Baffle Box
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1879224088
Baffle Box & Exfiltration Trench
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
692448063
Barton Spgs. SIFT
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1871834026
BaySaver
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1143754410
Baysaver1
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
607806237
Boeing Oil/Water Separator
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1842698382
Capri Circle WQI
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-749550946
CDS Unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1604339850
CDS Unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1780773470
CDS Unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1724885033
CDS Unit (w/ alum)
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-231479965
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
272664744
Char Oil & Grit Separator
Continuous Deflective
Separation
Continuous Deflective
Separation unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
278955262
Downtown SIFT
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-586890781
Emcon Unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1684035381
Environment 21 V2B1
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-959760090
Filmore CDS
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
204771042
Foothill FF
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-342127432
Foothill SG
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1601232746
Gillis Park SIFT
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
2043493
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1884115992
HydroKleen Filter
I-95 Plaza AbTech Ultra-Urban
Filter with Smart Sponge Plus
Antimicrobial Additive
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1768547778
I-95 Plaza StormFilter
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1215761838
June 2010
A-22
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
-447445516
Las Flores FF
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-550548162
Las Flores SG
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1791960475
MCTT Catchbasin
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1081320223
MCTT Filtering Chamber
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1516140940
MCTT Main settling chamber
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
734172083
MCTT Milwaukee
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1923214406
MCTT Minocqua
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1254413939
MCTT System
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-2124547539
Orcas
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1108259201
Phase 1 Baffle Box
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-170319267
Rosemead FF
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-663527822
Rosemead SG
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1011297625
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1358502707
Sacramento Stormvault
Stafford Township NJ Inlet
Colony Lakes
Stafford Township NJ inlet
Colony Lakes Soil Save
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-12144575
Stormceptor STC 3600
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-206149696
StormFilter
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
427295998
Sunset Park Baffle Box #2
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-762728677
Suntree Grate Inlet Skimmer
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1664445868
TST Unit
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1594013240
TST Unit (w/ alum)
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
893782464
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1110495534
UltraDrainguard Filter
Urban Storm Treatment Unit in
Madison, Wisconsin
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-296560348
UVA Stormvault Phase II
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1027158645
UVA Stormvault Phase I
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1889732333
June 2010
A-23
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
1879132292
Vortechnics
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
530401475
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-217169073
Vortechs No 5000
VortechsTM Stormwater
Treatment System
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1347942663
Warr Oil and Grit Separator
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
50853061
Willis Drive Baffle Box
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
571389931
Zilker Park SIFT
Ardmore Subdivision Street
Sweeping
MD
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
239473865
Burbank
Central Business Dist. Street
Sweeping
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-792341421
Congress
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-661983319
Hastings
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1995531317
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1934214318
John St. North Street Sweeping
John St. South Street
Sweeping
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-970008043
Knox Station after urban area
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-262172571
Lincoln
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
2026163311
Mattis Ave N. Street Sweeping
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
990095748
Mattis Ave S. Street Sweeping
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-515319135
Post Office
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1095730023
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
130072273
Rustler
Seaview Station before urban
area
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
616281489
State Fair
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1232494028
USGS12119725
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1887026045
USGS12119725
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-659888030
USGS12120005
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
2118008150
-677848143
June 2010
A-24
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
30657378
USGS12120005
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1622788831
Wood Center
MT
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1267618555
Austin Asphalt Lot
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-874195850
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1214410915
Austin Porous Asphalt Lot
F5.1 - Permeable Pavement
only
F6.1 - Permeable Pavement
only
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1552379857
Porous Asphalt
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1986262523
porous asphalt comparison site
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
1035870716
-951565205
Porous Pavement
PA
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-2078844540
Austin Concrete Lot
PC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-2061314701
Cobblestone Porous Pavement
pervious concrete comparison
site
PC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PC
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PICP
Porous Concrete Infiltration
Basin
PM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
PP
No
N/A
43rd Street Pond + Alum
Bayside Bridge Detention
System
RP
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
Retention Pond paired with alum injection according to BMP
notes
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
RP
No
N/A
1582980719
Carver Ravine Detention Pond
DeBary Detention with Filtration
Pond
RP
No
N/A
899326306
DUST Marsh Debris Basin
RP
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Design not representative of Pulaski specs, collects effluent via
buried underdrain, not outlet
Debris basin only, likely very short detention time and no
evidence of a permanent pool
1985068832
-1113891649
1366687752
1615281267
-1166835566
-758940276
-1125394221
2146225981
184533002
June 2010
Austin Lattice Block Lot
Dayton Grass Pavement
Parking Lot
Modular Block Porous
Pavement
A-25
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
1982738552
Floc Settling Pond (Alum)
RP
No
N/A
2058837513
Jungle Lake (1993)
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
Pre-1995 data prior to outlet reconfiguration (using Jungle Lake
1995+ for analysis)
-1204551109
Lake Munson
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-333629886
North Pond
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-963705694
Ormond Shores Wet Pond
RP
No
N/A
1135025251
Pittsfield Retention Pond
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
See author caveats. Located in an agricultural basin, basin not
designed for stormwater treatment, scouring observed.
-867027755
Pond
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1925222074
Pond C
RP
No
N/A
-1133049212
SE Landfill Pond (Large)
RP
No
N/A
-122501579
SE Landfill Pond (Small)
RP
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
Combo pond and sand filter treating highly disturbed landfill site,
not at all representative. High turbidity observed during study.
Combo pond and sand filter treating highly disturbed landfill site,
not at all representative. High turbidity observed during study.
-875791527
RP
No
N/A
Same BMP studied subsequently with littoral zone added.
379195577
Shop Creek Pond (90-94)
South Central Stormwater
Facility
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
-1581637065
South Pond
RP
No
N/A
-1466164052
Tampa Office Pond (1) 1990-91
RP
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
Same BMP studied with three configurations. Design #2 was
included in analysis, most representative of Pulaski design
Same BMP studied with three configurations. Design #2 was
included in analysis, most representative of Pulaski design
548635322
Tampa Office Pond (3) 1994-95
RP
No
N/A
-1482597909
Timbercreek Detention Pond
RP
No
N/A
1906372456
Traver Creek Retention Pond
RP
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
See author caveats. Located in an agricultural basin, basin not
designed for stormwater treatment, scouring observed.
-2131034431
Wet Pond
RP
No
N/A
Treats agricultural area, not urban
-1754673115
Lakewood RP (95)
RV
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1092955006
Lakewood RP (96)
RV
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
-1950116224
Lakewood RP (97-98)
RV
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
954514177
Brooke Mitigated Wetland
WB
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
945953558
Hidden Lake Wetland
WB
No
N/A
Natural wetland, not a designed stormwater wetland
June 2010
A-26
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-7 Listing and Categorization of All BMPs in Database
Database
BMPID
Database BMPNAME
Database
BMP
Category
Included
in
Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Tetra Tech Comment
739618222
NW - Wetland Basin
WB
No
N/A
161913298
Rt 211 Mitigated Wetland
WB
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
Appears to be natural wetland with modifications for mitigation.
Likely treats pasture. Influent flow from stream, not storm runoff.
1595616679
SW - Wetland Basin
WB
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1650558281
Swift Run Wetland
WB
No
N/A
See author caveats - many problems noted
-1268883163
NW - Wetland Channel
WC
No
N/A
WQ parameters of interest not in db
1669338497
NW - Wetland Channel
WC
No
N/A
All params of interest less than 5 observations
1661183142
Shop Creek Wetland (90-94)
WC
No
N/A
Same BMP has monitoring data 95-97 (using 95-97 data)
-1900743322
Bower's Mitigated Wetland
WM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
66912597
Rio Hill Detention Basin
WM
No
N/A
Not analyzing BMP type.
June 2010
A-27
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
675395640
15/78
Dry Basin
TOC
10
8.00
34.00
15.30
15.28
13.50
14.20
1531148492
5/56
Dry Basin
TOC
7
6.50
26.00
13.17
13.39
10.00
11.68
1225581126
605/91 edb
Dry Basin
TOC
7
8.90
39.00
22.84
23.51
20.00
20.24
-1537544463
Greenville Pond
Dry Basin
TOC
8
10.10
24.00
15.92
16.04
15.20
15.18
-983058634
Manchester
Dry Basin
TOC
10
7.80
30.00
17.38
17.59
15.50
15.86
1261438086
Dry Basin
TOC
5
4.00
8.00
5.80
5.84
6.00
5.65
-62121929
Twin Towers Dry Pond
Alta Vista Planned Development
Detention w/ swales
Grass Swale
TOC
19
6.40
21.00
12.18
12.21
12.00
11.63
-1690353282
Melrose
Grass Swale
TOC
5
11.00
27.00
20.00
20.33
21.00
19.10
1191232291
Palomar Swale
Grass Swale
TOC
7
7.50
22.00
14.79
14.98
13.00
13.84
-231119694
5/78
Sand Filter
TOC
11
9.50
65.00
25.95
26.29
19.00
21.68
1707465841
Airpark Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TOC
20
3.60
27.00
11.95
12.10
11.00
10.59
-1910232658
Eastern SF
Sand Filter
TOC
5
4.30
94.00
26.56
28.12
8.60
13.54
980626918
Escondido
Sand Filter
TOC
8
8.00
24.00
14.25
14.35
12.50
13.44
-1969856066
Foothill SF
Sand Filter
TOC
6
4.10
20.00
14.83
15.97
18.50
12.80
-1956394040
La Costa PR
Sand Filter
TOC
9
7.80
77.00
30.20
30.96
17.00
22.54
937597998
Sand Filter
TOC
10
9.00
39.00
18.50
18.78
16.50
16.12
Sand Filter
TOC
24
0.50
20.00
4.62
4.66
3.20
3.47
-99469631
Lakewood Sand Filter (95)
Mountain Gate Partial
Sedimentation Austin Sand Filter
Mt. Shasta Maintenance Station
Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TOC
21
0.50
11.00
3.07
3.10
2.40
2.45
58597072
Seton Pond Filtration Facility (2)
Sand Filter
TOC
47
6.83
18.10
13.47
13.50
13.30
13.13
288094857
Termination
Sand Filter
TOC
5
3.90
18.60
12.90
13.87
14.00
11.46
488336797
Hidden River Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TOC
62
12.20
24.76
16.42
16.42
16.06
16.26
156559051
Shop Creek Wetland (95-97)
Stormwater Wetland
TOC
9
0.50
13.00
8.72
11.40
9.00
6.92
-39516690
-681709383
Silver Star Rd Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TOC
8
6.31
344.71
88.02
96.34
21.86
34.92
403648495
Altadena Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
6
3.50
32.00
15.43
17.11
14.35
11.59
-218434352
Carlsbad strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
7
9.50
35.00
16.21
16.24
14.00
14.72
June 2010
A-28
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
785768151
Cottonwood RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
22
2.40
34.00
15.06
15.56
13.50
13.13
-439983533
Moreno Valley 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
11
8.50
73.00
28.68
28.72
18.00
22.14
1699324699
NC DOT Grass Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
8
9.07
29.75
14.27
14.28
11.91
13.20
-1758967266
Redding RVTS 6.2 m
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
21
7.60
120.00
21.95
20.79
16.00
17.30
-1466349558
Sacramento RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
18
1.80
41.00
16.48
17.90
16.50
13.11
-1301697111
San Onofre RVTS 4
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
9
11.00
53.00
23.78
23.86
19.00
20.25
735665334
San Rafael RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
33
0.50
44.00
14.02
15.30
10.00
10.38
-1641934844
US 183 at MoPac Grass Filter Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
22
8.32
34.92
17.18
17.25
17.14
16.32
-2003038404
Walnut Creek Veg. Buffer Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
14
12.77
30.71
19.80
19.84
19.00
19.15
-1443007454
Yorba Linda RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TOC
13
8.40
51.00
17.92
17.81
13.00
15.24
453873277
Central Park Wet pond
Wet Pond
TOC
9
3.00
12.30
6.68
6.75
5.76
6.13
1999439671
Duvall County Pond 1
Wet Pond
TOC
9
2.00
21.00
12.03
13.12
11.33
9.88
1038061310
Jan Phyl Village Retrofitted WWTP
Wet Pond
TOC
17
9.97
13.73
11.48
11.48
11.39
11.42
-1123519813
La Costa WB
Wet Pond
TOC
9
11.00
27.00
16.11
16.15
14.00
15.35
-111085006
Shop Creek Pond (95-97)
Wet Pond
TOC
9
0.50
15.00
9.61
12.84
10.00
7.52
1791762072
Silver Star Rd Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TOC
11
7.89
28.28
16.89
17.05
16.39
15.86
-1271688643
Tampa Office Pond (2) 1993-94
Wet Pond
TOC
18
6.20
14.32
9.86
9.88
9.80
9.58
1453962954
Waverly Retention Basin
Wet Pond
TOC
18
9.00
36.00
15.50
15.43
13.00
14.53
-2024405061
Bioretention Area
Bioretention
TP
11
0.107
0.769
0.301
0.306
0.200
0.231
824104735
Bioretention Cell
Bioretention
TP
10
0.095
0.350
0.152
0.151
0.116
0.139
-837876291
Bioretention System (D1)
Bioretention
TP
10
0.005
0.723
0.214
0.304
0.143
0.129
1821743850
Hal Marshall Bioretention Cell
Bioretention
TP
22
0.050
0.450
0.130
0.127
0.090
0.104
2021385642
L1
Bioretention
TP
12
0.120
0.800
0.249
0.244
0.185
0.215
379460323
L2
Bioretention
TP
13
0.040
1.300
0.250
0.235
0.120
0.156
1741182777
South cell
Bioretention
TP
10
0.041
0.094
0.058
0.058
0.055
0.056
955001040
Tree Filter
Bioretention
TP
10
0.005
0.298
0.178
0.266
0.186
0.130
June 2010
A-29
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
Bioretention
TP
25
0.003
0.205
0.049
0.060
0.039
0.026
0.293
0.240
0.248
167145060
Database BMP Name
WA Ecology Embankment at SR
167 MP 16.4
675395640
15/78
Dry Basin
TP
19
0.100
0.820
0.292
1531148492
5/56
Dry Basin
TP
12
0.044
0.330
0.190
0.199
0.220
0.165
1225581126
605/91 edb
Dry Basin
TP
11
0.170
0.860
0.482
0.489
0.410
0.436
670725923
BMP 12
Dry Basin
TP
15
0.030
0.204
0.116
0.118
0.111
0.106
1411032820
BMP 13
Dry Basin
TP
12
0.086
0.425
0.220
0.224
0.195
0.194
-1847201712
BMP37
Dry Basin
TP
17
0.070
1.665
0.526
0.556
0.463
0.390
1584221650
Detention Pond
Dry Basin
TP
9
0.097
0.909
0.410
0.438
0.397
0.332
-1537544463
Greenville Pond
Dry Basin
TP
8
0.190
0.480
0.297
0.300
0.270
0.282
1307106336
I-Catch
Dry Basin
TP
9
0.025
2.509
0.365
0.278
0.077
0.121
327123853
Lex Hills Pond
Dry Basin
TP
13
0.053
0.300
0.145
0.147
0.140
0.129
-983058634
Manchester
Dry Basin
TP
14
0.091
0.720
0.325
0.333
0.270
0.271
943045248
Mountain Park Detention Basin
Dry Basin
TP
10
0.050
0.250
0.095
0.095
0.050
0.078
-2134275503
Dry Basin
TP
11
0.082
0.810
0.229
0.224
0.121
0.170
-62121929
Oakhampton Dry Basin
Alta Vista Planned Development
Detention w/ swales
Grass Swale
TP
19
0.520
1.900
0.841
0.839
0.740
0.792
990121581
Cerritos
Grass Swale
TP
8
0.150
0.870
0.359
0.363
0.305
0.307
919087102
Dayton Biofilter - Grass Swale
Grass Swale
TP
9
0.050
0.280
0.179
0.190
0.230
0.147
-1904740019
East Swale
Grass Swale
TP
10
0.210
0.550
0.295
0.295
0.240
0.279
1191232291
Palomar Swale
Grass Swale
TP
10
0.190
0.740
0.350
0.351
0.320
0.324
-222815183
West Swale
Grass Swale
TP
10
0.200
0.480
0.283
0.283
0.230
0.267
-231119694
5/78
Sand Filter
TP
18
0.190
2.300
0.835
0.864
0.710
0.646
1707465841
Airpark Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TP
20
0.070
0.520
0.175
0.174
0.145
0.155
-999183756
Delaware Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TP
11
0.025
0.260
0.071
0.070
0.050
0.054
-1910232658
Eastern SF
Sand Filter
TP
10
0.032
0.240
0.114
0.118
0.093
0.093
980626918
Escondido
Sand Filter
TP
16
0.041
0.580
0.226
0.236
0.165
0.170
June 2010
A-30
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
-1969856066
Foothill SF
Sand Filter
TP
12
0.002
0.270
0.140
0.227
0.135
0.098
-1956394040
La Costa PR
Sand Filter
TP
17
0.100
0.380
0.204
0.205
0.190
0.191
937597998
Lakewood Sand Filter (95)
Sand Filter
TP
10
0.061
0.690
0.227
0.233
0.168
0.167
1583890824
Sand Filter
TP
11
0.083
0.207
0.144
0.144
0.145
0.140
Sand Filter
TP
25
0.015
0.170
0.047
0.048
0.042
0.038
-99469631
Megginis Ck. Sand Filter
Mountain Gate Partial
Sedimentation Austin Sand Filter
Mt. Shasta Maintenance Station
Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TP
21
0.005
0.051
0.019
0.019
0.015
0.016
1665733815
Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TP
11
0.005
0.414
0.101
0.117
0.065
0.066
58597072
Seton Pond Filtration Facility (2)
Sand Filter
TP
39
0.050
0.250
0.121
0.122
0.130
0.112
288094857
Termination
Sand Filter
TP
9
0.048
0.160
0.104
0.105
0.090
0.097
618384960
Armstrong Slough Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
143
0.002
0.548
0.084
0.086
0.064
0.059
195712281
Ash Slough Marsh
Stormwater Wetland
TP
650
0.060
6.759
1.260
1.289
0.801
0.815
906487501
Carver Ravine Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
18
0.130
0.660
0.346
0.349
0.322
0.312
-357056449
DUST Marsh System A
Stormwater Wetland
TP
15
0.154
0.888
0.381
0.383
0.312
0.337
1841653012
DUST Marsh System B
Stormwater Wetland
TP
15
0.185
1.228
0.442
0.442
0.362
0.381
-2055029627
DUST Marsh System C
Stormwater Wetland
TP
15
0.090
0.660
0.262
0.263
0.215
0.232
-1380686069
Franklin Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
33
0.010
0.870
0.302
0.335
0.250
0.230
-473080709
Greenwood Urban Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
12
0.074
0.151
0.099
0.099
0.099
0.097
488336797
Hidden River Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
79
0.001
0.175
0.047
0.057
0.040
0.034
681502880
Lake McCarrons Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
28
0.040
0.520
0.216
0.219
0.180
0.182
-1800346028
Marsh
Stormwater Wetland
TP
29
0.059
0.273
0.133
0.134
0.118
0.124
-161745520
Mays Chapel Wetland Basin
Stormwater Wetland
TP
13
0.066
0.562
0.193
0.195
0.188
0.164
-1217647869
Megginis Ck. Marsh
Stormwater Wetland
TP
12
0.051
0.340
0.129
0.130
0.118
0.110
767376559
Prince George's Pond
Stormwater Wetland
TP
19
0.001
1.441
0.142
0.147
0.065
0.063
-2135647706
Queen Anne's Pond
Stormwater Wetland
TP
47
0.014
0.309
0.075
0.074
0.060
0.060
156559051
Shop Creek Wetland (95-97)
Stormwater Wetland
TP
20
0.034
0.250
0.116
0.118
0.122
0.105
-39516690
June 2010
A-31
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
-681709383
Silver Star Rd Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TP
9
0.071
5.522
0.834
0.674
0.121
0.213
403648495
Altadena Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
12
0.180
2.970
0.513
0.446
0.270
0.333
-218434352
Carlsbad strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
10
0.210
0.690
0.392
0.394
0.335
0.364
785768151
Cottonwood RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
23
0.015
0.670
0.118
0.119
0.064
0.077
-439983533
Moreno Valley 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
12
0.300
1.300
0.740
0.750
0.680
0.673
1699324699
NC DOT Grass Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
8
0.160
0.388
0.242
0.243
0.218
0.230
-1758967266
Redding RVTS 6.2 m
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
19
0.040
3.300
0.317
0.235
0.100
0.133
-1466349558
Sacramento RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
19
0.082
0.860
0.375
0.387
0.360
0.293
-1301697111
San Onofre RVTS 4
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
8
0.610
1.000
0.820
0.823
0.885
0.804
735665334
San Rafael RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
33
0.015
0.400
0.151
0.165
0.120
0.115
-1641934844
US 183 at MoPac Grass Filter Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
20
0.166
0.958
0.321
0.318
0.271
0.293
-2003038404
Walnut Creek Veg. Buffer Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
23
0.038
0.340
0.166
0.169
0.161
0.151
-1443007454
Yorba Linda RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TP
15
0.004
2.800
0.872
1.566
0.560
0.492
453873277
Central Park Wet pond
Wet Pond
TP
9
1.840
22.300
6.618
6.625
4.710
4.806
1999439671
Duvall County Pond 1
Wet Pond
TP
9
0.017
0.267
0.061
0.057
0.035
0.040
1038061310
Jan Phyl Village Retrofitted WWTP
Wet Pond
TP
17
0.061
0.691
0.263
0.269
0.239
0.227
-1123519813
La Costa WB
Wet Pond
TP
14
0.210
1.900
0.791
0.823
0.675
0.620
-233900111
Lake Ellyn
Lake McCarrons Sedimentation
Basin
Wet Pond
TP
18
0.110
0.275
0.182
0.182
0.180
0.176
Wet Pond
TP
27
0.050
0.520
0.201
0.203
0.160
0.162
-451144366
Lake Ridge Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TP
29
0.040
0.430
0.195
0.201
0.200
0.166
-1378579706
Largo Regional STF
Wet Pond
TP
24
0.004
0.064
0.032
0.033
0.026
0.025
627107381
McKnight Basin Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TP
28
0.030
0.600
0.189
0.195
0.152
0.146
-751735465
Pond
Wet Pond
TP
51
0.128
0.550
0.305
0.306
0.280
0.291
-1812179309
Pond A
Wet Pond
TP
12
0.039
0.180
0.082
0.083
0.080
0.076
-482326085
Runaway Bay (RB) Pond
Wet Pond
TP
8
0.010
0.210
0.086
0.101
0.075
0.060
-111085006
Shop Creek Pond (95-97)
Wet Pond
TP
22
0.005
0.496
0.144
0.165
0.134
0.111
579679611
June 2010
A-32
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
1791762072
Silver Star Rd Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TP
12
0.054
0.179
0.116
0.117
0.109
0.108
-1271688643
Tampa Office Pond (2) 1993-94
Wet Pond
TP
25
0.006
0.424
0.148
0.171
0.098
0.096
1704799970
Waterford (WF) Pond
Wet Pond
TP
8
0.010
0.290
0.114
0.137
0.110
0.081
1453962954
Waverly Retention Basin
Wet Pond
TP
19
0.020
0.136
0.064
0.066
0.070
0.058
-240960970
Wet detention pond, Monroe St.
Wet Pond
TP
26
0.130
0.358
0.228
0.228
0.225
0.222
-2024405061
Bioretention Area
Bioretention
TSS
13
6.8
235.0
83.2
98.4
93.2
55.0
824104735
Bioretention Cell
Bioretention
TSS
10
6.0
176.5
49.4
53.8
26.0
29.3
-837876291
Bioretention System (D1)
Bioretention
TSS
15
0.4
210.3
29.1
44.8
13.8
9.8
1821743850
Hal Marshall Bioretention Cell
Bioretention
TSS
23
5.0
86.0
20.0
19.9
12.0
13.5
955001040
Bioretention
TSS
16
0.2
55.0
7.4
8.7
4.5
3.0
167145060
Tree Filter
WA Ecology Embankment at SR
167 MP 16.4
Bioretention
TSS
25
0.2
26.0
7.8
10.9
5.0
4.2
675395640
15/78
Dry Basin
TSS
19
14.0
260.0
52.3
50.0
38.0
41.5
1531148492
5/56
Dry Basin
TSS
12
12.0
220.0
44.5
41.4
30.0
31.4
1225581126
605/91 edb
Dry Basin
TSS
11
9.0
94.0
32.4
32.7
22.0
25.3
670725923
BMP 12
Dry Basin
TSS
15
3.0
63.4
27.0
29.3
24.4
21.0
1411032820
BMP 13
Dry Basin
TSS
13
3.5
113.6
30.9
33.5
13.4
17.0
-1847201712
BMP37
Dry Basin
TSS
18
8.1
1738.5
446.8
617.4
228.2
207.8
980387584
Brooke Detention Pond
Dry Basin
TSS
10
1.8
120.0
30.9
37.5
9.0
13.0
1584221650
Detention Pond
Dry Basin
TSS
9
0.3
39.0
7.3
7.6
3.1
3.4
-1537544463
Greenville Pond
Dry Basin
TSS
8
18.0
65.0
31.9
32.0
28.0
29.4
1307106336
I-Catch
Dry Basin
TSS
14
0.7
643.2
64.7
57.4
16.5
14.4
327123853
Lex Hills Pond
Dry Basin
TSS
13
10.0
114.0
38.4
40.0
26.0
28.3
-983058634
Manchester
Dry Basin
TSS
14
18.0
100.0
56.6
58.3
58.5
49.5
-2134275503
Oakhampton Dry Basin
Whispering Heights Residential
Pond
Dry Basin
TSS
11
2.0
20.0
10.5
11.0
10.0
8.9
Dry Basin
TSS
14
4.9
20.5
11.7
11.8
12.2
11.0
-1762711317
June 2010
A-33
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
Grass Swale
TSS
19
5.0
106.0
22.3
21.6
14.0
16.5
8
50.0
191.0
95.4
96.5
62.0
83.2
-62121929
Database BMP Name
Alta Vista Planned Development
Detention w/ swales
990121581
Cerritos
Grass Swale
TSS
919087102
Dayton Biofilter - Grass Swale
Grass Swale
TSS
9
2.5
28.0
12.6
13.4
12.0
10.4
-1904740019
East Swale
Grass Swale
TSS
10
32.0
140.0
71.9
72.6
66.0
64.5
1191232291
Palomar Swale
Grass Swale
TSS
10
12.0
52.0
35.6
36.5
39.0
32.9
-222815183
West Swale
Grass Swale
TSS
10
33.0
140.0
63.3
63.4
59.5
58.4
-231119694
5/78
Sand Filter
TSS
18
18.0
420.0
148.8
160.6
125.0
111.6
1707465841
Airpark Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TSS
20
1.3
40.0
16.1
17.4
14.0
13.1
-999183756
Delaware Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TSS
11
3.5
51.5
13.5
13.3
8.5
9.5
-1910232658
Eastern SF
Sand Filter
TSS
10
5.0
20.0
11.1
11.3
11.0
10.2
980626918
Escondido
Sand Filter
TSS
16
1.0
250.0
41.1
45.5
17.0
17.8
-1969856066
Foothill SF
Sand Filter
TSS
12
5.0
21.0
10.8
10.8
10.0
9.9
-1956394040
La Costa PR
Sand Filter
TSS
17
1.0
10.0
4.9
5.4
6.0
3.6
937597998
Lakewood Sand Filter (95)
Sand Filter
TSS
10
6.0
68.0
29.7
31.1
24.0
24.5
1583890824
Sand Filter
TSS
15
0.1
43.9
9.8
13.0
5.4
5.0
Sand Filter
TSS
29
1.0
28.6
7.1
7.6
4.3
4.3
-99469631
Megginis Ck. Sand Filter
Mountain Gate Partial
Sedimentation Austin Sand Filter
Mt. Shasta Maintenance Station
Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TSS
25
0.5
35.5
3.9
3.4
1.0
1.8
1665733815
Sand Filter
Sand Filter
TSS
17
0.5
86.5
26.1
37.3
19.2
15.1
58597072
Seton Pond Filtration Facility (2)
Sand Filter
TSS
41
0.5
27.0
3.4
3.3
1.7
2.2
288094857
Termination
Sand Filter
TSS
9
1.0
6.2
3.9
4.2
4.0
3.2
906487501
Carver Ravine Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
19
6.0
99.0
22.1
21.8
17.0
17.0
-357056449
DUST Marsh System A
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
15
29.0
190.0
84.1
84.7
71.2
73.1
-39516690
1841653012
DUST Marsh System B
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
15
13.2
235.0
89.9
94.6
78.4
74.4
-2055029627
DUST Marsh System C
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
15
16.5
120.0
49.5
49.9
40.8
42.2
-1380686069
Franklin Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
34
3.2
168.0
23.4
22.3
15.2
14.6
June 2010
A-34
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
-1985497549
Gravel Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
15
0.4
6.5
3.9
4.7
5.0
3.0
-473080709
Greenwood Urban Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
10
0.5
8.0
5.4
6.3
6.8
4.3
488336797
Hidden River Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
80
0.1
38.8
3.0
2.8
1.8
2.0
681502880
Lake McCarrons Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
28
1.0
205.0
22.8
22.0
13.0
11.7
-1800346028
Marsh
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
28
7.4
33.2
17.4
17.5
15.9
16.1
-161745520
Mays Chapel Wetland Basin
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
14
10.9
55.0
33.9
34.6
32.4
30.3
-1217647869
Megginis Ck. Marsh
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
17
0.1
32.5
7.3
9.1
5.7
4.7
767376559
Prince George's Pond
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
19
11.5
731.3
113.2
108.1
29.6
47.9
-2135647706
Queen Anne's Pond
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
47
0.4
135.7
17.8
19.1
9.0
9.4
-681709383
Silver Star Rd Wetland
Stormwater Wetland
TSS
9
71.1
2455.0
682.3
693.3
150.3
282.3
403648495
Altadena Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
12
5.0
41.0
20.5
21.2
20.5
18.4
-218434352
Carlsbad strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
9
16.0
120.0
44.0
44.9
40.0
35.9
785768151
Cottonwood RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
21
4.0
50.0
20.8
21.6
20.0
17.1
-439983533
Moreno Valley 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
12
21.0
2600.0
433.0
522.4
274.5
172.8
1699324699
NC DOT Grass Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
9
1.0
8.4
5.4
5.8
5.6
4.8
-1758967266
Redding RVTS 6.2 m
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
22
0.5
54.0
9.8
13.1
6.8
4.0
-1466349558
Sacramento RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
19
7.0
70.0
26.7
27.0
20.0
21.4
-1301697111
San Onofre RVTS 4
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
10
18.0
330.0
111.0
122.8
81.5
71.5
735665334
San Rafael RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
34
0.5
74.0
17.1
19.6
14.0
11.5
-1641934844
US 183 at MoPac Grass Filter Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
23
3.0
105.5
20.7
20.4
9.0
12.7
-2003038404
Walnut Creek Veg. Buffer Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
25
2.0
108.7
26.8
28.4
15.9
17.0
-1443007454
Yorba Linda RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
TSS
15
11.0
280.0
62.5
62.9
41.0
41.3
453873277
Central Park Wet pond
Wet Pond
TSS
9
11.0
61.0
34.6
36.2
32.0
29.8
1999439671
Duvall County Pond 1
Wet Pond
TSS
9
58.3
97.7
78.4
78.5
80.0
77.3
-487452381
Heritage Retention Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
33
1.2
60.2
14.4
15.4
11.1
10.0
1038061310
Jan Phyl Village Retrofitted WWTP
Wet Pond
TSS
17
10.4
50.3
22.3
22.3
19.3
20.3
June 2010
A-35
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-2. Analysis Results for Each Practice
Table A-8 Analysis Results for Each Practice
Database
BMPID
Database BMP Name
Tetra Tech BMP
Category
Param
Count
Min
Max
Mean
Exp
Mean
Median
Geo
Mean
1339168159
Jungle Lake (1995+)
Wet Pond
TSS
8
1.7
80.0
13.5
10.9
4.6
5.2
-1123519813
La Costa WB
Wet Pond
TSS
14
1.0
28.0
11.1
12.7
11.0
7.5
-233900111
Wet Pond
TSS
18
10.5
44.0
19.2
19.1
16.0
17.4
579679611
Lake Ellyn
Lake McCarrons Sedimentation
Basin
Wet Pond
TSS
27
2.0
171.0
37.0
39.9
21.0
20.5
-451144366
Lake Ridge Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
29
4.0
124.0
29.0
29.3
18.0
18.3
-1378579706
Largo Regional STF
Wet Pond
TSS
24
0.2
9.8
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.7
627107381
McKnight Basin Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
29
2.0
88.0
17.7
17.6
11.0
11.7
-751735465
Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
51
1.2
35.0
6.1
5.9
4.6
4.5
-1812179309
Pond A
Wet Pond
TSS
12
3.9
22.9
9.4
9.4
8.3
8.4
-147517908
Retention Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
12
0.8
47.6
18.1
22.6
11.1
11.3
-482326085
Runaway Bay (RB) Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
8
7.0
50.0
21.8
22.2
16.0
18.2
1791762072
Silver Star Rd Detention Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
12
94.2
245.7
165.6
166.4
167.4
159.8
-1271688643
Tampa Office Pond (2) 1993-94
Wet Pond
TSS
25
3.0
49.3
12.2
12.2
9.9
9.2
1704799970
Waterford (WF) Pond
Wet Pond
TSS
11
5.0
112.0
43.6
48.9
40.0
30.6
-240960970
Wet detention pond, Monroe St.
Wet Pond
TSS
24
4.0
140.0
33.7
33.9
25.0
24.7
June 2010
A-36
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-3. TOC Influent-Effluent Concentration Reduction
Table A-9 TOC Influent-Effluent Concentration Reduction Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP Category
Inflow
Count
Inflow
Exp
Mean
Outflow
Count
Outflow
Exp
Mean
Concentration
% Reduction
5/56
Dry Basin
7
11.43
7
13.39
-17.1%
605/91 edb
Dry Basin
7
20.24
7
23.51
-16.2%
15/78
Dry Basin
10
15.02
10
15.28
-1.7%
Manchester
Dry Basin
10
19.44
10
17.59
9.5%
Greenville Pond
Dry Basin
8
18.75
8
16.04
14.5%
Database BMP Name
Twin Towers Dry Pond
Dry Basin
5
8.47
5
5.84
31.1%
Sacramento RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
34
8.07
18
17.90
-121.8%
Redding RVTS 6.2 m
Vegetated Filter Strip
31
10.62
21
20.79
-95.8%
Altadena Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
7
13.34
6
17.11
-28.3%
San Onofre RVTS 4
Vegetated Filter Strip
18
18.74
9
23.86
-27.3%
San Rafael RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
34
13.80
33
15.30
-10.9%
Cottonwood RVTS 2
Vegetated Filter Strip
22
14.36
22
15.56
-8.3%
Yorba Linda RVTS 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
21
16.44
13
17.81
-8.3%
NC DOT Grass Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
8
13.88
8
14.28
-2.9%
Moreno Valley 5
Vegetated Filter Strip
11
34.77
11
28.72
17.4%
US 183 at MoPac Grass Filter Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
18
33.55
22
17.25
48.6%
Carlsbad strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
10
32.78
7
16.24
50.4%
Walnut Creek Veg. Buffer Strip
Vegetated Filter Strip
24
41.56
14
19.84
52.3%
Eastern SF
Sand Filter
6
9.74
5
28.12
-188.6%
Foothill SF
Sand Filter
7
10.42
6
15.97
-53.3%
5/78
Sand Filter
11
21.03
11
26.29
-25.0%
Termination
Sand Filter
5
14.26
5
13.87
2.7%
La Costa PR
Sand Filter
9
34.96
9
30.96
11.4%
Seton Pond Filtration Facility (2)
Sand Filter
25
15.91
47
13.50
15.1%
Mountain Gate Partial Sedimentation Austin Sand Filter
Sand Filter
24
6.41
24
4.66
27.3%
Mt. Shasta Maintenance Station Sand Filter
Sand Filter
21
4.76
21
3.10
34.8%
June 2010
A-37
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Table A-3. TOC Influent-Effluent Concentration Reduction
Table A-9 TOC Influent-Effluent Concentration Reduction Analysis
Tetra Tech BMP Category
Inflow
Count
Inflow
Exp
Mean
Outflow
Count
Outflow
Exp
Mean
Concentration
% Reduction
Lakewood Sand Filter (95)
Sand Filter
10
30.43
10
18.78
38.3%
Escondido
Sand Filter
10
30.07
8
14.35
52.3%
Airpark Sand Filter
Sand Filter
20
38.68
20
12.10
68.7%
Duvall County Pond 1
Wet Pond
9
12.29
9
13.12
-6.8%
Silver Star Rd Detention Pond
Wet Pond
12
17.59
11
17.05
3.1%
Jan Phyl Village Retrofitted WWTP
Wet Pond
23
13.11
17
11.48
12.4%
Tampa Office Pond (2) 1993-94
Wet Pond
19
12.70
18
9.88
22.2%
Waverly Retention Basin
Wet Pond
22
21.27
18
15.43
27.4%
Central Park Wet pond
Wet Pond
9
10.55
9
6.75
36.0%
Shop Creek Pond (95-97)
Wet Pond
9
36.30
9
12.84
64.6%
La Costa WB
Wet Pond
8
67.23
9
16.15
76.0%
Database BMP Name
June 2010
A-38
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
References
Center for Watershed Protection. 2007. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database: Version 3.
Ellicott City, MD.
Davis, A.P., W.F. Hunt, R.G. Traver, and M. Clar. 2009. Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current
Practice and Future Needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 135(3): 109-117.
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2008. Analysis of Treatment System
Performance - International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database [19992008]. Prepared for Water Environment Research Foundation, American Society of Civil
Engineers (Environmental and Water Resources Institute/Urban Water Resources Research
Council), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and
American Public Works Association.
Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. 2009. Urban Stormwater BMP Performance
Monitoring Manual. Prepared under Support from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Environment Research Foundation, Federal Highway Administration, and Environmental and
Water Resources Institute.
Hathaway, J., W.F. Hunt, and A. Johnson. 2007a. Morehead Place Dry Detention Basin Final Monitoring
Report. North Carolina State University, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.
Submitted to City of Charlotte-Storm Water Services.
Hathaway, J., W.F. Hunt, and A. Johnson. 2007b. University Executive Park Dry Detention BasinFinal
Monitoring Report. North Carolina State University, Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering. Submitted to City of Charlotte-Storm Water Services.
Hirschman, D., Collins, K. and T. Schueler. 2008. Technical Memorandum: The Runoff Reduction
Method. Center for Watershed Protection & the Chesapeake Stormwater Network. Ellicott City,
MD.
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, N.C. Journal of Environmental
Engineering. 134(5):403-408.
Line, D.E. and W.F. Hunt. 2009. Performance of a Bioretention Area and a Level Spreader-Grass Filter
Strip at Two Highway Sites in North Carolina. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
135(2): 217-224.
Strecker, E.W., M.M. Quigley, B.R. Urbonas, J.E. Jones, and J.K. Clary. 2001. Determining urban storm
water BMP effectiveness. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 127(3):144149.
U.S. EPA. 2004. The Use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Urban Watersheds. Office of
Research and Development, Washington DC. EPA/600/R-04/184.
Winer, R. 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices:
2nd Edition. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
Winston, R.J. 2009. Field Evaluation of Level Spreader – Vegetative Filter Strip Systems for
Improvement of Urban Hydrology and Water Quality. Master’s thesis, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh.
June 2010
A-39
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. and Geosyntec Consultants. 2010. International Stormwater BMP Database.
Prepared for the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE)/Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI), the American
Public Works Association (APWA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
June 2010
A-40
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Appendix B – VBA Code in Public Version of Pulaski County SET
This appendix provides the complete code from within the VBA Project in the Pulaski County SET.
Portions of the SET are password protected to prevent accidental modification of the SET programming.
Within the SET interface, password protected worksheets and formulas can be fully viewed, but the
password protection of the VBA Project prevents both viewing and modification. For that reason, the
code is provided here. Note that the code performs no calculation functions, but is used for navigation and
error-checking.
June 2010
B-1
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Forms
UserForm1
June 2010
B-2
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Microsoft Excel Objects
Thisworkbook
Private Sub Workbook_Open()
AddChoicesToDownStreamDropdowns
Sheets("Site Data").Activate
UserForm1.Show
End Sub
June 2010
B-3
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Site Data Worksheet
Private Sub cbShowDataSheets_Click()
Dim isclick As Boolean
If cbShowDataSheets.Value = Null Then
isclick = False
Else
isclick = cbShowDataSheets.Value
End If
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Worksheets("Default BMPs").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("All BMPs").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("Parameters").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("Runoffcalc").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("TPcalc").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("TSScalc").Visible = isclick
Worksheets("TOCcalc").Visible = isclick
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
June 2010
B-4
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
DAs Worksheet
Private Sub SetDsIDs(comboId As Integer)
SetDACmbBxArray
Dim curDsID As String
curDsID = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, comboId + 5)
If IsNumeric(curDsID) Then curDsID = "DA" & curDsID
Dim daLuArea As Double
Dim isNoAreaBMP As Boolean
Dim cmbBx1
Set cmbBx1 = daCmbBxs(comboId - 1)
If cmbBx1.ListIndex < 15 Then
daLuArea = CDbl(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(19, cmbBx1.ListIndex + 6))
isNoAreaBMP = CBool(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(22, cmbBx1.ListIndex +
6))
If daLuArea > 0 Or isNoAreaBMP Then
Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, comboId + 5) = cmbBx1.ListIndex + 1
Else
MsgBox "The assigned downstream DA has no area and is not a BMP
without area. Cancelling the change.", vbExclamation
cmbBx1.Text = curDsID
End If
Else
Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, comboId + 5) =
cmbBx1.List(cmbBx1.ListIndex)
End If
If IsThereAnyDALoop Then
MsgBox "Setting downstream to " & cmbBx1.List(cmbBx1.ListIndex) & "
for DA" & comboId & " creates a circular loop. Cancelling the change",
vbExclamation
cmbBx1.Text = curDsID
End If
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox1_Click()
SetDsIDs 1
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox2_Click()
SetDsIDs 2
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox3_Click()
SetDsIDs 3
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox4_Click()
SetDsIDs 4
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox5_Click()
SetDsIDs 5
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox6_Click()
SetDsIDs 6
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox7_Click()
June 2010
B-5
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
SetDsIDs 7
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox8_Click()
SetDsIDs 8
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox9_Click()
SetDsIDs 9
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox10_Click()
SetDsIDs 10
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox11_Click()
SetDsIDs 11
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox12_Click()
SetDsIDs 12
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox13_Click()
SetDsIDs 13
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox14_Click()
SetDsIDs 14
End Sub
Private Sub ComboBox15_Click()
SetDsIDs 15
End Sub
Private Sub Worksheet_Activate()
Application.Calculation = xlCalculationAutomatic
'AddChoicesToDropdowns
End Sub
Sub SetComboBoxSize()
SetDACmbBxArray
Dim cmbBx
Dim i As Integer
Dim cWidth As Double, cHeight As Double
Dim cLeft As Double, cTop As Double
Dim j As Integer
For i = 0 To UBound(daCmbBxs)
Set cmbBx = daCmbBxs(i)
cmbBx.AutoSize = True
cmbBx.AutoSize = False
cmbBx.Font.Size = 9
cmbBx.Font.Bold = True
cmbBx.MatchRequired = True
cmbBx.Style = fmStyleDropDownList
cWidth = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 6).Width
cHeight = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 6).Height
cLeft = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 6).Left
cTop = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 6).Top
cmbBx.Left = cLeft
cmbBx.Top = cTop
cmbBx.Width = cWidth
cmbBx.Height = cHeight
June 2010
B-6
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
cmbBx.BackColor = &HC0FFFF
Next
End Sub
Private Sub Worksheet_Deactivate()
If Not IsDownstreamOK Then Sheets("DAs").Activate
End Sub
Private Function IsDownstreamOK() As Boolean
IsDownstreamOK = True
Dim curDsID As String
Dim daLuArea As Double
Dim isNoAreaBMP As Boolean
Dim
Dim
Dim
For
strIds As String
wrongCount As Integer: wrongCount = 0
i As Integer
i = 1 To 15
curDsID = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 5)
If IsNumeric(curDsID) Then
daLuArea = CDbl(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(19, CInt(curDsID) + 5))
isNoAreaBMP = CBool(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(22, CInt(curDsID) +
5))
If daLuArea = 0 And Not isNoAreaBMP Then
If strIds <> "" Then strIds = strIds & ", "
strIds = strIds & i & "(DS= " & curDsID & ")"
wrongCount = wrongCount + 1
End If
End If
Next
If strIds <> "" Then
If wrongCount = 1 Then
MsgBox "The assigned downstream DAs has no area and is not a BMP
without area for the following DA. Please correct it!!" & vbNewLine &
strIds, vbExclamation
Else
MsgBox "The assigned downstream DAs have no area and are not a
BMP without area for the following DAs. Please correct them!!" &
vbNewLine & strIds, vbExclamation
End If
IsDownstreamOK = False
End If
End Function
June 2010
B-7
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
BMPs Worksheet
Sub SetListBoxSize()
Dim cmbBx
Dim i As Integer
Call SetCmbBxArray
Dim cWidth As Double, cHeight As Double
Dim cLeft As Double, cTop As Double
i = 5
Do While Trim(Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(i, 2)) <> ""
i = i + 1
Loop
Dim listRangeStr As String
listRangeStr = "'All BMPs'!B5:B" & i - 1
Dim listRowsVal As Integer
listRowsVal = (i - 5)
Dim j As Integer
For j = 0 To 0 '2
For i = 4 To 18
Set cmbBx = cmbBxs((j * 15) + i - 4)
cmbBx.AutoSize = True
cmbBx.AutoSize = False
cmbBx.Font.Size = 9
cmbBx.Font.Bold = True
cmbBx.MatchRequired = True
cmbBx.Style = fmStyleDropDownList
cWidth = Worksheets("BMPs").Cells(i, 3 + j).Width
cHeight = Worksheets("BMPs").Cells(i, 3 + j).Height
cLeft = Worksheets("BMPs").Cells(i, 3 + j).Left
cTop = Worksheets("BMPs").Cells(i, 3 + j).Top
cmbBx.Left = cLeft
cmbBx.Top = cTop
cmbBx.Width = cWidth
cmbBx.Height = cHeight
cmbBx.ListFillRange = listRangeStr ' "'All BMPs'!B5:B16"
cmbBx.Object.ListRows = listRowsVal
cmbBx.LinkedCell = Worksheets("BMPs").Cells(i, 3 + j).Address
cmbBx.AutoLoad = True
cmbBx.BackColor = &HC0FFFF
Next
Next
End Sub
Private Sub Worksheet_Activate()
If ActiveSheet.Name <> "BMPs" Then Exit Sub
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim DaDict As Scripting.Dictionary
Set DaDict = GetActiveDADict
Call SetCmbBxArray
Dim cmbBx1, cmbBx2, cmbBx3
June 2010
B-8
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Dim rowInd As Integer
rowInd = 3
For i = 1 To DaDict.Count
If DaDict.Item(i) Then
ActiveSheet.Rows(rowInd + i).Hidden = False
Else
Set cmbBx1 = cmbBxs(i - 1)
cmbBx1.ListIndex = 0
ActiveSheet.Rows(rowInd + i).Hidden = True
End If
Next
SetListBoxSize
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
June 2010
B-9
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
User BMPs Worksheet
Private Sub cmdUpdateBMPList_Click()
UpdateBMPLists
End Sub
June 2010
B-10
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
TP Diag Worksheet
Private Sub Worksheet_Activate()
If ActiveSheet.Name <> "TP Diag" Then Exit Sub
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim DaDict As Scripting.Dictionary
Set DaDict = GetActiveDADict
Dim colInd As Integer
colInd = 5
For i = 1 To DaDict.Count
If DaDict.Item(i) Then
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
Else
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
End If
Next
Application.Calculate
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
June 2010
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = True
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = True
B-11
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
TSS Diag Worksheet
Private Sub Worksheet_Activate()
If ActiveSheet.Name <> "TSS Diag" Then Exit Sub
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim DaDict As Scripting.Dictionary
Set DaDict = GetActiveDADict
Dim colInd As Integer
colInd = 5
For i = 1 To DaDict.Count
If DaDict.Item(i) Then
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
Else
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
End If
Next
Application.Calculate
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
June 2010
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = True
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = True
B-12
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
TOC Diag Worksheet
Private Sub Worksheet_Activate()
If ActiveSheet.Name <> "TOC Diag" Then Exit Sub
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim DaDict As Scripting.Dictionary
Set DaDict = GetActiveDADict
Dim colInd As Integer
colInd = 5
For i = 1 To DaDict.Count
If DaDict.Item(i) Then
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
Else
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
ActiveSheet.Columns(colInd
End If
Next
Application.Calculate
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
June 2010
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = False
+ (i - 1) * 2).Hidden = True
+ (i - 1) * 2 + 1).Hidden = True
B-13
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Modules
ModuleMain
Public cmbBxs()
Public daCmbBxs()
Public Sub UpdateBMPLists()
Application.ScreenUpdating = False
Dim TheRange As Range
Dim TheActiveSheet As Worksheet
Set TheActiveSheet = ActiveSheet
If HasDuplicateBMPs Then Exit Sub
'Store the current BMPs
Call SetCmbBxArray
Dim curBMPValues() As String
Dim curBMPLinks() As String
ReDim curBMPValues(UBound(cmbBxs))
ReDim curBMPLinks(UBound(cmbBxs))
Dim i As Integer
For i = 0 To UBound(cmbBxs)
curBMPValues(i) = cmbBxs(i).Text
curBMPLinks(i) = cmbBxs(i).LinkedCell
Next
For i = 0 To UBound(cmbBxs)
cmbBxs(i).ListFillRange = "'All BMPs'!B5:B5"
cmbBxs(i).Object.ListIndex = 0
Next
'Clear All BMPs content
Set TheRange = Worksheets("All BMPs").Range("B6:I6")
Set TheRange = Range(TheRange, TheRange.End(xlDown))
TheRange.ClearContents
'Copy default BMPs
Set TheRange = Worksheets("Default BMPs").Range("B5:I5")
Set TheRange = Range(TheRange, TheRange.End(xlDown))
TheRange.Copy
'Paste in All BMPs sheet
Set TheRange = Worksheets("All BMPs").Range("B6")
TheRange.PasteSpecial xlPasteValuesAndNumberFormats
Dim destRow As Integer
destRow = 5
Do While Trim(Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(destRow, 2).Text) <> ""
destRow = destRow + 1
Loop
Dim j As Integer
i = 11
Do While Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i, 2).Text) <> ""
June 2010
B-14
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(destRow, 2) = "User: " &
Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i, 2).Text
For j = 3 To 9
Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(destRow, j) = Worksheets("User
BMPs").Cells(i, j)
Next
destRow = destRow + 1
i = i + 1
Loop
Set TheRange = Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(1, 1)
Set TheRange = TheRange.Range("B5:I5")
Set TheRange = Range(TheRange, TheRange.End(xlDown))
Dim allBMPsDict As New Scripting.Dictionary
i = 5
Do While Trim(Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(i, 2)) <> ""
allBMPsDict.Item(UCase(Trim(Worksheets("All BMPs").Cells(i, 2)))) =
True
i = i + 1
Loop
Dim listRangeStr As String
listRangeStr = "'All BMPs'!" & TheRange.Address
'Set the List Range for the BMPs
For i = 0 To UBound(cmbBxs)
cmbBxs(i).ListFillRange = listRangeStr
cmbBxs(i).Object.ListIndex = 0
If allBMPsDict.Exists(UCase(curBMPValues(i))) Then
Worksheets("BMPs").Range(curBMPLinks(i)) = curBMPValues(i)
Else
Worksheets("BMPs").Range(curBMPLinks(i)) = Trim(Worksheets("All
BMPs").Cells(5, 2))
End If
Next
ActiveWorkbook.Names.Add Name:="BMPdata", RefersTo:=TheRange
TheActiveSheet.Activate
Application.ScreenUpdating = True
End Sub
Public Sub SetCmbBxArray()
ReDim cmbBxs(14)
Set cmbBxs(0) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox1
Set cmbBxs(1) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox2
Set cmbBxs(2) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox3
Set cmbBxs(3) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox4
Set cmbBxs(4) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox5
Set cmbBxs(5) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox6
Set cmbBxs(6) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox7
Set cmbBxs(7) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox8
Set cmbBxs(8) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox9
Set cmbBxs(9) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox10
Set cmbBxs(10) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox11
Set cmbBxs(11) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox12
Set cmbBxs(12) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox13
June 2010
B-15
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Set cmbBxs(13) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox14
Set cmbBxs(14) = Worksheets("BMPs").ComboBox15
End Sub
Public Function GetActiveDADict() As Scripting.Dictionary
Dim DaAreaDict As New Scripting.Dictionary
Dim i As Integer
Dim maxRow As Integer, totalAreaRow As Integer
Dim noDrainBMPRow As Integer
noDrainBMPRow = 22
totalAreaRow = 19
For i = 1 To 15
If CDbl(Trim(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(totalAreaRow, i + 5))) > 0 Or _
CBool(Trim(Worksheets("DAs").Cells(noDrainBMPRow, i + 5))) Then
DaAreaDict.Item(i) = True
Else
DaAreaDict.Item(i) = False
End If
Next
Set GetActiveDADict = DaAreaDict
End Function
Public Function HasDuplicateBMPs() As Boolean
Dim i As Integer
Dim defaultBMPDict As New Scripting.Dictionary
Dim userBMPDict As New Scripting.Dictionary
i = 5
Do While Trim(Worksheets("Default BMPs").Cells(i, 2)) <> ""
defaultBMPDict.Item(UCase(Trim(Worksheets("Default BMPs").Cells(i,
2)))) = True
i = i + 1
Loop
i = 11
Do While Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i, 2)) <> ""
If defaultBMPDict.Exists(UCase(Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i,
2)))) Then
MsgBox UCase(Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i, 2))) & " is
already available as a default BMP! Please remove or rename the user
BMP (row number = " & i & ")", vbExclamation
HasDuplicateBMPs = True
Exit Function
ElseIf userBMPDict.Exists(UCase(Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i,
2)))) Then
MsgBox UCase(Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i, 2))) & " is
repeated as user BMP! Please remove or rename the user BMP (row number
= " & i & ")", vbExclamation
HasDuplicateBMPs = True
Exit Function
Else
userBMPDict.Item(UCase(Trim(Worksheets("User BMPs").Cells(i,
2)))) = True
End If
i = i + 1
Loop
June 2010
B-16
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
HasDuplicateBMPs = False
End Function
Function UpstreamDAs(myDAs As Range, myDSDAs As Range, thisDA As Range,
myDelimiter As String)
Dim NumCol As Integer
Dim c As Integer
Application.Volatile
With myDAs
NumCol = .Columns.Count
End With
For c = 1 To NumCol
If myDSDAs.Cells(1, c).Text = thisDA.Text Then
UpstreamDAs = UpstreamDAs & myDAs.Cells(1, c).Text & myDelimiter
End If
Next c
If Len(UpstreamDAs) > 0 Then
UpstreamDAs = Left(UpstreamDAs, Len(UpstreamDAs) - Len(myDelimiter))
End If
If Len(UpstreamDAs) = 0 Then
UpstreamDAs = "None"
End If
End Function
Public Sub AddChoicesToDownStreamDropdowns()
Dim cmbBx1 ' As ComboBox
Dim DAs
DAs = Array("DA1", "DA2", "DA3", "DA4", "DA5", "DA6", "DA7", "DA8",
"DA9", "DA10", "DA11", "DA12", "DA13", "DA14", "DA15", "Outlet")
SetDACmbBxArray
Dim i As Integer
Dim j As Integer
For j = 0 To UBound(daCmbBxs)
Set cmbBx1 = daCmbBxs(j)
cmbBx1.Clear
For i = 0 To 15
cmbBx1.AddItem DAs(i)
Next
Next
End Sub
Public Sub SetDACmbBxArray()
ReDim daCmbBxs(14)
Set daCmbBxs(0) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox1
Set daCmbBxs(1) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox2
Set daCmbBxs(2) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox3
Set daCmbBxs(3) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox4
Set daCmbBxs(4) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox5
Set daCmbBxs(5) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox6
Set daCmbBxs(6) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox7
Set daCmbBxs(7) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox8
Set daCmbBxs(8) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox9
Set daCmbBxs(9) = Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox10
June 2010
B-17
Pulaski County Site Evaluation Tool User Guidance and Documentation
Set
Set
Set
Set
Set
End Sub
daCmbBxs(10)
daCmbBxs(11)
daCmbBxs(12)
daCmbBxs(13)
daCmbBxs(14)
=
=
=
=
=
Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox11
Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox12
Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox13
Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox14
Worksheets("DAs").ComboBox15
Public Function IsThereAnyDALoop() As Boolean
Dim downstreamDict1 As New Scripting.Dictionary
Dim downstreamDict2 As Scripting.Dictionary
Dim i As Integer, j As Integer
For i = 1 To 15
downstreamDict1.Item(i) = Worksheets("DAs").Cells(24, i + 5)
Next
Dim bCircular As Boolean
bCircular = False
For i = 1 To 15
Set downstreamDict2 = New Scripting.Dictionary
j = i
Do While 1
If downstreamDict1.Item(j) <> "Outlet" Then
If downstreamDict2.Exists(j) Then
bCircular = True
Exit Do
End If
downstreamDict2.Item(j) = downstreamDict1.Item(j)
j = downstreamDict1.Item(j)
Else
Exit Do
End If
Loop
If bCircular Then Exit For
Next
IsThereAnyDALoop = bCircular
End Function
June 2010
B-18
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement