CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Urban Stormwater Management SolutionsHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesIntegrated Water Resources Management

A Site-Scale Tool for Performance-Based Design of Stormwater Best Management Practices

Open access
Shojaeizadeh, Ali, Geza, Mengistu, Bell, Colin, McCray, John, Hogue, Terri·2021·Water
DOI 10.3390/w13060844
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The objective of this research is to develop a module for the design of best management practices based on percent pollutant removal. The module is a part of the site-scale integrated decision support tool (i-DSTss) that was developed for stormwater management. The current i-DSTss tool allows for the design of best management practices based on flow reduction. The new water quality module extends the capability of the i-DSTss tool by adding new procedures for the design of best management practices based on treatment performance. The water quality module can be used to assess the treatment of colloid/total suspended solid and dissolved pollutants. We classify best management practices into storage-based (e.g., pond) and infiltration-based (e.g., bioretention and permeable pavement) practices for design purposes. Several of the more complex stormwater tools require expertise to build and operate. The i-DSTss and its component modules including the newly added water quality module are built on an accessible platform (Microsoft Excel VBA) and can be operated with a minimum skillset. Predictions from the water quality module were compared with observed data, and the goodness-of-fit was evaluated. For percent total suspended solid removal, both R2 and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency values were greater than 0.7 and 0.6 for infiltration-based and storage-based best management practices, respectively, demonstrating a good fit for both types of best management practices. For percent total phosphorous and Escherichia. coli removal, R2 and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency values demonstrated an acceptable fit. To enhance usability of the tool by a broad range of users, the tool is designed to be flexible allowing user interaction through a graphical user interface.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/w13060844

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BMP technologies have been developed to manage urban runoff and improve water quality, and LID bioretention cells are one BMP found to be an effective means of reducing heavy metals found in runoff.

    “Best management practice (BMP) technologies have been developed to manage urban runoff and improve water quality [12], and lowimpact development (LID) bioretention cells are one BMP found to be an effective means of reducing heavy metals found in runoff [13].”

    From Application of Biochar in Stormwater Treatment: Experimental and Modeling Investigation (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 39 · Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Bolstad, P.V.; Swank, W.T. Cumulative impacts of landuse on water quality in a southern appalachian watershed 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1997, 33, 519-533. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  2. Mallin, M.A.; Johnson, V.L.; Ensign, S.H. Comparative impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality of an urban, a suburban, and a rural stream. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 159, 475-491. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Wilson, C.; Weng, Q. Assessing surface water quality and its relation with urban land cover changes in the Lake Calumet Area, Greater Chicago. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 1096-1111. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Conway, T.M. Impervious surface as an indicator of pH and specific conductance in the urbanizing coastal zone of New Jersey, USA. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 85, 308-316. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Gilvear, D.; Heal, K.; Stephen, A. Hydrology and the ecological quality of Scottish river ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 294, 131-159. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Hasan, M.S.; Geza, M.; Petersen, J.B.; Gadhamshetty, V. Graphene oxide transport and retention in biochar media. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128397. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  7. Parkinson, J. Drainage and stormwater management strategies for low-income urban communities. Environ. Urban. 2003, 15, 115-126. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  8. McNett, J.; Hunt, W.F.; Davis, A.P. Influent pollutant concentrations as predictors of effluent pollutant concentrations for mid-Atlantic bioretention. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137, 790-799. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. David, N.; Leatherbarrow, J.E.; Yee, D.; McKee, L.J. Removal efficiencies of a bioretention system for trace metals, PCBs, PAHs, and dioxins in a semiarid environment. J. Environ. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014092. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ellis, J. Infiltration systems: A sustainable source-control option for urban stormwater quality management? Water Environ. J. 2000, 14, 27-34. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Shojaeizadeh, A.; Geza, M.; McCray, J.; Hogue, T.S. Site-Scale Integrated Decision Support Tool (i-DSTss) for Stormwater Management. Water 2019, 11, 2022. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Shojaeizadeh, A.; Geza, M.; Bell, C.; Gallo, E.; Spahr, K.; Hogue, T.; McCray, J. A Site Scale Integrated Decision Support Tool for Urban Stormwater Management. In World Environmental Water Resources Congress 2018: Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater; Urban Watershed Management; Municipal Water Infrastructure; and Desalination and Water Reuse; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; Volume 31, pp. 112-120.
  13. Birch, G.; Matthai, C.; Fazeli, M. Efficiency of a retention/detention basin to removecontaminants from urban stormwater. Urban Water J. 2006, 3, 69-77. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Vymazal, J.; Kröpfelová, L. Is concentration of dissolved oxygen a good indicator of processes in filtration beds of horizontal-flow constructed wetlands? In Wastewater Treatment, Plant Dynamics and Management in Constructed and Natural Wetlands; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 311-317.
  15. Mahmoud, A.; Alam, T.; Rahman, M.Y.A.; Sanchez, A.; Guerrero, J.; Jones, K.D. Evaluation of field-scale stormwater bioretention structure flow and pollutant load reductions in a semi-arid coastal climate. Ecol. Eng. X 2019, 1, 100007. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  16. Peng, J.; Cao, Y.; Rippy, M.A.; Afrooz, A.; Grant, S.B. Indicator and pathogen removal by low impact development best management practices. Water 2016, 8, 600. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Li, D.; Wan, J.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Y.; Huang, M.; Chen, Y. Stormwater runoff pollutant loading distributions and their correlation with rainfall and catchment characteristics in a rapidly industrialized city. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118776. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  18. Strecker, E.W.; Quigley, M.M.; Urbonas, B.R.; Jones, J.E.; Clary, J.K. Determining urban storm water BMP effectiveness. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2001, 127, 144-149. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Fassman, E. Stormwater BMP treatment performance variability for sediment and heavy metals. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 84, 95-103. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Elliott, A.; Trowsdale, S.A. A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 394-405. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Wong, T.H.; Fletcher, T.D.; Duncan, H.P.; Jenkins, G.A. Modelling urban stormwater treatment-A unified approach. Ecol. Eng. 2006, 27, 58-70. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Moeini, M.; Shojaeizadeh, A.; Geza, M. Supervised Machine Learning for Estimation of Total Suspended Solids in Urban Watersheds. Water 2021, 13, 147. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Lee, J.G.; Riverson, J. SUSTAIN: Urban Modeling Systems Integrating Optimization and Economics. In Proceedings of the 50 years of Watershed Modeling Conference, Boulder, CO, USA, 23-26 September 2012; Available online: https://dc.engconfintl. org/watershed/23 (accessed on 28 March 2020).
  24. Shahin, M.; Maier, H.; Jaksa, M. Settlement prediction of shallow foundations on granular soils using B-spline neurofuzzy models. Comput. Geotech. 2003, 30, 637-647. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Yao, K.-M.; Habibian, M.T.; O'Melia, C.R. Water and waste water filtration. Concepts and applications. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1971, 5, 1105-1112. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Tinoco, I.; Sauer, K.; Wang, J.C.; Puglisi, J.D.; Harbison, G.; Rovnyak, D. Physical Chemistry: Principles and Applications in Biological Sciences; Prentice Hall: Bergen County, NJ, USA, 1995; Volume 545.
  27. Wilson, B.; Barfield, B.; Moore, I.; Warner, R. A hydrology and sedimentology watershed model. Part II: Sedimentology component. Trans. ASAE 1984, 27, 1378-1384. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Chen, C.-N. Design of sediment retention basins. In Proceedings of the National Symposium on Urban Hydrology and Sediment Control, Lexington, Kentucky, 28-31 July 1975.
  29. Tiveron, T.; Gholamreza-Kashi, S.; Joksimovic, D. A USEPA SWMM Integrated Tool for Determining the Suspended Solids Reduction Performance of Bioretention Cells. J. Water Manag. Model. 2018. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Shojaeizadeh, A.; Geza, M.; Hogue, T.S. GIP-SWMM: A new Green Infrastructure Placement Tool coupled with SWMM. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 277, 111409. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Anand, S.; Mankin, K.R.; McVay, K.A.; Janssen, K.A.; Barnes, P.L.; Pierzynski, G.M. Calibration and Validation of ADAPT and SWAT for Field-Scale Runoff Prediction 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 899-910. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. White, K.L.; Chaubey, I. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validations for a multisite and multivariable SWAT model 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2005, 41, 1077-1089. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Santhi, C.; Arnold, J.G.; Williams, J.R.; Dugas, W.A.; Srinivasan, R.; Hauck, L.M. Validation of the swat model on a large rwer basin with point and nonpoint sources 1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2001, 37, 1169-1188. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Legates, D.R.; McCabe Jr, G.J. Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35, 233-241. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970, 10, 282-290. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Chu, T.; Shirmohammadi, A. Evaluation of the SWAT model's hydrology component in the piedmont physiographic region of Maryland. Trans. ASAE 2004, 47, 1057. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Geza, M.; Poeter, E.P.; McCray, J.E. Quantifying predictive uncertainty for a mountain-watershed model. J. Hydrol. 2009, 376, 170-181. [CrossRef · DOI

Authors
Shojaeizadeh, A., Geza, M., Bell, C., McCray, J., & Hogue, T.
Affiliations
  • South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (US)
  • City and County of Denver, Office of Green Infrastructure, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Denver, CO 80223, USA
  • Colorado School of Mines (US)
Corresponding author
  • Shojaeizadeh, Ali
  • Geza, Mengistu
ORCID
Venue
Water
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-03-19
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
844
ISSN
2073-4441 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/w13060844
OpenAlex
W3139438530
Cited by
3
References
39
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Water (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-G2015ORD-D1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Integrated Water Resources Management
Keywords
stormwater best management practices, performance-based design, decision support system, water quality modeling, total suspended solids removal, phosphorus removal, Escherichia coli removal, bioretention, permeable pavement, retention ponds, Excel VBA

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review