LID Development Conservation Minimization Soil Management Open Drainage Rain Gardens Rain Barrels Pollution Prevention Disconnected Decentralized Distributed

LID Development

Conservation Conservation Minimization Minimization Soil Soil Management Management Open Drainage Open Drainage Rain Gardens Rain Gardens Rain Rain Barrels Barrels Pollution Pollution Prevention Prevention

Disconnected Disconnected Decentralized Decentralized Distributed Distributed Multi-functional Multi-functional

Multiple SystemsMultiple Systems

How Does LID Maintain or Restore How Does LID Maintain or Restore The Hydrologic Regime?The Hydrologic Regime?

• Creative ways to:Creative ways to:– Maintain / Restore Storage Volume Maintain / Restore Storage Volume

• interception, depression, channel interception, depression, channel

– Maintain / Restore Infiltration Volume Maintain / Restore Infiltration Volume

– Maintain / Restore Evaporation VolumeMaintain / Restore Evaporation Volume

– Maintain / Restore Runoff Volume Maintain / Restore Runoff Volume

– Maintain Flow PathsMaintain Flow Paths

• Engineer a site to mimic the natural water cycle functions / relationships

Key LID PrinciplesKey LID Principles “Volume” “Volume” “Hydrology as the Organizing Principle ”“Hydrology as the Organizing Principle ”

• Unique Watershed Design– Match Initial Abstraction Volume– Mimic Water Balance

• Uniform Distribution of Small-scale Controls

• Cumulative Impacts of Multiple Systems – filter / detain / retain / use / recharge / evaporate

• Decentralized / Disconnection

• Multifunctional Multipurpose Landscaping & Architecture

• Prevention

Defining LID Technology Defining LID Technology

Major Components 1. Conservation (Watershed and Site Level )

2. Minimization (Site Level)

3. Strategic Timing (Watershed and Site Level)

4. Integrated Management Practices (Site Level)Retain / Detain / Filter / Recharge / Use

5. Pollution PreventionTraditional Approaches

LID Practices (No Limit!)LID Practices (No Limit!)

• Bioretention / Rain Gardens• Strategic Grading • Site Finger Printing• Resource Conservation • Flatter Wider Swales • Flatter Slopes• Long Flow Paths• Tree / Shrub Depression • Turf Depression• Landscape Island Storage • Rooftop Detention /Retention • Roof Leader Disconnection• Parking Lot / Street Storage • Smaller Culverts, Pipes & Inlets

• Alternative Surfaces• Reduce Impervious Surface• Surface Roughness Technology • Rain Barrels / Cisterns / Water Use• Catch Basins / Seepage Pits• Sidewalk Storage• Vegetative Swales, Buffers & Strips • Infiltration Swales & Trenches• Eliminate Curb and Gutter• Shoulder Vegetation • Maximize Sheet flow • Maintain Drainage Patterns• Reforestation……………….. • Pollution Prevention…………..

““Creative Techniques to Treat,Use, Store, Retain, Detain and Recharge” Creative Techniques to Treat,Use, Store, Retain, Detain and Recharge”

LID Hydrologic Analysis

Dr. Mow-Soung Cheng

Compensate for the loss of rainfall abstraction

Infiltration

Evapotranspiration

Surface storage

Time of travel

LID Design Procedure Highlights

• Site Analysis

• Determine Unique Design Storm

• Maintain Flow Patterns and Tc

• Conservation and Prevention

• Develop LID CN

• Compensatory Techniques. Stress Volume Control then Detention or Hybrid for Peak

Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis and Design

Low-Impact Development Hydrologic Analysis and Design

• Based on NRCS technology, can be applied nationally

• Analysis components use same methods as NRCS

• Designed to meet both storm water quality and quantity requirements

Q

T

Developed Condition, Conventional CN(Higher Peak, More Volume, and Earlier Peak Time)

Existing Condition

Hydrograpgh Pre/ Post Development

Q

T

Developed Condition, with Conventional CN and Controls

Existing

Additional Runoff Volume

Developed

Existing Peak Runoff Rate

Detention Peak Shaving

Q

T

Developed Condition, with LID- CNno Controls.

Existing

Reduced Runoff Volume

Developed- No Controls

Reduced Qp

Minimize Change in Curve Number

Q

T

Developed, LID- CN no controlssame Tc as existing condition.

Existing

More Runoff Volumethan the existing condition.

Developed,LID-CNno controls Reduced Qp

Maintain Time of Concentration

Q

T

Provide Retention storage so that the runoffvolume will be the same as Predevelopment

Retention storage needed to reducethe CN to the existing condition= A2 + A3

A3

A2

A1

Reducing Volume

Q

T

Provide additional detention storage to reduce peak discharge to be equal to that of the existing condition.

Existing

Predevelopment Peak Discharge

Detention Storage

Q

T

Comparison of Hydrographs

A2

A3

LID Concepts

Conventional Controls

Existing

Increased Volumew/ Conventional

Q

T

2

3

4

1

5

6

7

Hydrograph Summary

2

3

4

1 Existing

Developed, conventional CN, no control.

Developed, conventional CN and control.

Developed, LID-CN, no control.

Developed, LID-CN, same Tc.

Developed, LID-CN, same Tc, same CN withretention.

Same as , with additional detention tomaintain Q.

6

5

6

7

Pre-developmentPeak Runoff Rate

Comparison of Conventional and L I D Curve Numbers (CN)

for 1- Acre Residential Lots

Comparison of Conventional and L I D Curve Numbers (CN)

for 1- Acre Residential Lots

Conventional CN

20 % Impervious80 % Grass

Low Impact Development CN

15 % Impervious25 % Woods60 % Grass

Curve Number is reduced by using LID Land Uses.

Disconectiveness

CNC=CNP+[PIMP] (98-CNP) (1-0.5R)

100

CNCC

= Composit

CNP

= Pervious

R=Ratio Unconnected imp. to total imp

PIMP

= Percent of imp. site

LI D to Maintain the Time of Concentration

“Uniformly Distributed Controls”

LI D to Maintain the Time of Concentration

“Uniformly Distributed Controls”

* Minimize Disturbance

* Flatten Grades

* Reduce Height of Slopes

* Increase Flow Path

* Increase Roughness “ n “

Retention LID Storage Options(On-Site)

Retention LID Storage Options(On-Site)

* Infiltration

* Retention

* Roof Top Storage

* Rain Barrels

* Bioretention

* Irrigation Pond

8% BMP

Determining LID BMP Sizing

Methods of Detaining Storage to Reduce Peak Runoff Rate

Methods of Detaining Storage to Reduce Peak Runoff Rate

* Larger Swales with less slope

* Swales with check dams

* Smaller or constricted drainage pipes

* Rain barrels

* Rooftop storage

* Diversion structures

Low Impact Development Objective

Fla

tten

Slo

pe

Incr

ease

Flo

w P

ath

Incr

ease

She

et F

low

Incr

ease

Rou

ghne

ss

Min

imiz

e D

istu

rban

ce

Lar

ger

Swal

es

Fla

tten

Slo

pes

on S

wal

es

Infi

ltra

tion

Sw

ales

Veg

etat

ive

Filt

er S

trip

s

Con

stri

cted

Pip

es

Dis

conn

ecte

d Im

perv

ious

Are

as

Red

uce

Cur

b an

d G

utte

r

Rai

n B

arre

ls

Roo

ftop

Sto

rage

Bio

rete

ntio

n

Re-

Veg

etat

ion

Veg

etat

ion

Pre

serv

atio

n

Increase Time of Concentration X X X X X X X X X X X

Increase Detention Time X X X X

Increase Storage X X X X X X

Lower Post Development CN X X X X X

LID Techniques and ObjectivesLow-Impact Development Technique

Maintain Time ofConcentration (Tc)Maintain Time of

Concentration (Tc)

Low Impact Developmentobjective to Maintain Time ofConcentration (Tc) B

alan

ce c

ut a

nd

fill

onlo

t.

Net

wor

k S

mal

ler

Swal

es

Clu

ster

s of

Tre

es a

ndSh

rubs

in F

low

Pat

h

Pro

vide

Tre

eC

onse

rvat

ion

on L

ots

Elim

inat

e St

orm

Dra

inP

ipes

Dis

conn

ect

Impe

rvio

usA

reas

Save

Tre

es in

Sm

alle

rC

lust

ers

Ter

race

Yar

ds

Dra

in f

rom

Hou

se a

ndth

en R

educ

e G

rade

s

Minimize Disturbance X X X X X

Flatten Grades X X

Reduce Height of Slopes X X

Increase Flow Path (Divert andRedirect)

X X X X

Increase Roughness “n” X X X X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

Low-Impact Development Technique

Summary of LID TechniquesSummary of LID Techniques(1) Recalculate Postdevelopment CN based on LID land use.

(2) Increase Travel Time (TT) using LID techniques to achieve the same Tc as Existing conditions.

(3) Retention: Provide permanent storage (Infiltration/Retention) using LID techniques to maintain the CN and runoff volume of existing conditions.

(4) Detention: Provide additional detention storage to maintain the same peak discharge as existing conditions.

Physical Processes in LID• Continuous rainfall• Interception• Surface ponding• Evapotranspiration• Infiltration• Soil pore space storage• Interflow• Groundwater recharge• Overland flow• Channel and pipe flow• Pollutant generation• Pollutant removal by physical, chemical, and biological

processes• Runoff temperature moderation

The Ideal LID Model• Continuous simulation• Small (lot size) and large (watershed) area• Suitable for new development and re-development• Watershed protection criteria• Models all hydrologic components in catchment• Models all flow components in BMPs• Urban conditions (e.g., pipe flow, regulators)• Detailed land use description• Many BMP options:

– Land-use planning– Conventional– LID– Programmatic (e.g., street sweeping)

• Allows for “precision” placement of BMPs• BMP optimization

The Ideal LID Model (ctd)• Variety of pollutant generation and removal processes:

– Physically-based equations– Unit processes– BMP treatment train– Field data probability distributions

• GIS interface• Various output stats (e.g., duration curves)• Output to:

– Instream water quality models– Ecosystem models

• Planning and design • User-friendly• Well documented• Interactive

Conventional Hydrologic Models• Developed for flooding (large storms),

suitable mainly for peak flows• Intended for large drainage areas• Lumped parameters, do not allow for precise

placement of stormwater controls• Weak infiltration modeling in some models• Submodels do not represent physical

phenomena present in LID• Complex

Available Models

• TR-20/TR-55, HEC-HMS• SWMM• HSPF• SLAMM• Prince George’s County’s BMP model for

LID • MUSIC• LIFE™• SET

TR-20/TR-55, HEC-HMS• Developed by USDA and USACE

respectively

• Intended for large storm events

• Lumped parameters applicable to large drainage areas

• Single event simulation

• Unable to evaluate micro-scale BMPs

• No pollutant generation and removal capabilities

• Not suitable for LID

SWMM (EPA Stormwater Management Model)

• Wayne Huber, Oregon State U.; & CDM

• Best suited for urban hydrology and water quality simulation

• Robust conveyance modeling

• Wide applicability to large and medium watershed hydrology

• Current version (v. 4.4h) can be “adapted” to simulate LID controls using generic removal functions

• Latest beta version (v. 5) capable of simulating some LID BMPs

HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN)

• EPA program for simulation of watershed hydrology and water

quality • Maintained by AquaTerra as BASINS• Produces time history of the quantity and quality of runoff from

urban or agricultural watersheds• Best suited for rural hydrology and water quality simulation • Data intensive, lumped parameter model• Wide applicability to large watershed hydrology• Models effects in streams and impoundments • BMPs simulated as reductions in pollutant load• Latest beta version (v. 5) capable of simulating some LID BMPs• Not recommended for LID

SLAMM (Source Loading and Management Model)

• Dr. Robert Pitt, U. of Alabama, John Voorhees• Evaluates pollutant loadings in urban areas using small

storm hydrology• Heavy reliance on field data• 6 land uses (residential, commercial, industrial,

highway, ...)• 14 source area types (sidewalks, roofs, parking, turf,

unpaved areas ...)• 8 BMP types (infiltration, biofiltration, swales,

pervious pavement, ponds, …)• Calculates runoff, particulate, and pollutant loading

for each land use and source area• Routes particulate loadings through drainage system,

to BMPs and outfalls

Prince George’s County BMP Model

• Uses HSPF to derive flow, pollutant loads

• Applies flow and loads to LID BMPs

• Two generic BMPs: storage/detention, channel

• Simulates flow processes in each BMP

• Water quality processes simulated as first-order decay and removal efficiency

MUSIC

• Tony Wang, Monash U., Australia• Simulates hydrology, water quality (TSS, TN, TP, debris)• Scale from city blocks to and large catchments• Aimed and planning and conceptual

design of SWM systems• User-friendly interface• Event or continuous simulation• Sources: urban, ag, forest• BMPs: buffers, wetlands, swales,

bioretention, ponds, GPT (gross pollutant traps)• Pollutant removal by first-order kinetics• Australia default parameters from worldwide research• Extensive output statistics

LIFETM

(Low Impact Feasibility Evaluation Model)

• Specifically developed by CH2M HILL to simulate LID microhydrology

• Models water quantity (volume, peak flows) and water quality

• Physically-based, continuous simulation

• New development and redevelopment

• Numerous controls: bioretention, green roofs, rainwater cisterns, pervious pavements, infiltration devices...

• Optimization module balances competing priorities

• Drag-and-drop user friendly interface, GIS linkage

HSPF LAND SIMULATION

– Unit-Area Output by Landuse –

BMP Evaluation Method

Existing Flow & Pollutant Loads

Simulated Flow/Water Quality Improvement Cost/Benefit Assessment of LID design

0

50

100

150

200

250

2/20/99 6/20/99 10/20/99 2/20/00 6/20/00 10/20/00

Time

Flo

w (

cfs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Tota

l Rai

nfal

l (in

)

Total Rainfall (in) Modeled Flow

BMP DESIGN– Site Level Design –

SITE-LEVEL LAND/BMP ROUTINGSimulatedSurface Runoff

Overflow Spillway

Bottom Orifice

Evapotranspiration

Infiltration

Outflow:Inflow:

Modified Flow &Water Quality

From Land Surface

Storage

BMP Class A: Storage/Detention

Underdrain Outflow

The Interface

Landuse Menu

BMP Menu

click-and-drag

1

edit attributes

2

connect objects

3

Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390

Peak Flow Reduction 2_1 90.3% 94.7% 98.0% 90.9% 82.1% 69.3% 45.7%


General Assessment of BMP Effectiveness

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Storm Volume (in)

BM

P P

ea

k F

low

Re

du

cti

on

BMP 2_1 BMP 2_1 in series with BMP 6_2

Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390




0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Storm Volume (in)

BM

P P

ea

k F

low

Re

du

cti

on

BMP 2_1 BMP 2_1 in series with BMP 4_2

Storm Volume (in) 0.180 0.380 0.420 0.790 1.260 2.080 2.390

Total Load from Site (lb): 0.142 0.269 0.303 0.287 0.489 1.379 0.628

Total load after BMP 4_2 (lb): 0.025 0.104 0.168 0.197 0.370 1.264 0.552

Lost or Trapped (lb): 0.117 0.165 0.135 0.090 0.119 0.114 0.075

Total Nitrogen Removal (%) 82.14% 61.23% 44.50% 31.27% 24.40% 8.30% 12.00%


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0.18 0.38 0.42 0.79 1.26 2.08 2.39

Storm Volume (in)

Nit

rog

en

Lo

ad

(lb

)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Pe

rce

nt

Re

du

cti

on

Total Load from Site (lb):

Total load after BMP 4_2 (lb):

% Removal after BMP 2_1

% Removal after BMP 4_2

Source Node

Gross Pollutant Trap

Buffer Strip

Vegetated Swale

Vegetated Swale

InfiltrationDry & Wet Detention Pond

Wetlands

Documents

LID Development Conservation Minimization Soil Management Open Drainage Rain Gardens Rain Barrels Pollution Prevention Disconnected Decentralized Distributed