Stormwater Management Research in Minnesota · A brochure summarizing the findings of this report...

Stormwater Research in Minnesota Meeting the needs for the next decade

July 2017

Report prepared by the University of Minnesota

with contributions from the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council

Stormwater Needs in Minnesota – July 2017

i

This interim report was prepared by the University of Minnesota as part the larger Stormwater Research Priorities and Pond Maintenance Research Project coordinated by the Water Resources Center. The project spans multiple years and will eventually be combined with new information that will yield a ten-year framework of stormwater research needs and priorities. This interim report was written by Andy Erickson (St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota), Cliff Aichinger (formerly of Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District), John S. Gulliver (St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota) and John Bilotta (University of Minnesota Extension, Minnesota Sea Grant) and was reviewed by members of the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council. This interim report is founded on past work conducted by multiple individuals, organizations, and agencies and collates it into a condensed discussion of stormwater research needs. Information includes previous work by representatives of the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council and work from other organizations and agencies including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Those sources and authors are included in appendices. A brochure summarizing the findings of this report is also available. The goal of this report is to summarize the stormwater research needs in Minnesota as of June 2017. By definition, this interim report is intended to be temporary in applicability but provides context for the larger project and long-term goal of ten-year framework for stormwater research needs and priorities. The audience for this report is intended to be decision makers for allocation of research funding, such as government officials or entities, funding agencies, and water resource managers, among others. Much of the information herein was gathered from researchers and practitioners, who may also find this report useful. This work is supported by Minnesota Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment funds allocated through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the MPCA. For more information, please visit https://www.wrc.umn.edu/stormwatermpca

For more information, contact: Water Resources Center University of Minnesota 173 McNeal Hall 1985 Buford Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-9282 “Governments will always play a huge part in solving big problems. They set public policy and are uniquely able to provide the resources to make sure solutions reach everyone who needs them. They also fund basic research, which is a crucial component of the innovation that improves life for everyone.” Bill Gates

https://www.wrc.umn.edu/stormwatermpca

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/billgates446470.html




Stormwater Research Needs in Minnesota - July 2017 ii

Executive Summary Stormwater runoff is produced when rainfall and snowmelt cascades from roofs, flows over lawns and down streets. As our communities continue to grow and redevelop, the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff carries pollutants to our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater resources. Local units of government rely on research to effectively manage stormwater, reduce or eliminate this impact, and protect our valuable water resources. This report describes a short history of stormwater management regulation and research in Minnesota, presents a list of identified stormwater knowledge gaps and research needs, and documents challenges to meeting the research needs. Recommended efforts include embracing additional scientific, applied research, and consistent allocation of research funding. Stormwater management in Minnesota has a long history, dating back to the early 1970s with the federal adoption of the Clean Water Act. Reduction of point source pollution significantly reduced pollution to Minnesota’s water resources, but non-point source pollution is still substantial. More regulations in the 1990s and 2000s led to control and management of non-point source pollution, further protecting and improving water quality. Identification of waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards, called impairments, has shown that more improvement is needed. Stormwater research is needed to better understand what current treatment practices can do and how new treatment practices can be developed to help clean Minnesota’s water resources. Stormwater management operates in a dynamic arena of rapidly evolving public policy and advancements in management and design methods. Although these changes and advancements tend to shift stormwater research priorities every few years, the core research areas will likely remain the same until core knowledge gaps are filled. Current stormwater related research needs fall into the following seven core research areas:

1. Source Reduction and Pollution Prevention 2. Characterization of Stormwater Runoff 3. Impacts to Surface and Groundwater 4. Treatment Practice Effectiveness 5. Maintenance, Longevity, and Cost/Benefit 6. Public Policy and Education 7. Emerging Concerns

In addition to gaps in the knowledge base, there are challenges to meeting research needs in the next decade. These challenges include need identification and prioritization, research program coordination, sufficient funding, and dissemination. Without proper identification, prioritization, coordination, and funding, knowledge gaps could be left unanswered and funds could be spent ineffectively. Without proper dissemination, the stormwater industry may not receive or adopt vital solutions to knowledge gaps, resulting in no change to protect or improve water resources.

Stormwater Research Needs in Minnesota - July 2017 iii

These challenges can be overcome by expanding the current stormwater research effort into a robust, comprehensive, and well-funded stormwater research program for Minnesota. Following this interim report, a second portion of the Stormwater Research Priorities and Pond Maintenance Research Project is creating a stormwater research roadmap for the next decade. This effort will add the specificity of needs for each of the seven core research areas. Furthermore, it will establish a robust and repeatable process for assessing and prioritizing needs on a regular basis. The result aims to produce a more accurate, specific, and articulate vision of the stormwater research needs, a prioritized list, and a process that can be repeated in subsequent years to help guide progress towards goals.

Stormwater Research Needs in Minnesota - July 2017 iv

Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1

2. A Reflection of Past and Current Stormwater Research in Minnesota ............. 5

3. Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs ....................................................................... 7 3.1. Source Reduction and Pollution Prevention ................................................................. 8 3.2. Characterization of Stormwater Runoff .......................................................................... 8 3.3. Impacts to Surface and Groundwater .............................................................................. 9 3.4. Treatment Practice Effectiveness .................................................................................. 10 3.5. Maintenance, Longevity, and Cost/Benefit.................................................................. 10 3.6. Public Policy and Education ............................................................................................ 11 3.7. Emerging Concerns ............................................................................................................ 12

4. Challenges to Accomplishing Research Needs in the Next Decade .................. 13 4.1. Need Identification and Prioritization ......................................................................... 13 4.2. Research Program Coordination ................................................................................... 13 4.3. Research Funding ............................................................................................................... 14 4.4. Information Transfer & Dissemination........................................................................ 14

5. Summary & Next Steps ................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A: Scientific & Technology Knowledge Gaps ........................................... 17 A.1. National Stormwater Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs ................................. 17 A.2. Local Stormwater Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs ....................................... 19

A.2.1. Stormwater Research Council Interim Report (November 2015) .............................. 19 A.2.2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Survey on Stormwater Research Priorities (June - July, 2015) .............................................................................................................................................. 20 A.2.3. Environmental Quality Board 2015 Water Policy Report................................................ 21 A.2.4. Stormwater Research Group Workshop (January 8, 2015) ............................................ 22 A.2.5. Minnesota Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (2013) ................................ 24 A.2.6. Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework (2011).......................................................... 26 A.2.7. Stormwater Research Council - Research Priorities (2006 to 2010)......................... 30 A.2.8. Minnesota Stormwater Steering Committee Roadmap (2008) .................................... 32 A.2.9. UMN/MPCA/Met Council Stormwater Practice Assessment Program Input sessions (June 2-9, 2005) ............................................................................................................................... 33 A.2.10. MN Stormwater Steering Committee Needs (2005) ........................................................ 34 A.2.11. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (2001) ................................................ 35

Appendix B: Past Minnesota Stormwater Research at the University of Minnesota ............................................................................................................................ 37

B.1. Partner Projects ................................................................................................................. 37 B.2. Journal Articles ................................................................................................................... 37 B.3. Print and Web Articles (excluding UPDATES Newsletters) .................................... 41 B.4. Books and Book Chapters ................................................................................................ 41 B.5. Graduate Theses & Dissertations .................................................................................. 41 B.6. Reports .................................................................................................................................. 42

Stormwater Research Needs in Minnesota - July 2017 v

Acronyms and Abbreviations BMP(s) – Best Management Practice(s)

Legacy Amendment – Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment

MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NURP – National Urban Runoff Program

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load

UMN – University of Minnesota

US EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS – United States Geologic Survey

P – Phosphorus or Phosphate

PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons


1

1. Introduction “Minnesota, the land of nearly 12,200 lakes and 63,000 miles of rivers and streams, has more freshwater than any of the country’s other contiguous 48 states. Water is part of Minnesota’s identity and a defining force in our state’s history, heritage, environment, and quality of life. At the headwaters of three of the largest river basins in North America, Minnesota receives 99% of its water from rain and snow—consequently, most of our water quality problems originate right here in our own state. While this means we are not forced to clean up water problems originating elsewhere, it also means we have a responsibility to take care of our waters for our sake and for all those downstream.”1 Minnesota is blessed with an abundance of surface and groundwater resources. Many of these waters, however, are not suitable for drinking, human recreation, or wildlife habitat due to pollution. As of 2014 there were a total of 2,452 Minnesota surface waterbodies that exceeded water quality standards (called impairments), 515 of which were added since 2012. Water quality assessment studies on all 80 major watersheds in Minnesota started in 2008. By the end of 2017, the first of the 10-year cycle of sampling lakes and streams by watershed will be complete. A well-referenced generalization approximates that 40% of water bodies that are assessed are identified as impaired2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) expects more than 10,000 total impairments statewide once all waters have been assessed. In 2018, a new monitoring cycle of these watersheds will begin. This re-monitoring will more accurately assess and articulate if water quality has improved, declined, or remained the same. Water quality protection has been part of United States Regulations since the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, and others in the early 1970s. In the 1980s the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) made a serious financial commitment to improving water quality through limiting point source pollution discharges to the nation’s rivers. Point source discharges are any conveyance such as a pipe, ditch, or channel from which pollutants are or may be discharged, but are commonly considered to be discharges from industrial facilities or wastewater treatment plants, and combined (sewage and storm) sewer overflows. Significant federal and state financial and personnel resources were devoted to major sewer treatment improvements and sanitary and storm water separation projects. Limiting pollution from these sources resulted in tremendous improvements in rivers like the Mississippi River. In the late 1990s the US EPA began making advances to address non-point source pollution discharges to receiving waters, with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Within this program, the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program requires all units of government that own and maintain a storm

1 Swackhamer, D.L. 2011. Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework. Minnesota Water Resources Center. 2 MPCA. Lakes and water quality. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/lakes-and-water-quality#progress-a5fbf389. Accessed June 01, 2017

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/lakes-and-water-quality#progress-a5fbf389

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/lakes-and-water-quality#progress-a5fbf389

Stormwater Research Needs in Minnesota - July 2017 2

sewer system, to implement programs designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants (nutrients, sediment, salt, pathogens) to surface waters. In Minnesota, the MPCA’s MS4 Stormwater Management Program began in 2003 and includes 260 permitted entities as of November 20163. The number of MS4 permitted entities continues to grow as urban areas expand. Per the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory4, stormwater runoff is a leading source of water pollution in the United States. Stormwater runoff in urban areas is produced when water cascades from roofs, flows over lawns and down streets. As our communities continue to grow and redevelop, stormwater runoff carries pollutants to our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater resources. Common pollutants in stormwater runoff include sediment, nutrients, pesticides, fertilizers, oils, metals, pathogens, salt, litter and other debris. Local units of government rely on research to develop and improve their ability to effectively manage stormwater, reduce or eliminate this impact, and protect our valuable water resources. Another major outcome of the Clean Water Act that was implemented in the late 1990s and accelerated after 2000 was the Impaired Waters Program. This program requires identification of waters of the state that do not meet established water quality standards, which are labeled impaired (303d list). In addition to identification, the Impaired Waters Program requires that waters on this list must have a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study completed. This study identifies the sources of the pollutant causing the impairment and lays out an implementation plan of programs and projects to improve the water quality of the resource. One legislative action unique to Minnesota was passed in 2008 and is called the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment (Legacy Amendment). The Legacy Amendment increased the state sales tax by three-eighths of one percent beginning on July 1, 2009 and continuing until 2034, and the funds will be used to protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater. Thirty-three percent of the sales tax revenue from the Legacy amendment is allocated to the Clean Water Fund. Those funds may only be spent to protect, enhance, and restore water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams and to protect groundwater from degradation. Protecting Minnesota's waters is a joint effort between seven partner agencies, who collaborate and partner on Minnesota's water resource management activities under the Clean Water Fund. Environmental initiatives and cleanup efforts have resulted in improvements, such that approximately 35 Minnesota water bodies (15 lakes and 20 river segments) have been removed from the impaired designation following cleanup efforts. Other significant 3 MPCA. Municipal Stormwater Program. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm4-01.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2017 4 US EPA. 1996. National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.


advances have been made towards protecting and improving water quality of Minnesota’s surface and groundwater resources such as:

• Control of point-source pollution directly improving water quality • Commitment to improving water quality by many levels of government • Tax and grant resources available to protect and improve water resources • State law allowing state dollars to be leveraged into matching funds from local

and federal sources • Better definition of groundwater resources • Monitoring and protecting waters around the state by involved citizens • Diverse interests working together to assess and protect water quality • Improved systems in place for recovering from floods, settling well conflicts, and

cleaning up chemical spills • Encouragement for communities to actively manage their water resources, • Thriving ecosystems in most lakes and rivers • Strong laws and policies recognizing and protecting the value of wetlands • Many established boards and councils to set policy for managing intrastate

interstate, and international waters • Collection of substantial water quality and quantity data and assessment of waters

throughout Minnesota • Numerous completed TMDL studies with specific implementation strategies to

meet water quality standards. Despite these successes, Minnesota waters still face significant challenges from stormwater impacts and its management such as:

• Local governments face regulatory requirements to reduce pollutant loading without adequate financial resources or information to select cost-effective best management practices.

• Numerous best management practices (BMPs) and tools that can be used to improve water quality are available, however sporadic performance, cost-benefit, and longevity data needs to be complied and analyzed to provide guidance for practices. In some cases, additional data on these practices needs to be gathered.

• Various stormwater management practices and products have been studied, both nationally and locally. Study data needs to be compiled and analyzed. Additional studies need to be conducted that include applicability to Minnesota climate (rainfall patterns, cold winter) and Minnesota’s diverse professional, cultural, and community characteristics and application.

• Local road authorities must implement water quality practices within the limited right-of-way for roadway projects.


• Cities and Counties have substantial demands for water related infrastructure repairs and system replacement and express the need to modify systems to meet multiple demands, achieve multiple benefits, and incorporate new and innovative water management features and practices.

• New and emerging issues, such as climate change, present challenges on current design practices and future sustainability.

The Legacy Amendment and the Clean Water Fund demonstrate that voters and taxpayers are committed to protecting Minnesota’s water resources. The MS4 and Impaired Waters programs require local governments to implement programs and projects towards protecting and improving water quality, which represent substantial personnel and financial commitments. Given the challenges outlined above, many Minnesota local governments still question how to best use tax dollars to reduce pollutant loads to Minnesota’s surface and groundwater. When faced with challenging questions, the answer is most often found in research. “The fundamental aim of science is to improve our comprehension of the natural and human worlds. This goal is accomplished by scientific research, wherein knowledge is added to the foundations of previously accumulated experiences. Specifically, problems are defined, testable hypotheses are formulated, experiments are conducted, and results are documented.”5 Scientific research can help to evaluate existing practices and strategies, develop new technologies, and predict future improvements and sustainability. Research also unravels the mysteries of complex interactions between hydrology, biology, and climatology that form aquatic ecosystems. The result is a better understanding of the available options for stormwater managers and how to select between them; more cost-effective options to choose from; and more confidence that the selection process will yield long-term benefits. Applied research in this fashion enables stakeholders from citizens to all levels of government, including the state agencies that implement projects, local governments complying with state and federal rules, private companies designing a project to meet local stormwater design requirements, and the homeowner or property association wishing to implement projects to improve the water quality in their adjacent pond.

5 Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 1998. Forest Resources Research in Minnesota: Meeting the Information Needs of the Next Decade.


5

2. A Reflection of Past and Current Stormwater Research in Minnesota

Minnesota has made a commitment to protecting its valuable water resources for future generations. In addition to legislation, this commitment has been demonstrated through groundbreaking research propelling Minnesota forward as a leader in water quality protection and treatment. Stormwater research in Minnesota has occurred in conjunction and cooperation with research in stormwater management nationwide at various institutions and organizations (e.g., Center for Watershed Protection, Low Impact Development Center, North Carolina State University, University of Florida, University of Maryland, University of Minnesota, University of New Hampshire, US EPA, Villanova University, Washington Stormwater Center, Water Environment & Reuse Foundation, among others). In addition, some of the results from stormwater research have been aggregated in the International Stormwater BMP Database (www.bmpdatabase.org/). While not always applicable to Minnesota’s climate, this wealth of knowledge must be (and often is) tapped to advance the science of stormwater management in Minnesota. In addition, research within Minnesota must continue to grow to overcome the significant challenges still facing Minnesota’s waters. Multiple agencies and organizations in and around Minnesota expand the depth of stormwater knowledge by supporting and conducting applied research projects, including the Metropolitan Council, Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Natural Resources Research Institute, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources/USGS, state and private universities and academic institutions and local units of government such as watershed districts and management organizations and conservation districts, among others. More than 120 publications on stormwater research completed at the University of Minnesota have been published since 2005, and are listed in Appendix B. These represent the result of funding by, and partnerships with, many of the agencies listed above. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual led by the MPCA offers superior guidance for the design, construction, inspection, and management of many practices and represents a highly visible resource available to the stormwater industry. The Manual continually evolves incorporating new scientific and applied research. A short sample of research topics conducted by or completed through funding from these agencies is provided below:

• BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Arlington Pascal Project 2007‐2010. Large underground infiltration practice. (Capitol Region Watershed District)

• Effects of Lawn Fertilizer on Nutrient Concentration in Runoff from Lakeshore Lawns, Lauderdale Lakes, Wisconsin. (USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4130)


• Effects of Rain Gardens on the Quality of Water in the Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Area of Minnesota, 2002-04 (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5189, Metropolitan Council)

• Evaluation of Street Sweeping as a Stormwater-Quality-Management Tool in Three Residential Basins. (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5156, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

• Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Low-Impact Development Practices. (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5008, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

• Evaluation of Turf-Grass and Prairie-Vegetated Rain Gardens in a Clay and Sand Soil, Madison, Wisconsin, Water Years 2004–08. (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5077, City of Madison, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources)

• Monitoring of Water Quantity and Quality at Selected Inflow Sites on the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Mississippi Watershed Management Organization)

• Winter Bioretention System Infiltration Study. (Water Environment Research Foundation, Dakota and Washington Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Emmons & Olivier Resources, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, and Fortin Consulting.)

• Winter Maintenance Training for Reduced Impacts to Waters: (MPCA, Fortin Consulting)

There are many other examples of past, current, and on-going stormwater-related research projects.


7

3. Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs National and local efforts have identified stormwater research needs (see Appendix A), and several Minnesota studies have identified the importance and need for enhanced stormwater research efforts. Four of these efforts are the Minnesota Stormwater Roadmap (Stormwater Steering Committee 2008), the Water Sustainability Framework (Water Resources Center 2011), the Minnesota Non-Point Source Management Plan (MPCA 2013), and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Survey on Stormwater Research Priorities (MPCA 2015). A summary of information from these efforts is included in Appendix A. Stormwater management operates in a dynamic arena of rapidly evolving public policy and advancements in science, management, and design methods. Although these changes and advancements tend to shift stormwater research priorities every few years, information needs will likely remain the same until core knowledge gaps are filled. To identify core research areas within which these knowledge gaps belong, three recent efforts towards identifying stormwater research needs were reviewed. These three efforts were the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council meetings from 2006 to 2015; a stormwater research priorities survey conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in 2015; and the 2015 Water Policy Report published by the Environmental Quality Board. The examination of these current and future needs has resulted in the coalescence of the following seven core research areas:


Details and specific knowledge gaps are provided in the sections of this report that follow for each of these core research areas. To facilitate transparency, each specific knowledge gap has been given an acronym and alphanumeric identifier (e.g., SWRC A6) so it can be traced back to the original source provided in Appendix A. These identifiers can be decoded as such:

SWRC = Stormwater Research Council SWRC A = Information demanding topics (section A.2.1) SWRC B = Research Priorities – 2006 to 2010 (section A.2.6) SWRC C = Research Priorities – Identified January 8, 2015 by a discussion of 29 MN practitioners and researchers (section A.2.4)

MPCA = MPCA 2015 Stormwater Research Priorities Survey (section A.2.2) MPCA A = BMP-related research needs MPCA B = Stormwater Contaminants MPCA C = “Big Picture/Universal Themes” MPCA D = Single most critical issue across all categories


EQB = Environmental Quality Board 2015 Water Policy Report (section A.2.3) EQB A = Promote sustainable water use EQB B = Manage runoff in our built environment EQB C = Increase and maintain living cover across watersheds EQB D = Ensure resilience to extreme rainfall

A number following any of these identifiers indicates the list item under the identifier.

3.1. Source Reduction and Pollution Prevention Preventing stormwater pollution is the first step to meet clean water goals. As stormwater cascades from roofs, flows over lawns and down streets, it picks up pollutants such as sediment and phosphorus as well as characteristics such as pH, conductivity, and temperature that can have an impact on downstream lakes, streams, and rivers. Source reduction strategies are often more cost-effective than removing pollutants from stormwater runoff, but there has been little research on methods to decrease sources of stormwater pollutants before they enter stormwater conveyances. Nutrients, salt, and sediments are prime candidates for pollution prevention and source reduction research. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Source reduction, street sweeping (SWRC C6) Unregulated sources (agriculture, non-MS4, untreated outfalls/conveyances –

comparisons with regulated sources, consideration of whether more regulatory coverage is necessary) (MPCA C1 & D1)

3.2. Characterization of Stormwater Runoff Accurate characterization of runoff and sources is necessary for selection and design of treatment practices, as well as evaluate treatment effectiveness. In addition, awareness of new contaminants, such as chlorides from winter snow and ice control and PAHs from asphalt sealants, is growing. Stormwater has been broadly characterized on the national scale through extensive data collected by states and local governments. Many of these studies, however, were completed years ago and changes in urban land management and street management practices have altered runoff constituents and concentrations. There are local sources of stormwater characterization data, but there has not been a large-scale effort to aggregate and analyze this existing data so practitioners and professionals can make better decisions. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Characterization of the properties of runoff and sources of pollutants (SWRC A1) Emerging/non-regulated (MS4) contaminants such as nitrates (MPCA B5) Stormwater characterization: specific to certain land uses or flows such as runoff

from lawns, highways, or snowmelt; and general land use but specific to MN (MPCA B1 & B4)

Aggregation of data from a variety of sources is needed to analyze and evaluate the current characteristics of stormwater runoff and identify its traits.


3.3. Impacts to Surface and Groundwater Stormwater runoff and its contaminants (characteristics) impact surface waters like lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands, as well as groundwater resources. Rainfall and snowmelt events pick up pollutants from land surfaces and flows to lakes, wetlands, streams, rivers, and groundwater. The effects of these pollutants in runoff on the water quality, ecology, hydrology, and geomorphology of downstream systems is a priority research area because it will help further refine policy and management practices. Specifically, advanced research is needed in the areas of trends, cause and effect, transport, and fate of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Watershed districts, soil and water conservation districts, municipalities, and state agencies among others, collect water quality and flow data from many locations throughout Minnesota. Much of this data shows a clear improvement to water quality for specific BMPs or in relatively small-scale subwatersheds. Metropolitan Council has performed trend analysis of urban streams in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area6, which shows improvement to water quality on a broader scale yet they acknowledge most work is needed to determine causative factors. Thus, there remains a knowledge gap in the large-scale impact of stormwater treatment as well as the relative timescale over which these impacts can be expected. With an analysis of pollutant trends and potential causes, stormwater managers could learn from previous actions and make better choices for future management. While the following examples of knowledge gaps and research needs were identified by stormwater industry professionals, it is important to acknowledge the recent, current, and ongoing efforts to answering these knowledge gaps by UMN, MPCA, Metropolitan Council St. Cloud State University, University of St. Thomas, USGS, among others. In addition, efforts through the MS4 permit program and completed TMDLs have often led to increased understanding of stormwater impacts. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Assessment of receiving surface waters: Impacts of stormwater, monitoring

changes due to stormwater management in context with agriculture, wastewater, landscape changes, etc. (MPCA C3 & D6)

Biological effects, impairments, and measurement methods related to stormwater (MPCA B2)

Characterization of the environmental effects of runoff constituents on lake, wetland and stream water quality (SWRC A2 & A5)

Groundwater-infiltration BMP considerations (e.g., recharge, contaminant risks, benefits) (MPCA C4 & D7)

6 Comprehensive Water Quality Assessment of Select Metropolitan Area Streams Technical Executive Summary. December 2014. https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-QUALITY-MONITOR-ASSESS/STREAM-ASSESSMENT-REPORTS/TECHNICAL-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.aspx Accessed June 12, 2017.

https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-QUALITY-MONITOR-ASSESS/STREAM-ASSESSMENT-REPORTS/TECHNICAL-EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.aspx




Infiltration practices, with specific investigations into long-term effects, groundwater impacts, underground practices, and how soils impact effectiveness. (SWRC B1 & C2)

Road salt and chloride impacts from stormwater (MPCA B3 & SWRC B5) Water quality impacts of new and emerging contaminants (SWRC A4)

3.4. Treatment Practice Effectiveness

Local units of government and private property owners install treatment practices to remove pollutants from stormwater. These practices are often referred to as stormwater BMPs (best management practices) and are part of a suite of tools of low impact development (LID) that prevent and mitigate pollution, minimize and reduce stormwater runoff, and preserve and restore the hydrology and natural resources of the landscape. Examples include ponds, rain gardens, infiltration basins or trenches, permeable pavements, rainwater reuse, urban forestry and tree trenches. There are long-term benefits in continuing to evaluate existing and develop new stormwater treatment methods, volume control and infiltration, watershed-based management approaches (including education programs), and other cost-effective treatment options. In addition, new treatment techniques and technologies are emerging and require performance research or field assessment for design and maintenance. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual provides superior guidance for the selection, design, construction and maintenance of practices and will continue to be improved by providing new information about emerging practices and their effectiveness under certain conditions and application suitability for sites and projects. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Best Management Practice effectiveness, with specific investigations into sizing,

long-term effectiveness, benefits on large scales, compliance with regulations, and practices placed in series. (SWRC C1, MPCA A1, C2, D4, & D5)

Design/choices for sites with constraints or limitations (MPCA A5) Effectiveness of new technologies/emerging practices including iron enhanced

filters, alum systems, street sweeping (SWRC C6 & MPCA A4) Methods to avoid, minimize, buffer, or mitigate runoff effects (SWRC A3) Design and performance information on specific practices including stormwater

reuse (SWRC B3 & C6) and the use of trees in trenches and in bioretention practices (SWRC C5)

3.5. Maintenance, Longevity, and Cost/Benefit To remain effective, stormwater treatment practices need inspection and maintenance and the link between maintenance and performance is not well understood. Thus, most maintenance cycles are not optimized for performance or cost-effectiveness. Research is needed to understand these complex interactions and how to best maintain treatment practices to sustain long-term functionality. In addition, the longevity of treatment practices can be increased with proper maintenance, but the longevity of various practices is not well-known nor how long it can be extended with proper maintenance.


The life-cycle cost to design, construct, and maintain stormwater treatment and LID practices has been studied and documented to some degree, though the uncertainty is large. Many local units of government are still unsure how to estimate the life-cycle cost for many of the available practices. In addition, few studies have evaluated the value of the benefits provided by stormwater treatment and LID practices, resulting in few metrics available for comparing treatment options. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Long-term considerations including design, maintenance, and cost/benefit

(MPCA A2, A3, D2 & D3) Understanding how to maintain treatment practices, predict life cycle costs, and

longevity (SWRC B2 & C4)

3.6. Public Policy and Education Implementation is most effective when supported with policy and education. Research is needed both on the effectiveness of current policies and on policy revisions that would support the use of current stormwater and green infrastructure practices and technologies. Recent efforts in a number of communities and watersheds across the state demonstrate there is interest in reviewing and revising stormwater related policies that can be better accomplished if we have new information about the performance of existing codes, ordinances, and regulations and new ideas about how these can be improved for efficiency and effectiveness. Public education and communication is critical to the implementation of effective stormwater management systems. The two specific topics that are recognized as a priority are 1) the development of robust education strategies to create social change; and 2) the effectiveness and benefit of youth and adult focused educational activities. Public education may be one of the most complicated research topics, but may also possess the most potential for significant impact. Social science research is a growing need in the water management field. Both urban and agricultural water managers are challenged to find effective methods to communicate with residents on how to avoid water pollution. In addition, methods for effective communication are continually changing with the advance of technology and social media as well as growing diversity of residents. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Effective education of policy (decision) leaders, youth, and adults (SWRC B7 &

C6) Evaluation of tools and methods for education (SWRC) Information management, sharing, and coordination (SWRC B8 & C3) The role of the public in understanding their personal impact on water quality

and their role as land managers (SWRC A6) Current policy barriers and essential revisions (SWRC)


3.7. Emerging Concerns New challenges and opportunities emerge in response to changes in climate, management priorities, and regulations. Climate changes in temperature and precipitation patterns is a concern locally, nationally, and globally and will have profound implications for the environment. While some study has been done, little research has been conducted on the adaptation of stormwater management and infrastructure to climate changes and the level of impact that climate change will have on water resources. In addition, cold climates likely affect the overall functionality of BMPs, but the specific conditions of their limitations and long-term performance under cold climate conditions is not well known. In addition to design and performance of BMPs in cold climates, there is little documented data on how these conditions may impact BMP longevity and maintenance requirements. Examples of knowledge gaps and research needs: Practice performance cold climate conditions (SWRC B4) Precipitation patterns/climate change effects on stormwater and infrastructure

(SWRC B6 & EQB Report) Continued research on the toxicity of stormwater pond sediments (SWRC C6)


4. Challenges to Accomplishing Research Needs in the Next Decade There are challenges to meet the information needs in the core research areas described in section 3. These challenges include Need Identification and Prioritization, Research Program Coordination, Research Funding, and Information Transfer & Dissemination as described in the following sections.

4.1. Need Identification and Prioritization Despite multiple past efforts to identify and prioritize needs, there is varying degree of the specificity of needs under each of the core areas. In addition, research needs and priorities can change over time as they are influenced by changing conditions and scientific advances. This demonstrates a need for a dynamic and systematic process for identifying research needs and priorities. This process should routinely (e.g., every five years) collect input from Minnesota residents, communities, and local, regional and state agencies and stakeholders. This input would then be synthesized to develop a prioritized list of research needs. This process needs to be transparent and systematic so that methods are clear, scientific, adaptive, and repeatable. A primary goal of the Stormwater Research Priorities and Pond Maintenance Research Project coordinated by the Water Resources Center is to address these challenges. To remain relevant to Minnesota’s changing stormwater industry, research efforts should also be periodically compared to the path set by stormwater research priorities. This ensures that completed research is closing knowledge gaps and effectively and efficiently using research funds. In addition, evaluation will promote coordination of research goals and objectives, enhance dialogue and discourse among research organizations, and build greater unity among the research efforts of diverse organizations.

4.2. Research Program Coordination Enhanced planning and coordination between the various agencies supporting, providing funding for, or conducting stormwater research is needed. Many local, regional, and state agencies and private enterprises are involved in stormwater research efforts; and research is no longer only conducted by academic institutions. This plethora of organizations have different prioritizations, questions, and initiatives, which has developed a very robust tapestry of knowledge, though also results in the potential for duplication of efforts, missing critical knowledge gaps, and lack of knowledge transfer. While the stormwater industry has certainly benefited from the expansion of stormwater research, research program coordination among and between the various funding agencies and research institutions would efficiently use research funding, produce beneficial collaborations, and simplify dissemination.


4.3. Research Funding There lacks sufficient funds to conduct research to meet the information needs to propel stormwater management and the use of state-of-the-art practices forward for Minnesota. Currently, research efforts and funding is spread across multiple local, regional, and state agencies and organizations. Some organizations have funds to contribute to stormwater research, but cannot fund a full research project by themselves. A challenge and opportunity exists for organizations, agencies, and businesses interested in stormwater research to pool resources that could result in more research, greater benefits to costs, broader applications, and less overhead. It would also provide research institutions with more access to the available stormwater research funding.

4.4. Information Transfer & Dissemination Information and solutions that are not shared or cannot be found easily by practitioners and stakeholders cannot be utilized to protect or improve water resources. Uncoordinated dissemination is also a repercussion of the lack of research program coordination. Knowledge of and easy access to valuable research results is often limited due to the breadth of multiple researchers and funding organizations across Minnesota and beyond. Some challenges faced by Minnesota communities require the aggregation of results from multiple research projects to determine a solution. This may require some additional research funding for analysis and synthesis. Lastly, new information may not be needed but rather increased accessibility and ease of the transferability of existing knowledge. One of today’s challenge in stormwater management is getting the right information, to the right people, at the right time to make informed decisions. Making use of existing resources utilized by many stormwater industry professionals, such as the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, is critical to quickly increasing the effectiveness of dissemination. Solutions to these challenges include a robust sharing mechanism for research projects and results, a centralized hub or database of stormwater research findings, and enhanced and expanded education and training programs to spread the use of new information more broadly.


5. Summary & Next Steps Stormwater knowledge gaps and research needs for Minnesota fall into seven core research areas. Although stormwater research priorities may shift every few years, the core research areas will likely remain the same over time until knowledge gaps in the core research areas are answered. These core research areas for stormwater research in Minnesota are:


In addition to gaps in the knowledge base, there are challenges to meeting research needs in the next decade. These challenges include need identification and prioritization, research program coordination, sufficient funding, and dissemination. Without proper identification, prioritization, coordination, and funding, knowledge gaps could be left unanswered and funds could be spent ineffectively. Without proper dissemination, the stormwater industry may not receive or adopt vital solutions to knowledge gaps, resulting in no change to protect or improve water resources. These challenges can be overcome by expanding the current stormwater research effort into a robust, comprehensive, and well-funded stormwater research program for Minnesota. Following this interim report, a second portion of the Stormwater Research Priorities and Pond Maintenance Research Project is creating a stormwater research roadmap for the next decade. This effort will add the specificity of needs for each of the seven core research areas. Furthermore, it will establish a robust and repeatable process for assessing and prioritizing needs on a regular basis. The roadmap has a number of components and efforts that will make this possible:

1. A comprehensive survey of stormwater practitioners, professionals and managers across the state. 2. Workshops with specific stakeholders to discuss and extract information needs. 3. Interviews with key individuals about research needs that can propel stormwater management forward across the state.

This information will be compiled and coupled with information and sources contained within this interim report and its appendices and with information mined from state, regional, and national studies and literature. The result aims to produce a more accurate, specific, and articulate vision of the stormwater research needs, a prioritized list, and a process that can be repeated in subsequent years to help guide progress towards goals.


Because this project is funded by a two-year grant, an additional measure to help achieve answers to multiple stormwater research needs and maintain a regularly updated list of needs, has been established. The Minnesota Stormwater Research Council (MSRC) was established in 2016, is a representative cross-section of stormwater managers and agencies, and is positioned to become the nexus for stormwater research planning, coordination, funding, and dissemination In collaboration with the University of Minnesota’s Water Resources Center, the MN SWRC will:

• Collect input on and prioritize knowledge gaps and research needs. • Solicit research funds and develop requests for proposals (RFPs). • Contract with researchers to complete research projects. • Engage industry professionals as advisory panel members. • Collaborate with policy makers. • Centralize research results into accessible databases. • Cooperate with educators and trainers to disseminate research results.


Appendix A: Scientific & Technology Knowledge Gaps Not all available resources on scientific and technology knowledge gaps related to stormwater research were reviewed as part of this interim report. The resources that were reviewed are summarized below.

A.1. National Stormwater Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs

Villanova Conference (October 2005)

1. Hydrologic/Hydraulic analysis tools that cover new design concepts in stormwater management

2. Examining and comparing commonly used methods and models 3. Maintenance and lifetime performance of BMPs (specifically bioretention) 4. Cost and Installation of BMPs 5. Temperature impacts 6. Construction means and methods 7. Failures: are there commonalities among BMP failures 8. Overloading infiltration practices to see how they perform 9. Where to use structural or preventative measures 10. Getting upstream communities more aware of downstream impacts 11. More soil scientist involvement 12. After BMPs are inventoried follow up to see how they perform during flood events 13. Need to stress retrofitting - new regulations never improve what is already in the ground 14. Retrofit before stream restoration - understand ties between stormwater management and

BMPs and stream restoration 15. How to keep standards more consistent 16. Support the installation of BMPs using cost analysis comparison to traditional practices

Great Bay, NH Workshop (October 2003)

1. Integrate and maintain long-term water quality data sets to improve accessibility and utility for multiple user groups.

2. Improve utility of existing information for land use planning by examining barriers to its use and developing an adaptable user-friendly clearinghouse to support the planning process, identify data gaps, and indicate future research needs (first determine need for such a product by consulting user groups).

3. Identify and characterize species and communities at risk and better understand stressors responsible. Assess non-point nutrient sources such as septic systems, storm-water events, groundwater discharge, and agricultural contributions as part of an overall nutrient budget.

4. Define the extent and distribution of impervious surface at sufficient spatial scale to support research into its effects on adjacent habitats.

5. Investigate climate change level impacts on indicators in context of examining at risk communities.


6. Define a suite of indicator species (~10 to 20 potentially stratified by trophic level) that reflect the whole ecosystem condition and establish quantitative methods to monitor their abundance and condition.

7. Identify appropriate metrics for evaluating the effect of changing land use on natural resources.

8. Demonstrate and evaluate new approaches to minimize impervious surface and better manage stormwater in a variety of NH sites and conditions (i.e., evaluate the application of low-impact development approaches in NH conditions).

9. Evaluate factors that influence the effect of impervious cover on water quality (e.g., examine the role of different types, sizes and locations of buffers, the effect of different stormwater management and age of management facilities, the effect of different types of developed land use activities).

USEPA: The 20 Needs Report: How research can improve TMDL program (2002)

1. Improve watershed and water quality modeling 2. Improve the science base concerning all stressors (pollution and pollutants) and their

impacts 3. Improve information on BMP restoration or other management practice effectiveness,

and the related processes of system recovery 4. Make monitoring more program-relevant and results-relevant 5. Develop and improve biocriteria, address other criteria gaps, and evaluate the potential

for ecological water quality standards


A.2. Local Stormwater Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs

A.2.1. Stormwater Research Council Interim Report (November 2015)

Research Needs – information demanding topics Stormwater management operates in a dynamic arena of rapidly evolving public policy and advancements in management and design methods. Although these changes and advancements tend to shift stormwater research priorities every few years, the core research areas will likely remain the same. Current stormwater-related research needs fall into the six categories outlined below.

1. Characterization of the properties of runoff and sources of pollutants: The extensive data

collected by other states and local governments have significantly reduced the need for additional data to characterize stormwater runoff. However, many of these studies were completed years ago and changes in urban land management and street management practices have altered runoff constituents and concentrations. Accurate characterization of runoff and sources is needed to evaluate BMP effectiveness.

2. Characterization of the environmental effects of runoff constituents on lake, wetland and

stream water quality: Although the character of stormwater runoff is generally known, the effects of runoff on the water quality, ecology, hydrology, and geomorphology of downstream systems is still a priority research area. Research on the effects of stormwater runoff will help further refine policy and management practices.

3. Methods to avoid, minimize, buffer, or mitigate runoff effects: There are long-term

benefits in continuing to pursue and evaluate stormwater treatment methods, volume control and infiltration, watershed-based management approaches (including education programs), and other cost-effective treatment options. New techniques and technologies continue to be made available without good performance research. The emergence of new stormwater approaches and technologies developed to comply with regulations often spurs the need for research on design and maintenance questions associated with those new management options. The District also recognizes the need to ensure that surface water quality protection efforts do not come at the expense of soil or groundwater contamination.

4. Water quality impacts of new and emerging contaminants: Many water management

agencies have a clear understanding of their responsibilities for nutrient management, but we are becoming aware of new contaminant concerns such as chlorides from winter snow and ice control and PAHs from asphalt sealants. We are also becoming aware of the increased role of dissolved phosphorus in our lake water quality management. Also included here is the emergence of biological issues such as Carp management as a water quality issue.

5. Characterization of lake and wetland ecology as it relates to water quality: Water

Management Organizations are fast becoming aware that much of the in-lake and wetland conditions we see is a by-product of ecological conditions within the water body as well as a condition of the quantity and quality of the water discharging to the system. Factors


that need to be considered are lake sediments, re-suspension issues, influence of aquatic plants and fisheries, water temperature, ice and snow cover, waterfowl impacts and more. Understanding this relationship and the factors influencing change warrants additional research.

6. The role of the public in understanding their personal impact on water quality and their

role as land managers: Social science research is a growing need in the water management field. Water managers are increasingly aware of the significant challenge of public education. Both urban and agricultural areas are challenged to find effective methods to communicate with its residents on how to manage their properties to avoid water pollution. A greater challenge in our urban areas is finding an effective way to communicate with the large populations in an age of reduced effectiveness and use of typical mass media. The effective use of social media needs to be explored and tested. Effective communication with the growing minority populations is also challenge.

A.2.2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Survey on Stormwater Research Priorities (June - July, 2015)

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) solicited input from Minnesota stormwater professionals, and received 192 responses to Phase 1 (June 2015) and 363 responses to Phase 2 (July 2015) of their survey (estimated 1700 recipients). The survey was organized into several categories of research topics, which generated three lists of research needs, and a final question asking for the single most critical issue across all categories (fourth list of research needs). (MPCA A) BMP-related research needs

1. (53%/19%) BMP performance (various BMP types) for reducing flows and commonly monitored pollutants (MPCA A1)

2. (52%/22%) BMP long term considerations (design/maintenance/performance/cost) (MPCA A2)

3. (48%/18%) BMP cost/benefit information (MPCA A3) 4. (40%/8%) Effectiveness of new technologies/emerging practices including iron enhanced

filters, alum systems, street sweeping (MPCA A4) 5. (35%/7%) Design/choices for sites with constraints or limitations (MPCA A5)

(MPCA B) Stormwater Contaminants

1. (61%/35%) Stormwater characterization: specific to certain land uses or flows such as runoff from lawns, highways, or snowmelt (MPCA B1)

2. (39%/15%) Biological effects, impairments, and measurement methods related to stormwater (MPCA B2)

3. (38%/12%) Chloride impacts from stormwater (MPCA B3) 4. (35%/12%) Stormwater characterization: general land use but specific to MN (MPCA

B4) 5. (39%/8.3%) Emerging/non-regulated (MS4) contaminants such as nitrates (MPCA B5)


(MPCA C) “Big Picture/Universal Themes” 1. (49%/28%) Unregulated sources (agriculture, non-MS4, untreated outfalls/conveyances –

comparisons with regulated sources, consideration of whether more regulatory coverage is necessary) (MPCA C1)

2. (52%/18%) Effectiveness of stormwater management (quantifying benefits on large scales, determining if we have now regulated urban sources sufficiently, determining whether stormwater management is working, bringing permittees that may have ineffective SWPPPs into compliance) (MPCA C2)

3. (48%/14%) Assessment of receiving surface waters: Impacts of stormwater, monitoring changes due to stormwater management in context with agriculture, wastewater, landscape changes, etc. (MPCA C3)

4. (38%/13%) Groundwater-infiltration BMP considerations (e.g., recharge, contaminant risks, benefits) (MPCA C4)

(MPCA D) Single most critical issue across all categories

1. (16%) Unregulated sources (agriculture, non-MS4, and untreated outfalls/conveyances – comparisons with regulated, and consideration of whether more permit/regulatory coverage is necessary) (MPCA D1)

2. (12%) BMP cost/benefit information (MPCA D2) 3. (11%) BMP long term considerations (design/maintenance/performance/cost) (MPCA

D3) 4. (10%) BMP effectiveness and performance (various types of BMPs) for reducing flows

and commonly monitored pollutants (MPCA D4) 5. (8.5%) Effectiveness of stormwater management (quantify benefits on large scales,

determine if we have now regulated urban sources sufficiently, determine whether stormwater management is working, bring permittees that may have ineffective SWPPPs into compliance) (MPCA D5)

6. (8.0%) Assessment of receiving surface waters: Impacts of stormwater, monitoring changes due to stormwater management in context with agriculture, wastewater, landscape changes, etc. (MPCA D6)

7. (6.1%) Groundwater-infiltration BMP considerations (e.g., recharge, contaminant risks, benefits) (MPCA D7)

A.2.3. Environmental Quality Board 2015 Water Policy Report

While the 2015 EQP Water Policy Report does not present specific lists of research needs, it does identify several areas of necessary research under four water policy goals.

1. (EQB A) Promote Sustainable Water Use • To ensure sustainable use of Minnesota’s water, we need to understand how much

water we have and how much we are using. (EQB A1) • More accurate and consistent metering and reporting would allow for evaluation of

uses and needs that could inform better water management and conservation. (EQB A2)


2. (EQB B) Manage Runoff in Our Built Environment • We need to assess the performance of green infrastructure to determine where it is

having the biggest impact. We can do so by monitoring the flow, chemistry, biology and habitats, before and after green infrastructure is deployed, of: (EQB B1) o relatively pristine streams and lakes with encroaching development o streams in urban watersheds on the cusp of not being able to support aquatic life

• We can use the monitoring results to assess the effectiveness and weigh the costs and benefits of best management practices. (EQB B2)

• Traditional education campaigns are important tools for raising awareness about how deicing chemicals impair lakes, rivers and groundwater. However, changing attitudes about deicing chemicals will also require a planning process that engages citizens, watershed organizations, lake associations, neighborhood groups and local governments. (EQB B3)

3. (EQB C) Increase and maintain living cover across watersheds

• We need data on adoption of practices that protect water quality so we can track trends, prioritize government support, and measure progress toward goals and requirements. (EQB C1)

• A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of soil conservation practices such as cover cropping could help farmers factor into their bottom line benefits such as increased yield, increased water holding capacity, reduced erosion, increased nutrient cycling and retention, increased soil organic matter, and resilience to drought. (EQB C2)

• Research is needed to improve cover crop technology; characterize nutrient, erosion and water retention impact; quantify economic costs and benefits; and develop and improve cover crop seed varieties suitable for Minnesota. (EQB C3)

4. (EQB D) Ensure Resilience to Extreme Rainfall

• To boost preparedness for extreme weather, we need to create a comprehensive storm sewer database that allows us to identify areas of concern that need attention during extreme events. (EQB D1)

• Similarly, as weather becomes more severe, we need to assess and rank the vulnerability of roads, bridges and culverts around the state to storms and floods so we can prioritize efforts to reduce risk. (EQB D2)

• We need downscaled climate models that will provide a level of detail relevant for local planning. (EQB D3)

A.2.4. Stormwater Research Group Workshop (January 8, 2015)

The following is a list of research priorities developed through a January 8, 2015 discussion of 29 Minnesota practitioners and researchers. This is a list of many of the same topics discussed above, but listed in order of highest to lowest priority as expressed by those attending.

Research Need Priority 1 Best Management Practice Effectiveness, with specific investigations into practices placed in series, sizing, and long-term effectiveness.


Research Need Priority 2 Infiltration Research, with specific investigations into long-term effects, groundwater impacts, underground practices, and how soils impact effectiveness. Research Need Priority 3 Information sharing and coordination, so that results and data are accessible and research is coordinated to most effectively use funds available. Research Need Priority 4 Best Management Practice Maintenance, to understand how to maintain practices, predict life cycle costs, and longevity. Research Need Priority 5 Trees as stormwater management to better understand their positive and negative impacts to water quality and other community benefits. Other Research Needs Reuse of stormwater, source reduction, street sweeping, channel stabilization, education of decision makers, filtration media performance, and toxicity of pond sediments. Topic Number of mentions

1. BMP practice design issues/guidance 7 2. BMP effectiveness 5 3. Infiltration 4 4. Stormwater ponds – maintenance/effectiveness 4 5. Street sweeping 4 6. Porous pavement 3 7. Treatment train/multiple BMP results, effectiveness 2 8. Stormwater reuse 2 9. Groundwater impacts of stormwater management 2 10. Trees as a stormwater BMP 2 11. BMP maintenance 2 12. Data Mgt./Technology transfer/information sharing 2 13. Monitoring 2 14. BMP long-term effectiveness 1 15. Research methods – paired watershed studies 1 16. BMP optimization 1 17. Winter effects/ Spring runoff impacts 1 18. Nitrates 1 19. Road salt/chlorides 1 20. Bacteria 1 21. Social Science research issues 1 22. Biological impairment/stressors 1 23. PAHs 1 24. Stormwater benefits of land use/zoning ordinance changes 1 25. Impacts from major storm events 1 26. Water supply effects 1 27. Source control benefits 1

24

A.2.5. Minnesota Nonpoint Source Management Program Plan (2013)

Chapter 11 Urban Runoff Goal 7: Research the effectiveness of urban runoff best management practices (see Appendix K of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual). Milestones (Action Steps) 13 14 15 16 17 Funding

Source(s) Lead Agency(ies)

1. Evaluate BMP life cycles 1. long-term effectiveness 2. costs including

c. maintenance d. acceptance of urban BMPs

X X 319, State, Federal.

MPCA, MDNR, Met. Council, BWSR, MDH, MnDOT, UMN

2. Research the performance of emerging and nontraditional BMPs including but not limited to:

1. bioretention 2. pervious pavement 3. green roofs 4. infiltration 5. proprietary sediment removal devices 6. long term performance data

X X X X 319, State, Federal


3. Assess the impacts of freezing, snow and snowmelt on the operation and effectiveness of existing and potential BMPs (BMP assessment). X X X X 319, State,

Federal MPCA, MDNR, Met. Council, BWSR, MDH, MnDOT, UMN

4. Develop cold climate simulation tools X X X X 319, State, Federal


5. Research BMP effectiveness in contaminate removal for pathogens, toxins, and other emerging issue contaminates. X X X X 319, State,


Chapter 11 Urban Runoff 11-299

25

Milestones (Action Steps) 13 14 15 16 17 Funding Source(s) Lead Agency(ies)

6. Research infiltration techniques including:

1. soil amendments and deep ripping to increase infiltration

2. effectiveness in cold conditions 3. monitor, evaluate, identify or develop BMPs that protect groundwater where it may be

detrimentally impacted

X X X X 319, State, Federal


7. Develop stormwater runoff demonstration sites for research, monitoring and educational purposes. Publicizing of the sites can be done through being open to the public, published in sources such as the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, and/or cited in training materials.

X X X X X State, Local, 319


8. Research low impact development and Low Impact Development techniques X X X State, Local, 319

MPCA, MDNR, Met. Council, BWSR, MDH, UM

9. Research on salt contamination: a. salt management including storage and application b. BMPs c. alternative methods and products

X X X X X State, Local, 319


10.Evaluate, identify or develop BMPs on ways to mitigate artificially extended “bankfull” flow in developed areas. X X 319, State,


26

A.2.6. Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework (2011)

Issue Science & Technology Gaps Research Need

Time Frame

Cost

The Need for a Sustainable and Clean Water Supply

1. The state’s water balance is poorly known. An understanding of the water balance, uses/withdrawals, recharge rates, and amounts of stored water in layered aquifers is needed, all as a function of time. Recharge rates and flows between aquifer systems are particularly unknown.

2. The minimum base flows in surface water that are needed to protect ecosystems and sustain other uses are not known.

3. The impacts of climate change on future base flows are not known (and likely will never be known with certainty).

4. The cumulative impacts of multiple extractions from groundwater, especially the impacts on base flow over time, are not known.

design and complete the water balance hydrologic models

1-12 Years

>$10Million

develop eco-based thresholds for minimum flows

1-5 years $1-10 Million

Excess Nutrients and Other Conventional Pollutants

1. Impacts of excess nutrients on overall ecosystem structure and function are not well characterized. In addition, the cumulative impact of this nutrient enrichment at the level of a river basin like the Minnesota River or the Red River is not well understood.

2. The effectiveness of BMPs or treatment technologies on large scales and long time frames is unknown.

3. The effectiveness of pollutant load reductions is not well quantified.

4. There is insufficient knowledge of what patterns of nitrogen and phosphorus loading produce blue-green algal blooms; the frequency with which blue-green algal blooms become toxic on a waterbody-by waterbody basis; and ways to conduct rapid assessments for cyanotoxins.

research cyanotoxin sources


27

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

1. Sufficient toxicological data on CECs is lacking. 2. An understanding of all the sources, movement, and

environmental fate of CECs is lacking. 3. An understanding of the cumulative impacts of CECs on

human health or ecosystem health is lacking. 4. A comprehensive research agenda into “green” processes

of producing materials and manufactured goods and products is needed.

5. Knowledge of the extent of use of unlicensed pesticide application (for home or garden use) and a system for tracking the use, transport, or fate of pesticides used outside licensed application is needed.

6. The ability to track and assess pathogens in water in real time to monitor the human health risks from exposure during water-based recreation (at public beaches, etc.) is lacking.

7. An understanding of the extent and potential risk of antibiotic resistance in aquatic organisms and humans caused by antimicrobial compounds and anti-biotics in the environment is lacking.

8. CECs are not removed effectively with our current wastewater or drinking water treatment technologies.

research pathogen indicators and sources


Land, Air, and Water Connection

1. The effects of land use changes on groundwater quantity and quality are not fully understood.

2. The impacts of climate change are not well understood. 3. The effectiveness of climate change adaptation strategies is

unknown. 4. The effectiveness of landscape restoration techniques to

treat or recharge water, provide habitat, protect shorelines, or manage stormwater is not fully understood.

5. The cumulative impacts of extractive land uses on ground and surface waters are not fully understood.

monitor effectiveness

2-20 years

>$10Million

28

Ecological and Hydrological Integrity

1. The cumulative impacts of water quality and water quantity stressors on critical ecological processes and their associated aquatic ecosystem functions for both lakes and streams are unknown.

2. There is insufficient understanding of the effects of climate change on ecosystem function and the effectiveness of adaptation strategies to protect vulnerable ecosystems.

3. The effects of modifications to physical habitat associated with sediment transport and channel modifications on ecological integrity and ecosystem function in streams are unclear.

4. There is insufficient understanding of the effectiveness of best practices and of incentives needed to change individual behaviors regarding shoreland management.

5. There are no tested methods for determining the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by aquatic systems.

determine ecosystem services and their economic value

5-10 years

$1-10 Million

research control measures for aquatic invasive species


model drainage from field scale to watershed scale


Water-Energy Nexus

1. Interrelationships between water and energy have not been quantified.

2. The economic costs of these relationships are not well understood.

3. The ecological costs of water-energy relationships are not well understood.

understand and quantify the water-energy nexus

2-4 years <$1 Million

29

Water Pricing and Valuation

1. A lack of data and modeling approaches that integrate economic costs with 1. the additional costs of water benefits, including ecosystem services.

2. A lack of research-based data on the true comparative cost of protection 2. vs. restoration activities.

3. A lack of data and modeling approaches that integrate economic costs with 1. the additional costs of water benefits, including ecosystem services.

4. A lack of research-based data on the true comparative cost of protection 2. vs. restoration activities.

5. A lack of accurate data over time on residential and commercial water use 3. and the effectiveness of pricing strategies in reducing water use (price elasticity). 4.

6. A lack of understanding of the influence of various incentive programs (grants, loans, tax benefits, etc.) on long-term conservation behaviors of 5. people, businesses, organizations, and governments.

research and model value of water ecological benefits

3-4 years <$1 Million

Public Water Infrastructure Needs

1. The life-cycle costs of all water-related infrastructure are not well known.

2. The current status of most infrastructure in the state is unclear.

3. There is no system for assessing the status of public and private infrastructure.

determine long-term funding strategy for public water infrastructure

2-4 years >$10Million

TOTAL $28-80 Million


30

A.2.7. Stormwater Research Council - Research Priorities (2006 to 2010)

Lists of the stormwater research needs, both nationally and locally, which were identified between 2006 and 2010, can be found in Appendix C. Also included is an updated list of specific research topics compiled in early 2015 by an ad-hoc group discussing the need to establish an ongoing stormwater research program. There were several overarching themes at both the national scale and the local scale. They can be grouped and described through seven groupings ranked in order of prevalence (number of mentions among the individuals participating in the exercise):

1. Infiltration practices 2. BMPs and maintenance 3. LID 4. Cold climate conditions 5. Road salts 6. Precipitation patterns/climate change 7. Education 8. Information management

Infiltration Practices While general knowledge regarding the efficiency of stormwater BMPs was also commonly considered to be lacking, infiltration practices were often stressed as most important and listed separately. There were several aspects of using infiltration practices to treat stormwater runoff, which were thought to need additional research. One common concern is the impact that concentrating contaminants to one localized area has on the quality of groundwater. This is an issue which will be dependent on multiple factors and local efforts may be necessary to appropriately determine where and under what circumstances this may be an issue. The long- term function and the maintenance requirements of infiltration BMPs were expressed as common research needs both nationally and locally. While general determinations and guidance may be developed on a large-scale site, specific considerations will always impact both long-term functionality and maintenance. The final common research need regarding infiltration practices was the need for cost comparisons to more traditional practices to determine economic feasibility. Best Management Practices It was clear that the long-term efficiency and maintenance requirements of all stormwater BMPs were an area which was in need of additional research. Additionally, there was a common need for information regarding the cost of installation and maintenance and the proper installation recommendations. Low Impact Development The responses and information gathered through this project indicated that LID practices were a top priority and in desperate need of additional research. Scientific support and evidence of LID effectiveness to reduce and manage stormwater runoff is of interest nationally as well as locally. The three main areas in need of immediate research are: effectiveness to reduce/treat stormwater runoff (especially in highly urbanized areas), the cost of installation and maintenance along with

31

a comparison to traditional structural BMPs, and how these practices perform under cold climate conditions. Cold Climate Conditions There was overlap with this specific topic regarding the overall functionality of BMPs, but the specific conditions of their functionality and long-term performance under cold climate conditions was specifically mentioned as an area of concern several times. This theme gets to the need for understanding how various BMPs and LID practices perform under site specific conditions (specifically climate, but other considerations such as native soils, existing hydrologic considerations, etc.) and how those conditions may impact their longevity, maintenance requirements and treatment efficiencies. Road Salts This topic was especially noted on local scale as Minnesota is somewhat ahead of the nation on dealing with the impacts that road salts has on water resources. There were some very specific areas of concern, those not receiving much current research effort include: the impacts road salts have on emerging biota during spring runoff, the effects of road salts on plants and wildlife in lakes or wetlands, and the current chloride levels in groundwater. Precipitation Patterns/Climate Change This specific topic is, of course, not only a concern nationally and locally but on a global level and its overall implications for the environment. In regards to the potential implications that climate change will have on stormwater management, the current research needs are the following: the adaptation of stormwater management and infrastructure to climate changes and to investigate the level of impact that it will have on water resources. With almost no previous or current research dealing with these specific issues, more research needs are predicted in the near future. Education This topic is again an overall theme for environmental issues, but specific to stormwater management and source reduction, there is a great need both locally and nationally for the successful education of the public. The two specific topics that were recognized as a priority were the development of sustainable education strategies to create social change and the effectiveness and benefit of child vs. adult focused educational activities. While there were a few research projects examining the social component to water resource management, there is perhaps only one study locally (Duluth) which is researching social indicators for measuring success. This particular topic may be the most complicated of all the topics and possess the most potential for significant impact. Information Management It has become apparent that there is a great need for the communication of the research being conducted on both the national and local scale. A system that can be used by local staff to share this type of information would be greatly beneficial. There is a great need for a centralized database or system to keep track of past and new research results to be shared by the stormwater management community. This information would be used to make better decisions, spend money more efficiently, and allow collaboration with each other to gain a broader and more comprehensive understanding of these complex issues.

32

A.2.8. Minnesota Stormwater Steering Committee Roadmap (2008)

II.B. Coordinate research efforts and disseminate research results. SSC vision, goal and principles. Vision and goal Improving the efficiency and broadening the dissemination of research efforts will increase our technological capacity to protect Minnesota’s water resources according to the Vision. Research results should continue to inform our long-term stormwater management effort and we recognize research as a component of the long-term stormwater management strategy discussed in the Goal. Principles Action Category upholds Principles 5, 6 and 8. Research will provide us with the information and knowledge necessary to protect and restore healthy ecosystems as recommended in Principle 5 – Striving for healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Research findings should be used to establish the monitoring and measurement criteria referred to in Principle 6 – Establishing monitoring and measurement criteria and protocols to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Principle 8 -- Managing stormwater as a vital resource – will also be aided and informed by stormwater management research. Resource needs Accomplishing the Action Items within this category will require funding, staffing, and sometimes other resources. The table below provides a sense of existing and required resources for each item. The table identifies whether the item currently has resources assigned to that task and what type of resources, and whether additional resources are likely to be needed and an approximation of the magnitude of the new resources needed.

33

Action Item Currently Funded? If so, source of funding?

Resource amounts

Additional resources needed?

Source Recipient

Inventory ongoing research. No and needs to cover all areas below

The new research Council (II.B.f)

$50K

Create and maintain repositories for water quality data and research results.

Same as above The new research Council

>$200K

Inventory research needs for emerging issues. Same as above

The new research Council

Part of above

Inventory research needs for unresolved issues. Same as above


Part of above

Create a watershed- or TMDL- focused research and monitoring framework.

Yes but no constant % has been fixed

Identify research partners and methods of disseminating research through the establishment of a state-level Research Council (LRRB Model).

Not a funded activity but needs to be a part of an education and information dissemination program


>$500K/year for the next 10 years

Approx. 5% of the research activity. Source - local commitments

A.2.9. UMN/MPCA/Met Council Stormwater Practice Assessment Program Input sessions (June 2-9, 2005)

Top twelve stormwater practices needing further assessment

1. Rain gardens 2. Grass channels & swales 3. Constructed bioretention systems 4. Porous pavement and permeable pavers 5. Stream & shoreline buffers 6. Infiltration basins 7. Proprietary sediment removal devices 8. Erosion repair (shore land stabilization) 9. Street sweeping 10. Multi-cell ponds 11. Surface flow filters 12. Wet ponds

34

Specific performance information needs

1. Practice effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and longevity 2. Practice performance under cold weather conditions 3. Practice performance under specific soil, slope, and geological conditions 4. Groundwater impacts from stormwater infiltration practices 5. Potential negative impacts of practices including impact in urban infrastructure (e.g.,

roadbeds) 6. Maintenance procedures and costs 7. Need for a standard stormwater practice assessment protocol so data can be shared and

trusted Lessons learned

1. Good rainfall data is needed for monitoring sites in terms of both intensity and volume. 2. Since stormwater monitoring only measures suspended solids, heavier bed load material

is often not accounted for. 3. Monitoring needs to be included in the practice design phase to avoid the need to retrofit. 4. Two years of monitoring is required to "settle into" a site before reliable data can be

taken and five years of data id needed to confidently assess a practice. 5. The level of effort required for reliable stormwater practice monitoring is high. 6. It takes two seasons in northern MN to adequately establish vegetation on practices. 7. Operation and maintenance considerations need to be included in practice design to

assure equipment access, public acceptance, and employee safety. 8. Public works budgets need to be increased as stormwater practices are installed to assure

their regular implementation.

A.2.10. MN Stormwater Steering Committee Needs (2005)

1. Performance of Emerging and Non-Traditional Best Management Practice (BMPs): Data on the water quantity and quality performance of new BMPs or those not commonly used is desperately needed for the Minnesota climate. Such practices as bioretention, pervious pavement, green roofs, infiltration, and proprietary sediment removal devices are included in this need. Of particular need are the long-term performance [sic]

2. Cold Climate Adaptations: Many of the suggested adaptations for cold climate BMP installation have not been adequately tested with installed system research. Building modified BMPs and collection of performance behavior is essential is we ever [sic]

3. Cold Climate Simulation Tools: MPCA is in the process of developing a new predictive tool for runoff and sediment from construction sites with funds provided by Mn/DOT, LRRB, and MPCA. It is expanding the model to include watershed scale (with more support by Mn/DOT and LRRB). It already provides an upgrade to the TP-40 approach. More work is [sic]

4. Pathogen and Toxin Treatment: Few data exist on the effectiveness of BMPs on the removal of pathogens and many toxins of concern. Data collection on in-place effectiveness of various BMPs relative to these pollutants is needed.

35

5. Outdoor Labs Dedicated to Stormwater Study: MPCA staff has been promoting an outdoor laboratory at UMore Park. Long-term progress in understanding the performance of different stormwater systems require that inflow (rainfall and runoff) be controlled in carefully designed experiments. This facility could provide that opportunity if properly developed.

6. LID/BSD Construction and Maintenance: Low Impact Development (LID) and Better Site Design (NSD) techniques outlines in this Manual are common sense approaches to minimizing the impact of development, yet little research based guidance is available on the design features and follow-up maintenance needed to keep them functional. Maintenance techniques and [sic]

7. The Impact of Infiltration Practices: One of the themes of this manual and of the changing field of stormwater management is soaking precipitation into the ground before it gets a chance to concentrate and mobilize surface pollutants. It has gone further and promoted infiltration as one of the major BMP processes that can effectively address stormwater. Unfortunately, many of the conclusions drawn on the water quality benefits of infiltration are anecdotal or based on research done in climates much different than Minnesota’s. Comprehensive data collection on what happens in the groundwater as a result of increased urban area infiltration is essential, especially in those many parts of the state where ground [sic]

8. The Impact of Salt: The application of NaCl to our roads and parking areas has had a negative impact on water quality. The public’s need for safety, which absolutely must come first, directly conflicts with the judicious use of salt to keep road and parking surfaces ice-free. Recent data have shown increases in both shallow groundwater and lake chloride (Cl) levels – a condition that has been detected in other cold climate portions of the world. Minnesota (Mn/DOT) has been a national leader on anti- and de-icing research, but we need continued research on the nature

9. Precipitation Patterns: TP 40 has been criticized for being out of date because of the changes that have occurred over the past 20 years in Minnesota’s climate. Some effort has been started to update precipitation frequency tables for the state. (Note: This has been address. TP 40 was recently updated with NOAA Atlas 14).

A.2.11. Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (2001)

1. Effects of NaCl concentrations on plants and wildlife in lakes and wetlands 2. Cost/benefit of various stormwater regulatory programs 3. Cost effectiveness of carp removal as a water quality initiative 4. Buffer effectiveness (how wide given a range of variables) 5. Effects of riprap on lake eco-systems 6. Impact of internal phosphorus load from built wetlands and other stormwater facilities in

urban areas on design for stormwater treatment basins 7. Impact of chip and deal programs that are widespread in MN 8. Cost effectiveness and effects of impervious surface limitations 9. Long-term impact of using natural wetlands to receive stormwater and the impact various

pollutants have on these wetlands and the mitigation effects of pre-treatment

36

10. Effectiveness of street sweeping as a BMP and the benefits of new vacuum sweepers as compared to brush sweepers, is there a benefit to setting schedules & priorities

11. Testing the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) of alternative treatments methods for difficult situations

12. The effectiveness and benefit of child vs. adult focused educational activities 13. Maintenance requirements and cost of BMPs and the development of a manual 14. Effectiveness of bioretention in a cold-weather climate 15. Effectiveness/practicality of LID techniques in a cold-weather climate 16. Modification to practices and special management considerations in cold-weather

climates 17. Impacts of snow plowing on various practices 18. Long-term effectiveness and maintenance costs of infiltration 19. Best technique to protect infiltration during construction 20. Evaluation of the most appropriate snowmelt event for spring snowmelt criteria storm

event modeling 21. Testing performance of self-contained manhole systems for treatment and what does this

mean 22. Infiltration systems - what % of annual rainfall can be infiltrated, threshold of impervious

% above which lose effectiveness, influence of these systems on groundwater 23. Is their good data on the effectiveness of NURP ponds based on different sizes used for

standard designs 24. How stormwater, both treated and untreated, affects the water quality, vegetative

diversity/invasive species of 25. Evaluation of alternative stormwater management methods focused on maintaining existing drainage

26. Aging of combined detention/wetland treatment systems and possible methods for mitigation

27. Watershed capacity and the threshold in development before adverse impacts are seen 28. Is the policy/approach to runoff management (flood control) controlling peak flows at the

expense of stream 29. Centralized vs. decentralized approach to managing stormwater runoff and LID techniques, comparison of cost- 30. % soluble phosphorus in runoff

31. Effects of various BMPs on groundwater 32. Water quality impact of urban plant litter in stormwater runoff 33. Impacts of lawn fertilizers on water quality 34. Relating dry-fall accumulation on impervious surfaces to stormwater quality


37

Appendix B: Past Minnesota Stormwater Research at the University of Minnesota

Many efforts at the University of Minnesota provide a cross-section of stormwater research in Minnesota, because they are funded by one or more agencies or entities and completed by one or more individuals, groups, or institutions. As highlighted in Chapter 2, the list of partners is extensive and includes local, statewide, and national or outside entities, including but not limited to Center for Watershed Protection, Low Impact Development Center, North Carolina State University, University of Florida, University of Maryland, University of Minnesota, University of New Hampshire, US EPA, Villanova University, Washington Stormwater Center, Water Environment & Reuse Foundation, Metropolitan Council, Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Natural Resources Research Institute, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources/USGS, state and private universities and academic institutions and local units of government such as watershed districts and management organizations and conservation districts, among others. While there are many other research reports and sources of stormwater research results, these have not yet been compiled into a single resource, repository, or list that could be provided in this report. This list of research results from the University of Minnesota could be used as a starting point from which to build such a compiled list of stormwater research resources.

B.1. Partner Projects Accelerating Plans for Integrated Control of the Common Carp. (Legislative-Citizen

Commission on Minnesota Resources 2008-04b, UMN, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District and the University of Minnesota, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District)

Duluth Residential Stormwater Reduction Demonstration Project for Lake Superior Tributaries. (MPCA Contract B10575, City of Duluth, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, Minnesota Sea Grant)

Evaluation of Buffer Width on Hydrologic Function, Water Quality, and Ecological Integrity of Wetlands. (Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report 2011-06, UMN)

Minnesota Stormwater Manual and the Minimal Impact Design Standards (MIDS): While not strictly research, these documents use results from research in Minnesota and nationwide to form the basis of stormwater management design in Minnesota. (MPCA, Barr Engineering)

Permeable Limestone Barrier (Kohlman Basin Enhancements). Use of spent lime as a phosphorus filter for stormwater. (Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District, UMN)

B.2. Journal Articles Janke, B.D., Finlay, J.C., and Hobbie, S.E. (in preparation). “Urban Trees as Sources of Nutrient

Pollution to Stormwater.”

38

Hobbie, S.E., Finlay, J.C., Janke, B.D., Nidzgorski, D., Millet, D.B., and Baker, L.A. (in review). “Contrasting Nitrogen and Phosphorus Budgets in Urban watersheds and Implications for Managing Urban Water Pollution.”

Bratt, A.R., Finlay, J.C., Hobbie, S.E., Janke, B.D., Worm, A., and Kemmitt, K. (in revision). “Contribution of Leaf Litter to Nutrient Export During Winter Months in an Urban Residential Watershed.”

Moore, T.L., J.S. Gulliver, L. Stack, and M.H. Simpson. (2016) “Stormwater management and Climatic Change: Vulnerability and Capacity for Adaptation in Urban and Periurban Contexts.” Climatic Change, 138: 491-504.

Erickson A.J., Gulliver J.S., Arnold W.A., Brekke C., and Bredal M. (2016). "Abiotic Capture of Stormwater Nitrates with Granular Activated Carbon." Environmental Engineering Science. May 2016, 33(5): 354-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ees.2015.0469

Xiao, F., M.F. Simcik, T. R. Halbach, J.S. Gulliver. (2015). "Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Soils and Groundwater of a U.S. Metropolitan Area." Water Research, 72, 64-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.09.052

Weiss, P. and Gulliver, J. (2015). "Effective Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of an Infiltration-Based Stormwater Control Measure." Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, (1)4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JSWBAY.0000801

LeFevre, G.H., K.H. Paus, P. Natarajan; J.S. Gulliver, P.J. Novak, and R.M. Hozalski. (2015). "A Review of Dissolved Pollutants in Urban Stormwater and their Removal and Fate in Bioretention Cells." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 141 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000876.

Ahmed, F., J.S. Gulliver and J.L. Nieber. (2015). "Field Infiltration Measurements in Grassed Swales." Journal of Hydrology, 530, 604–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.012

Weiss, P.T., A.D. Westbrook, J.D. Weiss, J.S. Gulliver and D.D. Biesboer. (2014). "Effect of Water Velocity on Hydroponic Phytoremediation of Metals." International Journal of Phytoremediation, 16(2), 203-217.

Paus, K.H., J. Morgan, J.S. Gulliver, T. Leiknes and R.M. Hozalski. (2014). "Assessment of the Hydraulic and Toxic Removal Capacities of Bioretention Cells after 2 to 8 Years of Service." Water, Soil and Air Pollution, 225 (1803). dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-013-1803-y.

Paus, K.H., J. Morgan, J. S. Gulliver, T. Leiknes, and R. M. Hozalski. (2014). "Effects of Temperature and NaCl on Toxic Metal Retention in Bioretention Media." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 140(10), 04014034. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000847.

Paus, K.H., J. Morgan, J. S. Gulliver, and R. M. Hozalski. (2014). "Effects of Bioretention Media Compost Fraction on Toxic Metals Removal, Hydraulic Conductivity, and Phosphorus Release." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 140(10), 04014033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000846.

Janke, B.D., Finlay, J.C., Hobbie, S.E., Baker, L.A., Sterner, R.W., Nidzgorski, D., and Wilson, B.N. 2014. “Contrasting Influences of Stormflow and Baseflow Pathways on Nitrogen and Phosphorus Export from an Urban Watershed.” Biogeochemistry, 121: 209-228. DOI: 10.1007/s10533-013-9926-1.

39

Ahmed, F., R. Nestingen, J.L. Nieber, J.S. Gulliver, R.M. Hozalski. (2014). "A Modified Philip-Dunne Infiltrometer for Measuring the Field-Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Surface Soil." Vadose Zone, 13(10). http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/vzj2014.01.0012.

Olson, N.C., J.S. Gulliver, J.L. Nieber and M. Kayhanian. (2013). "Remediation to Improve Infiltration into Compact Soils." Journal of Environmental Management, 117, 85–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.057.

LeFevre, G.H., Hozalski, R.M., and Novak, P.J. (2013). Root Exudate Enhanced Contaminant Desorption: An Abiotic Contribution to the Rhizosphere Effect. Environmental Science and Technology, 47:20:11545-11553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es402446v

Janke, B.D., Herb, W.H., Mohseni, O. and Stefan, H.G. 2013. “Case Study of Simulation of Heat Export by Rainfall-Runoff from a Small Urban Watershed Using MINUHET.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 18: 995-1006.

Xiao, F., M.F. Simcik and J.S. Gulliver. (2012). "Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Urban Stormwater Runoff: Influence of Land Use." Water Research, 46(20), 6601–6608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.029.

LeFevre, G.H., R.M. Hozalski, and P.J. Novak. (2012). "The Role of Biodegradation in Limiting the Accumulation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Raingarden Soils." Water Research, 46(20), 6753–6762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.12.040.

LeFevre, G.H., P.J. Novak, and R.M. Hozalski. (2012). "Fate of Naphthalene in Laboratory-Scale Bioretention Cells: Implications for Sustainable Stormwater Management." Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), 995–1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es202266z.

Kayhanian, M., B. Fruchtman, J. S. Gulliver, C. Montanaro, E. Raniere and S. Wuertz. (2012). "Review of Highway Runoff Characteristics: Comparative Analysis and Universal Implications." Water Research, 46(20), 6609–6624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.026.

Howard, A., O. Mohseni, J.S. Gulliver and H.G. Stefan. (2012). "Hydraulic Analysis of Suspended Sediment Removal from Storm Water in a Standard Sump." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 138(6), 491–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000544.

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver and P.T. Weiss. (2012). "Capturing Phosphates with Iron Enhanced Sand Filtration." Water Research, 46(9), 3032–3042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.03.009.

Janke, B.D., Mohseni, O., Herb, W.H., and Stefan, H.G. 2011. “Heat Release from Rooftops During Rainstorms in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, U.S.” Hydrological Processes, 25(13): 2018-2031.

Howard, A., O. Mohseni, J.S. Gulliver and H.G. Stefan. (2011). "SAFL Baffle Retrofit for Suspended Sediment Removal in Storm Sewer Sumps." Water Research, 45(18), 5895–5904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.043.

Hettler, E.N., J.S. Gulliver and M. Kayhanian. (2011). "An Elutriation Device to Measure Particle Settling Velocity in Urban Runoff." Science of the Total Environment, 409(24), 5444–5453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.08.045.

Gettel, M., J.S. Gulliver, M. Kayhanian, G. DeGroot, J. Brand, O. Mohseni, and A.J. Erickson. (2011). "Improving Suspended Sediment Measurements by Automatic Samplers." Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(10), 2703–2709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1em10258c.

40

Henjum, M.B.; Hozalski, R.M.; Wennen, C.R.; Novak, P.J.; Arnold, W.A. (2010). "A Comparison of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Calculations in Urban Streams Using Near Real-Time and Periodic Sampling Data. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12, 234–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b912990a.

Henjum, M.B.; Hozalski, R.M.; Wennen, C.R.; Arnold, W.A.; Novak, P.J. (2010). "Correlations between in situ sensor measurements and trace organic pollutants in urban streams. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12, 225–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b912544b.

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver, J.H. Kang, P.T. Weiss, and C.B. Wilson. (2010). "Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Practices." Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 146, 75–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2010.00393.x.

Wilson, M. A., O. Mohseni, J. S. Gulliver, R. M. Hozalski and H.G. Stefan. (2009) "Assessment of hydrodynamic separators for stormwater treatment." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135(5), 383–392. http://link.aip.org/link/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000023.

Taylor, C.A. and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Shallow groundwater temperature response to climate change and urbanization, Journal of Hydrology 375(2009):601-612. doi:10.1016/j.hydrol.2009.07.009 (Also listed as SAFL Technical Paper No. 2009-025-A.)

Janke, B.D., Herb, W.H., Mohseni, O. and Stefan, H.G. 2009. “Simulation of Heat Export by Rainfall-Runoff from a Paved Surface.” Journal of Hydrology, 365: 195-212.

Herb, W.R., Janke, B.D., Mohseni, O., and Stefan, H.G. 2009. “Runoff temperature model for paved surfaces.” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 14(10): 1146-1155.

Herb, W.R., B. Janke, Mohseni, O. and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Simulation of temperature mitigation by a stormwater detention pond, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(5): 1164-1178.

Erickson, T.O. and H.G.Stefan 2009. Natural groundwater recharge response to urbanization: Vermillion River watershed, Minnesota, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135(6): 512-520.

Asleson, B.C., R.S. Nestingen, J.S. Gulliver, R.M. Hozalski, and J.L. Nieber. (2009). "Performance Assessment of Rain Gardens." Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(4), 1019–1031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00344.x.

Herb, W.R., Janke, B.D., Mohseni, O., and Stefan, H.G. 2008. “Ground surface temperature simulation for different land covers.” Journal of Hydrology, 356(3): 327-343.

Herb, W.R., Janke, B.D., Mohseni, O., and Stefan, H.G. 2008. “Thermal pollution of streams by runoff from paved surfaces.” Hydrologic Processes, 22(7): 987-999.

Herb, W.R., B. Janke, Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2008. Ground surface temperature simulation for different land covers, Journal of Hydrology, 356(3): 327-343.

Weiss, P.T., A.J. Erickson and J.S. Gulliver. (2007). "Cost and pollutant removal of storm-water treatment practices." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133(3), 218–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:3(218).

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver and P.T. Weiss. (2007). "Enhanced Sand Filtration for Storm Water Phosphorus Removal." Journal of Environmental Engineering, 133(5), 485–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2007)133:5(485).

41

B.3. Print and Web Articles (excluding UPDATES Newsletters) "New treatment practice removes dissolved phosphate from stormwater." CTS Catalyst

Newsletter, December 2012. "Making Tracks Toward Innovation in the Stormwater Runoff Treatment Train." St. Anthony

Falls Laboratory Featured Story, July 2012. Olson, N. and J. Gulliver, “Remediating Compact Urban Soils with Tillage and Compost,”

CURA Reporter, 41, 3-4, pp. 31-35, Fall/Winter 2011. http://www.cura.umn.edu/publications/catalog/reporter-41-3-4-3

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver, and P.T. Weiss. "Capturing dissolved phosphorus with iron-enhanced sand filtration." Public Works Magazine, April 2011.

Kang, J.H., P.T. Weiss, C.B. Wilson and J.S. Gulliver. (2008). "Maintenance of Stormwater BMPs: Frequency, Effort and Cost." Stormwater, 9(8), 18–28. http://foresternetwork.com/daily/water/stormwater-management/maintenance-of-stormwater-bmps/

Gulliver, J.S., B.C. Asleson, R.S. Nestingen, R.M. Hozalski, J.L. Nieber and C.B. Wilson. (2008). "The Four Levels: Improved Assessment of Rain Garden performance." Stormwater, 9(6), 82–88.

B.4. Books and Book Chapters Erickson, A.J., P.T. Weiss, and J.S. Gulliver. 2013 "Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices:

A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance." ISBN 978-1-4614-4623-1. Springer Publishing, New York, NY.

Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver, and A.J. Erickson. 2011. "Costs and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices" in Economic Incentives for Stormwater Control, Hale W. Thurston, ed., ISBN 978-1-4398-4560-8. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.

B.5. Graduate Theses & Dissertations Ebrahimian, A. (2015). Determination of Effective Impervious Area in Urban Watersheds. Ph.

D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. August 2015. Advisors: J.S. Gulliver & B.N. Wilson. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/175425.

Chapman, J.A. (2014). Selection of Vegetation and Flexible Vegetal Drag Coefficients for Erosion Control in Lacustrine Wave Environments. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. May 2014 (co-advised by Bruce N. Wilson). http://hdl.handle.net/11299/164780.

Ahmed, F. (2014). Characterizing the Performance of a New Infiltrometer and Hydraulic Properties of Roadside Swales. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. September 2014 (co-advisor, John L. Nieber). http://hdl.handle.net/11299/167657.

Perkins, R. (2013). Turbidity Monitoring on Minnesota Construction Sites: Insight into the Factors Influencing the Turbidity and TSS Relationship. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota. May 2013 (Co-advised by Bruce N. Wilson). http://purl.umn.edu/157513.

Xiao, F. (2012). Perfluoroalkyl Substances in The Upper Mississippi River Basin: Occurrence, Source Discrimination and Treatment. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. August 2012 (Co-advised by Matt Simcik). http://purl.umn.edu/135860.

42

Morgan, J.G. (2011). Sorption and Release of Dissolved Pollutants Via Bioretention Media. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. October 2011 (Co-advised by Raymond M. Hozalski). http://purl.umn.edu/118030.

McIntire, K. (2011). Stormwater Treatment with the SAFL Baffle: Debris and Non-standard Sump Testing. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. December 2011 (Co-advised by Omid Mohseni). http://purl.umn.edu/143699.

Kyser, S.J. (2011). The Fate of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Bound to Stormwater Pond Sediment During Composting. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. February 2011 (Co-advised by Raymond M. Hozalski). http://purl.umn.edu/104204.

Janke, B. (2011) Modeling hydrothermal inputs to cold-water streams in urban watersheds. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Minnesota. May 2011. Advisor H. G. Stefan. http://purl.umn.edu/107999

Saddoris, D.A. (2010). Hydrodynamic Separator Sediment Washout Testing. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. http://purl.umn.edu/93641.

Olson, N. (2010). Quantifying the Effectiveness of Soil Remediation Techniques in Compact Urban Soils. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. http://purl.umn.edu/103214.

Howard, A.K. (2010). Use of standard sumps for suspended sediment removal from stormwater. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. http://purl.umn.edu/93160.

Hettler, E.N. (2010). A Modified Elutriation Device to Measure Particle Settling Velocity in Urban Stormwater Runoff. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota. http://purl.umn.edu/101691.

Wilson, M. (2007). Performance assessment of underground stormwater treatment devices. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota.

Nestingen, R. (2007). The comparison of infiltration devices and modification of the Philip-Dunne permeameter for the assessment of rain gardens. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota.

Asleson, B. (2007). The development and application of a four-level rain garden assessment. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota.

Hussain, C.F. (2005). Pollutant Removal from Dry Detention Ponds with Underdrains. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota.

Erickson, A. J. (2005). Enhanced Sand Filtration for Storm Water Phosphorus Removal. M.S. Thesis. University of Minnesota.

B.6. Reports Garcia-Serrana, M., J.S. Gulliver and J.L. Nieber. (2016). Enhancement and Application of the

Minnesota Dry Swale Calculator. MnDOT Project Report No. 2016-15, Research Services and Library, Office of Transportation System Management, Minnesota Department of Transportation, April 2016. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=2518

Weiss, P.T., M. Kayhanian, L. Khazanovich, and J.S. Gulliver. (2015). Permeable Pavements in Cold Climates: State of the Art and Cold Climate Case Studies. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Transportation Report MN/RC 2015-30, June 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/174178 or http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/201530.pdf.

43

Natarajan, P. and J.S. Gulliver. (2015). Assessing Iron-Enhanced Swales for Pollution Prevention. SAFL Project Report No. 576, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, September 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/175560.

Janke, B.D., and Finlay, J.F. 2015. “Analysis of Nutrient Loading and Performance of the Villa Park Wetland, 2006 - 2012.” Appendix D in: 2014 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Capitol Region Watershed District: St. Paul, MN. 110 pp. https://issuu.com/capitolregionwd/docs/2014_crwd_stormwater_monitoring_rep

Janke, B.D. 2015. “Nutrient Load Estimation and Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring Data from South Washington Watershed District, 2000-2014.” Prepared for South Washington Watershed District, Woodbury, MN: University of MN, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior: St. Paul, MN. 84 pp. http://www.swwdmn.org/pdf/UMNfinalmonitoringreport.pdf

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver, P.T. Weiss. (2015). Monitoring an Iron-Enhanced Sand Filter Trench for the Capture of Phosphate from Stormwater Runoff. SAFL Project Report No. 575, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, September 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/175078.

Ebrahimian, A., J.S. Gulliver, and B.N. Wilson. (2015). Determination of Effective Impervious Area in Urban Watersheds. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota and Minnesota Department of Transportation Report MN/RC 2015-41, July 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/174667 or http://www.lrrb.org/media/reports/201541.pdf.

Stack L.J., Simpson M.H., Gruber J., Moore T.L.C., Yetka L., Eberhart L., Gulliver J., Smith J., Mamayek T., Anderson M., and Rhoades J. (2014). “Long-term climate information and forecasts supporting stakeholder-driven adaptation decisions for urban water resources: Response to climate change and population growth.” Final project report: Sectoral Applications Research Program FY2011, Climate Program Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Perkins, R., B. Hanson, B. Wilson and J.S. Gulliver. (2014). Development and Evaluation of Effective Turbidity Monitoring Methods for Construction Projects. Final Report 2014-24, Research Services and library, Office of Transportation System Management, Minnesota Department of Transportation, July 2014. http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201424.pdf. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/166799

Nieber, J.L., C.N. Arika, L. Lahti, J.S. Gulliver and P.T. Weiss. (2014). The Impact of Stormwater Infiltration Practices on Groundwater Quality. Report to the Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN, July 2014.

Janke, B.D. 2014. “Precipitation Sensitivity of Stormflow and Baseflow Nutrient Loading in CRWD.” Appendix A in: 2013 Stormwater Monitoring Report, Capitol Region Watershed District: St. Paul, MN. https://issuu.com/capitolregionwd/docs/final-2013_crwd_stormwater_monitori

Erickson, A.J., J.S. Gulliver, P.T. Weiss and W.A. Arnold. (2014). Enhanced Filter Media for Removal of Dissolved Contaminants from Stormwater. SAFL Project Report No. 572, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, September 2014. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/166940.

Ahmed, F., P. Natarajan, J.S. Gulliver, P.T. Weiss and J.L. Nieber. (2014). Assessing and Improving Pollution Prevention by Swales. Final Report 2014-30, Research Services and library, Office of Transportation System Management, Minnesota Department of Transportation, August 2014. http://www.lrrb.org/PDF/201430.pdf

44

Xiao, F., J.S. Gulliver and M. Simcik. (2013). Transport of Perfluorochemicals to Surface and Subsurface Soils. CTS Report 13-17, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, March 2013. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/162610. http://purl.umn.edu/148999.

Janke, B.D. 2013. “Summary and Analysis of Water Quality Data from the Capitol Region Watershed District’s Stormwater Monitoring Program, 2005 - 2012.” Prepared for the Capitol Region Watershed District, St. Paul, MN; University of MN, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior: St. Paul, MN. 210 pp.

McIntire, K.D., A. Howard, O. Mohseni, and J.S. Gulliver. (2012). Assessment and Recommendations for Operation of Standard Sumps as Best Management Practices for Stormwater Treatment (Vol. 2). Final Report 2012-13, Research Services and library, Office of Transportation System Management, Minnesota Department of Transportation, May 2012. http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201108.pdf

Morgan, J.G., K.A. Paus, R.M. Hozalski and J.S. Gulliver. (2011). Sorption and Release of Dissolved Pollutants Via Bioretention Media. SAFL Project Report No. 559, September 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/116560.

Mohseni, O. (2011). Assessment and Recommendations for the Operation of Standard Sumps as Best Management Practice for Stormwater Treatment (Volume 1). SAFL Project Report 540, August 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/112919.

Janke, B.D., Gulliver, J.S. and Wilson, B.N. 2011. “Development of Techniques to Quantify Effective Impervious Cover.” SAFL Project Report No. 555, July 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/109971.

Herb, W.R., Weiss, M.P., Stefan, H.G. (2011). Stormwater Detention Pond Water Temperature Data Collection and Interpretation. SAFL Project Report 537, May 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/117631.

Herb, W.R., 2011. Characterization of Stream Temperature and Heat Loading for Miller Creek, Duluth, MN, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 552, 33 pp.

Ahmed, F., J.S. Gulliver, and J.L. Nieber. (2011). Performance of Low Impact Development Practices on Stormwater Pollutant Load Abatement. SAFL Project Report No. 560, August 2011. http://purl.umn.edu/122987.

Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver, and A.J. Erickson. (2010). The Performance of Grassed Swales as Infiltration and Pollution Prevention Practices. Literature Review. November 2010. (pdf, 1.18 MB).

Weiss, M., Herb, W.R., and H.G. Stefan, 2010. Storm water detention pond data collection, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 537, 70 pp.

Nielsen, L., F. Ahmed, A.J. Erickson and J.S. Gulliver. (2010). Infiltration Rate Assessment for Woodland Cove. SAFL Project Report No. 550, December 2010. http://purl.umn.edu/117635.

Janke, B., Mohseni, O., Herb, W.R., and H.G. Stefan, 2010. Heating of rainfall runoff on residential and commercial rooftops, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 533, 51 pp.

Erickson, A.J., P.T. Weiss, and J.S. Gulliver. (2010). Stormwater Treatment: Assessment and Maintenance. SAFL Project Report No. 542, June 2010. http://purl.umn.edu/109970.

Erickson, A.J. and J.S. Gulliver. (2010). Performance Assessment of an Iron-Enhanced Sand Filtration Trench for Capturing Dissolved Phosphorus. SAFL Project Report 549, November 2010. http://purl.umn.edu/115602.

45

DeGroot, G. and J.S. Gulliver. (2010). Improved Automatic Sampling for Suspended Solids. SAFL Project Report 548, MnDOT Report 2010-38, November 2010. http://purl.umn.edu/116735.

Taylor, C.A. and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Heating of shallow groundwater flow by conduction from a paved surface: Requirements for coldwater stream protection, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 531, 35 pp. (PDF, 902 KB)

Saddoris, D., K. McIntire, Mohseni, O., and J.S. Gulliver. (2009). Hydrodynamic Separator Sediment Retention Testing. SAFL Project Report 534, October 2009. http://purl.umn.edu/110100. MnDOT Report 2010-10, March 2010. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1890

Herb, W.R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2009. MINUHET (Minnesota Urban Heat Export Tool): A software tool for the analysis of stream thermal loading by urban stormwater runoff, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 526, 44 pp.

Herb, W.R. and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Stream temperature modeling of Miller Creek, Duluth, Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 535, 78 pp. (PDF, 2.26 MB)

Erickson, T., Herb, W.R., and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Streamflow modeling of Miller Creek, Duluth, Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 536, 73 pp. (PDF, 1.94 MB)

Erickson, T. and H.G. Stefan, 2009. Groundwater recharge in a coldwater stream watershed during urbanization, Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 524, 74 pp. (PDF, 2.37 MB)

Weiss, P.T., G. LeFevre and J.S. Gulliver. (2008). Contamination of Soil and Groundwater Due to Stormwater Infiltration Practices. SAFL Project Report 515, June 2008. http://purl.umn.edu/115341.

Taylor, C.A. and H.G. Stefan, 2008. Shallow groundwater temperature response to urbanization and climate change: Analysis of vertical heat convection from the ground surface, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 504, 68 pp. (PDF, 2.36 MB)

Janke, B., Herb, W.R., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2008. Estimation of groundwater input to the Vermillion River from observations of stream flow and stream temperature, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 523, 61 pp. (PDF, 3.57 MB)

Herb, W.R., 2008. Analysis of the effect of stormwater runoff volume regulations on thermal loading to the Vermillion River, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 520, 34 pp.

Herb, W.R. and H.G. Stefan, 2008. A flow and temperature model for the Vermillion River, Part I: Model development and baseflow conditions, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 517, 32 pp. (PDF, 488 KB)

Herb, W.R. and H.G. Stefan, 2008. A flow and temperature model for the Vermillion River, Part II: Response to surface runoff inputs, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 525, 61 pp. (PDF, 969 KB)

Erickson, T. and H.G. Stefan, 2008. Baseflow analysis for the Upper Vermillion River, Dakota County, Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 507, 55 pp. (PDF, 854 KB)

Wilson, M., Gulliver, J.S., Mohseni, O., and R.M. Hozalski. (2007). Performance Assessment of Underground Stormwater Treatment Devices. SAFL Project Report 494, July 2007. http://purl.umn.edu/115327. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report 2007-46, November 2007. http://purl.umn.edu/5599 or http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1552.

46

Janke, B, Herb, W.R., Mohseni, O., and H. G. Stefan, 2007. Application of a runoff temperature model (MINUHET) to a residential development in Plymouth, MN. St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 497, 34 pp.

Herb, W.R., Stefan, H.G., and O. Mohseni, 2007. Heat export and runoff temperature analysis for rainfall event selection, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 483, 65 pp.

Herb, W.R., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2007. A model for mitigation of surface runoff temperatures by a wetland basin and a wetland complex, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 499, 34 pp.

Herb, W.R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2007. Estimation of runoff temperatures and heat export from different land and water surfaces, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Project Report 488, 34 pp.

Erickson, T. and H.G. Stefan, 2007. Groundwater recharge from a changing landscape, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 490, 112 pp. (PDF, 2.39 MB)

Asleson, B.C., R.S. Nestingen, J.S. Gulliver, R.M. Hozalski, and J.L. Nieber. (2007). The development and application of a four-level rain garden assessment methodology. SAFL Project Report 501, November 2007. http://purl.umn.edu/115331.

Shaw, J.V. and H.G. Stefan, 2006. Analysis of surface recharge effect on 2-D shallow groundwater flow into a stream, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 487.

Janke, B., Herb, W.R., Mohseni, O., and H. Stefan, 2006. Quasi 2-D model for runoff temperature from a paved surface, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 477, 78 pp.

Hussain, C.F., J. Brand, J.S. Gulliver, and P.T. Weiss. (2006). Water Quality Performance of Dry Detention Ponds with Underdrains. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report 2006-43, December 2006. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1120

Herb, W.R., Weiss, M., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2006. Hydrothermal simulation of a storm water detention pond or infiltration basin, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 479, 34 pp.

Herb, W.R., Janke, B., Mohseni, O., and H.G. Stefan, 2006. Analytical model for runoff and runoff temperature from a paved surface, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Report 484, 19 pp.

Caleb A., D.J. Canelon, J.L. Nieber and R.D. Sykes. (2006). Impact of Alternative Storm Water Management Approaches on Highway Infrastructure: Guide for Selection of Best Management Practices – Volume 1, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Final Report MN/RC-2005-49A, 60 pp.

Caleb A., D.J. Canelon, J.L. Nieber and R.D. Sykes. (2006). Impact of Alternative Storm Water Management Approaches on Highway Infrastructure: Project Task Reports – Volume 2, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Final Report MN/RC-2005-49A, 211 pp.

Weiss, P.T., J.S. Gulliver and A.J. Erickson. (2005). The Cost and Effectiveness of Stormwater Management Practices. http://purl.umn.edu/986. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report 2005-23, June 2005. http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1023

Date post:	30-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Stormwater Management Research in Minnesota · A brochure summarizing the findings of this report...

Documents