3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 82 

1 3 Implementation Measures for Reducing Pollutant 

2 Concentrations with Source Controls and Treatment

3 

The implementation measure is:

4 Reduce Pollutant Concentrationspollutant concentrations by implementing source control 

5 measurescontrols and by treatment practices as necessary to meet water quality goals. 

6 Stormwater quantity control, along with source and pollution prevention controls, has been 

7 determined to be the most reliable means of achieving pollutant reduction and mitigating the 

8 many adverse environmental effects of excess urban stormwater runoff (NRC 2008). Many 

9 issues arise in the decision-making process of selecting stormwater controls. This section 

10 addresses some of those considerations related to source-control practice selection and 

11 stormwater treatment technologies. 

12 This document does not address flood-control considerations. However, note that volume control 

13 practices can contribute to flood protection by infiltrating, evapotranspiring, and reusing 

14 precipitation that would otherwise contribute to floods. Although volume control is the most 

15 important tool to reduce the loadings of urban runoff pollutants to the Chesapeake Bay, some 

16 significant sources of pollutants are likely to require source control or treatment. They can 

17 include areas with vehicles or other urban/commercial/industrial activity.

18 A primary consideration in selecting stormwater management practices is the regulatory policy 

19 for the site and practice. Local, state, and federal regulations and policies apply, and managers 

20 should research these before site design and practice selection. Addition general information on

21 how to choose among the many available stormwater runoff control practices is provided in 

22 Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction 

23 (WERF 2005).

24 Source Control/Pollution Prevention

Implementation Measures:

• Identify the pollutants of concern (POCs) to help target the selection of pollution 

prevention/source control that are most appropriate, for example, nutrients and sediment

• Implement pollution prevention/source control practices, i.e. nonstructural, programmatic 

efforts as basic, routine land management practices to target specific pollutants

• Require source controls on

• New and redevelopment site plans for commercial/industrial facilities

• Commercial industrial facilities through development of a Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP)

• Municipal facilities through development of SWPPPs

• Develop and implement ongoing outreach programs aimed at behavior change to prevent 

pollution and control it at its source. Methods for impact and effectiveness evaluation 

should be incorporated into these outreach and education programs.

• Implement residential downspout disconnection program
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 83 

• Conduct inspections of commercial/industrial facilities to provide compliance assistance 

or to ensure implementation of controls

1 Runoff Treatment

Implementation Measures:

• Identify the pollutants of concern (POCs) to help target the section of treatment 

approaches that are most appropriate

• Select treatment practices based on applicability to the POCs

• Use practices to reduce of runoff volume as the preferred and most reliable approach to 

reducing pollutant loading to receiving waters

• Use treatment practices as needed if reduction of runoff is not feasible

• Base the selection of treatment practice on

– treatment effectiveness for the POC to ensure discharge quality

– long-term maintenance considerations to ensure continued adequate maintenance 

and recognition of life-cycle costs

– site limitations to ensure appropriateness of practice to the site

– aesthetics and safety to ensure public acceptance

2 

3 3.1 Source Control/Pollution Prevention

4 3.1.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern

5 This document does not address flood-control considerations. However, note that volume control 

6 practices can contribute to flood protection by infiltrating, evapotranspiring, and reusing 

7 precipitation that would otherwise contribute to floods. Although volume control is the most 

8 important tool to reduce the loadings of pollutant to the Chesapeake Bay, some significant 

9 sources of pollutants are likely to require source control or treatment. They can include areas 

10 with vehicles or other urban/commercial/ industrial activity.

11 A primary consideration in selecting stormwater management practices is the regulatory policy 

12 for the site and practice. Local, state, and federal regulations and policies apply, and managers 

13 should research these before site design and practice selection.

14 The recommended approaches for selecting stormwater source control practices and treatment 

15 technologies for water quality protection include the following:

16 Identify the pollutants of concern (POCs). Identifying the POCs helps target the selection 

17 of pollution prevention/source control or treatment practices that might be most 

18 appropriate. 

19 Implement pollution prevention/source control practices. Many nonstructural, 

20 programmatic efforts implemented as basic land management practices—as pollution 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 84 

1 prevention and source reduction practices exist that are used routinely and cost2 effectively to target specific pollutants.

3 Implement treatment practices. Volume control is the most reliable method to reduce 

4 pollutant loadings from urban runoff. However, treatment of runoff might be necessary 

5 for storm events larger than small LID design storms or for areas where LID practices are 

6 not appropriate (such as where LID practices on site are not technically feasible, such as 

7 high groundwater tables).

8 • Consider long-term maintenance. This is a critical factor in runoff control selection, 

9 encompassing many considerations including (1) the increased likelihood that practices 

10 will be properly maintained if the practice is visible rather than out of sight (e.g., 

11 underground or behind a building); (2) the likelihood that long-term maintenance can be 

12 ensured; (3) the potential to minimize long-term maintenance needs through selection of 

13 appropriate practices and (4) the level of skill that will be required of a maintenance 

14 technician.

15 Address physical site limitations. These can include lack of adequate space to install 

16 infiltration practices or evapotranspiration practices, presence of contaminated soils, 

17 proximity to building foundations, or many other factors.

18 Address aesthetics and safety. Nuisance vectors, aesthetics, and safety concerns require 

19 addressing for community acceptance.

20 Addition general information on how to choose among the many available stormwater runoff 

21 control practices is provided in Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and 

22 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction (WERF 2005).

23 3.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern

24 Regulatory and Policy Drivers. POCs can be regulated by federal, state, or local requirements 

25 and policies. Examples of the types of regulations or issues that can result in specific types of 

26 pollutants being identified for reduction include the following: 

27 • The Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, which specifies that nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), 

28 and sediment are POCs that must be controlled to successfully protect and restore the 

29 Chesapeake Bay 

30 • Narrative and numeric water quality standards at the federal, state, or local level 

31 • Specific NPDES permit limitations for MS4s, construction activities, or industrial activities 

32 • The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) makes available to the public annually-collected 

33 data on storage, release and transfer of certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities. 

34 Required under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) its 

35 primary purpose is to inform communities and citizens of chemical hazards in their areas. 

36 • TMDL requirements under the Clean Water Act section 303(d) for water quality limited 

37 segments (www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl) 

38 • States and local governments can develop watershed pollutant reduction goals, such as 

39 the Virginia Tributary Strategies 

40 (www.naturalresources.virginia.gov/Initiatives/WaterQuality) 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 85 

1 Predominant Land Uses. Specific land uses also contribute to the loading of certain pollutants 

2 that have been well-established in the literature. Land use type is one predictive indicator for the 

3 type of pollutants and typical pollutant loading that would be discharged during storm events. 

4 POCs and typical loadings from various land use types can be assumed using modeled data in the 

5 literature, such as from the 1983 Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (see Table 3-27), 

6 or more recent sources. Models that can be used to estimate loading from land use types are 

7 provided in this document’s appendix 1 of this chapter. 

8 Table 3-27. Median stormwater pollutant concentrations from NURP study by land use 

Residential Mixed Commercial 

Open space/ 

non-urban 

Pollutant Units Median CV Median CV Median CV Median CV 

BOD mg/L 10 0.41 7.8 0.5 9.3 0.31 -- -- 

COD mg/L 73 0.55 65 0.58 57 0.39 40 0.78

TSS mg/L 101 0.96 67 1.14 69 0.85 70 2.92

Total Pb μg/L 144 0.75 114 1.35 104 0.68 30 1.52

Total Cu μg/L 33 0.99 27 1.32 29 0.81 -- -- 

Total Zn μg/L 135 0.84 154 0.78 226 1.07 195 0.66

TKN μg/L 1,900 0.73 1,288 0.5 1,179 0.43 965 1 

Nitrate + Nitrite μg/L 736 0.83 558 0.67 572 0.48 543 0.91

Total Pb μg/L 383 0.69 263 0.75 201 0.67 121 1.66

Soluble P μg/L 143 0.46 56 0.75 80 0.71 26 2.11

Source: Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (USEPA 1983)

CV = Coefficient of variation = standard deviation/mean

Source: Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (USEPA 1983)

9 More recent quantification of urban pollutants is summarized in the National Stormwater Quality 

10 Database (Pitt et al. 2004). Table 3-28 include excerpts from the summary report to highlight 

11 pollutant concentrations from typical urban land uses. 

12 Table 3-28. Median concentration of typical stormwater pollutants from urban land uses 

Land use

TDS 

(mg/L) 

TSS 

(mg/L) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COD 

(mg/L) 

NH3

(mg/L) 

N02+NO

3 (mg/L)

Total 

Kjeldahl 

nitrogen 

(mg/L) 

TP

Phosp

horus, 

total 

(mg/L) 

Residential 72 49 9 55 0.32 0.6 1.4 0.3 

Mixed Residential 86 68 7.6 42 0.39 0.6 1.35 0.27 

Commercial 74 42 11 60 0.5 0.6 1.6 0.22 

Mixed Commercial 70 54 9.25 60 0.6 0.58 1.39 0.26 

Industrial 92 78 9 60 0.5 0.73 1.4 0.26 

Mixed Industrial 80 82 7.2 40.4 0.43 0.57 1 0.2 

Institutional 52.5 17 8.5 50 0.31 0.6 1.35 0.18 

Freeways 77.5 99 8 100 1.07 0.28 2 0.25 

Mixed Freeways 174 81 7.4 48 --— 0.6 1.6 0.26 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 86 

Land use

TDS 

(mg/L) 

TSS 

(mg/L) 

BOD5

(mg/L) 

COD 

(mg/L) 

NH3

(mg/L) 

N02+NO

3 (mg/L)

Total 

Kjeldahl 

nitrogen 

(mg/L) 

TP

Phosp

horus, 

total 

(mg/L) 

Open Space 125 48.5 5.4 42.1 0.18 0.59 0.74 0.31 

Mixed Open Space 109 83.5 6 34 0.51 0.7 1.12 0.27 

Source: Pitt et al., R., A. Maestre, and R. Morquecho. 2004. The National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD, 

version 1.1). University of Alabama, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tuscaloosa, AL. 

http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Research/ms4/Paper/Mainms4paper.html. Updated February 16, 2004. Accessed February 3, 

2010. 

1 Table 3-29. Median concentration of typical stormwater pollutants from urban land uses 

Land use

Oil and 

grease 

(mg/L) 

Fecal 

coliform 

(mpn/ 100 

mL) 

As, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Cd, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Cr, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Cu, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Pb, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Ni, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Zn, 

total 

(ug/L) 

Residential 3.9 8,345 3 0.5 4.6 12 12 5.4 73 

Mixed 

Residential 

4.4 11,000 3 0.8 7 17 18 7.9 99.5 

Commercial 4.7 4,300 2.4 0.89 6 17 18 7 150 

Mixed 

Commercial 

5 4,980 2 0.9 5 17 17 5 135 

Industrial 5 2,500 4 2 14 22 25 16 210 

Mixed 

Industrial 

4.75 3,033 3 1.6 8 18 20 9 160 

Institutional --— --— --— --— --— --— 5.75 --— 305 

Freeways 8 1,700 2.4 1 8.3 34.7 25 9 200 

Mixed 

Freeways 

4 730 3 0.5 6 8.5 10 --— 90 

Open Space 1.3 7,200 4 0.38 5.4 10 10 --— 40 

Mixed Open 

Space 

6 2,600 3 2 6 10 10 8 88 

Source: Pitt et al., R., A. Maestre, and R. Morquecho. 2004. The National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD, 

version 1.1). University of Alabama, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tuscaloosa, AL. 

http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Research/ms4/Paper/Mainms4paper.html. Updated February 16, 2004. Accessed February 3, 

2010. 

2 Other sources of information on the types and concentrations of pollutants associated with land 

3 use types are provided in Table 3-30. 

4 Table 3-30. Sources of information on typical pollutants by land use type 

Reference Information provided 

Infiltration vs. Surface Water Discharge: Guidance 

for Stormwater Managers, Final Report. 03-SW-4, 

Water Environment Research Federation (WERF 

2006) 

Appendix A. Assessment of Existing Watershed 

Conditions: Source of Stormwater Pollutants

Maestre, A., R. Pitt. The National Stormwater 

Quality Database, Version 1.1, A Compilation and 

Selected information from monitoring conducted for 

the NPDES Phase 1 stormwater program, from 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 87 

Reference Information provided 

Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring 

Information. Center for Watershed Protection, and 

EPA. 2005Simple and Complex Stormwater 

Pollutant Load Models Compared, (Ohrel 2000)

www.stormwatercenter.net/Library/Practice/13.pdf 

applications and subsequent monitoring, from 1992 

to 2002. Approximately 3,765 events from 360 sites 

in 65 communities is included. A discussion of the 

strengths and weaknesses of different types of 

models to estimate pollutant loads

1 Sources: R. Ohrel. 2000. Simple and Complex Stormwater Pollutant Load Models Compared.

2 Article 13 in The Practice of Watershed Protection. Editors Thomas R. Schueler and Heather K. 

3 Holland. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.

4 Watershed reconnaissance can be used to identify developed sites that might be hotspots of 

5 pollutants. Certain types of land uses, particularly industrial and commercial properties, can be 

6 significant sources of POCs that warrant source control and treatment control practices. 

7 Managers should evaluate such land use types to identify possible pollutant sources and 

8 determine their relative risk to water quality. Those reconnaissance efforts can help a 

9 municipality determine 

10 • Which land use(s) and activities are most common in the watershed 

11 • What land uses(s) are expected to change in watershed 

12 • The pollutants that would likely dominate in stormwater runoff 

13 • Any hotspot areas for the contamination 

14 The identified pollutants are of concern regardless of whether they are impairing receiving 

15 streams. 

16 Managers should review monitoring data from the watershed for the historical period of record to 

17 ascertain water quality characteristics and POCs. They should review water quality data for 

18 POCs to determine information regarding the form of the pollutant, such as 

19 • Particle-size distribution 

20 • Pollutant partitioning or fractionation 

21 • Pollutant speciation, which affects bioavailability, toxicity, and treatability 

22 • Whether the pollutant is exhibited during the first flush (WERF 2005) 

23 That information should be used to determine which treatment unit processes or operations 

24 would be most appropriate if source controls are adequate. 

25 Protecting existing uses, in addition to restoring impaired uses, is a critically important goal for 

26 restoring any waterbody. Areas of the watershed that are of high-quality and should be protected 

27 from degradation should also be identified. Table 3-31 provides resources for conducting 

28 watershed assessments to identify pollutant sources and to identify areas for additional protections. 

29 Table 3-31. Sources of information on conducting watershed assessments 

Reference Information provided 

National Management Measures 

to Control Non-point Source 

Pollution from Urban Areas, EPAWatershed assessment practices include examples of programs, 

methods to characterize watershed conditions and to establish 

indicators 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 88 

841-B-05-004, USEPA 2005 

Healthy Watersheds Initiative,

www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds

Information on Healthy Watersheds, including 

- Approaches and benefits of conserving and protecting healthy 

watersheds 

- A systems approach to watershed assessment 

- Current assessment approaches being used by regions, states, 

and communities 

- Conservation Approaches & Tools 

- Outreach Tools 

- Links to projects at the national, regional, state, and local scales

1 

2 A review of results of industrial/commercial facility inspections can indicate whether these types 

3 of properties are likely to become hotspots for pollutants. Additionally, managers can review 

4 reports of illicit discharges, illegal connections, and illegal dumping to determine if there are 

5 patterns in discharges that might not be predicted by land use alone, which would indicate a need 

6 for additional outreach and education or enforcement activity. Information from past inspections 

7 and investigations can also help to identify areas with legacy pollutants (spills, dumping, and so 

8 on) that need to be addressed before certain types of infiltration practices could be used. Also, 

9 managers can evaluate local planning documents to identify potential future land uses that might 

10 become sources of pollutants. 

11 A generalized approach for a site assessment is to 

12 1. Identify potential sources 

13 • By type—commercial, industrial, transportation 

14 • By risk—of spills, leaks, illicit discharges 

15 • By using existing commercial/industrial databases, phone books, land use and zoning 

16 maps, field investigations, permit applications 

17 2. Prioritize using 

18 • POCs 

19 • Spill or discharge potential 

20 • Sensitivity of watershed 

21 • Past operation experience 

22 3. Generate a list of potential hotspot areas prioritized according to the magnitude and 

23 severity of risk 

24 4. Inspect and follow-up for implementation of corrective measures 

25 References for conducting site assessments are provided in Table 3-32. 

26 Table 3-32. Resources for conducting site assessments and implementing P2 BMPs 

Reference Information provided 

Urban Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance 

Users Guide. Manual 11 (Wright et al. 2005) 

www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/

USRM/USRM11_Appendix_C.doc

Includes a Hotspot Site Investigation (HSI) 

procedure, which quantifies a facility’s impact and

identifies possible BMPs needed. An inspection form

is used characterize the site, quantify impacts, and 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 89 

Reference Information provided 

identify BMPs. 

Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 9: 

Municipal Pollution Prevention/Good 

Housekeeping Practices (Novotney et al. 2008) 

www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/

municipal/USRM9.pdf

Guidance on how to improve ten key areas: 

municipal hotspots, municipal construction, road 

maintenance, street sweeping, storm drain 

cleanouts, stormwater hotlines, landscaping and park 

maintenance, residential stewardship, stormwater 

maintenance, and employee training 

Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 8: 

Pollution Source Control Practices (Schueler et 

al. 2005) 

www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/

USRM/ELC_USRM8v2sls.pdf

Includes methods to assess subwatershed pollution 

sources, more than 100 regulatory and incentive 

options, 21 specific stewardship practices for 

residential neighborhoods, and 15 pollution 

prevention techniques for control of stormwater 

hotspots 

California Stormwater Best Management 

Practice Handbooks (CASQA 2004) 

www.cabmphandbooks.com/industrial.asp

Guidance on preparing stormwater pollution 

prevention plans, fact sheets for a variety of source 

and treatment control BMPs, and information on 

monitoring, reporting, and evaluation 

EPA’s Menu of BMPs 

www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps

Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for 

Municipal Operations BMP Fact Sheets 

1 Aesthetic Issues. Finally, water quality issues that are important to the community should help to 

2 determine POCs. For example, if a pond in a public park is being filled with sediment because of 

3 upstream construction or algae growth is excessive, sediment and nutrients are POCs for that 

4 pond’s subwatershed. 

5 3.1.2 Implement Pollution-Prevention and Source-Reduction Practices and 

6 Policies

7 Managers should review local regulations, standards, and policies, as well as the ongoing 

8 pollution-prevention programs, to determine how they can be improved. Identify regulations, 

9 incentives or a combination of both that would be most appropriate to address the POC through 

10 source reduction or treatment. Evaluate the pollution prevention/source control program to 

11 ensure that it is using the most recent approaches and is being effectively implemented. 

12 The following are examples of types of regulations and incentive programs to be considered for 

13 POCs: 

14 Nutrients 

15 • Fertilizer ban/limitations on use (refer to the turf section of this chapter) 

16 • Phosphate ban (e.g., laundry detergent phosphate bans in Virginia (1988), Maryland 

17 (1985), District of Columbia (1986), and Pennsylvania (1990)) 

18 • Free yard care consultations/soil testing (e.g., services offered by cooperative extension 

19 agencies) 

20 Pesticides 

21 • Inspections of commercial/industrial storage and application procedures (e.g., as part of 

22 NPDES industrial facility inspections) 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 90 

1 • Integrated Pest Management (IPM) incentives 

2 • Example resources: Urban Pesticide Pollution Prevention (UP3) Project, 

3 www.up3project.org

4 Trash, Oil & Grease, Pathogens 

5 • Stormwater ordinance that addresses trash, commercial loading areas, and such 

6 • Fats, oils, grease program (e.g., JEA FOG program in Jacksonville, Florida) 

7 • Pet waste ordinance (e.g., Virginia Beach Ordinance #1237, 

8 www.vbgov.com/file_source/dept/planning/Document/LynnhavenFecalReport2006.pdf ) 

9 Sediment 

10 • Erosion and sediment control ordinance (EPA model erosion and sediment control 

11 ordinance) 

12 • Disturbed area restoration ordinance 

13 • Tree preservation ordinance (see the Reforestation Fact Sheet) 

14 • Buffer ordinance (EPA model aquatic buffers ordinance) 

15 Erosion and sedimentation control certification requirements 

16 Hydrocarbons, Oil/Grease 

17 • The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) rule includes requirements 

18 for oil spill prevention and response, including requirements for specific facilities to 

19 prepare and implement SPCC Plans

20 • Requirements for covers and berms for fueling and fuel storage areas 

21 • Green business certification to reward businesses that have taken tangible steps toward 

22 environmental sustainability (e.g., Bay Area Green Business Program) 

23 Resources pollution prevention and source reduction practices and programs are provided in 

24 Table 3-33.

25 Table 3-33. Resources for information on stormwater pollution prevention practices

CZARA/6217

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/welcome.html 

EPA’s National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas, 2005

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html 

EPA’s Education Resources for Non-Point Source Runoff

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/eduinfo.html 

EPA Menu of BMPs

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Industrial and Commercial, Handbook

www.cabmphandbooks.com/industrial.asp

2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume IV -- Source Control BMPs 

www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510032.html

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 91 

Drinking Water, EPA 816-F-09-007 July 2009

www.epa.gov/safewater

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Highway Deicing to Prevent Contamination of 

Drinking Water, EPA 816-F-09-008, July 2009

www.epa.gov/safewater

Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, a clearinghouse for pollution prevention information 

www.p2rx.org

1 

2 3.1.3 Source Controls

3 Source controls are the most cost-effective approach to reducing pollutant concentrations; 

4 however, to be effective, such controls must be adopted and properly maintained. Some source 

5 controls must be implemented as part of the design of the facility itself, such as ensuring that 

6 vehicle maintenance operations are conducted in an area where contaminated stormwater will not 

7 run off the site. 

8 Resources pollution prevention and source reduction practices and programs are provided in 

9 Table 3-33.

10 Table 3-33. Resources for information on stormwater pollution prevention practices

CZARA/6217

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/welcome.html 

EPA’s National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas, 2005

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html 

EPA’s Education Resources for Non-Point Source Runoff

www.epa.gov/owow/nps/eduinfo.html 

EPA Menu of BMPs

www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps

California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Industrial and Commercial, Handbook

www.cabmphandbooks.com/industrial.asp

2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume IV -- Source Control BMPs 

www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510032.html

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of 

Drinking Water, EPA 816-F-09-007 July 2009

www.epa.gov/safewater

Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Highway Deicing to Prevent Contamination of 

Drinking Water, EPA 816-F-09-008, July 2009

www.epa.gov/safewater

Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, a clearinghouse for pollution prevention information 

www.p2rx.org

11 Table 3-34 shows some examples of source control implementation strategies targeted at specific 

12 pollutants. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 92 

1 Table 3-34. Pollution-prevention and source control practices 

Strategy/BMP 

Nutrients Pesticides Pathogens Sediment Metals, oil/grease 

Require source controls on new and redevelopment site plans for 

commercial/industrial facilities 

• Mandatory storm drain marking for all inlets in maintenance yards, 

parking lots and along sidewalks • • • • •

• Elimination of curb and gutter in favor of bioswales where feasible, 

particularly in residential or suburban areas • • • • •

• Covered dumpster areas • •

• Covered outdoor loading/unloading areas that drain to sanitary 

sewer connections • •

• Covered fueling areas •

• Native plant landscaping • • •

• Irrigation management • • •

• Disconnected roof gutters to minimize parking lot runoff • • •

• Curb cuts to allow parking lot runoff to run into landscaping • • •

Implement residential downspout disconnection incentive program • • •

Educate residents about pollution prevention at home 

• Native plant landscaping • • •

• Soil preparation, restoration, and amendments (composting) • • •

• Water conservation (e.g., irrigation management) • • •

• Integrated Pest Management • •

• Household hazardous waste disposal and used oil recycling. • •

• Car wash education • •

• Pet waste management • •

Require source control activities at commercial/industrial facilities 

through development of a SWPPP 

Cover materials/minimize exposure • •

Fleet maintenance conducted inside or under cover •

Spill kits and response •

Spill training for all staff •

• Parking lot maintenance • • •

Conduct inspections of commercial/industrial facilities to provide 

compliance assistance or require implementation of controls or 

both 

Implement source control measures at all municipal facilities 

through development of SWPPPs 

• Cover materials/minimize exposure • •

• Fleet maintenance conducted inside or under cover •

• Spill kits and response •
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 93 

Strategy/BMP 

Nutrients Pesticides Pathogens Sediment Metals, oil/grease 

• Spill training for all staff •

• Street sweeping street sweeping at a monthly interval (or more 

frequently) along all curbed roads with speed limits of 35 MPH or 

less in urban/suburban areas; use regenerative air sweeper 

technology 

• • •

• Parking lot maintenance • • •

Establish dog walking areas with signage and locations to properly 

dispose of dog waste •

Inspection high-priority construction projects at high frequency • •

Require source controls on new and redevelopment site plans for 

commercial/industrial facilities

• Covered dumpster areas • •

• Covered outdoor loading/unloading areas which drain to sanitary 

sewer connections • •

• Covered fueling areas •

• Native plant landscaping • • •

• Irrigation management • • •

• Disconnected roof gutters to minimize parking lot runoff • • •

• Curb cuts to allow parking lot runoff to run into landscaping • • •

Implement residential downspout disconnection incentive program • • •

Educate residents about pollution prevention at home

• Native plant landscaping • • •

• Soil preparation, restoration, and amendments (composting) • • •

• Water conservation (e.g., irrigation management) • • •

• Integrated Pest Management • •

• Household hazardous waste disposal and used oil recycling. • •

• Car wash education • •

• Pet waste management • •

Require source control activities at commercial/industrial facilities 

through development of a SWPPP

• Cover materials/minimize exposure • •

• Fleet maintenance conducted inside or under cover •

• Spill kits and response •

• Spill training for all staff •

• Parking lot maintenance • • •

Conduct inspections of commercial/industrial facilities to provide 

compliance assistance or require implementation of controls or 

both

Implement source control measures at all municipal facilities 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 94 

Strategy/BMP 

Nutrients Pesticides Pathogens Sediment Metals, oil/grease 

through development of SWPPPs

• Cover materials/minimize exposure • •

• Fleet maintenance conducted inside or under cover •

• Spill kits and response •

• Spill training for all staff •

• Street sweeping • • •

• Parking lot maintenance • • •

Establish dog walking areas with signage and locations to properly 

dispose of dog waste •

Inspection high-priority construction projects at high frequency • •

The types of pollutants controlled through this strategy will depend on the materials used/stored and the activities 

conducted at the facilities. 

1 Some specific examples of leading programs around the country include the following: 

2 • New Jersey’s Stormwater Program that includes a comprehensive storm drain marking 

3 requirements 

4 (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/StormDrainLabeling.pdfhttp://www.sta

5 te.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/StormDrainLabeling.pdf). 

6 • San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, which offers pollution 

7 prevention tips geared toward citizens, business owners, and municipalities 

8 (http://www.flowstobay.org).

9 http://www.flowstobay.org/).

10 • Seattle Public Utilities’ Integrated Pest Management Program and ProIPM Fact Sheets 

11 (http://www.seattle.gov/UTIL/Services/Yard/For_Landscape_Professionals/Integrated_P

12 est_Management/index.asphttp://www.seattle.gov/UTIL/Services/Yard/For_Landscape_

13 Professionals/Integrated_Pest_Management/index.asp). 

14 • North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance’s Web site, 

15 including the P2 infoHouse, a searchable database of pollution prevention resources 

16 (http://www.p2pays.org).

17 http://www.p2pays.org/).

18 • The Brake Pad Partnership in California—In response to water quality pollution from 

19 copper, a group of brake manufacturers, stormwater agencies, and environmental groups 

20 is now sponsoring a state bill that effectively eliminates copper from all automobile 

21 brakes sold in California, a major source of copper

22 (www.suscon.org/bpp/index.phpwww.suscon.org/bpp/index.php). 

23 A recent source control program in the District of Columbia is the fee on the disposable bags 

24 from retail stores. Bags represent 47 percent of the trash in Anacostia River tributaries. The 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 95 

1 nickel-per-bag fee is an effort to reduce litter and generate funds to clean up the Anacostia River. 

2 The Washington Post reported that the fee is having a big effect within 3 weeks from the 

3 program’s start, reports were that the fee had cut the use of plastic bags by half or more 

4 (Washington Post, Saturday, January 23, 2010). 

5 3.1.4 Public Outreach

6 Many state and federal agencies require some form of outreach or public education and 

7 involvement as part of their water quality laws and regulations. For example, Phase II of EPA’s 

8 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater regulations, which 

9 requires municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) operators to develop and implement 

10 stormwater management programs, states that localities are to provide opportunities for citizens 

11 to participate in developing the program and that they distribute educational materials on 

12 stormwater runoff. In all communities, whether regulated as MS4s or not, developing an 

13 effective outreach campaign will help gain the critical support and compliance that will lead to 

14 the ultimate success of a stormwater management program. Making the public aware of the 

15 issues, educating them on what needs to be done, and motivating them to take action will help 

16 managers meet both regulatory and water quality objectives.

17 Changing behavior through education and developing responsible attitudes among watershed 

18 citizens and communities is not a simple task. EPA has provided resources to help communities 

19 educate local citizens on how to protect local water quality through their own actions. EPA has 

20 published Getting In Step: A Guide to Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns. See

21 http://www.epa.gov/watershed/outreach/documents/. Getting In Step approaches outreach using 

22 concepts from social marketing. Social marketing means looking at the target audience as 

23 consumers. Instead of selling products or services, social marketing sells ideas, attitudes, and 

24 behaviors. The goal of social marketing is not to make money but to improve society and the 

25 environment. Social marketing campaign examples include the popular slogan “Only You Can 

26 Prevent Forest Fires.” Such campaigns persuade the public that a problem exists that only they 

27 can solve. For example, if the goal is to encourage people to test their soil before they apply lawn 

28 fertilizer, make it easier for them: sponsor a soil test day on which a local garden supply store 

29 hands out free soil test kits and demonstrates their use. This approach will go a lot further toward 

30 getting people to test their soil than merely sending out a flyer in the mail.

31 Getting In Step provides the overall framework for developing and implementing an outreach 

32 campaign in concert with an overall water quality improvement effort. It presents the outreach 

33 process as discrete steps, with each step building on the previous ones. The steps are as follows:

34 • Define the driving forces, goals, and objectives

35 • Identify and analyze the target audience

36 • Create the message

37 • Package the message

38 • Distribute the message

39 • Evaluate the outreach campaign
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 96 

1 The Getting in Step guide includes worksheets to help develop an outreach plan, information on 

2 additional resources for outreach and education, publications, and other available outreach 

3 materials.

4 EPA also provides the Outreach Toolbox (http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox/) for organizations to 

5 use to educate the public on stormwater runoff. The toolbox contains a variety of resources to 

6 help develop an effective and targeted outreach campaign. Features of the nonpoint source

7 Outreach Toolbox

8 • Featured Products—Exemplary outreach examples culled from the catalog for increasing 

9 awareness and changing behaviors across each of the six targeted topics (general 

10 stormwater and storm drain awareness, lawn and garden care, pet care, septic system care, 

11 motor vehicle care, and household chemicals and waste) and organized by media type.

12 • Searchable Catalog—Contains more than 700 viewable or audible TV, radio, and print 

13 ads and other outreach products to increase awareness and/or change behaviors across six 

14 common topics (see Featured Products). Search by media type or topic. Permissions for 

15 using the cataloged products are disclosed (and in most cases, granted) by the product 

16 owners, and contact information, campaign Web sites, and other pertinent details are 

17 provided.

18 • Other Nonpoint Source Outreach Collections—Links to collections of nonpoint source

19 outreach and educational products compiled by states and other organizations.

20 3.1.4 Downspout Disconnection

21 In many urban areas, roof downspouts are connected to the storm sewer system or, in some 

22 cities, to combined sewer systems. Disconnecting the downspouts allows the roof runoff to drain 

23 to the lawn or garden and infiltrate. Disconnection might not be applicable in all situations, 

24 depending on safety and property protection needs of each site. One example of a municipal 

25 downspout disconnection program is Portland, Oregon. The program was implemented to help 

26 mitigate combined sewer overflow, but the program is applicable to any urban surface water 

27 protection program. Portland’s program includes outreach materials, standards, and safety 

28 guidelines for downspout disconnection.

29 3.1.5 Inspections of Commercial/Industrial Facilities

30 A pollution prevention program should include a component that tracks commercial/industrial 

31 activity and includes conducting routine and random inspections of commercial/industrial 

32 facilities. The program can be used to provide compliance assistance or to ensure implementation 

33 of controls, such as those required under a municipal ordinance. This activity is an integral 

34 component of the NPDES MS4 stormwater permit requirements, and technical guidance on 

35 approaches for inspection programs—for MS4 communities or for other entities—is provided in 

36 EPA’s MS4 Program Evaluation Guidance, Chapter 4.6 Industrial/Commercial Facilities, 

37 January 2007, http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ms4guide_withappendixa.pdf.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 97 

1 Examples of stormwater inspection programs for commercial/industrial facilities include

2 • Contra Costa, California Commercial & Industrial Business Inspection Plan, 2005, 

3 http://www.ci.brentwood.ca.us/pdf/npdes/commerial_industrial_inspection_plan_05.pdf

4 • Sacramento County Stormwater Quality Program, 

5 http://www.sactostormwater.org/industrial/compliance.asp

6 Many municipalities have adopted stormwater ordinances that outline general or specific 

7 discharge prohibitions that apply to industrial and commercial properties. Such ordinances 

8 should includes specification such as exemptions, inspection requirements, and penalties for 

9 noncompliance.

10 Key technical components of an inspection program include (USEPA 2007)

11 • Facility Inventory. The types of industrial and commercial facilities that need to be 

12 inspected vary from large industrial areas with few commercial businesses, to restaurants 

13 and retail businesses but no industrial facilities at all. Characterize the facilities and 

14 prioritize them on the basis of their potential effect on stormwater quality, and the 

15 inspection program should be based on this prioritization approach. The inventory can be 

16 created using multiple resources, such as the permitting authority’s list of facilities that 

17 are covered under the state industrial general permit, business licenses, list of 

18 pretreatment significant industrial users, and phone books or other professional 

19 directories. Procedures for developing and organizing the inventory could be subject to 

20 requirements such as those that apply to MS4s.

21 • Tracking. A database facilitates program management. The database inventory should 

22 include facility type, past inspection or enforcement results, proximity to receiving 

23 waters, potential pollutant sources on-site, and other pertinent information to assist in 

24 inspection prioritization and management..

25 • Standards, BMPs, and Outreach. Many MS4 permittees have stormwater ordinances that 

26 include specific BMPs or standards for industrial and commercial facilities to protect 

27 water quality and minimize stormwater pollution. Others have adopted pollution 

28 prevention standards for new or redevelopment of industrial/commercial facilities. 

29 Development of brochures, fact sheets, and posters to hand out to operators during 

30 inspections to educate them about appropriate BMPs and inform them of what to expect 

31 from the inspection program. Many permittees have developed materials in multiple 

32 languages to use in a variety of communities. Some permittees have Web sites with links 

33 to relevant outside resources for more information. Many permittees also acknowledge 

34 that educating facility operators is essential to implementing BMPs and minimizing 

35 stormwater pollution and should be done during inspections and through workshops, 

36 conferences, and professional meetings.

37 • Staff Training. Routine training to ensure that inspectors are knowledgeable is essential 

38 to minimizing stormwater pollution from industrial/commercial facilities. It is important 

39 to cross-train any other staff (e.g., pretreatment, health department) used for stormwater 

40 inspections as well.

41 • Inspections. Most effective industrial/commercial inspection programs maintain a 

42 complete facility inventory and group them according to site-specific priorities. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 98 

1 Inspection frequency is determined according to priority. An inspection standard 

2 operating procedure should be formalized and documented. It should include a checklist 

3 to be used during the inspection and possibly a report format. Inspectors should be aware 

4 of federal, state, and local stormwater regulations that might apply to industrial/

5 commercial facilities. Inspectors should be familiar with various types of BMPs 

6 commonly used at the types of facilities being inspected and should be able to educate 

7 facility operators about such BMPs. Inspections should be used to identify 

8 noncompliance issues and as an opportunity to educate facility operators about proper 

9 stormwater BMPs.

10 • Program Support and Resources. Inspection programs should be included in the operating 

11 budget.

12 3.2 Runoff Treatment

13 3.2.1 Identify Pollutants of Concern

14 Approaches for identifying pollutants of concern (POCs) are discussed under 3.1.1 Source 

15 Control/Pollution Prevention. For the Chesapeake Bay, pollutants of concern include N, P, and 

16 sediment. Source control and pollution prevention are the most effective means for reducing 

17 pollutant concentration, used with runoff minimization. Treatment should be used as needed, in 

18 addition to the measures of pollutant reduction and runoff minimization to mitigate the identified 

19 pollutants of concern.

20 3.2.2 Select Implement Treatment Practices Appropriate to the POC

21 Treatment Practices and Design Guides. Treatment controls for stormwater, and estimates of

22 their effectiveness, have been summarized in the literature. Example references are provided in 

23 Table 3-35. In general, the effectiveness for removing virtually all pollutants, with the exception 

24 of gross solids and heavy particulates, is highly variable, at best, because of the differences in 

25 practice design, nature of pollutants, changes in watershed conditions, and variability in storm 

26 characteristics (Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis, 

27 December 2008, prepared for EPA by Tetra Tech). 

28 Table 3-35 includes references to sources of information on manufactured pretreatment devices 

29 that might be useful before LID practices. 

30 Table 3-35. References on general stormwater treatment BMP type, effectiveness, and design 

31 approaches 

Reference Information provided 

Stormwater Treatment BMPs 

EPA’s Stormwater Best Management Practices Design 

Guide, Volumes 1-3 (121, 121A, 121B), September 

2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development, EPA/600/R-04/121, 

www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04121/600r04121.htm

Three volume series provides guidance when 

selecting BMPs (either through retrofitting of 

existing BMPs or applying newly constructed 

BMPs to new development) to prevent or 

mitigate the adverse effects of urbanization. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 99 

Reference Information provided 

Infiltration vs. Surface Water Discharge: Guidance for 

Stormwater Managers, Final Report. 03-SW-4, Water 

Environment Research Federation (WERF 2006) 

Describes the performance of infiltration basins, 

bioretention, grass swales, porous pavement, 

as well as design and maintenance guidelines, 

and methods for modeling performance. 

Appendix D. Literature Review Supporting 

Design of Infiltration BMPs 

Maryland Stormwater Design Manual Maryland 

Stormwater Design Manual

www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/

SedimentandStormwater/stormwater_design/index.asp

Sizing and performance criteria for urban BMPs

Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) 

Performance Analysis, December 2008, prepared for 

EPA by Tetra Tech 

A procedure and results for estimating long-term 

performance for several types of LID BMPs 

designed and maintained in accordance with 

Massachusetts stormwater standards, but the 

procedure could be applied in other areas. 

Center for Watershed Protection Technical 

Memorandum: The Runoff Reduction Method

www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/SW/RRT

echMemo.pdf

A framework for BMP designers to verify 

compliance with proposed stormwater 

regulations in Virginia 

Water Environment Research Foundation Performance 

and Whole-Life Costs of BMPs and SUDS 

www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&Tem

plate=/CustomSource/Research/ResearchProfile.cfm&

ReportId=01-CTS-21-

TA&CFID=2715758&CFTOKEN=75805127

Research on stormwater BMP effectiveness and 

cost 

International Stormwater Database

www.bmpdatabase.org

Compendium of results from studies of BMP 

effectiveness 

Technology Acceptance & Reciprocity Partnership 

(TARP) 

Testing protocols and performance reports for 

manufactured pretreatment devices 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Evaluation 

of Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies 

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/

index.html

Program for evaluating stormwater technologies 

proposed by vendors, and a clearinghouse for 

information and decisions on their use. 

Center for Watershed Protection’s National Pollutant 

Removal Performance Database, Version 3 Center for 

Watershed Protection’s National Pollutant Removal 

Performance Database, Version 3 

www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/

SW/bmpwriteup_092007_v3.pdf

Compendium of results from 166 studies of 

BMP effectiveness 

Determining Urban Stormwater BMP Effectiveness 

http://books.google.com/books?id=p5qMMwofaDwC&l

pg=PA175&ots=Z_1Tyw56OG&lr=&pg=PA175#v=one

page&q=&f=false (Strecker et al. 2000)

Discussion of protocols for measuring and 

reporting BMP effectiveness 

Design Approaches 

Chesapeake Stormwater Network’s Baywide Design Detailed design specifications for rooftop 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 100 

Reference Information provided 

Specifications

www.chesapeakestormwater.net/baywide-designspecifications2

disconnection, filter strips, grass channels, soil 

compost amendments, green roofs, rain tanks, 

permeable pavers, infiltration, bioretention, dry 

swales, urban bioretention, filtering practices, 

constructed wetlands, wet ponds, and extended 

detention ponds 

U.S. Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria 

(UFC) Low Impact Development 

www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_210_10.pdf 

Design criteria and examples for LID practices 

City of Portland 2008 Stormwater Management Manual

www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?c=47952

Typical design details for a number of LID BMPs 

for urban settings 

Strecker, E., M.M. Quigley, and B.R. Urbonas. 2000.

Determining urban stormwater BMP effectiveness. In 

Proceedings of the National Conference on Tools for 

Urban Water Resources, February 7-10, 2000, 

Chicago, IL. 

Overview of BMP effectiveness. 

1 

2 Design manuals that include specifications for specific BMP types are prepared by federal 

3 agencies, such as the Department of Defense and by state and local entities. Table 3-36 lists 

4 some of these design manuals that have a specific focus on treatment of nutrients; this is not 

5 intended to be a comprehensive list, and updates are routinely made as technology advances. 

6 Table 3-36. Stormwater treatment design manuals or specifications with focus on nutrient removal 

7 for urban stormwater 

Reference Information provided 

Developing Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment 

Reduction Efficiencies for Tributary Strategy Practices, 

BMP Assessment Final Report 

www.chesapeakebay.net/marylandBMP.aspx (Simpson 

and Weammert 2009)

Effectiveness estimates, focusing on nutrients 

and sediment, for a number of urban, 

agricultural, and forestry BMPs 

New York State Stormwater Management Design 

Manual, Chapter 10: Enhanced Phosphorus Removal 

Standards 

www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html 

PPhosphorus removal section recently added 

Chesapeake Stormwater Network Baywide Design 

Standards 

www.chesapeakestormwater.net/all-thingsstormwater/category/baywide-design-specifications

Specifications for 15 stormwater BMPs 

New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices 

Manual

www.state.nj.us/dep/stormwater/bmp_manual2.htm

Chapter 4 includes information on meeting 

nutrient removal performance standards, and 

Chapter 9 includes design standards 

Northern Virginia BMP Handbook

www.novaregion.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1679

BMP manual with design calculations for 

Pphosphorus removal 

Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse BMP design specifications 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 101 

Reference Information provided 

www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/NonProprietaryBMPs.html

1 

2 The potential for trees and other vegetation to remove pollutants from stormwater as a treatment 

3 practice has been evaluated in phytoremediation research but has not yet been widely studied for 

4 applicability in sequestering pollutants removed from stormwater or for extending the life of 

5 bioretention media. Plants provide nutrient uptake, toxin uptake such as heavy metals, and 

6 pollutant breakdown. This is an area for future research. Resources for information on 

7 phytoremediation is included in Table 3-37. 

8 Table 3-37. Resources for information on phytoremediation 

Reference Type of informationInformation

Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance, 

The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council 2009

(http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/PHYTO3.pdf)http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/PHYTO-3.pdf)

Provides guidance on using vegetation for soil 

remediation, and estimates of transpiration 

rates. 

EPA’s Brownfields Technology Primer:

Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site 

Cleanup (EPA’s http://www.clu-in.org/download/

remed/phytoremprimer.pdfBrownfields Technology 

Primer:

Selecting and Using Phytoremediation

for Site Cleanup) (http://www.cluin.org/download/remed/phytoremprimer.pdf)

Phytoremediation process, advantages and 

considerations, and additional resources 

Phytotechnology Project Profiles

(http://www.clu-in.org/products/phyto/)(http://www.cluin.org/products/phyto/)

Case studies demonstrating phytotechnology 

applications 

9 

10 3.3.1 Use New Approaches in Assessing Treatment Technologies.

11 Technology Effectiveness

12 Understanding unit operations and processes is necessary for success of the treatment system 

13 design, as well as system O&M. This modern approach for stormwater treatment is based more 

14 on traditional industrial drinking water and wastewater treatment concepts, rather than on 

15 traditional stormwater approaches that generally addressed only the more basic goal of removing 

16 total suspended solids. This approach is presented in Critical Assessment of Stormwater 

17 Treatment and Control Selection Issues (WERF 2005), and is applicable as treatment concerns 

18 become more focused on removal of Pphosphorus and Nnitrogen. The approach advises users to 

19 first select unit operations or processes applicable for POCs on the basis of the pollutant form 

20 (i.e., dissolved, colloidal, particulate), chemical speciation (e.g., ionic metal species, 

21 Pphosphorus species), and granulometric characteristics (e.g., particle size, specific gravity, 

22 surface area), and then individually select the components of a treatment system according to the 

23 unit operations or processes that are effective for treating the POCs (see Table 3-38). For 

24 example, this approach is presented in the New York State Stormwater Management Design 

25 Manual, Chapter 10: Enhanced Phosphorus Removal Standards. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 102 

1 Table 3-38. Unit operation or processes and typical treatment system components for 

2 fundamental process categories 

Fundamental process 

category (FPC) 

Unit operation or process (UOP)

Target Pollutants

Typical treatment system components 

(TSCS)TSCs)

Flow and Volume Extended retention/detention ponds 

Wetlands 

Tanks/vaults 

Equalization basins 

Hydrologic Operations 

Volume Reduction 

 All Pollutant loads

Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins 

Permeable or porous pavement 

Bioretention cells 

Dry swales 

Dry well 

Extended detention basins 

Particle Size Alteration 

 Coarse sediment

Comminutors (not common for stormwater)

Mixers (not common for stormwater) 

Physical Sorption 

 Nutrients, metals, petroleum 

compounds 

Engineered media, granular activated 

carbon, and sand/gravel (at a lower 

capacity) 

Size Separation and Exclusion 

(screening and filtration) 

 Coarse sediment, trash, debris

Screens/bars/trash racks 

Biofilters 

Permeable or porous pavement 

Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins 

Manufactured bioretention systems 

Engineered media/granular/sand/compost 

filters 

Hydrodynamic separators 

Catch basin inserts (i.e., surficial filters) 

Density, Gravity, Inertial 

Separation (grit separation, 

sedimentation, flotation and 

skimming, and clarification) 

 Sediment, trash, debris, oil and 

grease

Extended detention basins 

Retention/detention ponds 

Wetlands 

Settling basins, tanks/vaults 

Swales with check dams 

Oil-water separators 

Hydrodynamic separators 

Aeration and Volatilization 

 Oxygen demand, PAHs, VOCs

Sprinklers 

Aerators 

Mixers (not common for stormwater) 

Physical Treatment 

Operations 

Physical Agent Disinfection 

 Pathogens

Shallow detention ponds 

Ultraviolet systems 

Microbially Mediated 

Transformation (can include 

oxidation, reduction, or facultative 

processes) 

 Metals, nutrients, organic 

pollutants

Wetlands 

Bioretention systems 

Biofilters (and engineered bio-media filters)

Retention ponds 

Media/sand/compost filters 

Biological Processes 

Uptake and Storage 

 Metals, nutrient, organic 

pollutants

Wetlands/wetland channels 

Bioretention systems 

Biofilters 

Retention ponds 

Chemical Processes Chemical Sorption Processes 

 Metals, nutrients, organic 

Subsurface wetlands 

Engineered media/sand/compost filters 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 103 

Fundamental process 

category (FPC) 

Unit operation or process (UOP)

Target Pollutants

Typical treatment system components 

(TSCS)TSCs)

pollutants Infiltration/exfiltration trenches and basins 

Coagulation/Flocculation 

 Fine sediment, nutrients

Detention/retention ponds 

Coagulant/flocculant injection systems 

Ion Exchange 

 Metals, nutrients

Engineered media, zeolites, peats, surface 

complexation media 

Chemical Disinfection 

 Pathogens

Custom devices for mixing chlorine or 

aerating with ozone 

Advanced treatment systems 

Source: WERF 2005 

1 3.3.2 Estimating Effectiveness of Stormwater Treatment Practices. 

2 As noted previously, estimates of the effectiveness of stormwater treatment practices vary for 

3 many reasons. The effectiveness of any stormwater BMP—for example, in annual pounds of 

4 pollutant removed or in percent of pollutant removed—will be a function of the rainfall pattern, 

5 the specific design of the BMP, the watershed and pollutant characteristics, and—for LID 

6 practices that include infiltration or filtration—the nature of the media. Media with high 

7 Pphosphorus or Nnitrogen content can export nutrients, while providing effective removals of 

8 trace metals. For more information on factors influencing the treatment effectiveness of 

9 bioretention and other LID practices, see the Fact Sheets. 

10 A listtable of generally accepted stormwater treatment BMPs, and their and estimated effluent 

11 mean concentrations are provided in Table 3-39. These values are used in a WERF stormwater 

12 treatment model (the model name is SELECT), and provide an indication of the effluent quality

13 that may be observed from the practices. 

14 Table 3-39. Default effluent event mean concentration for BMPs used in WERF SELECT model 

TSS

(mg/L)

TP

(mg/L)

TN

(mg/L)

BMP MED STD MED STD MED STD

Extended Detentiona31 2 0.19 0.04 2.72 0.5

Wetland Basinsa18 1 0.14 0.02 1.15 0.2

Bioretentiona24 2 0.34 0.06 0.78 0.1

Swalesb13 1 0.22 0.05 2.72 0.4

Media Filtersa16 1 0.14 0.03 0.76 0.1

Permeable Pavementa18 1 0.14 0.03 1.15 0.15

Source: Pomeroy and Rowney 2009

a. Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers 2008. 

b. Barrett et al. 1998

TSS

(mg/L)

Total phosphorus 

(mg/L)

Total nitrogen 

(mg/L)

Total zinc

(mg/L)

BMP MED STD MED STD MED STD MED STD

Extended Detentiona31 2 0.19 0.04 2.72 0.5 0.0602 0.003

Wetland Basinsa18 1 0.14 0.02 1.15 0.2 0.0307 0.002
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 104 

Bioretentiona24 2 0.34 0.06 0.78 0.1 0.04 0.001

Swalesb13 1 0.22 0.05 2.72 0.4 0.0215 0.001

Media Filtersa16 1 0.14 0.03 0.76 0.1 0.0585 0.002

Permeable 

Pavementa

18 1 0.14 0.03 1.15 0.15 0.0307 0.002

a. Barrett, M.E., P.M. Walsh, J.F. Malina, and R.J. Charbeneau. 1998. Performance of Vegetative Controls for 

Treating Highway Runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering 124:11.

b. Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers. 2008. Analysis of Treatment System Performance: 

International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database (1999-2008). Technical report prepared for 

Water Environment Research Foundation, American Society of Civil Engineers (Environmental and Water 

Resources Institute/Urban Water Resources Research Council), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal 

Highway Administration, American Public Works Association.

1 Estimates of potential pollutant-removal effectiveness were summarized on the basis of a 

2 literature review of data on the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Recommendations for Endorsement 

3 by the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee and its Workgroups For use in 

4 Tributary Strategy Runs of Phase 5 of the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model; Collins 

5 et al. 2009, www.chesapeakebay.net/marylandbmp.aspx). The pollutant-removal estimates 

6 provided indicate that the majority of annual reduction in pollutant loading is derived from 

7 volume reduction, although some treatment can be achieved with appropriate media (low 

8 Nnitrogen and Pphosphorus content) and the conditionsdetention time to enableallow

9 denitrification to occur. Estimates of performance for LID practices, and other urban stormwater 

10 treatment practices, are provided for the following: 

11 • Dry detention ponds and hydrodynamic structures BMPs 

12 • Dry extended detention basins BMP 

13 • Infiltration and filtration practices (includes bioretention, permeable pavement, 

14 infiltration trenches and basins, filters, and vegetated open channels) 

15 • Urban wet ponds and wetlands 

16 Of those practices, infiltration and filtration practices have the best potential for addressing 

17 pollutant treatment of the LID technologies. Note that infiltration through soils via applications 

18 such as bioretention are different from dry wells because a level of treatment is provided in the 

19 soil (see the 2005 EPA memorandum that clarifies that typical stormwater infiltration compared 

20 to dry wells, www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/memo_gi_classvwells.pdf). The performance estimates 

21 for infiltration and filtration practices are provided in the Bioretention Fact Sheet in Section 6. 

22 Actual pollutant-removal performance can vary significantly depending on many factors, 

23 including regional rainfall pattern, media specification, design features, and watershed 

24 characteristics that affect the pollutant concentration and speciation. To obtain more accurate 

25 estimates, approaches that combine pilot testing with continuous hydrologic modeling have been 

26 performed, for example in EPA Region 1. That type of approach could be successful in 

27 developing more accurate performance estimates for specific climate regions and practice 

28 designs (Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis, prepared by 

29 Tetra Tech, Inc., for EPA Region 1 2008, 

30 www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/BMP-Performance-Analysis-Report.pdf). 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 105 

1 3.4 Consider Long-term Maintenance Considerations. Maintenance 

2 requirements should be evaluated as part of practice selection to 

3 help enable a more accurate comparison of the life-cycle costs of 

4 the practice.

5 Maintenance considerations can include 

6 • Necessary maintenance activities for the life of the control compared to alternatives 

7 • How placement of the practice can affect maintenance (visibility, and such) 

8 • Level of effort necessary to ensure adequate maintenance 

9 • Frequency of maintenance necessary 

10 • Responsible party to conduct maintenance or ensure continuing use of areas in drainage 

11 easements, and mechanisms for enforcement 

12 Resources for information on maintenance considerations are provided in Table 3-40. Additional 

13 maintenance information is provided in the fact sheets in section 6. Information on LID O&M 

14 costs is provided in Section 2 of this Chapter.

15 Table 3-40. Resources for information on maintenance considerations 

Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center Manual Builder

www.stormwatercenter.net

Information on maintenance tracking, 

frequencies, unit costs, easements, 

performance bonds, and checklists for 

maintenance inspections for common BMPs. 

Virginia’s Maintaining Your BMP: A Guidebook for 

Private Owners and Operators in Northern Virginia 

www.dcr.virginia.gov/chesapeake_bay_local_assistance

/documents/bmpmaintfinal.pdf

Maintenance guidance for homeowners, 

homeowners associations, and other, 

nontechnical audiences 

Lake County, Illinois’ A Citizen’s Guide to Maintaining 

Stormwater Best Management Practices for 

Homeowners Associations and Property Owners 

www.northbarrington.org/files/newsletters/Guide_Final_

110404.pdf

Step-by-step guide for planning for and 

conducting maintenance on common 

stormwater BMPs 

Pierce County, Washington’s Stormwater Maintenance 

Manual for Private Facilities 

www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/environ/water/

wq/maintman/MaintManFinal2-22-05.pdf

Includes BMP-specific maintenance information 

and checklists as well as information on 

developing a maintenance program 

16 

17 3.5 Address Physical Site Limitations.

18 Physical site limitations can affect the appropriateness of a practice. These can include 

19 • Lack of adequate pervious area to infiltrate stormwater 

20 • Presence of functionally impervious soils 

21 • Steep slopes or a high groundwater table 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 106 

1 • Presence of contaminated soils 

2 • Potential for highly contaminated stormwater (from hotspots) infiltrating and 

3 contaminating groundwater source 

4 • Proximity to building foundations, roadways, bridges, abutments, and retaining walls 

5 • Lack of necessary vertical relief to transport stormwater flows 

6 • Conflicts with underground utilities 

7 Example resources for information on some of the site limitation issues are provided in Table 3-41. 

8 Table 3-41. Example resources for information on some of the many site limitation issues to 

9 consider 

Resource Limitation addressed 

CSN Technical Bulletin No. 1 Stormwater Design Guidelines for 

Karst Terrain in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Version 2.0, 

Chesapeake Stormwater Network, Developed by Karst Working 

Group, Released June 2009 

Infiltration practices in Karst areas 

Groundwater Contamination Potential from Infiltration of Urban 

Stormwater Runoff. Shirley E. Clark, Robert Pitt, and Richard 

Field; To be published 2009 as Chapter 6 in The Effects of 

Urbanization on Groundwater: An Engineering Case Based 

Approach for Sustainable Development. Committee on 

Groundwater Hydrology, ASCE/EWRI. 

Risk of groundwater contamination 

from infiltration practices 

Center for Watershed Protection’s Stormwater Practices for Cold 

Climates 

www.stormwatercenter.net/Cold%20Climates/cold-climates.htm

Cold-climate considerations, 

including freezing temperatures and 

high runoff during snowmelt 

Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice Manual, Chapter 2: 

Selecting BMPs (Metropolitan Council 2009) 

www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Water/BMP/manual.htm

Includes a matrix of physical 

feasibility factors to aid in selecting 

BMPs 

10 

11 3.6 Address Aesthetics and Safety. 

12 When selecting and designing BMPs, it is important to consider the surrounding land use type, 

13 the immediate context, and the proximity of the site to civic spaces to ensure that the site’s 

14 aesthetics are preserved. Also, access to BMP areas should be limited to protect public safety. 

15 Finally, water should not be allowed to stand for longer than 72 hours to prevent mosquito 

16 breeding. More information about aesthetic and safety considerations is at the WERF Using 

17 Rainwater to Grow Livable Communities site (www.werf.org/livablecommunities), particularly 

18 on the Green Infrastructure Design Considerations page 

19 (www.werf.org/livablecommunities/pdf/design.pdf).

20 3.3 References

21 Barrett, M.E., P.M. Walsh, J.F. Malina, and R.J. Charbeneau. 1998. Performance of Vegetative 

22 Controls for Treating Highway Runoff. Journal of Environmental Engineering 124:11.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 107 

1 CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association). 2004. California Stormwater Best 

2 Management Practice Handbooks. California Stormwater Quality Association, Menlo 

3 Park, CA. <http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/industrial.asp>. Accessed February 24, 

4 2010. City of Seattle. 2010. Integrated Pest Management Program: ProIPM Fact Sheets. 

5 Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, WA. 

6 <http://www.seattle.gov/UTIL/Services/Yard/For_Landscape_Professionals/Integrated_Pes

7 t_Management/index.asp>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

8 Clark, Shirley E., Robert Pitt, and Richard Field. 2009. Groundwater Contamination Potential 

9 from Infiltration of Urban Stormwater Runoff. Chapter 6 in The Effects of Urbanization on 

10 Groundwater: An Engineering Case Based Approach for Sustainable Development. 

11 Committee on Groundwater Hydrology, ASCE/EWRI. Center for Watershed Protection’s 

12 Stormwater Practices for Cold Climates, Ellicott City, MD. 

13 <http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Cold%20Climates/cold-climates.htm>. Accessed 

14 February 24, 2010.

15 CSN (Chesapeake Stormwater Network). 2009. Baywide Design Specifications. Chesapeake 

16 Stormwater Network, Baltimore, MD. <http://www.chesapeakestormwater.net/baywide17 design-specifications2>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

18 CSN (Chesapeake Stormwater Network). 2010. Entries in Baywide Design Specifications (15). 

19 Chesapeake Stormwater Network, Baltimore, MD. 

20 <http://www.chesapeakestormwater.net/all-things-stormwater/category/baywide-design21 specifications>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

22 CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). 2007. National Pollutant Removal Performance 

23 Database, Version 3. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. 

24 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/SW/bmpwriteup_092007_v3.pdf>. 

25 Accessed February 24, 2010.

26 CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). 2008. Technical Memorandum: The Runoff Reduction 

27 Method. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. 

28 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/SW/RRTechMemo.pdf>. Accessed 

29 February 24, 2010.

30 Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers. 2008. Analysis of Treatment System 

31 Performance: International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database 

32 (1999-2008). Prepared for Water Environment Research Foundation, American Society of 

33 Civil Engineers (Environmental and Water Resources Institute/Urban Water Resources 

34 Research Council), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway 

35 Administration, and American Public Works Association, by Geosyntec, Atlanta, GA.

36 Geosyntec Consultants and Wright Water Engineers. 2009. Urban Stormwater BMP 

37 Performance Monitoring. International Stormwater BMP Database. 

38 <http://www.bmpdatabase.org/>. Accessed February 23, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 108 

1 HRPDC (Hampton Roads Planning District Commission). 2006. Draft Implementation Plan for 

2 the Fecal Coliform TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Shellfish Areas of Lynnhaven 

3 Bay, Broad Bay and Linkhorn Bay Watersheds. Hampton Roads Planning District 

4 Commission, Hampton Roads, VA. 

5 <http://www.vbgov.com/file_source/dept/planning/Document/LynnhavenFecalReport2006.

6 pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

7 ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2009. Phytotechnology Technical and 

8 Regulatory Guidance. The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Washington, DC. 

9 <http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/PHYTO-3.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

10 Karst Working Group. 2009. Technical Bulletin No. 1 Stormwater Design Guidelines for Karst 

11 Terrain in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Version 2.0. Chesapeake Stormwater Network, 

12 Ellicott City, MD.

13 LCSMC (Lake County Stormwater Management Commission). No date. A Citizen’s Guide to 

14 Maintaining Stormwater Best Management Practices for Homeowners Associations and 

15 Property Owners. Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, Waukegan, IL. 

16 <http://www.northbarrington.org/files/newsletters/Guide_Final_110404.pdf>. Accessed 

17 February 24, 2010.

18 Maryland DOE (Department of the Environment). 2000. Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. 

19 Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD. 

20 <http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/stormwat

21 er_design/index.asp>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

22 Maestre, A., R. Pitt, 2005. The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1, A 

23 Compilation and Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Information. Center for 

24 Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland, and USEPA Washington, D.C.

25 <http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Publications/Stormwater%20Characteristics/NSQD%20EPA.pdf>.

26 Accessed March 10, 2010.

27 Metropolitan Council. 2009. Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice Manual, Chapter 2: 

28 Selecting BMPs. Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, MN. 

29 <http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/Water/BMP/manual.htm>. Accessed February 

30 24, 2010.

31 New York State DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 2008. New York State 

32 Stormwater Management Design Manual, Chapter 10: Enhanced Phosphorus Removal 

33 Standards. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 

34 <http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

35 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2004. Storm Drain Labeling 

36 Guidelines for New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division 

37 of Watershed Management, Trenton, NJ. 

38 <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/StormDrainLabeling.pdf>. Accessed 

39 February 24, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 109 

1 NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2009. New Jersey Stormwater 

2 Best Management Practices Manual. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

3 Trenton, NJ. <http://www.state.nj.us/dep/stormwater/bmp_manual2.htm>. Accessed 

4 February 24, 2010.

5 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. The Coastal Nonpoint 

6 Pollution Control Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and

7 Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 

8 <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/welcome.html>. Accessed February 24, 

9 2010.

10 North Carolina DENR. No date. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. 

11 North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance, Raleigh, 

12 NC. <http://www.p2pays.org/>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

13 Novotney, M. and R. Winer. 2008. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual No. 9: Municipal 

14 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Practices. Center for Watershed Protection, 

15 Ellicott City, MD. 

16 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/municipal/USRM9.pdf>. Accessed 

17 February 24, 2010.

18 NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States.

19 The National Academies Press and the Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge 

20 Contributions to Water Pollution, Washington, DC.

21 NVPDC (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission). 1992. Northern Virginia BMP 

22 Handbook. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, Fairfax, VA. 

23 <http://www.novaregion.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1679>. Accessed February 24, 

24 2010.

25 NVPDC (Northern Virginia Planning District Commission). No date. Virginia’s Maintaining 

26 Your BMP: A Guidebook for Private Owners and Operators in Northern Virginia. Virginia 

27 Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA. 

28 <http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/chesapeake_bay_local_assistance/documents/bmpmaintfinal.

29 pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

30 P2RX (Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange). 2009. Pollution Prevention Resource 

31 Exchange. Pollution Prevention Resource Exchange, Omaha, NE. <http://www.p2rx.org>. 

32 Accessed February 24, 2010.

33 PCDPW (Pierce County Department of Public Works). 2005. Pierce County, Washington’s 

34 Stormwater Maintenance Manual for Private Facilities. Pierce County Department of 

35 Public Works, Environmental Services, Water Programs Division, Tacoma, WA.

36 <http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/environ/water/wq/maintman/MaintManFi

37 nal2-22-05.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 110 

1 Pennsylvania DEP. No date. Technology Acceptance & Reciprocity Partnership (TARP). 

2 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. 

3 <http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/techservices/tarp/>. Accessed February 

4 24, 2010.

5 Pitt, R., A. Maestre and R. Morquecho. 2004. The National Stormwater Quality Database 

6 (NSQD, version 1.1). University of Alabama, Department of Civil and Environmental 

7 Engineering, Tuscaloosa, AL. 

8 <http://rpitt.eng.ua.edu/Research/ms4/Paper/Mainms4paper.html>. Updated February 16, 

9 2004. Accessed February 3, 2010.

10 Pomeroy, C.A., and A. Rowney. 2009. User’s Guide to the SELECT BMP Model. SW1R06a.

11 Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

12 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. 2008. 2008 Stormwater Management Manual. City 

13 of Portland, Portland, OR. <http://www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?c=47952>. 

14 Accessed February 24, 2010.

15 Schueler, T., C. Swann, T. Wright, and S. Sprinkle. 2005. Urban Subwatershed Restoration 

16 Manual No. 8: Pollution Source Control Practices. Center for Watershed Protection, 

17 Ellicott City, MD. 

18 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/USRM/ELC_USRM8v2sls.pdf>. 

19 Accessed February 24, 2010.

20 Simpson and Weammert. 2009. Developing Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Reduction 

21 Efficiencies for Tributary Strategy Practices, BMP Assessment Final Report. Chesapeake 

22 Bay Program, Baltimore, MD. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/marylandBMP.aspx>. 

23 Accessed February 24, 2010.

24 SMRC (Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center). No date. Manual Builder. Stormwater 

25 Manager’s Resource Center, Ellicott City, MD. <http://www.stormwatercenter.net>. 

26 Accessed February 24, 2010.

27 SSMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). No date. San Mateo 

28 Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution 

29 Prevention Program, San Mateo, CA. <http://www.flowstobay.org/>. Accessed February 

30 24, 2010.

31 Strecker, E., M.M. Quigley, and B.R. Urbonas. 2000. Determining urban stormwater BMP 

32 effectiveness. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Tools for Urban Water 

33 Resources, February 7-10, 2000, Chicago, IL.

34 Sustainable Conservation. 2010. Brake Pad Partnership. Sustainable Conservation, San 

35 Francisco, CA. <http://www.suscon.org/bpp/index.php>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

36 Tetra Tech. 2008. Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Performance Analysis, Tetra 

37 Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 111 

1 UP3 Project. No date. UP3 Project. Urban Pesticide Pollution Prevention Project, Oakland, CA. 

2 <http://www.up3project.org>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

3 USDOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2004. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Low Impact 

4 Development. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. 

5 <http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_210_10.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

6 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Brownfields Technology Primer: 

7 Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for Site Cleanup. U.S. Environmental Protection 

8 Agency, Washington, DC. <http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/phytoremprimer.pdf>. 

9 Accessed February 24, 2010.

10 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Stormwater Best Management Practices 

11 Design Guide, Volumes 1-3 (121, 121A, 121B). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

12 Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

13 <http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r04121/600r04121.htm>. Accessed February 24, 

14 2010.

15 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 

16 Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection 

17 Agency, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html>. 

18 Accessed February 24, 2010.

19 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 

20 Control Non-point Source Pollution from Urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection 

21 Agency, Washington, DC.

22 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008 Memorandum: Underground Injection 

23 Control (UIC) Program Class V Well Identification Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection 

24 Agency, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/memo_gi_classvwells.pdf> 

25 Accessed February 24, 2010.

26 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National Menu of Stormwater Best 

27 Management Practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

28 <http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

29 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Phytotechnology Project Profiles. U.S. 

30 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

31 <http://www.clu-in.org/products/phyto/>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

32 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Source Water Protection Practices 

33 Bulletin: Managing Stormwater Runoff to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. U.S. 

34 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

35 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_stormwater.pdf>. Accessed 

36 February 24, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 112 

1 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Source Water Protection Practices 

2 Bulletin: Managing Highway Deicing to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. U.S. 

3 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

4 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_deicinghighway.pdf>. 

5 Accessed February 24, 2010.

6 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Education Resources for Non-Point 

7 Source Runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

8 <http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/eduinfo.html>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

9 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Healthy Watersheds. U.S. 

10 Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

11 <http://www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

12 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum 

13 Daily Loads. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

14 <http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

15 Virginia DCR (Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2009. Virginia Stormwater BMP 

16 Clearinghouse. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA. 

17 <http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/NonProprietaryBMPs.html>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

18 Hendrix, Steve. 2010. D.C. shoppers opt for roughing it over paying 5-cent bag tax. Washington 

19 Post, Saturday, January 23, 2010.

20 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western 

21 Washington: Volume IV -- Source Control BMPs. Washington State Department of 

22 Ecology, Olympia, WA. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0510032.html>. Accessed 

23 February 22, 2010.

24 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2009. Evaluation of Emerging Stormwater Treatment 

25 Technologies. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

26 <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/index.html>. Accessed 

27 February 22, 2010.

28 Weinstein, N., C. Glass, J.P. Heaney, J. Lee, W. Huber, P. Jones, C. Kloss, M. Quigley, E. 

29 Strecker and K. Stephens. 2005. Decentralized Stormwater Controls for Urban Retrofit and 

30 Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction. Water Environment Research Foundation, 

31 Alexandria, VA.

32 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2005. Critical Assessment of Stormwater 

33 Treatment and Control Selection Issues. Water Environment Research Foundation, 

34 Alexandria, VA.

35 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2005. Performance and Whole-Life Costs of 

36 BMPs and SUDS. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. 

37 <http://www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&Template=/CustomSource/

38 Research/ResearchProfile.cfm&ReportId=01-CTS-21-

39 TA&CFID=2715758&CFTOKEN=75805127>. Accessed February 24, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 3. Controlling Urban Runoff 113 

1 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2006. Infiltration vs. Surface Water 

2 Discharge: Guidance for Stormwater Managers, Final Report. Water Environment 

3 Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

4 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2008. Using Rainwater to Grow Livable 

5 Communities. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. 

6 <http://www.werf.org/livablecommunities>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

7 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2006-2007. Green Infrastructure Design 

8 Considerations. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA. 

9 <http://www.werf.org/livablecommunities/pdf/design.pdf>. Accessed February 24, 2010.

10 WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 2009. User’s Guide to the SELECT BMP 

11 Model, SW1R06a, 2009. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.

12 Wright T., C. Swann, K. Cappiella and T. Schueler. 2005. Urban Subwatershed and Site 

13 Reconnaissance Users Guide. Manual 11, Appendix C. Center for Watershed Protection, 

14 Ellicott City, MD. 

15 <http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Center_Docs/USRM/USRM11_Appendix_C.doc>. 

16 Accessed February 24, 2010.