UNHSC has been assisting the New England Environmental Finance Center in the development and delivery of training sessions to promote the new BMP Performance Curves and the EPA Region 1 Opti-Tool

New England Environmental Finance Center

University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC)

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New HampshireUniversity of New Hampshire Scholars' RepositoryUNH Stormwater Center Research Institutes, Centers and Programs11-1-2017MS4 Resource: Opti-Tool TrainingUniversity of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC)New England Environmental Finance CenterFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwaterThis Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Institutes, Centers and Programs at University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNH Stormwater Center by an authorized administrator of University of New HampshireScholars' Repository. For more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC) and New England Environmental Finance Center, "MS4 Resource:Opti-Tool Training" (2017). UNH Stormwater Center. 33.https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater/331IntroductionNameAffiliationWhat is YOUR biggest challenge in stormwater control measure accounting/planning?November, 2017Opti-Tool Outreach Workshop Part 1 Research Based Stormwater System Accounting3IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsWater Quality is Declining4Why We’re HereGoal of Clean Water Act is to “delist”Something isn’t  working…What is the Opti-Tool56Materials We Will Use Today7IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCosts8Stormwater System Classification Can Be ChallengingBecause we don’t always speak the same languageSwale Retention Pond Detention PondSubsurface Detention Water Quality InletDownstream Defender Bio-Swale Naturalized BasinStorm Trooper Vort-Sentry V2B1 Bay SaverBioretention Rain Garden Tree Filter FilteraSand Filter Delaware Austin ADS StormTechGravel Wetland Surface WetlandStormwater WetlandConstructed WetlandPorous Asphalt Pervious ConcretePermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversP rmeable I terlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Int rlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concr t  PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers9It Cleans!It Will Get You the Job!It Disinfects!Imagine the Ultimate System…Sonic Swirl Enforcereliminating  ev rything  in  it’s  path10Now Consider Bioretention11No Need to Reinvent this Wheel Physical Operations Biological Processes Chemical Processes Hydrologic OperationsUse Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Physical UOPsScreeningFiltrationEnhanced SedimentationSedimentationFil i nEnhanced tioncrSedi ionBiological UOPsVegetative ProcessMicrobial ProcessMicr l essVeg t  ssCoagulationFlocculationAntibacterialSorptionSorChemical UOPsAnti rialVolume ReductionFlow AlterationHydrologic UOPsFl ration16IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsOpti-Tool17https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/opti-tool-epa-region-1s-stormwater-management-optimization-toolSCMs Currently Covered in Opti• Biofiltration with ISR• Biofiltration• Dry Pond• Gravel Wetland• Infiltration Basin• Infiltration Trench• Sand Filter • Wet Pond18• Pemeable (Porous) Pavement• Grass SwaleCovered in Opti (8) Covered in MS4 (2)Some DefinitionsDesign Storage Volume (DSV), aka Design Storage CapacityL = lengthW = widthD = depth at design capacity before bypassn = porosity/void space of fill material soil media (bio-retention soil mix, engineered soil mix, etc.) = 0.2  peastone (⅜” washed) = 0.3 reservoir stone (¾” washed)  = 0.4A = average surface area for calculating volume19DSV ExampleInfiltration Basin/Surface Infiltration for raingarden or bio-retention with no underdrains DSV = Ponding water storage volume and void space volumes of soil filter media and stone layers, if applicable. DSV = (Apond x Dpond) + (Asoil x Dsoil x nsoil) + (Astone x Dstonex nstone)20DSV ExampleInfiltration Basin/Surface Infiltration for raingarden or bio-retention with no underdrains DSV = (Apond x Dpond) + (Asoil x Dsoil x nsoil) + (Astone x Dstonex nstone)A = 100 sfPonded Depth = 1’Soil Depth = 2’Stone Depth = 1.5’21DSV = (100 x 1 x 1) + (100 x 2 x 0.2) + (150 x 1 x 0.4)DSV = 200 cfTreated Runoff Depth22Drainage Area 1 acre (43,560 sf)Impervious Area 0.6 acres (26,136 sf)WQV = Area sf x 1/12 2,000 cfDSV 200 cfTreated Runoff Depth 0.1 inches= DSV/WQV x 1223Review of WorksheetsFill in the BlanksBMP Type DSV (cf) Treated IC acres (sf)Treated Runoff Depth% Load ReductionTSS         TP        TNBioretention/ Infiltration Basin200 1 (26,136) 1.2 99 99 99HSG A = 8.24 in/hr25IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsLife Cycle Costs Including Maintenancehttps://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/green-infrastructure-stormwater-bmp-cost-estimation.pdfDesign, Capital, and Construction CostsInfiltration Trench SystemMaterials and Installation Cost ($/ft3) (2010)2Design Cost ($/ft3) (2010)Materials and Installation Cost ($/ft3) (2017)3Design Cost ($/ft3) (2017)Rural 4 1.88 4.92 1.72Mixed 8 3.76 9.84 3.44Urban 12 5.64 14.76 5.16Region 1 GI Cost EstimatesFill in the BlanksBMP Type DSV (cf) Treated IC acres (sf)Treated Runoff Depth% Load ReductionTSS         TP        TNBioretention/ Infiltration Basin200 1 (26,136) 1.2 99 99 99BMP Type BMP Cost ($/yr) O&M Costs (hrs/yr)Bioretention/ Infiltration Basin 12.42Assume Urban Environment14.76 + 5.16 = 19.92 x 200 = $3,98430IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsHand out case description of Daisy Field project: case should be designed to prompt/spark thinking about alternatives using GI/BMP approaches; Hold Discussion. 25 minutesDaisy Field• 47.4 Acre Ultra-urban environment at 65% IC• Not a lot of space to put Bmps• 62% TP reduction requirement as the discharge is to the Charles River32Watershed CharacteristicsDaisy FieldP 1A 70.47I 0.65Rv 0.635WQV (acre-in) 1.88WQV (ft³) 81,936.36S 1.11Q (in) 0.320325CN 90Ia 0.22Ia/P 0.22TC (hr) 0.12 33What would you do?3435IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsOther Considerations36Other Considerations37Other Considerations“Hi, Tim and I were just chatting about siting systems. Is there any reason why we could not put a system where the orange oval is in the pic below?”“I’m going to say almost definitively no. It’s private property and we have no way to get those property owners to work with us. Additionally, my understanding is that we want a visible area for public education (a park in this tributary area). ” 38Other ConsiderationsWe need to avoid the ball fields for now. In the future, Parks may choose to redo the fields and we will propose an Underground Gravel Filter at that time.What are we trying to treat? We are trying to treat the first 1" of water across the whole catchmentIf that cannot be done, then aim for the 62% reduction of phosphorus Who owns what? a.       Parks owns the pipe that runs under Daisy Field, starting from 18GMH252 and continuing to the outfalli. However, BWSC owns 18GMH252b.      Parks also owns the outfall into Leverett Pond39Other ConsiderationsSub-Layer Name Elevation Elevation Elevation General Location of PointTopo DETBCB Elevation 29.0 34.8 28.3 East of Jamaica Way / Willow Pond Rd intersection. Topo DET Elevation 22.5 28.3 21.8 Same as aboveDifference 6.5 6.5 6.5Topo INDBCB Elevation 26.5 On contour line southeast of Jamaica Way / Willow Pond Rd. int.Topo INDD Elevation 20 Same as aboveDifference 6.5Topo BCB Elevation 33.0 31.8 34.2 In vicinity of Jamaica Way / Willow Pond Rd. intersectionTOP GEN Elevation 26.5 25.3 27.7 Same as above Difference 6.5 6.5 6.540In the “TOPOGRAPHY” layer there are several sub-layers that seem to be paired for identical points on the map. They consistently differ by 6.5’. Which surface elevation layer is correct or relative to the Pipe Invert Elevation layers? For example: Other ConsiderationsHere are the updated 90% Concept Designs for Daisy Field Stormwater InfrastructureBio-2 is probably too close to the heritage oaks for comfort, but we can leave it there for now.Bio-4 is located in the primary walking path from the parking lot to the softball diamonds and is unlikely to be acceptable to Parks.The current location of the Subsurface Gravel Wetland is not an option and will need to be moved.41Other ConsiderationsWell, lo and behold, after our initial meeting and site walk with Parks, if some scheduling and budgeting concerns can be addressed with Parks’ long planned Daisy Field renovation, we might be able to do something under the athletic fields (assuming that grass and not artificial turf can be used).We are still waiting for a letter from Parks with the official feedback, but based on what I heard during the meeting and the walk, we need to start putting together final pollutant removal and cost estimates for a feature under the fields42What we did…43Final Design44Final Design cont…45Final Design cont…46Design Guidance47ResultsBest Management Practice SizeDepth of Runoff Treated from Impervious Area (in)*Storage Volume Cost ($/ft³)**Total Phosphorus Removal Efficiency (%)Subsurface Gravel Filter - Minimum Size0.35 $1,016,912 62%Subsurface Gravel Filter - Moderate Size0.5 $1,452,732 80%Subsurface Gravel Filter - Full Size1.0 $2,905,463 96%*Storage Volume Cost estimates provided by EPA-Region 1 for Opti-Tool methodology, 2015-Draft**Total Phosphorus %RE based on Appendix F Massachusetts MS4 PermitStormwater Management Design - 70.5 acre Ultra-Urban Drainage AreaSizing Comparison of Capital Costs and Relative Phosphorus Load Removal Efficiency49IntroductionAgenda for the DayIntrod tionReview of BMPsUnit Operations & Processes (UOPs)Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walksEffective SWM Case StudySite Design AssessmentGroup Debrief & DiscussionCostsNext StepsGroup discussion of best use of UNHSC data sheets, who could benefit from workshop 2 on Opti-Tool and automation/optimization approach. Input to further design of Workshop 1 as well as prospectively for Workshop 2.51Questions?

MS4 Resource: Opti-Tool Training

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository
UNH Stormwater Center Research Institutes, Centers and Programs
11-1-2017
MS4 Resource: Opti-Tool Training
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC)
New England Environmental Finance Center
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater
This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Research Institutes, Centers and Programs at University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNH Stormwater Center by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.
Recommended Citation
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC) and New England Environmental Finance Center, "MS4 Resource:
Opti-Tool Training" (2017). UNH Stormwater Center. 33.
https://scholars.unh.edu/stormwater/33
1
Introduction
Name
Affiliation
What is YOUR biggest challenge 
in stormwater control measure 
accounting/planning?
November, 2017
Opti-Tool Outreach Workshop 
Part 1 
Research Based Stormwater System Accounting
3
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Water Quality is Declining
4
Why We’re Here
Goal of Clean Water Act is to “delist”
Something isn’t  working…
What is the Opti-Tool
5
6
Materials We Will Use Today
7
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
8
Stormwater System Classification 
Can Be Challenging
Because we don’t always speak 
the same language
Swale Retention Pond Detention Pond
Subsurface Detention Water Quality Inlet
Downstream Defender Bio-Swale Naturalized Basin
Storm Trooper Vort-Sentry V2B1 Bay Saver
Bioretention Rain Garden Tree Filter Filtera
Sand Filter Delaware Austin ADS StormTech
Gravel Wetland Surface WetlandStormwater Wetland
Constructed WetlandPorous Asphalt Pervious Concrete
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
P rmeable I terlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Int rlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concr t  PaversPermeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers
9
It Cleans!
It Will Get 
You the Job!
It Disinfects!
Imagine the Ultimate System…
Sonic Swirl Enforcer
eliminating  ev rything  in  it’s  path
10
Now Consider Bioretention
11
No Need to Reinvent this Wheel
 Physical Operations
 Biological Processes
 Chemical Processes
 Hydrologic Operations
Use Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Physical UOPs
Screening
Filtration
Enhanced Sedimentation
Sedimentation
Fil i n
Enhanced tion
cr
Sedi ion
Biological UOPs
Vegetative Process
Microbial ProcessMicr l ess
Veg t  ss
Coagulation
Flocculation
Antibacterial
SorptionSor
Chemical UOPs
Anti rial
Volume Reduction
Flow Alteration
Hydrologic UOPs
Fl ration
16
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Opti-Tool
17
https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/opti-tool-epa-region-1s-stormwater-management-optimization-tool
SCMs Currently Covered in Opti
• Biofiltration with ISR
• Biofiltration
• Dry Pond
• Gravel Wetland
• Infiltration Basin
• Infiltration Trench
• Sand Filter 
• Wet Pond
18
• Pemeable (Porous) 
Pavement
• Grass Swale
Covered in Opti (8) Covered in MS4 (2)
Some Definitions
Design Storage Volume (DSV), aka Design Storage 
Capacity
L = length
W = width
D = depth at design capacity before bypass
n = porosity/void space of fill material
 soil media (bio-retention soil mix, engineered soil mix, etc.) = 0.2 
 peastone (⅜” washed) = 0.3
 reservoir stone (¾” washed)  = 0.4
A = average surface area for calculating volume
19
DSV Example
Infiltration Basin/Surface Infiltration for 
raingarden or bio-retention with no underdrains
 DSV = Ponding water storage volume and void space 
volumes of soil filter media and stone layers, if 
applicable.
 DSV = (Apond x Dpond) + (Asoil x Dsoil x nsoil) + (Astone x Dstone
x nstone)
20
DSV Example
Infiltration Basin/Surface Infiltration for 
raingarden or bio-retention with no underdrains
 DSV = (Apond x Dpond) + (Asoil x Dsoil x nsoil) + (Astone x Dstone
x nstone)
A = 100 sf
Ponded Depth = 1’
Soil Depth = 2’
Stone Depth = 1.5’
21
DSV = (100 x 1 x 1) + (100 
x 2 x 0.2) + (150 x 1 x 0.4)
DSV = 200 cf
Treated Runoff Depth
22
Drainage Area 1 acre (43,560 sf)
Impervious Area 0.6 acres (26,136 sf)
WQV = Area sf x 1/12 2,000 cf
DSV 200 cf
Treated Runoff Depth 0.1 inches
= DSV/WQV x 12
23
Review of Worksheets
Fill in the Blanks
BMP Type DSV (cf) Treated IC 
acres (sf)
Treated 
Runoff 
Depth
% Load Reduction
TSS         TP        TN
Bioretention/ 
Infiltration Basin
200 1 (26,136) 1.2 99 99 99
HSG A = 8.24 in/hr
25
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Life Cycle Costs Including 
Maintenance
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/green-infrastructure-stormwater-bmp-cost-
estimation.pdf
Design, Capital, and 
Construction Costs
Infiltration 
Trench 
System
Materials and 
Installation 
Cost ($/ft3) 
(2010)2
Design Cost 
($/ft3) 
(2010)
Materials 
and 
Installation 
Cost ($/ft3) 
(2017)3
Design 
Cost ($/ft3) 
(2017)
Rural 4 1.88 4.92 1.72
Mixed 8 3.76 9.84 3.44
Urban 12 5.64 14.76 5.16
Region 1 GI Cost Estimates
Fill in the Blanks
BMP Type DSV (cf) Treated IC 
acres (sf)
Treated 
Runoff 
Depth
% Load Reduction
TSS         TP        TN
Bioretention/ 
Infiltration Basin
200 1 (26,136) 1.2 99 99 99
BMP Type BMP Cost ($/yr) O&M Costs (hrs/yr)
Bioretention/ Infiltration Basin 12.42
Assume Urban Environment
14.76 + 5.16 = 19.92 x 200 = $3,984
30
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Hand out case description of Daisy Field project: case 
should be designed to prompt/spark thinking about 
alternatives using GI/BMP approaches; Hold 
Discussion. 25 minutes
Daisy Field
• 47.4 Acre Ultra-
urban environment 
at 65% IC
• Not a lot of space to 
put Bmps
• 62% TP reduction 
requirement as the 
discharge is to the 
Charles River
32
Watershed Characteristics
Daisy Field
P 1
A 70.47
I 0.65
Rv 0.635
WQV (acre-in) 1.88
WQV (ft³) 81,936.36
S 1.11
Q (in) 0.320325
CN 90
Ia 0.22
Ia/P 0.22
TC (hr) 0.12 33
What would you do?
34
35
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Other Considerations
36
Other Considerations
37
Other Considerations
“Hi, Tim and I were just chatting 
about siting systems. Is there 
any reason why we could not 
put a system where the orange 
oval is in the pic below?”
“I’m going to say almost 
definitively no. It’s private 
property and we have no way 
to get those property owners 
to work with us. Additionally, 
my understanding is that we 
want a visible area for public 
education (a park in this 
tributary area). ” 
38
Other Considerations
We need to avoid the ball fields for now. In the future, Parks may 
choose to redo the fields and we will propose an Underground 
Gravel Filter at that time.
What are we trying to treat? 
We are trying to treat the first 1" of water across the whole 
catchment
If that cannot be done, then aim for the 62% reduction of 
phosphorus 
Who owns what? 
a.       Parks owns the pipe that runs under Daisy Field, starting 
from 18GMH252 and continuing to the outfall
i. However, BWSC owns 18GMH252
b.      Parks also owns the outfall into Leverett Pond
39
Other Considerations
Sub-Layer Name Elevation Elevation Elevation General Location of Point
Topo DETBCB Elevation 29.0 34.8 28.3 East of Jamaica Way / Willow Pond Rd 
intersection. 
Topo DET Elevation 22.5 28.3 21.8 Same as above
Difference 6.5 6.5 6.5
Topo INDBCB Elevation 26.5 On contour line southeast of Jamaica Way / 
Willow Pond Rd. int.
Topo INDD Elevation 20 Same as above
Difference 6.5
Topo BCB Elevation 33.0 31.8 34.2 In vicinity of Jamaica Way / Willow Pond Rd. 
intersection
TOP GEN Elevation 26.5 25.3 27.7 Same as above 
Difference 6.5 6.5 6.5
40
In the “TOPOGRAPHY” layer there are several sub-layers that seem to be paired for 
identical points on the map. They consistently differ by 6.5’. Which surface elevation 
layer is correct or relative to the Pipe Invert Elevation layers? For example: 
Other Considerations
Here are the updated 90% Concept Designs for Daisy Field 
Stormwater Infrastructure
Bio-2 is probably too close to the heritage oaks for comfort, but we 
can leave it there for now.
Bio-4 is located in the primary walking path from the parking lot to 
the softball diamonds and is unlikely to be acceptable to Parks.
The current location of the Subsurface Gravel Wetland is not an 
option and will need to be moved.
41
Other Considerations
Well, lo and behold, after our initial meeting and site walk with 
Parks, if some scheduling and budgeting concerns can be 
addressed with Parks’ long planned Daisy Field renovation, we 
might be able to do something under the athletic fields 
(assuming that grass and not artificial turf can be used).
We are still waiting for a letter from Parks with the official 
feedback, but based on what I heard during the meeting and the 
walk, we need to start putting together final pollutant removal 
and cost estimates for a feature under the fields
42
What we did…
43
Final Design
44
Final Design cont…
45
Final Design cont…
46
Design Guidance
47
Results
Best Management 
Practice Size
Depth of Runoff 
Treated from 
Impervious 
Area (in)
*Storage Volume 
Cost ($/ft³)
**Total Phosphorus Removal 
Efficiency (%)
Subsurface Gravel 
Filter - Minimum Size
0.35 $1,016,912 62%
Subsurface Gravel 
Filter - Moderate Size
0.5 $1,452,732 80%
Subsurface Gravel 
Filter - Full Size
1.0 $2,905,463 96%
*Storage Volume Cost estimates provided by EPA-Region 1 for Opti-Tool methodology, 2015-Draft
**Total Phosphorus %RE based on Appendix F Massachusetts MS4 Permit
Stormwater Management Design - 70.5 acre Ultra-Urban Drainage Area
Sizing Comparison of Capital Costs and Relative Phosphorus Load Removal Efficiency
49
Introduction
Agenda for the Day
Introd tion
Review of BMPs
Unit Operations & Processes (UOPs)
Review of BMP Worksheets and Cross-walks
Effective SWM Case Study
Site Design Assessment
Group Debrief & Discussion
Costs
Next Steps
Group discussion of best use of UNHSC data sheets, 
who could benefit from workshop 2 on Opti-Tool and 
automation/optimization approach. 
Input to further design of Workshop 1 as well as 
prospectively for Workshop 2.
51
Questions?


https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=stormwater

MS4 Resource: Opti-Tool Training

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New Hampshire

University of New Hampshire